![Arxiv:1806.07352V2 [Math.NT] 9 Sep 2018 Hoe 1](http://data.docslib.org/img/c1e7b3e8555e140f0b9f8692457f65e4-1.webp)
arXiv:1806.07352v2 [math.NT] 9 Sep 2018 hoe 1. p Theorem best the obtain to tried not have (We eff paper. extr is this an it of the result introducing and in main mechanism by the problem lowering method conductor subconvexity this a the in is with layer This more spectrum. one the add over will we fact In xoetpis(o vngigbyn icmrh[6) ecnobt can we [16]), classic Titchmarsh the beyond by going argument even our (not complementing pairs and exponent method counting our nteReanzt ucinhsbe mrvd letmll (Bourga mildly albeit 1 improved, exponent been y the hundred has c gives last function (The [5] the [8 in zeta work [11]. Jutila Though Riemann Meurman by [4].) the by given in forms was on recently wave addressed result Maass been this has of of level case proof the simpler to A generalised line. central the on forms [] 1] odge two degree to [17]) ([9], on a ee enbece o ihrdges h purpose The the degrees. using higher bound for sub-Weyl a breached obtain been never has bound a eetne oMasfrs n npriua ilsawa,nev weak, a 1 yields exponent with particular function in zeta and Riemann the forms) for s Maass bound Eisenstein Weyl, to for works extended also be argument our can that notice will reader The asd nedsbWy onshv enrrl civdi the in achieved rarely been have one degree bounds for sub-Weyl subconvexity Indeed passed. hsi h rtisac fasbWy on o an for bound sub-Weyl a of instance first the is This (1) n18,A od[]etne h lsi on fWy,HryadL and Hardy Weyl, of bound classic the extended [6] Good A. 1982, In e od n phrases. and words Key 2010 F ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics F Abstract. epoe htteassociated the that proved he , saHcemdlrform. modular Hecke a is U-ELBUD FOR BOUNDS SUB-WEYL Let eoti u-elbudi the in bound sub-Weyl a obtain We > t 1 Suppose . ucneiy eafunction. zeta subconvexity, L fntos oepeiey o ooopi ek cusp Hecke holomorphic for precisely, More -functions. L L fntos(e 1]fraohrisac) u h Weyl the But instance). another for [12] (see -functions / L 6 IART MUNSHI RITABRATA (1 1 2 − 1. F + / 1 + 2 Introduction saHcecs omfor form cusp Hecke a is GL / t F it, 4,Go’ on a ofrrmie unsur- remained far so has bound Good’s 84), 11F66. t t F it, apc adseta set.W o state now We aspect). spectral (and -aspect [15]. [14], in introduced as method, delta (2) L fntossatisfy -functions 1 ≪ ) ≪ t GL 1 3 − t 1 1200 t / (2) apc for -aspect 1 3+ + ε ε L L . fnto eoddge one. degree beyond -function -FUNCTIONS / L 6 (1 SL − / + 2 1 (2 / fti ae sto is paper this of re adpossibly (and eries 40 u refining But 2400. , sil exponent.) ossible t F it, Z ) oghsoyof history long astebound the ears then , i a better far ain s fgeneral of ase rhls sub- ertheless where ) ciet deal to ective ,adi was it and ], lter of theory al averaging a nsrecent in’s ittlewood 2 RITABRATA MUNSHI
bounds. Further results in this direction will appear in an upcoming paper. Also it is conceivable that our new method can be used to break the long standing Voronoi barrier O(x1/3+ε) for the ‘divisor problem’ for cusp forms
λF (n). n≤x X
2. The set-up
Suppose F is a holomorphic Hecke cusp form of weight k0 for SL(2, Z) with nor- malised Fourier coefficients λF (n), so that the Fourier expansion is given by ∞ (k0−1)/2 F (z)= λF (n)n e(nz) n=1 X with e(z)= e2πiz. The associated Hecke L-function is given by the Dirichlet series ∞ λ (n) L(s, F )= F ns n=1 X in the half plane Re(s)= σ > 1. This extends to an entire function and satisfies the Hecke functional equation. A consequence of which is the following bound.
Lemma 1. We have
1 ε S(N) (1−θ)/2 L 2 + it, F t sup | 1/2 | + t ≪ N N where the supremum is taken overt1−θ We willR use the GL(2) delta method to analyse the sum S⋆(N). Let [Q, 2Q] be a chosen set of prime numbers with Q1−ε. For q let ψQbe ⊂ an odd × |Q| ≫ ∈ Q character of Fq . Let Hk(q, ψ) be the set of Hecke-normalized newforms which is an orthogonal Hecke basis of the space of cusp forms Sk(q, ψ). We will use the Petersson trace formula. We recall the following standard notations - λf (n) denotes the Hecke- −1 normalised n-th Fourier coefficient of the form f, ωf denotes the spectral weight, Sψ(a, b; c) denotes the generalised Kloosterman sum and Jk−1(x) denotes the Bessel function of order k 1. Consider the (Fourier) sum − ∞ k 1 (2) = W − ω−1 F K f k=1 q∈Q ψ mod q f∈Hk(q,ψ) kXodd X ψ(−X1)=−1 X ∞ mℓ2 λ (m)λ (m)ψ(ℓ)U × F f N XXm,ℓ=1 h λ (n + h)(n + h)it W . × f H N Lemma 2. We have S(N) + Htε (4) | | |F| |O| + . √N ≪ √NHQ2K N 1/2 4 RITABRATA MUNSHI Proof. We apply the Petersson trace formula to . The diagonal term corresponds to m = n + h, in which case we are left with theF weight function U((n + h)ℓ2/N), with N + H < n + h 2N +2H. Considering the supports of the functions, we see that the weight function≤ is vanishing if ℓ> 1. Hence the diagonal is given by ∞ k 1 h W − λ (n + h)(n + h)itW K F H k=1 q∈Q ψ mod q N ∞ k 1 F ⋆ = H W − 1 HQ2K. K ≍ k=1 q∈Q ψ mod q (−1)Xk=−1 X ψ(−X1)=−1 The off-diagonal in the Petersson formula yields the sum . The lemma follows. O In the rest of the paper we will prove sufficient bounds for the off-diagonal and the Fourier sum . O F 3. The off-diagonal In this section we will analyse the off-diagonal which is given in (3). Our aim is to prove Proposition 1 which is stated at the endO of this section. We begin by recalling the following formula for the sum of Bessel functions. Lemma 3. Suppose g is a compactly supported smooth function on R and x R. We have ∈ 4 g(u)Ju(x)= gˆ(v)ca(v; x)dv R u≡aXmod 4 Z where c (v; x)= 2i sin(x sin 2πv)+2i1−a sin(x cos2πv) a − and the Fourier transform is defined by gˆ(v)= g(u)e(uv)du. Z Proof. See [7]. The following lemma from [2], which provides a criterion for an exponential integral to be negligibly small, will also play a crucial role in our analysis. SUB-WEYL BOUNDS FOR GL(2) L-FUNCTIONS 5 Lemma 4. Let Y 1, X,Q,U,R > 0. Let w be a smooth weight function supported on [α, β], satisfying≥w(j) XU −j, and let h be a real valued smooth function on the ≪j same interval such that h′ R, and h(j) Y Q−j for j 2. Then | | ≥ ≪j ≥ −A QR −A (5) w(y)e(h(y))dy A (β α)X +(RU) , R ≪ − √Y Z " # for any A 1. In particular the integral is ‘negligibly small’, i.e. O(t−A) for any A> 1, if R≥ tε max Y 1/2/Q, 1/U and t [(β α)X]ε. ≫ { } ≫ − For C Ntε/QK2 dyadic we introduce the family of sums ≪ K ∞ mℓ2 (6) (C) := λ (m)ψ(ℓ)U O √NCQ F N q∈Q ψ mod q m,ℓ=1 X ψ(−X1)=−1 XX h 2 m(n + h) (n + h)itW S (n + h, m; cq)e . × H ψ cq N in the range tε V Kt−ε, and replace the above integrals (up to negligible error terms) by ≪ ≪ 2πv W (u)F (v)e uv x cos dudv. 2 ± K ZZR Now we apply Lemma 4 to the v-integral, and it follows that the integral is negligibly −J 2−ε small, i.e. OJ (t ) for any J 1, if x K . This analysis holds even if the weight ≥ ≪ (j) jε function W has a little oscillation, say W j t . In the complementary range for x we expand the cosine function into a Taylor≪ series. Since x N/Q, if we assume (7) then we only need to retain the first two terms in the expansion,≪ and the above integral essentially reduces to 4π2xv2 e( x) W (u)F (v)e uv 2 dudv. ± 2 ∓ K ZZR To the integral over v we apply the stationary phase analysis. It turns out to be negligibly small (due to (5)) when we have + sign inside the exponential, otherwise the integral essentially reduces to u2K2 K K e x + e(x) 16π2x √x √x with x K2−ε (upto an oscillatory factor which ‘oscillates at most like tε’). In any case, it≫ follows that we can cut the sum over c in (3) at C Ntε/QK2, at a cost of a negligible error term. The lemma follows. ≪ Remark 3. To get the Weyl bound it is sufficient to take QK2 Ntε, so that the off-diagonal is trivially small (see [1]). But to achieve sub-Weyl≫ one needs to take QK2 smaller. Lemma 6. Suppose H = N/t1/3. We have (C) (C)† , O ≪ |O± | ± X where ∞ 2 † KH√Q mℓ (9) ±(C) := λF (m)U O √ 1/6 N NCt q∈Q X XXm,ℓ=1 2√mn hn hm¯ A2 2nA nite + W , × cq − cq − cq B HB c∼C N Proof. We apply the Poisson summation formula on the sum over the shifts h in (C). This transforms the sum O 2 m(n + h) h (10) S (n + h, m; cq)e (n + h)itW ψ cq H h∈Z p ! X into hn hm¯ (11) H ψ( h) e I − − cq − cq h∈Z (h,cqX)=1 where the integral is given by I = W (y)e(f(y))dy, Z with t 2 m(n + Hy) Hhy f(y)= log(n + Hy)+ . 2π p cq − cq We have the Taylor expansion t 2√mn Hy t √mn hn (12) f(y)= log n + + + 2π cq n 2π cq − cq H2y2 t √mn t + + O . − n2 4π 4cq (N/H)3 To restrict the phase function up to the quadratic term we pick H = N/t1/3. (The tail term E(... ) is a ‘flat function’ in the sense that yjE(j)(y) 1 with respect to all the variables.) Then by the stationary phase analysis we can≪ replace (C) by O KH ∞ mℓ2 λ (m)ψ(ℓ)U √NCQt1/6 F N q∈Q ψ mod q m,ℓ=1 X ψ(−X1)=−1 XX 2√mn hn hm¯ A2 2nA ψ(h) nite + W . × cq − cq − cq B HB c∼C N 8 RITABRATA MUNSHI and h tCQ/N. ∼ † † Below we continue our analysis with +(C) which we denote by (C) . The analysis of the other term (C)† is exactlyO same. O O− Lemma 7. We have KH√Q (14) (C)† Ω1/2 O ≪ √Ct1/6ℓ ℓ Xℓ where Ωℓ is given by 2√mn hn hm¯ A2 2nA 2 (15) nite + W . cq − cq − cq B HB m∼N/ℓ2 q∈Q c∼C N Proof. The lemma follows by applying the Cauchy inequality and the Ramanujan bound on average for the Fourier coefficients. Next we open the absolute value square (after smoothing the outer sum) leading to an expression of the form W (mℓ2/N) ... . { } m∈Z q1,q2∈Q c1,c2∼C N Our argument now depends on the size of c1q1h1 c2q2h2. In the case of small gap, i.e. − t(CQ)2 (16) c q h c q h ∆ =: M/ℓ, 1 1 1 − 2 2 2 ≪ 0 N we estimate the sum trivially. The problem reduces to a non-trivial counting problem. However as we are not trying to get the best possible exponent here, we will settle with a rather easy bound. For the case of large gap, i.e. in the range complementary to (16), we apply the Poisson summation formula on the sum over m. Lemma 8. Suppose Q, K t1/3. The total contribution to (14) of the terms satis- fying (16) is bounded by ≪ N 3/2t1/6 √NKHQ2t1/3 . Q5/2K3 Proof. The number of (n , n ) pairs is given by 1 + (∆ N)2 (∆ N)2 (as N t1/3) 1 2 0 ≍ 0 ≫ once the other variables are given. Now we need to count the number of (qi,ci, hi). Setting hiℓ =1+ giqi we get that (17) c g q2 c g q2 M. 1 1 1 − 2 2 2 ≪ SUB-WEYL BOUNDS FOR GL(2) L-FUNCTIONS 9 2 We set ai = cigi tC /N. Fix a1, a2, and set α = a2/a1. We seek to count the ∼ 2 number of qi such that q1 αq2 MN/tC Q and q1g1 1 mod ℓ. Given q2 there | −2 |≪ p ≡ − are at most O(1 + MN/tC Qℓ) many q1’s, and so tC2 2 MN # (q , q ,c ,c , h , h ) 1+ Q. { 1 2 1 2 1 2 }≪ N tC2Qℓ It follows that the contribution of these terms to (14) is bounded by KH√Q tC2 MN ∆0N 1+ Q. √ 1/6 N tC2Qℓ ℓ Ct ℓ s ! X p 2 1/3 1/3 Next using the fact that ∆0Cℓ N/QK t (as K t ) we get that the expression is dominated by ≪ ≪ (1 + √∆ Q)∆ t1/2C3/2 t1/6N 3/2 N 3/2 √NKHQ2t1/3 0 0 √NKHQ2t1/3 + . Qℓ ≪ Q5/2K3 Q2K3 Xℓ The lemma follows as the first term dominates the other since Q t1/3. ≪ Remark 6. The bound in Lemma 8 is satisfactory if (18) N Q5/3K2t−1/9−2δ/3. ≪ This prompts us to pick (19) Q = N 3/5t1/15+2δ/5K−6/5. This is valid if we have 1 Q t1/3. The lower bound holds if N K2t−1/9−2δ/3 which is fine as later (see (57))≤ ≪ we will choose K = min t1/3−2δ, Nt−1≫/3−2δ . For the upper bound we require to take δ < 1/42. { } Remark 7. It should be possible to improve the above lemma. Indeed, in generic 2 case MN/tC Q is much smaller than one. So q1 exists only if q2 is such that αq2 MN/tC2Q. So, roughly speaking, the count for the number of solutions ofk (17)k≪ is given by 2 1kαq2k≪MN/tC Q. a ,a q XX1 2 X2 In the above lemma we have estimated this sum trivially. But one may use exponential sum to detect the condition, and try to get cancellation in that sum on average. Lemma 9. The contribution to (14) of the terms not satisfying (16) is bounded by Nt1/6 √NKHQ2t1/3 . K5/2Q3/2 10 RITABRATA MUNSHI Proof. In the complementary range when the gap is not small, i.e. (16) does not hold, we apply the Poisson summation on the sum over m. We get that the contributions of these terms to (15) is bounded by N H (20) 2 ℓ ¯ | | mX∈Z XXq1,q2∈Q XXc1,c2∼C N 2n1A1 2n2A2 ⋆ ⋆ 2 ⋆ 3 H = W (y) W W e A1y + A2y + A3y + ... dy. HB1 HB2 Z h i The coefficients in the Taylor expansion can be computed explicitly, and we get 2√N √n1 √n2 A⋆ = + O (E) 1 ℓ c q − c q 1 1 2 2 and N π n n m A⋆ = 1 2 + O(E), 2 ℓ2 t (c q )2 − (c q )2 − c c q q 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 and A⋆ = O(E) for all j 3, where j ≥ N∆ E = 0 . QCℓ Note that the j-th derivative of the weight function in the integral is bounded by (N/t1/3QCℓ)j Ej. Since we are in the case where (16) does not hold, we get that ≪ ⋆ the first term of A1 is larger than the error term E (recall (13)), and hence it follows using Lemma 4 that the integral is negligibly small unless 2 (QCℓ) √N √n1 √n2 0 = m = M . 6 ≍ N ℓ c q − c q s 1 1 2 2 In this case we estimate the integral using the second derivative bound CℓQ H . ≪ N m | | It now remains to count the number of vectorsp (m, h1, h2,c1,c2, q1, q2) satisfying the congruence conditions. This is not an easy task, and we only seek to obtain a good upper bound. Given (m, c1, q1), there are at most O(tC/N) many h1. Then c2q2 is ε determined modulo c1q1. Hence there are at most O(t ) many (c2, q2). Finally we get at most O(t/N) many h2. It follows that the number of vectors is bounded by tC t tC 2 tε M CQ tε M Q . s N N ≪ s N SUB-WEYL BOUNDS FOR GL(2) L-FUNCTIONS 11 Then we count the number of ni using the restriction (13). It follows that the contri- bution of these terms without ‘small gap’, to (14) is dominated by KH√Q N 1/4C7/4Q5/4t2/3 . √Ct1/6ℓ ℓ1/4 Xℓ This is dominated by the bound given in the statement of the lemma. Remark 8. The bound given in Lemma 9 is satisfactory if (21) N Q3/2K5/2t−1/6−δ. ≪ If we pick Q according to (19), and K according to (57) then the above inequality holds if δ < 1/30. Also note that the bound in the lemma is off from the expected 1/2 bound by a factor of Q , as we lost a congruence modulo q2 in our count. We now state in form of a proposition, what we have achieved in this section Proposition 1. Let H = N/t1/3 N 1/2t1/3−δ. Let Q be as given in (19) and K be as given in (57). We have ≪ √NHQ2Kt1/3−δ O≪ if δ < 1/42. 4. Applying functional equation: Dual side In the rest of the paper we will seek to prove sufficient bound for . Our aim is to prove Proposition 2 which we state at end of the paper. F Let us introduce the family of dual sums N ∞ k 1 (22) = W − ε2 ω−1 D K2 K ψ f k=1 n∼N ψ mod q f∈Hk(q,ψ) kXodd X ψ(−X1)=−1 X h λ (m)λ (mq2) ψ¯(ℓ) λ (n + h)(n + h)itW , × F f f H 2 ˜ XXmℓ ∼N Xh∈Z with N˜ Q2K4/N. (In this paper the notation A B means that B/tε A Btε, with implied≍ constants depending on ε.) ≍ ≪ ≪ Lemma 10. We have ⊳ . F D 12 RITABRATA MUNSHI Proof. Consider the Fourier sum (as given in(2)), where we will apply the functional equation of the L-function L(s, FF f), to dualise the sum over (m, ℓ). By the Mellin inversion formula we get × ∞ 2 mℓ 1 s (23) λF (m)λf (m)ψ(ℓ)U = N U˜(s)L(s, F f)ds, N 2πi (2) × XXm,ℓ=1 Z where U˜ stands for the Mellin transform of U. Using the functional equation of the L-function L(s, F f) we get × 1−2s 1 s ˜ 2 q γk(1 s) ¯ N U(s) η 2 − L(1 s, F f)ds, 2πi (2) 4π γk(s) − × Z where (k k ) (k + k ) γ (s)=Γ s + − 0 Γ s + 0 1 . k 2 2 − The sign of the functional equation is given by 2 2 2k gψ η = i 2 λf (q )q where gψ is the Gauss sum associated with the character ψ. Next we expand the L- function into a Dirichlet series and take dyadic subdivision. By shifting contours to the right or left we can show that the contribution of the terms from the blocks with mℓ2 / [Q2K4t−ε/N, Q2K4tε/N] is negligibly small. Hence the sum in (23) essentially gets∈ transformed into N γ (1/2+ iτ) ∞ mℓ2 2 k 2 ¯ (24) εψ 2 λF (m)λf (mq )ψ(ℓ)U QK γk(1/2 iτ) N˜ − XXm,ℓ=1 ˜ Q2K4 where εψ is the sign of the Gauss sum gψ and N N . We are keeping a τ, with τ tε, in the gamma factor as we need to keep≍ track of possible oscillation in the k| |≪aspect. Now let us study the gamma factor. Using Stirling series J 2π z z a Γ(z)= j + O( z −J ) z e zj | | r j=1 ! X which holds for z = k/2+ iτ as above, it turns out that this ratio of the gamma functions is essentially equivalent to e(arg[(k/2+ iτ)k/2+iτ ]/π)= e(τ log(k2/4+ τ 2)/2π + k arg(k/2+ iτ)/2π). Now expanding log(k2/4+ τ 2) = 2 log(k/2)+ O(τ 2/k2), and arg(k/2+ iτ) = tan−1(2τ/k)=2τ/k + O(τ 3/k3), we get that the ratio of the gamma functions essentially behaves like k4iτ . So the gamma factor oscillates mildly, which can be neglected. The lemma follows. SUB-WEYL BOUNDS FOR GL(2) L-FUNCTIONS 13 Remark 9. Observe that we have dropped some of the smooth weight functions, as they do not play any role whatsoever in the upcoming analysis. Also we have dropped the q sum, at the cost of a multiplier of size Q. Indeed the q sum is not involved in the dual side at all. Lemma 11. Suppose (25) Q K2t−ε. ≪ We have ⊳ ⋆(C) D O where for C Qtε dyadic ≪ N√ℓ (26) ⋆(C)= λ (m) O √CQK2 F n∼N ˜ 2 X m∼XN/ℓ h 2 m(n + h) (n + h)itW S(n + h, m; c) e . × H c h∈Z c∼C p ! X (c,qX)=1 ν ′ ′ ′ Proof. In the expression for , one writes m = q m with q ∤ m , so that λf (m ) = ′ ¯ ′ D λf (m )ψ(m ). We get N ∞ ∞ k 1 λ (qν) W − ε2 ω−1 K2 F K ψ f ν=0 k=1 n∼N ψ mod q f∈Hk(q,ψ) X kXodd X ψ(−X1)=−1 X h λ (m)λ (m) ψ¯(mℓ) λ (q2+ν(n + h))(n + h)itW . × F f f H 2 ν mℓXX∼N˜ /q Xh∈Z We apply the Petersson formula to this dual sum. There is no diagonal contribution as ψ(m) = 0 when q m. Hence we are only left with the (dual) off-diagonal which is given by | N ∞ ∞ k 1 (27) ⋆ = λ (qν) W − ε2 O K2 F K ψ ν=0 k=1 n∼N ψ mod q X kXodd X ψ(−X1)=−1 h λ (m)ψ¯(mℓ) (n + h)itV × F H 2 ˜ ν mℓXX∼N/q Xh∈Z ∞ i−kS (q2+ν(n + h), m; cq) 4π mqν (n + h) ψ J . × cq k−1 c c=1 p ! X 14 RITABRATA MUNSHI Consider the sum over k which is given by ∞ k 1 4π mqν (n + h) (28) W − i−kJ . K k−1 c k=1 p ! kXodd This sum is exactly same as we had for the direct off-diagonal before (only now it is independent of q in the generic case ν = 0). Notice that we have deliberately dropped the gamma factors, which were mildly oscillating. So we assume that W (j) tεj in ≪j the present case. Temporarily we set x =2 mqν (n + h)/c. We choose to have (25) so that we can again restrict ourselves to the quadratic phase in the expansion, and the above sum essentially reduces to p 4π2xv2 e( x) W (u)F (v)e uv 2 dudv. ± 2 ∓ K ZZR As before this reduces to K e(x) √x with x K2−ε. In the complementary range the integral is negligibly small. With this the≫ off-diagonal essentially reduces to ∞ N√ℓ 2 ν (29) ε λF (q ) λF (m)ψ¯(mℓ) √CK2Q3/2 ψ n∼N ψ mod q ν=0 m∼N/q˜ ν ℓ2 X ψ(−X1)=−1 X X h 2 mqν(n + h) (n + h)itW S (q2+ν(n + h), m; cq) e . × H ψ c h∈Z c∼C p ! X X with C Qtε/ℓ. If q c then the Kloosterman sum vanishes as q ∤ m, so we necessarily have (c,≪ q) = 1. The Kloostermank sum splits, and we get that 2 ¯ 2+ν εψψ(mℓ)Sψ(q (n + h), m; cq) ψ mod q ψ(−X1)=−1 is a difference of two terms cℓ qS(qν(n + h), m; c)e . ± q The last factor is non-oscillating in the generic situation, as we only need to consider c in the range c Qtε (and ℓ can be as small as 1). Note that we are dropping the sum over ℓ as the≪ object is essentially independent of ℓ. Of course we need to execute the sum over ℓ trivially at the end. Also we will drop the factor e(cℓ/q) from the expressions, as the sums over ℓ and q are executed trivially at the end, and in our analysis below we will not apply any summation formula on the sum over c. In the expressions below always bear in mind that the c sums have some arithmetic weight SUB-WEYL BOUNDS FOR GL(2) L-FUNCTIONS 15 of size 1, which does not depend on any other sums in the expressions. So we continue our analysis with N√ℓ ∞ λ (qν) λ (m) √CQK2 F F n∼N ν=0 m∼N/q˜ ν ℓ2 X X (q,mX)=1 h 2 mqν(n + h) (n + h)itW S(n + h, mqν; c) e . × H c h∈Z c∼C p ! X (c,qX)=1 Now we execute the sum over ν by gluing qν back to m, and this yields the expression given in the lemma. Remark 10. At this point we can apply the Voronoi summation to get a bound which is satisfactory for small values of C. Indeed applying the Voronoi summation we get that (26) is bounded by N 3/2C C N 1/2HQ2Kt1/3 + . (QK)2t1/3 Q The second term accounts for the diagonal contribution m = n + h (after Voronoi) and the first term accounts for the other terms. The bound is satisfactory if (QK)2t1/3−δ (30) C min , Qt−δ . ≪ N 3/2ℓ Remark 11. If we pick Q according to (19) and K according to (57) then the condition (25) is satisfied if δ < 1/20. 5. Stationary phase analysis for dual off-diagonal Lemma 12. We have ⋆(C) ⋆†(C) O ≪ O where NH√ℓ (31) ⋆†(C)= λ (m) O √CQK2t1/6 F ˜ 2 m∼XN/ℓ 2√mn hn hm¯ A2 2nA nite + W , × c − c − c B HB c∼C N Proof. Consider the sum over h in (26), which is given by 2 m(n + h) h (n + h)itS(n + h, m; c) e W . c H h∈Z p ! X We apply the Poisson summation formula with modulus c to arrive at H C I c Xh∈Z where the character sum is given by bh hm¯ hn C = S(b + n, m; c) e = c e , c − c − c b Xmod c and the integral is given by I = W (y)e(f(y))dy, Z where (we temporarily set) t 2 m(n + Hy) Hhy f(y)= log(n + Hy)+ . 2π p c − c We have the Taylor expansion t 2√mn Hy t √mn hn (32) f(y)= log n + + + 2π c n 2π c − c H2y2 t √mn + + O (1) . − n2 4π 4c (The error term is a ‘flat’ function in the sense that yjE(j)(y) 1 with respect to all the variables.) Notice that the phase function is exactly similar≪ to what we had in the direct off-diagonal, with the only difference that we have c in place of cq. Applying the stationary phase expansion it follows that the dual off-diagonal is given by (31). The weight function in (31) implies that we have A t2/3. This can be used to conclude the following restrictions ≍ hn t 1 QK2 (33) D := t max , =: t∆ c − 2π ≪ t1/3 Cℓt and D2c2 Q2K4 Cℓt2/3 N˜ 1 (34) m min 1, = . − n ≪ Nℓ2 QK2 ℓ2 t1/3∆ We derive that (31) is bounded by C3/2Kt1/6 (35) √NHQ2Kt1/3 , √NQℓ3/2 SUB-WEYL BOUNDS FOR GL(2) L-FUNCTIONS 17 which is not sufficient for our purpose. However this bound is fine for smaller values of C, namely in the range (NQ)1/3t−2δ/3ℓ1/3 (36) C . ≪ K2/3t1/9 Below we proceed with C which lies in the range complementary to both (30) and (36). 6. Cauchy for dual off-diagonal We apply the Cauchy inequality to bound (31) by N 3/2H√ℓ (37) Ω1/2 √CQK2t1/6 ℓ where now Ωℓ is given by 2√mn hn hm¯ A2 2nA 2 (38) λ (m) e + W . F c − c − c B HB n∼N m∼N/ℓ˜ 2 c∼C h∼tC/N X X X X We open the absolute square to arrive at n (39) W λ (m )λ (m ) N F 1 F 2 n∈Z ˜ 2 h ,h ∼tC/N c ,c ∼C X m1XX,m2∼N/ℓ 1XX2 XX1 2 2 2 nh nh 2√m1n 2√m2n A A e 1 + 2 + + 1 2 × − c c c − c B − B 1 2 1 2 1 2 m h¯ m h¯ 2nA 2nA e 2 2 1 1 W 1 W 2 × c − c HB HB 2 1 1 2 where the subscript in A1 indicates that the related parameters are (m1, h1,c1) and so on. Lemma 13. Suppose Q is given by (19). The contribution of the terms with NC˜ 2 Cℓt∆2 QK2C3ℓt∆2 (40) m c2 m c2 tε tε 1 2 − 2 1 ≫ ℓ2 QK2 ≍ Nℓ2 to (39) is negligibly small. Proof. The weight functions in (39) imply that h h t∆ (41) 1 2 . c − c ≪ N 1 2 Applying the Poisson summation formula the n sum transforms into (42) N∆ I n∈Z h1c2−h2cX1≡n mod c1c2 18 RITABRATA MUNSHI where the integral is given by N∆y N 2∆2y2 (43) I = V (y)e a + a + ... dy 1 n 2 n2 Z 0 0 with n = tc /2πh , V (j)(y) (t1/3∆)j, 0 1 1 ≪ 2 √n0 √m1 √m2 c h h h nn QK a = + n 1 2 1 2 0 + O 1 − 4 c − c 0 c h c − c − c c Cℓt2/3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 and 2 −1 √m1 √m2 √m1n0 h n t √m1n0 a =√n + 1 0 + 2 0 c − c 2c − c π c 1 2 1 1 1 2 −1 √m2n0 h n t √m2n0 2 0 + + smaller order terms, − 2c − c π c 2 2 2 and so on. Using the congruence condition in (42) we write n = h c h c + µc c , 1 2 − 2 1 1 2 and applying Lemma 4, we get that the integral is negligibly small if √n0 √m1 √m2 + n µ t∆2. 4 c − c 0 ≫ 1 2 The case of µ = 0 is easily ruled out as then we would need C QK2/Nℓ, which can not happen due6 to (30) and (36), if we pick Q as in (19).Now≪ for µ = 0 the integral is negligibly small due to the condition (40). The lemma follows. Note that in the range complementary to (40) we get an extra saving saving of 1/2 1/2 1/2 Q K/(Cℓ) t ∆, at the price of loosing the restriction (34) on one of the mi’s. So effectively we save Q1/2K/(Cℓ)1/2t2/3∆3/2 which is not enough for our purpose, as the resulting bound is C2t5/6∆3/2 (44) √NHQ2Kt1/3 . √NQℓ in place of (35). SUB-WEYL BOUNDS FOR GL(2) L-FUNCTIONS 19 7. Second application of Cauchy on dual off-diagonal Now we consider (39) with the restriction complementing (40), i.e. terms with ‘small gap’. This can be dominated by nh1 nh2 (45) Θℓ := e + − c1 c2 ˜ 2 n∼N c ,c ∼C m1XX,m2∼N/ℓ X h1XX,h2∼tC/N XX1 2 2 2 m h¯ m h¯ 2√m1n 2√m2n A A e 2 2 1 1 e + 1 2 × c − c c − c B − B 2 1 1 2 1 2 2nA 2nA m c2 m c2 W 1 W 2 V 1 2 − 2 1 , × HB1 HB2 N0 where N = QK2C3t∆2/Nℓ. The trivial bound for this sum is given by 0 2 N˜ 1 N˜ Cℓt∆2 t2C2∆ Q3/2K3C5/2t4/3∆3/2 (46) N∆ C2 , ℓ2 t1/3∆ ℓ2 QK2 N 2 ≍ N 3/2ℓ3/2 ! ! which when substituted for Ωℓ in (37) yields the bound (44). Lemma 14. We have N˜ 2 Θ Ξ1/2 ℓ ≪ ℓ4 ℓ where (47) Ξℓ = I, ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ n,n ∼N h1,h1,h2,h2∼tC/N c1,c1,c2,c2∼C m1,m2∈Z XX XXXX¯ ′ ¯′XXXX′ XX h1c1−h1c1≡m1 mod c1c1 ¯ ′ ¯′ ′ h2c2−h2c2≡m2 mod c2c2 and 2nA 2n′A′ 2nA 2n′A′ I = e (F (y ) F (y )) W 1 W 1 W 2 W 2 1 1 − 2 2 HB HB′ HB HB′ ZZ 1 1 2 2 2 2 ′2 ′2 y1c2 y2c1 y1c2 y2c1 W (y1)W (y2)V − V − dy1dy2, × N ℓ2/N˜ N ℓ2/N˜ 0 0 with ′ ˜ ˜ ′ 2 2 ˜ 2 Nun 2 Nun Ai Ai Nmiu Fi(u)= ′ + ′ ′ 2 . pciℓ − pciℓ Bi − Bi − ciciℓ 2 (Here in Ai etc. mi is replaced by Nu/ℓ˜ .) Proof. We apply the Cauchy inequality (yet again) to (45), and then open the absolute square and apply the Poisson summation on (m1, m2). The resulting character sums give rise to the congruence conditions, and the Fourier transform becomes I after a change of variables. Now we will study the integral in some detail. 20 RITABRATA MUNSHI Lemma 15. The integral is negligibly small if Cℓt∆2 (48) c c′ c′ c C2 . 1 2 − 1 2 ≫ QK2 or if 2 2 ε NCℓ ε (Cℓ) t∆ (49) max m1, m2 t , or m1 m2 t . { }≫ QK2 − ≫ N˜ Proof. The condition (48) follows by considering the last two weights in the integral. Also by repeated integration by parts we see that the integral is negligibly small if NCℓ max m , m tε . { 1 2}≫ QK2 Now we set w = (y c2 y c2)N/N˜ ℓ2, α = c2/c2 and Θ = C3ℓt∆2/c2QK2. Then 1 2 − 2 1 0 2 1 1 substituting for y2, and using the Taylor expansion, we arrive at the expression Cℓt∆2 (50) I = e (F (y ) F (αy )+ΘwF ′(αy ) ... ) U (y ,w) dy dw, QK2 1 1 − 2 1 2 1 − 1 1 ZZ where the weight function satisfies U (j1,j2) (t1/3∆)j1+j2 . Now by repeated inte- ≪ gration by parts with respect to the y1 we see that the integral is negligibly small if 4 2 2 ′ ′ C ℓ t∆ m1c1c m2c2c . 2 − 1 ≫ N˜ This condition reduces to the second condition in (49) because of (48). We can say more about the size of the integral if (m1, m2) = (0, 0). Let us assume that m = 0. 6 2 6 Lemma 16. Suppose m =0 then we have 2 6 1 (Cℓ)5/2Nt2/3∆ (51) I . ≪ m (QK2)5/2 | 2| Proof. Consider the form of the integral given in (50). Given y1, look at the integral over w, which turns out to be negligibly small due to Lemma 4 if 2 ′ QK 1/3 Θ F2(αy1) Θ + t ∆. | |≫ r Cℓ This boils down to the condition 1 CℓN 1 Cℓ 1 (Cℓ)3/2N (52) y ⋆ tε + tε , | 1 − |≫ m QK2 t2/3∆ QK2 ≍ m (QK2)3/2 | 2| s ! | 2| SUB-WEYL BOUNDS FOR GL(2) L-FUNCTIONS 21 for some ⋆. In generic case this cuts down the length of the y1 integral by K which will be taken to be slightly smaller than t1/3. More precisely we get 1 Cℓt∆2 1 (Cℓ)3/2N I . ≪ t1/3∆ QK2 m (QK2)3/2 | 2| Note that the extra saving of t1/3∆ comes by considering the weights in the w integral. The explicit expression for ⋆ in (52) is not required in our analysis. We just note that it follows from the fact ⋆ 1 that we have ∼ √n √n′ M QK2 √N 2 + . ′ 2 1/3 c2 − c2 ≪ C ℓ√N Ct 2 For M2 of the generic size, i.e. NCℓ/QK , the condition does not impose any restric- tion. But for M2 smaller it squeezes the variables together. Indeed combining with the condition (33) it follows that tC2 M QK2 (53) h c h′ c′ 2 + ∆ . 2 2 − 2 2 ≪ N NCℓ Furthermore in case QK2/Cℓt 1/t1/3, we observe that the weights involved in the integral imply that ≫ ′ ′ D2c2 D 2c 2 N˜ 1 i i i i , n − n′ ≪ ℓ2 t1/3∆ 1/3 ′ which in turn boils down to saving t ∆ in the count for (n, n ). 8. The zero frequency Now our strategy is to break the sum (47) into blocks according to the sizes of mi. We will estimate the size of each such block and thus get an estimate for its contri- bution to Θℓ (as given in Lemma 14). We will say that our estimate is ‘satisfactory’ if its contribution to (37) is bounded by O(√NHKQ2t1/3−δ). We begin by considering the contribution of the zero frequency (m1, m2)=(0, 0). Lemma 17. Let Q be as given in (19). The contribution of (m1, m2)=(0, 0) to the dual off-diagonal is satisfactory if (54) K min t1/3−2δ, Nt−1/3−2δ , ≪ { } and δ < 1/12. 22 RITABRATA MUNSHI ′ Proof. For m1 = m2 = 0 the congruence conditions in (47) imply that c1 = c1 and c = c′ . Also h h′ mod c , so that h h′ = c g for some integer g . It follows by 2 2 i ≡ i i i − i i i i repeated integration by parts w.r.t. y1, that the integral I is negligibly small in the range n n′ Ntε/t1/3. − ≫ Combining with the existing restriction (33), namely n tci/2πhi N∆ it follows that | − |≪ tC h h′ ∆. i − i ≪ N 2/3 So the number of gi is given by O(1 + t∆/N) = O(1 + t /N), where for the last inequality we use the fact that QK2 CℓN (which follows as C is in the comple- mentary range to (30), and Q is picked≪ according to (19)). Finally we observe that (40) together with (34) imply the stronger restriction h h t2/3 t∆2 (55) 1 2 + c − c ≪ N N 1 2 in place of (41). It follows that the number of (h , h ,c ,c ) is bounded by 1 2 1 2 tC2 C2t2/3 C2t∆2 1+ + . N N N Hence, using the bound 1 Cℓt∆2 I , ≪ t1/3∆ QK2 we get that the contribution of the zero frequency to (45) is bounded by 2 1/2 N˜ 2 Cℓt2/3∆ N 2∆ t2/3 tC2 C2t2/3 C2t∆2 1+ 1+ + . ℓ4 QK2 t1/3 N N N N ( ) Substituting this bound for Ωℓ in (37), trivially summing over ℓ and using the inequal- ity Cℓ∆ Qt−1/3 (as K t1/3 by choice), it follows that the overall contribution of the zero≪ frequency to the≪ dual off-diagonal is given by K1/2N 1/4 t1/3 C1/2t1/6 Q1/2t1/12 (56) √NHQ2Kt1/3 1+ 1+ + . (CQ)1/4t1/3 √ N 1/4 N 1/4 N The main term in this contribution is K1/2N 1/4 t1/3 C1/2t1/6 √NHQ2Kt1/3 1+ , (CQ)1/4t1/3 √ N 1/4 N which is satisfactory under the condition given in (54) (recall that C Q). For the other terms we use the fact that C is in the complementary range to (30)≪ (resp. (36)) for N t2/3 (resp. N t2/3). The overall contribution of these terms is satisfactory if we pick≪ Q according≫ to (19), and take δ < 1/12. SUB-WEYL BOUNDS FOR GL(2) L-FUNCTIONS 23 Remark 12. We will pick t1/3−2δ if t2/3 < N t1+ε (57) K = ≪ Nt−1/3−2δ if t2/3−2δ < N t2/3. ( ≤ 9. The final counting problem Now we will analyze the contribution of the non-zero frequencies (m1, m2) = (0, 0). We have reduced the problem to counting the number of 6 (58) h , h′ tC/N, c ,c′ C, m M CℓN/QK2, i =1, 2, i i ∼ i i ∼ i ∼ i ≪ satisfying the following constraints h h h′ h′ t∆ c′ c′ Cℓt∆2 (59) 1 2 , 1 2 , 1 2 c − c c′ − c′ ≪ N c − c ≪ QK2 1 2 1 2 1 2 ¯ ′ ¯′ ′ ¯ ′ ¯′ ′ h 1c1 h1c 1 m1 mod c1c1, h2c 2 h2c2 m2 mod c2c2, − ≡ − ≡ with Cℓ Q and m m (Cℓ)2t∆2/N˜. We set v =(h , h′ ,c ,c′). Let ≪ 1 − 2 ≪ i i i i i N(C, M , M ) = # v , v , m , m : satisfying (59) . 1 2 { 1 2 1 2 } Suppose m = 0, then the contribution of the m M block to (45) is bounded by 2 6 2 ∼ 2 1/2 N˜ 2 1 (Cℓ)5/2Nt2/3∆ (N∆)2 (60) N(C, M , M ) , ℓ4 M (QK2)5/2 t1/3∆ 1 2 2 2 1/3 ′ ′ as we have (N∆) /t ∆ many pairs (n, n ). Let (ci,ci) = δi, for i = 1, 2, and let ′ ′ (c1/δ1,c2/δ2) = δ3. We write ci = δiδ3di and ci = δidi for i = 1, 2. It follows that ′ ′ δi mi and we write mi = δiµi for i = 1, 2. Also it follows that δ1δ2δ3 (c1c2 c1c2), | ′ ′ 3 2 2 | − and we set (c1c2 c1c2)= δ1δ2δ3u with u C ℓt∆ /δ1δ2δ3QK . Let N0 (resp. N6=0) denote the contribution− of u = 0 (resp. u ≪= 0) and δ ∆ to N(C, M , M ). 6 i ∼ i 1 2 Lemma 18. We have t2C2 t1/3N t∆∆ t∆ N M 1+ 1+ 1 1+ . 0 ≪ 2 N 2 ∆ K4 N N 1 ′ ′ ′ Proof. For u = 0 we get d1 = d2 and d1 = d2. Next h2 and h2 are determined using the last condition in (59), which translates to h¯ d′ h¯′ d δ µ mod d d′ δ δ 2 2 − 2 2 3 ≡ 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 ′ It follows that there are O(t δ2(δ2,d2δ3)/N ) many pairs (h2, h2). Now we write h = [h c /c ]+ g and h′ = [h′ c′ /c′ ]+ g′, with g,g′ 1+ Ct∆/N from the first two 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 ≪ 24 RITABRATA MUNSHI conditions in (59). Finally the number of g,g′ satisfying the fourth condition in (59) ′ is given by O((δ1,d1)(1 + δ1t∆/N)(1 + t∆/N)). It follows that N0 is dominated by 2 t ′ 2 δ2(δ1,d1)(δ2,d2δ3) ′ N δi∼∆i d1∼C/∆1 µi∼Mi/∆i XXX XX XX 2 2 d2∼C/∆2∆3 δ µ −δ µ ≪ (Cℓ) t∆ 1 1 2 2 N˜ t∆∆ t∆ 1+ 1 1+ . × N N Summing over µi, and gluing δ3 with d2, we arrive at t2 (Cℓ)2t∆2 t∆∆ t∆ M (δ ,d′ )(δ ,d ) 1+ 1+ 1 1+ . 2 2 1 1 2 2 ˜ ′ N δ1N N N δi∼∆i d1∼C/∆1 XX dXX2∼C/∆2 Finally executing the sums over the remaining variables we arrive at t2M C2 (Cℓ)2t∆2 t∆∆ t∆ 2 1+ 1+ 1 1+ . N 2 ˜ N N ∆1N The lemma now follows by using the fact that Cℓ∆ Qt−1/3. ≪ Lemma 19. The contribution of u = 0 to the dual off-diagonal is satisfactory if δ < 1/126. Proof. Substituting the bound for N0 from the previous lemma in place of N(... ) in (60), and then substituting the resulting bound in place of Ωℓ in (37) we obtain C1/8N 1/4 t1/12N 1/4 (t∆∆ )1/4 (t∆)1/4 √NHQ2Kt1/3 1+ 1+ 1 1+ . K1/4Q5/8t1/12ℓ3/2 1/4 N 1/4 N 1/4 ∆1 K ! (The term ℓ3/2 in the denominator will be responsible for the convergence of the sum over ℓ. As such we are going to ignore the ℓ terms below.) Once we multiply the terms out we get eight terms, two of which have ∆1 on the numerator. We consider these two terms first, namely C1/8N 1/4 (t∆∆ )1/4 (t∆)1/4 1 1+ . K1/4Q5/8t1/12 N 1/4 N 1/4 −1/3 Using the fact that ∆1 C, and that C∆ Qt we see that the above expression is bounded by ≪ ≪ t1/12C1/8 (t∆)1/4 t1/12C1/8 t1/6 Q1/4K1/2 1+ 1+ + . K1/4Q3/8 N 1/4 ≪ K1/4Q3/8 N 1/4 (CN)1/4 The last expression is dominated by t−δ if δ < 1/126, when we pick Q according to (19) and K according to (57). Next we consider terms which do not have ∆1 in the SUB-WEYL BOUNDS FOR GL(2) L-FUNCTIONS 25 numerator. In this case we can as well take ∆1 = 1. As such we need to consider the expression C1/8N 1/4 t1/12N 1/4 (t∆)1/2 (61) 1+ 1+ . K1/4Q5/8t1/12 K N 1/2 Now using the fact t∆ t2/3 QK2 t2/3 N 1/2 t2/3 K6/5 t2/3 + + + +1, N ≪ N CN ≪ N Qt1/3−δ ≪ N N 1/10t2/5−3δ/5 ≪ N we get that the contribution of this last expression is also dominated by t−δ if δ < 1/126. Remark 13. It should be possible to improve our estimate by exploiting the fact that in most cases we would not have any g, g′. However for the purpose of this paper the above estimate is satisfactory. Lemma 20. We have t7/3C3Q t1/3N t∆∆ t∆ N M 1+ 1+ 1 1+ . 6=0 ≪ 2 ℓ∆ ∆ ∆ N 2K2 ∆ K4 N N 1 2 3 1 Proof. Given δ1, δ2, δ3,d1,d2,µ1,µ2,u, we now determine the remaining variables. First ′ ′ d1 and d2 are obtained using ′ ′ d1d2 d1d2 = u ′ − ′ Once d1 is determined there is at most one choice for d2. Writing the equation as a ε ′ congruence modulo d1, we see that there are O(t ) many d1, and hence those many ′ ′ ′ pairs (d1,d2). Next h2 and h2 are determined using the last condition in (59), which translates to ¯ ′ ¯′ ′ h2d2 h2d2δ3 µ2 mod d2d2δ2δ3 2− ≡ 2 ′ It follows that there are O(t δ2(δ2,d2δ3)/N ) many pairs (h2, h2). Now we write ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ h1 = [h2c1/c2]+ g and h1 = [h2c1/c2]+ g , with g,g 1+ Ct∆/N from the first two conditions in (59). Finally the number of g,g′ satisfying≪ the fourth condition in (59) is given by O((δ1,d1)(1 + δ1t∆/N)(1 + t∆/N)). It follows that t2 (62) N6=0 2 ≪ 3 2 N δi∼∆i di∼C/∆i∆3 µi∼Mi/∆i C ℓt∆ 0 Then summing over δ1, δ2 we arrive at 3 3 2 2 2 C ℓt ∆ M2∆3 (Cℓ) t∆ t∆∆1 t∆ 2 2 1+ 1+ 1+ . N QK ∆1N˜ N N δ3X∼∆3 diXX∼C/∆i∆3 This is seen to be dominated by C5ℓt3∆2M (Cℓ)2t∆2 t∆∆ t∆ 2 1+ 1+ 1 1+ . ∆ ∆ ∆ N 2QK2 ˜ N N 1 2 3 ∆1N The lemma follows by using the fact that Cℓ∆ Qt−1/3. ≪ Lemma 21. The contribution of u = 0 to the dual off-diagonal is satisfactory if δ < 1/126 and if either N t1−10δ or6 ∆ ∆ ∆ t18δ. ≪ 1 2 3 ≫ Proof. First compare the bounds for N0 and N6=0. The later is obtained from the former by multiplying with the factor t1/3CQ/K2. We observe that t1/3Q/K2 1 for ≪ δ < 1/126. Now in the proof of Lemma 19, in the terms with ∆1 in the numerator, we replaced ∆1 by C. In N6=0 the ∆1 in the numerator is balanced by the extra factor in the denominator, and so the contribution of these terms is balanced as t1/3Q/K2 1. So we are led to consider the expression ≪ t1/12(CQ)1/4 C1/8N 1/4 t1/12N 1/4 (t∆)1/2 (63) 1+ 1+ , (∆ ∆ ∆ )1/4K1/2 K1/4Q5/8t1/12 K N 1/2 1 2 3 in place of (61). This is dominated by t−δ for δ < 1/126, if either N t1−10δ or ∆ ∆ ∆ t18δ. ≪ 1 2 3 ≫ 1−10δ 1+ε 18δ Lemma 22. Suppose t N t , and ∆1∆2∆3 t . The contribution of u =0 to the dual off-diagonal≪ is satisfactory≪ if δ < 1/600≪and M ∆ t36δ. 6 2 2 ≫ Proof. The first condition of (59) implies that h c Ct∆ Qt2/3 2 1 . c ≪ N ≪ N 2 From this we conclude that h d δ Qt2/3∆ 2 1 1 2 . d ≪ N 2 Now h d′ µ¯ mod d , and d′ ud¯ mod d . So the condition reduces to 2 ≡ 2 2 2 2 ≡ − 1 2 uµ¯ δ Qt2/3∆ 2 1 2 . d ≪ N 2 We detect this event using the exponential sum 1 αuµ¯ δ e 2 1 Ξ d2 α∼Ξ X SUB-WEYL BOUNDS FOR GL(2) L-FUNCTIONS 27 2/3 where Ξ = N/Qt ∆2. (One would notice that in the ranges under consideration Ξ > 1.) Applying the reciprocity relation we get 1 αud¯ δ αuδ e 2 1 e 1 . Ξ − µ2 µ2d2 α∼Ξ X Next consider the sum 2 αud¯ δ αuδ e 2 1 e 1 − µ2 µ2d2 d2∼C/∆2∆3 α∼Ξ X X 2 which is trivially bounded by CΞ /∆2∆3. Opening the absolute square and applying the Poisson summation formula on the sum over d2 we arrive at C ξuδ1∆2∆3 Cd2y S(d2, ξuδ1; µ2) W (y)e dy, ∆2∆3µ2 − µ2Cy − ∆2∆3µ2 dX2∈Z XXα1,α2∼Ξ Z where ξ = α1 α2. The case ξ = 0 is treated separately. In this case we get the diagonal contribution− with a saving of Ξ. It follows, using the Weil bound for the Kloosterman sums, that the contribution of ξ = 0 is bounded by 6 CΞ CΞ (ξuδ ,µ )+ (ξuδ ,µ )1/2 1 ∆ ∆ µ 1 2 1/2 1 2 2 3 2 ∆2∆3µ2 1≤Xξ≪Ξ 1≤Xξ≪Ξ 1≤|Xd2|≪D where ξu∆ (∆ ∆ )2 ∆ ∆ µ D = 1 2 3 + 2 3 2 . C2 C ε Since (ξuδ1,µ2) t M2/∆2, it follows that in the first term we save µ2∼M2/∆2 ≪ M /∆ on average over µ . For the second term we observe that ξu∆ (∆ ∆ )2/C2 2 2P 2 1 2 3 is smaller than N∆ ∆/QK2, which is O(t−ε) if δ 1/300. The second term reduces 3 ≤ to (on average over µ2) Ξ2M 1/2 Ξ2(NCℓ)1/2 2 . 1/2 ≪ 1/2 2 1/2 ∆2 ∆2 (QK ) 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 Hence we have saved (CQ) K/N ℓ ∆2 ∆3. Consequently in place of (63) we get C3/8N 1/4 t1/12N 1/4 1 ∆1/8 (N∆ )1/16∆1/8 1+ + 2 + 2 3 . (∆ ∆ ∆ )1/4K3/4Q3/8 K Ξ1/8 1/8 (CQ)1/16K1/8 1 2 3 M2 ! −δ The contribution of the middle term in the second pair of braces is O(t ) if M2∆2 t36δ. The contribution of the other terms turns out to be dominated by ≫ t7δ/2(t−1/120+7δ/20 + t−1/80−δ/10) t−1/120+77δ/20, ≪ which is O(t−δ) if δ < 1/600. 28 RITABRATA MUNSHI Remark 14. The above lemma takes care of the generic case. It is important to observe that the proof exploits the Weil bound for Kloosterman sums. We are now left with the special case where M2 is small. In this case we will use a non-trivial (though elementary) result from [3]. 1−10δ 1+ε 18δ Lemma 23. Suppose t N t , and ∆1∆2∆3 t . The contribution of u =0 to the dual off-diagonal≪ is satisfactory≪ if δ < 1/1200≪and M ∆ t36δ. 6 2 2 ≪ Proof. Consider the case of small µ2 M2/∆2. Then we need to count the number of solutions to ∼ h¯ h¯′ µ ∆ tC2 M QK2 2 2 2 2 , and h c h′ c′ 2 + ∆ . c − c′ ≤ C2 | 2 2 − 2 2| ≤ N NCℓ 2 2 ′ ′ The last inequality comes from (53). Let j = (h2,c2) and k = (h2,c2). First we will ′ ′ ′ ′ show that jk can not be large. We write h2 = jh, c2 = jc , h2 = kh and c2 = kc. Then the congruence in (59) reduces to hc¯ ′ h¯′c m mod c c′ , or h′c′ hc hh′m mod c c′ . − ≡ 2 2 2 − ≡ 2 2 2 ′ ′ 2 ′ 2 2 2 56δ Now hc h c tC /Njk, and hh m2 t C M2/N jk. So if jk t /∆2, then all the terms≍ in≍ the congruence have size≍ smaller than C2, and consequently≫ the congruence reduces to an equation h′c′ hc = hh′m . − 2 It follows that tC2 M QK2 h c h′ c′ = jk hh′m 2 + ∆ , | 2 2 − 2 2| | 2| ≤ N NCℓ or QK2 N∆ 1 + . ≤ tCℓ tM2 But this is not possible, and hence we obtain the bound jk t56δ/∆ . ≫ 2 We now observe that M QK2 M N 1/2 M t−9δ/5 2 + ∆ 2 + t−1/3 2 + t−1/3 t−1/10M . NCℓ ≪ Qt1/3−δ ≪ N 1/10 ≪ 2 The calculations from Section 4 (in particular Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2) of [3] can now be readily used. We can not use the main theorem of that section, as we need to avoid the diagonal. We observe that cases 1 and 2, and the diagonal contributions in cases 3 and 4 of Lemma 4.1 of [3], are not present in our count. Indeed in our case jk t56δ < Ct−ε and so a = c = 1 in the notation of Lemma 4.1 of [3] can not ≪ 1 occur. Also the diagonal case a1 = a, c1 = c in the notation of [3], is ruled out as this in our case leads to hc¯ ′ h¯′c 0 mod c c′ , − ≡ 2 2 SUB-WEYL BOUNDS FOR GL(2) L-FUNCTIONS 29 36δ 2 −ε i.e. m2 = 0 (as m2 M2 t C t ). It follows that the number of (v2, m2) vectors is bounded by∼ ≪ ≪ t56δ+ε t2C2 M t2C4 M 2 t2C4 t2C2 M t−1/10 + t−1/10+36δ 2 + 2 M t92δ−1/10+ε . ∆ 2 N 2 C2 N 2 C4 N 2 ≪ 2 ∆ N 2 2 2 ′ ′ ′ Then given u = 0, we determine c1,c1 from the equation c1c2 c1c2 = u. Indeed c1 6 ′ − is determined modulo c2 by c1c2 u mod c2. Hence the number of c1 is given by ′ ≡ − ′ O((c2,c2,u)) = O((δ2,u)). It follows that the number of (c1,c1,u) is given by C3ℓt∆2 ∆2 2 . ∆1∆3QK Consequently in place of the bound given in Lemma 20 we get t7/3C3Q t1/3N ∆ t92δ−1/10+εM 1+ , 1 2 ℓ∆ N 2K2 ∆ K4 3 1 as an upper bound for the count towards N6=0. Then in place of (63) we get (N∆ )1/4C3/8 t1/12N 1/4 √NHQ2Kt1/3 1 1+ , 1/4 3/4 3/8 1/4 ∆3 K Q ∆1 K ! which is seen to be satisfactory if δ < 1/1200. We can now summarise the output of Sections 4–9 in form of a proposition. Proposition 2. Let H = N/t1/3 N 1/2t1/3−δ. Suppose Q and K are chosen as in (19) and (57) respectively. Then ≪ √NHQ2Kt1/3−δ F ≪ if δ < 1/1200. References [1] R. Acharya; S. Kumar; G. Maiti; S. Singh: Subconvexity bound for GL(2) L-functions: t-aspect. (arxiv) [2] V. Blomer; R. Khan; M. Young: Distribution of mass of holomorphic cusp forms. Duke Math. J. 162 (2013), 2609–2644. [3] E. Bombieri; H. Iwaniec: On the order of ζ(1/2+ it). Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa 13 (1986), 449–472. [4] A. Booker; M. Milinovich; N. Ng: Subconvexity for modular form L-functions in the t aspect. (arxiv) [5] J. Bourgain: Decoupling, exponential sums and the Riemann zeta function. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 30 (2017), 205–224. [6] A. Good: The square mean of Dirichlet series associated with cusp forms, Mathematika 29 (1982), 278–295. [7] H. Iwaniec: Topics in Classical Automorphic Forms, Graduate text in mathematics 17, Amer- ican Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997. [8] M. Jutila: Lectures on a method in the theory of exponential sums, Tata Institute of Funda- mental Research Lectures on Mathematics and Physics, 80. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987. 30 RITABRATA MUNSHI [9] E. Landau: Uber¨ die ζ-Funktion und die L-Funktionen, Math. Z. 20 (1924), 105–125. [10] E. Lindel¨of: Quelques remarques sur la croissance de la fonction ζ(s), Bull. Sci. Math. 32 (1908) 341–356. [11] T. Meurman: On the order of the Maass L-function on the critical line, Number theory, Vol. I (Budapest, 1987), 325–354, Colloq. Math. Soc. J´anos Bolyai, 51, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990. [12] G. Milicevic: Sub-Weyl subconvexity for Dirichlet L-functions to prime power moduli, Compo- sitio Mathematica 152 (2016) 825–875. [13] R. Munshi: The circle method and bounds for L-functions - III. t-aspect subconvexity for GL(3) L-functions. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 28 (2015), 913–938. [14] R. Munshi: The circle method and bounds for L-functions - IV. Subconvexity for twists of GL(3) L-functions. Annals of Math., 182 (2015), 617–672. [15] R. Munshi: Twists of GL(3) L-functions. (arxiv) [16] E.C. Titchmarsh: The Theory of the Riemann Zeta-Function, second ed., The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 1986, Edited and with a preface by D. R. Heath-Brown. [17] H. Weyl: Uber¨ die Gleichverteilung von Zahlen mod. Eins, Math. Ann. 77 (1916), 313–352. School of Mathematics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, 1 Homi Bhabha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400005, India Current address: Statistics and Mathematics Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, 203 B.T. Road, Kolkata 700108, India E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected]