t-ASPECT SUBCONVEXITY FOR GL(2) GL(2) L-FUNCTION × RATNADEEP ACHARYA, PRAHLAD SHARMA AND SAURABH KUMAR SINGH Abstract. In this paper we shall prove a subconvexity bound for GL(2)×GL(2) L-function in t-aspect by using a GL(1) circle method. 1. Introduction One of the interesting problem in analytic number theory is to bound L-function on the critical line. Such a bound may involve one or more parameters. In this article we shall consider the problem for bounding GL(2) GL(2) L-function in t-aspect. Let f be an Hecke eigenform for the full modular group SL(2×, Z) of weight k, g be either a Hecke eigenform of weight k′ or a weight zero Maass cusp form. The Rankin-Selberg convolution is defined by s L(s,f g)= ζ(2s) λ (n)λ (n)n− ( s> 1), ⊗ f g ℜ n X where λf (n) and λg(n) denote the normalised n-th Fourier coefficient of f and g respectively. This extends to a entire function and satisfies a functional equation relating s with 1 s (see subsection 4.3). The Phragmén-Lindelöf principle gives us the convexity bound L(1/2+−it,f g) ( t + 10)1+ǫ. The Lindelöf hypothesis predicts that the exponent 1 can be replace by 0⊗. Our≪ result| | is the following theorem: Theorem 1.1. 1 1 1/16+ǫ L + it,f g t − . 2 ⊗ ≪ǫ | | Our method does not depend on the cuspidality f or g (or both). Hence by replacing g to be the Eisenstein series we obtain following corollary : Corollary 1. arXiv:2011.01172v1 [math.NT] 2 Nov 2020 1 1/2 1/32+ǫ L + it,f t − . 2 ≪ǫ | | We briefly recall the history of t-aspect subconvexity bounds. It was first proved by Hardy- Littlewood and Weyl in the case of Riemann zeta function with exponent 1/6. This was later improved by several eminent mathematicians. In case of degree two L-function, subconvexity bound was first obtained by Anton Good [3] by using spectral theory of automorphic forms. X. Li [13] proved subconvexity bound for self-dual degree three L-function by using moment method, where the positivity of central value was essential. For general degree three L-function, subconvexity bound was obtain by Ritabrata Munshi [15] by using his conductor lowering trick. K. Aggarwal and S. K. Singh [15] adopted conductor lowering trick for GL(2) L-functions, and they proved Weyl bound for the same. In their fundamental work, P. Michel and A. Venkatesh [14] have proved a subconvexity bound for general GL(2) and GL(2) GL(2) L-functions. They proved following two theorem: × Theorem A. There is an absolute constant δ > 0 such that: for an automorphic repre- sentation of GL1(A) or GL2(A) (with unitary central character), one has 1/4 δ L(1/2, π) F C(π) − . ≪1 t-ASPECT SUBCONVEXITY FOR GL(2) GL(2) L-FUNCTION 2 × Theorem B. There is an absolute constant δ > 0 such that: for π1, π2 automorphic repre- sentations on GL2(AF) we have 1/4 δ L(1/2, π π ) F C(π) − ; 1 ⊗ 2 ≪ more precisely, the implied constant depends polynomially on the discriminant of F ( for F varying over fields of given degree) and on C(π2). 1 δ As a consequence of Theorem B, we obtain that L(1/2+it,f g) t − for some positive δ. In our theorem we shall prove that δ can be taken 0 δ < 1⊗/16.≪ | | ≤ 2. The Set up By means of approximate functional equation and dyadic subdivision, we have 1 S(N) A L + it,f g ǫ,A sup | | + t− (2.1) 2 ⊗ ≪ N t2+ǫ √N ≪ for any small ǫ> 0 and any large A> 0, where it S(N)= λf (n)λg (n)n− . n N X∼ it 2.1. The delta method. We separate the oscillations from λf (n) and λg(n)n− using a version of the delta method due to Duke, Friedlander and Iwaniec. More specifically we will use the expansion (20.157) given in Chapter 20 of [12]. Let δ : Z 0, 1 be defined by →{ } 1 if n =0 δ(n)= (0 otherwise Then for n Z [ 2M, 2M], we have ∈ ∩ − 1 na nx δ(n)= e g(q, x)e dx (2.2) Q q R qQ a modX q Z where Q =2M 1/2. The function g satisfies the following property (see (20.158) and (20.159) of [12]). 1 q A g(q, x)=1+ h(q, x), with h(q, x)= O + x qQ Q | | ! (2.3) A g(q, x) x − ≪ | | for any A> 1. In particular the second property imples that the effective range of integral in (2.2) is [ M ǫ,M ǫ]. − 2.2. Conductor lowering. We write S(N) as iν 1 it ν m S(N)= λf (n)λg (m)m− δ(n m) V dν. (2.4) K − R K n n N m N X∼ X∼ Z Note that the ν integral is negligibly small unless m n N/K. Now using (2.2) with − ≪ Q = N/K we get p 1 it 1 ∗ a(n m) S(N)= λ (n)λ (m)m− e − KQ f g q q × n N m N q Q a(q) X∼ X∼ X≤ X iν (n m)u ν m A g(u, q)e − du V dν + OA(t− ). (2.5) R qQ R K n Z Z Next we divide the range of the sum over q into dyadic intervals as follows : A S(N)= SC (N)+ OA(t− ) (2.6) XC t-ASPECT SUBCONVEXITY FOR GL(2) GL(2) L-FUNCTION 3 × with 1 log Q tǫ, ≪ ≪ XC where 1 it 1 ∗ a(n m) S (N):= λ (n)λ (m)m− e − C KQ f g q q × n N m N q C a(q) X∼ X∼ X∼ X (n m)u ν m iν g(u, q)e − du V dν. (2.7) R qQ R K n Z Z By introducing smooth partition of unity we rewrite SC (N) as 1 1 ∗ ν m iν SC (N):= g(u, q) dx V dν KQ q R R K n × q Q a(q) X≤ X Z Z am) i(t ν) mu m λ (m)e − m− − e − ω g q qQ N " m # X an) iν nu n λ (n)e n− e ω . (2.8) f q qQ N " n # X 3. Sketch of the proof In this section we shall give a sketch of the proof. We shall consider the generic case m,n N N t2 and q Q. Introduction of delta symbol gives us a loss of size N. To obtain a sub-convexity∼ ∼ bound,∼ we need to save N and little more. We reach our goal in following steps. Step 1: First application of Voronoi summation formula We first apply the Voronoi summation formula to m sum given in equation (2.8). Its initial length is of size N and the 2 2 1 δ conductor is of size q t (as we choose K t − for some δ > 0.) We obtain that dual length ≪ 2 2 is essentially supported on a sum of size M0 = q t /N + K. In this step we obtain a saving a size N/(qt). ≪ Step 2: Second application of Voronoi summation formula We then apply the Voronoi summation formula second time to n sum given in equation (2.8). Its Initial length is of size N and conductor is of size q2k2. We note that dual length is essentially supported on 2 2 a sum of size N0 = q K /N + K. In this step we obtain a saving a size N/(qK). After the summation formulae,≪ we obtain the following expression for S(N) ⋆ a(m n) V (ν) dν g(u, q) du e − λf (n)λg (m)I(n,q,ν)I(m,q,t ν) R R q − q Q m M0 n N0 a(q) Z X∼ Z X∼ X∼ X where I(n,q,ν) is given by equation (6.2). Step 3: Sum over a and evaluation of integrals Summation over a is a Ramanujan sum, evaluation of which gives us a saving of size Q at the cost of a congruence condition (usually a character sum gives a square-root cancellation). We are also able to save √K from v integral. Total saving after the third step is given by: N N N 2 Q √K = = N Qt × QK × × tQ√K t-ASPECT SUBCONVEXITY FOR GL(2) GL(2) L-FUNCTION 4 × We are on the boundary and we need to save little more. Let tδ/2 be the desired saving. We have a following expression for S(N) S (N) d λ (m) λ (n) (m,n; q) , 0,C ∼ | g | f Iy,ν q Q d q m M0 n N0 X∼ X| X∼ XXm ≤n(d) ≡ where y,ν (m,n; q) is given by equation (6.5). We also have that oscillation of m in integral I y,ν (m,n; q) is of size t (see equation (6.6)). I Step 4: Cauchy inequality and Poisson summation formula We now apply C-S inequality followed by Poisson summation formula to the m sum. Note that N0 K and M t2/K. The “analytic conductor" is of size t and the “arithmetic conductor"∼ coming 0 ∼ from congruence is of size Q, which gives a dual length of size Qt/M0.