In Iwaniec, Luo and Sarnak article (precisely (4.23)), it is said that GRH for $L(s, \mathrm{sym}^2(f))$, for a holomorphic cusp newform $f$ of level $N$ and weight $k$, implies $$\sum_{p \nmid N} \frac{\lambda_f(p^2) \log p}{p} \ll \log\log kN$$

Why is that true?

It is not the first time that I use this "blackbox" of GRH giving bounds, is there a general intuition to have behind it, or a systematic formal justification (like using the explicit formula to relate zeroes and eigenvalues)?


We have that \[-\frac{L'}{L}(s,\mathrm{sym}^2 f) = \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} \frac{\Lambda_{\mathrm{sym}^2 f}(n)}{n^s},\] where $\Lambda_{\mathrm{sym}^2 f}(n)$ is equal to $\lambda_f(p^2) \log p$ if $n = p$ with $p \nmid N$, is essentially a bounded multiple of $\log p$ if $n = p^k$, and vanishes otherwise. (There are some minor issues at $p \mid N$ that are no big deal). In particular, this shows that the value at $1$ of this sum is basically equal to the desired sum up to a negligible error term.

Now use Theorem 5.17 of Iwaniec and Kowalski, which states that for $s = \sigma + it$ with $1/2 < \sigma \leq 5/4$ and assuming RH for $L(s,\mathrm{sym}^2 f)$ (as well as the Ramanujan conjecture, which is known via the work of Deligne), \[-\frac{L'}{L}(s,\mathrm{sym}^2 f) = \frac{r}{s - 1} + O\left(\frac{1}{2\sigma - 1} (\log \mathfrak{q}(\mathrm{sym}^2 f, s))^{2 - 2\sigma} + \log \log \mathfrak{q}(\mathrm{sym}^2 f, s)\right),\] where $r$ is the order of the pole of $L(s,\mathrm{sym}^2 f)$ at $s = 1$ and $\mathfrak{q}(\mathrm{sym}^2 f, s)$ is the analytic conductor. Note that $N$ is squarefree and $f$ has trivial nebentypus, so that $r = 0$. Taking $s = \sigma = 1$ and noting that $\log \mathfrak{q}(\mathrm{sym}^2 f, s) \ll \log kN$ yields the result.

  • $\begingroup$ Does it rely on the holomorphic assumption, or does the implication also holds for Maass newforms? $\endgroup$ – Gory Oct 30 '17 at 10:02
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for the answer, it is almost everything I want to know. However, what will happen when N is not squarefree of the form hasn't trivial nebentypus? (i.e. can we also deduce estimates of the sum il the question with r not equal to zero? like with specific partial summations formulas/transforms?) $\endgroup$ – Wolker Oct 30 '17 at 10:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Gory, the bound is valid under the assumption of the Ramanujan conjecture, which is not known for Maass newforms. $\endgroup$ – Peter Humphries Oct 30 '17 at 13:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Wolker, I have actually been thinking about this a bit (I have an unfinished preprint where I generalise the ILS paper to arbitrary level and nebentypus). The issue is that $L(s,\mathrm{sym}^2 f)$ can have a simple pole at $s = 1$ when $f$ is a dihedral newform; see mathoverflow.net/questions/178654/… $\endgroup$ – Peter Humphries Oct 30 '17 at 13:39
  • $\begingroup$ So the sum $\sum_{p \leq x, \, p \nmid N} \frac{\lambda_f(p^2) \log p}{p}$ is in fact asymptotic to a constant multiple of $\log x$, coming from the pole of $L(s,\mathrm{sym}^2 f)$ at $s = 1$, and then there is an error term of size $\log \log kN$. $\endgroup$ – Peter Humphries Oct 30 '17 at 13:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.