I am really embarrassed to ask this question since I am supposed to be an expert on modular forms, but here goes anyway since I have been stuck on this for several days.

Let $q$ be a prime divisor of $N$ such that $q^2\nmid N$, and let $\chi$ be some Dirichlet character modulo $N$. If $F$ is a normalized eigenform (newform of course) in $S_k(\Gamma_0(N),\chi)$ with Fourier coefficients $a(n)$, it is known from Atkin--Lehner--Li that if $W_q$ denotes an Atkin--Lehner involution then $F$ is an eigenform for the action of $W_q$ with eigenvalue $-a(q)/q^{k/2-1}$, and also that $a(q)^2=\chi(q)q^{k/2-1}$.

I am implementing this in Pari/GP and found a contradiction. Most probably my implementation is wrong, but please follow the following simple example (I know that David Loeffler had a ticket about a similar problem in Sage, but that was solved).

Consider the space $S_3(\Gamma_0(12),\chi_{-4})$, where as usual $\chi_{-4}$ is the odd character mod 4. It has a single eigenfunction defined over $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{-3})$, together with its conjugate. I can choose $W_3=[3,-1;12,-3]$, and $\tau=i=\sqrt{-1}$, so that $W_3(\tau)=(3i-1)/(12i-3)$. I then compute $1000$ Fourier coefficients of $F$, and the value $F(i)$ and $F|_3W_3(i)$. Instead of finding $-a(3)/3^{1/2}$ as ratio, I find $+a(3)/3^{1/2}$ (equal to $i$ and $-i$, but in the wrong order or equivalently with the wrong sign).

I did many other experiments, both in odd and even weights, and with nonreal characters, and my implementation tells me that the eigenvalue should be $-a(q)\overline{\chi(q)}/q^{k/2-1}$.

Now I went through Winnie Li's proof which I essentially reproduced in my book with F. Stromberg, and it seems correct. So I am stuck. Can someone at least check the above example, or tell me what I am doing wrong ? Note that I am not mixing the two possible embeddings of my form: both give me the wrong sign.

ADDED March 27: I am very surprised not to have any (positive or negative) answer. Since the error is systematic, let me give another example in even weight with numerical values. Consider $S_2(\Gamma_0(35),\chi_5)$. It is of dimension $2$ generated by an eigenform and its conjugate. One specific embedding of the eigenform is (sorry for the GP notation) $$F(\tau)=q + 2*I*q^2 - I*q^3 - 2*q^4 + (-2 - I)*q^5 + 2*q^6 - I*q^7 + 2*q^9 + O(q^{10}).$$ I take a random point, say $\tau=I/2+1/Pi$. Simply by summing sufficiently many terms I find $F(\tau)=-0.015178...+0.03676...*I$.

I choose as Atkin--Lehner matrix for the prime $q=7$ the matrix $W_7=[7,-3;35,-14]$ which has the required properties. I compute $F|_2W_7(\tau)$ (here I use 2000 terms since the imaginary part is small) and I find that it is equal to $0.03676+0.015178...*I$, so the eigenvalue is $-I$. However, Atkin--Lehner-Li tells me it should be equal to $-a(7)$, which as one sees from above is equal to $+I$, contradiction. Can someone please check this in Sage, Magma, or for that matter Pari/GP ?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Here's a shot in the dark. Scanning over the paper of Atkin and Li quickly, I see that $f|W_N = \lambda_N(f) \overline{f}$, where $W_N$ is the full Atkin-Lehner/Fricke involution, and $\lambda_N(f)$ is the pseudo-eigenvalue of $W_N$. In general, what they claim is that $f|W_Q = \lambda_Q(f) g$, for some other form $g$. It's not quite clear which form $g$ is, I suppose in your level $12$ case there are two possibilities. Just calculating one point $i$ and taking the ratio of $f(i)$ and $f|W_3(i)$ is not enough information to pin down if $f|W_3$ is proportional to $f$ or its conjugate, right? $\endgroup$ – Matt Young Mar 24 '18 at 1:21
  • $\begingroup$ You say that $a(q)^{2} = \chi(q) q^{k/2-1}$. This isn't always true. In particular, $|a(q)| = q^{k/2-1}$ if $q$ doesn't divide the conductor of $\chi$ (which means the local representation at $q$ is the Steinberg or a twist thereof), while in the case that $q$ does divide the conductor of $\chi$, one should have $|a(q)| = q^{(k-1)/2}$ (and the local representation at $q$ is a ramified principal series). $\endgroup$ – Jeremy Rouse Mar 24 '18 at 2:45
  • $\begingroup$ @Jeremy: sure, but I assume that $q^2\nmid N$ and $\chi$ is defined modulo $N/q$, so we are not in that case. I added that well-known property of $a(q)^2$ for completeness, but this is not my contradiction. $\endgroup$ – Henri Cohen Mar 24 '18 at 6:40
  • $\begingroup$ To add to my earlier comment, the two forms $f$ and $\bar{f}$ take complex-conjugate values on the imaginary axis. If you evaluate at different points than $i$ do you get consistent values of the pseudo-eigenvalue? $\endgroup$ – Matt Young Mar 24 '18 at 13:36
  • $\begingroup$ @Matt: yes, I get consistent values. Note that in my situation the pseudo-eigenvalues are really eigenvalues since $\chi$ is defined modulo $N/q$. In particular, we really have $F|W_Q=\lambda_Q(F)F$ with the same $F$. I tried many other examples, including when the Galois orbit of $F$ has more than $2$ elements and/or $\chi$ is of order greater than $2$. $\endgroup$ – Henri Cohen Mar 24 '18 at 14:23

Let's examine the case $N=12$, weight $3$, with central character $\chi_{-4}$. According to the LMFDB, there are two newforms $f$ in this space. I will take it as numerically-verified that for both of these forms, $f|W_3$ is proportional to $f$.

Theorem 2.1 of Atkin-Li (Twists of newforms and pseudo-eigenvalues of W-operators. Invent. Math. 48 (1978), no. 3, 221–243) then states $f|W_3 = \lambda f,$ where $$\lambda = -\frac{|a_f(3)|}{a_f(3)}.$$ Here the minus sign comes from their convention that the Gauss sum of a trivial character is $-1$, under the conditions at hand. Here I multiplied by $|a_f(3)|$ because the pseudo-eigenvalue has absolute value $1$. Indeed, the earlier Proposition 1.1 from that paper shows $\lambda^2 = -1$, so the only question is the sign of $\lambda$. Now the above formula for $\lambda$ becomes $\lambda = - \frac{\overline{a_f(3)}}{|a_f(3)|} = \frac{a_f(3)}{|a_f(3)|}$, since $\lambda = \pm i$. Isn't this the numerical value that is claimed in the original question?

added later: I consulted Theorem 3 of Li's 1975 Math. Annalen paper (Newforms and functional equations). I will continue the discussion of this example. Li defines a version of the Atkin-Lehner operator, denoted $V_3^M$ (I will drop the superscript in what follows). However, I think that her choice of $V_3$ is inconsistent with $W_3$. According to Li's definition, we may choose $V_3 = \begin{pmatrix} -3 & -1 \\ 12 & 3 \end{pmatrix}$. She requires the lower-right entry to be $3$. With $W_3$ given as in the original question, we have $$V_3 W_3^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} 7 & -2 \\ -24 & 7 \end{pmatrix}.$$ Since $\chi_{-4}(7) = -1$, we have $$f|V_3 = - f |W_3.$$

It should be mentioned that the definition of the Atkin-Lehner operator in the Atkin-Li paper has slightly different congruence conditions. In particular, I checked that the choice of $W_3$ in the original question is consistent with the definition of the Atkin-Lehner definition.

Unless I made some mistakes, I believe the above discussion clears up the problem, at least in this level $12$ example.

  • $\begingroup$ I am sorry to insist, but I am not referring to pseudoeigenvalues but to true eigenvalues ($f|W_3/f$), so to Theorem 3 (iii) in the original paper of Li 1975 Inventiones, which I believe is rewritten in more recent language in her book (which I don't have with me) $\endgroup$ – Henri Cohen Mar 27 '18 at 22:35
  • $\begingroup$ Pseudoeigenvalue reduces to eigenvalue in this case, then. I don't have access to Li's 1975 paper at the moment. But do you agree that your calculation is in accord with the result of Atkin-Li? $\endgroup$ – Matt Young Mar 27 '18 at 22:40
  • $\begingroup$ I added some discussion in light of the notation from Li's 1975 paper. $\endgroup$ – Matt Young Mar 28 '18 at 2:35
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ To Matt and everybody: sorry for wasting bandwidth and time: Matt is right, it is all a question of normalization of the $W_Q$ matrix: the eigenvalue is indeed $-a(q)/q^{k/2-1}$, but ONLY if you choose a matrix $[qx,y;Nz,q]$ with a $q$ in the lower right corner. Thus in my initial example, I must choose $[-3,-1;12,3]$ and NOT $[3,-1;12,-3]$. This probably clears up every problem. Thanks again! $\endgroup$ – Henri Cohen Mar 28 '18 at 9:24

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.