Abstract
We show that distinct primitive L-functions can achieve extreme values simultaneously on the critical line. Our proof uses a modification of the resonance method and can be applied to establish simultaneous extreme central values of L-functions in families.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Extreme values of L-functions have attracted considerable attention in recent years. This surge of activity is largely due to the introduction of the resonance method of Soundararajan [44] and its subsequent developments. This is a versatile method which allows one to show that for various families of L-functions \({\mathcal {F}}\) with analytic conductor C,
for some constant \(c=c({\mathcal {F}})>0\). In the case of the Riemann zeta function, Bondarenko–Seip [8] recently made the significant improvement
Their modification of the resonance method can be extended to other families [12], although a severe restriction is that the L-functions must have non-negative coefficients.Footnote 1
Extreme values of products of L-functions are also possible and in particular the bound (1.1) holds when \(L(s,\pi )\) factorises. For example, we know [5, Theorem 1.12] that for fixed cusp forms f, g there exists a non-trivial primitive character \(\chi \) modulo a prime q such that
In t-aspect, Aistleitner–Pańkowski [1] showed that (1.1) holds for non-primitive L-functions in the Selberg class, whereas bounds of the strength (1.2) can be demonstrated for Dedekind zeta functions [7]. These results contain an interesting feature: when \(L(s,\pi )\) is a product of L-functions one can achieve a larger constant c. Precisely, the t-aspect results show that for a product of m distinct primitive L-functions \(c=\sqrt{m}\) is admissible, whereas for individual L-functions \(c=1\).
As pointed out in [7], this presents a dichotomy. Either extreme values of L-functions are occurring simultaneously, or one can demonstrate even larger values for an individual L-function. The question of whether L-functions can attain extreme values simultaneously is natural and forms the focus of this paper. Another motivation for the present work is that extreme values provide a testing ground for the statistical independence of L-functions; a property which, if held at the extremes, can have deep arithmetic consequences.Footnote 2
Previous results on joint extreme values have been obtained when we move away from the central point. For fixed \(1/2<\sigma <1\), under suitable assumptions on the L-functions Mahatab–Pańkowski–Vatwani [38] used Diophantine approximations to show the existence of large values of \(L_j(\sigma +it_j)\) with the \(t_j\)’s living in a small neighbourhood of each other. By considering the joint value distributions of \(L(\sigma +it, \chi _j)\), Inoue–Li [25] recently showed the existence of simultaneous large values of Dirichlet L-functions in the strip \(1/2< \sigma <1\).
Less is known for joint extreme values at the central point. It was observed by Selberg [42] and later proved by Bombieri–Hejhal [6] that the joint distribution of L-functions (satisfying suitable assumptions) splits as the product of the distributions:
as \(T\rightarrow \infty \) for any fixed \(V_j\). Recently Inoue–Li [24] extended the range of \(V_j\) in (1.4) to \(V_j\ll (\log \log T)^{1/10}\) which yields simultaneous large values of size \(\exp \big ( c(\log \log T)^{3/5-\epsilon }\big )\). Simultaneous extreme values of size (1.1) would be desirable, but they are harder to detect using joint distributions since these events are very rare. Indeed, even bounds for the joint distribution in the range \(V_j\approx \sqrt{\log \log T}\) are not available unconditionally due to our lack of knowledge on mixed moments (although the conjectured asymptotics [19, 39] could likely be established up to order conditionally [17, 20]). Here, we utilise a modification of the resonance method to detect simultaneous large values of central values of L-functions, overcoming inefficiencies from methods of moments and Diophantine approximation. Our first result gives simultaneous large values of two L-functions on the critical line.
Theorem 1
Let \(L_1(s), L_2(s)\) be either the Riemann zeta function, a primitive Dirichlet L-function or the L-function attached to a primitive cusp (holomorphic or Maaß) form on GL(2) over \({\mathbb {Q}}\). Then there exists some positive constant c depending on \(L_1, L_2\) such that for sufficiently large T, we have
Remark 1
The constant depends on the degree of the L-functions in question. If \(L_1, L_2\) are both Dirichlet L-functions, then we can take \(c=\sqrt{17/66}+o(1)\) and if at least one of \(L_1\) and \(L_2\) is a GL(2) L-function, we can take \(c=\sqrt{ {(1-2\theta )}/{12}}+o(1)\) where \(\theta \) is an admissible bound towards the Ramanujan conjecture for GL(2) over \({\mathbb {Q}}\). By work of Kim–Sarnak [28, Appendix 2], we can take \(\theta =7/64\). For comparison, we mention that one can take \(c=\sqrt{2}+o(1)\) for the product of \(L_1L_2(1/2+it)\) (see [1]).
Our method extends to other families and we shall describe a general principle below. For now, we illustrate this by demonstrating simultaneous large central values of twists of GL(2) cusp forms, refining (1.3).
Theorem 2
Let f, g be fixed primitive cusp forms of level \(r, r'\) and trivial central character. There exists a positive constant c depending only on f, g such that for all primes q sufficiently large in terms of f, g, there exists a non-trivial character \(\chi \bmod q\) such that
Remark 2
We give an explicit constant c in terms of f, g in the proof. In a generic situation, we can take \(c={1}/{12\sqrt{10}}+o(1)\), which is half of the constant \(c_{f, g}={1}/{6\sqrt{10}}+o(1)\) for the product in (1.3) [5, Remarks 7.3, 7.20], as one would expect.
We now describe our method. The idea is to use a resonator that picks out a large value of the product of the L-functions that, at the same time, is significantly bigger than their sum, thus giving simultaneous large values. We detail this in the t-aspect, although the principle extends more generally. Our aim is to find a Dirichlet polynomial R(t) such that for large V,
If this holds then there exists a \(t\in [T,2T]\) such that
which implies that both \(|L_1(1/2+it)|^2,|L_2(1/2+it)|^2>V\). We choose R(t) to pick out large values of the product and once the asymptotic formulae for twisted second moments in (1.5) have been established, we can find the desired size for V. This approach uses the larger values of the product in a key way, but also includes the required upper bound information (as is necessary to rule out excessively large values of individual L-functions).
For multiple L-functions we can aim to find a value of t for which
Unfortunately, asymptotic formulae for the twisted second moments of multiple or higher degree L-functions are currently out of reach. However, asymptotics are not strictly necessary since reasonably sharp bounds would suffice. A lower bound for the first term on the left of (1.6) can be achieved fairly easily through the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality. This allows one to replace the second moment with a first moment which is more tractable. In fact, this first moment can be computed for any number of L-functions.
To obtain upper bounds for the second term in (1.6) we note that there exist several instances in the literature [11, 14, 32] where, if one doesn’t have access to asymptotics for twisted second moments, a sharp upper bound can still be achieved on the Riemann Hypothesis by applying the methods of Harper [17]. As it stands, Harper’s method is designed for a fixed 2k-th moment of an L-function and thus sensitive to values of size \((\log T)^k\). However, with some modifications, in particular by focusing on very small primes, these methods can be made suitable for extreme values. With this in hand we can exhibit simultaneous large values for many L-functions in higher degrees under the Riemann Hypothesis for these L-functions.
Theorem 3
Let \(\pi _j\), \(j=1,\cdots , m\) be irreducible unitary cuspidal automorphic representations of \(GL(d_j)\) over \({\mathbb {Q}}\) such that \(\pi _i\not \cong \pi _j\) for \(i\not =j\). Assume the generalised Riemann Hypothesis for all \(L(s, \pi _j)\) \(j=1, \dots , m\) and assume the generalised Ramanujan conjecture for \(L(s, \pi _j)\) if \(d_j\geqslant 3\). Then for sufficiently large T we have
for any positive constant \(c< \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}\).
Additional work is required to remove the generalised Ramanujan conjecture in the case of Maaß forms. Throughout most of the proof we can work under weaker assumptions, in particular when computing the mean values. However in the final step when establishing extreme values more strict control on the size of \(a_\pi (p)\) is required. One sufficient condition is a Mertens’ type estimate for the fourth power moment:
Therefore, the assumption of the generalised Ramanujan conjecture can be avoided for GL(2) Maaß forms by the functoriality of symmetric powers established by Kim [27] (and also for self-dual GL(3) L-functions using Gelbart–Jacquet [15] and Kim [27], although we do not state this in Theorem 3 for concision).
We also remark that Theorem 3 can be proved unconditionally for three distinct Dirichlet L-functions. Here, the upper bounds for the twisted second moments of \(L(1/2+it,\chi _i)L(1/2+it,\chi _j)\) are (essentially) available being generalisations of the twisted fourth moment of the Riemann zeta function [4, 18, 21].
The versatility of the resonance method in families of L-functions extends to simultaneous values, both large and small. Our methods allow for a general principle which we now describe. Let \({\Pi }\) be some family and let \(\{L(s,f_j)\}_{j=1}^m\) be fixed L-functions. Suppose we can lower bound
and upper bound
in a reasonably sharp way. Then via the inequality (1.6) one can show the existence of \(\pi \in \Pi \) such that \(|L(1/2,f_j\otimes \pi )|\) are large simultaneously. Here, one uses the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality to get a lower bound for the mixed absolute second moment using (1.7) together with an estimate for \(\sum _{\pi \in \Pi }|R(\pi )|^2\). If upper bounds for (1.8) are not immediately accessible, then one can apply our adaption of Harper’s methods (Sect. 6) to give conditional results.
The situation for simultaneous small values is somewhat simpler. Here, we just require upper bounds for the sum
along with the simple fact that for non-negative a, b, the inequality \(a+b\leqslant V\) implies \(a,b\leqslant V\). In both the large and small value cases, the resonator should be chosen to pick out extreme values of the full product of L-functions.
We illustrate this principle in two families. As we have seen already in Theorem 2, it can be applied to give simultaneous large central values of L-functions of GL(2) cusp forms twisted by Dirichlet characters modulo q unconditionally, since the second moment theory has been well developed [5].
For simultaneous small values, we consider the family of holomorphic cusp forms twisted by quadratic characters \(\chi _d(\cdot )=(\frac{d}{\cdot })\). Here, the mixed first moment
is still unknown. Consequently, the simultaneous non-vanishing of quadratic twists of cusp forms remains an open question. (It is known from Munshi [40] that if there exists one quadratic character with simultaneous non-vanishing, then in fact there must be infinitely many such primitive quadratic characters.) Nevertheless, we can show that there are infinitely many d such that \(L(1/2,f\otimes \chi _{d})\) and \(L(1/2,g\otimes \chi _{d})\) get very small simultaneously.
Theorem 4
Let f, g be holomorphic cusp forms of weight \(\kappa \equiv 0 \bmod 4\) for \(SL_2({\mathbb {Z}})\) and let \(\chi _{d}(\cdot )=(\frac{d}{\cdot })\) be the Kronecker symbol. Then for large X there exists \(X\leqslant d\leqslant 2X\) and some \(c>0\) such that
We remark that this result is unconditional since we can avoid the absolute second moments in (1.9) (which are currently out of reach, though significant progress has been made recently by Li [33]) and work directly with \(L(1/2, f\otimes \chi _{d})\) as we already have non-negativity: \(L(1/2, f\otimes \chi _{d})\geqslant 0\). This surprising fact is known unconditionally from the formula of Waldspurger [46] (see also [29]). In generic situations, one can take \(c={1}/{\sqrt{5}}+o(1)\).
There are several other possibilities for simultaneous extreme values in families of L-functions. Examples of significant arithmetic interest are given by the families
where \(\chi _D\) is a fixed quadratic character and \(\mathcal {F}\) is either the family of Hecke eigencuspforms of even weight k for the full modular group with k tending to infinity, or the family of holomorphic newforms of fixed even weight k for the congruence subgroup \(\Gamma _0(N)\) with N tending to infinity. In both the weight and (squarefree) level aspects, the required second moment formulae can be computed using Petersson’s formula (see [13, 23, 30, 44] for example). We also mention that for a large prime q, Dirichlet characters \(\omega _1, \omega _2\) modulo q and f a Hecke eigenform for \(SL_2(\mathbb {Z})\) (holomorphic or Maaß ), the simultaneous extreme values for the families
could be established using work of Zacharias [48].
We close this introduction with a few remarks on similarities with previous works and on the difficulties in extending our results to the strength of (1.2). We note that our proof utilises some control on both upper and lower bounds for L-functions. A similar idea has appeared in the recent work of Gun–Kohnen–Soundararajan [16] where they demonstrated large central values of linear combinations of L-functions by making one L-function large and at the same time keeping all other L-functions smaller. In contrast, we exhibit simultaneous extreme central values in families of L-functions where all of the L-functions attain large or small values.
A very natural question is whether one can attain simultaneous values of the strength of Bondarenko–Seip [8] given in (1.2). A key source of their improvement was the use of a resonator with support in numbers that are much bigger than T, although this results in considerable difficulties. First, to lower bound
with such a resonator we can require that the coefficients of \(L_1(s)L_2(s)\) be positive after inserting a smooth weight with positive transform, as in [8]. This could be resolved with Dedekind zeta functions, for example. However, finding an upper bound for
when R is a long resonator seems a more substantial obstacle. In [8], to get an upper bound for \(\int |R(t)|^2dt\), the resonator was chosen to have well-spaced phases but unfortunately it is not clear how such an R interacts with \(|L_j(1/2+it)|^2\). If this issue could be overcome then one could deduce bounds of the form (1.2) for Dirichlet L-functions, or indeed any other L-function with negative coefficients provided they appear as a factor in a Dedekind zeta function.
2 Background on automorphic L-functions
In this section we collect some basic facts about the class of L-functions used in our t-aspect results. These can be found in many places, see for example [39, 41].
Let \(L(s,\pi )\) be the L-function attached to an irreducible cuspidal automorphic representation \(\pi \) of \(\textrm{GL}(d)\) over \(\mathbb {Q}\) normalised such that \(\pi \) has unitary central character. In the region \(\sigma >1\) we have
for some complex coefficients \(A_\pi (n)\) and \(\alpha _j(p)\). If \(d=1\) and \(\pi \) is the trivial representation then \(L(s,\pi )\) is given by the Riemann zeta function. Otherwise, it extends to an entire function satisfying the functional equation
where \(N\in \mathbb {N}\), \(|\epsilon _\pi |=1\), \({\overline{\Phi }}(s,\pi )=\overline{\Phi (\overline{s},\pi )}\) and \( \gamma (s,\pi )=\pi ^{-ds/2}\prod _{j=1}^d \Gamma \Big (\frac{s+\mu _{\pi , j}}{2}\Big ) \) for some complex numbers \(\mu _{\pi , j}\) satisfying \(\Re \mu _{\pi , j}>-1\).
Applying Stirling’s formula to \(\gamma (s,\pi )\) along with the Phragmen–Lindelöf principle, we see that
in the strip \(-\delta \leqslant \sigma \leqslant 1+\delta \) for large |t| (see Exercise 3 of Chapter 5, or Appendix 5.A.2, in [22] for example).
In our conditional results we make key use of Euler products, so we collect some further practical bounds here. For \(\sigma >1\) on differentiating the Euler product we see
where \(\Lambda (n)\) is the von-Mangoldt function.
The generalised Ramanujan conjecture asserts that \(|\alpha _{\pi , j}(p)|=1\) for all but a finite number of primes and satisfies \(|\alpha _{\pi ,j}(p)|\leqslant 1\) elsewhere, although this remains open in general. Rudnick–Sarnak [41] have shown that
for all primes p. This bound implies that
and, by (2.1), that
where \(\tau _d\) is the generalised divisor function. Another useful bound is that when the degree satsifies \(d\leqslant 3\),
for fixed prime powers \(\ell \). This is given in the proof of Proposition 2.4 of [41].
In many situations, the assumption of the generalised Ramanujan conjecture can be replaced by Hypothesis H introduced by Rudnick–Sarnak [41], which states that for fixed \(\ell \geqslant 2\),
Clearly, this follows from the the generalised Ramanujan conjecture. Unconditionally, this was shown to hold for \(d\leqslant 3\) by Rudnick–Sarnak [41] using (2.6) and for \(d=4\) by Kim [27]. As a replacement for the generalised Ramanujan conjecture, Hypothesis H has previously been used in mean value results [39]. In our case it could be used to weaken the assumptions of Proposition 4 below, but at the cost of considerable extra technicalities. We settle for using (2.6), which restricts our unconditional results to \(d\leqslant 3\) rather than \(d\leqslant 4\), since in the end we require stronger coefficient bounds to deduce our final results.
The following three results are the key average properties we require for \(a_\pi (p)\), all of which hold unconditionally when \(d\leqslant 2\). The first is the orthogonality conjecture of Selberg, as shown in full generality by Liu–Ye [36] building on previous works [34, 35, 37].
Theorem
(Selberg’s orthogonality conjectures) Let \(\pi \), \(\pi ^\prime \) be two irreducible unitary cuspidal automorphic representations of \(\textrm{GL}(d)\), \(\textrm{GL}(d^\prime )\) over \(\mathbb {Q}\), respectively. If (2.7) holds, then
In particular, (2.8) holds if \(\max (d,d')\leqslant 4\) or on assuming the generalised Ramanujan conjecture.
This essentially implies the following bounds for our resonator sums.
Proposition 1
Let \(\pi \), \(\pi ^\prime \) be two irreducible unitary cuspidal automorphic representations of \(\textrm{GL}(d)\), \(\textrm{GL}(d^\prime )\) over \(\mathbb {Q}\), respectively. If (2.7) holds then for large x, y,
In particular, this holds if \(\max (d,d^\prime )\leqslant 4\) or on assuming the generalised Ramanujan conjecture.
Proof
The sum is given by
To estimate the second sum we note that the contribution from \(\ell \geqslant d^2+1\) can be bounded using (2.5) by
For \(\ell \leqslant d^2+1\) we use Cauchy–Schwarz and (2.7) to obtain
To compute the first sum we apply partial summation along with the bounds of [36]:
\(\square \)
We shall use one more type of bound, which can be used to avoid the assumption of the generalised Ramanujan conjecture in some cases.
Theorem
(Fourth moment bounds) Suppose \(d\leqslant 2\) or that \(d=3\) and \(\pi \) is self-dual. Then
Proof
For \(d=1\) the result is clear. For \(d=2\) this follows from the fact that
(see the proof of Corollary 2.15 of [5] for example) along with the bounds
When \(d=3\) and \(\pi \) is self-dual it is known (see Section 3.2 of [26]) that \(L(s,\pi \times \pi \times \pi \times \pi )\) has a pole of order 3 at \(s=1\). The result in this case therefore follows by Tauberian theorems.
\(\square \)
3 Simultaneous large values in t-aspect: set-up and proofs of Theorems 1 and 3
In this section we give the set-up for proving simultaneous large values in the t-aspect, state the required moment bounds and then complete the proofs of Theorems 1 and 3. Let \(\pi _i\), \(1\leqslant i\leqslant m\) be irreducible unitary cuspidal automorphic representations of \(\textrm{GL}(d_i)\) over \(\mathbb {Q}\) such that \(\pi _i\not \cong \pi _j\) for \(1\le i\not =j\le m\), respectively, and let
be the associated L-functions. For brevity we denote \(a_i(p)=a_{\pi _i}(p)=A_{\pi _i}(p)\).
To pick out simultaneous values we recall that if there exists a t such that
then we must have \(|L_i(1/2+it)|^2>V\) for all \(1\leqslant i\leqslant m\). Write
so that
We choose our resonator to pick out large values of L(s). Let \(X=T^\Delta \) for some \(\Delta <1\) to be chosen and denote
For small \(\epsilon >0\) let
We then define r(n) to be the multiplicative function supported on squarefree numbers for which
and let
By construction of \(\mathcal {P}\) we note the important bounds
for any \(1\leqslant i\leqslant m\) and \(p\in \mathcal {P}\). With these bounds the computations for the Euler products acquired from the resonance method can proceed in the usual simple way. This is the reason for the restriction \(|a_i(p)|\leqslant (\log p)^{1-\epsilon }\) in \(\mathcal {P}\); without it such computations are much more involved e.g. see [5, Lemma 7.19].
With this set-up and the above notation we have the following propositions.
Proposition 2
For large T and \(X=T^\Delta \) with \(\Delta <1\), we have
Proposition 3
Let \(L_i(s)\) be a primitive Dirichlet L-function or the L-function of a (holomorphic or Maaß) cuspidal newform. Then for large T and \(X=T^\Delta \) with \(\Delta \) sufficiently small,
If \(L_i\) is a Dirichlet L-function, one can take \(\Delta <\frac{17}{33}\) and if \(L_i\) is a GL(2) L-function, we can take \(\Delta <\frac{1/2-\theta }{3+\theta }\) where \(\theta \) is the bound towards the Ramanujan conjecture for GL(2) Maaß Forms.
Proposition 4
Let \(\pi _i\) be irreducible unitary cuspidal automorphic representations of \(GL(d_i)\) over \({\mathbb {Q}}\) such that \(\pi _i\not \cong \pi _j\) for \(1\le i\not =j\le m\). Assume GRH for each \(L_j(s)=L(s, \pi _j), j=1, \dots , m\) and if \(d_j\geqslant 4\) assume the generalised Ramanujan conjecture for \(L_j(s)\). Then for large T and \(X=T^\Delta \) with \(\Delta <1/2\), we have
where
Remark 3
The assumption of the generalised Ramanujan conjecture for \(d_j\geqslant 4\) arises from Lemma 9 below. The remainder of the proof of Proposition 4 only requires the pointwise bounds on the coefficients given in (2.4) and (2.6). The generalised Ramanujan conjecture could be replaced with Hypothesis H of Rudnick–Sarnak [41], inequality (2.7), but at the cost of a more technical proof.
With the above propositions in hand, we turn to the proofs of Theorems 1 and 3.
Proof of Theorems 1 and 3
Define V as
Then there exists \(t\in [T,2T]\) satisfying (1.6) so that
It remains to give a lower bound for V. From Propositions 2–4 and (3.2), we have that
Now let us remove the restriction on the size of the \(|a_i(p)|\). For \(1\le i\not =j\leqslant m\),
which by Hölder’s inequality and (2.10) or the generalised Ramanujan conjecture is
Thus we can extend the sum over \(p\in \mathcal {P}\) to all \(\mathcal {L}^2<p\leqslant \exp ((\log \mathcal {L})^2)\) with an acceptable error. Applying Proposition 1 gives
\(\square \)
Remark 4
We believe that our choice of resonator coefficients is reasonably sharp. However, proving that they are truly optimal as in [44, Theorem 2.1], seems a more intricate optimization problem. In the case of two degree one L-functions, the mean values can be computed asymptotically leading to an optimization problem roughly of the shape
(although in reality the mixed second moment leads to a sum of six terms with polar contributions which must be dealt with—see [4, 19, 21]). With suitable additional multiplicativity and positivity assumptions on r(n), this is essentially the optimization problem which is resolved in [44, Theorem 2.1], leading to our choice of the resonator. However, we have not pursued further in finding the optimal choice for r(n) in full generality and we leave it to the interested reader.
4 Lower bounds in t-aspect: Proof of Proposition 2
Let
We aim to prove the lower bound
Let \(\Phi \) be a smooth function supported on [1, 2] satisfying \(0\leqslant \Phi (x)\leqslant 1\) so that
Thus, by Cauchy–Schwarz
As usual, since \(X=T^\Delta \) with \(\Delta <1\), we find
and so it remains to compute
This has essentially been done by Aistleitner–Pańkowski [1], and so we only present the main details. The only difference is that they worked with the Selberg class where the generalised Ramanujan conjecture is assumed, although this has little effect on the arguments.
Applying the Mellin inversion formula
and shifting contours to the left along with the convexity bounds (2.2), we find
where \(Y=T^{d_L+\epsilon }\) and \( d_L=\sum _{i=1}^m d_i \) is the degree of L(s). For \(n>3Y\log Y\) we have \(e^{-n/Y}\leqslant n^{-2}\) and hence
where we have used the coefficient bound for a(n) in (2.5). Thus we find
From the rapid decay of \({\hat{\Phi }}\) and (4.2) we now have
Since r(n) is supported on squarefree integers and \(r(p)=a(p)\mathcal {L}/p^{1/2}\log p\) where it is non-zero, the summand of the main term is positive and hence we can bound it from below by
since \(e^{-l/Y}\geqslant 1/2\) for \(l\leqslant X\). Next we extend the sum \(lm\le X\) to all l, m. By Rankin’s trick
for any \(\alpha >0\). Applying this along with the bound (2.9) and choosing \(\alpha =1/(\log \mathcal {L})^3\), we find that (4.5) can be bounded by
Combining (4.3), (4.4), (4.5) and (4.6), we find that
Applying this in (4.1) together with (3.2) we find that,
as desired.
5 Unconditional upper bounds in t-aspect: Proof of Proposition 3
In this section we give the proof of Proposition 3 depending on whether \(L_i\) is a Dirichlet L-function or a GL(2) L-function. For this we utilise the requisite twisted moment formulas which are known in these cases.
5.1 Dirichlet L-functions
In the case when \(L_i(s)=L(s,\chi )\) where \(\chi \) is a primitive Dirichlet character modulo q we have the following.
Lemma 5
Let \(\chi \) be a primitive Dirichlet character modulo q. Let \(R(t)=\sum _{n\le X}r(n)n^{-it}\) be as in (3.1). Let \(\alpha , \beta \) be complex numbers such that \(\alpha , \beta \ll 1/T\). Then for \(X=T^\Delta \) with \(\Delta <\frac{17}{33}\) there exists \(\epsilon _\Delta >0\) such that
where \(\chi _0\) is the principal Dirichlet character modulo q.
Proof
The proof is similar to that [47, Theorem 1.1], but certain modifications are needed. First note that the condition \(a(h)\ll h^\epsilon \) in the assumption [47, Theorem 1.1] does not hold in our case, however, we can modify the proof so that the conclusion still holds. More specifically, we still have [47, Eq. (5.28)] since \(\sum _{u\sim U}\frac{\sqrt{u}r(u)}{u}\ll U\prod _{p}(1+r(p)\sqrt{p})\ll U \exp \Big (O\Big (\frac{{\mathcal {L}}}{\log {\mathcal {L}}^2}\Big )\Big )\ll U T^\epsilon \) and this causes an extra factor of \(T^\epsilon \) in [47, Eq. (5.29)] which is acceptable. In the estimate [47, Eq. (5.37)], we use \(\sum _{u\sim U}|\frac{\sqrt{u}r(u)}{u}|^2\ll \prod _{p}\Big (1+\frac{r(p)^2}{p}\Big )\ll \exp \Big (O\Big (\frac{{\mathcal {L}}^2}{(\log {\mathcal {L}}^2)^2}\Big )\Big )\ll T^\epsilon \), which is again acceptable and leads to [47, Eq. (5.38)]. The main term can be derived the same way in the proof of [47, Theorem 1.1] using [47, Proposition 3.1] (after correcting the typo in the exponent of (h, k)) or [10, Lemma 1 and Sect. 5]. \(\square \)
Let \(X=T^{\Delta }\) with \(\Delta < \frac{17}{33}\). We write
By a residue calculation, we see that
Applying this in Lemma 5 with \(HK=hk/(h,k)^2\), we obtain
where
By Rankin’s trick we see that
where
and
for any \(\alpha >0\). Using the approximation (5.2) in (5.1) and calculating the integral of the main term via residues at \(z_j=0\), we find that the leading term in (5.1) is of size
with the lower order terms involving partial derivatives of \(N_X(\underline{z})\). To estimate these we note
by Cauchy–Schwarz, (3.2) and (2.8). Note that the integrand of (5.1) is \(\ll (\log T)^3\) and so trivial estimation of the contribution from \(\mathcal {E}_X(\underline{z})\) to this integral gives
where \(\mathcal {E}(X)=\mathcal {E}_X(-2/\log T,-4/\log T)\). Now
which, similarly to (4.5), is o(1) on choosing \(\alpha =1/(\log \mathcal {L})^3\). Thus, we find that when \(L_i(s)=L(s,\chi )\),
which completes the proof of Proposition 3 for the case for Dirichlet L-functions after noting that the factor of \(\log T\) can be absorbed into the o(1) term in the product.
5.2 \(GL(2)\,L\)-functions
Here we are in the case where \(L_i=L(s,f)\) is the L-function of a primitive cusp form f. Let \(\Phi : {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) be a smooth function supported on [1/4, 2] satisfying \(\Phi (x)\geqslant 1\) on \(x\in [1,2]\) along with the bounds \(\Phi ^{(j)}(x)\ll (\log T)^{j}\) for each \(j\ge 0\).
Lemma 6
Let \(L(s,f)=\sum _{n\geqslant 1}\lambda _f(n)n^{-s}\) be the L-function of a Hecke newform (holomorphic or Maaß) of level N. Let \(\alpha , \beta \) be complex numbers satisfying \(\alpha , \beta \ll 1/\log T\). Let \((h,k)=1\) and \(\Phi \) be as above. Then we have
where \(L^*(s, f\otimes f)=\sum _{n}\lambda _f(n)^2 n^{-s}\) and
Proof
This follows from [2], which improves earlier results for the holomorphic case in [3, 31]. Using [2, Proposition 3.4], we have for \(|\alpha + \beta |\gg 1/\log T\)
where
with
and where \(g_{\alpha ,\beta }(s,t)\) and \(X_{\alpha ,\beta ,t}\) are ratios of gamma factors satisfying
(see e.g. Lemma 2 of [3]). Using the definition of \(V_{\alpha ,\beta }(x)\) and moving the m, n-sum inside, we encounter the Dirichlet series
since \((h,k)=1\). Using multiplicativity and Hecke relations (see e.g. [5, Proof of Lemma 7.9]), we see that
where \(L^*(s,f\otimes f)=\sum _{n\ge 1}\lambda _f(n)^2n^{-s}\). Shifting the contour to \(\Re (s)=-1/4+\epsilon \) we encounter a simple pole at \(s=0\) which gives the main term. The contribution from the remaining contour is seen to be \(\ll T^{1/2}(hk)^{-1/4+\theta +\epsilon }\) by (5.5), the rapid decay of G(s), the convexity bound \(L^*(1/2+\epsilon +iy,f\otimes f)\ll (1+|y|)^{1+\epsilon }\), and the bound
By analytic continuation, the result hold for \(\alpha , \beta \ll 1/\log T\). \(\square \)
To complete the proof of Proposition 3 for the case of GL(2) L-functions, we follow the same argument as before in the case for Dirichlet L-functions after replacing Lemma 5 by Lemma 6 and \(G_X(z_1, z_2)\) by
where \(Z_{z_1, z_2}\) is defined in (5.4). Note that we have
and that \(\lambda _f(p)(1-1/p)=a_i(p)(1+o(1))\) for large p. Thus, the main contribution to \(\mathcal {J}_i\) in this case, aside from some factors of \(\log T\) which can be absorbed into the o(1), is
as required. Again, the lower order terms coming from partial derivatives can be bounded similarly to (5.3) using Proposition 1 whilst the error from the tail sums \(h>X\), \(k>X\) are also of a lower order by similar arguments to before (again using Proposition 1).
6 Conditional upper bounds in t-aspect: Proof of Proposition 4
6.1 Upper bounds for the logarithm of the product of L-functions
Let \(\pi _i\) be irreducible unitary cuspidal automorphic representations of \(GL(d_i)\) over \({\mathbb {Q}}\) such that \(\pi _i\not \cong \pi _j\) for \(1\le i\not =j\le m\). For a given \(1\leqslant i\leqslant m\) write
so that
where
where \(a_{\pi }(n)\) are defined as in (2.3). The goal is to show that
We plan to compute the integral over t by using Harper’s method [17]. A key estimate will be
which follows by (2.8) and the assumption on \(\pi _j\). To measure the size of exceptional sets where Dirichlet polynomials obtain large values we need the following standard lemma.
Lemma 7
[45, Lemma 3] Let T be large and let \(2\leqslant x\leqslant T\). Let k be a natural number such that \(x^{k}\leqslant T\). Then for any complex numbers c(p) we have
To obtain an upper bound for \(|M|^2\) we apply the following generalisation of Soundararajan’s result for the Riemann zeta function [45, Proposition] due to Chandee [9].
Lemma 8
[9, Theorem 2.1] Assume GRH holds for \(L(s,\pi _j)\), \(1\leqslant j\leqslant m\), \(j\ne i\). Then for \(2\leqslant Z\leqslant T^2\) and \(t\in [T,2T]\) we have
for some positive constant \(C_M\) where
Since we are interested in extreme values, powers of \(\log T\) will not meaningfully affect our final bound and so we first trivially bound the sum over prime powers.
Lemma 9
Assume GRH holds for \(L(s,\pi _j)\), \(1\leqslant j\leqslant m\), \(j\ne i\) and that the generalised Ramanujan conjecture holds for \(L(s,\pi _j)\) if \(d_j\geqslant 4\). Then for \(2\leqslant Z\leqslant T^2\) and \(t\in [T,2T]\) we have
Proof
The terms in Lemma 8 with powers \(\ell >d^2+1\) with \(d=\max _j d_j\) are
which follows from (2.4) and the fact that \(b(p^\ell )=\sum _{j\ne i}a_{j}(p^\ell )\). For \(2\leqslant \ell \leqslant d^2+1\) we note that if \(d_j\leqslant 3\) then (2.6) gives
If \(d_j\geqslant 4\) then the generalised Ramanujan conjecture implies \(|a_j(p^\ell )|\leqslant d_j\). Thus the prime squares contribute
by (2.8) whilst by (2.4) we have
Since the Rankin–Selberg L-function is convergent for \(\sigma >1\), this last sum is bounded for \(\ell \geqslant 3\). \(\square \)
6.2 Initial splitting and the exceptional set
Following [17], the aim is to take a reasonably large Z in (6.2) and split the sum over primes into pieces with small variance so that for typical t their exponential can be approximated by a short truncated Taylor series. For us, the choice at where to begin this splitting is dictated by the support of the resonator coefficients, namely \(p\leqslant \exp ((\log \mathcal {L})^2)\)—the main interaction between M and the resonator will come from this piece. This gives a large chunk of primes in the first sum but as the following lemma shows, this is just about affordable and the exceptional set of large values of this sum is sufficiently small in measure.
Lemma 10
For \(Z\leqslant X\) let
Then
In particular, under the assumptions in Proposition 4 for \(X= T^{\Delta }\) with \(\Delta <1/2\), we have
Proof
By Lemma 7 along with (6.1) we have
for some C provided \(k\leqslant \frac{\log T}{(\log \mathcal {L})^2}\). Choosing \(k=\frac{\log T}{(\log \mathcal {L})^2}=4(1+o(1))\frac{\log T}{(\log _2 T)^2}\) this is
giving the first part of the lemma.
By Hölder’s inequality we have
on applying the conditional bound \(\int _{T}^{2T} |M(1/2+it)|^8dt\ll T(\log T)^{O(1)}\) which follows from [39].
By the mean value theorems for Dirichlet polynomials, for \(X\leqslant T^{1/2-\epsilon }\) we have
by (2.9). \(\square \)
6.3 Remaining splittings and an inequality for \(|M|^2\)
A key point is that on the set \([T,2T]\backslash E\) the exponential of the sum in the above lemma can be approximated by a short truncated Taylor series to give a Dirichlet polynomial of length \(\leqslant T^{1/10}\). Our choice of parameters throughout will be dictated by the need to have short Dirichlet polynomials whilst also having small exceptional sets.
For integer \(\mathfrak {i}\geqslant 0\) let
Let J be the minimal integer such that \(Z_J\geqslant \exp ({2}{C_M}\sqrt{\log T\log _2 T\log _3 T})\), so that \( J=(\tfrac{1}{2}+o(1))\log \log T\) and note
By a slight abuse of notation we write \(w_{Z_\mathfrak {j}}(p)\) as \(w_\mathfrak {j}(p)\). Let
so that
Set
We remark that \(P_{\mathfrak {i},\mathfrak {j}}(t)^{10\ell _\mathfrak {i}}\) is a Dirichlet polynomial of length \(Z_{\mathfrak {i}}^{10\ell _{\mathfrak {i}}}=T^{e^{-\mathfrak {i}/4}/10}\). By Lemma 7 and (6.1) the measure of the set where \(|P_{\mathfrak {i},\mathfrak {j}}(t)|\geqslant \ell _\mathfrak {i}\) is, for any \(k\leqslant \log T/(e^\mathfrak {i}(\log \mathcal {L})^2)\),
for some constants \(c,c^\prime \) on choosing \(k=r_\mathfrak {i}\) (we don’t choose k as large as possible because we will need shorter Dirichlet polynomials later and this bound is sufficient). Note this bound kills
which will be the extra term acquired from applying the inequality (6.2) at the \(\mathfrak {i}\)th step. As a final remark on our parameter choices: the reason for factor \(e^{-5\mathfrak {i}/4}\) in \(\ell _{\mathfrak {i}}\) is, first of all, so that we have a polynomial of length \(T^{e^{-\mathfrak {i}/4}/10}\) which, after taking the product over all \(\mathfrak {i}\), is still short (see (6.8) below). A factor of \(e^{-c\mathfrak {i}}\), \(c>1\), is required to have the decay in the exponent of T however if \(c>3/2\) then \(\ell _J\) would not be large enough to guarantee (6.3). The reason for the factor of \(e^{-\mathfrak {i}}\) in \(r_\mathfrak {i}\) is so that (6.3) is comparable with (6.4) for all \(\mathfrak {i}\).
Now, by Stirling’s formula for \(|z|\leqslant L\) we have
Therefore, if \(|P_{\mathfrak {i},\mathfrak {j}}(t)|\leqslant \ell _i\) we have
The multinomial theorem gives
where
are the completely multiplicative extensions of b(p) and \(w_\mathfrak {j}(p)\) to the integers and \(\mathfrak {g}\) is the multiplicative function for which
Thus, if we denote
then on such a set of t we have
Accordingly, if t is such that \(|{P}_{\mathfrak {i},\mathfrak {j}}(t)|\leqslant \ell _\mathfrak {i}\) for all \(0\leqslant \mathfrak {i}\leqslant \mathfrak {j}\) then
since \(\sum _{\mathfrak {i}=0}^\mathfrak {j}e^{-9\ell _\mathfrak {i}}=o(1)\). We note that the right hand side is a Dirichlet polynomial of length
We can now state an upper bound for the \(|M(\tfrac{1}{2}+it)|\) in terms of these short Dirichlet polynomials.
Lemma 11
Assume GRH for \(L(s,\pi _j)\) for \(1\leqslant j\leqslant m\) and let \(t\in [T,2T]\). Then either
for some \(0\leqslant \mathfrak {j}\leqslant J\) or
Proof
Suppose \(|{P}_{0,\mathfrak {j}}(t)|<\ell _0\). For \(0\leqslant \mathfrak { j}\leqslant J-1\) let
and
Then since \([T,2T]=\cup _{\mathfrak {j}=0}^J S(\mathfrak {j})\), for \(t\in [T,2T]\) we have
where
We apply Corollary 9 to each M on the right hand side of (6.9). If \(t\in S_l(\mathfrak {j})\) then we take \(Z=Z_\mathfrak {j}\) to give
For the first sum over primes in the exponential we apply (6.7). To capture the small size of the set, we multiply by
If \(t\in S(J)\) then we omit this last step. \(\square \)
6.4 Applying the inequality
We apply Lemma 11 to compute
By Lemma 10 we may disregard the t for which \(|P_{0,\mathfrak {j}}(t)|>\ell _0\) since this gives a contribution o(T). By Lemma 11 the integral over the remaining set is then
To facilitate computations we note the following general observations. Suppose we are given R sets \(\mathcal {S}_j\subset \mathbb {N}\) and Dirichlet polynomials
where the \(\prod _{j=1}^{R} n_j\leqslant M=o(T)\) for all \(n_j \in {{\mathcal {S}}}_j\). Then by the mean value theorems for Dirichlet polynomials we have
If for any \(j_1,j_2\) with \(j_1\ne j_2\) the elements of \(\mathcal {S}_{j_1}\) are all coprime to the elements of \(\mathcal {S}_{j_2}\) then there is at most one way to write \(n= \prod _{j=1}^{R} n_j\) with \(n_j \in {{\mathcal {S}}}_j\) and so
Since \(\prod _{\mathfrak {i}=0}^JN_{\mathfrak {i}, \mathfrak {j}}(t)\) is a Dirichlet polynomial of length \(\leqslant T^{1/2}\) by (6.8) and R(t) is a Dirichlet polynomial of length \(X=T^\Delta \) with \(\Delta <1/2\), we can apply the above observations so that (6.10) becomes
Note that, by (6.3) and (6.4) we have
Since the number of terms in the sum over \(\mathfrak {j},l\) along with the \((\log T)^{O(1)}\) term can be absorbed into this exponential, we arrive at
6.5 Computing the mean values
It remains to compute
Applying the mean value theorem for Dirichlet polynomials we have
and
with
where we recall the definition of these coefficients from (6.5), (6.6).
Now,
by (6.1). It thus suffices to show
Assuming this for the moment, plugging (6.12) and (6.13) into (6.11) gives
and Proposition 4 follows.
To prove (6.13) we apply Rankin’s trick to find that the sum on the left there is for any \(\alpha >0\),
by symmetry.
The main term here is
where
by (6.1) and
by (2.4). Since \(B(p)=1+o(1)\) for p in the support of r and \((\log Z_0)^{m-1}\) can be absorbed into this o(1) term of the exponential, it remains to show that the error terms of (6.14) are of a lower order than this.
With a similar calculation the first error term there is
Since \(|r(p)|^2, r(p)b(p)=o(1)\) in the support of \(r(\cdot )\) as in (3.2), the ratio of this to the main term is then
on recalling that \(\ell _0=\log T/100(\log \mathcal {L})^2\asymp \log T/(\log _2 T)^2\) and noting that the sum in the exponential is \(\ll \sqrt{\log T/\log _2 T}\).
The second error term is
The ratio of this to the main term is
for \(\alpha =1/(\log \mathcal {L})^3\). The usual computations, as in (4.6), show this is o(1).
7 Simultaneous extreme values of twists of GL(2) cusp forms: Proof of Theorem 2
Let f, g be a fixed primitive (holomorphic or Maaß) cusp forms with respect to \(\Gamma _0(r)\) and \(\Gamma _0(r')\) with trivial central character. As before, if we can find \(R(\chi )\) and V such that
with \(*\) meaning the sum is over primitive characters modulo q and \(\phi ^*(q)=q-2\), then we must have
To estimate these mean values we follow [5] quite closely and so retain some of their methods, notation and set-up for ease of comparison, although it may differ from our previous sections slightly.
We consider the sum on the left hand side of (7.1) first. From Cauchy’s inequality we have
Thus it make sense to choose \(R(\chi )\) such that \(|L(1/2,f\otimes \chi )L(1/2,g\otimes \chi )|\) is large and we follow the choice of \(R(\chi )\) in [5, Sect. 7.5.1].
Let \(\lambda _f^*, \lambda _g^*\) be multiplicative functions supported on squarefree positive integers defined by \(\lambda _f^*(p)=(1-1/p)^{-1}(\lambda _f(p)-\lambda _g(p)/p)\) and \(\lambda _g^*(p)=(1-1/p)^{-1}(\lambda _g(p)-\lambda _f(p)/p)\). For \(u\geqslant 1\) some parameter depending only on f and g, let
Define
Let
and
where
and
for some constant \(a_\omega \) as in [5, Eq. (7.55)]
Fixing an arbitrary \(\delta >0\) and \(N\leqslant q^{1/360-\delta }\) we have that using [5, Lemmas 7.19, 7.10]
and using [5, Lemmas 7.19, 7.12, 7.14] there exists a squarefree integer \(u\ge 1\) coprime to \(rr'\) such that
where \(L^*(s,f\otimes g)\) is as in [5, Eq. (2.7)], \(\nu \not =0\) is a constant depending on f, g only. As in [5], the \(\chi (u)\) is introduced to break the symmetry of \(\chi \) and \(\overline{\chi }\). Since \(|\chi (u)|\leqslant 1\) and \(L^*(f\otimes g, 1)\not =0\) ( [5, Lemma 2.6]) we see that
We now turn to getting an upper bound for the mean squares on the right of (7.1). Similarly to the proof of [5, Lemma 7.9], we have for \((\ell , \ell ')=(\ell \ell ', qrr')=1\), \(\ell ,\ell '\leqslant L\),
where
Here \(G(u)=\cos (\frac{\pi u}{4A})^{-16 A}\) for some \(A\ge 2\) and \(L_\infty (f, \pm , s)=L_\infty (f\otimes \chi , s)\) for \(\chi (-1)=\pm 1\) (see [5, Lemma 2.1] for definitions of \(L_\infty (f\otimes \chi , s)\)). Shifting the contour of integration to \(\Re (u)=-\frac{1}{4}+\epsilon \), we encounter a double pole at \(u=0\) so that
using [5, Eq. (2.9)] for \({\text {Res}}_{s=1}L^*(f\otimes f, 1)\) and
Therefore, we have that
where \(A_f=\frac{L^*({\text {Sym}}^2f, 1)}{\prod _{p\mid r}(1+p^{-1})\zeta (2)}+C_f+2\log |r|\). It follows that
Note from the support of \(\varpi \) in (7.2), we have \(0\leqslant \varpi (p)\lambda _f^*(p)=\omega _1'(p)\) and thus
Therefore
With the current choice of \(\varpi , N\), we also have that
which together with \(\varpi (\ell )\lambda _f^*(\ell )\ge 0\) gives
Therefore, we have
Combining (7.4) and (7.5), we can choose
We have from [5, Proof of Lemma 7.5] that
Since \(\lambda _f^*(p)\lambda _g^*(p)(\lambda _f^*(p)+\lambda _g^*(p))\lambda _f^*(p), \lambda _f^*(p)\lambda _g^*(p)(\lambda _f^*(p)+\lambda _g^*(p))\lambda _g^*(p)\leqslant 0\) when \(p\not \in {\mathcal {G}}\), we have
for some positive \(c=2n_{2,2}+2n_{1,3}\) using the notation for \(n_{i,j}\) in [5, Corollary 2.17]. Thus we see that for every prime q sufficiently large depending on f, g, there exists a non-trivial character \(\chi \bmod q\) such that
for some positive \(c_{f,g}\). With \(N=q^{1/360-\delta }\), we can take the constant
In a generic situation, as in [5, Remark 7.20], i.e. where neither f nor g are of polyhedral type (in particular \({\text {Sym}}^{\textrm{k}}f, {\text {Sym}}^kg\) are cuspidal for all \(k\le 4\)) and if \({\text {Sym}}^k \pi _f\not \cong {\text {Sym}}^k \pi _g\) for \(k\leqslant 4\), we see that
8 Simultaneous small values of quadratic twists: Proof of Theorem 4
Let f, g be holomorphic cusp forms of weight \(\kappa \equiv 0 \bmod 4\) for \(SL_2({\mathbb {Z}})\) and let \(\chi _{d}(n)=\big (\frac{d}{n}\big )\) be the Kronecker symbol. Due to the non-negativity of \(L(1/2,f\otimes \chi _{d})\), small values of \(L(1/2,f\otimes \chi _{d})+L(1/2,g\otimes \chi _{d})\) implies simultaneous small values of \(L(1/2, f\otimes \chi _{d})\) and \(L(1/2, g\otimes \chi _{d})\). Let \(\Phi (x):(0, \infty )\rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\) be a smooth, compactly supported function. From [43, Theorem 1.4], we have for square-free \(\ell \)
where the \(*\) now denotes a sum over squarefree integers and
We write \(L(1,{\text {Sym}}^2f)Z(1/2,\ell )=: L(1,{\text {Sym}}^2 f)Z(1/2, 1) \prod _{p\mid \ell }h_f(p)\) so that
Thus for \(R(\chi _{8d})=\sum _{n\le N}\mu (n)r(n)\varpi (n)\chi _{8d}(n)\) with \(r, \varpi \) real multiplicative functions supported on squarefree integers
where \(\omega (n)=|\varpi (n)|^2\) and \(\omega _1'(n)=\varpi (n)h_f(n)\). A similar expression holds when f is replaced by g. Now it remains to find r(n) and \(\varpi (n)\).
As usual, let r(n) be multiplicative supported on squarefrees and satisfying (7.3) with \(\mathcal {L}=\sqrt{a_{\omega }\log N\log \log N}\) where \(a_\omega \) is defined as in [5, Eq. (7.2)]. Let \( \tilde{{\mathcal {G}}}:=\{n\ge 1: h_f(n)h_g(n)\not =0, {\text {sgn}}(h_f(n))={\text {sgn}}(h_g(n))\} \) and define \(\varpi \) as
Then similarly as before, we can evaluate the \(d, n_1, n_2\)-sum in (8.1) as
With \(N=X^{1/5-\delta }\) we see that (8.1) becomes
By standard computations (e.g. see [44]), we have
for some positive constant c.
Thus, since \(h_f(p)=\lambda _f(p)+O(p^{-1+\theta })\) with \(\theta =7/64\), we have from [5, Corollary 2.17, Lemma 7.19, Proof of Lemma 7.5] that our ratio of mean values is
with \(n_{i,j}\) defined as in [5, Corollary 2.17]. Therefore, we see that there exists d such that
where positive \({\tilde{c}}_{f,g}=\frac{\min \big (n_{3,1}, n_{1,3}\big )+n_{2,2}}{\sqrt{a_\omega }}+o(1)>0\). In a generic situation, where neither f nor g are of polyhedral type (in particular \({\text {Sym}}^{\textrm{k}}f, {\text {Sym}}^kg\) are cuspidal for all \(k\le 4\)) and if \({\text {Sym}}^k \pi _f\not \cong {\text {Sym}}^k \pi _g\) for \(k\le 4\), then \({\tilde{c}}_{f,g}=1+o(1)\) using [5, Eq. (7.55)] for \(a_\omega \).
Data availability
This article has no associated data.
Notes
This requirement can be weakened slightly; the method applies as long as the resultant mean values contain non-negative terms. See the proof of Theorem 1.5 of [12] for example.
For example, from the work of Iwaniec–Sarnak [23] we know that if the small values of L(1/2, f) and \(L(1/2,f\otimes \chi _d)\) do not know about each other (in a specified sense) then one can rule out the existence of Landau–Siegel zeros.
References
Aistleitner, C.: Pańkowski, Ł: Large values of \(L\)-functions from the Selberg class. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 446, 345–364 (2017)
Andersen, N., Thorner, J.: Zeros of \(GL_2\)\(L\)-functions on the critical line. Forum Math. 3(2), 477–491 (2021)
Bernard, D.: Modular case of Levinson’s theorem. Acta Arith. 167(3), 201–237 (2015)
Bettin, S., Bui, H.M., Li, X., Radziwiłł, M.: A quadratic divisor problem and moments of the Riemann zeta-function. Preprint. Available at arXiv:1609.02539
Blomer, V., Fouvry, E., Kowalski, E., Michel, P., Milićević, D., Sawin, W.: The second moment theory of families of \(L\)-functions, Mem. AMS 282 no.1394 (2023)
Bombieri, E., Hejhal, D.A.: On the distribution of zeros of linear combinations of Euler products. Duke Math. J. 80(3), 821–862 (1995)
Bondarenko, A., Darbar, P., Hagen, M.V., Heap, W., Seip, K.: A dichotomy for extreme values of zeta and Dirichlet \(L\)-functions. Preprint arxiv:2302.08285
Bondarenko, A., Seip, K.: Large greatest common divisor sums and extreme values of the Riemann zeta function. Duke Math. J. 166(9), 1685–1701 (2017)
Chandee, V.: Explicit upper bounds for \(L\)-functions on the critical line. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 137(12), 4049–4063 (2009)
Conrey, J.B.: More than two fifths of the zeros of the Riemann zeta function are on the critical line. J. Reine Angew. Math. 339, 1–26 (1989)
David, C., Florea, A., Lalin, M.: Non-vanishing of cubic \(L\)-functions. Forum Math. Sigma 9, 58 (2021)
de la Bretèche, R., Tenenbaum, G.: Sommes de Gál et applications. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 119, 104–134 (2019)
Duke, W.: The critical order of vanishing of automorphic \(L\)-functions with large level. Invent. Math. 119, 165–174 (1995)
Gao, P., Zhao, L.: Bounds for moments of cubic and quartic Dirichlet \(L\)-functions. Indag. Math. 33(6), 1263–1296 (2022)
Gelbart, S., Jacquet, H.: A relation between automorphic representations of GL(2) and GL(3). Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) 11(4), 471–552 (1978)
Gun, S., Kohnen, W., Soundararajan, K.: Large Fourier coefficients of half-integer weight modular forms. Preprint arXiv:2004.14450 to appear in Amer. J. Math. https://preprint.press.jhu.edu/ajm/article/large-fourier-coefficients-half-integer-weight-modular-forms
Harper, A.: Sharp conditional bounds for moments of the Riemann zeta function. Preprint arXiv:1305.4618
Heap, W.: The twisted second moment of the dedekind zeta function of a quadratic field. Int. J. Number Theory 10(1), 235–281 (2014)
Heap, W.: Moments of the Dedekind zeta function and other non-primitive \(L\)-functions. Math. Proc. Cam. Phil. Soc. 170(1), 191–219 (2021)
Heap, W., Soundararajan, K.: Lower bounds for moments of zeta and \(L\)-functions revisited. Mathematika 68(1), 1–14 (2022)
Hughes, C.P., Young, M.P.: The twisted fourth moment of the Riemann zeta function. J. Reine Angew. Math. 641, 203–236 (2010)
Iwaniec, H., Kowalski, E.: Analytic Number Theory. American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, vol. 53. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2004)
Iwaniec, H., Sarnak, P.: The non-vanishing of central values of automorphic \(L\)-functions and Landau-Siegel zeros. Isr. J. Math. 120, 155–177 (2000)
Inoue, S., Li, J.: Joint value distribution of \(L\)-functions on the critical line. Preprint arxiv:2102.12724
Inoue, S., Li, J.: Simultaneous large values and dependence of Dirichlet \(L\)-functions in the critical strip. Preprint arxiv:2211.15165
Jiang, Y., Lü, G.: Fourth power moment of coefficients of automorphic \(L\)-functions for \(GL(m)\). Forum Math. 29(5), 1199–1212 (2017)
Kim, H.: A note on Fourier coefficients of cusp forms on \(GL_n\). Forum Math. 18(1), 115–119 (2006)
Kim, H.: Functoriality for the exterior square of \(GL_4\) and the symmetric fourth of \(GL_2\). J. Am. Math. Soc. 16(1), 139–183 (2003)
Kohnen, W., Zagier, D.: Values of L-series of modular forms at the center of the critical strip. Invent. Math. 64, 175–198 (1981)
Kowalski, E., Michel, P., VanderKam, J.: Mollification of the fourth moment of automorphic \(L\)-functions and arithmetic applications. Invent. Math. 142, 95–151 (2000)
Kühn, P., Robles, N., Zeindler, D.: On mean values of mollifiers and \(L\)-functions associated to primitive cusp forms. Math. Z. 291, 661–709 (2019)
Lester, S., Radziwiłł, M.: Signs of Fourier coefficients of half-integral weight modular forms. Math. Ann. 379, 1553–1604 (2021)
Li, X.: Moments of quadratic twists of modular \(L\)-functions. Preprint arxiv:2208.07343
Liu, J., Wang, Y., Ye, Y.: A proof of Selberg’s orthogonality for automorphic \(L\)-functions. Manuscr. Math. 118, 135–149 (2005)
Liu, J., Ye, Y.B.: Selberg’s orthogonality conjecture for automorphic \(L\)-functions. Am. J. Math. 127(4), 837–849 (2005)
Liu, J., Ye, Y.B.: Zeros of automorphic \(L\)-functions and noncyclic base change. Number Theory. Dev. Math. 15, 119–152 (2006)
Liu, J., Ye, Y.: Perron’s formula and the prime number theorem for automorphic \(L\)-functions. Pure Appl. Math. Quart. 3(2), 481–497 (2007)
Mahatab, K., Pańkowski, L., Vatwani, A.: Joint Extreme values of \(L\)-functions. Math. Z. 302(2), 1177–1190 (2022)
Milinovich, M., Turnage-Butterbaugh, C.: Moments of products of automorphic \(L\)-functions. J. Number Theory 139, 175–204 (2014)
Munshi, R.: A note on simultaneous nonvanishing twists. J. Number Theory 132(4), 666–674 (2012)
Rudnick, Z., Sarnak, P.: Zeros of principal \(L\)-functions and random matrix theory. Duke Math. J. 81(2), 269–322 (1996)
Selberg, A.: Old and new conjectures and results about a class of Dirichlet series. In: Collected Papers, vol. II, pp. 47–63. Springer, Berlin (1991)
Shen, Q.: The first moment of quadratic twists of modular \(L\)-functions. Acta Arith. 206(4), 313–337 (2022)
Soundararajan, K.: Extreme values of zeta and \(L\)-functions. Math. Ann. 342, 467–486 (2008)
Soundararajan, K.: Moments of the Riemann zeta function. Ann. Math. 170(2), 981–993 (2009)
Waldspurger, J.-L.: Sur les coefficients de Fourier des forms modulaires de poids demi-entier. J. Math. Pures Appl. 60, 375–484 (1981)
Wu, X.: The twisted mean square and critical zeros of Dirichlet \(L\)-functions. Math. Z. 293, 825–865 (2019)
Zacharias, R.: Simultaneous non-vanishing for Dirichlet \(L\)-functions. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 69(4), 1459–1524 (2019)
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Edgar Assing and Peter Humphries for helpful discussions and Jesse Thorner for valuable remarks on a preliminary version of this paper. We would also like to thank the referee for helpful comments and suggestions on improving the exposition of the paper.
Funding
Open access funding provided by NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology (incl St. Olavs Hospital - Trondheim University Hospital).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no Conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Heap, W., Li, J. Simultaneous extreme values of zeta and L-functions. Math. Ann. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-024-02892-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-024-02892-y