Abstract
We show that arithmetic lattices in \(\textrm{SL}_{2}(\mathbb {R})\), stemming from the proper units of an Eichler order in an indefinite quaternion algebra over \(\mathbb {Q}\), admit a ‘small’ covering set. In particular, we give bounds on the diameter if the quotient space is cocompact. Consequently, we show that these lattices admit small generators. Our techniques also apply to definite quaternion algebras where we show Ramanujanstrength bounds on the diameter of certain Ramanujan graphs without the use of the Ramanujan bound.
1 Introduction
Let B be an indefinite quaternion algebra over \(\mathbb {Q}\) of reduced discriminant^{Footnote 1}D and \(R \subset B\) be an Eichler order of level Q, that is an order R such that locally for each prime and for \(p \div D\) \(R_p\) is the unique maximal order in \(B_p\). Let \(\Gamma \) be the subset of proper units (elements of norm one) of R. Further, fix an isomorphism \(B(\mathbb {R})\) with the matrix algebra \(\mathop {\text {Mat}}_{2 \times 2}(\mathbb {R})\).^{Footnote 2} In the case where B is already split over \(\mathbb {Q}\) (\(D=1\)), we may choose this identification such that
is the familiar congruence lattice. Under the identification of \(B(\mathbb {R})\), \(\Gamma \) is a lattice in \(\mathop {\text {SL}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})\) of covolume \(V_{\Gamma } = (DQ)^{1+o(1)}\). Furthermore, \(\Gamma \) is cocompact if and only if \(B(\mathbb {Q})\) is a division algebra \((D \ne 1)\). We refer to [4] for further details on the above.
A typical example of a fundamental domain for the action of \(\Gamma \) on the homogeneous space\({\mathop {\text {SL}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})}/{\mathop {\text {SO}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})} \cong \mathbb {H}\), the upper halfplane, is a normal polygon, also known as a Dirichlet domain, which is given as follows. Let \(w \in \mathbb {H}\) be a point whose stabiliser \(\Gamma _w\) in \(\Gamma \) consists only of plus and minus the identity element. Then, the normal polygon with centre w is given by
where d denotes the hyperbolic distance. If B is split and \(\Gamma = \Gamma _0(Q)\), then another typical example of a fundamental domain is given by the standard polygon:
also referred to as a Ford domain. The sides of these polygons may be paired up such that the corresponding sidepairing motions together with \(I\) generate the group \(\Gamma \) [12, Chap. 2]. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the ‘size’ of these fundamental domains, e.g. the diameter of \({\Gamma }\backslash {\mathbb {H}}\) if the latter is compact, are related to the size of generators of \(\Gamma \). Algorithms to compute fundamental domains and, subsequently, a set of generators have been devised by Johansson [14], Voight [32], and subsequently improved by Rickards [26] if \(\Gamma \) is cocompact, and Kurth–Long [18] if \(\Gamma \) is a finite index subgroup of \(\mathop {\text {SL}}_{2}(\mathbb {Z})\) through the use of Farey symbols [17]. In the latter case, further algorithms based on the Reidemeister–Schreier process [25, 30] are available to determine an independent set of generators for \(\Gamma (p)\), where p is a prime, by Frasch [8], for \(\Gamma _0(p)\) by Rademacher [23], and for \(\Gamma _0(Q)\), for general \(Q\in \mathbb {N}\), by Chuman [3]. Albeit the former algorithms due Johansson, Voight, Rickards, and Kurth–Long work well in practise, they don’t give any answer to the question regarding the asymptotic size of the (produced) generators and, thus, an upper bound on their time complexity. The algorithms based on the Reidemeister–Schreier process do give an explicit set of generators whose elements are of polynomial size in the covolume, but they are far from the generating set whose elements are of least size. Stronger results in that direction were given by Khoai [16], who showed that \(\Gamma _0(Q)\) is generated by elements of Frobenius norm bounded by \(O(Q^2)\), respectively O(Q) if Q is a prime power, and Chu–Li [2] who managed to show that \(\Gamma \) cocompact is generated by its elements of Frobenius norm bounded by \(O_{\epsilon }(V_{\Gamma }^{2.56+\epsilon })\).^{Footnote 3} In this paper, we shall prove the following theorems.
Theorem 1
\(\Gamma _0(Q)\) is generated by its elements of Frobenius norm \(O_{\epsilon }(Q^{1+\epsilon })\).
Theorem 2
Let \(\Gamma \subset \mathop {\text {SL}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})\) be a cocompact arithmetic lattice of covolume \(V_{\Gamma }\) stemming from the proper units of an Eichler order R of level Q in a quaternion algebra B over \(\mathbb {Q}\) of reduced discriminant D. Then, for almost every \(\sigma \in {\Gamma }\backslash {\mathop {\text {SL}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})}\), \(\sigma ^{1}\Gamma \sigma \) is generated by its elements of Frobenius norm \(O_{\epsilon }(V_{\Gamma }^{2+\epsilon })\). In other words, almost every embedding \(\Gamma \) of the proper units of the order R into \(\mathop {\text {SL}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})\) is generated by its elements of Frobenius norm \(O_{\epsilon }(V_{\Gamma }^{2+\epsilon })\). If one assumes either of the following conditions:

Q is squarefree,

Selberg’s eigenvalue conjecture for \(\Gamma _0(DQ)\),

the supnorm conjecture in the level aspect for exceptional eigenforms on \({\Gamma }\backslash {\mathop {\text {SL}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})}/{\mathop {\text {SO}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})}\),
then, \(\Gamma \) is in fact generated by its elements of Frobenius norm \(O_{\epsilon }(V_{\Gamma }^{2+\epsilon })\) regardless of the embedding.
Theorem 1 follows from carefully bounding the standard polygon (1.2) by isometric circles of large radius. This is layed out in Sect. 3. Theorem 2 follows from showing that the normal polygon (1.1) is contained in a ball of small radius.
Theorem 3
Let \(\Gamma \subset \mathop {\text {SL}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})\) be a cocompact arithmetic lattice of covolume \(V_{\Gamma }\) stemming from the proper units of an Eichler order R of level Q in a quaternion algebra B over \(\mathbb {Q}\) of reduced discriminant D. Then, for every \(\eta >0\), satisfies
with probability \(1o(1)\) as \(V_{\Gamma } \rightarrow \infty \). Suppose either of the following statements is true:

Q is squarefree,

Selberg’s eigenvalue conjecture for \(\Gamma _0(DQ)\), or

the supnorm conjecture in the level aspect for exceptional eigenforms on
.
Then, for every \(\eta > 0\) and \(w \in \mathbb {H}\), satisfies
with probability \(1o(1)\) as \(V_{\Gamma } \rightarrow \infty \). In particular, the diameter of the hyperbolic surface is bounded by \((2+o(1)) \log 3 V_{\Gamma }\) as \(V_{\Gamma } \rightarrow \infty \).
The bound (1.4) for the almost diameter is sharp and one may speculate whether the actual diameter is around the same length. The latter would imply that the cocompact lattices under consideration are generated by its elements of norm \(O_{\epsilon }(V_{\Gamma }^{1+\epsilon })\) and thus would bring it onto equal footing with Theorem 1. We should further remark that the bound depends on some Siegelzero estimates and is, thus, not effective, respectively, can be made effective with at most one exception.
In order to prove Theorem 2, one could make use of Ratner’s exponential mixing for \(\mathop {\text {SL}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})\) [24]. This approach was taken by Chu–Li [2], who showed (1.3) for every \(w \in \mathbb {H}\) with 2 replaced by 2.56. Instead, we simplify the argument a bit by using the operator which averages over a sphere of a given radius. The latter operator was employed by Golubev–Kamber [10] who showed, amongst many results of related nature, that the almost diameter under the Selberg eigenvalue conjecture is bounded by \(\log (3V_{\Gamma })+(2+o(1))\log \log (9V_{\Gamma })\) under the mild assumption that \({\Gamma }\backslash {\mathbb {H}}\) has not too many points of small injectivity radius.
Our improvement compared to previous results comes from the incorporation of a density estimate for exceptional eigenvalues as well as the newly available fourth moment bound for Maass forms in the level aspect by Khayutin–Nelson–Steiner [15].
At last, we would also like to touch on the closely related problem of bounding the diameter of expander graphs. A rich family of expander graphs, socalled Ramanujan graphs, may be constructed from arithmetic data associated to definite quaternion algebras [20, 22]. These Ramanujan graphs (by definition) enjoy a large spectral gap, which in turn yields a small upper bound on the diameter. The incorporation of a density estimate for large eigenvalues for (homogeneous) expander graphs has proved valuable in showing that they admit a smaller diameter than what could be directly inferred from their spectral gap [9]. In Sect. 4, we demonstrate the usefulness of the fourth moment bound of Khayutin–Nelson–Steiner [15] also in the context of expander graphs, by proving upper bounds on the diameter of certain Ramanujan graphs without the use of the Ramanujan bound which are of equal strength.
2 Cocompact lattices
Write \(G=\mathop {\text {SL}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})\) and \(K=\mathop {\text {SO}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})\) for short. Let \(\mu \) denote the Haar measure on G normalised such that \(\text {d}\mu (n(x)a(y)k(\theta ))=\frac{1}{y^2}\text {d}x\text {d}y\text {d}\theta \), where
Let \(\Gamma \) be a cocompact lattice as in Sect. 1. Denote by \(V_{\Gamma }\) the covolume of \(\Gamma \) with respect to \(\mu \). Further, \(\mu \) descends to a finite measure \(\nu \) on \({\Gamma }\backslash {G}\), which we normalise to a probability measure. With \(\nu _{\star }\) we denote the push forward of \(\nu \) to \({\Gamma }\backslash {G}/{K}\). Let \(\{u_j\}_j\) be an orthonormal basis of Hecke–Maass forms on \(L^2({\Gamma }\backslash {G}/{K},\nu _{\star })\), which we may also regard as an orthonormal basis of the Kinvariant subspace of \(L^2({\Gamma }\backslash {G},\nu )\). We denote the Laplace eigenvalue of \(u_j\) with \(\lambda _j=(\frac{1}{4}+t_j^2)\), where \(t_j \in \mathbb {R} \cup i[0,\frac{1}{2}]\). We let d denote the hyperbolic distance on the upper halfplane \(\mathbb {H} \cong {G}/{K}\) and u the related quantity
We note that
where g is any matrix that takes z to w and \(u:G \rightarrow \mathbb {R}^+_0\) is left and right Kinvariant. Let \(S: \mathbb {R}^{+}_0 \rightarrow [0,1]\) be a smooth bump function supported on \([0,\delta ]\) for some small \(\delta >0\), such that its Selberg/HarishChandra transform:
is nonnegative and
where the implied constants may depend on \(\delta \). We note that
Let
where \(S(u(g_2^{1}g_1))\) is a pointpair invariant, and thus we get the spectral expansion (cf. [12, Theorem 1.14])
\(B_g:=B(g,\cdot )\) will take the role of a smooth right Kinvariant ball on \({\Gamma }\backslash {G}\). The following lemma is of crucial importance. Essentially, it says that \(B_g\) may be compared to an Euclidean ball.
Lemma 4
Suppose \(\delta \) is sufficiently small but (strictly) positive. Then, we have for any \(g_1 \in G\) that
where the implied constant may depend on \(\delta \).
Proof
We have
where the convolution is taken on G. We note that \((S \circ u) \star (S \circ u)\) is bounded for fixed \(\delta \). Moreover, it is supported on \(g \in G\) with \(u(g) \le 4\delta (1+\delta )\). We now note that \(u(g) \ge \frac{(\mathop {\text {tr}}g)^2}{4}1\). Thus, if \(\delta \) is sufficiently small the sum over all hyperbolic \(\gamma \in \Gamma \) is zero since for those \(\mathop {\text {tr}}\gamma \) is at least 3. Now again for \(\delta \) sufficiently small, by the Margulis’ Lemma (cf. [7, Sect. 3.1]), the subgroup \({\widetilde{\Gamma }}\) generated by the remaining \(\gamma \) for which \(u(g_1^{1}\gamma g_1) \le 4\delta (1+\delta )\) is virtually abelian and in particular of one of the following types:

(i)
An infinite cyclic group generated by an hyperbolic or parabolic isometry;

(ii)
A finite cyclic group generated by an elliptic isometry;

(iii)
An infinite dihedral group generated by two elliptic isometries of order 2.
The first case only contains the elliptic elements plus minus the identity. In the second case, \({\widetilde{\Gamma }}\) is finite and of order bounded by 6 as the characteristic polynomial is a cyclotomic polynomial of degree at most two over \(\mathbb {Q}\). In the third case, the subgroup \({\widetilde{\Gamma }}\) fixes a geodesic and all elliptic elements not equal to plus minus the identity fix a single point on this geodesic (and perform a rotation by \(\pi \) around the point). These fixpoints are evenly spread along the geodesic by the distance corresponding to the translation of the minimal hyperbolic element in \({\widetilde{\Gamma }}\). Thus, if \(\delta \) is small enough, there are at most four elliptic elements \(\gamma \in {\widetilde{\Gamma }}\) such \(u(g_1^{1}\gamma g_1) \le 4\delta (1+\delta )\). We conclude the lemma. \(\square \)
We now get to the heart of the argument. We shall use an averaging operator which averages over a sphere of radius T:
where \(g_z\) is any matrix that takes i to z.
We shall prove the following proposition.
Proposition 5
For \(T\ge 1\), we have
Assume either of the following conditions:

Q is squarefree,

Selberg’s eigenvalue conjecture for \(\Gamma _0(DQ)\),

the supnorm conjecture in the level aspect for exceptional eigenforms on \({\Gamma }\backslash {\mathop {\text {SL}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})}/{\mathop {\text {SO}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})}\),
then we have the stronger bound
Before proceeding with the proof of the proposition, we shall show how Theorem 3 follows from it. The first half of the Theorem follows from choosing \(T=(2+o(1)) \log 3 V_{\Gamma }\) in (2.4). As the main term
it follows that \(\langle A_T B_{g_1}, B_{g_2} \rangle >0\) for most \(g_1\). In order to prove the second half of the theorem, we shall use (2.5) with \(T_0=(1+o(1)) \log 3 V_{\Gamma }\). We then find
Proof of Proposition 5
We first note that each \(u_i\) is an eigenfunction of \(A_T\) with eigenvalue \({}_2F_1(\frac{1}{2}it_i,\frac{1}{2}+it_i;1;\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\cosh (T))=P_{\frac{1}{2}it_i}(\cosh (T))\), cf. [12, Corollary 1.13]. We have that this eigenvalue is bounded by
cf. [10, Props. 2.3 & 7.2]. Hence, after referring to the spectral expansion (2.3), we find that
for any two \(g_1,g_2 \in G\) and \(T \ge 1\). We note that the second smallest eigenvalue \(\lambda _1 \ge \frac{3}{16}\), due to Selberg [31] and the Jacquet–Langlands correspondence [13]. By Lemma 4, we find that the second error term is bounded by \(O(T\textrm{e}^{\frac{T}{2}} V_{\Gamma }^{1})\). It remains to deal with the first error term. By Cauchy–Schwarz, we may estimate
Thus, we find
The sum over the exceptional eigenvalues we may bound using the density estimate (cf. [12, Theorem 11.7])
for any \(\sigma \ge \frac{1}{2}\), where \(s_j=\frac{1}{2}it_j\). We note that this density estimate, which a priori holds for \(\Gamma _0(DQ)\), also holds for the lattice \(\Gamma \) under consideration. This is the case since we may consider an explicit Jacquet–Langlands transfer sending a form on \(\Gamma \) to its corresponding newform form on \(\Gamma _0(N) \supseteq \Gamma _0(DQ)\) for some \(D \div N \div DQ\) which has the same eigenvalue. Under this map, at most \(Q^{o(1)}\) forms get mapped onto the same image. This follows from [1, Theorem 1 & its Corollary, Theorem 4] and noting that at the places dividing D the corresponding representations are onedimensional. Using the estimate (2.7), we find
Hence, we conclude the first part of the proposition. For the second part, we need to bound
We note that the second summand is \(\ll T^2\textrm{e}^{T}V_{\Gamma }^{1}\), which is satisfactory. Furthermore, we find that the first summand is empty if we assume Selberg’s eigenvalue conjecture, which takes care of that case. In the other cases, we first recall (2.8), which implies there is a \(g_0 \in {\Gamma }\backslash {G}\) such that
Thus, in order to prove (2.5), it is sufficient to bound
If we assume that the level Q of R is square free, then [15, Theorem 1.10] shows that
The same conclusion also holds if we assume the supnorm conjecture and referring to Weyl’s law. Finally, we may estimate the first factor by once more referring to the density estimate (2.7):
We conclude the proof. \(\square \)
We are left to infer Theorem 2 from Theorem 3. Suppose the stabiliser of the point \(i \in \mathbb {H}\) consists only of plus minus the identity and consider the normal polygon \({\mathcal {F}}_{\Gamma ,i}\). Suppose further that \({\mathcal {F}}_{\Gamma ,i}\) is contained in a ball of radius r. We shall now translate this picture from the upper halfplane to the Poincaré disk through the Cayley transformation \(\phi : \mathbb {H} \rightarrow \mathfrak {D}\), which maps \(z\mapsto (zi)/(z+i)\). Under this map, \({\mathcal {F}}_{\Gamma ,i}\) gets mapped to a Ford domain \(\mathfrak {F}_{\Gamma }\). A motion \(\gamma = \left( {\begin{matrix} a &{} b \\ c &{} d \end{matrix}}\right) \in \mathop {\text {SL}}_{2}(\mathbb {R})\) gets transferred to the motion
in \(\textrm{SU}(1,1)\). Now, Ford [6] proved that \(\Gamma ^{\phi }=\phi \Gamma \phi ^{1}\) is generated by the motions \(\gamma ^{\phi } \in \Gamma ^{\phi }\) whose partial arc of its isometric circle forms part of the boundary of \(\mathfrak {F}_{\Gamma }\). We have that the isometric circle corresponding to the motion (2.9) is given by the equation \(Ez+F\), a circle with radius 1/E and centre \(F/E\). Thus, in order for the isometric circle of \(\gamma ^{\phi }\) to intersect \(\mathfrak {F}_{\Gamma }\) one must have \((F1)/E \le \mathop {\text {artanh}}(\frac{r}{2})\), which after a calculation yields \(E \le \sinh (r)\) and thus
Thus, we may conclude Theorem 2 from Theorem 3 after noting that the points \(z\in \mathbb {H}\) with nontrivial stabiliser are a nullset; hence, they may be excluded for the first part and for the second part one may conjugate the group by a tiny bit if i happens to be such a point.
3 Noncocompact lattices
In this section, we shall bound the standard polygon (1.2). We shall also point out that a similar argument has been carried out in the appendix to [28].
We start with two preparatory Lemmata.
Lemma 6
For any \(\epsilon >0\), we may find a constant \(C_{\epsilon }>0\) with the following property. For two relatively prime integers a, b and natural number D, we may find a natural number \(k \le C_{\epsilon } D^{\epsilon }\) such that \((a+kb,D)=1\).
Proof
This is [27, Lemma 2.1]. \(\square \)
Lemma 7
For any \(\epsilon >0\), we may find a constant \(C_{\epsilon }>0\) with the following property. For any real number x and natural number D, we either have that

(i)
there is an integer c such that \(xc \le \frac{1}{2(1+C_{\epsilon }D^{\epsilon })}\), or that

(ii)
there is a natural number \(b \le 2(1+C_{\epsilon } D^{\epsilon })^2\) and an integer \((a,bD)=1\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} bxa \le \tfrac{1}{2}. \end{aligned}$$
Proof
By Dirichlet’s Approximation Theorem, we may find \(d \in \mathbb {N}\) with \(d \le K=2(1+C_{\epsilon }D^{\epsilon })\) and \(c \in \mathbb {Z}\) such that \(\textrm{d}xc\le \frac{1}{K}\). Without loss of generality, we may assume \((c,d)=1\). Now, if \(d=1\), then we are done as the first condition is satisfied. Suppose now that \(d \ge 2\), then we may find a pair of integers a, b such that \(adbc=\pm 1\), where the sign is chosen such that \(\frac{a}{b}\) and x lie on the same side of \(\frac{c}{d}\) on the number line. We note that the pair of integers \((a+kc,b+kd)\), where k is any integer, also satisfies the same equation. Hence, we may assume \(0< b \le d\). Note that we have \((a,c)=1\) and hence we may apply Lemma 6 to even require \((a,bD)=1\) at the cost of increasing the size of b to at most \((1+C_{\epsilon }D^{\epsilon })d\). We have
The conclusion follows. \(\square \)
We note that the standard polygon (1.2) agrees with the Ford domain
We proceed by showing that the isometric circles \(cQz+d=1\), corresponding to the motion \(\left( {\begin{matrix} a &{} b \\ cQ &{} d \end{matrix}}\right) \in \Gamma \), that form part of the boundary of \({\mathcal {F}}_{\Gamma ,\infty }\) must have their radius 1/cQ bounded below by \(Q^{1+o(1)}\).
Let \(z=x+iy \in {\mathcal {F}}_{\Gamma ,\infty }\). We now apply Lemma 7 to xQ with \(D=Q\). Thus, we have either

(i)
\(Qxc \le \frac{1}{2(1+C_{\epsilon }Q^{\epsilon })}\) for some integer c, or

(ii)
\(bQxa \le \frac{1}{2}\) some natural number \(b \le 2(1+C_{\epsilon }Q^{\epsilon })^2\) and integer a with \((a,bQ)=1\).
Let us first deal with the second case, which corresponds to z being away from the cusps other than \(\infty \). Since z is in the Ford domain (3.1), we must have \(bQza\ge 1\) and thus \(y \ge \frac{1}{2} Q^{1} (1+C_{\epsilon }Q^{\epsilon })^{2}\). Returning to the first case, if \((c,Q)=1\) then once again we must have \(Qzc\ge 1\) and hence \(y \ge \frac{1}{2} Q^{1}\). Finally, if \((c,Q)>1\) then we may find natural numbers \(k_{\pm } \le C_{\epsilon }Q^{\epsilon }\) such that \((k_{\pm }c \pm 1,Q)=1\). Thus, we have
and the isometric circles \((k_{\pm }Q)w+(k_{\pm }c\pm 1)=1\) include the cusp \(\frac{c}{Q}\). Hence, we find that every point \(z \in {\mathcal {F}}_{\Gamma ,\infty }\) has either \(y \ge \frac{1}{2}(1+C_{\epsilon }Q^{\epsilon })^{2}Q^{1}\) or is in a cuspidal region in between to isometric circles of radius at least \(C_{\epsilon }Q^{1\epsilon }\). In particular, we find that every isometric circle, which is part of the boundary of \({\mathcal {F}}_{\Gamma ,\infty }\) must have radius at least \(\frac{1}{2}(1+C_{\epsilon }Q^{\epsilon })^{2}Q^{1}\). Thus, the sidepairing motions \(\left( {\begin{matrix} a &{} b \\ cQ &{} d \end{matrix}}\right) \) of \({\mathcal {F}}_{\Gamma ,\infty }\), which generate \(\Gamma \) must have \(cQ \ll _{\epsilon } Q^{1+2 \epsilon }\), \(a,d \ll _{\epsilon } Q^{1+2\epsilon }\) and consequently \(b \ll _{\epsilon } Q^{1+4 \epsilon }\) as \(adbcQ=1\). We conclude Theorem 1.
4 Graphs
We consider the Brandt–Ihara–Pizer “super singular isogeny graphs”, \(G(p, \ell )\), where \(p, \ell \) are primes with \(p \equiv 1 \mod (12)\). They are constructed by interpreting Brandt matrices \(B(\ell )\) associated to a maximal order R in the quaternion algebra \(B_{p,\infty }\) over \(\mathbb {Q}\) ramified at exactly \(p,\infty \) as adjacency matrices. They constitute a rich family of nonbipartite \((\ell +1)\)regular Ramanujan graphs on \(n:=\frac{p1}{12}+1\) vertices [22]. Let \(f_j \in L^2(G(p,\ell ))\), equipped with probability measure, be an orthonormal eigenbasis of the adjacency matrix \(B(\ell )\) with \(f_0 \equiv 1\). We may and shall also assume that they are eigenfunctions of all other Brandt matrices B(m) for \((m,p)=1\). We shall denote the eigenvalue of \(f_j\) with respect to B(m) by \(\lambda _j(m)\). By identifying the vertices of \(G(p,\ell )\) with the class set \(B_{p,\infty }^{\times }\backslash (B_{p,\infty } \otimes \mathbb {A}_f)^{\times } /(R \otimes \widehat{\mathbb {Z}})^{\times }\) of R, we may interpret the eigenfunctions \(f_j\) as automorphic forms in \(L^2({\text {PB}}_{p,\infty }^{\times }(\mathbb {Q}) \backslash {\text {PB}}_{p,\infty }^{\times }(\mathbb {A}) /K_{\infty }K_f)\), where \(K_{\infty }\) is a maximal torus and \(K_f\) the projective image of \((R \otimes \widehat{\mathbb {Z}})^{\times }\), constant on each connected component (as a real manifold). The automorphic forms \(f_j\) are in onetoone correspondence with their theta lift, a modular form of weight 2, level p, and trivial character, which is cuspidal if and only if \(j \ne 0\). They form a basis of Hecke eigenforms of said space. The mth Hecke eigenvalue of the theta lift of \(f_j\) is given by the eigenvalue \(\lambda _j(m)\) for \((m,p)=1\) [5, 11]. Thus, by the Petersson trace formula, one has the density estimate (cf. [29, Eq. (4)])
Likewise, the fourth moment bound [15, Theorem 2.1] reads
It is known that the Ramanujan graphs \(G(p,\ell )\) have diameter bounded by \((2+o(1))\log _{\ell }(n)\).^{Footnote 4} Here, we shall give an alternative proof which avoids using the Ramanujan bound. Instead, we shall make use of the two inequalities (4.1) and (4.2). For \(x,y \in G(p,\ell )\), let \(K_t(x,y)\) denote the number of nonbacktracking random walks of length t from x to y. We have the equality (see [19])
If x, y are of distance larger than t, then the lefthand side of (4.3) is zero. We find that
from which we infer
since \(\lambda _0(\ell ^t) = \frac{\ell ^{t+1}1}{\ell 1}\). By orthonormality, we have \(\sum _{x \in G(p,\ell )} f_j(x)^2 = n\). Hence, we may bound the righthand side further
By applying Cauchy–Schwarz and making use of (4.3) and (4.2), we conclude \(l^{t} \ll _{\epsilon } n^{2+\epsilon }\) or \(t \le (2+o(1))\log _{\ell }(n)\). In particular, the diameter is bounded by one plus the same quantity, the former getting absorbed into \(o(\log _{\ell }(n))\).
Notes
Product of the finite primes at which B ramifies.
Any other isomorphism is a conjugate by a matrix in \(\mathop {\text {GL}}_{2} (\mathbb {R})\).
They state their theorem with exponent 7.68, though their method gives \(5.12+o(1)\). In turn, this can be halved again by replacing their final argument by the argument in this paper.
In fact, sharper results are known, see for example [21].
References
Casselman, W.: On some results of Atkin and Lehner. Math. Ann. 201, 301–314 (1973)
Chu, M., Li, H.: Small generators of cocompact arithmetic Fuchsian groups. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 144(12), 5121–5127 (2016)
Chuman, Y.: Generators and relations of \(\Gamma _{0}(N)\). J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 13, 381–390 (1973)
Eichler, M.: Lectures on Modular Correspondences, vol. 56. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Bombay, Mumbai (1955)
Eichler, M.: The basis problem for modular forms and the traces of the Hecke operators. In: Modular Functions of One Variable, I (Proceedings of International Summer School, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, 1972). Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 320, pp. 75–151. Springer, Berlin (1973)
Ford, L.R.: The fundamental region for a Fuchsian group. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 31(9–10), 531–539 (1925)
Frączyk, M., Raimbault, J.: Betti numbers of Shimura curves and arithmetic threeorbifolds. Algebra Number Theory 13(10), 2359–2382 (2019)
Frasch, H.: Die Erzeugenden der Hauptkongruenzgruppen für Primzahlstufen. Math. Ann. 108(1), 229–252 (1933)
Golubev, K., Kamber, A.: Cutoff on graphs and the Sarnak–Xue density of eigenvalues. Eur. J. Comb. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2022.103530
Golubev, K., Kamber, A.: Cutoff on hyperbolic surfaces. Geom. Dedicata 203, 225–255 (2019)
Hijikata, H., Pizer, A.K., Shemanske, T.R.: The basis problem for modular forms on \(\Gamma _0(N)\). Mem. Am. Math. Soc. 82(418), 1–159 (1989)
Iwaniec, H.: Spectral Methods of Automorphic Forms. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 53. American Mathematical Society, Providence; Revista Matemática Iberoamericana, Madrid, 2nd edn (2002)
Jacquet, H., Langlands, R.P.: Automorphic Forms on \({\rm GL}(2)\). Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 114. Springer, Berlin (1970)
Johansson, S.: On fundamental domains of arithmetic Fuchsian groups. Math. Comput. 69(229), 339–349 (2000)
Khayutin, I., Nelson, P.D., Steiner, R.S.: Theta functions, fourth moments of eigenforms, and the supnorm problem II. Arxiv Preprint (2022). arXiv:2207.12351
Khoai, H.H.: Sur les séries \(L\) associées aux formes modularies. Bull. Soc. Math. Fr. 120(1), 1–13 (1992)
Kulkarni, R.S.: An arithmeticgeometric method in the study of the subgroups of the modular group. Am. J. Math. 113(6), 1053–1133 (1991)
Kurth, C.A., Long, L.: Computations with finite index subgroups of \({\rm PSL}_2({\mathbb{Z}})\) using Farey symbols. In: Advances in Algebra and Combinatorics, pp. 225–242. World Scientific Publishing, Hackensack (2008)
Lubotzky, A., Phillips, R., Sarnak, P.: Hecke operators and distributing points on \(S^2\). II. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 40(4), 401–420 (1987)
Lubotzky, A., Phillips, R., Sarnak, P.: Ramanujan graphs. Combinatorica 8(3), 261–277 (1988)
Nestoridi, E., Sarnak, P.: Bounded cutoff window for the nonbacktracking random walk on Ramanujan graphs. Arxiv Preprint (2021). arXiv:2103.15176
Pizer, A.K.: Ramanujan graphs. In: Computational Perspectives on Number Theory (Chicago, IL, 1995). AMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 7, pp. 159–178. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1998)
Rademacher, H.: Über die Erzeugenden von Kongruenzuntergruppen der Modulgruppe. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 7(1), 134–148 (1929)
Ratner, M.: The rate of mixing for geodesic and horocycle flows. Ergod. Theory Dyn. Syst. 7(2), 267–288 (1987)
Reidemeister, K.: Knoten und Gruppen. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 5(1), 7–23 (1927)
Rickards, J.: Improved computation of fundamental domains for arithmetic Fuchsian groups. Arxiv Preprint (2021). arXiv:2110.11503
Saha, A.: Supnorms of eigenfunctions in the level aspect for compact arithmetic surfaces. Math. Ann. 376, 609–644 (2019)
Sarnak, P.: Letter to Scott Aaronson and Andy Pollington on the Solovay–Kitaev theorem. Institute for Advanced Study (2015). http://publications.ias.edu/sarnak/paper/2637
Sarnak, P., Zubrilina, N.: Convergence to the Plancherel measure of Hecke Eigenvalues. Arxiv Preprint (2022). arXiv:2201.03523
Schreier, O.: Die Untergruppen der freien Gruppen. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 5(1), 161–183 (1927)
Selberg, A.: On the estimation of Fourier coefficients of modular forms. In: Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. VIII, pp. 1–15. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1965)
Voight, J.: Computing fundamental domains for Fuchsian groups. J. Théor. Nombres Bordeaux 21(2), 469–491 (2009)
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Ilya Khayutin and Paul D. Nelson for letting me include the argument in Sect. 3, which first came about in our joint work [15] and was eventually replaced by a simpler suitable alternative. I am further grateful to them forall of the fruitful conversations on this and related topics as well as comments on earlier drafts. I am also thankful to Peter Sarnak and Amitay Kamber for their encouragement and conversations on the subject, Davide Ravotti and Mikołaj Frączyk for clarifying various results that went into this paper, as well as the anonymous referee for their comments which have added to the clarity and the overall presentation.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The work on this manuscript began at the Institute for Advanced Study, where I was supported by the National Science Foundation Grant No. DMS—1638352 and the Giorgio and Elena Petronio Fellowship Fund II, and completed at the Institute for Mathematical Research (FIM) at ETH Zürich.
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
Steiner, R.S. Small diameters and generators for arithmetic lattices in \(\textrm{SL}_2(\mathbb {R})\) and certain Ramanujan graphs. Ramanujan J (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11139023007251
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11139023007251
Keywords
 Diameter
 Size of generators
 Fuchsian groups
 Arithmetic hyperbolic surface
 Ramanujan graph
Mathematics Subject Classification
 11F06 (20H05)