Introduction

Goldfeld’s mean-rank conjecture predicts that the average central order of vanishing in a quadratic-twist family is 1/21/2 [5], p. 113, Conjecture (B)]. The issue addressed here is the contribution of rare twists of large analytic rank: knowing the densities of ranks zero and one does not determine the mean without control of this contribution.

Let E/QE/\mathbb{Q} be an elliptic curve. For a nonzero squarefree integer dd, write E(d)E^{(d)} for its quadratic twist, and put

D(Y)={d∈Z:0<∣d∣≤Y, d squarefree},a(E(d))=ord⁡s=1L(E(d),s).\mathcal{D}(Y)=\{d\in\mathbb{Z}:0<|d|\le Y,\ d\text{ squarefree}\},\qquad a(E^{(d)})=\operatorname{ord}_{s=1}L(E^{(d)},s).

Both signs of dd are included. We call aa the analytic rank and write r(E(d))=rank⁡ZE(d)(Q)r(E^{(d)})=\operatorname{rank}_{\mathbb{Z}}E^{(d)}(\mathbb{Q}) for the algebraic or Mordell–Weil rank. Outside the explicitly algebraic statements below, rank means analytic order of vanishing.

Theorem 1.1. For every elliptic curve E/QE/\mathbb{Q},

lim⁡Y→∞1#D(Y)∑d∈D(Y)a(E(d))=12.\lim_{Y\to\infty}\frac{1}{\#\mathcal{D}(Y)}\sum_{d\in\mathcal{D}(Y)}a(E^{(d)})=\frac{1}{2}.

Theorem 1.1 resolves positively Goldfeld’s mean analytic-rank conjecture in this signed squarefree counting convention. It applies without restrictions on complex multiplication, rational torsion, rational isogenies, or reduction type.

The analytic density theorem [12], Theorem 1.2] states that, for this same family and every E/QE/\mathbb{Q},

#{d∈D(Y):a(E(d))=j}#D(Y)⟶12(j=0,1).(1)\frac{\#\{d\in\mathcal{D}(Y):a(E^{(d)})=j\}}{\#\mathcal{D}(Y)}\longrightarrow\frac{1}{2}\qquad(j=0,1). \tag*{(1)}

For the analytic mean theorem, (1.1) is the only input from the companion manuscript identified in the bibliography. A zero-density exceptional family can still contribute to a rank-weighted average. The new assertion needed for the mean is the following tail estimate, whose proof is independent of (1.1).

Theorem 1.2. For every elliptic curve E/QE/\mathbb{Q}, there are constants CE>0C_E > 0 and an integer RE≥1R_E \ge1 such that, for every integer R≥RER \ge R_E,

lim sup⁡Y→∞1Y∑d∈D(Y)a(E(d))>Ra(E(d))≤CER.\limsup_{Y \to\infty} \frac{1}{Y} \sum_{\substack{d \in\mathcal{D}(Y) \\ a(E^{(d)}) > R}} a(E^{(d)}) \le\frac{C_E}{R}.

Together, (1) and Theorem 1.2 show that

∑d∈D(Y)a(E(d))≥2a(E(d))=oE(Y).\sum_{\substack{d \in\mathcal{D}(Y) \\ a(E^{(d)}) \ge2}} a(E^{(d)}) = o_E(Y).

For each fixed sufficiently large integer RR, (1) makes the complement of ranks zero and one have density zero, so ranks 2 through RR contribute oE,R(Y)o_{E,R}(Y). For the remaining ranks, use the height limsup in Theorem 1.2 and then let RR tend to infinity. This order of limits will be made explicit in Section 6.

Algebraic-rank moments

The same signed squarefree family has the following algebraic-rank moment limits. This consequence uses the companion’s density conclusions and its density-one equality of analytic and algebraic ranks, together with the exponential-moment bound of Koymans and Smith. It does not use the analytic tail estimate of Theorem 1.2.

Corollary 1.3 (Fixed algebraic-rank moments). Fix an elliptic curve E/QE/\mathbb{Q}. For every fixed real tt,

lim⁡Y→∞1#D(Y)∑d∈D(Y)exp⁡(tr(E(d)))=1+et2.\lim_{Y \to\infty} \frac{1}{\#\mathcal{D}(Y)} \sum_{d \in\mathcal{D}(Y)} \exp\left(t r(E^{(d)})\right) = \frac{1+e^t}{2}.

For every fixed positive integer mm.

lim⁡Y→∞1#D(Y)∑d∈D(Y)r(E(d))m=12.\lim_{Y \to\infty} \frac{1}{\#\mathcal{D}(Y)} \sum_{d \in\mathcal{D}(Y)} r(E^{(d)})^m = \frac{1}{2}.

The proof appears in Section 7.

All parameters tt and moment orders mm in Corollary 1.3 are fixed before Y→∞Y \to\infty. The corollary concerns algebraic ranks only: it gives no higher analytic-rank moments, no uniformity for parameters varying with YY, and no moment limit for thin polynomial subfamilies.

History and significance

Goldfeld’s original question concerns the change of rank when a fixed elliptic curve is viewed over quadratic fields. Under Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer, that change is the central order of the associated quadratic twist. His Conjecture (B) formulates the average directly in terms of this analytic order, using quadratic-field discriminants ordered by absolute value [5]. Here the counting parameter is instead the signed squarefree integer dd in D(Y)\mathcal{D}(Y). The rank-zero/rank-one density prediction describes the smallest orders allowed by the two functional-equation signs. The mean prediction also requires the larger orders, however sparse, to have negligible total contribution.

Conditional analytic estimates illustrate both aspects of the problem. Heath-Brown proved an upper bound 3/2+o(1)3/2 + o(1) for smooth averages over fundamental discriminants coprime to the conductor, separately for each functional-equation sign [7]. His nonnegative compactly supported weight selects one sign of the discriminant, and his Riemann-hypothesis assumption concerns every quadratic twist, including those not coprime to the conductor. Under the same twistwise Riemann-hypothesis assumption, Miller and Wong bounded higher analytic-rank moments and obtained exponentially decreasing large-rank counting tails [11]. Their weighted sums run over integer parameters, with possible repeated squareclasses; the weight selects one parameter sign without fixing the functional-equation sign. Their tail estimate fixes the rank threshold before taking the height limit. Fiorilli obtained the exact mean 1/2 over signed squarefree parameters coprime to the conductor, assuming the Riemann hypothesis for elliptic-curve LL-functions and an additional averaged cancellation hypothesis for nonreal zeros [4]. Thus this exact conditional mean uses more than the Riemann hypothesis.

A different route to densities comes from Selmer groups. Smith proved that, for every rational elliptic curve, the full 2-power Selmer corank is zero or one with density 1/2 each, using signed integer twist parameters [17]. His analytic density corollary assumes Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer [17]. The companion’s 2-converse supplies the analytic implication needed for (1.1) in the signed squarefree convention. Theorem 1.2 addresses the additional rank-mass question independently of that density argument.

Koymans and Smith prove exponential moment bounds for Mordell–Weil rank in polynomial quadratic-twist families [9]. The specialization in the proof of Corollary 1.3 supplies the needed algebraic tail control. Such bounds do not supply an analytic-rank identity or higher analytic-rank moments.

Hanners claims the full Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture for every rational elliptic curve [6]. We do not use this claim. The unresolved point is how the bridge conditions supported by tests on eighteen curves in Section 39.1 are established for every rational elliptic curve, as required by the transfer in Section 39.2. This is not a refutation of the claimed theorem.

Modularity provides the analytic continuation and functional equation for every curve in the argument [1]. Our estimates use these analytic properties and the local coefficient bounds. The proof invokes neither the Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture nor the generalized Riemann hypothesis.

Earlier work on a fixed elliptic curve already connected derivative moments to nonvanishing and analytic-rank averages. Perelli and Pomykala proved first-derivative nonvanishing results and bounds for the sum of analytic ranks [13]; Pomykala extended this nonvanishing approach to higher derivatives of fixed order in a congruence-restricted twisting family [14]. In the family of weight-two newforms of varying prime level, Kowalski, Michel, and VanderKam combined high completed derivatives, mollification, and consecutive derivative orders to control both functional-equation signs. Their passage from these nonvanishing counts to rank-weighted tails also uses a separate bound for the second moment of analytic rank [8]. In the present quadratic-twist argument the derivative order grows with height. This uniformity, together with a pointwise rank bound, controls the rank mass beyond the available counting range without requiring a bounded second analytic-rank moment.

Second moments of the twist LL-functions themselves supply the analytic comparison used below. For full-level holomorphic Hecke forms of weight divisible by four, Soundararajan and Young obtained the second-moment asymptotic over positive discriminants 8d8d, with dd odd and squarefree, under GRH for the twists, the Riemann zeta function, and the symmetric-square LL-function [19]. Li proved the asymptotic unconditionally in this full-level setting [10] [Theorem 1.1]. We adapt the Fourier-cutoff and prime-square inflation mechanism in Li’s proof, establishing the needed logarithmic bounds for our finite family of arbitrary elliptic curves with its conductor and bad-prime factors retained. Neither asymptotic is an input to the argument.

The analytic argument

The starting point is the exact identity of Lemma 4.1, forced by the vanishing of a derivative of order kk of the completed LL-function. Its Dirichlet-series weight is obtained by exponentially smoothing a kk-th power of a truncated logarithm. Near the square root of the conductor, at lengths of order XX for twists of height XX, this weight suppresses the late terms. The approximation (1−u)k≈e−ku(1-u)^k \approx e^{-ku} for u=O(1/k)u = O(1/k) motivates mollification: at u=log⁡n/log⁡Xu = \log n/\log X, the exponential corresponds to a small positive shift from the center of the LL-function. A short approximation to its inverse Euler product then makes the first weighted piece close to a positive main term. We split the weighted series using smooth cutoffs into finite pieces and a terminal series, use progressively shorter mollifiers as the lengths of the finite pieces increase, and estimate the terminal series without mollification.

Two features make the resulting estimates uniform for kk as large as a fixed power of log⁡X\log X. First, a Poisson argument and inflation give unmollified second moments with only powers of logarithms (Propositions 3.1 and 3.2). The inflation mechanism is related to Li’s work on quadratic twists [10] [Lemmas 2.7 and 3.1, Proposition 3.2]; we prove the estimate needed here for the entire fixed finite family of curves, including its local factors at bad primes. Second, Proposition 5.9 gives mean-square bounds for the mollified finite pieces in a model that replaces odd-prime character values by independent variables with their complete-residue distributions. The mean-square estimates use the whole probability space, without discarding exceptional outcomes. Proposition 3.7 transfers these bounds to integer averages. Separately, Proposition 5.3 compares the mollifiers with positive reciprocal Euler products on most integer parameters and relates these products to one another. We can then remove the mollifiers and compare every piece with the same positive product: the first piece dominates the later pieces and the terminal series. The resulting nonzero sum contradicts the completed-derivative identity whenever the rank exceeds the derivative order of matching parity. Consecutive orders cover both signs.

For admissible twists of height XX, Proposition 6.1 proves a bound OE(X/k2)O_E(X/k^2) for the number of ranks exceeding kk, uniformly up to k=(log⁡X)3/5k = (\log X)^{3/5}. A conductor-uniform Jensen bound (Lemma 6.2) gives the pointwise estimate a(E(d))=OE(log⁡X)a(E^{(d)}) = O_E(\log X). The count at the largest permissible kk then controls the remaining rank mass, and summation of the integer tails proves Theorem 1.2. The numerical exponents used in the length partition leave ample room between the comparison error and the later thresholds; their optimization is not needed.

The sections follow the inputs required by this argument. Section 2 fixes the finite auxiliary family and the integer residue model. Section 3 proves the moments and the comparison with that model. Section 4 constructs the completed-derivative weights and bounds their terminal series. Section 5 constructs the short mollifiers and proves the model estimates. Section 6 combines them into the counting and rank-weighted tail bounds, and uses the companion density theorem only in the final deduction of the mean. Section 7 proves the separate algebraic-rank moment corollary.

Conventions

Implied constants may depend on the original curve EE, on fixed smooth functions, and on a specified fixed order of differentiation. They do not depend on the varying height, derivative order, or scale index unless this is explicitly stated. We write τ(n)\tau(n) for the divisor function and use the Fourier kernel e−2πixye^{-2\pi ixy} when applying Poisson summation. All sufficiently large lower thresholds for the integer kk are chosen after the fixed analytic exponents and smoothness orders.

Twist families and the integer model

We first reduce upper bounds for arbitrary twists to a fixed finite family of curves with coprime twisting parameters. This gives exact conductor formulas while preserving the bounds for nonnegative sums needed later. We then define the probability model for complete integer residue averages.

We use unitary normalization:

LF(s)=L(F,s+1/2)=∑n≥1λF(n)n−s,qF=cond⁡(F),CF=qF2π.L_F(s)=L(F,s+1/2)=\sum_{n\ge1}\lambda_F(n)n^{-s},\qquad q_F=\operatorname{cond}(F),\qquad C_F=\frac{\sqrt{q_F}}{2\pi}.

The series converges absolutely in ℜs>1\Re s>1. Modularity and the local rules for the Hasse–Weil LL-function give real multiplicative coefficients and inverse Euler factors

1−λF(p)p−s+ξF,pp−2s,ξF,p=1p∤qF.(2)1-\lambda_F(p)p^{-s}+\xi_{F,p}p^{-2s},\qquad\xi_{F,p}=\mathbf{1}_{p\nmid q_F}. \tag*{(2)}

At a good prime the two factor parameters have modulus one by Hasse’s bound [16], Chapter V, Theorem 2.3.1(a). At a multiplicative prime there is one parameter, of modulus p−1/2p^{-1/2}, and at an additive prime the factor is one [2]. In particular,

∣λF(n)∣≤τ(n).|\lambda_F(n)|\le\tau(n).

The completed function

ΛF(s)=CFsΓ(s+1/2)LF(s)\Lambda_F(s)=C_F^s\Gamma(s+1/2)L_F(s)

is entire of finite order and satisfies

ΛF(s)=ϵFΛF(1−s),ϵF∈{1,−1}.\Lambda_F(s)=\epsilon_F\Lambda_F(1-s),\qquad\epsilon_F\in\{1,-1\}.

Analytic continuation and the functional equation follow from modularity [1] and the standard completion [16]. The standard finite-order bounds follow, for example, from the split Mellin integral of the modular cusp form and its Fricke transform. They also give polynomial growth in every fixed vertical strip for each fixed curve FF, independently of the averaged estimates proved below. Indeed, enclose the strip in a≤ℜs≤ba\le\Re s\le b, with a≤−1a\le-1 and b≥2b\ge2. Absolute convergence bounds LFL_F on the right boundary; (2.3) and Stirling’s formula give LF(a+it)≪F,a(1+∣t∣)1−2aL_F(a+it)\ll_{F,a}(1+|t|)^{1-2a} on the left boundary. Take A=1−aA=1-a and an integer N>1−2aN>1-2a, so that LF(s)/(s+A)NL_F(s)/(s+A)^N is bounded on both boundaries. For ε>0\varepsilon>0 and 0<κ<π/(b−a)0<\kappa<\pi/(b-a), multiply this quotient by

exp⁡{−εcos⁡(κ(s−a+b2))}.\exp\left\{-\varepsilon\cos\left(\kappa\left(s-\frac{a+b}{2}\right)\right)\right\}.

The multiplier has modulus at most one on the vertical boundaries and at most exp⁡(−cεcosh⁡(κℑs))\exp(-c\varepsilon\cosh(\kappa\Im s)) on the horizontal sides, for a fixed c>0c>0. This dominates the finite-order growth. The maximum principle on expanding rectangles, followed by ε↓0\varepsilon\downarrow0, therefore gives LF(σ+it)≪F,a,b(1+∣t∣)NL_F(\sigma+it)\ll_{F,a,b}(1+|t|)^N on the strip. These individual bounds justify contour displacements. Their constants may depend on the fixed curve; estimates uniform in the varying twist parameters will be proved separately.

A finite family closed under reduction

Fix the primes

S={p:p∣2qE},QS=∏p∈Sp.S=\{p:p\mid2q_E\},\qquad Q_S=\prod_{p\in S}p.

Let F\mathcal{F} be the finite set, up to Q\mathbb{Q}-isomorphism, of curves obtained from EE by twisting by signed squarefree products of primes in SS. The curve EE is included. Every F∈FF\in\mathcal{F} has good reduction outside SS.

Call a signed squarefree integer dd admissible if

d≡1(mod4),(d,QS)=1.d\equiv1\pmod4,\qquad(d,Q_S)=1.

For a dyadic XX, put

A(X)={d:d admissible, X≤∣d∣<2X}.\mathcal{A}(X)=\{d:d\text{ admissible},\ X\leq\lvert d\rvert<2X\}.

Lemma 2.1. For every F∈FF\in\mathcal{F} and signed squarefree bb, there are F′∈FF'\in\mathcal{F} and an admissible dd such that

F(b)≃(F′)(d),∣d∣≤∣b∣.F^{(b)}\simeq(F')^{(d)},\qquad\lvert d\rvert\leq\lvert b\rvert.

The correspondence can be chosen to have bounded multiplicity, uniformly in bb. Every sum of nonnegative functions of these twists can therefore be bounded by a fixed multiple of the corresponding sums over F\mathcal{F} and admissible parameters of no greater height.

Proof. Write b=bSb0b=b_Sb_0, where bS>0b_S>0 is the product of the primes of SS dividing bb. Then b0b_0 is odd and prime to QSQ_S. Choose ε∈{1,−1}\varepsilon\in\{1,-1\} so that d=εb0≡1(mod4)d=\varepsilon b_0\equiv1\pmod4, and put F′=F(εbS)F'=F^{(\varepsilon b_S)}. Quadratic twisting depends only on the square class and composes by multiplication of square classes. Thus F′F' is in F\mathcal{F} and (F′)(d)≃F(b)(F')^{(d)}\simeq F^{(b)}. Moreover ∣d∣=∣b∣/bS≤∣b∣\lvert d\rvert=\lvert b\rvert/b_S\leq\lvert b\rvert. There are at most 2∣S∣+12^{\lvert S\rvert+1} choices of the signed SS-part. Possible coincidences among the finitely many curves only change this fixed multiplicity. □\square

Lemma 2.2. For F∈FF\in\mathcal{F} and admissible dd,

LF(d)(s)=∑n≥1λF(n)χd(n)n−s,qF(d)=qF∣d∣2,χd(n)=(dn).(3)L_{F^{(d)}}(s)=\sum_{n\geq1}\lambda_F(n)\chi_d(n)n^{-s},\qquad q_{F^{(d)}}=q_F\lvert d\rvert^2,\qquad\chi_d(n)=\left(\frac{d}{n}\right). \tag*{(3)}

Here the symbol is the Kronecker symbol and d=1d=1 has the untwisted convention. For an arbitrary signed squarefree bb, the same good-prime twisting rule holds at primes outside SS: the local trace is multiplied by (b/p)(b/p) when p∤bp\nmid b, and the local factor is one when p∣bp\mid b.

Proof. We compute the inverse local Euler factors using geometric Frobenius on the inertia invariants of the dual of the rational Tate module, and the conductor as the Artin conductor [2]. The rational Tate-module representation of a quadratic twist is the original representation tensored with the corresponding quadratic character. This follows from the isomorphism over the twisting extension, whose conjugate differs by the scalar automorphism [−1][-1].

An unramified scalar twist preserves the conductor and multiplies Frobenius eigenvalues on inertia invariants by the character value. Since an admissible dd is an odd fundamental discriminant, its character is unramified at every prime of SS. At a prime p∣dp\mid d, the representation of FF is unramified and the quadratic character is tamely ramified. The tensor product has no inertia invariants, Swan conductor zero, and Artin conductor exponent two. At all other primes the scalar twist is unramified. Computing the inertia-invariant Euler factors and the conductor gives (3). For an arbitrary squarefree bb, these same computations apply at odd primes outside SS, regardless of the character’s behavior at two. □\square

The constants in what follows are chosen uniformly over the finite set F\mathcal{F}. The nonincreasing height in Lemma 2.1 is useful in the second-moment induction: a dual squarefree parameter of absolute value at most M/2M/2 remains in a smaller dyadic block after reduction.

Complete integer averages

Fix c∈{1,−1}c \in\{1,-1\}. For m∈Zm \in\mathbb{Z}, define a completely multiplicative formal character on positive integers by

zm(2)=c,zm(p)=(mp)(p odd).z_m(2)=c,\qquad z_m(p)=\left(\frac{m}{p}\right)\quad(p\ \text{odd}).

Let ZZ be the completely multiplicative random model with Z(2)=cZ(2)=c and independent odd-prime values distributed by

P(Z(p)=0)=1p,P(Z(p)=1)=P(Z(p)=−1)=1−1/p2.(4)\mathbb{P}(Z(p)=0)=\frac{1}{p},\qquad\mathbb{P}(Z(p)=1)=\mathbb{P}(Z(p)=-1)=\frac{1-1/p}{2}. \tag*{(4)}

For every polynomial involving only finitely many prime values, its expectation is the average over a complete residue system for the corresponding odd-prime periods. This follows from the Chinese remainder theorem and the equal numbers of nonzero quadratic residues and nonresidues modulo each odd prime.

We use this model for averages over all integers mm. Nonnegative estimates can subsequently be restricted to admissible squarefree dd, separated into the two classes χd(2)=c\chi_d(2)=c; on either class, zd(n)=χd(n)z_d(n)=\chi_d(n) for every nn.

Poisson summation and logarithmic second moments

We retain the finite family F\mathcal{F}, the fixed set SS, and the unitary normalization from Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2. In particular, ∣λF(n)∣≤τ(n)|\lambda_{\mathcal{F}}(n)|\leq\tau(n), all local parameters have modulus at most one, and reduction of a squarefree twisting parameter to an admissible one does not increase its absolute value. All constants in this section are uniform in F∈FF\in\mathcal{F}.

Our first aim is to bound the second moments of the twist functions and their localized Dirichlet polynomials with only logarithmic losses. For a compactly supported smooth function GG on (0,∞)(0,\infty), write

Pd(N,t;G)=∑n≥1λF(n)χd(n)n−1/2−itG(n/N).P_d(N,t;G)=\sum_{n\geq1}\lambda_{\mathcal{F}}(n)\chi_d(n)n^{-1/2-it}G(n/N).

All dyadic parameters below belong to {1,2,4,…}\{1,2,4,\ldots\}.

Proposition 3.1 (Logarithmic second moments). There are fixed positive integers A,BA,B such that, for every dyadic M≥1M\geq1, every F∈FF\in\mathcal{F}, every t∈Rt\in\mathbb{R}, and 1/2≤σ≤21/2\leq\sigma\leq2,

1M∑d admissibleM≤∣d∣<2M∣LF(d)(σ+it)∣2≪Flog⁡B(3M)(1+∣t∣)A.(5)\frac{1}{M}\sum_{\substack{d\ \mathrm{admissible}\\ M\leq|d|<2M}}\left|L_{F(d)}(\sigma+it)\right|^2\ll_{\mathcal{F}}\log^B(3M)(1+|t|)^A. \tag*{(5)}

For arbitrary signed squarefree twisting parameters and H≥1H\geq1,

∑0<∣h∣≤Hh squarefree∣LF(h)(σ+it)∣2≪FHlog⁡B(3H)(1+∣t∣)A.(6)\sum_{\substack{0<|h|\leq H\\ h\ \mathrm{squarefree}}}\left|L_{F(h)}(\sigma+it)\right|^2\ll_{\mathcal{F}}H\log^B(3H)(1+|t|)^A. \tag*{(6)}

Proposition 3.2 (Dirichlet-polynomial second moments). With the same fixed integers A,BA,B, every fixed smooth GG of compact support in (0,∞)(0,\infty) satisfies

1M∑d admissibleM≤∣d∣<2M∣Pd(N,t;G)∣2≪F,Glog⁡B(3M)(1+∣t∣)A(1+N/M)A(N>0).(7)\frac{1}{M}\sum_{\substack{d\ \mathrm{admissible}\\ M\leq\lvert d\rvert<2M}}\lvert P_d(N,t;G)\rvert^2 \ll_{F,G}\log^B(3M)(1+\lvert t\rvert)^A(1+N/M)^A \qquad(N>0). \tag*{(7)}

The bound is uniform for fixed uniformly smooth families of weights with common compact support.

We prove these estimates by induction on the twisting height MM. Poisson summation turns a polynomial mean square into a sum of products of twist LL-functions at dual squarefree parameters. To put those parameters below the current height, we first enlarge the family by replacing dd with dp2dp^2, where p≍Pp\asymp P. The new averaging height is U=MP2U=MP^2. A weight with compact Fourier support then restricts the dual parameters to size O(N2/(MP2))O(N^2/(MP^2)), which is at most M/2M/2 for a sufficiently large PP. Recovering the original squarefree average costs O(Plog⁡(2P))O(P\log(2P)). The nonzero-frequency estimate gains P−2P^{-2}, so after recovery its recursive coefficient contains Nlog⁡(2P)/(MP)N\log(2P)/(MP). We choose PP as a sufficiently large fixed power of log⁡(3M)(1+N/M)(1+∣t∣)\log(3M)(1+N/M)(1+\lvert t\rvert), with a large fixed leading constant, to make this coefficient small. The approximate functional equation and a strip estimate then close the induction for the LL-functions themselves. The compact Fourier support construction and prime-square inflation are related to Li’s treatment of quadratic twists [10].

The arithmetic preparation below keeps its arithmetic exponents independent of the number of weight derivatives. Once the induction is closed, we sum all dual frequencies to compare short polynomial averages with the integer model. The polynomial moment bound will also control the unmollified terminal series in Section 4.

The normalized Gauss sums

Put e(x)=exp⁡(2πix)e(x)=\exp(2\pi i x). For an odd positive integer ll, set

τh(l)=∑a mod l(al)e(ah/l),ϵl={1l≡1(mod4),il≡3(mod4),Bh(l)=τh(l)ϵll.\tau_h(l)=\sum_{a\bmod l}\left(\frac{a}{l}\right)e(ah/l),\qquad \epsilon_l= \begin{cases} 1 & l\equiv1\pmod4,\\ i & l\equiv3\pmod4, \end{cases} \qquad B_h(l)=\frac{\tau_h(l)}{\epsilon_l\sqrt{l}}.

We use Bh(1)=1B_h(1)=1. The square root is positive. These are the normalized quadratic Gauss sums of [18], Section 2.2, Lemma 2.3: in that notation, Bh(l)=Gh(l)/lB_h(l)=G_h(l)/\sqrt{l}. We give the formulas and their proof in the present normalization.

Lemma 3.3 (Exact Gauss-sum formulas). For fixed hh, the function l↦Bh(l)l\mapsto B_h(l) is multiplicative on odd positive integers, and

B−h(l)=(−1l)Bh(l),ϵlBh(l)=1+i2Bh(l)+1−i2B−h(l).B_{-h}(l)=\left(\frac{-1}{l}\right)B_h(l),\qquad \epsilon_l B_h(l)=\frac{1+i}{2}B_h(l)+\frac{1-i}{2}B_{-h}(l).

If h≠0h\ne0, pp is odd, t=vp(h)t=v_p(h), and v≥1v\geq1, then

Bh(pv)={pv/2(1−p−1),v even, v≤t,−pv/2−1,v even, v=t+1,p(v−1)/2(h/pv−1p),v odd, v=t+1,0,otherwise.(8)B_h(p^v)= \begin{cases} p^{v/2}(1-p^{-1}), & v\ \text{even},\ v\leq t,\\ -p^{v/2-1}, & v\ \text{even},\ v=t+1,\\ p^{(v-1)/2}\left(\dfrac{h/p^{v-1}}{p}\right), & v\ \text{odd},\ v=t+1,\\ 0, & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases} \tag*{(8)}

Consequently Bh(pv)=0B_h(p^v)=0 for v>t+1v>t+1 and ∣Bh(pv)∣≤pv/2\lvert B_h(p^v)\rvert\leq p^{v/2}. If t=0t=0, only v=1v=1 can survive and Bh(p)=(h/p)B_h(p)=(h/p). If t=1t=1, only v=2v=2 can survive and Bh(p2)=−1B_h(p^2)=-1. Proof. For coprime odd l1,l2l_1,l_2, the Chinese remainder theorem, followed by a change of variable in each Gauss sum, gives

τh(l1l2)=(l1l2)(l2l1)τh(l1)τh(l2).\tau_h(l_1l_2)=\left(\frac{l_1}{l_2}\right)\left(\frac{l_2}{l_1}\right)\tau_h(l_1)\tau_h(l_2).

Quadratic reciprocity says that the displayed product of symbols is εl1l2/(εl1εl2)\varepsilon_{l_1l_2}/(\varepsilon_{l_1}\varepsilon_{l_2}). This proves multiplicativity. Substituting a↦−aa\mapsto-a proves the first identity in (3.4); the second follows by considering the two residue classes of ll modulo four.

For even vv, the Jacobi symbol modulo pvp^v is the indicator of the units. Thus

τh(pv)=∑a mod pve(ah/pv)−∑b mod pv−1e(bh/pv−1),\tau_h(p^v)=\sum_{a\bmod p^v}e(ah/p^v)-\sum_{b\bmod p^{v-1}}e(bh/p^{v-1}),

which equals pv−pv−1p^v-p^{v-1} when pv∣hp^v\mid h, equals −pv−1-p^{v-1} when pv−1∥hp^{v-1}\Vert h, and otherwise vanishes. Here εpv=1\varepsilon_{p^v}=1. For odd vv, write a=y+pza=y+pz with yy modulo pp and zz modulo pv−1p^{v-1}. The zz-sum vanishes unless pv−1∣hp^{v-1}\mid h; in that case

τh(pv)=pv−1∑y mod p(yp)e((y(h/pv−1))/p).\tau_h(p^v)=p^{v-1}\sum_{y\bmod p}\left(\frac{y}{p}\right)e\left((y(h/p^{v-1}))/p\right).

This is zero if pv∣hp^v\mid h. Otherwise the quadratic Gauss-sum formula makes it pv−1εpp(h/pv−1p)p^{v-1}\varepsilon_p\sqrt{p}\left(\frac{h/p^{v-1}}{p}\right). Since εpv=εp\varepsilon_{p^v}=\varepsilon_p for odd vv, division by εpvpv/2\varepsilon_{p^v}p^{v/2} gives (8). □

For later use, fix once and for all the arithmetic exponent

Car=256.(9)C_{\mathrm{ar}}=256. \tag*{(9)}

This exponent will not change when we require more derivatives of a weight or more decay in an imaginary direction.

Lemma 3.4 (Two-variable Euler factorization). Let rr be positive and odd, and write h=h1h22≠0h=h_1h_2^2\ne0, where h1h_1 is signed squarefree and h2≥1h_2\ge1. For ν∈{1,−1}\nu\in\{1,-1\}, the series

Gh,rν(s1,s2)=∑n1,n2≥1n1,n2 oddλF(n1)λF(n2)Bνh(rn1n2)n1s1n2s2\mathcal{G}_{h,r}^{\nu}(s_1,s_2)=\sum_{\substack{n_1,n_2\ge1\\n_1,n_2\ \mathrm{odd}}}\frac{\lambda_F(n_1)\lambda_F(n_2)B_{\nu h}(rn_1n_2)}{n_1^{s_1}n_2^{s_2}}

initially converges in a right half-plane and continues to ℜs1,ℜs2>1/2\Re s_1,\Re s_2>1/2 as

Gh,rν(s1,s2)=LF(νh1)(s1)LF(νh1)(s2)Qh,rν(s1,s2).(10)\mathcal{G}_{h,r}^{\nu}(s_1,s_2)=L_F(\nu h_1)(s_1)L_F(\nu h_1)(s_2)\mathcal{Q}_{h,r}^{\nu}(s_1,s_2). \tag*{(10)}

For 0<b≤1/40<b\le1/4 and ℜsi≥1/2+b\Re s_i\ge1/2+b,

∣Qh,rν(s1,s2)∣≪Fb−CarrCarτ(h2)Car.(11)\left|\mathcal{Q}_{h,r}^{\nu}(s_1,s_2)\right|\ll_F b^{-C_{\mathrm{ar}}}r^{C_{\mathrm{ar}}}\tau(h_2)^{C_{\mathrm{ar}}}. \tag*{(11)}

The function Q\mathcal{Q} is holomorphic in these open half-planes.

Proof. For an odd prime put ep=vp(r)e_p=v_p(r) and tp=vp(h)t_p=v_p(h). Multiplicativity expresses the series as the product of the local sums

Tp(s1,s2)=∑a,b′≥0λF(pa)λF(pb′)Bνh(pep+a+b′)p−as1−b′s2.T_p(s_1,s_2)=\sum_{a,b'\ge0}\lambda_F(p^a)\lambda_F(p^{b'})B_{\nu h}(p^{e_p+a+b'})p^{-as_1-b's_2}.

The symbol b′b' here is an integer exponent, distinct from the real shift bb. No division by Bνh(pep)B_{\nu h}(p^{e_p}) is made; that quantity may vanish. Write Dp∗(s)D_p^*(s) for the inverse local factor of the elliptic curve F(νh1)F^{(\nu h_1)}. The correction factor at pp is Tp(s1,s2)Dp∗(s1)Dp∗(s2)T_p(s_1,s_2)D_p^*(s_1)D_p^*(s_2). At two it is just D2∗(s1)D2∗(s2)D_2^*(s_1)D_2^*(s_2), because the summation indices are odd.

There are three types of odd prime. If p∉Sp \notin S and p∤rhp \nmid rh, put χ=(νh/p)=(νh1/p)\chi=(\nu h/p)=(\nu h_1/p) and xi=p−six_i=p^{-s_i}. The local formulas give exactly

Tp=1+λF(p)χ(x1+x2),Dp∗(si)=1−λF(p)χxi+xi2.T_p=1+\lambda_F(p)\chi(x_1+x_2),\qquad D_p^*(s_i)=1-\lambda_F(p)\chi x_i+x_i^2.

Multiplication cancels both terms of total degree one. The sum of the absolute values of all polynomial coefficients before cancellation is at most 5⋅4⋅4=805\cdot4\cdot4=80. Therefore the correction is 1+O(80p−1−2b)1+O(80p^{-1-2b}), uniformly in the imaginary parts.

If p∉Sp\notin S, p∤rp\nmid r, and tp=1t_p=1, the twisting curve has a trivial local factor at pp. By (8),

Tp=1−λF(p2)(x12+x22)−λF(p)2x1x2=1+O(10p−1−2b).T_p=1-\lambda_F(p^2)(x_1^2+x_2^2)-\lambda_F(p)^2x_1x_2=1+O(10p^{-1-2b}).

In particular these primes do not produce a cost for every prime factor of the squarefree part h1h_1.

The remaining odd primes lie in SS or divide rh2rh_2. The support in (8) gives ep+a+b′≤tp+1e_p+a+b'\leq t_p+1 for every nonzero summand, except that Bνh(1)=1B_{\nu h}(1)=1 is already covered when ep=a=b′=0e_p=a=b'=0. Hence

∣Tp∣≤pep/2∑a+b′≤tp+1(a+1)(b′+1)≤pep/2(tp+3)4.|T_p|\leq p^{e_p/2}\sum_{a+b'\leq t_p+1}(a+1)(b'+1)\leq p^{e_p/2}(t_p+3)^4.

Each inverse local factor has modulus at most (1+p−1/2)2(1+p^{-1/2})^2, so the product of the two costs at most 99. Writing up=vp(h2)u_p=v_p(h_2), we have tp≤2up+1t_p\leq2u_p+1. If up≥1u_p\geq1, the bound 9(2up+4)4≤(up+1)179(2u_p+4)^4\leq(u_p+1)^{17} absorbs this cost into a fixed divisor power, with pep/2p^{e_p/2} absorbed by rr. If up=0u_p=0 and ep≥1e_p\geq1, the cost is at most 9⋅44pep/2≤p8ep9\cdot4^4p^{e_p/2}\leq p^{8e_p} for p≥3p\geq3. If up=ep=0u_p=e_p=0, this is one of the fixed primes of SS, whose cost is a fixed constant. The factor at two is bounded by (1+2−1/2)4(1+2^{-1/2})^4.

The nonexceptional product is bounded by

exp⁡(80∑pp−1−2b)≤ζ(1+2b)80≪b−80.\exp\left(80\sum_p p^{-1-2b}\right)\leq\zeta(1+2b)^{80}\ll b^{-80}.

Combining the estimates proves (11) with the stated CarC_{\mathrm{ar}}. The nonexceptional correction product converges normally on compact subsets of ℜsi>1/2\Re s_i>1/2; all exceptional factors are polynomials. Multiplication by the entire twist LL-functions therefore gives the claimed continuation. This argument never divides by a global LL-value. □

A weighted Poisson estimate

The Euler factorization identifies the twist functions that occur at nonzero frequencies. We now turn it into a weighted comparison formula: the zero frequency gives the integer residue average, and the remaining frequencies are bounded by those twist functions. This is a quadratic Poisson method used in [18], with the weights and normalization specified below.

Fix a compact interval [a0,a1]⊂(0,∞)[a_0,a_1]\subset(0,\infty) for the first two scaled variables. The third variable ranges over R\mathbb{R}. For an integer D≥0D\geq0, a convenient finite seminorm is

∥W∥D,∗=max⁡α+β+γ≤Dsup⁡y1,y2,x(1+∣x∣)D∣∂y1α∂y2β∂xγW(y1,y2,x)∣.\|W\|_{D,*}=\max_{\alpha+\beta+\gamma\leq D}\sup_{y_1,y_2,x}(1+|x|)^D\left|\partial_{y_1}^{\alpha}\partial_{y_2}^{\beta}\partial_x^\gamma W(y_1,y_2,x)\right|.

The functions under consideration vanish outside [a0,a1]2[a_0,a_1]^2 in the first two variables and have the indicated finite decay and smoothness in the third. Requiring a larger fixed DD below causes no change to CarC_{\mathrm{ar}}.

Lemma 3.5 (Poisson estimate). Let U>0U>0, let rr be odd and positive, and let NiN_i be bounded below by a fixed positive constant. Fix 0<b≤1/40<b\leq1/4. In the expression

1U∑m∈Z∑n1,n2≥1n1,n2 oddλF(n1)λF(n2)(n1n2)1/2n1it1n2it2(mrn1n2)W(n1/N1,n2/N2,m/U),(12)\frac{1}{U}\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{\substack{n_1,n_2\geq1\\ n_1,n_2\ \mathrm{odd}}}\frac{\lambda_F(n_1)\lambda_F(n_2)}{(n_1n_2)^{1/2}n_1^{it_1}n_2^{it_2}}\left(\frac{m}{rn_1n_2}\right)W(n_1/N_1,n_2/N_2,m/U), \tag*{(12)}

Poisson summation gives the zero frequency, namely the complete-residue average integrated in xx, together with the nonzero frequencies. For every fixed J1>0J_1>0, a sufficiently large fixed seminorm order DD bounds the absolute contribution of frequency h=h1h2≠0h=h_1h_2\neq0 by

CJ1,F∥W∥D,∗(N1N2)−1/2+bb−CarrCarτ(h2)Car(1+∣h∣UrN1N2)−J1⋅∑ν=±1∫R2∏i=12∣LF(νh1)(1/2+b+i(ti+vi))∣(1+∣v1∣+∣v2∣)J1 dv1 dv2.(13)C_{J_1,F}\lVert W\rVert_{D,*}(N_1N_2)^{-1/2+b}b^{-C_{\mathrm{ar}}}r^{C_{\mathrm{ar}}}\tau(h_2)^{C_{\mathrm{ar}}}\left(1+\frac{|h|U}{rN_1N_2}\right)^{-J_1} \cdot\sum_{\nu=\pm1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{2}\left|L_F^{(\nu h_1)}(1/2+b+i(t_i+v_i))\right|}{(1+|v_1|+|v_2|)^{J_1}}\,dv_1\,dv_2. \tag*{(13)}

If the Fourier transform of WW in xx is supported in a fixed interval [−CW,CW][-C_W,C_W], all modes with ∣h∣>CWa12rN1N2/U|h|>C_Wa_1^2rN_1N_2/U vanish exactly.

Proof. Our Fourier convention is W^(y1,y2,ξ)=∫RW(y1,y2,x)e(−xξ) dx\widehat W(y_1,y_2,\xi)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}W(y_1,y_2,x)e(-x\xi)\,dx. Applying Poisson summation in each residue class modulo l=rn1n2l=rn_1n_2 gives exactly

1U∑m(ml)W(y1,y2,m/U)=∑h∈Zτh(l)lW^(y1,y2,hU/l).\frac{1}{U}\sum_{m}\left(\frac{m}{l}\right)W(y_1,y_2,m/U)=\sum_{h\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{\tau_h(l)}{l}\widehat W(y_1,y_2,hU/l).

Thus the normalized frequency factor is

1n1n2τh(rn1n2)rn1n2=ϵrn1n2Bh(rn1n2)rn1n2.\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_1n_2}}\frac{\tau_h(rn_1n_2)}{rn_1n_2}=\frac{\epsilon_{rn_1n_2}B_h(rn_1n_2)}{\sqrt{r n_1n_2}}.

Use (3.4) to replace the numerator by a fixed linear combination of BhB_h and B−hB_{-h}. Put ρ=hU/(rN1N2)\rho=hU/(rN_1N_2) and

Vh(y1,y2)=W^(y1,y2,ρ/(y1y2)),V~h(z1,z2)=∫0∞∫0∞Vh(y1,y2)y1z1y2z2dy1dy2y1y2.V_h(y_1,y_2)=\widehat W(y_1,y_2,\rho/(y_1y_2)),\qquad\widetilde V_h(z_1,z_2)=\int_0^\infty\int_0^\infty V_h(y_1,y_2)y_1^{z_1}y_2^{z_2}\frac{dy_1dy_2}{y_1y_2}.

On any fixed bounded range of real parts, Fourier integration by parts in xx, followed by Mellin integration by parts in y1,y2y_1,y_2, yields

∣V~h(z1,z2)∣≪J1∥W∥D,∗(1+∣ρ∣)−J1(1+∣ℑz1∣+∣ℑz2∣)−J1.(14)|\widetilde V_h(z_1,z_2)|\ll_{J_1}\lVert W\rVert_{D,*}(1+|\rho|)^{-J_1}(1+|\Im z_1|+|\Im z_2|)^{-J_1}. \tag*{(14)}

To see why differentiation causes no arithmetic loss, each derivative of ρ/(y1y2)\rho/(y_1y_2) contributes a bounded multiple of ρ\rho on the fixed compact support. For any fixed number of such derivatives, take that many additional integrations by parts in xx. The powers of ρ\rho are then absorbed by its Fourier decay. All other factors are bounded functions of y1,y2y_1,y_2.

Mellin inversion first on right lines expresses the ν\nu part of the mode as

1r(2πi)2∬V~h(z1,z2)N1z1N2z2Gh,rν(1+it1+z1,1+it2+z2) dz1 dz2.\frac{1}{\sqrt r(2\pi i)^2}\iint\widetilde V_h(z_1,z_2)N_1^{z_1}N_2^{z_2}G^\nu_{h,r}(1+it_1+z_1,1+it_2+z_2)\,dz_1\,dz_2.

Move both lines to ℜzi=−1/2+b\Re z_i=-1/2+b. Lemma (3.4) and the entire continuation of the twist functions show that no pole is crossed. Polynomial growth in fixed strips, together with a larger fixed order in (14), makes the horizontal segments tend to zero. The scale factor is (N1N2)−1/2+b(N_1N_2)^{-1/2+b}. Applying (11) and (14), and discarding r−1/2≤1r^{-1/2}\leq1, proves (13). The final assertion follows directly from the support of W^\widehat W before Mellin inversion.

Whenever unrestricted positive indices occur, write n=2an′n = 2^{a}n^{\prime} with n′n^{\prime} odd. For zm(2)=cz_m(2) = c the factor taken outside an odd-index sum is λF(2a)ca2−a(1/2+it)\lambda_F(2^a)c^a2^{-a(1/2+it)}. Its absolute values have the uniformly convergent majorant

∑a≥0(a+1)2−a/2<∞.\sum_{a\geq0}(a+1)2^{-a/2}<\infty.

The new length is N/2aN/2^a; a nonempty localized sum has this length bounded below by a constant depending only on [a0,a1][a_0,a_1].

Closing a logarithmic second-moment induction

Proof of Propositions 3.1 and 3.2. We give a simultaneous induction for all F∈FF\in\mathcal{F}. The induction hypothesis at smaller dyadic heights is

1M′∑d admissibleM′≤∣d∣<2M′∣LF(d)(σ+it)∣2≤Klog⁡B(3M′)(1+∣t∣)A(M′<M).(15)\frac{1}{M^{\prime}}\sum_{\substack{d\ {\rm admissible}\\ M^{\prime}\leq|d|<2M^{\prime}}}|L_{F(d)}(\sigma+it)|^2\leq K\log^B(3M^{\prime})(1+|t|)^A \qquad(M^{\prime}<M). \tag*{(15)}

The constant KK, common to the finite family, will be selected last. Since the reduction in Lemma 2.1 does not increase height and has bounded multiplicity, this hypothesis implies

∑0<∣h1∣≤Hh1 squarefree∣LF(νh1)(1/2+b+iv)∣2≤CFKHlog⁡B(3M)(1+∣v∣)A(1≤H≤M/2).(16)\sum_{\substack{0<|h_1|\leq H\\ h_1\ {\rm squarefree}}}|L_{F(\nu h_1)}(1/2+b+iv)|^2\leq C_FKH\log^B(3M)(1+|v|)^A \qquad(1\leq H\leq M/2). \tag*{(16)}

Indeed all admissible images lie in earlier dyadic blocks, whose lengths have sum at most 2H2H. If H<1H<1, the sum is empty. In particular the arguments below at M=1M=1 require no induction input.

The polynomial average at inflated height. First we prove a polynomial estimate with a small coefficient in front of KK. Put L=log⁡(3M)L=\log(3M), T=1+∣t∣T=1+|t|, and let N>0N>0. Choose PP sufficiently large, with

P≥CF,G(1+N/M).(17)P\geq C_{F,G}(1+N/M). \tag*{(17)}

Let P\mathcal{P} consist of the primes p∈[P,2P]p\in[P,2P] outside SS. For a sufficiently large fixed lower threshold on PP, the elementary dyadic prime estimate of Erdős [3], §6, equation (10) gives ∣P∣≫P/log⁡(2P)|\mathcal{P}|\gg P/\log(2P).

Choose a fixed nonnegative Schwartz function Φ\Phi that is at least one on [−8,8][-8,8] and has compactly supported Fourier transform. For completeness, take a nonzero even real smooth bump gg in frequency space with ∫g>0\int g>0. Its inverse Fourier transform ff is real, Schwartz, and nonzero near zero. A sufficiently small dilation makes f(αx)f(\alpha x) nonzero throughout [−8,8][-8,8]; a fixed multiple of f(αx)2f(\alpha x)^2 then has the required properties. Its Fourier transform is a compactly supported convolution.

Put U=MP2U=MP^2. For c=±1c=\pm1 use the formal character zmz_m with zm(2)=cz_m(2)=c, and let Pmc(N′,t;G)P_m^c(N^{\prime},t;G) be the corresponding polynomial. We claim, uniformly for 0<N′≤N0<N^{\prime}\leq N,

1U∑m∈ZΦ(m/U)∣Pmc(N′,t;G)∣2≤CGlog⁡C0(3M+3N)(1+CA,B,F,GKNMP2LBTA).(18)\frac{1}{U}\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}\Phi(m/U)|P_m^c(N^{\prime},t;G)|^2\leq C_G\log^{C_0}(3M+3N)\left(1+C_{A,B,F,G}K\frac{N}{MP^2}L^BT^A\right). \tag*{(18)}

where we may fix C0=512C_0=512, independently of AA, $B and of the required smoothness orders.

To prove the claim, apply Lemma 3.5 with r=1r=1 to the expansion of the square, first separating powers of two by (3.12). Take b=1/(10log⁡(3M+3N))b=1/(10\log(3M+3N)). For the zero mode the complete-residue mean vanishes unless the odd part of n1n2n_1n_2 is a square, and its absolute value is at most one. Inserting (n1n2)−b(n_1n_2)^{-b} at the bounded cost (CGN)2b≪G1(C_GN)^{2b}\ll_G 1 majorizes the resulting sum by an Euler product. At an odd prime this product has factor

∑a,b′≥0a+b′ even(a+1)(b′+1)p−(a+b′)(1/2+b)=1+O(100p−1−2b).\sum_{\substack{a,b'\ge0\\a+b'\ \mathrm{even}}}(a+1)(b'+1)p^{-(a+b')(1/2+b)}=1+O(100p^{-1-2b}).

For example this follows by putting z=p−1/2−b≤3−1/2z=p^{-1/2-b}\le3^{-1/2} in 12((1−z)−4+(1+z)−4)\frac{1}{2}\left((1-z)^{-4}+(1+z)^{-4}\right) and bounding its terms of degree at least two. The prime two costs a bounded factor by (3.12). The zero mode is therefore OG(b−100)O_G(b^{-100}).

For the nonzero modes, denote the two odd lengths by N1,N2N_1,N_2. The Fourier support restricts the frequencies to

0<∣h∣≤H0=CΦN1N2/(MP2).0<|h|\le H_0=C_\Phi N_1N_2/(MP^2).

Increasing the constant in (17) ensures H0≤M/2H_0\le M/2 for every such pair of lengths. For fixed h2h_2, Cauchy–Schwarz and (16) bound the sum over h1h_1 occurring in (13) by

≪FKH0h22LB(1+∣t+v1∣)A/2(1+∣−t+v2∣)A/2.\ll_F K\frac{H_0}{h_2^2}L^B(1+|t+v_1|)^{A/2}(1+|-t+v_2|)^{A/2}.

This formula is only used when H0/h22≥1H_0/h_2^2\ge1; otherwise that sum is empty. Choose J1>A+4J_1>A+4. Since 1+∣±t+v∣≤T(1+∣v∣)1+|\pm t+v|\le T(1+|v|), the integral in v1,v2v_1,v_2 is OA(TA)O_A(T^A). Also

∑h2≥1τ(h2)Carh22<∞.(19)\sum_{h_2\ge1}\frac{\tau(h_2)^{C_{\rm ar}}}{h_2^2}<\infty. \tag*{(19)}

One proof of this convergence is its Euler product: its local factor is 1+Oar(p−2)1+O_{\rm ar}(p^{-2}), since ∑a≥1(a+1)Carp−2a≪Carp−2\sum_{a\ge1}(a+1)^{C_{\rm ar}}p^{-2a}\ll_{C_{\rm ar}}p^{-2} uniformly for p≥2p\ge2. Consequently the nonzero contribution is bounded by

≪A,B,F,Gb−CarKLBTA(N1N2)−1/2+bH0≪A,B,F,Glog⁡C0(3M+3N)KNMP2LBTA.\ll_{A,B,F,G}b^{-C_{\rm ar}}KL^BT^A(N_1N_2)^{-1/2+b}H_0\ll_{A,B,F,G}\log^{C_0}(3M+3N)K\frac{N}{MP^2}L^BT^A.

Here (N1N2)b≪G1(N_1N_2)^b\ll_G1 and N1N2≪GN\sqrt{N_1N_2}\ll_GN. The sums of the factors from two converge by (3.12). This proves (18). If the Fourier support contains no nonzero frequency, the same proof uses only its zero-mode part.

Recovering the squarefree average. Now inflate an admissible parameter by setting m=dp2m=dp^2. If c=χd(2)c=\chi_d(2), multiplicativity gives the exact identity

Pd(N,t;G)=∑a≥0λF(pa)χd(p)ap−a(1/2+it)Pdp2c(N/pa,t;G).(20)P_d(N,t;G)=\sum_{a\ge0}\lambda_F(p^a)\chi_d(p)^ap^{-a(1/2+it)}P_{dp^2}^c(N/p^a,t;G). \tag*{(20)}

Indeed zdp2(n)z_{dp^2}(n) deletes all positive powers of pp and agrees with χd(n)\chi_d(n) on integers prime to pp; reinstating their Euler coefficients gives the original sum. If p∣dp\mid d, the terms with a≥1a\ge1 vanish, so the identity also covers that case.

Equip pairs (d,p)(d,p), with M≤∣d∣<2MM\le|d|<2M, χd(2)=c\chi_d(2)=c, and p∈Pp\in\mathcal{P}, with squared norm (M∣P∣)−1∑d,p∣⋅∣2(M|\mathcal{P}|)^{-1}\sum_{d,p}|\cdot|^2. The map (d,p)↦dp2(d,p)\mapsto dp^2 is injective: in the prime factorization of its absolute value the only exponent exceeding one occurs at pp, and is either two or three. Moreover ∣dp2∣<8U|dp^2|<8U. Thus the a=0a=0 term has norm at most

(UM∣P∣)1/2sup⁡0<N′≤N(1U∑mΦ(m/U)∣Pmc(N′,t;G)∣2)1/2≪(Plog⁡(2P))1/2B1/2,\left(\frac{U}{M|\mathcal{P}|}\right)^{1/2}\sup_{0<N'\le N}\left(\frac{1}{U}\sum_m\Phi(m/U)|P_m^c(N',t;G)|^2\right)^{1/2}\ll(P\log(2P))^{1/2}B^{1/2},

where B\mathcal{B} denotes the right side of (18). For a≥1a \ge1 fix pp before summing in dd. The weaker bound ∑d∣Pdp2(N/pa,t;G)∣2≤UB\sum_d |P_{d p^2}(N/p^a,t;G)|^2 \le U\mathcal{B} gives pair norm at most (a+1)P1−a/2B1/2(a+1)P^{1-a/2}\mathcal{B}^{1/2}. Minkowski’s inequality and

∑a≥1(a+1)P−a/2≪P−1/2\sum_{a\ge1}(a+1)P^{-a/2}\ll P^{-1/2}

show that these terms together have norm O(P1/2B1/2)O(P^{1/2}\mathcal{B}^{1/2}). Summing the two choices of cc proves

1M∑d∣Pd(N,t;G)∣2≪Glog⁡C0(3M+3N)Plog⁡(2P)(1+CA,B,F,GKNMP2LBTA).(21)\frac{1}{M}\sum_d |P_d(N,t;G)|^2 \ll_G \log^{C_0}(3M+3N)P\log(2P)\left(1+C_{A,B,F,G}K\frac{N}{MP^2}L^BT^A\right). \tag*{(21)}

Here is an explicit noncircular choice of exponents. Set

C0=512,C1=C0+32,C2=C0+C1+4,C_0=512,\qquad C_1=C_0+32,\qquad C_2=C_0+C_1+4,
R=C2+4,C3=3C2+10,A=B=2(C3+20).(22)R=C_2+4,\qquad C_3=3C_2+10,\qquad A=B=2(C_3+20). \tag*{(22)}

The letter RR in this proof denotes a fixed contour abscissa; it is unrelated to a rank truncation threshold used later in the paper. For any prescribed ε>0\varepsilon>0, choose

P=P0[L(1+N/M)T]C1.P=P_0[L(1+N/M)T]^{C_1}.

Once AA, BB and the fixed weight family have been selected, a sufficiently large P0P_0 ensures (17) and gives

1M∑d∣Pd(N,t;G)∣2≤C∗[L(1+N/M)T]C2+εKLB−10TA−4(1+N/M)−4.(23)\frac{1}{M}\sum_d |P_d(N,t;G)|^2 \le C_*[L(1+N/M)T]^{C_2} +\varepsilon K L^{B-10}T^{A-4}(1+N/M)^{-4}. \tag*{(23)}

The constant C∗C_* can depend on P0P_0 and the chosen fixed data, but not on KK, MM, NN, tt. For explicit verification, put q=1+N/Mq=1+N/M and D0=LqTD_0=LqT. Then log⁡(3M+3N)≪Lq\log(3M+3N)\ll Lq and

log⁡(2P)P≤log⁡(2P0)+C1P0D0−C1+1.\frac{\log(2P)}{P}\le\frac{\log(2P_0)+C_1}{P_0}D_0^{-C_1+1}.

The recursive coefficient in (21) is therefore at most a fixed multiple of

log⁡(2P0)+C1P0KLB+C0−C1+1TA−C1+1qC0−C1+2.\frac{\log(2P_0)+C_1}{P_0}K L^{B+C_0-C_1+1}T^{A-C_1+1}q^{C_0-C_1+2}.

Our value of C1C_1 leaves at least the losses 1010, 44, 44 displayed in (23). Its prefactor can be made smaller than ε\varepsilon. The nonrecursive term is bounded by C∗D0C0+C1+1C_*D_0^{C_0+C_1+1} and hence by the stated C2C_2 power. In particular C2C_2 was fixed before AA, BB, ε\varepsilon, P0P_0, KK.

Reconstructing the central-line values. We next reconstruct LL on the central line. Choose a fixed smooth dyadic partition G0G_0 with common compact support in (0,∞)(0,\infty), so that ∑N=1,2,4,…G0(n/N)=1\sum_{N=1,2,4,\ldots}G_0(n/N)=1 for every integer n≥1n\ge1. Let Cd=qF∣d∣/(2π)C_d=\sqrt{q_F}|d|/(2\pi) and define

Id(t)=12πi∫(R)LF(d)(1/2+it+w)CdwΓ(1+it+w)ew2Γ(1+it)dww.I_d(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{(R)}L_{F(d)}(1/2+it+w)C_d^w\frac{\Gamma(1+it+w)e^{w^2}}{\Gamma(1+it)}\frac{dw}{w}.

Moving the contour to ℜw=−R\Re w=-R crosses only the residue LF(d)(1/2+it)L_{F(d)}(1/2+it), because the completed function is entire. Apply its functional equation on the new line and replace ww by −w-w. One obtains the exact approximate functional equation

LF(d)(1/2+it)=Id(t)+ωd(t)Id(−t),ωd(t)=ϵdCd−2itΓ(1−it)Γ(1+it),∣ωd(t)∣=1.(24)L_{F(d)}(1/2+it)=I_d(t)+\omega_d(t)I_d(-t),\qquad\omega_d(t)=\epsilon_d C_d^{-2it}\frac{\Gamma(1-it)}{\Gamma(1+it)},\qquad|\omega_d(t)|=1. \tag*{(24)}

The Gaussian makes the contour displacement legitimate. Initially, on ℜw=R\Re w = R, the Dirichlet series is absolutely convergent, so we may insert the dyadic partition.

For 0≤c≤R0 \le c \le R, Stirling’s formula uniformly gives

∣Γ(1+c+i(t+v))Γ(1+it)∣≪RTc(1+∣v∣)R+1/2eπ∣v∣/2.\left|\frac{\Gamma(1+c+i(t+v))}{\Gamma(1+it)}\right| \ll_R T^c(1+|v|)^{R+1/2}e^{\pi|v|/2}.

Indeed the quotient of the exponential factors is at most eπ∣v∣/2e^{\pi|v|/2}, and

(1+∣t+v∣)c+1/2(1+∣t∣)1/2≤Tc(1+∣v∣)c+1/2.\frac{(1+|t+v|)^{c+1/2}}{(1+|t|)^{1/2}} \le T^c(1+|v|)^{c+1/2}.

The same estimates with 1+∣t+v∣1+|t+v| also cover bounded ordinates, including vv near −t-t. Thus the bound is uniform as cc tends to zero. For a fixed dyadic piece the polynomial is finite, so its contour can be moved to any 0<c≤R0<c\le R. Multiplying (3.24) by ∣e(c+iv)2∣|e^{(c+iv)^2}| absorbs its vv-factors into OR(e−v2/2)O_R(e^{-v^2/2}) and yields

∣LF(d)(1/2+it)∣≪R,F∑ν=±1∑N∫Re−v2/2∣cN+iv∣(MTN)cN∣Pd(N,νt+v;G0(y)y−cN)∣ dv.(25)|L_{F(d)}(1/2+it)|\ll_{R,F}\sum_{\nu=\pm1}\sum_N\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{e^{-v^2/2}}{|c_N+iv|}\left(\frac{MT}{N}\right)^{c_N}|P_d(N,\nu t+v;G_0(y)y^{-c_N})|\,dv. \tag*{(25)}

There is no use of the desired moment to justify this representation: on the initial fixed line RR, the elementary bound ∣Pd(N,t;G)∣≪GNlog⁡(2+N)|P_d(N,t;G)|\ll_G\sqrt{N}\log(2+N) makes the sum of the long pieces converge, since R>1/2R>1/2. Finitely many shorter pieces can then be moved separately. The moment estimates below also show convergence after taking the family norm.

Use

cN=1log⁡(3MT)(N≤MT2),cN=R(N>MT2).c_N=\frac{1}{\log(3MT)}\quad(N\le MT^2),\qquad c_N=R\quad(N>MT^2).

Apply (23) uniformly to the fixed smooth family G0(y)y−cG_0(y)y^{-c}, 0≤c≤R0\le c\le R, and use Minkowski in (25). We spell out the two contributions. For the nonrecursive square-root term and N≤MT2N\le MT^2,

[L(1+N/M)(1+∣νt+v∣)]C2/2≪LC2/2T3C2/2(1+∣v∣)C2/2.[L(1+N/M)(1+|\nu t+v|)]^{C_2/2}\ll L^{C_2/2}T^{3C_2/2}(1+|v|)^{C_2/2}.

There are O(log⁡(3MT2))O(\log(3MT^2)) such dyadic pieces, (MT/N)cN≤e(MT/N)^{c_N}\le e for N≥1N\ge1, and 1/∣cN+iv∣≤log⁡(3MT)1/|c_N+iv|\le\log(3MT). Since both logarithms are O(LT)O(LT), their squared total cost gives at most C∗∗(LT)3C2+4C_{**}(LT)^{3C_2+4} in the mean square. For the long pieces put q′=N/M>T2q'=N/M>T^2. Then

∑q′>T2(Tq′)R(q′)C2/2≪RT−R+C2,\sum_{q'>T^2}\left(\frac{T}{q'}\right)^R(q')^{C_2/2}\ll_R T^{-R+C_2},

where q′q' runs over a dyadic progression. Including the outside factor LC2/2TC2/2L^{C_2/2}T^{C_2/2} again fits within C∗∗(LT)C3C_{**}(LT)^{C_3} by (22).

For the recursive square-root term, the short dyadic sum satisfies

∑N≤MT2(1+N/M)−2≪log⁡(3M)=L.\sum_{N\le MT^2}(1+N/M)^{-2}\ll\log(3M)=L.

The Gaussian absorbs (1+∣v∣)(A−4)/2(1+|v|)^{(A-4)/2}, so the resulting norm is at most

CA,R,FεK LB/2−5TA/2−2Llog⁡(3MT)≪CA,R,FεK LB/2TA/2.C_{A,R,F}\sqrt{\varepsilon K}\,L^{B/2-5}T^{A/2-2}L\log(3MT)\ll C_{A,R,F}\sqrt{\varepsilon K}\,L^{B/2}T^{A/2}.

For the long pieces we have the stronger estimate

∑q′>T2(Tq′)R(1+q′)−2≪RT−R−4,(26)\sum_{q'>T^{2}}\left(\frac{T}{q'}\right)^{R}(1+q')^{-2}\ll_{R}T^{-R-4}, \tag*{(26)}

which gives the same bound. Squaring the total norm now proves

1M∑d∣LF(d)(1/2+it)∣2≤C∗∗(LT)C3+C†εKLBTA.(27)\frac{1}{M}\sum_{d}\left|L_{F(d)}(1/2+it)\right|^{2}\leq C_{**}(LT)^{C_{3}}+C_{\dagger}\varepsilon K L^{B}T^{A}. \tag*{(27)}

Here C†C_{\dagger} depends on AA, RR, F\mathcal{F} but not on P0P_{0}, KK, MM, tt; C∗∗C_{**} may depend on P0P_{0}. This independence is essential when choosing the constants.

Closing the induction in the strip. It remains to extend the estimate to the strip without a factor for the number of twists. Form the vector

VF(s)=(M−1/2LF(d)(s))d\mathbf{V}_{F}(s)=\left(M^{-1/2}L_{F(d)}(s)\right)_{d}

in the finite-dimensional Euclidean space indexed by the current admissible block. On ℜs=2\Re s=2 its squared norm is bounded by an absolute constant: each LL-value has modulus at most ∑nτ(n)n−2=ζ(2)2\sum_{n}\tau(n)n^{-2}=\zeta(2)^{2}, and the number of parameters is O(M)O(M). On ℜs=1/2\Re s=1/2, (27) gives the stated vector norm bound.

For each constant unit vector uu apply the scalar strip principle to

fu(s)=⟨VF(s),u⟩(1+s)A/2.f_{u}(s)=\frac{\langle\mathbf{V}_{F}(s),u\rangle}{(1+s)^{A/2}}.

Here AA is even by (22). On both boundaries ∣1+s∣≍1+∣ℑs∣|1+s|\asymp1+|\Im s|, with constants independent of the number of twists. The scalar boundary bound is therefore at most

CA(C∗∗LC3+C†εKLB+1)1/2.C_{A}\left(C_{**}L^{C_{3}}+C_{\dagger}\varepsilon K L^{B}+1\right)^{1/2}.

For clarity, finite-order growth suffices for the strip principle: multiply fu(s)f_{u}(s) by exp⁡{−ρcos⁡(s−5/4)}\exp\{-\rho\cos(s-5/4)\}, with ρ>0\rho>0. Its modulus is at most one on the strip boundaries and it decays faster than every finite-order growth bound on horizontal sides, since cos⁡(ℜs−5/4)>0\cos(\Re s-5/4)>0 for 1/2≤ℜs≤21/2\leq\Re s\leq2. Apply the maximum principle on rectangles and then let their heights tend to infinity and ρ\rho decrease to zero. Taking the supremum over unit vectors at the desired point gives

∥VF(σ+it)∥22≤Cst(C∗∗LC3+C†εKLB+1)TA,12≤σ≤2.(28)\left\|\mathbf{V}_{F}(\sigma+it)\right\|_{2}^{2}\leq C_{\mathrm{st}}\left(C_{**}L^{C_{3}}+C_{\dagger}\varepsilon K L^{B}+1\right)T^{A},\qquad\frac{1}{2}\leq\sigma\leq2. \tag*{(28)}

This argument has no dimension-dependent loss.

The choice order is now explicit. Fix the family, the elementary arithmetic exponent, C0,C1,C2,R,C3,A,BC_{0},C_{1},C_{2},R,C_{3},A,B as above, and then all needed fixed kernel orders. Next choose 0<ε<(4CstC†)−10<\varepsilon<(4C_{\mathrm{st}}C_{\dagger})^{-1}, choose P0P_{0} to obtain (23) for the entire weight family, and finally choose KK so large that Cst(C∗∗LC3+1)≤KLB/2C_{\mathrm{st}}(C_{**}L^{C_{3}}+1)\leq K L^{B}/2 for every L≥log⁡3L\geq\log3. This is possible because B>C3B>C_{3} and C∗∗C_{**} is independent of KK. Equation (28) proves (15) at height MM. At M=1M=1, all dual sums used above are empty, so this also establishes the initial step. The simultaneous induction is complete.

The induction just completed uses the fixed weight family G0(y)y−cG_{0}(y)y^{-c}, 0≤c≤R0\leq c\leq R. For any other fixed smooth compactly supported GG, repeat the polynomial argument through (23), using the established LL-function bound at smaller heights. The constants P0P_{0} and C∗C_{*} may now depend on GG, while K,A,BK,A,B remain fixed. Since A,B>C2A,B>C_{2}, this proves [](#eq:3.3, with the asserted uniformity for fixed uniformly smooth weight families. Finally use Lemma 2.1, bounded multiplicity, and a sum over admissible dyadic blocks of total length O(H)O(H) to obtain (6). No analytic-density input has entered the argument.

Short polynomials and auxiliary multipliers

The second moments are now available at every height. We use them to bound the complete sum of nonzero Poisson frequencies, retaining the zero frequency as an exact independent-model average. The resulting comparison permits a short polynomial multiplier, as required for the mollifiers below.

Fix a nonnegative smooth function Ψ\Psi compactly supported in {x:0<∣x∣<∞}\{x: 0 < |x| < \infty\}, with Ψ(x)≥1\Psi(x) \ge1 when 1≤∣x∣≤21 \le|x| \le2. Fix c∈{1,−1}c \in\{1,-1\}. The formal character zmz_m and the independent variables ZZ always have value cc at two. At odd primes their model law is

P(Z(p)=0)=1p,P(Z(p)=1)=P(Z(p)=−1)=1−1/p2.\mathbb{P}(Z(p)=0)=\frac{1}{p}, \qquad\mathbb{P}(Z(p)=1)=\mathbb{P}(Z(p)=-1)=\frac{1-1/p}{2}.

They are extended completely multiplicatively. This is a model for complete integer residue averages.

Lemma 3.6 (Summation of all dual frequencies). For fixed B≥0B \ge0, J1>1J_1 > 1, and Q>0Q > 0,

∑T=1,2,4,…Tlog⁡B(3T)(1+T/Q)−J1≪B,J1{QJ1,0<Q<1,Qlog⁡B(3Q),Q≥1.(29)\sum_{T=1,2,4,\ldots} T\log^B(3T)(1+T/Q)^{-J_1} \ll_{B,J_1} \begin{cases} Q^{J_1}, & 0<Q<1,\\ Q\log^B(3Q), & Q\ge1. \end{cases} \tag*{(29)}

In particular the first bound is at most a constant times QQ.

Proof. If Q<1Q < 1, bound (1+T/Q)−J1(1+T/Q)^{-J_1} by (Q/T)J1(Q/T)^{J_1}. The remaining series is ∑j≥02−(J1−1)jlog⁡B(3⋅2j)<∞\sum_{j\ge0}2^{-(J_1-1)j}\log^B(3\cdot2^j)<\infty. For Q≥1Q\ge1, the part T≤QT\le Q is bounded by log⁡B(3Q)∑T≤QT≪Qlog⁡B(3Q)\log^B(3Q)\sum_{T\le Q}T\ll Q\log^B(3Q). For the remaining part choose the first dyadic T0>QT_0>Q, so Q<T0≤2QQ<T_0\le2Q, and write T=2jT0T=2^jT_0. The summand is at most

CBQ2−(J1−1)j(log⁡B(3Q)+(j+1)B).C_BQ2^{-(J_1-1)j}\bigl(\log^B(3Q)+(j+1)^B\bigr).

Both resulting geometric series converge. This estimates the infinite frequency tail before any logarithm is replaced by log⁡X\log X.

Comparison with the independent model

Proposition 3.7 (Comparison with the independent model). Let ℓ=log⁡X\ell=\log X, where XX is sufficiently large, and let

c1ℓ−1/10≤Δ≤12c_1\ell^{-1/10}\le\Delta\le\frac{1}{2}

for a fixed c1>0c_1>0. There are fixed constants η,c2>0\eta,c_2>0 for which the following holds. Let

SV(x)=∑n≥1λF(n)V(n)nwx(ℓ−1log⁡n),HV=∑r′≤R0h(r′)V(r′),S_V(x)=\sum_{n\ge1}\frac{\lambda_F(n)V(n)}{\sqrt{n}}w_x(\ell^{-1}\log n),\qquad H_V=\sum_{r'\le R_0}h(r')V(r'),

where V=zmV=z_m or ZZ. Suppose that SVS_V has length at most X1−ΔX^{1-\Delta}, that

1≤R0≤XηΔ,∑r′≤R0∣h(r′)∣≤CHR02(30)1\le R_0\le X^{\eta\Delta},\qquad\sum_{r'\le R_0}|h(r')|\le C_HR_0^2 \tag*{(30)}

and that wxw_x and a function A(x)A(x) have bounds by a fixed power of ℓ\ell for all derivatives up to a sufficiently large fixed order. For wxw_x these bounds are required after smooth dyadic localization in nn, on the scaled variables n/Nn/N and xx in a fixed neighborhood of supp⁡Ψ\operatorname{supp}\Psi. They may in particular follow from bounds in u=ℓ−1log⁡n≥0u=\ell^{-1}\log n\ge0 and xx, with a smooth extension at n=1n=1. Then

1X∑m∈ZΨ(m/X)∣HZmSZm(m/X)−A(m/X)∣2=∫RΨ(x)E∣HZSZ(x)−A(x)∣2 dx+O(exp⁡(−c2Δℓ)).(31)\frac{1}{X}\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}\Psi(m/X)\left|H_{Z_m}S_{Z_m}(m/X)-A(m/X)\right|^2 = \int_{\mathbb{R}}\Psi(x)\mathbb{E}\left|H_ZS_Z(x)-A(x)\right|^2\,dx+O\left(\exp(-c_2\Delta\ell)\right). \tag*{(31)}

The constants and the sufficiently large XX threshold are uniform when the stated support, coefficient, and derivative bounds are uniform. They do not depend on Δ\Delta or on an index parametrizing such weights. One may take

C′=Car+1=257,η=14(4+2C′),c2=12.(32)C'=C_{\mathrm{ar}}+1=257,\qquad\eta=\frac{1}{4(4+2C')},\qquad c_2=\frac{1}{2}. \tag*{(32)}

Proof. Put L=X1−ΔL=X^{1-\Delta}. If the length hypothesis specifies only that the integer coefficients vanish for n>Ln>L, multiply the interpolating weight by ρ+(n/L)\rho_+(n/L), where ρ+\rho_+ is a fixed smooth function equal to one on (−∞,1](-\infty,1] and zero on [2,∞)[2,\infty). This preserves every integer coefficient and gives real support in n≤2Ln\le2L. On a dyadic scale meeting the transition, N/LN/L is bounded, so derivatives of ρ+(Ny/L)\rho_+(Ny/L) add only fixed constants to the assumed scaled seminorm bounds. Thus all nonempty localized lengths satisfy Ni≪LN_i\ll L.

Expand the square on the left of (31). A term involving two multiplier indices r1′,r2′r'_1,r'_2 has character factor zm(r1′r2′n1n2)z_m(r'_1r'_2n_1n_2). Its odd multiplier part is an integer r≤R02r\le R_0^2. Powers of two contribute only fixed signs. Split powers of two out of n1,n2n_1,n_2, and insert smooth dyadic partitions in their odd parts. Each resulting term has exactly the form (3.9) with U=XU=X, t1=t2=0t_1=t_2=0, and a weight WW whose required seminorm is O(ℓD1)O(\ell^{D_1}) for a fixed D1D_1. The independent factors coming from the powers of two satisfy (3.12). Cross terms with A(x)A(x) are covered by using an index supported just at one: choose a fixed smooth function supported in (1/2,3/2)(1/2,3/2) and equal to one at one. The identity λF(1)=1\lambda_F(1)=1 then puts them in the same form. The term ∣A∣2|A|^2 is covered by two such indices. Its derivatives obey the same fixed polynomial bounds.

The zero frequency is exactly the model expression. In fact, for an odd prime and v≥1v\ge1,

1pv∑a mod pv(apv)={0v odd,1−p−1v even,=EZ(p)v.\frac{1}{p^v}\sum_{a\bmod p^v}\left(\frac{a}{p^v}\right)= \begin{cases} 0 & v\ \text{odd},\\ 1-p^{-1} & v\ \text{even}, \end{cases} =\mathbb{E}Z(p)^v.

For v=0v=0 both sides are one. Chinese remaindering gives independence at distinct odd primes, and the value at two is already fixed. The integral of the zero-frequency smooth amplitude is thus the corresponding term on the right of (31).

It remains to estimate the nonzero frequencies. Fix an odd multiplier rr and localized odd lengths N1,N2N_1,N_2, and set

b=110ℓ,Q=rN1N2X.b=\frac{1}{10\ell},\qquad Q=\frac{rN_1N_2}{X}.

Only nonempty lengths need be considered, so NiN_i is bounded below by a fixed positive constant. Also Ni≪X1−ΔN_i\ll X^{1-\Delta}, whence (N1N2)b≪1(N_1N_2)^b\ll1. Proposition 3.1 is available at every height. For a dyadic frequency range T≤∣h∣<2TT\le|h|<2T, write h=h1h22h=h_1h_2^2. For fixed h2h_2, the parameter h1h_1 lies in 0<∣h1∣<2T/h20 < |h_1| < 2T/h_2. Cauchy–Schwarz and (6) imply

∑T≤∣h∣<2Th=h1h22τ(h2)Car∏i=12∣LF(νh1)(1/2+b+ivi)∣≪Tlog⁡B(3T)(1+∣v1∣)A/2(1+∣v2∣)A/2∑h2≤2Tτ(h2)Carh22≪Tlog⁡B(3T)(1+∣v1∣)A/2(1+∣v2∣)A/2.\begin{aligned} \sum_{\substack{T \le|h| < 2T \\ h=h_1h_2^2}} \tau(h_2)^{C_{\rm ar}} \prod_{i=1}^{2} \left|L_F(\nu h_1)\left(1/2+b+iv_i\right)\right| \\ &\ll T\log^B(3T)(1+|v_1|)^{A/2}(1+|v_2|)^{A/2}\sum_{h_2\le\sqrt{2T}}\frac{\tau(h_2)^{C_{\rm ar}}}{h_2^2} \\ &\ll T\log^B(3T)(1+|v_1|)^{A/2}(1+|v_2|)^{A/2}. \end{aligned}

This inequality applies separately to each ν\nu; it includes both signs of hh. Choose J1>A+4J_1>A+4 in (13), and then fix the corresponding smoothness order. Its vertical integral is convergent. The remaining sum is bounded, by Lemma 3.6, by

≪ℓD2rCar(N1N2)−1/2{QJ1Q<1,Qlog⁡B(3Q)Q≥1.\ll\ell^{D_2}r^{C_{\rm ar}}(N_1N_2)^{-1/2} \begin{cases} Q^{J_1} & Q<1,\\ Q\log^B(3Q) & Q\ge1. \end{cases}

When Q≥1Q\ge1 we have Q≪XQ\ll X using r≤R02r\le R_0^2, (30), and η<1\eta<1; hence log⁡(3Q)≪ℓ\log(3Q)\ll\ell. When Q<1Q<1 use QJ1≤QQ^{J_1}\le Q. In both regimes the error for this localized pair is therefore

≪ℓD3rC′N1N2X,C′=Car+1.(33)\ll\ell^{D_3}r^{C'}\frac{\sqrt{N_1N_2}}{X},\qquad C'=C_{\rm ar}+1. \tag*{(33)}

The increase from CarC_{\rm ar} to C′C' is only the factor rr in QQ, not a smoothness loss. Notice that this argument controls arbitrarily large dual frequencies as well as the case Q<1Q<1.

There are O(ℓ)O(\ell) possible nonempty dyadic pieces for each main index. Their cost is a fixed logarithmic power. Summing the coefficients from powers of two by (3.12) costs only a constant. The two multiplier coefficient sums and the bound r≤R02r\le R_0^2 cost at most

(1+∑∣h(r′)∣2)R02C′≪CHR04+2C′.(1+\sum|h(r')|^2)R_0^{2C'}\ll_{C_H}R_0^{4+2C'}.

Since N1N2/X≪X−Δ\sqrt{N_1N_2}/X\ll X^{-\Delta}, including the terms with an index at one, the full error is

≪ℓD4X−ΔR04+2C′≤ℓD4exp⁡(−3Δℓ/4).(34)\ll\ell^{D_4}X^{-\Delta}R_0^{4+2C'}\le\ell^{D_4}\exp(-3\Delta\ell/4). \tag*{(34)}

Our choices in (32) give the last inequality. The power D4D_4 is fixed before choosing XX. Because Δℓ≥c1ℓ9/10\Delta\ell\ge c_1\ell^{9/10}, for one sufficiently large XX the factor ℓD4\ell^{D_4} is at most exp⁡(Δℓ/4)\exp(\Delta\ell/4). This proves (31) with c2=1/2c_2=1/2.

The endpoint at n=1n=1 in this proposition needs no extension to a fixed negative interval in uu. Extend a dyadically localized weight only to, say, n≥1/2n\ge1/2. In the coordinate log⁡n=ℓu\log n=\ell u this is a fixed interval, and smooth cutoffs there introduce at most fixed powers of ℓ\ell in uu derivatives. On a dyadic scale, repeated differentiation of wx(log⁡(Ny)/ℓ)w_x(\log(Ny)/\ell) instead introduces powers of 1/ℓ1/\ell and bounded powers of 1/y1/y. Thus the required finite seminorm bounds are precisely those in the proposition, even at the first piece.

Completed derivatives and their weights

A large analytic rank forces a completed derivative to vanish. For the matching functional-equation sign, we express that vanishing as an exact weighted-series identity, partition the series into short pieces, and bound the remaining infinite piece using the second moments of Section 3. The short pieces will be treated by mollification in Section 5.

Fix a curve FF in the finite family F\mathcal{F}, write λ=λF\lambda=\lambda_F, and put CF=qF/(2π)C_F=\sqrt{q_F}/(2\pi). The variable xx will range over a fixed compact subset K\mathcal{K} of R∖{0}\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}, chosen large enough to contain the support of the averaging weight in Proposition 3.7. Derivative bounds in xx are understood on a fixed compact neighborhood of K\mathcal{K} disjoint from zero. All constants below may depend on this compact set and on the fixed finite family.

The order of choices is as follows. First fix the exponents in Proposition 3.2, and all the finite orders of differentiation needed for Proposition 3.7, the Mellin inversion below, and the subsequent Fourier estimates. Next choose a sufficiently large fixed integer k0k_0. Finally choose one lower bound for XX, valid simultaneously for all the integers

ℓ=log⁡X,k0≤k≤⌊ℓ3/5⌋.(35)\ell=\log X,\qquad k_0\leq k\leq\lfloor\ell^{3/5}\rfloor. \tag*{(35)}

The estimates in this section respect this order. In particular, the number of derivatives is never allowed to increase with kk or XX.

The exact completed derivative identity

For k≥1k\geq1, x≠0x\neq0, and real uu, define

Wk,x(u)=∫0∞e−v(1−u+log⁡(CF∣x∣v)ℓ)+k dv,y+=max⁡(y,0).W_{k,x}(u)=\int_0^\infty e^{-v}\left(1-u+\frac{\log(C_F|x|v)}{\ell}\right)_+^k\,dv,\qquad y_+=\max(y,0).

For every fixed choice of the parameters the integral is finite. The weighted sum below is an infinite, absolutely convergent smoothed Dirichlet series; its individual short pieces will be finite sums.

Lemma 4.1 (Completed derivative identity). Let dd be admissible, X≤∣d∣<2XX\leq|d|<2X, and x=d/Xx=d/X. Set

gd(z)=LF(d)(1/2+z)(CF∣d∣)zΓ(1+z),ϵd=sign⁡(F(d)).g_d(z)=L_{F^{(d)}}(1/2+z)(C_F|d|)^z\Gamma(1+z),\qquad\epsilon_d=\operatorname{sign}(F^{(d)}).

Then gdg_d is entire, gd(−z)=ϵdgd(z)g_d(-z)=\epsilon_dg_d(z), and

Sd:=∑n≥1λ(n)χd(n)nWk,x(ℓ−1log⁡n)=k!ℓk12πi∫(2)gd(z)dzzk+1.(36)\begin{aligned} S_d&:=\sum_{n\geq1}\frac{\lambda(n)\chi_d(n)}{\sqrt{n}}W_{k,x}(\ell^{-1}\log n)\\ &=\frac{k!}{\ell^k}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{(2)}g_d(z)\frac{dz}{z^{k+1}}. \tag*{(36)} \end{aligned}

More precisely,

(1+ϵd(−1)k)Sd=ℓ−kgd(k)(0).(37)(1+\epsilon_d(-1)^k)S_d=\ell^{-k}g_d^{(k)}(0). \tag*{(37)}

Consequently, if a(F(d))>ka(F^{(d)})>k and ϵd=(−1)k\epsilon_d=(-1)^k, then

∑n≥1λ(n)χd(n)nWk,d/X(ℓ−1log⁡n)=0.(38)\sum_{n\geq1}\frac{\lambda(n)\chi_d(n)}{\sqrt{n}}W_{k,d/X}(\ell^{-1}\log n)=0. \tag*{(38)}

Proof. The completed function is

Λd(s)=(CF∣d∣)sΓ(s+1/2)LF(d)(s).\Lambda_d(s)=(C_F|d|)^s\Gamma(s+1/2)L_{F^{(d)}}(s).

Thus gd(z)=(CF∣d∣)−1/2Λd(1/2+z)g_d(z)=(C_F|d|)^{-1/2}\Lambda_d(1/2+z). Its entireness and reflection law follow from those of Λd\Lambda_d.

For T>0T>0, Mellin inversion gives

12πi∫(2)Tzzk+1 dz=(log⁡T)kk!.\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{(2)}\frac{T^z}{z^{k+1}}\,dz=\frac{(\log T)^k}{k!}.

Insert the absolutely convergent Dirichlet series for LF(d)(1/2+z)L_{F(d)}(1/2+z), and use Γ(1+z)=∫0∞e−vvz dv\Gamma(1+z)=\int_0^\infty e^{-v}v^z\,dv. On this line all exchanges are absolutely convergent: the series is dominated by ∑nτ(n)n−5/2\sum_n \tau(n)n^{-5/2}, and the other two factors to be integrated are dominated by e−vv2e^{-v}v^2 and ∣2+it∣−k−1|2+it|^{-k-1}. The result is (36), because

ℓ−1log⁡(CF∣d∣v/n)=1−ℓ−1log⁡n+ℓ−1log⁡(CF∣x∣v).\ell^{-1}\log(C_F|d|v/n)=1-\ell^{-1}\log n+\ell^{-1}\log(C_F|x|v).

This argument, or the same computation with absolute coefficient values, also proves absolute convergence of the series.

Let I+I_+ and I−I_- denote the integrals of gd(z)z−k−1/(2πi)g_d(z)z^{-k-1}/(2\pi i) on the upward oriented lines Re⁡z=2\operatorname{Re}z=2 and Re⁡z=−2\operatorname{Re}z=-2. Shifting between these lines crosses only the pole at zero, and gives

I+−I−=gd(k)(0)k!.I_+-I_-=\frac{g_d^{(k)}(0)}{k!}.

The horizontal integrals tend to zero: in this fixed strip the uncompleted LL-function has polynomial growth, while the gamma factor has exponential decay on horizontal segments tending to infinity. Apparent gamma poles on the real axis are removable in gdg_d. Changing zz to −z-z, with orientations included, gives

I−=(−1)k+1ϵdI+.I_-=(-1)^{k+1}\epsilon_d I_+.

Multiplication by k!/ℓkk!/\ell^k proves (37). Finally, the completing factor is holomorphic and nonzero at zero. Hence a(F(d))>ka(F^{(d)})>k implies gd(k)(0)=0g_d^{(k)}(0)=0, and the stipulated sign makes the coefficient on the left of (37) equal to two. □

Partition and derivative estimates

Fix a C∞C^\infty, nondecreasing function f∗:R→[0,1]f_*:\mathbb{R}\to[0,1] which is zero on (−∞,1/4](-\infty,1/4] and one on [1/2,∞)[1/2,\infty). Define

J=⌈log⁡ℓ10log⁡2⌉,δj=2−j,Fj(u)=f∗((1−u)/δj)(0≤j≤J).(39)J=\left\lceil\frac{\log\ell}{10\log2}\right\rceil,\qquad\delta_j=2^{-j},\qquad F_j(u)=f_*((1-u)/\delta_j)\quad(0\le j\le J). \tag*{(39)}

In particular, for sufficiently large XX,

J≥1,ℓ−1/10≤δJ<2ℓ−1/10,kδj≤ℓ−3/10(0≤j≤J).(40)J\ge1,\qquad\ell^{-1/10}\le\delta_J<2\ell^{-1/10},\qquad\frac{k}{\delta_j}\le\ell^{-3/10}\quad(0\le j\le J). \tag*{(40)}

Set

w0,x(u)=F0(u)Wk,x(u),wj,x(u)=(Fj(u)−Fj−1(u))Wk,x(u)(1≤j≤J),w∗,x(u)=(1−FJ(u))Wk,x(u).(41)\begin{aligned} w_{0,x}(u)&=F_0(u)W_{k,x}(u),\\ w_{j,x}(u)&=(F_j(u)-F_{j-1}(u))W_{k,x}(u)\quad(1\le j\le J),\\ w_{*,x}(u)&=(1-F_J(u))W_{k,x}(u). \tag*{(41)} \end{aligned}

These weights sum exactly to Wk,xW_{k,x}. For V=χdV=\chi_d, zmz_m, or ZZ, write

Sj,V(x)=∑n≥1λ(n)V(n)nwj,x(ℓ−1log⁡n),S_{j,V}(x)=\sum_{n\ge1}\frac{\lambda(n)V(n)}{\sqrt n}w_{j,x}(\ell^{-1}\log n),
S∗,V(x)=∑n≥1λ(n)V(n)nw∗,x(ℓ−1log⁡n).(42)S_{*,V}(x)=\sum_{n\ge1}\frac{\lambda(n)V(n)}{\sqrt n}w_{*,x}(\ell^{-1}\log n). \tag*{(42)}

The first definition includes j=0j = 0. All the formal character values in these definitions have modulus at most one. The sums through j=Jj = J have length at most X1−δj/4X^{1-\delta_j/4}, and

supp⁡wj,x⊂[1−δj,1−δj/4](1≤j≤J).\operatorname{supp} w_{j,x} \subset[1-\delta_j,1-\delta_j/4]\qquad(1 \le j \le J).

Indeed Fj−Fj−1F_j-F_{j-1} vanishes when 1−u≤δj/41-u \le\delta_j/4 or 1−u≥δj1-u \ge\delta_j. The terminal weight is supported in u≥1−δJ/2u \ge1-\delta_J/2.

Lemma 4.2 (Fixed-order weight bounds). Fix an integer r≥0r \ge0, and then take k0≥r+2k_0 \ge r+2. For a,b≥0a,b \ge0, a+b≤ra+b \le r, uniformly in (4.1), x∈Kx \in K, and the indicated arguments, one has

∣∂ua∂xbwj,x(u)∣≤Cr(k/δj)rδjk(1≤j≤J, u∈R),(43)\left|\partial_u^a\partial_x^b w_{j,x}(u)\right| \le C_r(k/\delta_j)^r\delta_j^k \qquad(1 \le j \le J,\ u \in\mathbb{R}), \tag*{(43)}
∣∂ua∂xbw0,x(u)∣≤Crkr(u≥−log⁡2/ℓ).(44)\left|\partial_u^a\partial_x^b w_{0,x}(u)\right| \le C_r k^r \qquad(u \ge-\log2/\ell). \tag*{(44)}

There is also c>0c>0, independent of rr, kk, XX, such that, with δ=δJ\delta=\delta_J and n=eℓu>0n=e^{\ell u}>0,

∣∂ua∂xbw∗,x(u)∣≤Cr(k/δ)rδke−cn/X.(45)\left|\partial_u^a\partial_x^b w_{*,x}(u)\right| \le C_r(k/\delta)^r\delta^k e^{-cn/X}. \tag*{(45)}

Changing the fixed compact neighborhood of KK changes only the constants.

Proof. It is convenient first to differentiate using Dx=x∂xD_x=x\partial_x. For

h=1−u+ℓ−1log⁡(CF∣x∣v)h=1-u+\ell^{-1}\log(C_F|x|^v)

and a+b≤ra+b\le r, differentiation under the integral gives

∂uaDxbh+k=(−1)aℓ−b(k)a+bh+k−a−b,(46)\partial_u^aD_x^b h_+^k=(-1)^a\ell^{-b}(k)_{a+b}h_+^{k-a-b}, \tag*{(46)}

where (k)t=k(k−1)⋯(k−t+1)(k)_t=k(k-1)\cdots(k-t+1). The choice k≥r+2k\ge r+2 ensures enough continuous derivatives at h=0h=0; domination for differentiating follows from the estimates below. Ordinary xx-derivatives are fixed linear combinations of x−bDxix^{-b}D_x^i, i≤bi\le b, and therefore satisfy the same bounds on our compact set.

Suppose 1−u≤δ′1-u\le\delta', where δ′>0\delta'>0. For 0≤t≤r0\le t\le r, write m=k−t>0m=k-t>0 and at=m/(ℓδ′)a_t=m/(\ell\delta'). The elementary inequality (1+q)+m≤emq(1+q)_+^m\le e^{mq}, valid for every real qq, gives

h+m≤(δ′)m(CF∣x∣v)at.(47)h_+^m\le(\delta')^m(C_F|x|^v)^{a_t}. \tag*{(47)}

If δ′=δj\delta'=\delta_j, then 0<at≤ℓ−3/100<a_t\le\ell^{-3/10} by (4.7), so

∫0∞e−v(CF∣x∣v)at dv=(CF∣x∣)atΓ(1+at)≤C.\int_0^\infty e^{-v}(C_F|x|^v)^{a_t}\,dv=(C_F|x|)^{a_t}\Gamma(1+a_t)\le C.

The bound is uniform once XX is large enough that at≤1a_t\le1. Thus, on 1−u≤δj1-u\le\delta_j, a derivative of Wk,xW_{k,x} involving at most rr differentiations is bounded by a constant times krδjk−rk^r\delta_j^{k-r}. The cutoff derivatives of order qq cost Or(δj−q)O_r(\delta_j^{-q}). More precisely, each Leibniz term with tt derivatives hitting WW and qq hitting a cutoff has t+q≤rt+q\le r, and is at most

Crktδjk−t−q≤Cr(k/δj)rδjk.C_r k^t\delta_j^{k-t-q}\le C_r(k/\delta_j)^r\delta_j^k.

This proves (43).

For u≥−log⁡2/ℓu\ge-\log2/\ell, use instead δ′=1+log⁡2/ℓ\delta'=1+\log2/\ell. Now (δ′)k≤exp⁡(klog⁡2/ℓ)≤2(\delta')^k\le\exp(k\log2/\ell)\le2 for large XX, and at≤k/ℓ≤ℓ−2/5a_t\le k/\ell\le\ell^{-2/5}. The same argument and the fixed derivative bounds for F0F_0 prove (44). On the support of the terminal cutoff, or any nonzero derivative of it, 1−u≤δJ/2≤δJ1-u\leq\delta_J/2\leq\delta_J. Moreover h>0h>0 implies

v>nCF∣x∣X.v>\frac{n}{C_F|x|X}.

Retain half the exponential in the integral. Uniformly on our compact set,

∫{h>0}e−v(CF∣x∣v)at dv≤e−n/(2CF∣x∣X)(CF∣x∣)at∫0∞e−v/22atvat dv=e−n/(2CF∣x∣X)(CF∣x∣)at21+atΓ(1+at)≤Ce−cn/X.(48)\int_{\{h>0\}} e^{-v}(C_F|x|v)^{a_t}\,dv \leq e^{-n/(2C_F|x|X)}(C_F|x|)^{a_t}\int_0^\infty e^{-v/2}2^{a_t}v^{a_t}\,dv = e^{-n/(2C_F|x|X)}(C_F|x|)^{a_t}2^{1+a_t}\Gamma(1+a_t)\leq Ce^{-cn/X}. \tag*{(48)}

Here at=(k−t)/(ℓδJ)≤ℓ−3/10a_t=(k-t)/(\ell\delta_J)\leq\ell^{-3/10}, so 21+atΓ(1+at)2^{1+a_t}\Gamma(1+a_t) is bounded independently of kk. The same Leibniz calculation now proves (45). All integrands used for differentiation are dominated on compact sets by the displayed integrable majorants, which also justifies (46) under the integral.

Corollary 4.3 (Comparison interface). For every fixed derivative order rr, the short weights satisfy the smoothness assumptions of Proposition 3.7 with derivative bounds ℓCr\ell^{C_r}, uniformly in j,k,Xj,k,X. They have length X1−ΔjX^{1-\Delta_j}, with

Δj=δj/4,14ℓ−1/10≤Δj≤14.\Delta_j=\delta_j/4,\qquad\frac{1}{4}\ell^{-1/10}\leq\Delta_j\leq\frac14.

The deterministic term

s=k/ℓ,Ax=(CF∣x∣)sΓ(1+s)(49)s=k/\ell,\qquad A_x=(C_F|x|)^s\Gamma(1+s) \tag*{(49)}

has uniformly bounded derivatives of each fixed order on K\mathcal{K}, and is bounded above and below by positive constants. The endpoint enlargement at n=1n=1 can be made inside the fixed range n≥1/2n\geq1/2.

Proof. The bounds k≤ℓ3/5k\leq\ell^{3/5} and δj−1≤ℓ1/10\delta_j^{-1}\leq\ell^{1/10} make (43) polynomial in ℓ\ell. Choose a fixed smooth function χ\chi equal to zero on (−∞,−log⁡2](-\infty,-\log2] and equal to one on [0,∞)[0,\infty). For the comparison alone, replace w0,x(u)w_{0,x}(u) on the real line by

w~0,x(u)=χ(ℓu)w0,x(u).\widetilde{w}_{0,x}(u)=\chi(\ell u)w_{0,x}(u).

It agrees with the original weight at every positive integer n=eℓun=e^{\ell u}, and its extra derivatives cost only fixed powers of ℓ\ell, by (44). Its left support is u≥−log⁡2/ℓu\geq-\log2/\ell, exactly the enlargement n≥1/2n\geq1/2. For j≥1j\geq1, the weights already vanish on a neighborhood of u≤0u\leq0. After a fixed smooth dyadic localization n=Nyn=Ny, the operator y∂yy\partial_y acts as ℓ−1∂u\ell^{-1}\partial_u, so the same bounds give all the required seminorms in the scaled variables. The endpoint extension has therefore taken place in log⁡n\log n; no extension to a fixed negative value of uu is used.

Finally 0<s≤ℓ−2/50<s\leq\ell^{-2/5}, while CF∣x∣C_F|x| lies in a fixed positive compact interval. The formula for AxA_x, its derivatives in xx, and the continuity and positivity of Γ(1+s)\Gamma(1+s) give the assertions concerning AxA_x.

The terminal mean square

We use the following consequence of Proposition 3.2. For general XX, cover [X,2X)[X,2X) by at most two dyadic blocks whose heights are comparable to XX; the normalization and polynomial factors in that proposition then change by fixed constants only. For any fixed smooth compactly supported function GG on (0,∞)(0,\infty), there are fixed exponents A,BA,B such that

1X∑d admissibleX≤∣d∣<2X∣∑n≥1λ(n)χd(n)n n−itG(n/N)∣2≪GℓB(1+∣t∣)A(1+N/X)A.(50)\frac{1}{X}\sum_{\substack{d\ \mathrm{admissible}\\X\leq|d|<2X}} \left|\sum_{n\geq1}\frac{\lambda(n)\chi_d(n)}{\sqrt{n}}\,n^{-it}G(n/N)\right|^2 \ll_G \ell^B(1+|t|)^A(1+N/X)^A. \tag*{(50)}

Its applicability includes the fixed enlarging bump used below.

Proposition 4.4 (Terminal mean square). There is a fixed exponent CTC_T, chosen before k0k_0, such that uniformly in (35),

1X∑d admissibleX≤∣d∣<2X∣Sχd∗(d/X)∣2≪ℓCTδJ2kJ.(51)\frac{1}{X}\sum_{\substack{d\ \mathrm{admissible}\\X\leq\lvert d\rvert<2X}}\left\lvert S^*_{\chi_d}(d/X)\right\rvert^2\ll\ell^{C_T}\delta_J^{2k_J}. \tag*{(51)}

The same estimate holds after restricting the summation to either value of χd(2)\chi_d(2).

Proof. Choose a smooth dyadic partition with a fixed ρ∈Cc∞((1/2,2))\rho\in C^\infty_c((1/2,2)) satisfying

∑N∈{1,2,4,…}ρ(n/N)=1(n≥1).\sum_{N\in\{1,2,4,\ldots\}}\rho(n/N)=1\qquad(n\geq1).

For example one may start with a smooth nonincreasing function equal to one on (0,1](0,1] and zero on [2,∞)[2,\infty), and take its difference at arguments yy and 2y2y; choosing its transition strictly inside (1,2)(1,2) gives the asserted compact support. Fix also G∈Cc∞((0,∞))G\in C^\infty_c((0,\infty)) equal to one on supp⁡ρ\operatorname{supp}\rho. Put

TN(y,x)=ρ(y)wx∗(ℓ−1log⁡(Ny)),T^N(t,x)=∫0∞TN(y,x)yitdyy.T_N(y,x)=\rho(y)w^*_{x}(\ell^{-1}\log(Ny)),\qquad\widehat{T}_N(t,x)=\int_0^\infty T_N(y,x)y^{it}\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{y}.

Select once and for all integers r>A/2+2r>A/2+2 and D>A/2+2D>A/2+2, and then choose k0≥r+2k_0\geq r+2. If derivatives required elsewhere are of higher order, increase this fixed rr first. By Lemma 4.2, differentiation on the yy-scale through order rr gives

∣(y∂y)aTN(y,x)∣≪rℓCrδJkJe−c′N/X(0≤a≤r),\left\lvert(y\partial_y)^aT_N(y,x)\right\rvert\ll_r \ell^{C_r}\delta_J^{k_J}e^{-c'N/X}\qquad(0\leq a\leq r),

uniformly in x∈Kx\in\mathcal{K}. There is no boundary term when integrating by parts in log⁡y\log y. Consequently,

sup⁡x∈K∣T^N(t,x)∣≪r,DℓCrδJkJ(1+N/X)−D(1+∣t∣)−r.(52)\sup_{x\in\mathcal{K}}\left\lvert\widehat{T}_N(t,x)\right\rvert\ll_{r,D}\ell^{C_r}\delta_J^{k_J}(1+N/X)^{-D}(1+\lvert t\rvert)^{-r}. \tag*{(52)}

In passing from the exponential to (1+N/X)−D(1+N/X)^{-D}, the constant depends on the fixed DD, not on kk.

Mellin inversion now expresses the NN-piece of the terminal sum as

12π∫RT^N(t,d/X)NitPd(N,t) dt,Pd(N,t)=∑n≥1λ(n)χd(n)nn−itG(n/N).\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\widehat{T}_N(t,d/X)N^{it}P_d(N,t)\,\mathrm{d}t,\qquad P_d(N,t)=\sum_{n\geq1}\frac{\lambda(n)\chi_d(n)}{\sqrt n}n^{-it}G(n/N).

Indeed G(n/N)TN(n/N,x)=TN(n/N,x)G(n/N)T_N(n/N,x)=T_N(n/N,x). Define the normalized family norm by

∥Bd∥2,X=(1X∑d admissibleX≤∣d∣<2X∣Bd∣2)1/2.\lVert B_d\rVert_{2,X}=\left(\frac{1}{X}\sum_{\substack{d\ \mathrm{admissible}\\X\leq\lvert d\rvert<2X}}\lvert B_d\rvert^2\right)^{1/2}.

We bound the kernel uniformly before applying the family moment. For each fixed tt,

∥T^N(t,d/X)Pd(N,t)∥2,X≤sup⁡x∈K∣T^N(t,x)∣∥Pd(N,t)∥2,X.\left\lVert\widehat{T}_N(t,d/X)P_d(N,t)\right\rVert_{2,X}\leq\sup_{x\in\mathcal{K}}\left\lvert\widehat{T}_N(t,x)\right\rvert\lVert P_d(N,t)\rVert_{2,X}.

Minkowski’s inequality, followed by (50) and (52), therefore yields

∥Sχd∗(d/X)∥2,X≪ℓCr+B/2δJkJ∑N=1,2,4,…(1+N/X)−D+A/2∫R(1+∣t∣)−r+A/2 dt≪ℓCr+B/2+1δJkJ.\begin{aligned} \left\lVert S^*_{\chi_d}(d/X)\right\rVert_{2,X}\ll\ell^{C_r+B/2}\delta_J^{k_J}\sum_{N=1,2,4,\ldots}(1+N/X)^{-D+A/2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(1+\lvert t\rvert)^{-r+A/2}\,\mathrm{d}t \\ &\ll\ell^{C_r+B/2+1}\delta_J^{k_J}. \end{aligned}

The integral converges by the fixed choice of rr. There are O(ℓ)O(\ell) dyadic terms with N≤XN \le X, and those with N>XN > X form a convergent geometric tail by the choice of DD. All sums and integrals can first be truncated; the displayed integrable majorants justify passage to the limit. Squaring proves (51), for example with CT=2Cr+B+2C_T = 2C_r + B + 2. This exponent depends only on choices made before k0k_0. Restricting the family can only decrease the nonnegative sum.

Lemma 4.5 (Uniform absorption of the terminal loss). After increasing the fixed k0k_0, one sufficiently large lower bound on XX makes

1X∑d admissibleX≤∣d∣<2X∣S∗,χd(d/X)∣2≪2−3Jk/2(53)\frac{1}{X}\sum_{\substack{d\ \mathrm{admissible}\\ X\leq\lvert d\rvert<2X}}\lvert S_{\ast,\chi_d}(d/X)\rvert^2 \ll2^{-3Jk/2} \tag*{(53)}

simultaneously for all kk in (35). Moreover, for any fixed cc, L>0L>0, the comparison errors obey

e−cΔjℓ≤k−L2−Ljk(54)e^{-c\Delta_j\ell}\leq k^{-L}2^{-Lj k} \tag*{(54)}

(0≤j≤J)(0\leq j\leq J) for one sufficiently large lower bound on XX.

Proof. The ratio of the right side of (51) to 2−3Jk/22^{-3Jk/2}, apart from its fixed implied constant, is

ℓCT2−Jk/2.\ell^{C_T}2^{-Jk/2}.

For J≥1J\geq1 this decreases with kk, so throughout the permitted range it is at most its value at the fixed integer k0k_0. The floor in the definition of JJ gives

ℓCT2−Jk/2≤ℓCT2−Jk0/2≤2k0/2ℓCT−k0/20.\ell^{C_T}2^{-Jk/2}\leq\ell^{C_T}2^{-Jk_0/2}\leq2^{k_0/2}\ell^{C_T-k_0/20}.

Choose k0>20CTk_0>20C_T after CTC_T is fixed. The last expression then tends to zero with XX. In particular the choice of a single XX-threshold works for the entire kk-range.

For the second assertion, Δjℓ≥ℓ9/10/4\Delta_j\ell\geq\ell^{9/10}/4, whereas uniformly in the same range

Llog⁡k+Ljklog⁡2=OL(ℓ3/5log⁡ℓ)=o(ℓ9/10).L\log k+Ljk\log2=O_L(\ell^{3/5}\log\ell)=o(\ell^{9/10}).

Taking logarithms proves (54).

Block mollifiers and independent-model mean squares

We seek polynomial multipliers that make the first short piece close to the positive quantity AxA_x from (49), while keeping the later pieces small. The construction has two separate tasks: control the multipliers on most integers, and prove mean-square bounds on the entire independent model. Their combination will allow the first piece to dominate the weighted-series identity.

Fix a member FF of the finite family F\mathcal{F} and a value c∈{−1,1}c\in\{-1,1\} at the prime 22, and write λ=λF\lambda=\lambda_F and ξp=ξF,p\xi_p=\xi_{F,p}. The constants in this section are uniform in these two choices. We use the integer characters zmz_m and the independent variables ZZ defined above; in particular, at an odd prime

P(Z(p)=0)=p−1,P(Z(p)=1)=P(Z(p)=−1)=(1−p−1)/2,Z(2)=c.\mathbb{P}(Z(p)=0)=p^{-1},\qquad\mathbb{P}(Z(p)=1)=\mathbb{P}(Z(p)=-1)=(1-p^{-1})/2,\qquad Z(2)=c.

All model norms below are norms on this entire probability space. We use the parameters and weights of Section 4:

ℓ=log⁡X,k0≤k≤ℓ3/5,J=⌊log⁡ℓ10log⁡2⌋,δj=2−j,s=k/ℓ.\ell=\log X,\qquad k_0\leq k\leq\ell^{3/5},\qquad J=\left\lfloor\frac{\log\ell}{10\log2}\right\rfloor,\qquad\delta_j=2^{-j},\qquad s=k/\ell.

Here kk is an integer. We always take XX sufficiently large that J≥1J \ge1 and 0<s≤10 < s \le1. The scaled variable xx ranges over a fixed compact subset X\mathcal{X} of R∖{0}\mathbb{R} \setminus\{0\} containing the support of the averaging weight. Constants may depend on this compact set, the fixed cutoff f∗f_*, and F\mathcal{F}.

The shift ss comes from the weight of the first piece. Replacing the truncated power in (4.2) by its exponential reference gives the exact integral

∫0∞e−vexp⁡(−ku+slog⁡(CF∣x∣v)) dv=Axe−ku.\int_0^\infty e^{-v}\exp\left(-ku+s\log(C_{\mathcal{F}}|x|v)\right)\,dv=A_xe^{-ku}.

At u=log⁡n/ℓu=\log n/\ell, the reference weight is therefore Axn−sA_xn^{-s}. This suggests a multiplier approximating the inverse Euler product at the real shift ss. Lemma 5.8 and the final Fourier argument will quantify the replacement in the required norm; the reference calculation alone does not replace the weighted series.

Elementary prime estimates and local factors

We shall repeatedly use the elementary estimate π(y)≪y/log⁡(2y)\pi(y) \ll y/\log(2y). One proof starts with

∑n<p≤2nlog⁡p≤log⁡(2nn)≤2nlog⁡2.\sum_{n<p\le2n}\log p\le\log\binom{2n}{n}\le2n\log2.

Summing on dyadic intervals gives ∑p≤ylog⁡p≪y\sum_{p\le y}\log p\ll y; separating p≤yp\le\sqrt{y} then proves the asserted estimate for π(y)\pi(y). Partial summation gives the following consequences, with absolute constants:

∑p≤y1p≪1+log⁡log⁡(3y),\sum_{p\le y}\frac{1}{p}\ll1+\log\log(3y),
∑a<p≤b1p≪1+log⁡log⁡blog⁡a(2≤a≤b),(55)\sum_{a<p\le b}\frac{1}{p}\ll1+\log\frac{\log b}{\log a}\qquad(2\le a\le b), \tag*{(55)}
∑p>Yp−1−2a≪∫2alog⁡Y∞e−vv dv≪1+log⁡+1alog⁡Y(0<a≤1, Y≥2).(56)\sum_{p>Y}p^{-1-2a}\ll\int_{2a\log Y}^{\infty}\frac{e^{-v}}{v}\,dv\ll1+\log^+\frac{1}{a\log Y}\qquad(0<a\le1,\ Y\ge2). \tag*{(56)}

Here log⁡+t=max⁡(0,log⁡t)\log^+t=\max(0,\log t). If alog⁡Y≥1/2a\log Y\ge1/2, we also have

∫2alog⁡Y∞e−vv dv≪e−2alog⁡Yalog⁡Y.\int_{2a\log Y}^{\infty}\frac{e^{-v}}{v}\,dv\ll\frac{e^{-2a\log Y}}{a\log Y}.

For clarity, the first bound in (56) follows by integrating t−1−2at^{-1-2a} against dπ(t)d\pi(t), discarding the nonpositive boundary term at YY, and using 1+2a≤31+2a\le3. We also need, for 0<a≤10<a\le1 and h≥ah\ge a,

∑pmin⁡(1,hlog⁡p)pp−2a≪1+log⁡(1+h/a).(57)\sum_p\frac{\min(1,h\log p)}{p}p^{-2a}\ll1+\log(1+h/a). \tag*{(57)}

Here is a direct verification. If h≤1h\le1, primes with log⁡p≤1/h\log p\le1/h contribute at most

h∑p≤e1/hlog⁡pp≪1.h\sum_{p\le e^{1/h}}\frac{\log p}{p}\ll1.

Between 1/h1/h and 1/a1/a the reciprocal-prime mass is O(1+log⁡(h/a))O(1+\log(h/a)) by (55); primes beyond e1/ae^{1/a} contribute O(1)O(1) by (56). Empty ranges are omitted. If h>1h>1, discard the minimum and use the same estimates to obtain O(1+log⁡(1/a))O(1+\log(1/a)), which is bounded by the right side of (57).

For any real character value V(p)∈{−1,0,1}V(p) \in\{-1,0,1\} define

Dp(b,V)=1−λ(p)V(p)p−1/2−b+ξpV(p)2p−1−2b,ℜb≥0.(58)D_p(b,V)=1-\lambda(p)V(p)p^{-1/2-b}+\xi_pV(p)^2p^{-1-2b}, \qquad\Re b\ge0. \tag*{(58)}

The local parameter bound gives a factorization Dp(b,V)=∏ν=12(1−αp,νV(p)p−1/2−b)D_p(b,V)=\prod_{\nu=1}^{2}(1-\alpha_{p,\nu}V(p)p^{-1/2-b}), where ∣αp,ν∣≤1|\alpha_{p,\nu}|\le1 and zero parameters are permitted. Consequently

(1−p−1/2)2≤∣Dp(b,V)∣≤(1+p−1/2)2.(59)(1-p^{-1/2})^2\le|D_p(b,V)|\le(1+p^{-1/2})^2. \tag*{(59)}

For real b≥0b\ge0, the value of Dp(b,V)D_p(b,V) is positive: at a good prime its two factors are complex conjugates (or both positive real), and at a bad prime its nontrivial factor is positive. These facts apply equally to V=ZV=Z and V=zmV=z_m.

Construction, length, and the simultaneous product event

Radziwiłł and Soundararajan use disjoint prime blocks, truncated exponential polynomials, and relative truncation estimates in their study of central values of quadratic twists [15] [Sections 3, 8, and 9]. Here we truncate products of inverse local Euler factors by total degree and estimate shifted norms over the full integer model defined in Section 2.

Put

Yj=Xδj2/k,Pjeu(V)=∏p≤YjDp(s,V)−1(0≤j≤J).Y_j=X^{\delta_j^2/\sqrt{k}}, \qquad P_j^{\mathrm{eu}}(V)=\prod_{p\le Y_j}D_p(s,V)^{-1}\qquad(0\le j\le J).

Since slog⁡Y0=ks\log Y_0=\sqrt{k}, the prime-tail estimate (56) makes ∑p>Y0p−1−2s\sum_{p>Y_0}p^{-1-2s} exponentially small. This sum will control the residual Euler product in mean square. For the later pieces, the available multiplier length decreases as their lengths approach XX. The smaller cutoffs YjY_j will keep the truncated products within the comparison allowance Xηδj/4X^{\eta\delta_j/4}. In the estimates for these later pieces, the weight factor δjk\delta_j^k will absorb fixed polynomial losses in kk and 2j2^j. In the stated range log⁡YJ≥ℓ1/2\log Y_J\ge\ell^{1/2}, so every YjY_j exceeds 2 for a single sufficiently large XX threshold. For i≥0i\ge0 let

Iji={p:Yj2−i−1<p≤Yj2−i},mji=⌈k1/4+j+i⌉.I_{ji}=\{p:Y_j^{2^{-i-1}}<p\le Y_j^{2^{-i}}\},\qquad m_{ji}=\lceil k^{1/4}+j+i\rceil.

We omit empty blocks. They form a disjoint partition of the primes at most YjY_j, and (55) gives

∑p∈Ijip−1≤C(60)\sum_{p\in I_{ji}}p^{-1}\le C \tag*{(60)}

uniformly in j,i,k,Xj,i,k,X. Indeed, when the lower endpoint is at least 2, the ratio of the logarithms of the endpoints is 2; otherwise a nonempty block has upper endpoint less than 4. Set

Kji(V,z)=∏p∈Iji(1−λ(p)V(p)p−1/2−sz+ξpV(p)2p−1−2sz2),K_{ji}(V,z)=\prod_{p\in I_{ji}}\left(1-\lambda(p)V(p)p^{-1/2-s}z+\xi_pV(p)^2p^{-1-2s}z^2\right),
Tji(V)=∑b=0mji[zb]Kji(V,z),Hj(V)=∏iTji(V).(61)T_{ji}(V)=\sum_{b=0}^{m_{ji}}[z^b]K_{ji}(V,z),\qquad H_j(V)=\prod_iT_{ji}(V). \tag*{(61)}

The coefficient extraction in this definition is followed by evaluation at z=1z=1.

Lemma 5.1 (Length and coefficients). The polynomial HjH_j has an expansion

Hj(V)=∑r≤Rjhj(r)V(r),∣hj(r)∣≤τ(r)r−1/2,∑r∣hj(r)∣≪Rj2,H_j(V)=\sum_{r\le R_j}h_j(r)V(r),\qquad|h_j(r)|\le\tau(r)r^{-1/2},\qquad\sum_r|h_j(r)|\ll R_j^2,

where, for a fixed constant Clen>0C_{\mathrm{len}} > 0, one may take

Rj=exp⁡(Clen(k1/4+j+1)ℓδj2/k).(62)R_j = \exp\left(C_{\mathrm{len}}(k^{1/4}+j+1)\ell\delta_j^2/\sqrt{k}\right). \tag*{(62)}

For every fixed η>0\eta> 0, a sufficiently large fixed k0k_0 ensures Rj≤Xηδj/4R_j \le X^{\eta\delta_j/4} for all 0≤j≤J0 \le j \le J and all kk in the stated range. Thus HjH_j satisfies the multiplier hypotheses of Proposition 3.7, with Δ=δj/4\Delta= \delta_j/4.

Proof. In a block, a chosen monomial has prime exponents ep∈{0,1,2}e_p \in\{0,1,2\} whose sum is at most mjim_{ji}. Its integer index is therefore at most exp⁡(mji2−ilog⁡Yj)\exp(m_{ji}2^{-i}\log Y_j). Since

∑i≥0mji2−i≤∑i≥0(k1/4+j+i+1)2−i=2k1/4+2j+4,\sum_{i\geq0}m_{ji}2^{-i}\leq\sum_{i\geq0}(k^{1/4}+j+i+1)2^{-i}=2k^{1/4}+2j+4,

we obtain (62). Unique factorization shows that each index occurs in exactly one prime-exponent pattern. The truncations only delete patterns. A surviving coefficient is a product of local coefficients 11, −λ(p)p−1/2−s-\lambda(p)p^{-1/2-s}, or εpp−1−2s\varepsilon_p p^{-1-2s}, and hence is bounded by τ(r)r−1/2−s≤τ(r)r−1/2\tau(r)r^{-1/2-s}\leq\tau(r)r^{-1/2}. For example,

∑r≤Rτ(r)r−1/2=∑ab≤R(ab)−1/2≤2R∑a≤R1a≪Rlog⁡(2R)≪R2(R≥1).\sum_{r\leq R}\tau(r)r^{-1/2}=\sum_{ab\leq R}(ab)^{-1/2}\leq2\sqrt{R}\sum_{a\leq R}\frac{1}{a}\ll\sqrt{R}\log(2R)\ll R^2\qquad(R\geq1).

Finally,

log⁡Rjℓδj/4≤4Clen(k−1/4+(j+1)2−jk−1/2)≤8Clenk−1/4.\frac{\log R_j}{\ell\delta_j/4}\leq4C_{\mathrm{len}}\left(k^{-1/4}+(j+1)2^{-j}k^{-1/2}\right)\leq8C_{\mathrm{len}}k^{-1/4}.

Here (j+1)2−j≤1(j+1)2^{-j}\leq1. Thus the fixed choice k0≥(8Clen/η)4k_0\geq(8C_{\mathrm{len}}/\eta)^4 suffices simultaneously for all jj. The coefficient estimate and this length bound verify both multiplier conditions of Proposition 3.7. □

Lemma 5.2 (Prime-sum moments for the integer model). Let I\mathcal{I} be any set of primes at most Y0Y_0, and put

BI(V)=∑p∈Iλ(p)V(p)p−1/2−s.B_{\mathcal{I}}(V)=\sum_{p\in\mathcal{I}}\lambda(p)V(p)p^{-1/2-s}.

If k0k_0 is a sufficiently large absolute constant, then

1X∑X≤∣m∣<2X∣BI(zm)∣64≪(1+∑p∈I1p)32.(63)\frac{1}{X}\sum_{X\leq|m|<2X}|B_{\mathcal{I}}(z_m)|^{64}\ll\left(1+\sum_{p\in\mathcal{I}}\frac{1}{p}\right)^{32}. \tag*{(63)}

uniformly in I\mathcal{I}, kk, XX.

Proof. First omit the deterministic prime 22 and write ap=λ(p)p−1/2−sa_p=\lambda(p)p^{-1/2-s}. On expanding the model moment, any odd prime that occurs just once has zero expectation. Group the remaining terms by their partition of the 6464 positions into q≤32q\leq32 parts of sizes at least two. Since ∣ap∣≤2|a_p|\leq2, for every part of size r≥2r\geq2 we have ∣ap∣r≤2r−2∣ap∣2|a_p|^r\leq2^{r-2}|a_p|^2. Summing the distinct-prime choices and then discarding distinctness bounds the moment by

C∑q=132(∑p∈I∣ap∣2)q≪(1+∑p∈I1p)32.C\sum_{q=1}^{32}\left(\sum_{p\in\mathcal{I}}|a_p|^2\right)^q\ll\left(1+\sum_{p\in\mathcal{I}}\frac{1}{p}\right)^{32}.

Restoring the prime 22 changes only the constant, by ∣u+v∣64≤263(∣u∣64+∣v∣64)|u+v|^{64}\leq2^{63}(|u|^{64}+|v|^{64}) and ∣a2c∣≤2|a_{2c}|\leq\sqrt{2}. For completeness the passage to integers needs no estimate for primes in progressions. For each ordered 64-tuple of primes, the product of its character values is periodic modulo the product of its odd primes, which is at most Y064Y_0^{64}. Its absolute value is at most one. The arithmetic mean over the two integer intervals X≤∣m∣<2XX \le|m| < 2X differs from its complete-residue mean by O(Y064/X)O(Y_0^{64}/X). The complete-residue mean is exactly the independent-model mean, by the Chinese remainder theorem and the counts of 00, 11, −1-1 for the Legendre symbol. There are at most Y064Y_0^{64} tuples and each coefficient has absolute value at most 2642^{64}. Thus the discrepancy between that arithmetic mean and the model moment is

O(Y0128/X)=O(X−1+128/k)=O(X−1/2)O(Y_0^{128}/X) = O(X^{-1+128/\sqrt{k}}) = O(X^{-1/2})

after requiring k0≥256\sqrt{k_0} \ge256. Since the number of integers in these intervals is O(X)O(X), this proves (63) with its normalization by XX. If endpoints are not integers, the same period-counting argument changes only its absolute constant.

Proposition 5.3 (Simultaneous product event). Except for O(Xk−2)O(Xk^{-2}) integers in X≤∣m∣<2XX \le|m| < 2X, the following inequalities hold simultaneously:

12≤Hj(zm)Pjeu(zm)≤2(0≤j≤J),(64)\frac{1}{2} \le H_j(z_m)P_j^{\mathrm{eu}}(z_m) \le2 \qquad(0 \le j \le J), \tag*{(64)}
P0eu(zm)Pjeu(zm)≥2−jk/8(1≤j≤J),(65)\frac{P_0^{\mathrm{eu}}(z_m)}{P_j^{\mathrm{eu}}(z_m)} \ge2^{-jk/8} \qquad(1 \le j \le J), \tag*{(65)}
P0eu(zm)≥2−Jk/8.(66)P_0^{\mathrm{eu}}(z_m) \ge2^{-Jk/8}. \tag*{(66)}

The implied constant and the lower threshold k0k_0 do not depend on kk, jj, XX.

Proof. For a block I=IjiI=I_{ji} write B=BI(zm)B=B_I(z_m). The elementary expansion log⁡(1+w)=w+O(∣w∣2)\log(1+w)=w+O(|w|^2) at all sufficiently large primes, together with (60), gives

sup⁡∣z∣=2∣Kji(zm,z)∣≤e2∣B∣+C,Kji(zm,1)≥e−∣B∣−C.(67)\sup_{|z|=2}|K_{ji}(z_m,z)| \le e^{2|B|+C}, \qquad K_{ji}(z_m,1) \ge e^{-|B|-C}. \tag*{(67)}

The finitely many smaller primes are included using (59) at z=1z=1 and the direct upper bound ∏ν(1+2p−1/2)\prod_{\nu}(1+2p^{-1/2}) on ∣z∣=2|z|=2; they change CC by an absolute amount. Thus no nonvanishing assertion on the radius-two circle is required. Cauchy’s coefficient estimate now gives, with m=mjim=m_{ji},

∣Tji(zm)−Kji(zm,1)∣Kji(zm,1)≤C2−me3∣B∣.\frac{|T_{ji}(z_m)-K_{ji}(z_m,1)|}{K_{ji}(z_m,1)} \le C2^{-m}e^{3|B|}.

If every block satisfies ∣BIji(zm)∣≤mji/100|B_{I_{ji}}(z_m)| \le m_{ji}/100, the last quantity is at most Ce−cmjiCe^{-cm_{ji}} for a fixed c>0c>0. The sum over ii is O(e−c(k1/4+j))O(e^{-c(k^{1/4}+j)}). By enlarging k0k_0, the product over blocks of the ratios Tji(zm)/Kji(zm,1)T_{ji}(z_m)/K_{ji}(z_m,1) lies between 1/21/2 and 22. Since ∏iKji(zm,1)=(Pjeu(zm))−1\prod_i K_{ji}(z_m,1)=(P_j^{\mathrm{eu}}(z_m))^{-1}, this proves (64) on the specified event. The number excluded, divided by XX, is at most

C∑j=0J∑i≥0(k1/4+j+i)−64≪(k1/4)−62=k−31/2≪k−2,C\sum_{j=0}^{J}\sum_{i\ge0}(k^{1/4}+j+i)^{-64}\ll(k^{1/4})^{-62}=k^{-31/2}\ll k^{-2},

by Lemma 5.2 and (60). The sum may be extended to all ii because only nonempty blocks impose an event. The real logarithm is available by positivity, and the same local expansion, including the finitely many small primes separately, gives for every prime set I\mathcal{I}

log⁡∏p∈IDp(s,zm)−1=BI(zm)+O(∑p∈Ip−1).(68)\log\prod_{p\in\mathcal{I}} D_p(s,z_m)^{-1}=B_{\mathcal{I}}(z_m)+O\left(\sum_{p\in\mathcal{I}}p^{-1}\right). \tag*{(68)}

For Yj<p≤Y0Y_j<p\le Y_0, (55) bounds this reciprocal mass by C(1+j)C(1+j), since log⁡Y0/log⁡Yj=4j\log Y_0/\log Y_j=4^j. For p≤Y0p\le Y_0 it is at most C(1+J)C(1+J): indeed log⁡log⁡Y0≤log⁡ℓ\log\log Y_0\le\log\ell, and log⁡ℓ<10(J+1)log⁡2\log\ell<10(J+1)\log2. Require that the corresponding prime sums have absolute values at most (log⁡2)jk/16(\log2)jk/16 and (log⁡2)Jk/16(\log2)Jk/16, respectively. Once k0k_0 dominates the fixed drift constants in (68), these requirements imply (65) and (66). Their total exceptional proportion is at most

C∑j=1J(1+j)32(jk)64+C(1+J)32(Jk)64≪k−64.C\sum_{j=1}^{J}\frac{(1+j)^{32}}{(jk)^{64}}+C\frac{(1+J)^{32}}{(Jk)^{64}}\ll k^{-64}.

Combining the exceptional sets proves the proposition.

Euler-product norms on the full model

The preceding proposition controls the multipliers on most integers. We now prove the model norms needed for arithmetic comparison, including the contribution of every event. We first estimate exact Euler products, and then replace each complete block by its degree truncation with a summable relative error.

To avoid any limiting interchange, fix for now a finite real cutoff Q≥Y0Q\ge Y_0 and put

LQ(b)=∏p≤QDp(b,Z)−1,ℜb>0.(69)\mathcal{L}_Q(b)=\prod_{p\le Q}D_p(b,Z)^{-1},\qquad\Re b>0. \tag*{(69)}

All bounds in this subsection are independent of QQ. At fixed QQ the product has the absolutely convergent expansion

LQ(b)=∑n≥1p∣n⇒p≤Qλ(n)Z(n)n−1/2−b.(70)\mathcal{L}_Q(b)=\sum_{\substack{n\ge1\\p\mid n\Rightarrow p\le Q}}\lambda(n)Z(n)n^{-1/2-b}. \tag*{(70)}

Absolute convergence follows by multiplying the finitely many local geometric series; their absolute sums are bounded by ∏p≤Q(1−p−1/2−ℜb)−2\prod_{p\le Q}(1-p^{-1/2-\Re b})^{-2}.

Lemma 5.4 (Exact shifted products). Let 0<s,α≤10<s,\alpha\le1, b=α+itb=\alpha+it, and Yj≥2Y_j\ge2. If h=α+s+∣t∣h=\alpha+s+|t| and a=min⁡(α,s)a=\min(\alpha,s), then

∥(Pjeu)−1LQ(b)∥2≪(1+h/a)C(1+1αlog⁡Yj)C.(71)\left\|(P_j^{\mathrm{eu}})^{-1}\mathcal{L}_Q(b)\right\|_2\ll(1+h/a)^C\left(1+\frac{1}{\alpha\log Y_j}\right)^C. \tag*{(71)}

At the real point b=sb=s, with j=0j=0 and the parameters of this section,

∥(P0eu)−1LQ(s)−1∥22≪e−2kk.(72)\left\|(P_0^{\mathrm{eu}})^{-1}\mathcal{L}_Q(s)-1\right\|_2^2\ll\frac{e^{-2\sqrt{k}}}{\sqrt{k}}. \tag*{(72)}

Proof. We first give the local cancellation with its dependence on bb. Write r=p−1/2r=p^{-1/2}, u=p−su=p^{-s}, v=p−bv=p^{-b}, and M=min⁡(1,hlog⁡p)M=\min(1,h\log p). The mean-value formula for the exponential and the trivial bound imply

∣u−v∣≪M(u+∣v∣).(73)|u-v|\ll M(u+|v|). \tag*{(73)}

By (59), uniformly for every prime,

Dp(b,Z)−1−1=O(r∣v∣).D_p(b,Z)^{-1}-1=O(r|v|).

Subtract the two inverse polynomials and use this last estimate to obtain

Dp(s,Z)Dp(b,Z)=1+λ(p)Z(p)r(v−u)+O(r2∣v−u∣(u+∣v∣)).(74)\frac{D_p(s,Z)}{D_p(b,Z)}=1+\lambda(p)Z(p)r(v-u)+O(r^2|v-u|(u+|v|)). \tag*{(74)}

For odd pp, the displayed linear term has expectation zero. Expanding the squared absolute value, and using M2≤MM^2\le M and (u+∣v∣)2≤2(u2+∣v∣2)(u+|v|)^2\le2(u^2+|v|^2), therefore gives

E∣Dp(s,Z)Dp(b,Z)∣2≤exp⁡{Cpmin⁡(1,hlog⁡p)(p−2s+p−2α)}.(75)\mathbb{E}\left|\frac{D_p(s,Z)}{D_p(b,Z)}\right|^2\le\exp\left\{\frac{C}{p}\min(1,h\log p)(p^{-2s}+p^{-2\alpha})\right\}. \tag*{(75)}

The constants in the error in (74) are uniform even at the small primes, because (1−2−1/2)2(1-2^{-1/2})^2 is a common positive lower bound for the denominator. At the deterministic prime 22 the local ratio has a fixed upper bound by (59).

For odd primes outside the mollifier, the expansion

Dp(b,Z)−1=1+λ(p)Z(p)p−1/2−b+O(p−1−2α)D_p(b,Z)^{-1}=1+\lambda(p)Z(p)p^{-1/2-b}+O(p^{-1-2\alpha})

and centering give

E∣Dp(b,Z)−1∣2≤exp⁡(Cp−1−2α).(76)\mathbb{E}|D_p(b,Z)^{-1}|^2\le\exp(Cp^{-1-2\alpha}). \tag*{(76)}

Independence multiplies the local second moments exactly. Sum (75) by (57), using both a=sa=s and a=αa=\alpha there, and sum (76) by (56). Taking a square root proves (71).

For the distance estimate there is exact cancellation below Y0Y_0. Set

U=(P0eu)−1LQ(s)=∏Y0<p≤QDp(s,Z)−1,Ξ=∑p>Y0p−1−2s.U=(P_0^{\mathrm{eu}})^{-1}\mathcal{L}_Q(s)=\prod_{Y_0<p\le Q}D_p(s,Z)^{-1},\qquad\Xi=\sum_{p>Y_0}p^{-1-2s}.

This is a positive real random variable. The same expansion gives

EDp(s,Z)−1=1+O(p−1−2s),EDp(s,Z)−2=1+O(p−1−2s).\mathbb{E}D_p(s,Z)^{-1}=1+O(p^{-1-2s}),\qquad\mathbb{E}D_p(s,Z)^{-2}=1+O(p^{-1-2s}).

The first error may have either sign. Nevertheless, the elementary product bound ∣∏(1+ep)−1∣≤exp⁡(∑∣ep∣)−1\left|\prod(1+e_p)-1\right|\le\exp(\sum|e_p|)-1 and independence show that

EU=1+O(Ξ),EU2=1+O(Ξ).(77)\mathbb{E}U=1+O(\Xi),\qquad\mathbb{E}U^2=1+O(\Xi). \tag*{(77)}

Indeed (56) and slog⁡Y0=ks\log Y_0=\sqrt{k} give

Ξ≪∫2k∞e−vdvv≪e−2kk,\Xi\ll\int_{2\sqrt{k}}^\infty e^{-v}\frac{dv}{v}\ll\frac{e^{-2\sqrt{k}}}{\sqrt{k}},

so Ξ\Xi is uniformly small after choosing k0k_0. Finally,

∥U−1∥22=EU2−2EU+1≪Ξ.\|U-1\|_2^2=\mathbb{E}U^2-2\mathbb{E}U+1\ll\Xi.

This uses both moment estimates in (77) and proves (72).

Lemma 5.5 (Relative truncation in mean square). For every bb with ℜb>0\Re b > 0, uniformly in Q≥Y0Q \ge Y_0,

∥(Hj−(Pjeu)−1)LQ(b)∥2≤(exp⁡(C∑i2−mji)−1)∥(Pjeu)−1LQ(b)∥2.(78)\left\lVert\left(H_j-\left(P_j^{\mathrm{eu}}\right)^{-1}\right)\mathcal{L}_Q(b)\right\rVert_2 \le\left(\exp\left(C\sum_i 2^{-m_{ji}}\right)-1\right)\left\lVert\left(P_j^{\mathrm{eu}}\right)^{-1}\mathcal{L}_Q(b)\right\rVert_2. \tag*{(78)}

In particular the relative factor is O(2−k1/4−j)O(2^{-k^{1/4-j}}).

Proof. For a block I=IjiI=I_{ji} let LI(b)=∏p∈IDp(b,Z)−1\mathcal{L}_I(b)=\prod_{p\in I}D_p(b,Z)^{-1}. We claim there are fixed positive constants c∗,C∗c_*,C_* such that

∥Kji(Z,1)LI(b)∥2≥c∗,sup⁡∣z∣=2∥Kji(Z,z)LI(b)∥2≤C∗.(79)\left\lVert K_{ji}(Z,1)\mathcal{L}_I(b)\right\rVert_2\ge c_*,\qquad\sup_{|z|=2}\left\lVert K_{ji}(Z,z)\mathcal{L}_I(b)\right\rVert_2\le C_*. \tag*{(79)}

For the first assertion, at a large odd prime the exact local ratio is

Dp(s,Z)Dp(b,Z)=1+λ(p)Z(p)p−1/2(p−b−p−s)+O(p−1).\frac{D_p(s,Z)}{D_p(b,Z)}=1+\lambda(p)Z(p)p^{-1/2}\left(p^{-b}-p^{-s}\right)+O(p^{-1}).

The centered linear term shows that its local second moment is 1+O(p−1)1+O(p^{-1}); for all sufficiently large primes it is at least 1−C/p≥1/21-C/p\ge1/2. Their product is bounded below by exp⁡(−2C∑p∈I1/p)\exp(-2C\sum_{p\in I}1/p), which is a fixed positive constant by (60). At each of the finitely many smaller primes, including 22, (59) gives the pointwise lower bound

∣Dp(s,Z)Dp(b,Z)∣≥(1−p−1/2)2(1+p−1/2)2>0.\left|\frac{D_p(s,Z)}{D_p(b,Z)}\right|\ge\frac{(1-p^{-1/2})^2}{(1+p^{-1/2})^2}>0.

Their finite product is also bounded below. This proves the first assertion of (79).

For the second, on ∣z∣=2|z|=2 the local quotient is

1−λ(p)Z(p)p−1/2−sz+ξpZ(p)2p−1−2sz2Dp(b,Z)=1+λ(p)Z(p)p−1/2(p−b−zp−s)+O(p−1)\frac{1-\lambda(p)Z(p)p^{-1/2-s}z+\xi_pZ(p)^2p^{-1-2s}z^2}{D_p(b,Z)} =1+\lambda(p)Z(p)p^{-1/2}\left(p^{-b}-zp^{-s}\right)+O(p^{-1})

at large odd primes, uniformly in zz and bb. Its second moment is 1+O(p−1)1+O(p^{-1}), and therefore its product is bounded above, again by (60). At small primes use the direct numerator upper bound and (59). The numerator is permitted to vanish; only an upper bound has been used on this circle.

Apply Cauchy’s coefficient formula to the polynomial z↦Kji(Z,z)LI(b)z\mapsto K_{ji}(Z,z)\mathcal{L}_I(b) with values in L2L^2. For m=mjim=m_{ji}, Minkowski’s inequality and (79) give

∥(Tji(Z)−Kji(Z,1))LI(b)∥2≤C∗∑h>m2−h≤C∗2−m.\left\lVert\left(T_{ji}(Z)-K_{ji}(Z,1)\right)\mathcal{L}_I(b)\right\rVert_2\le C_*\sum_{h>m}2^{-h}\le C_*2^{-m}.

Dividing by the positive lower bound in (79) makes this a relative error εi=C2−mji\varepsilon_i=C2^{-m_{ji}}.

To see explicitly how relative errors combine, put Ai=Kji(Z,1)LI(b)A_i=K_{ji}(Z,1)\mathcal{L}_I(b) and Bi=Tji(Z)LI(b)B_i=T_{ji}(Z)\mathcal{L}_I(b). Then ∥Bi−Ai∥2≤εi∥Ai∥2\lVert B_i-A_i\rVert_2\le\varepsilon_i\lVert A_i\rVert_2 and ∥Bi∥2≤(1+εi)∥Ai∥2\lVert B_i\rVert_2\le(1+\varepsilon_i)\lVert A_i\rVert_2. Variables belonging to distinct blocks and to the residual primes Yj<p≤QY_j<p\le Q are independent. In the telescoping identity for ∏Bi−∏Ai\prod B_i-\prod A_i, the norm of each product of factors on distinct blocks is the product of their norms. Thus its relative norm, also including the independent residual product, is at most

∑iεi∏h<i(1+εh)=∏i(1+εi)−1≤exp⁡(∑iεi)−1.\sum_i\varepsilon_i\prod_{h<i}(1+\varepsilon_h)=\prod_i(1+\varepsilon_i)-1\le\exp\left(\sum_i\varepsilon_i\right)-1.

This proves (78), without a factor equal to the number of blocks. Finally ∑i2−mji≤21−k1/4−j\sum_i2^{-m_{ji}}\le2^{1-k^{1/4-j}}.

□

Proposition 5.6 (The shifted norms). There are fixed C,c0>0C,c_0>0 such that, uniformly for every real θ\theta and every cutoff Q≥Y0Q\ge Y_0,

∥H0(Z)LQ(s/2+iθs)∥2≪(1+∣θ∣)C,(80)\lVert H_0(Z)L_Q(s/2+i\theta s)\rVert_2\ll(1+|\theta|)^C, \tag*{(80)}
∥H0(Z)LQ(s)−1∥2≪e−c0k1/4,(81)\lVert H_0(Z)L_Q(s)-1\rVert_2\ll e^{-c_0k^{1/4}}, \tag*{(81)}
∥Hj(Z)LQ((1+iθ)/ℓ)∥2≪(1+∣θ∣)C(k2j)C(0≤j≤J).(82)\lVert H_j(Z)L_Q((1+i\theta)/\ell)\rVert_2\ll(1+|\theta|)^C(k2^j)^C\qquad(0\le j\le J). \tag*{(82)}

Proof. In (71), first take α=s/2\alpha=s/2, t=θst=\theta s, and j=0j=0. Then h/min⁡(α,s)=3+2∣θ∣h/\min(\alpha,s)=3+2|\theta| and αlog⁡Y0=k/2\alpha\log Y_0=\sqrt{k}/2. This proves (80) with the exact multiplier; use Lemma 5.5 to replace it by H0H_0. For (82), take α=1/ℓ\alpha=1/\ell and t=θ/ℓt=\theta/\ell. Since k≥1k\ge1,

h/min⁡(α,s)=1+k+∣θ∣,αlog⁡Yj=δj2/k.h/\min(\alpha,s)=1+k+|\theta|,\qquad\alpha\log Y_j=\delta_j^2/\sqrt{k}.

The bound follows from (71) after increasing the fixed exponent CC, and then from relative truncation. Finally, (72) bounds the distance from one for the exact multiplier and also bounds its norm. The triangle inequality and (78) give

∥H0LQ(s)−1∥2≪2−k1/4+e−kk−1/4≪e−c0k1/4.\lVert H_0L_Q(s)-1\rVert_2\ll2^{-k^{1/4}}+e^{-\sqrt{k}}k^{-1/4}\ll e^{-c_0k^{1/4}}.

Fourier representations and the first weight

We have obtained bounds for the mollified finite Euler products at the three shifts needed below. Fourier inversion now converts these bounds into estimates for the actual weights. For the first piece, the main term is AxA_x. Its estimate combines the power-to-exponential comparison with the cutoff tail and the exponentially small mollifier error.

We use the Fourier convention

g^(θ)=∫Rg(y)eiθy dy,g(y)=12π∫Rg^(θ)e−iθy dθ.\widehat{g}(\theta)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}g(y)e^{i\theta y}\,dy,\qquad g(y)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\widehat{g}(\theta)e^{-i\theta y}\,d\theta.

The following elementary bound includes negative real arguments, which occur inside the gamma integral.

Lemma 5.7 (Global approximation of the truncated power). For each fixed nonnegative integer rr, if k≥2r+4k\ge2r+4, then for every z∈Rz\in\mathbb{R},

∣drdzr((1−z/k)+k−e−z)∣≤Crk(1+∣z∣)2e−z.(83)\left|\frac{d^r}{dz^r}\left((1-z/k)_+^k-e^{-z}\right)\right|\le\frac{C_r}{k}(1+|z|)^2e^{-z}. \tag*{(83)}

Proof. For z<kz<k the derivative of the power is

(−1)r(k)rkr(1−z/k)k−r,(k)r=k(k−1)⋯(k−r+1),(-1)^r\frac{(k)_r}{k^r}(1-z/k)^{k-r},\qquad(k)_r=k(k-1)\cdots(k-r+1),

and it is zero for z≥kz\ge k. The formula is continuous through z=kz=k in the derivative orders under consideration. For z<kz<k, the logarithm of its ratio in absolute value to e−ze^{-z} is

log⁡((k)r/kr)+z+(k−r)log⁡(1−z/k).\log((k)_r/k^r)+z+(k-r)\log(1-z/k).

The last two terms have derivative (r−z)/(k−z)(r-z)/(k-z), so their maximum over z<kz<k is at z=rz=r. It follows at once that the absolute ratio is at most ere^r. For ∣z∣≥k|z|\ge\sqrt{k} this bound and k−1(1+∣z∣)2≥1k^{-1}(1+|z|)^2\ge1 prove (5.29). For ∣z∣<k|z| < \sqrt{k} we have ∣z/k∣≤1/2|z/k| \le1/2. Taylor’s formula for log⁡(1−z/k)\log(1-z/k) and log⁡((k)r/kr)=Or(k−1)\log((k)_r/k^r) = O_r(k^{-1}) bound the displayed logarithm by

Or(k−1(1+∣z∣)2).O_r\left(k^{-1}(1+|z|)^2\right).

This quantity is bounded in this range; applying ∣ew−1∣≤∣w∣e∣w∣|e^w-1| \le|w|e^{|w|} proves the result there too. All estimates hold for negative zz as well as positive zz.

Lemma 5.8 (Fourier error for the first piece). Define

Ax=(CF∣x∣)sΓ(1+s),Ex(y)=w0,x(y/k)−Axe−y(y≥0).A_x=(C_F|x|)^s\Gamma(1+s), \qquad E_x(y)=w_{0,x}(y/k)-A_xe^{-y}\qquad(y\ge0).

For every required fixed integer rr, there is an extension gxg_x of ey/2Ex(y)e^{y/2}E_x(y) from y≥0y\ge0 to R\mathbb{R} such that

∣gx^(θ)∣≪rk−1(1+∣θ∣)−r.(84)|\widehat{g_x}(\theta)|\ll_r k^{-1}(1+|\theta|)^{-r}. \tag*{(84)}

The constants are uniform in x,k,Xx,k,X after choosing k0k_0 depending on rr. The quantities AxA_x are bounded above and below by positive fixed constants.

Proof. Write q=CF∣x∣q=C_F|x|, which lies in a fixed compact subinterval of (0,∞)(0,\infty). The exact weight definition gives

Wk,x(y/k)=∫0∞e−v(1−y−slog⁡(qv)k)+k dv,W_{k,x}(y/k)=\int_0^\infty e^{-v}\left(1-\frac{y-s\log(qv)}{k}\right)_+^k\,dv,

whereas

∫0∞e−ve−y+slog⁡(qv) dv=Axe−y.\int_0^\infty e^{-v}e^{-y+s\log(qv)}\,dv=A_xe^{-y}.

For every fixed MM, the logarithmic moments

∫0∞e−v(qv)s(1+∣slog⁡(qv)∣)M dv≤CM(85)\int_0^\infty e^{-v}(qv)^s(1+|s\log(qv)|)^M\,dv\le C_M \tag*{(85)}

are uniform for 0<s≤10<s\le1: on 0<v≤10<v\le1, bound vs≤1v^s\le1 and s∣log⁡v∣≤∣log⁡v∣s|\log v|\le|\log v|; on v≥1v\ge1, use vs≤vv^s\le v and the exponential decay. Lemma 5.7 and differentiation under this dominated integral now imply, for 0≤h≤r0\le h\le r and y≥−2y\ge-2,

∣dhdyh(Wk,x(y/k)−Axe−y)∣≪rk−1(1+y2)e−y.(86)\left|\frac{d^h}{dy^h}\left(W_{k,x}(y/k)-A_xe^{-y}\right)\right|\ll_r k^{-1}(1+y^2)e^{-y}. \tag*{(86)}

In particular the proof uses (83) when y−slog⁡(qv)y-s\log(qv) is negative and arbitrarily large in absolute value.

The cutoff F0(y/k)F_0(y/k) is one for y≤k/2y\le k/2, zero for y≥3k/4y\ge3k/4, and its hhth derivative in yy is Oh(k−h)O_h(k^{-h}). Write

Ex(y)=F0(y/k)(Wk,x(y/k)−Axe−y)+(F0(y/k)−1)Axe−yE_x(y)=F_0(y/k)\left(W_{k,x}(y/k)-A_xe^{-y}\right)+(F_0(y/k)-1)A_xe^{-y}

also for y≥−2y\ge-2. By (86), after multiplication by ey/2e^{y/2} the first term and its first rr derivatives have L1([−2,∞))L^1([-2,\infty)) norm Or(k−1)O_r(k^{-1}). The second term is supported in y≥k/2y\ge k/2 and has these norms Or(e−k/4)O_r(e^{-k/4}). Choose a fixed smooth function ρ\rho equal to zero for y≤−2y\le-2 and one for y≥−1y\ge-1, and extend by

gx(y)=ρ(y)ey/2Ex(y),g_x(y)=\rho(y)e^{y/2}E_x(y),

with zero value to the left of −2-2. All derivatives through order rr have L1(R)L^1(\mathbb{R}) norm Or(k−1)O_r(k^{-1}). Integration by parts rr times and the bound without integration by parts give (84). Lastly, continuity and positivity of qsΓ(1+s)q^s\Gamma(1+s) on the compact parameter set q∈[q−,q+]q\in[q_-,q_+], 0≤s≤10\le s\le1, give the two bounds for AxA_x.

Proposition 5.9 (Independent-model estimates for the weight pieces). With the weights and sums Sj,Z(x)S_{j,Z}(x) defined in Section 44, there is a fixed exponent C5C_5 such that

∥H0(Z)S0,Z(x)−Ax∥2≪k−1,(87)\lVert H_0(Z)S_{0,Z}(x)-A_x\rVert_2 \ll k^{-1}, \tag*{(87)}
∥Hj(Z)Sj,Z(x)∥2≪(k2j)C5δjk(1≤j≤J).(88)\lVert H_j(Z)S_{j,Z}(x)\rVert_2 \ll(k2^j)^{C_5}\delta_j^k \qquad(1\le j\le J). \tag*{(88)}

These bounds are uniform in x∈Xx\in\mathcal{X} and over the entire range k0≤k≤ℓ3/5k_0\le k\le\ell^{3/5}, with one fixed k0k_0 and one sufficiently large XX threshold.

Proof. Choose a finite cutoff QQ exceeding Y0Y_0 and the lengths of all the short polynomials Sj,ZS_{j,Z}, 0≤j≤J0\le j\le J. This is the only requirement on QQ; Proposition 5.6 is uniform in its choice. For j≥1j\ge1, set gj,x(u)=euwj,x(u)g_{j,x}(u)=e^u w_{j,x}(u). The support is contained in [1−δj,1−δj/4]⊂[1/2,1][1-\delta_j,1-\delta_j/4]\subset[1/2,1]. The fixed-order derivative bounds in Lemma 4.2 and integration by parts give, for each required fixed rr,

∣g^j,x(θ)∣≪r(k/δj)Crδjk(1+∣θ∣)−r.(89)\lvert\widehat{g}_{j,x}(\theta)\rvert\ll_r (k/\delta_j)^{C_r}\delta_j^k(1+\lvert\theta\rvert)^{-r}. \tag*{(89)}

Fourier inversion and (5.16) give the exact identity

Sj,Z(x)=12π∫Rg^j,x(θ)LQ((1+iθ)/ℓ) dθ.(90)S_{j,Z}(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\widehat{g}_{j,x}(\theta)L_Q((1+i\theta)/\ell)\,d\theta. \tag*{(90)}

Indeed every nonzero weight coefficient has index below the chosen cutoff and hence occurs in (5.16); all other indices contribute zero after inversion. At this fixed finite QQ, absolute convergence of the Dirichlet expansion and the integrable kernel justify interchanging the sum and integral. Multiply by HjH_j and use Minkowski’s inequality, (5.28), and (5.35), taking r>C+2r>C+2. Their integral is O((k/δj)Cr(k2j)Cδjk)O((k/\delta_j)^{C_r}(k2^j)^{C}\delta_j^k), which proves (5.34) after fixing C5C_5.

For the first piece, Lemma 5.8 and the same finite-product expansion give

S0,Z(x)−AxLQ(s)=12π∫Rg^x(θ)LQ(s/2+iθs) dθ.(91)S_{0,Z}(x)-A_xL_Q(s)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\widehat{g}_x(\theta)L_Q(s/2+i\theta s)\,d\theta. \tag*{(91)}

To check the scaling, at an integer index nn put y=klog⁡n/ℓ=slog⁡n≥0y=k\log n/\ell=s\log n\ge0. Fourier inversion for gxg_x then reads

w0,x(log⁡n/ℓ)−Axn−s=12π∫Rg^x(θ)n−s/2−iθs dθ,w_{0,x}(\log n/\ell)-A_xn^{-s}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\widehat{g}_x(\theta)n^{-s/2-i\theta s}\,d\theta,

which is exactly the coefficient identity needed in (5.37). Use (5.26) and (5.30) with r>C+2r>C+2 to bound the norm of (5.37) after multiplication by H0H_0 by O(k−1)O(k^{-1}). By (5.27),

∥H0S0,Z−Ax∥2≤∥H0(S0,Z−AxLQ(s))∥2+Ax∥H0LQ(s)−1∥2≪k−1+e−c0k1/4≪k−1.\lVert H_0S_{0,Z}-A_x\rVert_2\le\lVert H_0(S_{0,Z}-A_xL_Q(s))\rVert_2+A_x\lVert H_0L_Q(s)-1\rVert_2\ll k^{-1}+e^{-c_0k^{1/4}}\ll k^{-1}.

This proves (5.33).

All smoothness orders used here are fixed after the absolute exponent in Proposition 5.6, and before choosing k0k_0. The derivative estimates for the weights, the inequality s≤ℓ−2/5s\le\ell^{-2/5}, and the lower bound δJ≥ℓ−1/10\delta_J\ge\ell^{-1/10} then give a single XX threshold for the whole parameter range. We have not used the event of Proposition 5.3 anywhere in these model norm arguments. Nor is a passage to an infinite Euler cutoff required: the coefficient identities hold for every sufficiently large finite QQ, and all norm estimates are uniform in that cutoff.

Nonvanishing and the rank-weighted tail

We now combine the transferred model estimates, the integer product event, and the terminal mean square to count large orders of vanishing. A separate bound for each individual rank then converts this count into the rank-weighted tail. The companion density theorem enters only in the final subsection, after the tail theorem is proved. The constants and the fixed lower threshold k0k_0 are increased finitely many times in this section. All choices depend only on the fixed family and the already fixed smoothness orders.

Counting large orders of vanishing

Proposition 6.1. There are k0k_0, X0X_0, and CC, depending on EE, such that for every F∈FF \in\mathcal{F}, every dyadic X≥X0X \ge X_0, and every integer

k0+1≤k≤(log⁡X)3/5,k_0+1 \le k \le(\log X)^{3/5},

one has

#{d∈A(X):a(F(d))>k}≤CXk−2.\#\{d \in\mathcal{A}(X): a(F^{(d)}) > k\} \le CXk^{-2}.

Proof. Write ℓ=log⁡X\ell=\log X, and first consider the functional-equation sign (−1)k(-1)^k, with k0≤k≤ℓ3/5k_0 \le k \le\ell^{3/5}. Fix c=±1c=\pm1, and use the weights and partition of Section 4. We write PjeuP_j^{\mathrm{eu}} for the positive Euler products of Section 5.

Corollary 4.3 and Lemma 5.1 permit Proposition 3.7 to be applied to HjSjH_jS_j, for 0≤j≤J0 \le j \le J, with Δ=δj/4\Delta=\delta_j/4. By the first assertion of Proposition 5.9, outside O(X/k2)O(X/k^2) integers in X≤∣m∣<2XX \le|m| < 2X,

∣H0(zm)S0,zm(m/X)−Am/X∣<12Am/X.(92)\left|H_0(z_m)S_{0,z_m}(m/X)-A_{m/X}\right|<\frac{1}{2}A_{m/X}. \tag*{(92)}

Indeed Ax=(CF∣x∣)sΓ(1+s)A_x=(C_F|x|)^s\Gamma(1+s) is bounded above and below by positive constants on the fixed xx-range, uniformly for s=k/ℓ≤ℓ−2/5s=k/\ell\le\ell^{-2/5}. Chebyshev’s inequality applies to the transferred O(k−2)O(k^{-2}) mean-square error. The exponentially small comparison error is absorbed uniformly.

For 1≤j≤J1 \le j \le J, the second model estimate gives

1X∑mΨ(m/X)∣Hj(zm)Sj,zm(m/X)∣2≪(k2j)2C52−2jk+e−cδjℓ≪2−3jk/2.\frac{1}{X}\sum_m \Psi(m/X)\left|H_j(z_m)S_{j,z_m}(m/X)\right|^2 \ll(k2^j)^{2C_5}2^{-2jk}+e^{-c\delta_j\ell}\ll2^{-3jk/2}.

The last inequality follows first by increasing fixed k0k_0 to absorb the polynomial factor. For the comparison error, use

δjℓ≥ℓ9/10,jk≪ℓ3/5log⁡ℓ,\delta_j\ell\ge\ell^{9/10},\qquad jk\ll\ell^{3/5}\log\ell,

and then increase one X0X_0 for all the permitted k,jk,j. The terminal estimate of Lemma 4.5 gives

1X∑d∈A(X)∣S ⁣,χd∗(d/X)∣2≪2−3Jk/2.\frac{1}{X}\sum_{d\in\mathcal{A}(X)}\left|S^*_{\!,\chi_d}(d/X)\right|^2\ll2^{-3Jk/2}.

Chebyshev and summation of the resulting geometric probabilities imply, outside O(X/k2)O(X/k^2) further admissible parameters,

∣Hj(χd)Sj,χd(d/X)∣≤2−jk/2(1≤j≤J),∣S ⁣,χd∗(d/X)∣≤2−Jk/2.(93)\left|H_j(\chi_d)S_{j,\chi_d}(d/X)\right|\le2^{-jk/2}\quad(1\le j\le J),\qquad\left|S^*_{\!,\chi_d}(d/X)\right|\le2^{-Jk/2}. \tag*{(93)}

Here ∑j≥12−jk/2≪k−2\sum_{j\ge1}2^{-jk/2}\ll k^{-2} after fixing k0k_0, and J≥1J\ge1 for sufficiently large $X. Intersect these events with the event in Proposition 5.3. Its additional exceptional set is also O(X/k2)O(X/k^2). On the intersection,

12≤HjPjeu≤2,Pjeu≤2jk/8P0eu,1≤2Jk/8P0eu.\frac{1}{2} \le H_j P_j^{\mathrm{eu}} \le2,\qquad P_j^{\mathrm{eu}} \le2^{jk/8}P_0^{\mathrm{eu}},\qquad1 \le2^{Jk/8}P_0^{\mathrm{eu}}.

Choose a fixed a∗>0a_* > 0 with Ax≥a∗A_x \ge a_* for all the parameters. Equation (92) yields

∣S0,χd(d/X)∣≥a∗4P0eu.\lvert S_{0,\chi_d}(d/X)\rvert\ge\frac{a_*}{4}P_0^{\mathrm{eu}}.

Equation (93) yields

∑j=1J∣Sj,χd(d/X)∣+∣S∗,χd(d/X)∣≤P0eu(2∑j=1J2−3jk/8+2−3Jk/8).\sum_{j=1}^{J}\lvert S_{j,\chi_d}(d/X)\rvert+\lvert S_{*,\chi_d}(d/X)\rvert\le P_0^{\mathrm{eu}}\left(2\sum_{j=1}^{J}2^{-3jk/8}+2^{-3Jk/8}\right).

For a sufficiently large fixed k0k_0, the last parenthesis is less than a∗/4a_*/4. The entire weighted sum is therefore nonzero. Lemma 4.1 excludes the simultaneous conditions a(F(d))>ka(F^{(d)})>k and ϵF(d)=(−1)k\epsilon_{F}(d)=(-1)^k. Including both values of cc, we have proved

#{d∈A(X):a(F(d))>k, ϵF(d)=(−1)k}≪Xk−2.(94)\#\{d\in\mathcal{A}(X):a(F^{(d)})>k,\ \epsilon_{F}(d)=(-1)^k\}\ll Xk^{-2}. \tag*{(94)}

For the other functional-equation sign, apply (94) at k−1k-1. A rank exceeding kk also exceeds k−1k-1, and (k−1)−2≪k−2(k-1)^{-2}\ll k^{-2}. This proves the proposition.

A uniform bound for an individual rank

Lemma 6.2. Uniformly for F∈FF\in\mathcal{F} and d∈A(X)d\in\mathcal{A}(X),

a(F(d))≪Elog⁡(3X).a(F^{(d)})\ll_E \log(3X).

Proof. Put L=LF(d)L=L_{F^{(d)}} and Cd=CF∣d∣C_d=C_F\lvert d\rvert. On ℜs=5\Re s=5, absolute convergence and (2.2) give a uniform bound. On ℜs=−1\Re s=-1, the functional equation is

L(s)=ϵF(d)Cd1−2sΓ(3/2−s)Γ(1/2+s)L(1−s).L(s)=\epsilon_{F^{(d)}}C_d^{1-2s}\frac{\Gamma(3/2-s)}{\Gamma(1/2+s)}L(1-s).

At s=−1+its=-1+it, the modulus of the gamma quotient equals

∣(−1/2+it)(1/2+it)(3/2+it)∣.\lvert(-1/2+it)(1/2+it)(3/2+it)\rvert.

Since L(2−it)L(2-it) is uniformly bounded,

∣L(−1+it)∣≪EX3(1+∣t∣)3.\lvert L(-1+it)\rvert\ll_E X^3(1+\lvert t\rvert)^3.

Apply the strip principle to L(s)/(s+2)4L(s)/(s+2)^4 on −1≤ℜs≤5-1\le\Re s\le5. To see that the possibly conductor-dependent finite-order growth in the strip introduces no new constant, first multiply by

exp⁡(−ϵcos⁡π(s−2)12),ϵ>0.\exp\left(-\epsilon\cos\frac{\pi(s-2)}{12}\right),\qquad\epsilon>0.

Its modulus is at most one on this strip and decays faster than any finite-order growth as ∣ℑs∣→∞\lvert\Im s\rvert\to\infty. The maximum principle on expanding rectangles gives the bound from the two vertical sides. Letting ε\varepsilon decrease to zero shows that L(s)/(s+2)4≪EX3L(s)/(s+2)^4 \ll_E X^3 throughout the strip. In particular, the maximum of ∣L∣|L| on the closed disk ∣s−2∣≤5/2|s-2|\le5/2 is OE(X3)O_E(X^3).

At the center, the Euler factors and their parameter bounds give

∣L(2)∣≥∏p(1+p−2)−2=(ζ(4)ζ(2))2>0.|L(2)| \ge\prod_p(1+p^{-2})^{-2}=\left(\frac{\zeta(4)}{\zeta(2)}\right)^2>0.

Jensen’s formula, with inner radius 22 and outer radius 5/25/2, therefore bounds the number of zeros in the inner disk, counted with multiplicity, by OE(log⁡(3X))O_E(\log(3X)). The point 1/21/2 lies in that inner disk. This proves the result.

Summing the integer tails

Proof of Theorem 1.2. We first work in A(X)\mathcal{A}(X) for a fixed F∈FF\in\mathcal{F}. Let

TF,X(k)=#{d∈A(X):a(F(d))>k},K=⌊(log⁡X)3/5⌋.T_{F,X}(k)=\#\{d\in\mathcal{A}(X):a(F^{(d)})>k\},\qquad K=\lfloor(\log X)^{3/5}\rfloor.

For an integer R≥k0+1R\ge k_0+1 and XX large enough that K>RK>R, the elementary integer-tail bound gives

∑d∈A(X)a(F(d))>Ra(F(d))≤RTF,X(R)+∑k=RK−1TF,X(k)+CElog⁡X TF,X(K)≪EXR+X(log⁡X)−1/5.(95)\sum_{\substack{d\in\mathcal{A}(X)\\a(F^{(d)})>R}}a(F^{(d)})\le RT_{F,X}(R)+\sum_{k=R}^{K-1}T_{F,X}(k)+C_E\log X\,T_{F,X}(K) \ll_E \frac{X}{R}+X(\log X)^{-1/5}. \tag*{(95)}

For ranks between R+1R+1 and KK, the first two terms count the rank exactly. For ranks exceeding KK, the last term bounds the remaining mass by Lemma 6.2. Proposition 6.1 supplies every counting estimate used here. In particular the last term is OE(Xlog⁡X/K2)=OE(X(log⁡X)−1/5)O_E(X\log X/K^2)=O_E(X(\log X)^{-1/5}). The constant in (6.4) is independent of RR.

For completeness, fix RR and cover 0<∣d∣≤Y0<|d|\le Y by dyadic blocks. Enlarge the last partial block to a full block, using nonnegativity. The sum of their left endpoints is less than 2Y2Y. The finitely many blocks below the threshold for (6.4) contribute a finite number BE,RB_{E,R}. For the error term in the remaining blocks, split at X=YX=\sqrt{Y}. The smaller blocks contribute OE(Y)O_E(\sqrt{Y}), and in the larger ones log⁡X≥12log⁡Y\log X\ge\frac12\log Y. Consequently

∑d admissible0<∣d∣≤Ya(F(d))>Ra(F(d))≤BE,R+CEYR+OE(Y+Y(log⁡Y)−1/5).\sum_{\substack{d\ \mathrm{admissible}\\0<|d|\le Y\\a(F^{(d)})>R}}a(F^{(d)})\le B_{E,R}+\frac{C_EY}{R}+O_E\left(\sqrt{Y}+Y(\log Y)^{-1/5}\right).

After division by YY and passage to the limsup, the desired CE/RC_E/R bound holds for each F∈FF\in\mathcal{F}. Lemma 2.1, its bounded multiplicity, and the finite maximum of these constants prove the same bound for every original signed squarefree parameter of EE.

The mean

Proof of Theorem 1.1. Write N(Y)=#D(Y)N(Y)=\#\mathcal{D}(Y) and let Nj(Y)N_j(Y) count the parameters of analytic rank jj. The elementary squarefree sieve gives

N(Y)=2∑n≤Yμ(n)2=2Yζ(2)+O(Y).(96)N(Y)=2\sum_{n\le Y}\mu(n)^2=\frac{2Y}{\zeta(2)}+O(\sqrt{Y}). \tag*{(96)}

Indeed, expand μ(n)2=∑r2∣nμ(r)\mu(n)^2=\sum_{r^2\mid n}\mu(r), interchange the finite sums, and bound the omitted tail of ∑rμ(r)/r2=1/ζ(2)\sum_r\mu(r)/r^2=1/\zeta(2).

By the analytic density theorem (1.1), N0(Y)/N(Y)→1/2N_0(Y)/N(Y)\to1/2 and N1(Y)/N(Y)→1/2N_1(Y)/N(Y)\to1/2. Thus N(Y)−N0(Y)−N1(Y)=o(Y)N(Y)-N_0(Y)-N_1(Y)=o(Y). For every fixed integer R≥RER\ge R_E,

∑d∈D(Y)2≤a(E(d))≤Ra(E(d))≤R(N(Y)−N0(Y)−N1(Y))=oE,R(Y).\sum_{\substack{d\in\mathcal{D}(Y)\\2\le a(E^{(d)})\le R}}a(E^{(d)})\le R(N(Y)-N_0(Y)-N_1(Y))=o_{E,R}(Y).

Theorem 1.2 now implies

lim sup⁡Y→∞1Y∑d∈D(Y)a(E(d))≥2a(E(d))≤CER.\limsup_{Y\to\infty}\frac{1}{Y}\sum_{\substack{d\in\mathcal{D}(Y)\\a(E^{(d)})\ge2}}a(E^{(d)})\le\frac{C_E}{R}.

Let R→∞R\to\infty. The left side is zero by nonnegativity. The total rank sum is consequently N1(Y)+oE(Y)N_1(Y)+o_E(Y). Dividing by N(Y)N(Y) proves the limit 1/21/2.

Algebraic-rank moments

We now prove Corollary 1.3. The inputs are the companion density and rank-equality theorem and the exponential-moment estimate of Koymans and Smith. The latter bounds the contribution of the density-zero exceptional set for every fixed exponential parameter or moment order; the analytic tail theorem is not needed.

Proof of Corollary 1.3. Put N(Y)=#D(Y)N(Y)=\#\mathcal{D}(Y), rd=r(E(d))r_d=r(E^{(d)}), and let Njalg(Y)N_j^{\mathrm{alg}}(Y) count the parameters with rd=jr_d=j. The rank-equality conclusion of the companion density theorem [12], together with its analytic rank-zero and rank-one densities, gives

Njalg(Y)N(Y)⟶12(j=0,1).\frac{N_j^{\mathrm{alg}}(Y)}{N(Y)}\longrightarrow\frac{1}{2}\qquad(j=0,1).

Indeed, analytic and algebraic ranks agree outside a density-zero set, so their rank-jj counts differ by o(N(Y))o(N(Y)). Consequently

B(Y)={d∈D(Y):rd≥2}satisfies#B(Y)=o(N(Y)).B(Y)=\{d\in\mathcal{D}(Y):r_d\ge2\}\quad\text{satisfies}\quad\#B(Y)=o(N(Y)).

For the next bound, E(v)E^{(v)} for any nonzero integer vv denotes the twist determined by its squareclass, so the integer sum may repeat squareclasses. Theorem 1.4 of Koymans and Smith [9], specialized to F=QF=\mathbb{Q}, A=EA=E, one variable, and P(u)=uP(u)=u, gives a constant CE>0C_E>0 such that for every fixed κ>0\kappa>0,

12Y∑v∈Z0<∣v∣≤Yexp⁡(κrank⁡ZE(v)(Q))≤exp⁡(exp⁡(CEκ))\frac{1}{2Y}\sum_{\substack{v\in\mathbb{Z}\\0<|v|\le Y}}\exp\bigl(\kappa\operatorname{rank}_{\mathbb{Z}}E^{(v)}(\mathbb{Q})\bigr)\le\exp\bigl(\exp(C_E\kappa)\bigr)

for all sufficiently large YY, with the threshold allowed to depend on κ\kappa. Their integer box already includes both signs, and P(v)≠0P(v)\ne0 excludes exactly v=0v=0. Restricting this nonnegative sum to D(Y)\mathcal{D}(Y), and using N(Y)∼2Y/ζ(2)N(Y)\sim2Y/\zeta(2), gives for each fixed κ>0\kappa>0

lim sup⁡Y→∞1N(Y)∑d∈D(Y)eκrd≤ζ(2)exp⁡(exp⁡(CEκ))<∞.(97)\limsup_{Y\to\infty}\frac{1}{N(Y)}\sum_{d\in\mathcal{D}(Y)}e^{\kappa r_d}\le\zeta(2)\exp\bigl(\exp(C_E\kappa)\bigr)<\infty. \tag*{(97)}

For fixed t>0t > 0, Cauchy–Schwarz and (97) at κ=2t\kappa= 2t give

1N(Y)∑d∈B(Y)etrd≤(#B(Y)N(Y))1/2(1N(Y)∑d∈D(Y)e2trd)1/2⟶0.\frac{1}{N(Y)} \sum_{d \in\mathcal{B}(Y)} e^{t r_d} \le\left(\frac{\#\mathcal{B}(Y)}{N(Y)}\right)^{1/2} \left(\frac{1}{N(Y)} \sum_{d \in\mathcal{D}(Y)} e^{2t r_d}\right)^{1/2} \longrightarrow0.

For fixed t<0t < 0, the same exceptional average is at most #B(Y)/N(Y)\#\mathcal{B}(Y)/N(Y), since rd≥0r_d \ge0; for t=0t = 0 the full average is identically one. The contributions from ranks zero and one are N0alg(Y)/N(Y)N_0^{\mathrm{alg}}(Y)/N(Y) and etN1alg(Y)/N(Y)e^tN_1^{\mathrm{alg}}(Y)/N(Y), proving the exponential limit.

Finally, for each fixed positive integer mm, one has x2m≪mexx^{2m} \ll_m e^x for x≥0x \ge0. A second Cauchy–Schwarz application and (97) at κ=1\kappa= 1 therefore give

1N(Y)∑d∈B(Y)rdm≤(#B(Y)N(Y))1/2(1N(Y)∑d∈D(Y)rd2m)1/2⟶0.\frac{1}{N(Y)} \sum_{d \in\mathcal{B}(Y)} r_d^m \le\left(\frac{\#\mathcal{B}(Y)}{N(Y)}\right)^{1/2} \left(\frac{1}{N(Y)} \sum_{d \in\mathcal{D}(Y)} r_d^{2m}\right)^{1/2} \longrightarrow0.

The rank-zero contribution is zero and the rank-one contribution is N1alg(Y)/N(Y)N_1^{\mathrm{alg}}(Y)/N(Y), proving the power-moment limit without differentiating a limiting exponential-moment formula. □\square

References

  1. [1]Christophe Breuil, Brian Conrad, Fred Diamond, and Richard Taylor. On the modularity of elliptic curves over ℚ: Wild 3-adic exercises. Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 14(4):843–939, 2001. doi: 10.1090/S0894-0347-01-00370-8. URL https://www.imo.universite-paris-saclay.fr/~christophe.breuil/PUBLICATIONS/STW.pdf.DOI
  2. [2]Vladimir Dokchitser and Samuele Anni. ℓ-adic representations and their associated invariants, 2014. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.1039v1. Lecture course by V. Dokchitser, notes by S. Anni.
  3. [3]Paul Erdős. Beweis eines satzes von Tschebyschef. Acta Scientiarum Mathematicarum (Szeged), 5:194–198, 1932. URL https://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/13396/1/math_005_194–198.pdf.
  4. [4]Daniel Fiorilli. A conditional determination of the average rank of elliptic curves. Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 94(3):767–792, 2016. doi: 10.1112/jlms/jdw058. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7108v1. Preprint locators refer to arXiv:1403.7108v1.
  5. [5]Dorian Goldfeld. Conjectures on elliptic curves over quadratic fields. In Melvyn B. Nathanson, editor, Number Theory, Carbondale 1979, volume 751 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 108–118. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1979. doi: 10.1007/BFb0062705. URL https://www.math.columbia.edu/~goldfeld/ConjecturesonEllipticCurves.pdf. Conjecture (B), p. 113.DOI
  6. [6]Michael Hanners. Resolution of the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture. Author-uploaded manuscript, 2026. URL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403514375_Resolution_of_the_Birch_and_Swinnerton-Dyer_Conjecture. Author upload of 5 April 2026; concept DOI; Theorems 28.1, 39.4 and 39.5; Sections 39.1–39.2.DOI
  7. [7]D. R. Heath-Brown. The average analytic rank of elliptic curves. Duke Mathematical Journal, 122(3):591–623, 2004. doi: 10.1215/S0012-7094-04-12235-3. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0305114v1. Theorem 3 of the 7 May 2003 preprint, arXiv:math/0305114v1.
  8. [8]Emmanuel Kowalski, Philippe Michel, and Jeffrey VanderKam. Non-vanishing of high derivatives of automorphic L-functions at the center of the critical strip. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 526:1–34, 2000. doi: 10.1515/crll.2000.074. URL https://people.math.ethz.ch/~kowalski/high-derivatives.pdf.DOI
  9. [9]Peter Koymans and Alexander Smith. Tamagawa ratios and unbounded Selmer moments, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.31649v1. Version 1, 30 June 2026; Theorem 1.4.
  10. [10]Xiannan Li. Moments of quadratic twists of modular L-functions. Inventiones Mathematicae, 237:697–733, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s00222-024-01265-1. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.07343v2. Preprint locators refer to arXiv:2208.07343v2.
  11. [11]Steven J. Miller and Siman Wong. Moments of the rank of elliptic curves. Canadian Journal of Mathematics, 64(1):151–182, 2012. doi: 10.4153/CJM-2011-037-7.DOI
  12. [12]OpenAI. Goldfeld’s analytic density conjecture and the 2-converse for elliptic curves. OpenAI Math Release preprint OAI:Goldfelds-analytic-density-conjecture-and-the-2-converse-for-elliptic-curves-September-23-2026, 2026. Theorem 1.2.
  13. [13]Alberto Perelli and Jacek Pomykala. Averages of twisted elliptic L-functions. Acta Arithmetica, 80(2):149–163, 1997. doi: 10.4064/aa-80-2-149-163. URL https://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/aa/aa80/aa8024.pdf.DOI
  14. [14]Jacek Pomykala. Non-vanishing of n-th derivatives of twisted elliptic L-functions in the critical point. Journal de théorie des nombres de Bordeaux, 9(1):1–10, 1997. doi: 10.5802/jtnb.185. URL https://www.numdam.org/item/JTNB_1997__9_1_1_0.pdf.DOI
  15. [15]Maksym Radziwiłł and Kannan Soundararajan. Moments and distribution of central L-values of quadratic twists of elliptic curves. Inventiones Mathematicae, 202(3):1029–1068, 2015. doi: 10.1007/s00222-015-0582-z. URL https://www.math.mcgill.ca/radziwill/QuadraticTwists.pdf.DOI
  16. [16]Joseph H. Silverman. The Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves, volume 106 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, second edition, 2009. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-09494-6.DOI
  17. [17]Alexander Smith. The Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture implies Goldfeld’s conjecture, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17619v1. Version 1; Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.2.
  18. [18]Kannan Soundararajan. Nonvanishing of quadratic Dirichlet L-functions at s = 1/2. Annals of Mathematics, 152(2):447–488, 2000. URL https://annals.math.princeton.edu/articles/11847.
  19. [19]Kannan Soundararajan and Matthew P. Young. The second moment of quadratic twists of modular L-functions. Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 12(5):1097–1116, 2010. doi: 10.4171/JEMS/224. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4747v1. Preprint locators refer to arXiv:0907.4747v1.

Paper details

Contents