Rankin-Selberg coefficients in large arithmetic progressions

For d=2 this reasoning is due to Selberg in the case of the divisor function while for higher values of d it can be found in the work [LRS] of Luo–Rudnick–Sarnak.

The three results [FKM1, KLMS, LMS] mentioned above, while improving over the convexity range, fall short of reaching the a.p. range.

The Ramanujan–Petersson conjecture for cusp forms predicts that for any f,

The best known bound, due to Kim and Sarnak [KimSar]*Proposition 2 is

This is unfortunately not sufficient to insure that \theta_f>\theta_4=2/5. For this we would need 7/64 to be replaced by any exponent smaller than 1/416.

We also observe that the closely related Theorem 1.6 below is independent of any approximation toward the Ramanujan–Petersson conjecture.

In the work [huang], Huang improved the error term for the sharp-cut sum

from O\big(X^{3/5}\big) to O\big(X^{3/5-1/560+o(1)}\big), resolving a long standing problem going back to Rankin and Selberg. In that Archimedean case Huang was able to avoid the use of the pointwise bound (1.3).

This work [FrIwAnn] of Friedlander–Iwaniec was recently extended in [KMS, KMS2] to Dirichlet convolutions of the form

for f a Hecke cuspform; again the critical range was

Notice that (d_3(n))_{n\geqslant 1} and (1\star \lambda_f(n))_{n\geqslant 1} are the coefficients attached to \operatorname{GL}_{3,\mathbf{Q}} Eisenstein series representations (the isobaric sums 1\boxplus 1\boxplus 1 and 1\boxplus \pi_f, respectively) and by the same methods, one can improve the standard level of distribution \theta_3=1/2 of (\lambda_\pi(n))_{n\geqslant 1} for \pi any fixed \operatorname{GL}_{3,\mathbf{Q}} Eisenstein series representation. Doing the same for \pi a cuspidal representation seems to be a serious challenge.

Unlike (1.3) the exponent in (1.6) is independent of any approximation to the Ramanujan–Petersson conjecture for \operatorname{GL}_{3} automorphic representations.

In particular, since L\geqslant 1, this implies that

(which is the limit of our method, fortunately 15/37>2/5).

In view of this and (?) we may assume that

which implies (since we have assumed M\geqslant q^{4/3}) that L\leqslant q^{1/5}.

The above proof can be carried out for more general convolutions 1\star\lambda_\pi for \lambda_\pi of degree d\geqslant 2 such that (?) can be obtained near and below the convexity range q^{d/2}: let X=q^{\frac{d+2}2} be the a.p. range for 1\star\lambda_\pi. By duality and a dyadic decomposition, one has to bound non-trivially bilinear sums of the shape

for L,M\geqslant 1 such that LM\leqslant q^{d/2}. Let us assume for simplicity that LM=q^{d/2}.

1. If L\leqslant q^{\eta} for \eta>0 small enough then the m-sum

   \sum_{m\sim M}\lambda_{\overline{\pi}}(m)\operatorname{\mathrm{Kl}}_{d+1}(lm;q)

   can be bounded non-trivially since M\geqslant q^{d/2-\eta} is near the convexity range for \lambda_{\overline{\pi}}.

2. If L\geqslant q^{d/2-\eta} the linear sum

   \sum_{l\sim L}\operatorname{\mathrm{Kl}}_{d+1}(lm;q)

   can be bounded non-trivially after applying the Poisson summation formula (as d/2-\eta>1/2 because d\geqslant 2).

3. In the remaining range we have

   \min(L;M)\geqslant q^{\eta}, \max(L,M)\geqslant q^{\frac{d}4}.

   • If d\geqslant 3 we can then apply Cauchy–Schwarz to this bilinear sum with the shorter variable inside the square and the longer variable being smoothed; since the longer variable is well above the Pólya–Vinogradov range q^{1/2} (since q^{d/4}\geqslant q^{3/4}) there will be some saving from sums of products of Kloosterman sums and we are done.

   • In the case d=2, then in the last situation we obtain only \max(L,M)\geqslant q^{1/2} which is the Pólya–Vinogradov range and the above approach does not provide any saving if L=M=q^{1/2}. However using a technique going back to Vinogradov–Korobov developed in this context by Friedlander–Iwaniec in [FrIwAnn] one can still bound non-trivially the bilinear form of Kloosterman sums and eventually get some saving (see [KMS, KMS2]).

For instance the above method can be applied to the convolution of degree 1+6=7

to pass above the standard distribution exponent \theta_7=2/(7+1)=1/4 for 1\star\lambda_{\pi} with \lambda_{\pi}(n) given by (?). The main point is that the Kloosterman sheaf \mathcal{K}\ell_7 is a “good" sheaf in the sense of [LMS]*§ 1 so that (?) holds for K(\bullet)=\operatorname{\mathrm{Kl}}_7(l\bullet;q) at or slightly below the convexity range q^{6/2}=q^3 (see [LMS]*Theorem 1.1).