Mock Modularity In CHL Models

We have

We can now write

where we used the elliptic transformation of \varphi. This gives us the first identity after using (?). For the second identity, we write

Let us write s=(\alpha_s,\beta_s) and z_s=z_s(\tau) so that we have the following identities

Then replacing \varepsilon\to \varepsilon/(c\tau+d) and \tau\to\gamma\tau in (3.2) we get

where \stackrel{.}{=} means that we have ignored terms which are bounded as \varepsilon\to 0 and we have used (3.2) multiple times. This gives us the required result.

The first two transformation properties follow from (?), (?), (?) and (?). For the modularity transformation, we start by defining two functions: for m\in\mathbb{N},\tau\in\mathbb{H},z,u\in\mathbb{C} define

where

where erf(x) is the error function defined as

It is related to the incomplete gamma function as

We then have the following modular transformation property [zwegers2008mock, Proposition 3.5] for \tilde{f}_u^{(m)}:

Using (3.3) and replacing u=z_s=\alpha\tau+\beta we can write

where in the last step we used (?) and the identity

Next, note that

where we used (?). Replacing \zeta by \zeta/\zeta_s in the above relation (3.3) and applying the averaging operator \text{Av}^{(m)}_{\zeta} we get

where we used (?). Using (3.3), we obtain

where we used (3.3) and (3.3). Using (3.2) and (3.3), we get

The proof is similar to Proposition 3.2 once we rewrite (?) as

Indeed, using similar calculations as in proof of Proposition 3.2, one can show that

from which the result follows.

The proof of first two properties is analogous to the proof of Proposition 3.3. For the modular transformation, we define the functions

where as usual y=\text{Im}(\tau). Let us rewrite

Then the modular transformation (3.3) can be written as

for every \left(\begin{smallmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{smallmatrix}\right) \in\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z}). Then using chain rule we have

where on the right hand side \frac{\partial \hat{f}^{(m)}}{\partial u} denotes the derivative of \hat{f}^{(m)} with respect to the first argument. One the other hand, using (3.6), the left hand side of (3.6) becomes

We thus have

Under u\to u/(c\tau+d),\tau\to \gamma\tau, the second term in the definition of \tilde{g}^{(m)}_u changes as

where we used the fact that

Thus we have

Using similar manipulations as in Proposition 3.3, one can show that

Equations (3.6) and (3.6) are exact analogs of (3.3) and (3.3) respectively. Then the proof follows exactly as in (3.3).

We first prove the modular transformation. From (?) we have

where we used the fact that r_N\gamma=\widehat{\gamma}r_N with

Similarly

where

To prove the elliptic transformation, we use (?). The desired identity follows once we observe that if we define

then for every X=(\lambda,\mu)\in\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z},

We first prove the modular transformation. Define the following slash operator on the completions of the original Appell-Lerch sums: for \gamma=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{smallmatrix}\right)\in\mathrm{GL}^+(2,\mathbb{R}),

Note that we need these modified slash operators since the superscript s transforms nontrivially under the modular action. Proposition 3.3 and Proposition 3.6 imply that \widehat{\mathcal{A}}_m^s and \widehat{\mathcal{B}}_m^s are invariant under the above slash operators for every s\in\mathbb{Q}^2 and \gamma\in\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z}). Moreover, (?) implies that

where r_N is as in (?). Since s\gamma_1^{-1}\gamma_2^{-1}=s(\gamma_2\gamma_1)^{-1}, Proposition 4.1 implies the elliptic and modular invariance with respect to N\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z} and \Gamma. For the first transformation property, note that using (?) and Proposition 3.3 we have

A slight modification of Proposition 3.2.

Since the functions \psi, \psi^{F} and \psi^{P} are meromorphic, it is enough to prove the decomposition (4.4) on a horizontal line in the z-plane. Let us take a point P=A \tau+B \in \mathbb{C} with (A, B) \in \mathbb{R}^{2} \backslash S(\psi). Since S(\psi)\subseteq \mathbb{Q}\tau+\mathbb{Q} for any \tau\in\mathbb{H}, it is easy to see that the horizontal line \operatorname{Im}(z)=\operatorname{Im}(P)=A\cdot\text{Im}(\tau) does not intersect S(\psi). We will prove (4.4) on this horizontal line. The Fourier expansion of \psi on this line has the form

where the coefficients h_{\ell}^{(P)} are defined by (?). Then using (?) we have

Since \psi(\tau,z+1)=\psi(\tau,z) the above integral can be written as a contour integral

where the contour is shown in Figure ?.

Cauchy’s residue theorem then implies that q^{\ell^{2}N/ 4 m}\left(h_{\ell}^{(P)}(\tau)-h_{\ell}(\tau)\right) is 2 \pi i times the sum of the residues of poles of \psi(\tau, z) \mathbf{e}(-\ell z) in the parallelogram shown in Figure ? above. If there are poles on the upper horizontal line, then we deform the contour by a semicircle around the pole in the usual way and add an extra factor of 1/2 to the residues of those poles (This procedure looks somewhat ad hoc, but we show in Appendix ? that in the cases of interest, the residues at the poles on the upper horizontal line vanish and therefore there is no ambiguity involving the choice of integration contour.). We thus have

where “(\alpha, \beta) \in S(\psi) / \mathbb{Z}" means that we consider all \alpha, but \beta only modulo 1 , which is the same by periodicity as considering only the (\alpha, \beta) with B \leq \beta<B+1. Note that \text{sgn}(\ell+2m\alpha/N) is defined to be zero if \ell+2m\alpha/N=0, i,e. if s is on the upper horizontal line and 1 or -1 otherwise. Plugging this into (4.4), using (?) and using the fact that on \text{Im}(z)=\text{Im}(P)=A

we get

where we have used the periodicity property of D_{s}(\tau) in Proposition 4.3 together with the obvious periodicity property \mathcal{R}_{c+n}(\zeta)=\zeta^{n} \mathcal{R}_{c}(\zeta) of \mathcal{R}_{c}(\zeta).

Let us start by showing that \widehat{h}_{\ell}(\tau) transforms like a modular form of weight k-\frac{1}{2}. Observe that

where we defined

and used Theorem 4.4. Using Proposition 4.2 and 4.3, it is easy to see that \widehat{\psi}^{P}(\tau, z) transforms like a Jacobi form of weight k and index m/N for \Gamma\ltimes (N\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}). It follows that \widehat{\psi}^{F}(\tau, z) transforms like a Jacobi form of weight k and index m/N for \Gamma\ltimes (N\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}). Since \widehat{h}_{\ell} are the theta coefficients of \widehat{\psi}^F(\tau,z), which transforms like a Jacobi form of weight k and index m/N for \Gamma\ltimes (N\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}), it transforms like a modular form of weight k-\frac{1}{2} with respect to \Gamma(4mN). This implies that h_{\ell} are mock modular forms and \psi^F is a mock Jacobi form. The mixed weight follows from the fact that D_s has weight k-1 and \widetilde{\Theta}_{\frac{m}{N}, \ell}^{s *} has weight 1/2.

A slight modification of Proposition 3.5.

We see from (?) that near q=0, the function \widetilde\Phi_k is proportional to q^{\widetilde\alpha}. We also know that \widetilde\Phi_k has (double) zeros at (?). Therefore, in the \tau plane, the poles of q^{\widetilde\alpha} \widetilde\Phi_k^{-1} are at:

Since \text{Im}(\sigma)>0, as long as either n_2 or m_1 is non-zero, the denominator does not vanish. Therefore the poles occur at finite values of \tau, where q=\mathbf{e}(\tau) is non-zero. On the other hand, if n_2=0 and m_1=0 then the pole locations given in (?) are independent of \tau. Therefore, for fixed \sigma and z away from the zeros of jz+n_1\sigma+m_2, the function q^{\widetilde\alpha} \widetilde\Phi_k^{-1} has poles in the q plane at finite distance away from the origin. Furthermore, we see from (?) that q^{\widetilde\alpha} \widetilde\Phi_k^{-1} is a single-valued function of q around q=0. Therefore, q^{\widetilde\alpha} \widetilde\Phi_k^{-1} admits a Taylor series expansion in q with \sigma,z dependent expansion coefficients. Denoting the coefficient of q^m by \phi_{m-\widetilde\alpha}(\sigma,z), we prove the first expansion in (?).

Similarly, we see from (?) that near p=0, \widetilde\Phi_k is proportional to p^{\widetilde\gamma}. On the other hand the zeros of p^{-\widetilde\gamma}\widetilde \Phi_k in the \sigma plane lie on the subspace (?). This gives

Since \text{Im}(\tau)>0, as long as either n_2 or n_1 is non-zero, the denominator does not vanish. Therefore, the poles occur at finite values of \sigma, where p=\mathbf{e}(\sigma) is non-zero. On the other hand if n_2=0 and n_1=0 then the pole locations given by (?) are independent of \sigma. Therefore, for fixed \tau and z away from the zeros of m_1\tau-jz-m_2, the function p^{\widetilde\gamma} \widetilde\Phi_k^{-1} has poles in the p plane at finite distance away from the origin. Furthermore, we see from (?) that p^{\widetilde\gamma} \widetilde\Phi_k^{-1} is a single-valued function of p^{1/N} around p=0. Therefore p^{\widetilde\gamma} \widetilde\Phi_k^{-1} admits a Taylor series expansion in p^{1/N} with \tau,z dependent expansion coefficients. Denoting by \psi_{m-\widetilde\gamma}(\tau,z) the expansion coefficient of p^{m/N}, we get the second expansion in (?).

Let us start by expanding the partition function in q first:

From Proposition A.1, we have

where

Now observe that

where

Also

where we write out the matrices g^1 and g^3 in the form

Since \widetilde{\Phi}_k^{-1} transforms like a Siegel modular form of weight -k for \widetilde{G} we have

In the limit Im(\tau)\to\infty both sides of (5.2) admits the Fourier-Jacobi expansion as in (?). First equation of (5.2) gives,

Comparing coefficients of q^m we obtain

which is precisely the modular transformation of a Jacobi form. Note that

and hence \phi_m has the correct modular transformation of a Jacobi form of weight -k and index m with respect to \Gamma^1(N). Next the second equation of (5.2) gives,

Again comparing Fourier coefficients, we obtain

which is the elliptic transformation. Thus \phi_m transforms like Jacobi forms of weight -k and index m with respect to \Gamma^1(N)\ltimes\mathbb{Z}^2.

Let us now expand the partition function around \text{Im}(\sigma)=\infty:

From Proposition A.1, we see that

where g_1,g_3, given in (?) has the following action on \Omega:

Performing similar calculations as above it follows that \psi_n(\tau,z) transforms as a Jacobi form of weight -k, index n/N with respect to \Gamma_1(N)\ltimes(N\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}). Thus,

The poles of \phi_m and \psi_n follows from the general structure (?) of poles of \widetilde{\Phi}_k^{-1} after setting n_2=0 and m_1=0 (for \phi_m) or n_1=0 (for \psi_n).

The poles of \phi_m and \psi_n are at the torsion points z\in\mathbb{Z}\tau+\mathbb{Z} and z\in(N\mathbb{Z}\sigma+\mathbb{Z}) respectively. Thus Theorem 3.7 and Theorem 4.7 combined with Theorem 5.2 give the required result.

Let us start with charges in the set A. We now want to use the first Fourier-Jacobi expansion in (?) to perform the contour integral for single-centered degeneracy. This requires us to deform the contour \mathcal{C} to \mathcal{C}' which is defined identical to \mathcal{C} except that Im(\tau)\to \infty. To do this we need to show that there are no poles of the partition function between the region bounded by the contour \mathcal{C} and the deformed contour. This is proved in Appendix ?. We can hence write

Performing the \tau integral, we get

where \mathcal{C}(n,\ell) is the projection of \mathcal{C} onto \sigma-z plane.

Now we specify the z integral. Note that the attractor contour (?) implies that

Moreover we can shift the contour in purely horizontal direction since we do not cross any pole in doing so. So we shift the contour such that on the contour

Thus we have

where

It follows from the discussion at the end of Appendix ? that h_{\ell}^{(-\frac{\ell}{2m}\sigma)}(\sigma) does not have a pole in the upper half \sigma plane. Hence the integration over \sigma can be taken to be over any horizontal line of length N.

Now, from (?), (?), and the fact that h_{\ell}^{(-\frac{\ell}{2m}\sigma)}(\sigma) only depends on \ell\bmod 2m (see the discussion below (?)), we get

Using this we can express (?) as

In this form, the \sigma and z integrals run over any horizontal lines of length N and 1 respectively. This proves (a).

To prove (b), we shall use the fact that for charges in set B, the integration contour \mathcal{C} can be deformed to \mathcal{C}'', where \mathcal{C}'' is defined identical to \mathcal{C} except that Im(\sigma)\to\infty. The validity of such a deformation without picking up any residues has been proved in Appendix ?. Then following similar calculation as for (a) we get

where

Now, from (?), (?), we get

Using this we can express (?) as

where the \tau and z integrals run over any horizontal lines of length 1. This proves (b).

Since \Phi_k transforms as a Siegel modular form with respect to G, we can write

We begin by simplifying (?). Using \Phi_{k}\underset{k}{|}g_3(-1,0)=\Phi_{k} we get

Using this along with (?), we get

Now put

Note that

Hence using (A.1) we have that

Since g_2\in G, we can write this as

where we used (A.1) in the last equality. Moreover, we have that

This implies that

It is easy to see that

and

Using (A.1), (A.1), and (A.1), we get

Also using (A.1), (A.1) and (A.1), we get,

Moreover we have

g_1(1,-\lambda\mu,0,1) leaves \widetilde{\Phi}_k invariant as a consequence of the \tau\to\tau+1 symmetry described in the second line of (?). The other elements on the right hand side of (A.1) have already been shown to leave \widetilde{\Phi}_k invariant. Therefore, we have

We can also check that

and

These can be used to prove the remaining parts of the statement following the same procedure.