A New Bound for the Gauss Circle Problem

For h,q>0, set f_h(q)=\sqrt{Thq}-\omega q. For each integer h\approx H, let c_h\in\mathbb C and let I_h\subseteq[U/100,2U] be an interval. Define

where the supremum is over these coefficient and interval families. Abel summation and the van der Corput formula [Huxley96, cite.Huxley96Lemma 5.5.3] give

Here the inversion formula is applied on the actual subinterval of the n-sum. Its endpoint-uniform error is the displayed O(M/\sqrt\rho+\log(2+U)). The derivative check below gives |\phi_h''|\eqsim\rho/M^2 and a dual frequency interval of length O(U), which are precisely the scales entering that error term. If an endpoint derivative is integral, changing the half-weight convention costs O(M/\sqrt\rho) and is already absorbed by the same error. For h>0 and x>-M\alpha, define \phi_h(x)=hT/[4(x+M\alpha)]. For q>0, let x_{h,q} be the unique solution of \phi_h'(x_{h,q})=-q. Then

For h\approx H and x\in[M,2M], these frequencies lie in [U/100,2U]. \phi_h''\eqsim\rho/M^2 and |\phi_h^{(j)}|\lesssim\rho M^{-j} for j=3,4. The factor (q/U)^{-3/4} has uniformly bounded variation on [U/100,2U]. Apply (?) to it and to G. The remaining factors have bounded modulus and are absorbed in c_h. This proves (Proof), uniformly on the stated intervals.

We next prove

The choice of J and (2.3) imply

Averaging over integer shifts 1\le r\le J changes each interval sum by O(J). Define the Taylor remainder R_{h,q} by

Taylor’s formula gives

For b_{h,q}(r)=e(R_{h,q}(r)), therefore,

By (?), it suffices to bound, for every integer 1\le j\le J and every complex family (d_{h,q})_{(h,q)\in\Omega} with |d_{h,q}|\le1,

For complex coefficients d_1,\ldots,d_J and y=(y_1,\ldots,y_5)\in\mathbb T^5, the degree-five Vinogradov mean value theorem [BDG, cite.BDGTheorem 1.1], by expansion and orthogonality, gives

Indeed, expansion of the left side leaves only the degree-five Vinogradov system. Every surviving coefficient product has modulus at most one, so Theorem 1.1 of [BDG] with s=15 and degree 5 bounds the integral by J_{15,5}(J)\lesssim_\varepsilon J^{15+\varepsilon}. For a sufficiently large fixed C\ge1, apply (B.1) with moment exponent 30 and

For (h,q)\in\Omega, write A_i=A_i(h,q). Use A_i-\lfloor A_i+1/2\rfloor for the first five sieve coordinates and A_6 for the sixth. The sieve pair count is bounded by B: discard its first three restrictions and use |A_5|\lesssim\rho/U^5=o(1), so that the fifth centered representative equals A_5. For x=(x_1,\ldots,x_6)\in\prod_{i=1}^6[-D_i,D_i], fix x_6 and absorb its phase into d_r. Equation (?) then gives

The sieve bound, divided by J, is the second term of (?). Abel summation above and the O(HJ) endpoint error prove that estimate. Finally, the thirtieth power of the resulting main term in (Proof) is

using U=\rho/M and \rho^2=THU. The other terms are bounded by those in (3.1).

Fix Q=2^jR with j\ge0 and R\le Q\le c_*H. The case S_Q=0 is immediate. Otherwise fix a rectangle attaining the maximum. For a sufficiently large fixed constant C, choose the box widths in (B.1) as

Write x=(x_1,\ldots,x_4)\in\mathcal X=\prod_{i=1}^4[-D_i,D_i] for the integration variable. Then t_I\eqsim D, and the four products have sizes

They are bounded below by fixed positive constants, so

The first two sieve restrictions give the corresponding conditions in (?). The other two imply

Thus the sieve pair count is O(B_Q), by (?).

The cone hypotheses follow from

The preceding choices of C_\eta and c_* ensure 1\le L<K\le\eta^{-1}\le KL. Also D\eqsim(\eta L\sqrt K)^{-1}. After interchanging the first two coordinates, cover their box and the third-coordinate interval by a bounded number of translates of a box with side lengths 2,2,2(\eta L\sqrt K)^{-1}. Translation multiplies the coefficients by constants of modulus one. At each fixed fourth coordinate x_4, absorb e(x_4l/\sqrt k) into those coefficients. Theorem thm:first, followed by integration in x_4, gives the distribution hypothesis of Lemma lem:elementary-sieve with constants c_q\lesssim_\varepsilon T^\varepsilon\mathcal E_q^q for q\in\{4,6\}. Hence (?) and (?) give

More explicitly,

and therefore

For each \delta>0, \sum_{j\ge0}2^{-j\delta}=(1-2^{-\delta})^{-1}. Sum the last display over Q=2^jR and use

The error in (?), divided by H, is also bounded by the first term of (5.1).

For each finest sector \theta and integers k\approx K, l\approx L, define u_{\theta,kl} by

Fourier inversion and Plancherel give

Fix \vartheta\in\mathcal P_\Delta. Choose an interval in [K,2K] of length O(\Delta) containing every k for which u_{\theta,kl}\not\equiv0 for some \theta\subseteq\vartheta and l\approx L. Let k_0 be its midpoint, and put t_0=\sqrt{k_0/K}. Use the frequency coordinates

The frequency (l,kl,l\sqrt k) has coordinates

and the widths of B_\vartheta^* are comparable to \eta/\sigma^2,\eta/\sigma,\eta, where \sigma=\Delta/K. For \theta\subseteq\vartheta and integers k,k'\approx K, l,l'\approx L, the condition \psi_\vartheta*(u_{\theta,kl}\overline{u_{\theta,k'l'}})\not\equiv0 and (?) imply

The widths of \widehat\chi are absorbed because \eta KL\ge1 and \sigma\le1. As l'\eqsim L and |\sqrt k-\sqrt{k_0}|\lesssim\Delta/\sqrt K,

Thus

Each translated support meets O(1) finest sectors. For a fixed (k,l), (?) allows at most C(1+Z/\Delta)(1+LZ/\Delta^2) choices of (k',l'). Since there are O(\Delta L) choices of (k,l),

This proves (6.1).

For every pair of projected summands, Young’s and Hölder’s inequalities give

Each term in the expansion of \int_{\mathbb R^3}T_\vartheta(x)^2\,dx is therefore O(V). In a nonzero term, the integers k_i,k_i' lie in the fixed interval for \vartheta, and l_i,l_i'\approx L for i=1,2. Fourier support gives

Both sums vanish. Define d_i=k_i'-k_i for i=1,2, and v=l_1'-l_1. Then

For this upper bound, discard the l-difference restriction in (?).

If (d_1,d_2)\ne(0,0), interchange the two pairs so that d_1\ne0. Choose k_1',k_2',v,d_2,l_2 first. The number of choices is

For an admissible choice, the nonzero integer D=v(k_2'-k_1')-l_2d_2 satisfies

The divisor bound [HW, cite.HWTheorem 315] gives O_\varepsilon((KL)^\varepsilon) choices of (l_1,d_1). All remaining indices are determined by

If d_1=d_2=0, (?) reduces to v(k_2'-k_1')=0. The cases v=0 and v\ne0 give, respectively,

Consequently

which is (6.1).