LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY OF

AUTOMORPHIC L-FUNCTIONS

SIEGFRED BALUYOT, VORRAPAN CHANDEE, AND XIANNAN LI

arXiv:2310.07606v1 [math.NT] 11 Oct 2023

Abstract. We study a new orthogonal family of L-functions associated with holo-

morphic Hecke newforms of level q, averaged over q ≍ Q. To illustrate our methods,
we prove a one level density result for this family with the support of the Fourier trans-
form of the test function being extended to be inside (−4, 4). The main techniques
developed in this paper will be useful in developing further results for this family, in-
cluding estimates for high moments, information on the vertical distribution of zeros,
as well as critical line theorems.

1. Introduction
A major theme in analytic number theory is to study statistics over families of L-
functions. Here, a foundational heuristic is that the statistics of families of L-functions
should match analogous statistics from classical compact groups of random matrices.
Katz and Sarnak proved that such heuristics hold in many examples of zeta and L-
functions over function fields [17], and suggest that analogous results should hold over
number fields. In this paper, we are interested in studying the low lying zeros of L-
functions near the central point. Here, the Katz-Sarnak [17] philosophy predicts that
the distribution of the low-lying zeros is governed by some underlying symmetry group.
The full predictions of these heuristics remain far out of reach; however, there are several
examples of families of L-functions for which conjectures have been verified in certain
restricted ranges.
One example of such a family is the family of L-functions associated with holomorphic
Hecke eigencuspforms of fixed weight k and square-free level q. For this family, assuming
the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis (GRH), Iwaniec, Luo, and Sarnak [16] verified that
the density predicted by Katz and Sarnak for the low-lying zeros holds true as q → ∞
provided that the support of the Fourier transform of the test function is compact and
contained in the interval (−2, 2). The square-free condition on the level q was removed
in later work of Barrett et al. [2].
In this paper, we develop a novel method that allows us to prove a stronger result
for an extension of this family of L-functions. More precisely, we study the orthogonal
family of L-functions associated with holomorphic Hecke newforms of level q, averaged
over all q ≍ Q. Under GRH, we show that the density predicted by Katz and Sarnak
holds true for the extended family when the support of the Fourier transform of the test
Date: October 12, 2023.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 11M50, 11F11, 11F72 .
Key words and phrases. One-level density of low-lying zeros, Orthogonal family, GL(2) L-functions.
1
2 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

function is contained in the interval (−4, 4). The technique we develop has applications
to the study of other statistics of this family, such as the sixth and eighth moments, the
number of zeros on the critical line, and the vertical distribution of zeros.
To state our results more precisely, let Sk (q) be the space of cusp forms of fixed weight
k ≥ 3 for the group Γ0 (q) with trivial nebentypus, where as usual,
  
a b
Γ0 (q) := ad − bc = 1, c ≡ 0 (mod q) .
c d
Let Hk (q) ⊂ Sk (q) be an orthogonal basis of the space of newforms consisting of Hecke
cusp newforms, normalized so that the first Fourier coefficient is 1. For each f ∈ Hk (q),
we let L(s, f ) be the L-function associated to f , defined for Re(s) > 1 by
X λf (n) Y λf (p) χ0 (p)
−1
L(s, f ) = = 1− + 2s
n≥1
ns p
ps p
(1.1)
Y αf (p)
−1 
βf (p)
−1
= 1− 1− ,
p
ps ps
where {λf (n)} is the set of Hecke eigenvalues of f and χ0 denotes the trivial character
mod q. Since f is a newform, L(s, f ) can be analytically continued to the entire complex
plane and satisfies the functional equation



(1.2) Λ 12 + s, f = ik η f Λ 12 − s, f
where the completed L-function Λ(s, f ) is defined by
 
1

 q  s2 k 1


Λ 2 + s, f = Γ s+ L 2
+ s, f ,
4π 2 2
and the sign of the functional equation is ik ηf = ±1. For convenience, we normalize
our sum over f to play well with spectral theory. Suppose for each f ∈ Hk (q), we have
an associated number αf . Then we define the harmonic average of αf over Hk (q) to be
Xh Γ(k − 1) X αf
(1.3) αf = ,
(4π)k−1 kf k2
f ∈Hk (q) f ∈Hk (q)
2
R 2 k−2
where kf k = Γ0 (q)\H |f (z)| y dx dy.
Now let Φ(x) be an even Schwartz class function, and let
Z ∞
b
Φ(t) = Φ(x)e−2πixt dx
−∞
be the usual Fourier transform.
The Density Conjecture from the Katz-Sarnak philosophy [17] predicts that
X X  γf  Z ∞  
1 1
(1.4) lim Φ log q = Φ(x) 1 + δ0 (x) dx,
q→∞ #Hk (q) 2π −∞ 2
γ
f ∈Hk (q) f

where γf runs through the imaginary parts of the nontrivial zeros of L(s, f ), each
repeated according to multiplicity, and δ0 (x) is the Dirac delta distribution at x = 0.
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 3

Here 1 + δ0 (x)/2 is the kernel associated with orthogonal symmetry. Assuming GRH
for certain L-functions, Iwaniec, Luo, and Sarnak [16] prove that (1.4) holds when Φb is
compactly supported in (−2, 2) and the variable q runs through the square-free integers.
In this paper, we study a larger family of orthogonal GL(2) L-functions by including
an average over q. To this end, we fix a smooth function Ψ compactly supported on
b
R>0 with Ψ(0) 6= 0 and let
  X X  
1 X q h γf
OL (Q) := Ψ Φ log q ,
N(Q) q Q γ
2π
f ∈Hk (q) f

where
X  q  Xh
N(Q) := Ψ 1.
q
Q
f ∈Hk (q)

Note that by work of G. Martin [20], we have

X q
(1.5) N(Q) ≍ Ψ b
≍ QΨ(0),
q
Q

b
since Ψ(0) 6= 0. Our main result is as follows.
b compactly
Theorem 1.1. Assume GRH. Let Φ be an even Schwartz function with Φ
supported in (−4, 4). Then with notation as before,
Z ∞  
1
lim OL (Q) = Φ(x) 1 + δ0 (x) dx,
Q→∞ −∞ 2
where δ0 (x) is the Dirac δ distribution at x = 0.
b is doubled in our result compared to the result of Iwaniec,
The size of the support of Φ
Luo and Sarnak [16] because we have taken full advantage of the additional average over
all levels q around size Q. This family of around Q2 forms has elements with conductors
of size around Q. It is instructive to compare this with results on the similar family of
Dirichlet L-functions attached to Dirichlet characters χ mod q with q around size Q.
Here, Fiorilli and Miller [11] studied the one level density of low-lying zeros for the
family of Dirichlet L-functions over all characters modulo q, where q ∼ Q, i.e. they
wanted to understand X X X  γf 
Φ log q .
q∼Q χ mod q γ
2π
f

Previously, the work of Hughes and Rudnick [13] studying the analogous quantity over
the smaller family of Dirichlet L-functions attached to characters modulo q with fixed
prime q verified the analogous density conjecture with the support of Φ b restricted within
[−2, 2]. Surprisingly, the additional average over q in the work of Fiorilli and Miller [11]
b Rather, Fiorilli
does not lead directly to an improvement on the size of the support of Φ.
and Miller [11] were able to extend the support to (−4, 4) assuming both GRH and a
strong “de-averaging hypothesis” on the variance of primes in residue classes.
4 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

Recently, Drappeau, Pratt and Radziwill [9] considered the one level density for
the similar large family of Dirichlet L-functions attached to all primitive characters
modulo q for all q ∼ Q and showed that the support of Φb can be extended to be within
(−2−50/1093, 2+50/1093) unconditionally. It remains a challenging problem to extend
the support to something closer to (−4, 4) without additional hypotheses.
Our main Theorem 1.1 will follow from the explicit formula and the Proposition
below. The proof of Theorem 1.1 will be in Section 4.1.
b compactly
Proposition 1.2. Assume GRH. Let Φ be an even Schwartz function with Φ
supported in (−4, 4). Moreover, let

αf (p)ℓ + βf (p)ℓ if n = pℓ
(1.6) cf (n) =
0 otherwise,
where αf and βf are as in (1.1). Then
   
1 X q 1 Xh X Λ(n)cf (n) b log n Φ(0)
lim Ψ √ Φ =− .
Q→∞ N(Q) Q log q n log q 4
q n
f ∈Hk (q)

Here Λ(n) is the usual von Mangoldt function, which is log p when n = pℓ and 0 other-
wise.
1.1. Outline of the proof. To prove Proposition 1.2, we use Petersson’s formula to
reduce the problem to morally bounding a sum like
 X    √ 
1 X q log p b log p X 4π p
(1.7) Ψ √ Φ S(p, 1; cq)Jk−1 .
N(Q) q Q p
p log q c≥1 cq
P
Here, we have suppressed technical complications arising from the average h f ∈Hk (q)
being a sum over primitive forms, rather than an orthogonal basis of all forms. This
requires pruning, and we suppress the details here for simplicity. The sum in (1.7) is
easy to bound if Φb is supported on (−2, 2) by an application of the additive Large Sieve.
We want to understand (1.7) when Φ b has support extended to (−4, 4). To do this,
we need to extract non-trivial cancellation in the sum over Kloosterman sums. For
simplicity, we restrict our attention to the transition region of the Bessel function, so
√ b is compact and contained in (−4, 4), so the sum over
that cq ≍ p. The support of Φ
4−δ
p is restricted to p ≤ Q for some δ > 0 depending on Φ. Hence, we see that in this
range
c ≪ Q1−δ/2 .
This motivates us to write (1.7) as
1 X log p X
√ S(p, c)
N(Q) p p c≥1
where      √ 
X q b log p 4π p
S(p, c) = S(p, 1; cq)Ψ Φ Jk−1
q
Q log q cq
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 5

can be transformed into a sum of forms of level c via Kuznetsov’s formula. In Proposi-
tion 1.2, we started with a sum over forms of level q ≍ Q. Thus, in applying Kuznetsov’s
formula, we have succeeded in lowering the conductor from q ≍ Q to c ≪ Q1−δ/2 .
In most cases, we can use an appropriate choice of basis and GRH to bound the
resulting sums over p. To be more precise, we have morally that
X log p
√ λg (p) ≪ log2 Q
p≍P
p

where λg is some type of Hecke eigenvalue associated to a holomorphic form, a Maass

form, or an Eisenstein series, and P ≍ Q4−δ . For holomorphic forms and Maass forms,
we reduce the problem to bounding these sums by choosing a special basis based on
Atkin-Lehner theory, while for Eisenstein series, we use the relatively recent explicit
calculations of Kiral and Young [19].
An exception occurs in the case of an Eisenstein series, where one may morally replace
λg (p) with sums involving χ(p) for certain Dirichlet characters χ. When χ is non-
principal, the above approach holds. However, when χ = χ0 is principal, the sum over
p is genuinely large and is essentially P 1/2−it Ṽ1 (1/2 − it) for some rapidly decaying
function Ṽ1 , where t is the spectral parameter and P can be as large as Q4−δ . We get
around this issue by taking advantage of the average over the spectral parameter. This
is in contrast to other situations, e.g. [10], where a truly large contribution arises from
the Eisenstein series.
In §2 and §3, we gather useful standard results for the rest of the paper. We apply
some initial steps in §4 and reduce the proof of Proposition 1.2 and Theorem 1.1 to
Proposition 4.2. In §5, we apply Ng’s [21] version of the Petersson’s formula for primitive
forms, and prune our sum by truncating the sum over less important parameters. This
sets the stage for our application of Kutznetsov in §6, which reduces our task to bounding
the contribution of the holomorphic forms and discrete spectrum in Proposition 6.2,
and the contribution of the continuous spectrum in Proposition 6.3. The proof of
Proposition 6.2 is carried out in §7. The proof of Proposition 6.3 is carried out in §8,
where the contribution of the non-principal characters resembles the treatment of the
Maass form contribution, while the principal character contribution requires different
methods.

2. Notation and Preliminary Results

Throughout the paper, we follow the standard convention in analytic number theory
of letting ǫ denote an arbitrarily small positive real number whose value may change
from line to line. We always use p to denote a prime number.
In this section, we collect some lemmas we will need in our proofs.

2.1. Approximate orthogonality. We begin by stating the orthogonality relations

for our family. These are the standard Petersson’s formula (e.g. see [14]), and a version
of Petersson’s formula that is restricted to newforms and is due to Ng [21].
6 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

Recall that Sk (q) is the space of cusp forms of weight k and level q. Let Bk (q) be any
orthogonal basis of Sk (q). Define
Xh
∆q (m, n) = ∆k,q (m, n) = λf (m)λf (n),
f ∈Bk (q)

P
where the summation symbol h means we are summing with the same weights found
in (1.3). The usual Petersson’s formula (e.g. see [14]) is the following.

Lemma 2.1. If m, n, q are positive integers, then

X S(m, n; cq)  √ 
−k 4π mn
∆q (m, n) = δ(m, n) + (2πi) Jk−1 ,
c≥1
cq cq

where δ(m, n) = 1 if m = n and is 0 otherwise, S(m, n; cq) is the usual Kloosterman

sum, and Jk−1 is the Bessel function of the first kind.

Lemma 2.1, the Weil bound for Kloosterman sums, and standard facts about the
Bessel function imply the following Lemma (see Corollary 2.2 in [16]).

Lemma 2.2. If m, n, q are positive integers, then

 1/2 !
τ (q)(m, n, q)(mn)ǫ mn
∆q (m, n) = δ(m, n) + O √ ,
q((m, q) + (n, q))1/2 mn + q

where τ (q) is the divisor function and δ(m, n) = 1 if m = n and is 0 otherwise.

For our purposes, we need to isolate the newforms of level q. To be precise, recall that
Hk (q) is the set of newforms of weight k and level q which are also Hecke eigenforms.
We need a formula for
Xh
∆∗q (m, n) := λf (m)λf (n).
f ∈Hk (q)

A formula is known for squarefree level q due to Iwaniec, Luo and Sarnak [16], and for q
a prime power due to Rouymi [22]. These formulas have been generalized to all levels q
by Ng [21] (see also the works of Barret et al.[2], and Petrow [23]). Ng’s Theorem 3.3.1
contains some minor typos, but the corrected version is as follows.

Lemma 2.3. Suppose that m, n, q are positive integers such that (mn, q) = 1, and let
q = q1 q2 , where q1 is the largest factor of q satisfying p|q1 ⇔ p2 |q. Then
X µ(L1 L2 ) Y  1
−1 X
∆d (me2 , n)
∗
∆q (m, n) = 1− 2 .
L1 L2 p e
q=L1 L2 d p|L1 ∞ e|L2
L1 |q1 p2 ∤d
L2 |q2
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 7

Remark. Due to the factor µ(L1 L2 ), we may assume that L1 and L2 are square-free,
and (L1 , L2 ) = 1. Furthermore, the condition that L1 |q1 and L2 |q2 is equivalent to the
condition that L1 |d and (L2 , d) = 1. To see this, suppose first that L1 |q1 and L2 |q2 . If
p|L1 , then p2 |q. So p must divide d since q = L1 L2 d and p ∤ L2 . This concludes that
L1 |d since L1 is square-free. If p|d and p|L2 , then p2 |q, and so p|q1 . But (q1 , q2 ) = 1,
so p = 1. Thus we must have (L2 , d) = 1. On the other hand, suppose that L1 |d and
(L2 , d) = 1. If p|L1 , then p|d, and so p2 |q. Thus p|q1 . This implies that L1 |q1 . If p|L2
then p ∤ L1 d since (L2 , dL1 ) = 1. Hence the exponent of p in the prime factorization of
q = L1 L2 d is exactly 1, so p|q2 by definition of q2 . Thus L2 |q2 .
The next lemma collects some well known properties and formulas for the J-Bessel
function.

Lemma 2.4. Let Jk−1 be the J-Bessel function of order k − 1. We have

    
1 k 1 k 1
Jk−1 (2πx) = √ Wk (2πx) e x − + + W k (2πx) e −x + − ,
2π x 4 8 4 8
(j)
where Wk (x) ≪j,k x−j . Moreover,
∞
X x2ℓ+k−1
Jk−1 (2x) = (−1)ℓ
ℓ=0
ℓ!(ℓ + k − 1)!

and
Jk−1 (x) ≪ min{x−1/2 , xk−1 }.
The proof of the first three claims of Lemma 2.4 can be found in [24, p. 206], and
the statement of the last claim is modified from Equation 16 of Table 17.43 in [12].

2.2. An explicit formula and some consequences of GRH. The first step in our
proof of Theorem 1.1 is to use the following explicit formula, which relates zeros of
L(s, f ) with a sum over its prime power coefficients.

Lemma 2.5. Let Φ be an even Schwartz function whose Fourier transform has compact
support. We have
X  γf  ∞   Z ∞  
1 X Λ(n)[cf (n) + cf¯(n)] b log n 1
Φ log q = − √ Φ + Φ(x) dx + Ok ,
γ
2π log q n=1
n log q −∞ log q
f

where cf (n) is defined in (1.6).

b has compact support, we have that Φ is an entire function. Consider
Proof. Since Φ
the integral
Z    
1 L′ 1 log q
s + , f Φ −is ds.
2πi (1) L 2 2π
8 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

We move the line of integration to the left, passing poles at the zeros of L(s, f ), and we
deduce that
(2.1)
Z     Z    
1 L′ 1 log q 1 L′ 1 log q
s + , f Φ −is ds = s + , f Φ −is ds
2πi (1) L 2 2π 2πi (−1) L 2 2π
X  γf 
+ Φ log q .
γ
2π
f

To estimate the integral along Re(s) = −1, we take the logarithmic derivative of both
sides of the functional equation (1.2) and write
1  q  Γ′  k

L′

1

log + s+ + s + ,f
2 4π 2 Γ 2 L 2
    
1 q  Γ′ k L′ 1 ¯
= − log − −s + − − s, f .
2 4π 2 Γ 2 L 2
′
′

Hence, if we denote G(s) = ΓΓ s + k2 + ΓΓ −s + k2 , then
Z    
1 L′ 1 log q
s + , f Φ −is ds
2πi (−1) L 2 2π
1
Z h 
q  i  log q

1
Z
L′

1 ¯
 
log q

=− log + G(s) Φ −is ds − s + , f Φ −is ds
2πi (0) 4π 2 2π 2πi (1) L 2 2π
Z ∞   Z    
1 1 L′ 1 ¯ log q
=− Φ(x) dx + Ok − s + , f Φ −is ds.
−∞ log q 2πi (1) L 2 2π
L′
Finally we use the series representation for L
(s, f ) for Re(s) > 1 to finish the proof.
To be precise, for Re(s) > 1,
∞
X Λ(n)cf (n)
L′
− (s, f ) = .
L n=1
ns

Therefore
Z     X∞ Z  
1 L′ 1 b log q Λ(n)cf (n) 1 log q 1
s + , f Φ −is ds = − √ Φ −is ds
2πi (1) L 2 2π n=1
n 2πi (1) 2π ns
∞  
1 X Λ(n)cf (n) b log n
=− √ Φ .
log q n=1 n log q


In order to bound sums involving primes, we will use the following standard Lemma.
Lemma 2.6. Assume GRH for L(s, f ), where f is a primitive holomorphic Hecke
eigenform or a primitive Maass Hecke eigenform of level q and weight k. For s = σ + iτ
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 9

1
with 2
< σ ≤ 45 , we have

34 − 2σ3
L′ log(q + k + |τ |)
− (s, f ) ≪ .
L 2σ − 1
Proof. We will modify the proof of Theorem 5.17 in [15] without assuming the Ramanujan-
Petersson conjecture for L(s, f ). Equation (5.59) in [15, Chapter 5] implies that if Z ≥ 1
and s = σ + iτ with 12 < σ ≤ 45 , then
X Λf (n)  n   
L′ log(q + k + |τ |) 1 −σ
(2.2) − (f, s) = s
φ +O Z2 .
L n
n Z 2σ − 1

Here, φ(y) is a non-negative continuous function on [0, ∞) whose Mellin transform φ̃(w)
satisfies
1
w(w + 1)φ̃(w) ≪ 1 for w such that − ≤ Re (w) ≤ 2.
2
Moreover, φ̃(w) has a simple pole at w = 0 with residue 1. For instance, we may take
φ(y) = e−y and φ̃(w) = Γ(w).
We know that |Λf (n)| ≤ n and it follows that
X Λf (n)  n  X n
1−σ
s
φ ≪ n φ ≪ Z 2−σ ,
n
n Z n
Z

via a standard contour integration argument. Choosing Z = log2/3 (q + k + |τ |) in (2.2)

and the bound above, we obtain our desired result. 
Lemma 2.7. Assume GRH for L(s, χ) with χ mod q and for L(s, f ), where f is a
primitive holomorphic Hecke eigenform or a primitive Maass Hecke eigenform of level q
and weight k. Let Ψ be a smooth function that is compactly supported on [0, ∞). Write
z = 21 + it with t real. Let N be a positive integer and X > 0 be a real number.
If χ is a non-principal character, then
X χ(p) log(p)Ψ(p/X)
≪ log1+ǫ (X +2) log(q+|t|) max |Ψ(3) (x)|+log N max |Ψ(x)|.
pz a≤x≤b a≤x≤b
(p,N )=1

Similarly,
X λf (p) log(p)Ψ(p/X)
≪ log1+ǫ (X+2) log(q+k+|t|) max |Ψ(3) (x)|+log N max |Ψ(x)|.
pz a≤x≤b a≤x≤b
(p,N )=1

Proof. To prove the first assertion, we write

X χ(p) log(p)Ψ(p/X) X χ(p) log(p)Ψ(p/X) X χ(p) log(p)Ψ(p/X)
= − .
pz p
p z p z
(p,N )=1 p|N
P
The second sum on the right-hand side is bounded by p|N log p ≪ log N times the
maximum value of |Ψ|. We may bound the first sum by slightly modifying the proof of
10 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

1
Lemma 2.3 in [5]. The difference is that here we move the contour to log(X+2)
instead
20
of log q
, and use the estimate
L′
(s, χ) ≪ log(X + 2) log(q + 2) log(|t| + 2),
L
which follows from Theorem 5.17 of [15] when σ = 21 + log(X+2) 1
. The extra factor of
ǫ
log (X + 2) arises from the integration by parts estimate
e 1
Ψ(s) ≪ ,
s(s + 1)
where Ψe is the Mellin transform of Ψ, and
Z ∞ !  Z 1
1 log(t + 2) 1
1 dt ≪ 1 dt + 1 ≪ log log(X + 3)
0 log(X+2)
+ t t + 1 0 log(X+2)
+t
via a change of variables.
The proof in the case of L(s, f ) is similar. We first deal with the coprimality condition
by writing
X λf (p) log(p)Ψ(p/X) X λf (p) log(p)Ψ(p/X) X λf (p) log(p)Ψ(p/X)
(2.3) = − .
pz p
pz pz
(p,N )=1 p|N

We may bound the first sum on the right-hand side in a way similar to the case with
Dirichlet characters. Indeed, the main input is the estimate
L′
(s, f ) ≪ log(q + k + |τ |) log(X + 2),
L
1
which holds for s = σ0 + iτ with σ0 = 21 + log(X+2) and is a consequence of Lemma 2.6.
Thus, the first sum on the right-hand side of (2.3) is
≪ log1+ǫ (X + 2) log(q + k + |t|) max |Ψ(3) (x)|.
a≤x≤b
√
As for the second sum, we may use the crude bound λf (p) ≪ p to deduce that
X λf (p) log(p)Ψ(p/X) X
≪ log p max |Ψ(x)| ≪ log N max |Ψ(x)|.
pz a≤x≤b a≤x≤b
p|N p|N

3. Kuznetsov’s formula
In this section, we will state some relevant results from spectral theory. We refer the
reader to [8] and [14] for background reading.
We now introduce some notation that will appear in Kuznetsov’s formula. There
are three parts in Kuznetsov’s formula—contributions from holomorphic forms, Maass
forms, and Eisenstein series—and we now define the Fourier coefficients of these forms.
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 11

Holomorphic forms. Let z = x + iy. Let Bℓ (q) be an orthonormal basis of the space
of holomorphic cusp forms of weight ℓ level q, and θℓ (q) is the dimension of the space
Sℓ (q). We can write Bℓ (q) = {f1 , f2 , ...., fθℓ (q) }, and the Fourier expansion of fj ∈ Bℓ (q)
can be expressed as follows
X
fj (z) = ψj,ℓ (n)(4πn)ℓ/2 e(nz).
n≥1

We call f a Hecke eigenform if it is an eigenfunction of all the Hecke operators T (n)

for (n, q) = 1. In that case, we denote the Hecke eigenvalue of f for T (n) as λf (n).
Writing ψf (n) as the Fourier coefficient, we have that
√
λf (n)ψf (1) = nψf (n),
for (n, q) = 1. When f is a newform, this holds in general. We also have the Ramanujan
bound
λf (n) ≪ τ (n) ≪ nǫ .

Maass forms. Let λj := 41 + κ2j , where 0 = λ0 ≤ λ1 ≤ λ2 ≤ . . . are the eigenvalues, each

∂2 ∂2
repeated according to multiplicity, of the Laplacian −y 2 ( ∂x 2 + ∂y 2 ) acting as a linear

operator on the space of cusp forms in L2 (Γ0 (q)\H), where by convention we choose the
sign of κj that makes κj ≥ 0 if λj ≥ 41 and iκj > 0 if λj < 14 . For each of the positive
λj , we may choose an eigenvector uj in such a way that the set {u1, u2 , . . . } forms an
orthonormal system, and we define ρj (m) to be the mth Fourier coefficient of uj , i.e.,
X
uj (z) = ρj (m)W0,iκj (4π|m|y) e(mx)
m6=0

with z = x + iy, where W0,it (y) = (y/π)1/2 Kit (y/2) is a Whittaker function, and Kit is
the modified Bessel function of the second kind.
We call u a Hecke eigenform if it is an eigenfunction of all the Hecke operators T (n)
for (n, q) = 1. In that case, we denote the Hecke eigenvalue of u for T (n) as λu (n).
Writing ρu (n) as the Fourier coefficient, we have that
√
(3.1) λu (n)ρu (1) = nρu (n)
for (n, q) = 1. When u is a newform, this holds in general. We also have that
λu (n) ≪ τ (n)nθ ≪ nθ+ǫ ,
7
where we may take θ = 64
due to work of Kim and Sarnak [18].

Eisenstein series. Let c be a cusp for Γ0 (q). We define ϕc (m, t) to be the mth Fourier
coefficient of the (real-analytic) Eisenstein series at 1/2 + it:
X
Ec (z; 1/2 + it) = δc=∞ y 1/2+it + ϕc (0, t)y 1/2−it + ϕc (m, t)W0,it (4π|m|y) e(mx),
m6=0

where z = x + iy.
12 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

Kuznetsov’s formula. We state the version given by Lemma 10 of [4].

Lemma 3.1. Let φ : (0, ∞) → C be smooth and compactly supported, and let m, n, q be
positive integers. Then
X S(m, n; c)  √mn  X ∞ √
ρj (m)ρj (n) mn
φ 4π = φ+ (κj )
c≥1
c c j=1
cosh(πκj )
c≡0 mod q
Z √
1 X ∞ mn
+ ϕc (m, t)ϕc (n, t)φ+ (t) dt
4π c −∞ cosh(πt)
X √
+ (ℓ − 1)! mn ψj,ℓ (m)ψj,ℓ (n)φh (ℓ),
ℓ≥2 even
1≤j≤θℓ (q)

where the Bessel transforms φ+ and φh are defined by

Z ∞
2πi dξ
φ+ (r) := (J2ir (ξ) − J−2ir (ξ))φ(ξ)
sinh(πr) 0 ξ
and Z ∞
k dξ
φh (ℓ) := 4i Jℓ−1 (ξ)φ(ξ) ,
0 ξ
where Jℓ−1 is the Bessel function of the first kind.
We next state bounds for the transforms φ+ and φh that appear in Kutznetsov’s
formula. These bounds are consequences of Lemma 1 of [3].
Lemma 3.2. (1) Let φ(x) be a smooth function supported on x ≍ X such that
φ (x) ≪j X −j for all integers j ≥ 0. For t ∈ R, we have
(j)

 C
1 + | log X| 1 + X
φ+ (t), φh (t) ≪C
1+X 1 + |t|
for any constant C ≥ 0.
(2) Let φ(x) be a smooth function supported on x ≍ X such that φ(j) (x) ≪j (X/Z)−j
for all integers j ≥ 0. For t ∈ (−1/4, 1/4), we have
1 + (X/Z)−2|t|
φ+ (it) ≪ .
1 + X/Z
(3) Assume that φ(x) = eiax ψ(x) for some constant a and some smooth function
ψ(x) supported on x ≍ X such that ψ (j) (x) ≪j X −j for all integers j ≥ 0. Then
 C
1 + | log X| F
φ+ (t), φh (t) ≪C,ǫ
F 1−ǫ 1 + |t|
for any C ≥ 0, ǫ > 0 and some F = F (X, a) < (|a| + 1)(X + 1).
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 13

Our Lemma 3.2 (3) is a slight generalization of Lemma 1 (c) in [3]. This generalization
incorporates the bound in Lemma 1 (a) in [3]. It is convenient for us that Lemma 3.2 (3)
holds uniformly for all a.
Next, we record the following bounds, which we deduce from our previous lemmas.
Lemma 3.3. Suppose that W is a smooth function that is compactly supported on
(0, ∞). For real X > 0 and real numbers u and ξ, let
 
ξ
hu (ξ) = Jk−1(ξ)W e(uξ).
X
Then
 n C o
1+| log X| F
(1) h+ (r) ≪ F 1−ǫ
min X k−1, √1X
1+|r|
for some F < (|u| + 1)(1 + X).
 1
 n o
(2) If r ∈ (−1/4, 1/4), then h+ (ir) ≪ √1X + (1 + |u|) 2 min X k−1, √1X .

Proof. Since W is compactly supported, we may assume that ξ ≍ X. For X ≪ 1, we

use the fact that
X (ξ/2)2ℓ+k−1
(3.2) Jk−1 (ξ) = (−1)ℓ
ℓ=0
ℓ!(ℓ + k − 1)!

by Lemma 2.4. Note that the first term dominates for ξ ≪ 1. On the other hand, for
X ≫ 1, we use the fact that
    
1 ξ k 1 ξ k 1
(3.3) Jk−1 (ξ) = √ Wk (ξ) e − + + W k (ξ) e − + − ,
2πξ 2π 4 8 2π 4 8
(j)
where Wk (x) ≪j,k x−j .
Let
√
g(ξ) := max{X 1−k , X}hu (ξ),
so that  
k−1 1
hu (ξ) = min X , √ g(ξ)
X
and  
1
k−1
h+ (r) = min X , √ g+ (r).
X
In applying Lemma 3.2 below, we use the following bounds. For X ≪ 1, we use (3.2)
and the product rule to deduce that
 
dj 1−k ξ
j
X Jk−1(ξ)W ≪j X −j and
dξ X
dj
g(ξ) ≪j |u|j + X −j
dξ j
14 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

for all integers j ≥ 0. For X ≫ 1, we use (3.3) and the product rule to deduce that
s  
j
d X ξ
j
Wk (ξ)W ≪j X −j and
dξ ξ X
 j
dj 1
g(ξ) ≪j + |u| + X −j ≪ (1 + |u|)j
dξ j 2π
for all integers j ≥ 0, since X1 ≪ 1 ≪ 2π 1
+ |u|.
From these and Lemma 3.2 (c), we arrive at
 C
1 + | log X| F
g+ (r) ≪C,ǫ for some F < (|u| + 1)(X + 1).
F 1−ǫ 1 + |r|
This proves Lemma 3.3 (1).
1 dj
We next bound g+ (ir) for r ∈ (−1/4, 1/4). For X ≪ 1, if |u| ≪ X
, then dξ j
g(ξ) ≪j
−j
X and thus Lemma 3.2 (b) implies
1 + X −2|r| 1
g+ (ir) ≪ ≪√ for r ∈ (−1/4, 1/4).
1+X X
 −j
1 dj X
On the other hand, if |u| ≫ X
, then dξ j
g(ξ) ≪j X|u|
, and so

1 + |u|2|r|
g+ (ir) ≪ 1 ≪ (1 + |u|)1/2 for r ∈ (−1/4, 1/4).
1 + |u|
For X ≫ 1, Lemma 3.2 (b) implies
1 + (1 + |u|)2|r|
g+ (ir) ≪ 1 ≪ (1 + |u|)1/2 for r ∈ (−1/4, 1/4).
1 + 1+|u|
In summary, we have for r ∈ (−1/4, 1/4) that
1 1
g+ (ir) ≪ √ + (1 + |u|) 2 .
X
This proves the lemma.

3.1. Oldforms and newforms. When using Petersson’s formula or Kutznetsov’s for-
mula, we will frequently come across an orthonormal basis of Maass forms {uj }, or an
orthonormal basis of holomorphic modular forms Bℓ (q). However, in order to apply
GRH for Hecke L-functions to bound our sum over primes, we need to express our basis
in terms of newforms. This theory is due to Atkin and Lehner [1]. We refer the reader
to §14.7 of the book [15], §2 of [16] and §5 of [4] for more background.
We will state this theory for Maass forms only, although the theory applies also to
holomorphic modular forms with slight changes in notation. Let S(N ) denote the space
of all Maass forms of level N and S ∗ (M) denote the space that is orthogonal to all old
forms of level M. By work of Aktin and Lehner [1], S ∗ (M) has an orthonormal basis
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 15

consisting of primitive Hecke eigenforms, which we denote by H ∗ (M). Then, we have

the orthogonal decomposition
M M
S(N ) = S(L; f ),
N =LM f ∈H ∗ (M)

where S(L; f ) is the space spanned by f |l for l|L, where

f |l (z) = f (lz).
Let f denote a newform of level M|N , normalized as a level N form, which means
that the first coefficient satisfies
(N tf )o(1)
|ρf (1)|2 = ,
N
where tf is the spectral parameter of f .
Blomer and Milicevic showed in Lemma 9 of §5 of [4] that there is an orthonormal
basis for S(L; f ) of the form f (g) for g|L, where
X
(3.4) f (g) = ξg (d)f |d,
d|g

where ξg (d) is defined in (5.6) of [4] and satisfies

 θ−1/2
ǫ g
ξg (d) ≪ g .
d
For convenient reference, we will call this basis the Hecke basis of level N .
Lemma 9 of [4] implies that the Fourier coefficients of f (g) satisfy
√
(3.5) nρf (g) (n) ≪ (nN )ǫ nθ (N , n)1/2−θ |ρf (1)| ≪ N ǫ n1/2+ǫ |ρf (1)|.
This bound is somewhat crude, but will suffice for our purposes. Note that f (g) is an
eigenfunction of the Hecke operator T (n) for all (n, N ) = 1. Indeed, the nth Fourier
coefficient of f |d is nonzero only if d|n. Since g|N in (3.4), it follows for (n, N ) = 1 that
we may take only the d = 1 term and deduce that
ρf (g) (n) = ξg (1)ρf (n) = ξg (1)ρf (1)λf (n) = ρf (g) (1)λf (n).
This implies that f (g) is a Hecke eigenform with
(3.6) λf (g) (n) = λf (n)
for (n, N ) = 1.

Remark. For the rest of the paper, we will always take our orthonormal basis of cusp
Maass forms {uj } and orthonormal basis of holomorphic forms Bl (N ) to be these Hecke
bases defined above.
Lemma 3.4. Let u be an element of the Atkin-Lehner basis of level N so u = f (g) for
N
some primitive Hecke form f of level M|N , and some g| M . Let Ψ be a smooth function
16 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

supported in (a, b), where 0 < a < b. Write z = 12 + it for real t. Finally, let X > 0 be
a real number. Then
X √pρu (p) log(p)Ψ(p/X)
z
≪Ψ |ρu (1)| log(N + |t|) log1+ǫ (X + 2) + |ρf (1)|N ǫ.
p
p

Proof. We have that

 
X √pρu (p) log(p)Ψ(p/X) X √pρu (p) log(p)Ψ(p/X) X
= + O N ǫ pǫ |ρf (1)|
p
pz p z
(p,N )=1 p|N

by (3.5). The second quantity on the right-hand side is visibly ≪ |ρf (1)|N ǫ, while the
first equals
X λf (p) log(p)Ψ(p/X)
ρu (1) z
≪ |ρu (1)| log(N + |t|) log1+ǫ (X + 2)
p
(p,N )=1

by (3.1), (3.6), and Lemma 2.7. 

4. Initial Setup for the Proof of Proposition 1.2

Our first task is to trim the sum over prime powers in Lemma 2.5 and prove the
following.
Lemma 4.1. Let the notations be as in Lemma 2.5. We have
   
1 X Λ(n)cf (n) b log n 1 X λf (p) log p b log p
√ Φ = √ Φ
log q n n log q log q p log q
p∤q
   
1 X λf (p2 ) log p b log p2 1 log log(3q)
+ Φ − Φ(0) + O .
log q p log q 4 log q
p∤q

Proof. We first split the sum into three parts and write
 
1 X Λ(n)cf (n) b log n
√ Φ
log q n n log q
   
1 X cf (p) log p b log p 1 X cf (p2 ) log p b log p2
= √ Φ + Φ
log q p p log q log q p p log q
 
1 X X cf (pν ) log p b log pν
+ Φ .
log q p ν≥3 pν/2 log q

Since |cf (pν )| ≤ 2 for all ν ≥ 0 (see (1.6) and the proof of Lemma 4.1 in [16]) and
R∞
b
|Φ(x)| ≤ −∞ |Φ(x)| dx, we have
 
1 X X cf (pν ) log p b log pν 1
ν/2
Φ ≪ .
log q p ν≥3 p log q log q
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 17

Also, (1.1) and (1.6) imply

cf (p) = αf (p) + βf (p) = λf (p),
while the multiplicativity of λf (n) (see (2.19) of [16]) and (1.1) imply
λf (p2 ) = αf2 (p) + αf (p)βf (p) + βf2 (p) = αf2 (p) + βf2 (p) + χ0 (p),
and thus it follows from (1.6) that
cf (p2 ) = αf2 (p) + βf2 (p) = λf (p2 ) − χ0 (p).
Therefore
(4.1)
 
1 X Λ(n)cf (n) b log n
√ Φ
log q n n log q
     
1 X λf (p) log p b log p 1 X (λf (p2 ) − χ0 (p)) log p b log p2 1
= √ Φ + Φ +O .
log q p p log q log q p p log q log q

We next bound the contribution of the terms with p|q. If p|q, then λ2f (p) = p−1 (see
the proof of Lemma 4.1 in [16]). Hence
 
1 X λf (p) log p b log p 1 X log p log log(3q)
(4.2) √ Φ ≪ ≪
log q p log q log q p log q
p|q p|q

and
   
1 X (λf (p2 ) − χ0 (p)) log p b log p2 1 X log p b log p2 1
(4.3) log q Φ = 2
Φ ≪
p log q log q p log q log q
p|q p|q

since if p|q then χ0 (p) = 0 and λf (p2 ) = λ2f (p) by (2.19) of [16] (the Hecke relations).
We next simplify the total contribution of χ0 (p). It is
(4.4)
     
1 X χ0 (p) log p b log p2 1 X log p b log p2 1 X log p b log p2
− Φ =− Φ + Φ
log q p log q log q p p log q log q p log q
p∤q p|q
   
1 X log p b log p2 log log(3q)
=− Φ +O .
log q p p log q log q

To estimate this, we use partial summation and the prime number theorem to deduce
that
   
1 X log p b log p2 1 log log(3q)
(4.5) − Φ = − Φ(0) + O .
log q p
p log q 4 log q

Combining (4.1) – (4.5), we obtain the desired result. 

18 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

We average both sides of the conclusion of Lemma 4.1 with respect to f and then
with respect to q to deduce that
   
1 X q 1 Xh X Λ(n)cf (n) b log n
Ψ √ Φ
N(Q) q Q log q n log q
f ∈Hk (q) n
   
1 X q 1 Xh X λf (p) log p b log p
= Ψ √ Φ
N(Q) q Q log q p log q
f ∈Hk (q) p∤q
(4.6)    
1 X q 1 Xh X λf (p2 ) log p b log p2
+ Ψ Φ
N(Q) q Q log q p log q
f ∈Hk (q) p∤q
 
1 log log Q
− Φ(0) + O .
4 log Q
Next, we consider the second sum in (4.6). By GRH on L(s, sym2(f )) and the equation
(4.23) in [16], we have
   
1 X q 1 Xh X λf (p2 ) log p b log p2 log log Q
(4.7) Ψ Φ ≪ .
N(Q) q Q log q p log q log Q
f ∈Hk (q) p∤q

Most of the work in this paper goes into estimating the first sum on the right-hand
side of (4.6). We will prove the following.
Proposition 4.2. Assume GRH. Let Φ be an even Schwartz function with Φ b compactly
supported in (−4, 4). Moreover, define
   
1 X q 1 Xh X λf (p) log p b log p
Σ1 := Ψ √ Φ .
N(Q) q Q log q p log q
f ∈Hk (q) p∤q

Then
1
Σ1 ≪ .
log Q
4.1. Proof of Proposition 1.2 and Theorem 1.1. From (4.6), (4.7) and Proposi-
tion 4.2, we have
     
1 X q 1 Xh X Λ(n)cf (n) b log n Φ(0) log log Q
Ψ √ Φ =− +O .
N(Q) q Q log q n
n log q 4 log Q
f ∈Hk (q)

Taking Q → ∞, we arrive at Proposition 1.2.

To prove Theorem 1.1, we use the explicit formula from Lemma 2.5, (1.5), and Propo-
sition 1.2 to deduce that
  ∞  
1 X q 1 Xh X Λ(n)[cf (n) + cf¯(n)] b log n
lim OL (Q) = − lim Ψ √ Φ
Q→∞ Q→∞ N(Q) Q log q n log q
q f ∈Hk (q) n=1
   Z  
1 X q Xh ∞
1
+ lim Ψ Φ(x) dx + Ok ,
Q→∞ N(Q) Q −∞ log q
q f ∈Hk (q)
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 19
Z ∞ Z ∞  
Φ(0) δ0
=2 + Φ(x) dx = Φ(x) 1 + dx.
4 −∞ −∞ 2

This proves Theorem 1.1.

5. Applying Petersson’s formula

The rest of the paper is devoted to proving Proposition 4.2. Applying Petersson’s
formula, Lemma 2.3, to Σ1 defined in Proposition 4.2, we deduce that
   
1 X q 1 X log p b log p
Σ1 = Ψ √ Φ
N(Q) q Q log q p log q
p∤q
X µ(L1 L2 ) Y  1
−1 X
∆d (pe2 , 1)
(5.1) × 1− 2 ,
q=L L d
L1 L2 p 1 e
1 2 p1 |L1
∞ e|L2
L1 |q1 p21 ∤d
L2 |q2

where p1 runs over the primes, and where q = q1 q2 , with q1 the largest factor of q
satisfying p1 |q1 ⇔ p21 |q for all primes p1 .
To avoid significant technical complications later, we first separate p and e2 . Then
we truncate in e and L = L1 L2 (or equivalently d). (This way, the level d is still large
compared to pe2 .) Finally, we complete the sum over p and remove the (p, q) = 1
condition in preparation for applying Kutznetsov.

5.1. Separating p and e2 . We write

  X µ(L1 L2 ) Y  −1 X
1 X q 1 1 1
Σ1 = Ψ 1− 2
N(Q) q Q log q q=L L d L1 L2 p1 e
1
∞
2 p1 |L1 e|L2
L1 |q1 p21 ∤d
L2 |q2
Xh X log pλf (pe2 )  log p 
× √ b
Φ .
p log q
f ∈Bk (d) (p,q)=1

Here, we take Bk (d) to be an orthonormal basis of Hecke eigenforms. For f ∈ Bk (d),

we have that λf (n) = λg (n) for some newform g when (n, d) = 1.
By the Remark below Lemma 2.3, we have (d, L2 ) = 1. Moreover, e|L∞ 2 implies
that (d, e) = 1. Since (p, q) = 1 and (d, e) = 1, we have (pe2 , d) = 1. Also, e|L∞
2 and
(p, q) = 1 imply (p, e) = 1. Hence, by Hecke Multiplicativity, we have that the sum over
p is
X log pλf (pe2 )  log p  X log pλf (p)  log p 
√ b
Φ 2
= λf (e ) √ b
Φ .
p log q p log q
p∤q p∤q
20 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

It follows that
   
1 X q 1 X log p b log p
Σ1 = Ψ √ Φ
N(Q) q Q log q p log q
p∤q

(5.2) X µ(L1 L2 ) Y  1
−1 X
∆d (e2 , p)
× 1− 2 .
q=L L d
L1 L2 p1 e
1 2 p1 |L1
∞ e|L2
L1 |q1 p21 ∤d
L2 |q2

5.2. Truncation in L1 L2 . We first bound the contribution of the range L1 L2 ≥ L0

(equivalently d ≪ LQ0 ) for
(5.3) L0 = (log Q)6 .
By (5.2), we need to bound
XXX 1    
1 L1 L2 d X τ (e2 ) Xh X log pλf (p) b log p
≪ Ψ √ Φ
Q log Q L ,L ,d L1 L2 Q e p log q
1 2
∞ e|L2 f ∈Bk (d) p∤q
L1 L2 ≥L0
XXX 1  
1 L1 L2 d X τ (e2 )
≪ Ψ log2+ǫ q,
Q log Q L1 L2 Q e
L1 ,L2 ,d ∞ e|L2
L1 L2 ≥L0

upon applying Lemma 2.7 to the sum
over p. We note that Lemma 2.7 is proven with
the smooth function of the form Ψ Xp . However, we can write
 
b log t log X
Ψ(t) = Φ + ,
log q log q
where we may take X = q 4−δ and Φ b is supported in [−4 + δ, 4 − δ]. The quantity above
is bounded by
 
(log Q)1+ǫ X X X τ (L2 ) L1 L2 d (log Q)5 1
(5.4) Ψ ≪ ≪ .
Q L ,L ,d
L1 L2 Q L0 log Q
1 2
d≪Q/L0

5.3. Truncation in e. We now bound the contribution of the range e ≥ E for

(5.5) E = (log Q)3 .
Again, we need to bound
XXX 1    
1 L1 L2 d X τ (e)2 Xh X log pλf (p) b log p
Ψ √ Φ
Q log Q L1 L2 Q e p log q
L1 ,L2 ,d ∞ e|L2 f ∈Bk (d) p∤q
L1 L2 ≪L0 e≥E
XXX 1  
1 L1 L2 d X 1
(5.6) ≪ Ψ 1−ǫ
(log q)2+ǫ ,
Q log Q L ,L ,d L1 L2 Q ∞
e
1 2 e|L2
L1 L2 ≪L0 e≥E

upon applying Lemma 2.7 to the sum over p.

 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 21

We note that
X 1 1 X 1 τ (L2 )
≪ ≪ ,
∞
e1−ǫ E 1−2ǫ ∞ eǫ E 1−2ǫ
e|L2 e|L2
e≥E

and so the quantity in (5.6) is bounded by

 
(log Q)1+ǫ X X X τ (L2 ) L1 L2 d (log Q)1+ǫ 1
(5.7) ≪ 1−2ǫ
Ψ ≪ 1−2ǫ
≪ .
QE L ,L ,d
L1 L2 Q E log Q
1 2
L1 L2 ≪L0

5.4. Filling in the sum over p. In order to facilitate our application of Kuznetsov’s
formula later, we first add the terms corresponding to p|q. We show that this changes
the value of Σ1 by an amount that is not too large. To do this, we need to bound the
sum
   
1 X q 1 X log p b log p
E := Ψ √ Φ
N(Q) q Q log q p log q
p|q
X  −1 X
1 Y 1 |∆d (e2 , p)|
× 1− 2 ,
q=L L d
L1 L2 p 1 e
1 2 p1 |L1 ∞ e|L2
L1 |q1 p21 ∤d
L2 |q2

where we have ignored the conditions e ≤ E and L1 L2 ≤ L0 by positivity. Since

(e, d) = 1, Lemma 2.2 implies that
!1/2
ǫ 2
(ped) pe
∆d (e2 , p) ≪k 2 1/2
p
d((p, d) + (e , d)) pe2 + d
(ped)ǫ 2 1/4
≪ (pe ) .
d
Since Ψ is non-negative,
   
1 X q 1 X log p b log p
E≪ Ψ √ Φ
N(Q) q Q log q p log q
p|q
X  −1 X
1 Y 1 (ped)ǫ p1/4 e1/2
× 1− 2 .
q=L L d
L1 L2 p1 de
1 2 p1 |L1 ∞ e|L2
L1 |q1 p21 ∤d
L2 |q2

Now
X 1
Y 
− 1 +ǫ −1
e− 2 +ǫ = 1 − p1 2 ≪ Lǫ2 .
e|L∞
2 p1 |L2
22 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

Since (pdL2 )ǫ ≪ q ǫ , we have

   
1 X q 1 X log p b log p
E≪ Ψ √ Φ
N(Q) q Q log q p log q
p|q
X  −1
1 Y 1 1
× 1− 2 p 4 +ǫ d−1+ǫ Lǫ2
q=L L d
L1 L2 p1
1 2 p1 |L1
L1 |q1 p21 ∤d
L2 |q2
 
Qǫ X q 1 X log p X 1
≪ Ψ 1/4
N(Q) q Q log q p q=L L d
L1 L2 d
p|q 1 2
L1 |q1
L2 |q2
 
Qǫ X q 1 qǫ 1
≪ Ψ (log q) ≪ 1−ǫ
N(Q) q Q log q q Q

where we used N(Q) ≍ Q (see (1.5)). It follows from this, (5.1), (5.4) and (5.7) that
 
1
(5.8) Σ1 = Σ2 + O ,
log Q
where
   
1 X q 1 X log p b log p
Σ2 = Ψ √ Φ
N(Q) q Q log q p p log q
X µ(L1 L2 ) Y  1
−1 X
1
× 1− 2
L1 L2 p1 e
(5.9) q=L1 L2 d p1 |L1
∞ e|L2
L1 |q1 p21 ∤d e<E
L2 |q2
L1 L2 <L0
p !
X S(e2 , p; cd) 4π pe2
× (2πi)−k Jk−1 .
c≥1
cd cd

6. Setup to bound Σ2 and the proof of Proposition 4.2

By the Remark below Lemma 2.3, we may replace the conditions L1 |q1 and L2 |q2 in
(5.9) by L1 |d and (L2 , d) = 1. Therefore
   
1 X q 1 X log p b log p
Σ2 = Ψ √ Φ
N(Q) q Q log q p p log q
X µ(L1 L2 ) Y  1
−1 X
1
× 1− 2
q=L L d
L1 L2 p1 ∞
e
1 2 p1 |L1 e|L2
L1 |d p21 ∤d e<E
(L2 ,d)=1
L1 L2 <L0
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 23
p !
X S(e2 , p; cd) 4π pe2
−k
× (2πi) Jk−1 .
c≥1
cd cd

Since L1 |d, we write d = L1 m and have

Y 1
−1 Y 1
−1 Y 
1

1− 2 = 1− 2 1− 2
p1 p1 p1
p1 |L1 p1 |L1 p1 |L1
p21 ∤d p1 |m
( )( )
Y 1
−1 X µ(r)
= 1− 2 .
p1 r2
p1 |L1 r|(L1 ,m)

Using this and substituting q = L1 L2 d = L21 L2 m, where (m, L2 ) = 1, in the above

expression for Σ2 gives

X  −1 X
(2πi)−k µ(L1 L2 ) Y 1 log p X 1 X
Σ2 = 1− 2 √
N(Q) L1 ,L2
L1 L2 p p
p e c≥1
p1 |L1 ∞ e|L2
L1 L2 <L0 e<E
X X µ(r) S(e2 , p; cL1 m)  L2 L2 m 
1
× Ψ
m r2 cL1 m Q
r|(L1 ,m)
(m,L2 )=1
  p !
1 b log p 4π pe2
× Φ J k−1 .
log(L21 L2 m) log(L21 L2 m) cL1 m

Since r|m, we may substitute m = rn to write

X  −1 X
(2πi)−k µ(L1 L2 ) Y 1 µ(r) X log p
Σ2 = 1− 2 √
N(Q) L1 ,L2
L1 L2 p r2 p p
p1 |L1 r|L1
L1 L2 <L0
X 1X X  2 
S(e2 , p; cL1 rn) L1 L2 rn
× Ψ
∞
e c≥1 n cL1 rn Q
e|L2
(n,L2 )=1
e<E
  p !
1 b log p 4π pe2
× Φ J k−1 .
log(L21 L2 rn) log(L21 L2 rn) cL1 rn
24 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

Next, we use Möbius inversion to detect the condition (n, L2 ) = 1 and deduce that
 −1 X
(2πi)−k X µ(L1 L2 ) Y 1 µ(r) X X log p
Σ2 = 1− 2 µ(d) √
N(Q) L ,L L1 L2 p r2 p
p
1 2 p1 |L1 r|L1 d|L2
L1 L2 <L0
X 1 X X S(e2 , p; cL1 rdn)  L2 L2 rdn 
(6.1) × Ψ 1
∞
e c≥1 n cL1 rdn Q
e|L2
e<E
  p !
1 b log p 4π pe2
× 2
Φ 2
Jk−1 .
log(L1 L2 rdn) log(L1 L2 rdn) cL1 rdn

6.1. Applying Kutznetsov’s formula. The n-sum in (6.1) is

X S(e2 , p; cL1 rdn)  L2 L2 rdn  1
Ψ 1 2
n
cL1 rdn Q log(L1 L2 rdn)
  p !
b log p 4π pe2
Φ J k−1 .
log(L21 L2 rdn) cL1 rdn
We let m = cL1 rdn and write this sum as
X  
S(e2 , p; m) L1 L2 m 1
Ψ
m≥1
m cQ log(L1 L2 m/c)
m≡0 mod cL1 rd
  p !
b log p 4π pe2
×Φ Jk−1
log(L1 L2 m/c) m
p !
X S(e2 , p; m) pe2
= f 4π ,
m≥1
m m
m≡0 mod cL1 rd

where f (·) = fc,L1 ,L2 ,Q,p,e,k (·) is defined by

p !     p !
pe2 L1 L2 m 1 b log p 4π pe2
f 4π := Ψ Φ Jk−1 ,
m cQ log(L1 L2 m/c) log(L1 L2 m/c) m
i.e.,
 
p !
4πL1 L2 pe2 1  log p 
(6.2) f (ξ) := Ψ  b
Φ  
cQξ 4πL1 L2
√
pe2
 √
4πL1 L2 pe2
Jk−1 (ξ).
log cξ
log cξ

We introduce a smooth partition of unity for the sum over p, and write
X Xd X  p 
... = V ...,
p P p
P
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 25
Xd
where denotes a sum over P = 2j for j ≥ 0, and V is a smooth function compactly
P
Xd

supported on [1/2, 3] satisfying V Pp = 1 for all p ≥ 1. When studying the
P
P
contribution of p V Pp ..., we need to separate the dependence of f (ξ) on p. To this
end, we let
√
4πL1 L2 P e2
(6.3) X := ,
cQ
and
 
 
X√ log Q b  logλ +√log P .
(6.4) H(ξ, λ) := Ψ λ  √ Φ
ξ log Xξ λQ log Xξ λQ

We let Z Z
∞ ∞
b
H(u, v) = H(ξ, λ) e(−ξu − λv)dξdλ
−∞ −∞
be the usual Fourier transform of H. For reference later, we record the following bounds
on Ĥ.
Lemma 6.1. With notation as above, we have that for any A > 0,
 A
b 1
H(u, v) ≪A .
(1 + |u|)(1 + |v|)
√
Proof. By the support of Ψ, we have that Xξ λ ≍ 1, and a little calculation gives that
∂l ∂r 1
l r
H(ξ, λ) ≪ l r .
∂ξ∂ λ ξλ
The lemma then follows from repeated integration by parts. 
The function Ψ in (6.4) is compactly supported. Thus H(ξ, Pp ) is compactly supported
in ξ since p ≍ P . Let us say it is supported in (a1 , b1 ). By (6.2) and (6.4), we have that
 p  p  
1 1 ξ
f (ξ) = H ξ, Jk−1 (ξ) = H ξ, Jk−1 (ξ)W ,
log Q P log Q P X
where W is a smooth function that is compactly supported in (a, b), 0 < a < a1 , b1 < b,
such that W (ξ) = 1 when ξ ∈ [a1 , b1 ].
By Fourier inversion, we have
 Z ∞ Z ∞ 
1 ξ b p
f (ξ) = Jk−1 (ξ)W H(u, v) e uξ + v dudv.
log Q X −∞ −∞ P
For notational convenence, let
 
ξ
hu (ξ) = Jk−1(ξ)W e(uξ).
X
26 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

We have that
X  −1 X
(2πi)−k µ(L1 L2 ) Y 1 µ(r) X Xd
Σ2 = 1− 2 µ(d)
N(Q) L1 ,L2
L1 L2 p r2 P
p1 |L1 r|L1 d|L2
(L1 ,L2 )=1
(6.5) L1 L2 <L0
1 X Z ∞ 1
Z ∞ X X log p  p   p 
× b v)
H(u, √ V e v S(u, p)dudv,
log Q e −∞ −∞ c≥1 p
p P P
e|L∞
2
e<E

where
p !
X S(e2 , p; cL1 rdn) 4π pe2
S(u, p) := hu .
n
cL1 rdn cL1 rdn

We apply Kutznetsov’s formula from Lemma 3.1 to S(u, p) and obtain that
X X log p  p   p 
√ e v V S(u, p)
c≥1 p
p P P
(6.6) X X log p  p   p 
= √ e v V [Dis(c, p; u) + Ctn(c, p; u) + Hol(c, p; u)]
c≥1 p
p P P

where
∞ p
X ρj (e2 )ρj (p) pe2
Dis(c, p; u) := h+ (κj )
cosh(πκj )
j=1
Z p
1X ∞ pe2
Ctn(c, p; u) := ϕc (e2 , t)ϕc (p, t)h+ (t) dt, and
π c −∞ cosh(πt)
1 X p
Hol(c, p; u) := (ℓ − 1)! pe2 ψj,ℓ (e2 )ψj,ℓ (p)hh (ℓ),
2π ℓ≥2 even
1≤j≤θℓ (cL1 rd)

where it is implied that e, r, d, L1 , L2 are fixed. Note that these forms are of level cL1 rd.
The bound for Σ2 will follow from the following Propositions.
Proposition 6.2. With notation as above, we have
√
X X log p  p  p
ǫ 2 2 P
√ e v (Dis(c, p; u) + Hol(c, p; u))V ≪ Q (1 + |u|) (1 + |v|) .
c≥1 p
p P P Q

Proposition 6.3. With notation as above, we have

√ !
X X log p  p  p 1 P
ǫ ǫ 2 2 +ǫ
√ e v Ctn(c, p; u)V ≪ Q ≪ Q (1 + |u|) (1 + |v|) P 4 + .
c≥1 p
p P P Q
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 27

6.2. Proof of Proposition 4.2. From (6.5), (6.6), Lemma 6.1, Proposition 6.2 and
Proposition 6.3, we deduce that
X  −1 X X X
Qǫ 1 Y 1 1 1
Σ2 ≪ 1− 2 2
1
N(Q) log Q L ,L L1 L2 p r ∞
e
1 2 p1 |L1 r|L1 d|L2 e|L2
L1 L2 <L0 e<E
√ !
Xd Z ∞ Z ∞
1 1 P
× 10 10
(1 + |v|)2 (1 + |u|)2 P 4 +ǫ + dudv.
P −∞ −∞ (1 + |u|) (1 + |v|) Q

Recall that L0 = (log Q)6 from (5.3), E = (log Q)3 from (5.5), N(Q) ≍ Q from (1.5),
and P ≪ Q4−δ for some fixed δ > 0 due to the compact support of Φ b in (−4, 4). Thus
  X
Qǫ (4−δ)(1/4+ǫ) Q2−δ/2 τ (L1 )τ 2 (L2 )
Σ2 ≪ Q +
Q(log Q) Q L ,L
L1 L2
1 2
L1 L2 <L0

≪ Q−δ/8
upon choosing sufficiently small ǫ. From this and (5.8), we arrive at
1
Σ1 ≪ ,
log Q
and this completes the proof of Proposition 4.2.

7. Proof of Proposition 6.2

We will bound
X X log p  p  p
DISC = √ e v Dis(c, p; u)V ,
c≥1 p
p P P

the bound for the contribution of Hol(c, p) being similar but easier (since Ramanujan-
Petersson is known). From (6.3), we remind the reader that
√
4πL1 L2 P e2
X= ,
cQ
and then hu (ξ) is supported on an interval of the form (aX, bX) for some b > a > 0.
From (6.6), we now write
XX ∞
eρj (e2 ) X √pρj (p) log p  vp   p 
DISC = h+ (κj ) √ e V
(7.1) c≥1 j=1
cosh(πκ j ) p
p P P
= S1 + S2
where S1 is the contribution of real κj , and S2 is the contribution of imaginary κj
corresponding to exceptional eigenvalues.
P
We recall that in the sum above, ∞j=1 denotes a sum over the spectrum of level cL1 rd,
∞
where {uj }j=1 is the orthonormal basis for the Maass forms of level cL1 rd described in
28 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

§3.1, and ρj (n) denotes the Fourier coefficients of uj . We recall that uj is of the form
f (g) where f is a Hecke newform of level M with M|cL1 rd, and g| cLM1rd .
Lemma 7.1. With notation as above, we have
X √pρj (p) log p  vp   p 
√ e V ≪ (|ρj (1)| + |ρf (1)|)(cL1 rd)ǫ (log(P + 2))1+ǫ (1 + |v|)2 ,
p
p P P

where f is the Hecke newform of some level M|cL1 rd such that u = f (g) for some
g| cLM1rd .
Proof. By Mellin inversion, we have that
X √pρj (p) log p  vp   p 
√ e V
p
p P P
√ Z
1 X pρj (p) log p  p  f
(7.2) = √ V0 p−s W(s)P s
ds
2πi p p P (0)

f
where W(s) is the usual Mellin transform of Wv (x) := W(x) := e(vx)V (x) and V0 (x)
is chosen to be a smooth function that is compactly supported on (0, ∞) such that
V0 (x) = 1 whenever V (x) 6= 0. We have that
W (j) (x) ≪ 1 + |v|j ,
for all j, whence by integration by parts
 A
f 1 + |v|
W(it) ≪A
1 + |t|
for any A > 0. Writing s = it, we have by Lemma 3.4 that
X √pρj (p) log(p)  p 
1/2+it
V0
p
p P
≪ |ρj (1)| log(cL1 rd + |t|)(log(P + 2))1+ǫ + |ρf (1)|(cL1 rd)ǫ
≪ (|ρj (1)| + |ρf (1)|)(cL1 rd)ǫ (1 + |t|)ǫ (log(P + 2))1+ǫ ,
where f is the Hecke newform of some level M such that uj = f (g) with M|cL1 rd and
g| cLM1rd . Hence the quantity in (7.2) is
Z ∞
ǫ 1+ǫ 2 dt
≪ (|ρj (1)| + |ρf (1)|)(cL1 rd) (log(P + 2)) (1 + |v|) (1 + |t|)ǫ
−∞ (1 + |t|)2
≪ (|ρj (1)| + |ρf (1)|)(cL1 rd)ǫ (log(P + 2))1+ǫ (1 + |v|)2 .

By Equation (3.5), we have
(7.3) eρj (e2 ) ≪ (cL1 rd)ǫ e1+ǫ |ρf (1)|.
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 29

From Lemma 3.3 (1), (7.1), Lemma 7.1, and (7.3), we deduce that

X  
k−1 1
S1 ≪ min X , √ (cL1 rd)ǫ (log(P + 2))1+ǫ (1 + |v|)2 e1+ǫ
c X
X∞  C
(|ρj (1)| + |ρf (1)|)|ρf (1)| (1 + | log X|) F
× ,
j=1
cosh(πκj ) F 1−ǫ 1 + |κj |

where f is the Hecke newform of level M such that uj = f (g) with M|cL1 rd and g| cLM1rd .
We may write

1 1
|ρj (1)||ρf (1)| ≤ |ρj (1)|2 + |ρf (1)|2 .
2 2

Each newform f appears at most ≪ (cL1 rd)ǫ times in the above j-sum, since the number
of uj with uj = f (g) for some g is equal to the number of divisors g of cLM1 rd . Moreover,
f has the same eigenvalues as f (g) for each g. Thus, since ρf (1) = ρf (1) (1) and by
positivity, we see that

X∞  C X∞  C
|ρf (1)|2 (1 + | log X|) F ǫ |ρℓ (1)|2 (1 + | log X|) F
1−ǫ
≪ (cL1 rd) 1−ǫ
,
j=1
cosh(πκ j ) F 1 + |κj | ℓ=1
cosh(πκ ℓ ) F 1 + |κℓ |

and hence we have

X  
k−1 1
S1 ≪ min X , √ (cL1 rd)ǫ (log(P + 2))1+ǫ (1 + |v|)2 e1+ǫ
c X
X∞  C
|ρj (1)|2 (1 + | log X|) F
× .
j=1
cosh(πκj ) F 1−ǫ 1 + |κj |

The sum over the spectrum is bounded by

X X |ρj (1)|2  2+ǫ

|ρj (1)|2 1 1 F
+ ≪ F 1+ǫ ,
cosh(πκj ) F 1−ǫ cosh(πκj ) F 1−ǫ 1 + |κj |
|kj |<F |kj |≥F

where we have used the spectral large sieve bound

X 1
|ρj (1)|2 ≪ K 2 .
cosh(πκj )
|κj |≤K
30 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI
√
L1 L2 P e 2
from Deshoulliers and Iwaniec [8]. Recalling that F < (1+|u|)(1+X) and X = cQ
,
we arrive at
(7.4)
X  
k−1 1
S1 ≪ min X ,√ (1 + | log X|)(1 + X)1+ǫ (1 + |u|)1+ǫ (cL1 rd)ǫ (log(P + 2))1+ǫ (1 + |v|)2 e1+ǫ
c X
 
 X X 1 
≪
 X k−1 (1 + | log X|) + √ X 1+ǫ (1 + log X)

√ √ X
L1 L2 P e2 L1 L2 P e2
c≫ Q
c≪ Q

× (1 + |u|)1+ǫ (cL1 rd)ǫ(log P )1+ǫ (1 + |v|)2 e1+ǫ

√
ǫ 2 2 P
≪ Q (1 + |u|) (1 + |v|) ,
Q
where we have used that k ≥ 3, L1 L2 , e ≪ Qǫ (see (5.3) and (5.5)), r|L1 , d|L2 , and
log(P + 2) ≪ log Q.
Similarly, (3.3) (2), (7.1), Lemma 7.1 and (7.3) give
(7.5)
X  
k−1 1
S2 ≪ min X ,√ (cL1 rd)ǫ (log(P + 2))1+ǫ (1 + |v|)2 e1+ǫ
c
X
X |ρj (1)|2
× ((1 + |u|)1/2 + X −1/2 )
κ =ir
cosh(πκj )
j
|r|≤1/4
X  
1
≪ min X , √ k−1
(cL1 rd)ǫ (log(P + 2))1+ǫ (1 + |v|)2 e1+ǫ ((1 + |u|)1/2 + X −1/2 )
c X
√
ǫ 2 2 P
≪ Q (1 + |u|) (1 + |v|) .
Q
From (7.1) and the bounds of S1 in (7.4) and S2 in (7.5), we arrive at Proposition 6.2.

8. Proof of Proposition 6.3

8.1. Eisenstein series. To prove Proposition 6.3, we use the set of representatives for
the cusps of Γ0 (q) given by the following result due to Kiral and Young [19].
Lemma 8.1. [19, Corollary 3.2] Let N be a positive integer. A complete set of rep-
resentatives for the set of inequivalent cusps of Γ0 (N) is given by (ab)−1 where b runs
over divisors of N, and a runs modulo (b, N/b), coprime to (b, N/b). We may choose
the a so that (a, N) = 1 by adding a suitable multiple of (b, N/b).
We need an explicit expression for the Fourier coefficients of Eisenstein series. Theo-
rem 3.4 of Kiral and Young’s work [19] leads to the following Lemma.
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 31

Lemma 8.2. Let c be a cusp of Γ0 (N), and let c = (ab)−1 be its representative given by
Lemma 8.1. Suppose that
b = b0 b′ ,
where b0 is the largest factor of b that is relatively prime to N/b.
(a) If p ∤ N, then ϕc (p, t) = 0 unless
(8.1) b′ = (b, N/b),
in which case
1
π 2 +it µ(b0 ) X χ(−pb0 a)τ (χ)
− 21 −it 1
ϕc (p, t) = 1 1 p
Γ( 2 + it) (Nb0 ) 2 +it ϕ(b′ ) L(1 + 2it, χ2 χ0 )
χ mod b′
1
π 2 +it µ(b0 ) X χ(−pb0 a)τ (χ)
− 21 +it 1
+ 1 1 p ,
Γ( 2 + it) (Nb0 ) 2 +it ϕ(b′ ) L(1 + 2it, χ2χ )
0
χ mod b′

where ϕ(b′ ) is the Euler totient function, τ (χ) is the Gauss sum, and χ0 is the
principal character modulo N/b. Also, if e is a positive integer and (8.1) holds,
then
1
2 π 2 +it −1+2it 1 2
ϕc (e , t) = 1 e 1 S( (e2e,b′ ) , 0; b0 )
Γ( 2 + it) (Nb0 ) 2 +it
2
X 1 X χ(− (e2e,b′ ) b0 d2 a)τ (χ)
× d−2it .
ϕ( (e2b,b′ ) )
′

d|e2 b′
L(1 + 2it, χ2 χ0 )
χ mod
(e2 ,b′ )
(d,N/b)=1

(b) If p|N, then

b′ (p, b0 )
ϕc (p, t) ≪ǫ (N(1 + |t|))ǫ .
|Γ( 12 + it)|(pNb)1/2
(c) If e is a positive integer, then
b′ e1+ǫ
ϕc (e2 , t) ≪ǫ 1 (N(1 + |t|))ǫ .
|Γ( 12 + it)|(Nb) 2

The bounds in (b) and (c) hold unconditionally with ineffective implied constants, or
conditionally on GRH with effective implied constants.
Proof. Theorem 3.4 of Kiral and Young [19] with a = 1/N implies that ϕc (n, t) is zero
unless
b′
(8.2) n= m
(b, N/b)
for some integer m. Combining (8.2) and Equation (3.3) in [19], we have
1 1
π 2 +it − 21 +it (b, N/b)
2
+it
b′ m
ϕc (n, t) = 1 n 1 S( (m,(b,N/b)) , 0; b0 )
Γ( 2 + it) (Nb) 2 +it (b, N/b)
32 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

m
X 1 X χ(− (m,(b,N/b)) b0 d2 a)τ (χ)
−2it
(8.3) × d (b,N/b)
,
d|m
ϕ( (m,(b,N/b)) ) (b,N/b)
L(1 + 2it, χ2 χ0 )
χ mod (m,(b,N/b))
(d,N/b)=1

where χ0 is the principal character modulo N/b.

If n = p with p ∤ N, then we must have m = p in (8.2) because b′ |N. Thus ϕc (p, t) = 0
unless (8.1) holds. In this case, m = p, (m, (b, N/b)) = 1 since p ∤ N, and
m
S( (m,(b,N/b)) , 0; b0 ) = S(p, 0; b0 ) = µ(b0 )

by Kluyver’s formula for the Ramanujan sum, and so (8.3) simplifies to give the expres-
sion for ϕc (p, t) in (a). Similarly, if n = e2 and (8.1) holds, then in (8.3) we have m = e2
and (m, (b, N/b)) = (e2 , b′ ), and (8.3) simplifies to the expression for ϕc (e2 , t) in (a).
To prove (b), we may assume that (8.2) holds with n = p, since otherwise ϕc (p, t) = 0
by Theorem 3.4 of [19]. This means either m = p or m = 1. If m = p, then (8.1) holds,
and (8.3) with n = p simplifies to
1
π 2 +it − 1 +it (b′ ) 2 +it p
1
1 X χ(− (p,bp ′ ) b0 a)τ (χ)
ϕc (p, t) = 1 p 2 1 S( (p,b′ ) , 0; b0 ) b′
Γ( 2 + it) (Nb) 2 +it ϕ( (p,b ′) ) b′
L(1 + 2it, χ2 χ0 )
χ mod (p,b′ )
1 1
π 2 +it − 1 −it (b′ ) 2 +it 1 X χ(−pb0 a)τ (χ)
+ 1(p,N/b)=1 1 p 2 1 S(p, 0; b0 ) ,
Γ( 2 + it) (Nb) 2 +it ϕ(b′ ) L(1 + 2it, χ2χ )
0
χ mod b′

where 1(p,N/b)=1 is 1 if (p, N/b) = 1 and is 0 otherwise. We will use the following bounds
to bound ϕc (p, t). In fact, these bounds will also be useful later.

S(α, 0; γ) ≪ (α, γ) ≪ α;
√
τ (χ) ≪ c, where χ is a character mod c;
X
(8.4) 1 ≪ ℓǫ ;
d|ℓ
1
≪ (N(1 + |t|))ǫ .
L(1 + 2it, χ2 χ0 )

The first bound follows from the well-known bound for Ramanujan’s sum, while the
second bound is a well-known bound for the Gauss sum (see, e.g., [7]) . The last one
follows from GRH (or Siegel’s theorem, with an ineffective implied constant) (see, e.g.,
[7]). Using (8.4), we deduce (b) for the case m = p. On the other hand, if m = 1, then
(m, (b, N/b)) = 1 and (8.3) simplifies to
1
π 2 +it − 1 +it (b, N/b) 2 +it b′
1
S(1, 0; b0 ) X χ(−b0 a)τ (χ)
ϕc (p, t) = 1 p 2 1 .
Γ( 2 + it) (Nb) 2 +it (b, N/b) ϕ((b, N/b)) χ mod (b,N/b)
L(1 + 2it, χ2χ )
0
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 33

From this, the formula S(1, 0; b0 ) = µ(b0 ) for Ramanujan’s sum, and the bounds in
(8.4), we deduce that
b′
ϕc (p, t) ≪ǫ 1 1/2
(N(1 + |t|))ǫ ,
|Γ( 2 + it)|(pNb)
which implies (b).
To prove (c), take n = e2 in (8.3) and use the bounds (8.4).

For brevity, let N = cL1 rd. Proposition 6.3 will immediately follow from the following
bounds. The first one is the contribution from p|N, and the second Proposition is the
contribution from p ∤ N.
Proposition 8.3. Let
p
X X log p  p   p  X Z ∞ pe2
CT N p|N := √ V e v ϕc (e2 , t)ϕc (p, t)h+ (t) dt.
c≥1
p P P −∞ cosh(πt)
p|N c

Then √
2 ǫ P
CT N p|N ≪ (1 + |u|) Q .
Q
Proposition 8.4. Let
p
X X log p  p   p  X Z ∞ pe2
CT N p∤N := √ V e v ϕc (e2 , t)ϕc (p, t)h+ (t) dt.
c≥1
p P P −∞ cosh(πt)
p∤N c

Then √ !
1 P
CT N p∤N ≪ (1 + |v|)2 (1 + |u|)2Qǫ P 4
+ǫ
+ .
Q
8.2. Proof of Proposition 8.3 – Contribution from p|N. We write each c as (ab)−1
as stated in Lemma 8.1 to express the sum CT N p|N as
p
X X X∗ X log p  p   p  Z ∞ pe2
√ V e v ϕc (e2 , t)ϕc (p, t)h+ (t) dt.
c≥1
p P P −∞ cosh(πt)
b|N a mod (b,N/b) p|N

We apply Lemma 8.2 (b) and (c) and the identity Γ( 21 + it)Γ( 21 − it) = π/ cosh(πt) to
deduce that
p
X X X∗ X log p  p   p  Z ∞ pe2
√ V e v ϕc (e2 , t)ϕc (p, t)h+ (t) dt
c≥1 b|N a mod (b,N/b) p|N
p P P −∞ cosh(πt)
X e2+ǫ X X∗ X log p  p  (b′ )2 (p, b0 ) Z ∞
≪ 1−ǫ √ V (1 + |t|)ǫ |h+ (t)| dt.
c≥1
N p P b −∞
b|N a mod (b,N/b) p|N
′
Since b = b0 b , it follows that
(b′ )2 (p, b0 ) bb′ b0
≤ = b.
b b
34 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

Moreover, we have
X∗ N
1 ≤ (b, N/b) ≤ .
b
a mod (b,N/b)

Hence, the above is

X X X log p  p  Z ∞
ǫ 2+ǫ
≪ N e √ V (1 + |t|)ǫ |h+ (t)| dt
c≥1
p P −∞
b|N p|N
X Z ∞
≪ N ǫ e2+ǫ (1 + |t|)ǫ |h+ (t)| dt.
c≥1 −∞

Next, √we use the bound for h+ (t) from Lemma 3.3 and recall from (6.3) that X =
4πL1 L2 P e2
cQ
. Thus, for some F < (1 + |u|)(1 + X), we have
X  Z ∞  2
2+ǫ ǫ k−1 1 ǫ 1 + | log X| F
CT N p|N ≪ e Q min X , √ (1 + |t|) dt
c X −∞ F 1−ǫ 1 + |t|
(8.5) √
2 ǫ P
≪ (1 + |u|) Q ,
Q
as desired.

8.3. Proof of Proposition 8.4 – Contribution from p ∤ N. By expressing c as

(ab)−1 (see Lemma 8.1), we can write
p
X X X∗ X log p  p   p  Z ∞ pe2
CT N p∤N = √ V e v ϕc (e2 , t)ϕc (p, t)h+ (t) dt.
c≥1
p P P −∞ cosh(πt)
b|N a mod (b,N/b) p∤N

By Lemma 8.2(a), the sum over p here is zero unless (8.1) holds. Writing explicit
expressions for ϕc (p, t) and ϕc (e2 , t) from Lemma 8.2 (a), we obtain that
CT N p∤N = E1 + E2 ,
where
p
X X X∗ X log p  p   p  Z ∞ pe2
1
π 2 −it −1−2it 1
E1 := √ V e v 1 e 1
c≥1 b|N a mod (b,N/b) p∤N
p P P −∞ cosh(πt) Γ( 2 − it) (Nb0 ) 2 −it
b′ =(b,N/b)
2
2
X
2it 1 X χ(− (e2e,b′ ) b0 d2 a)τ (χ)
× S( (e2e,b′ ) , 0; b0 ) d
ϕ( (e2b,b′ ) )
′
L(1 − 2it, χ2 χ0 )
d|e2 χ mod b′
(e2 ,b′ )
(d,N/b)=1

π
1
+it
µ(b0 ) X ψ(−pb0 a)τ (ψ)
− 12 −it 1
2
× p h+ (t) dt
Γ( 12 + it) (Nb0 ) 2 +it
1
ϕ(b′ ) ψ mod b′ L(1 + 2it, ψ 2 χ0 )
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 35

and E2 is the same sum except with ψ(p)p−it replaced with ψ(p)pit . From now on, we
will focus on E1 as E2 can be treated similarly. Since Γ( 12 + it)Γ( 12 − it) = π/ cosh(πt),
E1 simplifies to
X X 1 X∗ X log p  p   p  Z ∞ X
E1 = √ V e v e−2it p−it d2it
c≥1
Nb 0 p P P −∞ 2
b|N a mod (b,N/b) p∤N d|e
b′ =(b,N/b) (d,N/b)=1
2
1 X χ(− (e2e,b′ ) b0 d2 a)τ (χ)
e2
× S( (e2 ,b′ ) , 0; b0 )
ϕ( (e2b,b′ ) )
′
b′
L(1 − 2it, χ2 χ0 )
χ mod
(e2 ,b′ )

1 X ψ(−pb0 a)τ (ψ)

× µ(b0 ) h+ (t) dt
ϕ(b′ ) ψ mod b′ L(1 + 2it, ψ 2 χ0 )
= Eprinc + Enon−princ ,
where Eprinc is the contribution from the principal characters ψ, and Enon−princ is the
contribution from the non-principal characters ψ. Proposition 8.4 will follow immedi-
ately from the following two Lemmas.
Lemma 8.5. Let the notation be as above. Then
√ !
1 P
Eprinc ≪ (1 + |v|)2 (1 + |u|)2 Qǫ P 4
+ǫ
+ .
Q

Lemma 8.6. Let the notation be as above. Then

√
P
Enon−princ ≪ (1 + |u|)2(1 + |v|)2Qǫ .
Q
8.4. Proof of Lemma 8.5 – The principal character. Writing out Eprinc explicitly,
we see that
X X 1 X∗ Z ∞ X log p  p   p  X
−2it
Eprinc = e √ V e v p−it d2it
c≥1
Nb0 −∞ p P P 2
b|N a mod (b,N/b) p∤N d|e
b′ =(b,N/b) (d,N/b)=1
2
1 X χ(− (e2e,b′ ) b0 d2 a)τ (χ)
e2
× S( (e2 ,b′ ) , 0; b0 )
ϕ( (e2b,b′ ) )
′
b′
L(1 − 2it, χ2 χ0 )
χ mod
(e2 ,b′ )

1 1
× µ(b0 ) h+ (t) dt,
ϕ(b ) L(1 + 2it, ψ02 χ0 )
′

where ψ0 is the principal character modulo b′ . We start by dealing with the sum over p.
Lemma 8.7. Let V1 (x) = V (x) e(vx). We have that
X log p  p   p 
V e v = P 1/2−it V˜1 (1/2 − it) + O(P ǫ(1 + |v|)2 log N).
p1/2+it P P
p∤N
36 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

Proof. We use Mellin inversion to write

X log p  p   p  Z X log p
1 we
V e v = P V 1 (w) dw,
p1/2+it P P 2πi ( 12 +ǫ) p1/2+it+w
p∤N p∤N

(l)
where Ve1 is the Mellin transform of V1 . Since V1 (x) ≪ (1 + |v|)l for all l ≥ 0,
 A
Ve1 (s) ≪ 1+|v|
1+|s|
for any A ≥ 0. Now the Euler product formula for ζ(s) implies
X log p X log p X log p
= −
p1/2+it+w p
p1/2+it+w p1/2+it+w
p∤N p|N
X ∞ X
X X log p
Λ(n) log p
= − −
n
n1/2+it+w m=2 p
(pm )1/2+it+w p1/2+it+w
p|N
′
ζ
= − ( 21 + it + w) + F (s),
ζ
say, where F (s) ≪ log N uniformly in the region Re(w) ≥ ǫ and for all t.
Shifting contours to Re(w) = ǫ gives the result upon picking up the pole at w = 1/2−
 2
it and using the bound Ve1 (s) ≪ 1+|v| to bound the integral along Re(w) = ǫ.
1+|s|


For clarity, we record the following bound for h+ (z), where z is a complex number.
Lemma 8.8. Recall that
 
ξ
hu (ξ) = Jk−1(ξ)W e(uξ),
X
√
2
where X = L1 LcQ2 Pe
and W is compactly supported in (a, b), where a > 0. Then we
have for real γ and real δ 6= 0, where |δ| < 12 , that
 
k−1−2|δ| 1
h+ (γ + iδ) ≪ (1 + |u|) min X ,√ .
X
Proof. We will slightly modify the proof of Lemma 7.1 in [8] and show it here for
completeness. Write z = γ + iδ. We have
Z ∞
2πi dx
h+ (z) = (J2iz (x) − J−2iz (x))hu (x)
sinh(πz) 0 x
Z ∞Z ∞
dx
= −8 cos(x cosh(y)) cos(2zy)hu (x) dy .
0 0 x
Consider the integral over x. Integrating by parts, we see that
Z ∞ Z ∞ ′
hu (x) hu (x) sin(x cosh(y))
(8.6) cos(x cosh(y)) dx = − dx.
0 x 0 x cosh(y)
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 37

As in the proof of Lemma 3.3, we consider two cases depending on how large X is.
When X ≪ 1, we write
X∞
(ξ/2)2ℓ+k−1
Jk−1 (ξ) = (−1)ℓ .
ℓ=0
ℓ!(ℓ + k − 1)!
Therefore, for aX < x < bX,
 ′  
hu (x) k−1 1 1
≪X (1 + |u|) + ≪ X k−3 ((1 + |u|)).
x X X
 −y 
We write sin(x cosh(y))
X cosh(y)
≪ min 1, eX , so that (8.6) is bounded by
 −y 
k−1 e
X (1 + |u|) min 1, .
X
From the above, the assumption X ≪ 1, and the fact that cos(2zy) ≪ e2|δ|y , we arrive
at Z ∞  −y 
e
h+ (z) ≪ 2|δ|y k−1
e X (1 + |u|) min 1, dy ≪ X k−1 (1 + |u|)X −2|δ| .
0 X
When X ≫ 1, from Lemma 2.4, we may write
    
1 ξ k 1 ξ k 1
Jk−1 (ξ) = √ Wk (ξ) e − + + W k (ξ) e − + − ,
2πξ 2π 4 8 2π 4 8
(j)
where Wk (x) ≪j,k x−j . Therefore for aX < x < bX,
 ′  
hu (x) 1 1 1
≪√ (1 + |u|) + .
x X X X
Thus (8.6) is bounded by  −y 
√ e
X(1 + |u|) min 1, .
X
From the above, the assumption X ≫ 1, and the fact that cos(2zy) ≪ e2|δ|y , we deduce
that Z ∞  −y 
2|δ|y
√ e 1
h+ (z) ≪ e X(1 + |u|) min 1, dy ≪ √ (1 + |u|).
0 X X
Combining both cases X ≪ 1 and X ≫ 1, we obtain the desired bound. 
We now bound the integral over t in the following lemma.
Lemma 8.9. Let
Z ∞
1
I= e−2it d2it h+ (t)V˜1 (1/2 − it)P 1/2−it dt.
−∞ L(1 − 2it, χ2 χ0 )L(1 + 2it, ψ02 χ0 )
We have that

 e − 12 +2ǫ  
1
k− 23 +2ǫ 1
I≪ q0ǫ P 4
+ǫ
(1 + |u|) min X ,√ (1 + |v|)2 ,
d X
38 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

where q0 is the conductor of χ2 χ0 .

Proof. Let s = 1/2 − it, so that t = i(s − 1/2). We have that
Z  e 2s−1 1
I=i 2 2
h+ (i(s − 1/2))V˜1(s)P s ds.
(1/2) d L(2s, χ χ0 )L(2 − 2s, ψ0 0χ )

We move the line of integration to Re(s) = 14 + ǫ. Note that if s = σ + ir, then

h+ (i(s − 1/2)) = h+ (−r + i(σ − 1/2)). We use the bound for h+ (z) in Lemma 8.8 and
the bound
 −1
1 2
L + ǫ + it, χ χ0 ≪ (q0 (|t| + 1))ǫ
2
from Theorem 1 in [6] to deduce that
 e − 12 +2ǫ  
1
+ǫ k− 23 +2ǫ 1
I≪ P (1 + |u|) min X
4 ,√
d X
Z ∞  
1
× V˜1 + ǫ + it (q0 (|t| + 1))ǫ dt
−∞ 4
 e − 12 +2ǫ 1  
+ǫ k− 3
+2ǫ 1
≪ P 4 (1 + |u|) min X 2 , √ q0ǫ (1 + |v|)2 ,
d X
as desired. 

We are now ready to bound Eprinc in Lemma 8.5. By Lemma 8.7, we have
XX 1 X∗ Z ∞    
−2it 1
−it 1 ǫ 2


Eprinc = e P 2 Ṽ1 − it + O P (1 + |v|) log N
c≥1
Nb 0 −∞ 2
b|N a mod (b,N/b)
(8.1)
2
X
2it 2 1 X χ(− (e2e,b′ ) b0 d2 a)τ (χ)
× d S( (e2e,b′ ) , 0; b0 )
ϕ( (e2b,b′ ) )
′
L(1 − 2it, χ2 χ0 )
d|e2 χ mod b′
(e2 ,b′ )
(d,N/b)=1
1 1
× µ(b0 ) h+ (t) dt.
ϕ(b′ ) L(1 + 2it, ψ02 χ0 )
First, we consider the contribution from the error term O(P ǫ (1 + |v|)2 log N), say Eprinc,err .
We use the bound for h+ (t) from Lemma 3.3 (1) and the bounds in (8.4) to deduce that
(8.7)
  √
XX X∗ 1 1 b′
Eprinc,err ≪ (1 + |v|)2 e2+ǫ (P N)ǫ F 1+ǫ min X k−1 , √ (1 + | log X|) ′
c≥1 b|N a mod (b,N/b)
Nb0 X φ(b )
√
2 2 ǫ P
≪ (1 + |u|) (1 + |v|) Q
Q
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 39
√
2
upon recalling that b′ = (b, N/b), e ≪ Qǫ , and X = L1 LcQ
2 Pe
. For the main contribution
(call it Eprinc,main ), we use Lemma 8.9 to bound the integral over t and obtain that
√
X X X∗ 1 X ǫ  e − 21 +2ǫ 1 +ǫ b′
Eprinc,main ≪ q0 P 4 (1 + |u|)F (c)(1 + |v|)2e2
c≥1
Nb0 2 d φ(b′ )
b|N a mod (b,N/b) d|e

1
X X (b, N/b)3/2
≪ (1 + |v|)2(1 + |u|)2P 4 +ǫ Qǫ F (c),
c
Nb
b|N
n o
k− 23 +2ǫ √1
where we let F (c) := min X , X and we recall that b′ = (b, N/b) and b0 =
b/(b, N/b). Moreover, recall that N = crdL1 := cα, where α = rdL1 ≪ Qǫ . Considering
the sum over c, we have
X X (b, N/b)3/2 X X X (b1 b2 , bcαb )3/2
1 2
F (c) ≤ F (c)
c
cαb c
cαb1 b2
b|N b1 |α b2 |c

X X (b2 , c/b2 )3/2 X b3/2 (α/b1 )3/2

1
≪ F (c)
c
cb2 b1 α
b2 |c b1 |α
X 1 X (b2 , c)3/2
≪ α1/2+ǫ F (cb2 )
b2
b22 c c
X 1 X X 1
≪ α1/2+ǫ ℓ 3/2
F (cℓb2 )
b
b22 c
cℓ
2 ℓ|b2
X 1 X
≪ α1/2+ǫ 2
ℓ1/2 ≪ α1/2+ǫ ≪ Qǫ .
b
b2
2 ℓ|b2

Thus
1
(8.8) Eprinc,main ≪ (1 + |v|)2(1 + |u|)2P 4 +ǫ Qǫ .
Combining (8.7) and (8.8), we arrive at the lemma.
8.5. Proof of Lemma 8.6 – Non-principal characters. Recall that
XX 1 X∗ Z ∞ X log p  p   p  X
Enon−princ = 1/2+it
V e v e−2it d2it
Nb0 −∞ p P P
c≥1 b|N a mod (b,N/b) p∤N d|e2
(8.1) (d,N/b)=1
2
2 1 X χ(− (e2e,b′ ) b0 d2 a)τ (χ)
× S( (e2e,b′ ) , 0; b0 )
ϕ( (e2b,b′ ) )
′
b′
L(1 − 2it, χ2 χ0 )
χ mod
(e2 ,b′ )

1 X ψ(−pb0 a)τ (ψ)

× µ(b0 ) h+ (t) dt.
ϕ(b′ ) ′ L(1 + 2it, ψ 2χ )
0
ψ mod b
ψ6=ψ0
40 S. BALUYOT, V. CHANDEE, AND X. LI

Since ψ is a non-principal character modulo b′ , it follows from Lemma 2.7 that if V0 is

a smooth function supported on a compact subinterval of (0, ∞), then
X ψ(p) log p  p 
1 V0 ≪ log2 (b′ + |t|) + log N.
p2 +it P
p∤N

Thus, by the argument in the proof of Lemma 7.1, we have

X ψ(p) log p  p   p 
V e v ≪ (1 + |v|)2[log2 (b′ + |t|) + log N].
p1/2+it P P
p∤N

It follows from this and the bounds in (8.4) that

X X b′ X∗ Z ∞
Enon−princ ≪ (1 + |v|)2e2+ǫ (1 + |t|)ǫ |h+ (t)| dt
c≥1
N 1−ǫ b0 −∞
b|N a mod (b,N/b)
(8.1)
X X (b, N/b)2 Z ∞
2 2+ǫ
≪ (1 + |v|) e (1 + |t|)ǫ |h+ (t)| dt,
c≥1 b|N
N 1−ǫ b0 −∞

where we recall that b′ = (b, N/b). We then use e ≪ Qǫ , the bound for h+ (t) from
Lemma 3.3, and
N
(b, N/b)2 ≤ b · = N,
b
and proceed with the same argument as in (8.5) to obtain the desired bound.

Acknowledgement
S.B. acknowledges support from a NSF grant DMS-1854398. V.C. acknowledges
support from a Simons Travel Grant for Mathematicians and NSF grant DMS-2101806.
X.L. acknowledges support from Simons Grants 524790 and 962494 and NSF grant
DMS-2302672. Parts of this work were done while S.B. was visiting Kansas State
University. He would like to express his gratitude to Kansas State University for the
invitation and the pleasant atmosphere for working.

References
[1] A.O.L. Atkin and J. Lehner, Hecke operators on Γ0 (m). Math. Ann. 185, 134-160 (1970).
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01359701.
[2] O. Barrett, P. Burkhardt, J. DeWitt, R. Dorward, and S.J. Miller, One-level density for holo-
morphic cusp forms of arbitrary level. Res. Number Theory, 3: Art. 25, 21,2017.
[3] V. Blomer, G. Harcos and P. Michel, Bounds for modular L-functions in the level aspect, Ann.
Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 40 (2007), no. 5, 697-740.
[4] V. Blomer and D. Milićević. The second moment of twisted modular L-functions. Geom. Funct.
Anal., 25(2) (2015), 453 - 516.
[5] V. Chandee, K. Klinger-Logan, and X. Li, Pair correlation of zeros of Γ1 (q) L-functions, Math.
Z. 302 (2022), 219 - 258.
[6] A. Chirre, A Note on Entire L-Functions. Bull Braz Math Soc, New Series 50, 67-93 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00574-018-0092-x
[7] H. Davenport, Multiplicative Number Theory, vol.74, Springer-Verlag (GTM), New York, 2000.
 LOW-LYING ZEROS OF A LARGE ORTHOGONAL FAMILY 41

[8] J.-M. Deshouillers and H. Iwaniec, Kloosterman sums and Fourier coefficients of cusp forms,
Invent. Math. 70 (1982), 219-288.
[9] S.Drappeau, K. Pratt, and M. Radziwill, One-level density estimates for Dirichlet L-functions
with extended support, Algebra and Number theory 17:4 (2023), 805-830.
[10] W. Duke, J. Friedlander and H. Iwaniec, The subconvexity problem for Artin L-functions, Invent.
Math. 149 (2002), p. 489–577.
[11] D. Fiorilli and S. J. Miller, Surpassing the ratios conjecture in the 1-level density of Dirichlet
L-functions, Algebra Number Theory 9 (2015), no. 1, 13-52.
[12] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products, Edited by A.Jeffrey
and D. Zwillinger. Academic Press, New York, 7th edition, 2007.
[13] C. P. Hughes and Z. Rudnick, Linear Statistics of Low-Lying Zeros of L-Functions, Q. J. Math
54:3 (2003), 309 - 333.
[14] H. Iwaniec, Topics in classical automorphic forms, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 17
(American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997).
[15] H. Iwaniec and E. Kowalski, Analytic Number Theory, vol. 53, American Mathematical Society
Colloquium Publications, Rhode Island, 2004.
[16] H. Iwaniec, W. Luo and P. Sarnak Low lying zeros of families of L-functions. Inst. Hautes
Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. No. 91 (2000), 55-131 (2001).
[17] N. Katz and P. Sarnak, Random matrices, Frobenius eigenvalues, and monodromy. American
Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, 45. American Mathematical Society, Provi-
dence, RI, 1999.
[18] H. Kim and P. Sarnak, Appendix 2 in Functoriality for the exterior square of GL4 and the
symmetric fourth of GL2 , J. Amer. Math. Soc. 16 (2003), 139-183.
[19] E.M. Kiral and M. Young, Kloosterman sums and Fourier coefficients of Eisenstein series,
Ramanujan J. 49 (2019), no. 2, 391-409.
[20] G. Martin, Dimensions of the spaces of cusp forms and newforms on Γ0 (N ) and Γ1 (N ). J.
Number Theory 112 (2005), no.2, 298-331.
[21] M-H. Ng, The basis for space of cusp forms and Petersson trace formula. Mas-
ter of Philosophy thesis at The University of Hong Kong, 2012. Available at
http://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/174338.
[22] D. Rouymi, Formules de trace et non-annulation de fonctions L automorphes au niveau pν ,
Acta Arith. 147, (2011), 1–32.
[23] I. Petrow, Bounds for Traces of Hecke Operators and Applications to Modular and Elliptic
Curves Over a Finite Field. Algebra & Number Theory. 12(10) pp. 2471-2498 (2018).
[24] G. N. Watson, A treatise on the theory of Bessel functions, Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge 1944.

American Institute of Mathematics, San Jose, CA 95112

Email address: sbaluyot@aimath.org

Mathematics Department, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66503

Email address: chandee@ksu.edu

Mathematics Department, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66503

Email address: xiannan@ksu.edu