Hypergeometric Distributions and Joint Families of Elliptic Curves

Brian Grove; Hasan Saad

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 14 references

Hypergeometric Distributions and Joint Families of Elliptic Curves

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that four families of finite-field 4F3 hypergeometric functions have limiting moments given by products of consecutive Catalan numbers and a limiting Meijer-G density.

desk verdict Genuinely new length-4 hypergeometric limit law with honest scoping; the one real gap is a one-sentence verification in the proof of Theorem 1.2 that needs expanding for d=3,4,6. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13330 v2 pith:AUC57XFT submitted 2025-01-23 math.NT

Brian Grove , Hasan Saad This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NT MSC 11G2011T2433E50

keywords GaussianhypergeometricfunctionsSato-TatetypedistributionsEllipticcurvesfinitefieldétalecohomologymonodromygroupsCatalannumbersMeijerG-function

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper determines the large-prime limiting distribution of a length-four finite-field hypergeometric function, the values of which are sums of Frobenius traces of a pair of elliptic curves related by $\lambda\mapsto-\lambda$. It proves that for $d\in\{2,3,4,6\}$ the normalized moments of $H_p(\alpha_d,\beta|\lambda^2)$ converge to products of consecutive Catalan numbers, and that the normalized values converge in distribution to a universal Meijer-$G$ density on $[-4,4]$. The route is a joint Sato-Tate law: a generic pair of one-parameter elliptic families has independent limits, with mixed moments factoring as Catalan numbers. This matters because it extends equidistribution results from single families to pairs and supplies a purely geometric proof that also reaches cases modular-form methods cannot, while explaining why Catalan numbers appear in earlier hypergeometric moment computations.

What carries the argument

The engine is a lisse $\ell$-adic sheaf (a local system of $\mathbb{Q}_\ell$-vector spaces on the affine line) $\mathcal{F}_i=(R^1\pi_{i,!}\mathbb{Q}_\ell)(1/2)$ attached to each elliptic family, whose Frobenius trace at $\lambda$ is $a_{i,p}(\lambda)/\sqrt{p}$. For a generic pair, the two sheaves have geometric monodromy group $\mathrm{SL}_2\times\mathrm{SL}_2$, so tensor products decompose into irreducible summands; the multiplicity of the trivial summand in $\mathcal{F}_1^{\otimes n}\otimes\mathcal{F}_2^{\otimes m}$ is $C(n_1)C(m_1)$ if both exponents are even and zero otherwise. The Grothendieck-Lefschetz trace formula converts the moment sum into a trace on cohomology, and the purity bounds from the Weil conjectures force all nontrivial summands to contribute $O(p^{1/2})$, leaving the Catalan product as the limit. The independence condition is checked by translating a sheaf isomorphism into an isogeny between elliptic curves over $\mathbb{F}_p(\lambda)$ via their Tate modules, and ruling that out by the reduction-type mismatch at $\lambda=1$.

What would settle it

Compute the reduction type at $\lambda=1$ for each of the four families in Table 1, and for a large prime $p$ compute the normalized mixed moments $p^{-1-(n+m)/2}\sum_{\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_p}a_{p,d}(\lambda)^m a_{p,d}(-\lambda)^n$ for small even $n,m$; if any one of the four curves fails the multiplicative-versus-good reduction test, or if the moment sums do not approach $C(n_1)C(m_1)$ (and do not vanish for odd $n$ or $m$), the theorem's hypothesis fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.2: for $d\in\{2,3,4,6\}$, with $\alpha_d=\{1/(2d),1-1/(2d),1/(2d)+1/2,-1/(2d)+1/2\}$ and $\beta=\{1,1/2,1,1/2\}$, the moments satisfy $\lim_{p\to\infty}p^{-m/2-1}\sum_{\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_p}H_p(\alpha_d,\beta|\lambda^2)^m=C(m_1)C(m_1+1)$ for $m=2m_1$ even and vanish for $m$ odd. Since the hypergeometric value splits as $H_p(\alpha_d,\beta|\lambda^2)=a_{p,d}(\lambda)+a_{p,d}(-\lambda)$, these moments are mixed moments of two elliptic families. The paper proves Theorem 1.5, a joint Sato-Tate law: for a generic pair $(E_{1,\lambda},E_{2,\lambda})$, $\lim_{p\to\infty}p^{-1-(n+m)/2}\sum_{\lambda}a_{1,p}(\lambda)^n a_{2,p}(\lambda)^m=C(n_1)C(m_1)$ for $n=2n_1,m=2m_1$ even and $0$ otherwise. Corollary 1.4 then identifies the limiting density as $\frac{4}{\pi|t|}G^{2,0}_{2,2}\left(\begin{smallmatrix}2&3\\1/2&3/2\end{smallmatrix}\middle|\frac{t^2}{16}\right)dt$ supported on $[-4,4]$, and the combinatorial identity $C(m)C(m+1)=\sum_s\binom{2m}{2s}C(m-s)C(s)$ converts the independent-product moments into the theorem's consecutive-Catalan form.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on the claim that for each of the four values of $d$, the curve $E_{d,\lambda}$ has multiplicative reduction at $\lambda=1$ while $E_{d,-\lambda}$ has good reduction there, which the paper asserts but does not verify case by case for Table 1.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $d\in\{2,3,4,6\}$, the normalized values $p^{-1/2}H_p(\alpha_d,\beta|\lambda^2)$ share one limiting density on $[-4,4]$, so the four families are statistically indistinguishable at the level of point counts.
For a generic pair of elliptic families, the joint Sato-Tate law factors into two independent copies of the classical single-family law, so mixed moments are products of Catalan numbers.
The $d=6$ case, which the earlier modular-form approach could not handle, is settled by the cohomological method.
The same machinery recovers the length-two and length-three hypergeometric distributions previously proved by modular methods, showing those results are instances of one geometric phenomenon.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

One expects the independent joint law to hold for any quadratic-twist pair $(E_\lambda,E_{\rho\lambda})$ with the same reduction-type mismatch, not only for $\rho=-1$; the paper does not state this extension.
The cohomological setup should transfer to pairs of higher-genus curve families whenever the monodromy groups are independent, with Catalan numbers replaced by the relevant group's moment sequence.
A numerical check of the histogram for $d=6$ against the Meijer-$G$ density would directly test the unshown reduction-type verification and probe how quickly the limiting law is approached.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is Theorem 1.2 and Corollary 1.4: length-4 finite-field hypergeometric values, normalized by p^{-1/2}, converge to a Meijer G-density whose even moments are products of consecutive Catalan numbers. The authors are honest that the general mixed-moment theorem (1.5) and Corollary 1.6 are known to experts through Katz–Sarnak, and that Theorem 1.8 is just Michel's result. That scoping in Remark 1.10 makes the contribution easy to assess, and I agree with it.

What the paper does well: the reduction of hypergeometric values to sums of Frobenius traces of the paired families (Lemma 2.3), the representation-theoretic computation of trivial multiplicities (Lemma 5.2), and the cohomological error bounds (Lemma 5.3) are all standard and correct. The proof packages Deligne, Katz, and Parshin without overclaiming. The d=6 case, which modular methods couldn't reach, is a real bonus.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader's report puts it. Section 8's proof of Theorem 1.2 is a single sentence: one curve has multiplicative reduction at 1, the other good reduction at 1, and therefore Proposition 5.1 applies. That sentence names only the Legendre model, and it never spells out why the local dichotomy rules out geometric isomorphism up to an arbitrary rank-one twist. For d=3,4,6 the statement is true — I checked each family in Table 1, and in each case E_{d,λ} has multiplicative reduction at λ=1 while E_{d,-λ} has good reduction at λ=1 — but it is not demonstrated in the text. The missing argument is standard (unipotent inertia cannot match a scalar or trivial inertia action, so Lemma 4.9 applies), so this is an exposition/verification gap, not a mathematical failure. It should be fixed before publication, with a short per-family check.

Other than that, I don't see load-bearing flaws. The cited external results are real and the paper does not derive its conclusions from the target moments. The references check out; no invented entities.

Who this is for: number theorists working on finite-field hypergeometric functions, Sato–Tate laws, or étale cohomology methods in arithmetic statistics. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it to review. The referee should ask for the expanded verification in Theorem 1.2, but the central result is new and the machinery is sound.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper determines the limiting distribution of values of certain length-four finite-field hypergeometric functions H_p(alpha_d, beta | lambda^2) for d in {2,3,4,6}. The main theorem, Theorem 1.2, states that the normalized even moments tend to C(m_1)C(m_1+1), with odd moments vanishing, and Corollary 1.4 converts this into an explicit limiting density in terms of a Meijer G-function. The proof strategy is geometric: Lemma 2.3 identifies H_p(alpha_d, beta | lambda^2) with a_p,d(lambda) + a_p,d(-lambda) for the elliptic-curve families in Table 1; a general mixed-moment theorem for pairs of families of elliptic curves (Theorem 1.5, Corollary 1.6) is proved by combining etale cohomology, monodromy computations, and representation theory; and Theorem 1.2 follows by applying that theorem to (E_{d,lambda}, E_{d,-lambda}). The paper also gives geometric reproofs of previously known results for length-two and length-three hypergeometric functions (Theorems 1.8 and 1.9).

Significance. If the proof is completed, Theorem 1.2 is a genuinely new result: it gives the first limiting distribution for these length-four hypergeometric functions and explains the appearance of products of Catalan numbers through the independent Sato-Tate laws of two elliptic-curve families. The general mixed-moment result, Theorem 1.5, is a natural and useful extension of Michel's Sato-Tate law for one-parameter families; the authors themselves note in Remark 1.10 that this statement is well known to experts, so its value is mainly expository and methodological. The paper's use of standard tools (Deligne's Weil II, Katz's monodromy theorem, the Goursat-Kolchin-Ribet criterion, and Parshin's isogeny theorem) is appropriate, and the representation-theoretic multiplicity computations in Lemmas 4.3 and 4.5 are clean and explicit. The main theorems make precise, falsifiable predictions, and the structure of the proof is credible. However, two load-bearing points in the current text need attention: the verification of the geometric non-isomorphism hypothesis for d=3,4,6 in the proof of Theorem 1.2 is not written out, and Lemma 6.5 contains a case distinction that appears to be inverted.

major comments (3)

[Section 8, proof of Theorem 1.2] The proof invokes Proposition 5.1 for the pair (E_{d,lambda}, E_{d,-lambda}) for each d in {2,3,4,6}, but the verification of the hypothesis F_{1,p} not geometrically isomorphic to F_{2,p} tensor L_p for every rank-one sheaf L_p is not supplied for d=3,4,6. The sentence 'ELeg_lambda has multiplicative reduction at lambda = 1 whereas ELeg_-lambda has good reduction at 1' only names the Legendre model, and the notation ELeg is not defined in the paper; Table 1 defines four different models eE_{d,lambda}. Even for d=2, the deduction from this local datum to the full non-isomorphism statement is not shown; for d=3,4,6 the relevant local checks at lambda=1 and lambda=-1 are absent. Since Proposition 5.1 is exactly what produces the factorized mixed moments used in Lemma 5.7, this is a load-bearing gap in the proof of Theorem 1.2. The gap is likely repairable by a model-by-model check as sketched in Remark 1.7, but it must be written out before the theorem can be considered proved.
[Section 6, Lemma 6.5] The choice of d in the proof of Lemma 6.5 appears to be reversed. The text takes d' to be a nonsquare and sets d = (d')^{ord(chi)}. With the standard meaning of order of a character, if chi is trivial then ord(chi)=1 and d=d' is a nonsquare, whereas a trivial character should correspond to the untwisted family and hence to a square (or d=1); if chi is the quadratic character then ord(chi)=2 and d=(d')^2 is a square, whereas a nontrivial quadratic twist requires a nonsquare parameter. Thus the displayed identification F_{2,p} tensor L_p isomorphic to F_{2,d,p} is not established as stated. This lemma is used in the proof of Proposition 6.3 to reduce all geometrically constant rank-one twists to quadratic twists, so the issue affects the derivation of the independence condition from the generic-pair isogeny assumption. The intended argument can be repaired by taking d=1 for the trivial character and d=d' for the quadratic character, but the current case distinction is incorrect.
[Section 5, Proposition 5.1 and Section 8, Theorem 1.8] The paper does not explicitly state the genericity hypotheses that are needed for Proposition 5.1 to apply to the particular families in Table 1. In particular, for d=3,4,6 the proof of Theorem 1.2 does not show that the pairs (eE_{d,lambda}, eE_{d,-lambda}) satisfy the generic-pair conditions of Section 1 (nonconstant j-invariant, no additive reduction, and the isogeny condition of condition (3)), nor does it state which p are excluded by the associated N. These are routine but necessary checks; without them the application of Proposition 5.1 to the four families is incomplete.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4, Lemma 4.8] The proof of Lemma 4.8 contains two typographical errors that make the argument difficult to read: in equation (4.2) the same expression appears on both sides of the containment, with the first occurrence presumably meant to be the Zariski closure, and the final sentence refers to 'r1 o rho2 tensor r2 o rho2' where the indices rho1 and rho2 are interchanged.
[Section 5, proof of Proposition 5.5] The text says 'Using Lemma 5.2, we decompose the right-hand sum...' but the decomposition of (Sym^2 F)^{tensor m} into symmetric powers uses Lemma 4.5, not Lemma 5.2. The reference should be corrected.
[Section 8 and Table 1] The notation ELeg used in the proof of Theorem 1.2 is not defined anywhere in the paper. If it is meant to denote the d=2 Legendre model eE_{2,lambda}, this should be stated explicitly; if it is meant to denote all four models, the notation should match Table 1.
[Throughout] There are several typographical slips, including 'resuls' in Section 3, 'frorms' in Remark 5.4, and the rendering of the summation in Theorem 1.9. The references [Gro24] and [HLLT18] also carry incomplete publication data (e.g. '2024z'); these should be cleaned up before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Theorem 1.2 is proved from external etale-cohomology input plus an independent combinatorial identity; the compressed d=3,4,6 verification in Section 8 is a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The target moments in Theorem 1.2 are not assumed or fitted. Lemma 2.3 re-expresses H_p(alpha_d,beta|lambda^2) as a_p,d(lambda)+a_p,d(-lambda) using a splitting formula from McCarthy and Tripathi, and the mixed moments of these two trace families are then computed by Proposition 5.1, whose proof is internal to the paper: Lemma 5.2 derives the trivial-representation multiplicity C(m1)C(n1) from the representation theory of SL2, Lemma 5.3 bounds the nontrivial cohomological contributions using Deligne's Weil II estimates and the Grothendieck-Lefschetz trace formula, and the needed geometric non-isomorphism condition is provided for generic pairs by Proposition 6.3 via Parshin's isogeny theorem and Lemmas 6.4 and 6.5. Lemma 5.7 is an independent Chu-Vandermonde identity that converts the resulting mixed moments into C(m1)C(m1+1). No parameter is fitted to the target moments, and no 'uniqueness' claim from the authors' own prior work is invoked to force the result; the self-citations to [OSS23, Saa23, OPSS24, Gro24] are used only for comparison and for the alternative reproofs in Theorems 1.8 and 1.9, so they are not load-bearing for Theorem 1.2. The one notable concern is that the proof of Theorem 1.2 in Section 8 compresses the geometric-independence check into the sentence that the Legendre curve has multiplicative reduction at lambda=1 while its negative twist has good reduction, and it does not spell out the corresponding checks for d=3,4,6. That is an omitted verification or exposition gap, not a circularity, because the missing local check is independent of the conclusion and could in principle be verified family by family.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted; the moment formulas are derived from representation theory and cohomology. The main external inputs are Deligne's Weil II, Katz's monodromy theorems, and Parshin's isogeny theorem, all standard. The only structural assumption is the generic-pair independence, which the paper verifies for the relevant families by reduction-type arguments.

assumptions (6)

standard math Deligne's Weil II bound: eigenvalues of Frobenius on H^1_c(U_k, F) have absolute value at most p^{1/2} for a lisse weight-0 sheaf F (Theorem 3.3, [Del80]).
Used in Lemma 5.3 to show nontrivial monodromy components contribute O(p^{1/2}).
standard math Katz's Goursat-Kolchin-Ribet criterion: two self-dual rank-2 sheaves with geometric monodromy SL2 and no geometric isomorphism up to rank-1 twist have joint monodromy SL2 x SL2 (Theorem 3.6, [Kat90a]).
Used in Lemma 5.2 to split tensor powers into products of irreducible SL2 representations.
standard math Grothendieck-Lefschetz trace formula and Grothendieck-Ogg-Shafarevich formula (Theorems 3.2 and 3.5).
Used throughout Section 5 to evaluate Frobenius trace sums and bound middle cohomology dimensions.
standard math Parshin's theorem: isomorphic rational l-adic Tate modules over a function field imply isogeny (Theorem 6.2, [Par72]).
Used in Proposition 6.3 to translate the non-isomorphism of sheaves into the non-isogeny condition defining generic pairs.
domain assumption Generic pair independence hypothesis: for i=1,2, j_i(lambda) nonconstant, good or multiplicative reduction away from a finite set, and F1,p not geometrically isomorphic to F2,p tensor L_p for any rank-1 sheaf L_p (Section 5).
This is the hypothesis of Theorem 1.5 and Proposition 5.1; for the specific families in Theorem 1.2 it is argued via differing reduction types at lambda=1, but not written out model by model.
standard math Method of moments: convergence of moments to those of a distribution determined by a density implies convergence in distribution (Billingsley, Theorems 30.5 and 30.6).
Used in Lemmas 7.1 and 7.5 to convert moment formulas into density statements.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hypergeometric Distributions and Joint Families of Elliptic Curves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AUC57XFT

@misc{pith2026250113330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hypergeometric Distributions and Joint Families of Elliptic Curves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AUC57XFT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13330}
}

abstract

Recently, the first author as well as the second author with Ono, Pujahari, and Saikia determined the limiting distribution of values of certain finite field ${_2F_1}$ and ${_3F_2}$ hypergeometric functions. These hypergeometric values are related to Frobenius traces of elliptic curves and their limiting distribution is determined using connections to the theory of modular forms and harmonic Maass forms. Here we determine the limiting distribution of values of some ${_4F_3}$ hypergeometric functions which are sums of traces of Frobenius for a pair of elliptic curves. To obtain this result, we generalize Michel's work on Sato-Tate laws for families of elliptic curves to the setting of pairs of families, and we show that a generic pair admits an independent Sato-Tate distribution as the finite field grows. To this end, we use various results from the theory of \'etale cohomology, Deligne's work on the Weil conjectures, and the work of Katz on monodromy groups. In the cases previously studied using modular methods, we elucidate the connection between the modular forms that appear and the machinery of \'etale cohomology.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

[AGLT16] Michael Allen, Brian Grove, Ling Long, and Fang-Ting Tu, The Explicit Hypergeometric-Modularity Method II, 2024 arXiv: 2411.15116

[AGLT11] Michael Allen, Brian Grove, Ling Long, and Fang-Ting Tu, The Explicit Hypergeometric-Modularity Method I, 2024 arXiv: 2404.00711. [AGLT16] Michael Allen, Brian Grove, Ling Long, and Fang-Ting Tu, The Explicit Hypergeometric-Modularity Method II, 2024 arXiv: 2411.15116. [Ahl01] Scott Ahlgren, Gaussian hypergeometric series and combinatorial congru...

arXiv 2000
[10]

MR 3630724 [Mic95] Philippe Michel, Rang moyen de familles de courbes elliptiques et lois de Sato-Tate , Monatsh. Math. 120 (1995), no. 2, 127–136. MR 1348365 [Mil80] James S. Milne, ´ etale cohomology, Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. No. 33, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,

work page 1995
[13]

[OSS23] Ken Ono, Hasan Saad, and Neelam Saikia, Distribution of values of Gaussian hypergeometric func- tions, Pure Appl. Math. Q. 19 (2023), no. 1, 371–407. MR 4570167 [OSZ18] Robert Osburn, Armin Straub, and Wadim Zudilin, A modular supercongruence for 6F5: an Ap´ ery- like story , Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 68 (2018), no. 5, 1987–2004. MR 3893762 [P...

work page 2023
[15]

MR 3615167 [Koi95] Masao Koike, Orthogonal matrices obtained from hypergeometric series over finite fields and elliptic curves over finite fields , Hiroshima Math. J. 25 (1995), no. 1, 43–52. MR 1322601 [Kow14] Emmanuel Kowalski, An introduction to the representation theory of groups , Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 155, American Mathematical Socie...

work page 1995
[26]

MR 4789405 [Ono98] Ken Ono, Values of Gaussian hypergeometric series , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 350 (1998), no. 3, 1205–1223. MR 1407498 [OPSS24] Ken Ono, Sudhir Pujahari, Hasan Saad, and Neelam Saikia, Distribution of the hessian values of gaussian hypergeometric functions,

work page 1998
[49]

MR 4330088 [LZ10] G. I. Lehrer and R. B. Zhang, A Temperley-Lieb analogue for the BMW algebra , Representation theory of algebraic groups and quantum groups, Progr. Math., vol. 284, Birkh¨ auser/Springer, New York, 2010, pp. 155–190. MR 2761939 [McC12a] Dermot McCarthy, On a supercongruence conjecture of Rodriguez-Villegas , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 140 (20...

work page 2012
[81]

Erd´ elyi, W

MR 4078177 [EMOT54] A. Erd´ elyi, W. Magnus, F. Oberhettinger, and F. G. Tricomi, Tables of integral transforms. Vol. II , McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York-Toronto-London, 1954, Based, in part, on notes left by Harry Bateman. MR 65685 [FKM14] ´Etienne Fouvry, Emmanuel Kowalski, and Philippe Michel,Trace functions over finite fields and their applicati...

work page 2015
[1980]

MR 559531 [Mil86] J. S. Milne, Abelian varieties, Arithmetic geometry (Storrs, Conn., 1984), Springer, New York, 1986, pp. 103–150. MR 861974 [MOS20] Dermot McCarthy, Robert Osburn, and Armin Straub, Sequences, modular forms and cellular inte- grals, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 168 (2020), no. 2, 379–404. MR 4064111 [MP15] Dermot McCarthy and Matth...

work page 2020

Show all 14 references

[1990]

MR 1081536 [Kat90b] , Exponential sums over finite fields and differential equations over the complex numbers: some interactions, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 23 (1990), no. 2, 269–309. MR 1032857 [KC17] Gautam Kalita and Arjun Singh Chetry, Congruences for generalized Ap´ er...

1990
[1999]

MR 1659828 [Len11a] Catherine Lennon, Gaussian hypergeometric evaluations of traces of Frobenius for elliptic curves , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 139 (2011), no. 6, 1931–1938. MR 2775369 [Len11b] , Trace formulas for Hecke operators, Gaussian hypergeometric functions, and the modu...

2011
[2015]

Methods Appl

MR 3467982 [TY18] Fang-Ting Tu and Yifan Yang, Evaluation of certain hypergeometric functions over finite fields , SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 14 (2018), Paper No. 050,

2018
[2019]

©2019, pp. 113–195. MR 4033731 [FKRS12] Francesc Fit´ e, Kiran S. Kedlaya, V ´ ıctor Rotger, and Andrew V. Sutherland, Sato-Tate distribu- tions and Galois endomorphism modules in genus 2 , Compos. Math. 148 (2012), no. 5, 1390–1442. MR 2982436 [FLR+22] Jenny Fuselier, Ling Lo...

2012
[2020]

Volume I

[Jac13] David Jackson, Enumerative combinatorics. Volume I. Second edition [book review of mr2868112] , SIAM Rev. 55 (2013), no. 1, 193–194. MR 3077474 [Kat88] Nicholas M. Katz, Gauss sums, Kloosterman sums, and monodromy groups , Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 116, Princ...

2013
[2024]

Hoffman, Wen-Ching Winnie Li, Ling Long, and Fang-Ting Tu, Traces of Hecke Operators via Hypergeometric Character Sums , 2024z; arXiv: 2408.02918

[HLLT18] Jerome W. Hoffman, Wen-Ching Winnie Li, Ling Long, and Fang-Ting Tu, Traces of Hecke Operators via Hypergeometric Character Sums , 2024z; arXiv: 2408.02918. [HT20] J. William Hoffman and Fang-Ting Tu, Transformations of hypergeometric motives,

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

[AGLT16] Michael Allen, Brian Grove, Ling Long, and Fang-Ting Tu, The Explicit Hypergeometric-Modularity Method II, 2024 arXiv: 2411.15116

[AGLT11] Michael Allen, Brian Grove, Ling Long, and Fang-Ting Tu, The Explicit Hypergeometric-Modularity Method I, 2024 arXiv: 2404.00711. [AGLT16] Michael Allen, Brian Grove, Ling Long, and Fang-Ting Tu, The Explicit Hypergeometric-Modularity Method II, 2024 arXiv: 2411.15116. [Ahl01] Scott Ahlgren, Gaussian hypergeometric series and combinatorial congru...

arXiv 2000

[2] [10]

MR 3630724 [Mic95] Philippe Michel, Rang moyen de familles de courbes elliptiques et lois de Sato-Tate , Monatsh. Math. 120 (1995), no. 2, 127–136. MR 1348365 [Mil80] James S. Milne, ´ etale cohomology, Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. No. 33, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,

work page 1995

[3] [13]

[OSS23] Ken Ono, Hasan Saad, and Neelam Saikia, Distribution of values of Gaussian hypergeometric func- tions, Pure Appl. Math. Q. 19 (2023), no. 1, 371–407. MR 4570167 [OSZ18] Robert Osburn, Armin Straub, and Wadim Zudilin, A modular supercongruence for 6F5: an Ap´ ery- like story , Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 68 (2018), no. 5, 1987–2004. MR 3893762 [P...

work page 2023

[4] [15]

MR 3615167 [Koi95] Masao Koike, Orthogonal matrices obtained from hypergeometric series over finite fields and elliptic curves over finite fields , Hiroshima Math. J. 25 (1995), no. 1, 43–52. MR 1322601 [Kow14] Emmanuel Kowalski, An introduction to the representation theory of groups , Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 155, American Mathematical Socie...

work page 1995

[5] [26]

MR 4789405 [Ono98] Ken Ono, Values of Gaussian hypergeometric series , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 350 (1998), no. 3, 1205–1223. MR 1407498 [OPSS24] Ken Ono, Sudhir Pujahari, Hasan Saad, and Neelam Saikia, Distribution of the hessian values of gaussian hypergeometric functions,

work page 1998

[6] [49]

MR 4330088 [LZ10] G. I. Lehrer and R. B. Zhang, A Temperley-Lieb analogue for the BMW algebra , Representation theory of algebraic groups and quantum groups, Progr. Math., vol. 284, Birkh¨ auser/Springer, New York, 2010, pp. 155–190. MR 2761939 [McC12a] Dermot McCarthy, On a supercongruence conjecture of Rodriguez-Villegas , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 140 (20...

work page 2012

[7] [81]

Erd´ elyi, W

MR 4078177 [EMOT54] A. Erd´ elyi, W. Magnus, F. Oberhettinger, and F. G. Tricomi, Tables of integral transforms. Vol. II , McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York-Toronto-London, 1954, Based, in part, on notes left by Harry Bateman. MR 65685 [FKM14] ´Etienne Fouvry, Emmanuel Kowalski, and Philippe Michel,Trace functions over finite fields and their applicati...

work page 2015

[8] [1980]

MR 559531 [Mil86] J. S. Milne, Abelian varieties, Arithmetic geometry (Storrs, Conn., 1984), Springer, New York, 1986, pp. 103–150. MR 861974 [MOS20] Dermot McCarthy, Robert Osburn, and Armin Straub, Sequences, modular forms and cellular inte- grals, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 168 (2020), no. 2, 379–404. MR 4064111 [MP15] Dermot McCarthy and Matth...

work page 2020