Modular Forms and Certain ${}_2F_1(1)$ Hypergeometric Series

Esme Rosen

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Modular Forms and Certain ${}_2F_1(1)$ Hypergeometric Series

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs an explicit family of weight-2 Hecke eigenforms with complex multiplication whose central L-values are algebraic multiples of beta values.

desk verdict Explicit weight-2 CM eigenforms and exact L-values, but the central Hecke-eigenform proof is deferred to an unreviewed preprint, making the paper a strong checkable claim awaiting completion. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08760 v1 pith:SNCH5D33 submitted 2025-02-12 math.NT

Esme Rosen This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NT MSC 11F1111F3011F6711G1533C05

keywords hypergeometric2F1seriesmodularformscomplexmultiplicationHeckeeigenformscentralL-valuesJacobisumsChowla-SelbergperiodsFermatcurves

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

This paper establishes a finite dictionary between certain ${}_2F_1(1)$ hypergeometric series and weight-2 modular forms with complex multiplication. For each pair $(r,s)$ in the finite set $S_1$, it constructs an explicit Hecke eigenform $f_{r,s}$ whose Fourier coefficients are expressed through Jacobi sums and whose attached Galois representation is a piece of an induced Grössencharakter. The exact central value formula is $L(f_{r,s},1)=\alpha_{r,s}B(r,s-r-1/2)$, an algebraic multiple of a $\beta$ value and hence of a Chowla-Selberg period $\Omega_{-D}$. If the construction is right, these are closed-form values rather than numerical approximations, and the tables in the paper record them for 32 twists of CM newforms.

What carries the argument

The central object is the family $K_1(r,s)(\tau)$, a weight-2 modular differential built from the hypergeometric integrand $\lambda^r(1-\lambda)^{s-r-3/2}\,d\lambda/\lambda$ by substituting the modular $\lambda$ function $\lambda(\tau)$; it has the eta-product form $\eta(\tau/2)^{16s-8r-16}\eta(2\tau)^{8r+8s-12}/\eta(\tau)^{24s-32}$. The argument is carried by the Hecke-orbit machinery: conjugate families of these functions are preserved by the operators $T_p$ for primes coprime to 6, and diagonalizing the finite matrix of their action produces the eigenform $f_{r,s}$. The underlying geometric identification is that the associated new Jacobian $J_{\mathrm{new}}(R,S)$ is a $\mathbb{Q}$-simple factor of a Fermat-curve Jacobian and hence of a modular-curve Jacobian, which gives the CM structure and the Galois representation. On the finite-field side, the Jacobi sum $J_p(r,s)=\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\iota(r)(k)\iota(s)(1-k)$ is the étale realization of the same motive, and a p-adic gamma identity converts its values into the Fourier coefficients and the $\beta$ periods.

What would settle it

Take the listed pair $(r,s)=(1/24,23/24)$, so $M=24$, and a prime $p\equiv1\pmod{24}$ such as $p=73$. Compute both sides of the claimed equality $a_p(f_{r,s})=-\omega_p^{-4(p-1)r}(2)J_p(r,s-r-1/2)-\omega_p^{-4(p-1)(1-r)}(2)J_p(1-r,1/2-s+r)$ exactly in $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_{24})$, and separately compute $a_p$ from the explicit linear combination in the appendix after checking that it is an eigenform; any mismatch falsifies the central claim. Alternatively, verify the omitted Hecke step directly by applying $T_p$ to the four $K_1$ functions in that family for several small $p$ and confirming the stated eigenvector coefficients.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a complete explicit dictionary for a family of weight-2 CM newforms built from the functions $K_1(r,s)(\tau)=2^{1-4r}\lambda(\tau)^r(1-\lambda(\tau))^{s-r-1/2}\theta_3^4(\tau)$, where $\lambda$ is the modular $\lambda$ function. A finite Galois-conjugate family of these functions is asserted to lie in one Hecke orbit, and diagonalizing the Hecke action yields the eigenform $f_{r,s}$. The Deligne representation attached to $f_{r,s}$ is a subrepresentation of $\operatorname{Ind}_{G_M}^{G_{\mathbb{Q}}}\chi_{r,s}$, and for primes $p\equiv 1\pmod M$ the $p$-th Fourier coefficient is identified with a sum of two Jacobi sums, $a_p(f_{r,s})=-\omega_p^{-4(p-1)r}(2)J_p(r,s-r-1/2)-\omega_p^{-4(p-1)(1-r)}(2)J_p(1-r,1/2-s+r)$. Integrating the Hecke-orbit identity term by term gives $L(f_{r,s},1)=\alpha_{r,s}B(r,s-r-1/2)$ with $\alpha_{r,s}$ explicit, and Lemma 5.2 places this value in $\Omega_{-D}\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$ by identifying the period with a period of a CM abelian variety.

Load-bearing premise

The construction rests on the unproved Hecke-operator calculation that each finite conjugate family of hypergeometric functions diagonalizes to one eigenform, and on a Galois-conjugacy relation for Jacobi sums that the paper checks only case by case; if either fails for any listed pair, the L-value and Fourier-coefficient formulas are unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every listed pair, $L(f_{r,s},1)$ is an algebraic multiple of a single Chowla-Selberg period, so the central value is a period of the attached CM abelian variety and can be written as an explicit product of gamma values.
The Fourier-coefficient formula gives a finite-field description of $a_p$ for primes $p\equiv1\pmod M$: the coefficient is a rational combination of Jacobi sums rather than a quantity found only by computing the form.
The method recovers four of the five weight-2 CM eta-product Hecke eigenforms and extends them to linear combinations of eta products that are themselves eigenforms, so the table supplies newforms not reached by a single eta product.
The exact L-values feed into the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer framework: for the rank-zero curve attached to example 4.1, the value $\Omega_{-4}$ with the general formula predicts the order of the Tate-Shafarevich group is 1.
Twist relations show that many of the listed forms differ by quadratic or character twists, so the 32 table entries organize into a smaller number of twist classes.

Reading between the lines

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

If the omitted Hecke diagonalization is completed, the same method should produce eigenforms for every conjugate family in $S_1$; the table already suggests the pattern is systematic rather than a list of coincidences.
The Jacobi-sum formula gives a direct finite-field computation of $a_p$ that does not require constructing the eigenform, so the equality can be tested for primes far beyond the paper's examples; this would check the motivic dictionary independently of the unproved Hecke calculation.
The eta-product expression for $K_1(r,s)$ is valid for a wider range of rational exponents, so the construction plausibly extends outside $S_1$ whenever the form stays holomorphic; the obstruction is the level and cusp condition, not the algebraic mechanism.
In the rank-zero cases, each closed-form central value can be combined with known formulas for elliptic curve invariants to pin down the full Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer prediction, turning the table into a wholesale verification of the conjecture for the attached abelian varieties.

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

Quick take: this paper does something genuinely useful. It gives explicit weight-2 CM newforms as combinations of K1 hypergeometric functions, a Jacobi-sum formula for their Fourier coefficients, and exact central L-values expressed as algebraic multiples of beta values and Chowla-Selberg periods. The modularity itself is already known from Darmon and Ribet, and the author says so plainly. The new content is the explicit construction, the Jacobi-sum description, and the L-value table, which was checked numerically against LMFDB. That verification is real evidence and makes the claims concrete and finitely checkable.

The main structural issue is that Theorem 3.1, the load-bearing result that the K1 combinations are Hecke eigenforms, is not proved in this manuscript. Proposition 2.1 and Lemma 3.5 are stated without proof; the diagonalization step is referred to the author's earlier preprint [25], which is not peer-reviewed. Since Corollary 5.1 integrates Theorem 3.1 term by term to get the L-values, the entire L-value table rests on that missing calculation. This is not a circularity—the L-values are derived from explicit beta integrals and known period relations—but it is an omitted proof of a central claim. The appendix's explicit candidates and LMFDB labels make the gap checkable, and the paper says the L-values were verified numerically, which is genuine supporting evidence. Still, the written proof is not there.

A smaller but real gap is Theorem 4.2: the Galois-conjugacy relation (4.4) for Jacobi sums is asserted, and the paper says it can be checked case by case, but no checks are shown. That affects the coefficient formula, not the L-values directly, so it is less critical.

On balance, the work is honest and mostly clearly written. It credits prior results properly, and the method is a legitimate extension of the hypergeometric modularity framework to the weight-2 case. The soft spots are omissions, not obviously wrong mathematics. For a reader interested in hypergeometric L-values, BSD computations, or CM forms, this is worth engaging with. It deserves peer review, but the referee should demand that the Hecke calculation be written out or supplied as a verified computation, and that the case-by-case checks for (4.4) be documented.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper defines weight-2 modular functions K1(r,s) attached to 2F1(1) hypergeometric data and, for a finite set S1, claims that certain finite linear combinations of Galois-conjugate K1's form explicit Hecke eigenforms with complex multiplication. It then derives exact formulas for the central L-values of these forms as algebraic multiples of beta values (equivalently, of Chowla-Selberg periods), gives a Jacobi-sum expression for the Fourier coefficients, and tabulates the resulting L-values together with LMFDB labels and inner-twist relations. The main theorem, Theorem 1.1, packages these assertions as the existence of an explicit CM newform f_{r,s} with a prescribed Deligne representation and L(f_{r,s},1) = α_{r,s} B(r, s-r-1/2).

Significance. If the construction is correct, the paper provides a genuinely explicit family of weight-2 CM Hecke eigenforms realized as linear combinations of K1-functions, with exact central L-values that are numerically verified against LMFDB and of direct interest for BSD-type computations and for the hypergeometric-modularity program of [1], [2], [25]. The explicit table of eigenforms and their L-values is a useful computational contribution. However, the central existence theorem is not proved in the manuscript; the proof is deferred to an unreviewed preprint and to an omitted case-by-case check. The significance is therefore conditional on filling those gaps.

major comments (3)

[§3.2, Theorem 3.1 and Lemma 3.5] Theorem 3.1 is the load-bearing assertion that a finite linear combination of the K1(ri,si) is a Hecke eigenform. The proof is not given: Lemma 3.5 is stated with the statement that its proof is 'virtually identical' to Lemma 3.2 of [25] and is omitted, and the subsequent diagonalization of the Hecke matrix is referred to [25] 'almost word for word'. This matters because Corollary 5.1 obtains L(f,1) by integrating the identity in Theorem 3.1 term by term, and Table 1 identifies the resulting f with specific LMFDB newforms. As the manuscript stands, the existence and L-value formula in Theorem 1.1 are unproven, depending on an unreviewed preprint. Since the set S1 is finite, the missing Hecke-operator calculation is checkable and should be supplied in the revision.
[§4, Theorem 4.2 and Eq. (4.4)] The proof of the exact Jacobi-sum formula for a_p(f_{r,s}) relies on the Galois-conjugacy relation (4.4), which is asserted but not proved. The text explicitly says that because there is no explicit formula for I_{r,s}, 'there is not an easy way to show that the automorphisms σ_j switch as in equation (4.4) explicitly as in [2], but we can check this case by case as well.' No such checks are presented. Without (4.4), the argument that v_{r,s}=0 from p | b_i and the bound |v_{r,s}| < 4√p is incomplete, because the congruence v_{r,s}≡0 mod p is needed for all Galois conjugates, which is exactly what (4.4) supplies. This gap should be closed for the finite list of pairs in S1.
[§5, Lemma 5.2] Lemma 5.2 states that Jnew(R,S) is isogenous over Q to E^{φ(M)} for an elliptic curve E with CM by Q(√-d), citing Shimura's Theorem 1.6 [26]. This is a strong claim: a Q-simple CM abelian variety of dimension greater than 1 is not generally isogenous to a power of an elliptic curve over Q; its endomorphism algebra is typically a CM field of degree 2·dim. For M=24, where φ(M)/2=4, the surrounding discussion (e.g., the Hecke field Q(ζ12) for the form 576.2.d.c) suggests that the relevant abelian variety has quartic endomorphisms, not a matrix algebra over an imaginary quadratic field. The cited theorem does not obviously yield the claimed isogeny in all cases needed, and the period conclusion B(r,s-r-1/2) ∈ Ω_{-D}·Qbar depends on this step. The proof of Lemma 5.2 needs to be substantiated or restricted to the cases where the isogeny actually holds.

minor comments (4)

[§2, Proposition 2.1] The proof of Proposition 2.1, which establishes the eta-product expression, holomorphy, and level of K1(r,s), is omitted with the comment that it is 'very similar' to the K2(r,s) case in [1]. Because this proposition underlies the modularity and the L-value computation, a proof or a precise reference to a published proof should be included.
[Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 5.1] There are several notation inconsistencies in the statement of Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 5.1: the final term is written as 'β_{n-1}K2(r_n, q_n)' although all functions are K1, and the notation 'q' appears in place of 's' in the L-values (e.g., 'L(r1,q1)' is listed twice). The sums should use a consistent indexing over the conjugates (ri,si).
[Table 1, row 3.2] The entry for 3.2 is written as 'K2(1/6, 5/6)', but only K1 functions are defined in the paper; the intended expression is presumably K1(1/6, 5/6). This needs to be corrected to avoid ambiguity.
[§4, proof of Lemma 4.1] In the proof of Lemma 4.1, the statement 'π_p^{p-1} = -p by definition' is imprecise; this identity is a standard consequence of the Gross-Koblitz formula, and should be stated as such.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the L-value identities follow by integrating explicit linear combinations, with the main load-bearing gaps being omitted proofs delegated to the author's earlier preprint and to unchecked case-by-case verification.

full rationale

The central L-value claim is not circular. For each pair (r,s), the form f_{r,s} is exhibited as an explicit linear combination of K1 functions, and each K1 has its L-value computed directly from the beta integral formula (2.1), namely L(r,s)=2^{1-4r}B(r,s-r-1/2)/N. Corollary 5.1 then obtains L(f,1) by integrating the identity in Theorem 3.1 term by term. This is a derivation from explicit definitions and known beta periods, not a definition of the target value in terms of itself. The LMFDB labels and numerical checks are external identifications and verifications; the beta-value formulas are not read off the database, so the L-value computations retain independent content. There are, however, genuine load-bearing gaps that should be weighed as correctness risks rather than circularity. Lemma 3.5, which supplies the Hecke-operator action needed to identify the explicit linear combination as a Hecke eigenform, is stated with the proof omitted and referred to the author's preprint [25]; the subsequent diagonalization is likewise referred to [25]. Similarly, the Galois-conjugacy relation (4.4) used in Theorem 4.2 is asserted as checkable case by case, but no checks are shown. These are dependencies on unverified or omitted arguments, not reductions of the conclusion to its own premise, and the explicit forms in the appendix are finitely checkable. Accordingly, the paper shows no significant circularity, only proof-completeness concerns that lower confidence without making the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper does not fit any constants to data. It uses standard theorems from the literature as black boxes, and its main unstated dependence is on the author's prior paper [25] for the core Hecke-operator argument, which is a proof dependency rather than a fitted parameter.

assumptions (6)

standard math Integral formula for 2F1(1) and Gauss evaluation reduce the L-value to a beta function B(r, s-r-1/2).
Used in Section 2 to derive equation (2.1).
domain assumption Ramanujan's theory of alternative bases and the eta product expressions for lambda and theta_3 allow K1(r,s) to be written as an eta product and as a modular form.
Used in Section 2, Proposition 2.1 to define K1 as a congruence cusp form for (r,s) in S1.
standard math Gross-Koblitz formula for p-adic gamma values identifies certain hypergeometric coefficients with Jacobi sums modulo p.
Used in Lemma 4.1 and Theorem 4.2.
domain assumption Rohrlich's modular parametrization of Fermat curves realizes the Jacobian factor Jnew as a factor of the Jacobian of a modular curve.
Used in Lemma 3.3 and the proof of Theorem 3.4.
domain assumption Shimura's theorem on CM abelian varieties as factors of Jacobians shows Jnew is isogenous to a power of a CM elliptic curve, so beta values are algebraic multiples of Chowla-Selberg periods.
Used in Lemma 5.2.
ad hoc to paper Theorem 3.1 and Lemma 3.5 from this paper (proofs deferred to [25]) that the Hecke operators stabilize the conjugate family and that the linear combination is an eigenform.
The central construction of f_{r,s} relies on this unproved in the present text statement.

invented entities (1)

The Hecke eigenform f_{r,s} defined as a linear combination of K1 functions independent evidence
purpose: Central object whose L-values and Fourier coefficients are computed.
The q-expansions match LMFDB newforms and the L-values match numerical values in LMFDB, providing independent handles outside this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modular Forms and Certain ${}_2F_1(1)$ Hypergeometric Series." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SNCH5D33

@misc{pith2026250208760,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modular Forms and Certain $_2F_1(1)$ Hypergeometric Series},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SNCH5D33}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08760}
}

abstract

Using the framework relating hypergeometric motives to modular forms, we define an explicit family of weight 2 Hecke eigenforms with complex multiplication. We use the theory of ${}_2F_1(1)$ hypergeometric series and Ramanujan's theory of alternative bases to compute the exact central $L$-value of these Hecke eigenforms in terms of special beta values. We also show the integral Fourier coefficients can be written in terms of Jacobi sums, reflecting a motivic relation between the hypergeometric series and the modular forms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

On Some Hypergeometric Modularity Conjectures of Dawsey and McCarthy
math.NT 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The K3 eta-quotients resolve Dawsey-McCarthy conjectures giving explicit identities Hp(HD;1) = psi(p)*ap(f) for five pairs (u,v) with v=3.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[25]

Transcendence of 3F2(1) hypergeometric series and L-values of modular forms

Esme Rosen. Transcendence of 3F2(1) hypergeometric series and L-values of modular forms. arXiv:2412.07054, 2024

arXiv 2024
[1]

The Explicit Hypergeometric-Modularity Method I

Michael Allen, Brian Grove, Ling Long, and Fang-Ting Tu. The hypergeometric modularity method I. arXiv:2404.00711, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[2]

The hypergeometric modularity method II

Michael Allen, Brian Grove, Ling Long, and Fang-Ting Tu. The hypergeometric modularity method II. arXiv:2411.15116, 2024

arXiv 2024
[26]

On elliptic curves with complex multipli cation as factors of the Jacobians of modular function ﬁelds

Goro Shimura. On elliptic curves with complex multipli cation as factors of the Jacobians of modular function ﬁelds. Nagoya Math. J. , 43:199–208, 1971

work page 1971
[3]

Andrews, Richard Askey, and Ranjan Roy

George E. Andrews, Richard Askey, and Ranjan Roy. Specia l functions. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, pages xvi+664, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Simple factors of the Jacobian of a Fermat cu rve and the Picard number of a product of Fermat curves

Noboru Aoki. Simple factors of the Jacobian of a Fermat cu rve and the Picard number of a product of Fermat curves. Amer. J. Math. , 113(5):779–833, 1991

work page 1991
[5]

Hypergeometric abelian varieties

Nat´ alia Archinard. Hypergeometric abelian varieties . Canad. J. Math. , 55(5):897–932, 2003

work page 2003
[6]

Hecke operators on noncongruence subgr oups

Gabriel Berger. Hecke operators on noncongruence subgr oups. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math. , 319(9):915– 919, 1994

work page 1994

Show all 33 references

[7]

Borwein and Peter B

Jonathan M. Borwein and Peter B. Borwein. Pi and the AGM . Canadian Mathematical Society Series of Mono- graphs and Advanced Texts. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1987. A study in analytic number theory and computational complexity, A Wiley-Interscience Publicat ion

1987
[8]

Rigid local systems, Hilbert modular form s, and Fermat’s last theorem

Henri Darmon. Rigid local systems, Hilbert modular form s, and Fermat’s last theorem. Duke Math. J. , 102(3):413–449, 2000

2000
[9]

A ﬁrst course in modular forms , volume 228 of Graduate Texts in Mathe- matics

Fred Diamond and Jerry Shurman. A ﬁrst course in modular forms , volume 228 of Graduate Texts in Mathe- matics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005

2005
[10]

Elliptic curves with ex ceptionally large analytic order of the Tate-Shafarevich groups

Andrzej Da֒browski and Lucjan Szymaszkiewicz. Elliptic curves with ex ceptionally large analytic order of the Tate-Shafarevich groups. Colloq. Math. , 166(2):217–225, 2021

2021
[11]

Hypergeometric functions over ﬁnite ﬁeld s

John Greene. Hypergeometric functions over ﬁnite ﬁeld s. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 301(1):77–101, 1987

1987
[12]

Benedict H. Gross. On the periods of abelian integrals a nd a formula of Chowla and Selberg. Invent. Math. , 45(2):193–211, 1978. With an appendix by David E. Rohrlich

1978
[13]

Benedict H. Gross. Lectures on the conjecture of Birch a nd Swinnerton-Dyer. In Arithmetic of L-functions, volume 18 of IAS/Park City Math. Ser. , pages 169–209. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2011

2011
[14]

Gross and Neal Koblitz

Benedict H. Gross and Neal Koblitz. Gauss sums and the p-adic Γ-function. Ann. of Math. (2) , 109(3):569–581, 1979

1979
[15]

A classical introduction to modern number theory , volume 84 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

Kenneth Ireland and Michael Rosen. A classical introduction to modern number theory , volume 84 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1990

1990
[16]

On a family of quotient s of Fermat curves

Susumu Irokawa and Ryuji Sasaki. On a family of quotient s of Fermat curves. Tsukuba J. Math. , 19(1):121–139, 1995

1995
[17]

Simple factors in the J acobian of a Fermat curve

Neal Koblitz and David Rohrlich. Simple factors in the J acobian of a Fermat curve. Canadian J. Math. , 30(6):1183–1205, 1978

1978
[18]

Compu ting special L-values of certain modular forms with complex multiplication

W en-Ching Winnie Li, Ling Long, and Fang-Ting Tu. Compu ting special L-values of certain modular forms with complex multiplication. SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. , 14:Paper No. 090, 32, 2018

2018
[19]

On Hecke operators and products of the Dede kind η-function

Yves Martin. On Hecke operators and products of the Dede kind η-function. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math., 322(4):307–312, 1996

1996
[20]

Eta-quotients and elliptic cur ves

Yves Martin and Ken Ono. Eta-quotients and elliptic cur ves. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 125(11):3169–3176, 1997

1997
[21]

Interpolated sequence s and critical L-values of modular forms

Robert Osburn and Armin Straub. Interpolated sequence s and critical L-values of modular forms. In Elliptic integrals, elliptic functions and modular forms in quantum ﬁeld theory , Texts Monogr. Symbol. Comput., pages 327–349. Springer, Cham, 2019

2019
[22]

On special values of Jacobi-sum Hecke L-functions

Noriyuki Otsubo. On special values of Jacobi-sum Hecke L-functions. Exp. Math. , 24(2):247–259, 2015

2015
[23]

Kenneth A. Ribet. Abelian varieties over Q and modular forms. In Modular curves and abelian varieties , volume 224 of Progr. Math., pages 241–261. Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2004

2004
[24]

Modular Functions and the Fermat Curves

David Ephraim Rohrlich. Modular Functions and the Fermat Curves . ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 1976. Thesis (Ph.D.)–Yale University

1976
[27]

Modular forms, a computational approach , volume 79 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics

William Stein. Modular forms, a computational approach , volume 79 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2007. With an appendix by Paul E. Gunnells

2007
[28]

On the Picard-Fuchs eq uation and the formal Brauer group of certain elliptic K3-surfaces

Jan Stienstra and Frits Beukers. On the Picard-Fuchs eq uation and the formal Brauer group of certain elliptic K3-surfaces. Math. Ann. , 271(2):269–304, 1985. 14

1985
[29]

J. B. Tunnell. A classical Diophantine problem and modu lar forms of weight 3 / 2. Invent. Math. , 72(2):323–334, 1983

1983
[30]

Gr¨ ossencharaktere

Andr´ e W eil. Jacobi sums as “Gr¨ ossencharaktere”.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 73:487–495, 1952

1952
[31]

W erte hypergeometrischer Funktionen

J¨ urgen W olfart. W erte hypergeometrischer Funktionen. Invent. Math. , 92(1):187–216, 1988

1988
[32]

The arithmetic and topology of diﬀerential equations

Don Zagier. The arithmetic and topology of diﬀerential equations. In European Congress of Mathematics , pages 717–776. Eur. Math. Soc., Z¨ urich, 2018

2018
[33]

A hypergeometric version of the modular ity of rigid Calabi-Yau manifolds

W adim Zudilin. A hypergeometric version of the modular ity of rigid Calabi-Yau manifolds. SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. , 14:Paper No. 086, 16, 2018. 15

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [25]

Transcendence of 3F2(1) hypergeometric series and L-values of modular forms

Esme Rosen. Transcendence of 3F2(1) hypergeometric series and L-values of modular forms. arXiv:2412.07054, 2024

arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

The Explicit Hypergeometric-Modularity Method I

Michael Allen, Brian Grove, Ling Long, and Fang-Ting Tu. The hypergeometric modularity method I. arXiv:2404.00711, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[3] [2]

The hypergeometric modularity method II

Michael Allen, Brian Grove, Ling Long, and Fang-Ting Tu. The hypergeometric modularity method II. arXiv:2411.15116, 2024

arXiv 2024

[4] [26]

On elliptic curves with complex multipli cation as factors of the Jacobians of modular function ﬁelds

Goro Shimura. On elliptic curves with complex multipli cation as factors of the Jacobians of modular function ﬁelds. Nagoya Math. J. , 43:199–208, 1971

work page 1971

[5] [3]

Andrews, Richard Askey, and Ranjan Roy

George E. Andrews, Richard Askey, and Ranjan Roy. Specia l functions. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, pages xvi+664, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [4]

Simple factors of the Jacobian of a Fermat cu rve and the Picard number of a product of Fermat curves

Noboru Aoki. Simple factors of the Jacobian of a Fermat cu rve and the Picard number of a product of Fermat curves. Amer. J. Math. , 113(5):779–833, 1991

work page 1991

[7] [5]

Hypergeometric abelian varieties

Nat´ alia Archinard. Hypergeometric abelian varieties . Canad. J. Math. , 55(5):897–932, 2003

work page 2003

[8] [6]

Hecke operators on noncongruence subgr oups

Gabriel Berger. Hecke operators on noncongruence subgr oups. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math. , 319(9):915– 919, 1994

work page 1994