Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Soft bounds for local triple products and the subconvexity-QUE implication for $\mathrm{GL}_2$

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For GL₂, a soft local bound makes subconvexity imply effective quantum unique ergodicity for automorphic forms.

desk verdict The local bound in Theorem 1 is a genuine and useful new uniformity result, but Theorem 8 overclaims by asserting equidistribution against every bounded measurable observable. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13256 v2 pith:DREV2SRH submitted 2025-05-19 math.NT

Paul D. Nelson This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NT MSC 58J5111F6711F12
keywords tripleproductL-functionsquantumuniqueergodicitysubconvexityRankin-SelbergintegralsmatrixcoefficientsanalyticconductorGL2automorphicformslocalbounds
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 uniform upper bound for the local integrals appearing in the triple product formula for GL₂, with explicit dependence on the analytic conductors of the first two representations and polynomial or better dependence on the K-type of the third. The bound is uniform in the local field, which is what makes the proof soft: no exact evaluation of the local factors is needed. The intended consequence, stated as Theorems 8 and 11, is that a subconvex bound for the triple product L-function in the π₁-aspect automatically yields effective and general forms of quantum unique ergodicity for GL₂, including for smooth observables and across eigenvalue, weight, and level aspects. If the main theorem is correct, this explains the standard subconvexity-to-QUE mechanism while removing the exponential loss in weight that earlier local computations suffered.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the local matrix-coefficient integral on the left of (5), and the mechanism is a chain of reductions ending at local Rankin–Selberg integrals. After applying matrix coefficient bounds and a positivity argument that reduces the observable to a spherical complementary-series matrix coefficient, the paper invokes a linearization identity (Lemma 16): $\int_{\mathrm{PGL}_2(F)}|\langle gW,W\rangle|^2\Xi_s(g)\,dg = c_F I(s,W)I(1-s,W)$, where $I(s,W)=\int_{N\backslash\mathrm{PGL}_2(F)}|W(g)|^2 f_s(g)\,dg$ is a Rankin–Selberg integral. The remaining estimate is obtained by the Phragmén–Lindelöf convexity principle for these integrals, with the analytic conductor entering through the Stirling bound for the local γ-factor; a polynomial correction factor cancels finitely many poles near the strip. The uniformity in F comes from carrying the conductor through this convexity argument without evaluating any integral exactly.

What would settle it

For a ramified principal series representation over a non-archimedean local field, take a K-finite unit vector and compare both sides of the identity in Lemma 16 numerically or symbolically for several s in the stated range; a single mismatch, or a proof that the identity needs a hypothesis not stated in the paper, would falsify the main theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Let F be any local field and let π₁, π₂, π₃ be generic irreducible unitary representations of GL₂(F) with trivial product of central characters. If π_j is ϑ_j-tempered and $2\max(\vartheta_1,\vartheta_2)+\vartheta_3<1/2$, then for unit vectors $v_j, v_j'$ the integral $\int_{\mathrm{PGL}_2(F)}\prod_{j=1}^3 \langle g v_j, v_j'\rangle\, dg$ is bounded by $O_{\vartheta,\varepsilon}((\dim_K v_3)^{\Theta+\varepsilon}(\dim_K v_3')^{\Theta+\varepsilon}/(C(\pi_1\times\tilde\pi_1)^{1/4}C(\pi_2\times\tilde\pi_2)^{1/4}))$, uniformly in F, with $\Theta=(\vartheta_1+\vartheta_2)/(1-2\vartheta_3)<1/2$. This is Theorem 1. The paper feeds this local estimate into the global triple product formula, obtaining a global inequality (Theorem 6), and derives two consequences: subconvexity in the π₁-aspect forces the L² mass of any non-dihedral sequence of cusp forms to equidistribute (Theorem 8), and under the standard subconvex bound it yields effective convergence of Wigner distributions against smooth observables (Theorem 11). The proof deliberately avoids computing the local factors exactly, using only matrix coefficient bounds, a linearization identity for matrix coefficient integrals, and the convexity principle for local Rankin–Selberg integrals.

Load-bearing premise

The proof leans on a known identity, cited rather than proved, that decomposes a certain integral of matrix coefficients into a product of two period integrals; if that identity has hidden hypotheses or fails for some local field or vector, the central bound collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Theorem 8: if $L(1/2,\pi_j\times\tilde\pi_j\times\sigma)$ decays faster than $C(\pi_j\times\tilde\pi_j)^{1/2}$ along a sequence of non-dihedral forms with bounded ramification, then $|\varphi_j|^2$ converges to Haar measure on [PGL₂].
  • Theorem 11: the standard subconvex bound in the form (12) yields $|\omega_\varphi(\Psi)-\mu(\Psi)|\le B\lambda^{-\delta}$ for every smooth test function $\Psi$ on phase space.
  • The K-type dependence of the local bound is $(\dim_K v_3)^{\Theta+\varepsilon}$ with $\Theta<1/2$, which is polynomial rather than exponential in the weight; this is precisely what allows smooth observables rather than only K-finite ones.
  • The same local estimate holds uniformly at archimedean and non-archimedean places, so the eigenvalue, weight, level, and local-field aspects are all handled in one statement.
  • For square-integrable representations the proof simplifies and gives the bound with $\Theta=\varepsilon=0$, recovering a formal-degree calculation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension beyond this paper: the same soft route should apply to generalized triple products on higher-rank groups whenever an analogue of the linearization identity and a conductor-weighted convexity bound are available; this paper proves the GL₂ case only.
  • Implicit in the proof is a recipe for upgrading existing QUE results: replace explicit hypergeometric evaluations of archimedean local factors by Theorem 1, sacrificing sharp dependence on one spectral parameter but gaining uniformity in the observable's weight.
  • A testable prediction is that the exponent $\Theta=(\vartheta_1+\vartheta_2)/(1-2\vartheta_3)$ exactly controls the price of non-temperedness in the observable, so any improvement over the known 7/64 temperedness bound would improve the implied constants in Theorems 8 and 11.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a uniform upper bound for local triple product integrals on PGL_2(F) for generic irreducible unitary representations, with explicit polynomial dependence on K-types and analytic conductors, valid uniformly in the local field. The proof combines matrix coefficient bounds, a positivity reduction to the complementary series, the Michel–Venkatesh linearization identity for matrix coefficient integrals, and a Phragmén–Lindelöf convexity argument for local Rankin–Selberg integrals. The author then derives global consequences: subconvexity in the pi_1-aspect for L(1/2, pi_1 x tilde pi_1 x sigma) implies equidistribution of |phi_j|^2 (Theorem 8) and an effective, smooth-observable version of quantum unique ergodicity on the phase space (Theorem 11).

Significance. If the results are correct, this is a valuable soft contribution: it replaces case-by-case evaluation of local triple product factors with a single uniform estimate, removes the exponential K-type loss that limited earlier approaches to K-finite observables, and makes the subconvexity-to-QUE implication clean and all-aspect. The derivation is parameter-free and relies on standard, citable tools; the main local bound is plausible and well structured. The global applications, especially Theorem 11, are significant and would be of broad interest. However, the advertised generality of Theorem 8 is not supported as stated, and the key linearization identity is cited rather than proved; these points need to be addressed before the paper is in final form.

major comments (2)
  1. [§1.5, Theorem 8] The conclusion (11) is asserted for every bounded measurable function Ψ on [PGL_2], but the proof cannot supply this. The cited bound (9) in Theorem 6 contains the factor dim_K Ψ, which is infinite for a general bounded measurable Ψ, so the local estimate gives no finite control for such observables. The 'standard approximation argument and spectral expansion' can approximate Ψ by K-finite smooth functions in L^2, not in L^∞, and the error term ‖Ψ−Ψ_T‖_∞ need not tend to zero; the dimension factor for the approximants grows and is not compensated. At best, subconvexity gives weak-* convergence against bounded continuous functions (or functions whose discontinuity set has Haar measure zero). Please restate Theorem 8 for bounded continuous observables, or prove the measurable case by an argument that actually controls the approximation error.
  2. [§3.2, Lemma 16] The identity ∫_{PGL_2(F)} |⟨gW,W⟩|² Ξ_s(g) dg = c_F I(s,W)I(1−s,W) is the bridge from the matrix coefficient integral to the Rankin–Selberg bound (21), and the entire proof of Proposition 15 depends on it. The lemma is cited to [MV10, Lemma 3.4.2] and several later references, with analytic continuation from Re(s)=1/2, but no proof or precise statement of the hypotheses (Whittaker model normalization, measure conventions, range of s) is given. Since this is load-bearing, please either include a proof in an appendix or state the exact version being used and explain how the cited references cover it, including the normalization of c_F ≍ 1.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1.6, proof of Theorem 11] The assertion that ‖φ_q‖=1 for all q, obtained via raising and lowering operators, is stated without derivation or reference; please supply a short justification or a precise citation, since (15) relies on it.
  2. [§3.1, Lemma 14] In the interpolation step, the exponent on the right is written as (d1d2)^{(1/2−α)/(1−2ϑ)+ε′}; the definition of ε′ and its passage to ε in the final bound should be made explicit for clarity.
  3. [§5.2, Lemma 21] The phrase 'by Cauchy's formula' at the end of Lemma 20(iv) is terse; a one-sentence explanation of how the bound away from poles is extended to all s with Re(s)≥0 would improve readability.
  4. [§1.2 and throughout] The typesetting 'GL 2' appears in several places where 'GL_2' is intended (e.g., the abstract and §1.1); please correct these for the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the local bound is a parameter-free deduction from standard independent tools.

full rationale

The derivation of Theorem 1 is self-contained in the relevant sense: no constant is fitted to data, and the bound is deduced from the matrix-coefficient estimate of Venkatesh (Lemma 14), the Michel–Venkatesh identity (Lemma 16), and a Phragmén–Lindelöf interpolation for local Rankin–Selberg integrals (Lemmas 17–22). The citations to the author's prior work ([NPS14, Prop. 2.11 and §2.4], [Nel19b], [BJN23]) are to independently established analytic tools, not to the target estimate; the Michel–Venkatesh reference provides the core linearization identity, and the conductor enters through the definition of the analytic conductor and Stirling's bound for local gamma-factors, not through a loop back to Theorem 1. Theorem 8 is likewise an implication from subconvexity, not a prediction obtained by fitting. The only flagged concern is non-circular: the proof of Theorem 8 says 'This follows from Theorem 6 by a standard approximation argument and spectral expansion, as in e.g. [NPS14,§3.6]' and the asserted 'bounded measurable' convergence is stronger than weak-star convergence; that is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction.

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

The proof imports several deep standard results as black boxes: Ichino's formula, the 7/64-temperedness theorem, the Michel-Venkatesh linearization identity, and the convexity principle for local Rankin-Selberg integrals. It introduces no new free parameters: the ϑ_j, ε, and Θ are hypotheses, not fitted constants. It introduces no invented entities. The local bound is benchmarked against Watson's exact formula in the K-invariant case, which supports rather than biases the derivation.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Ichino's triple product formula and its Eisenstein analogue from [MV10, §4.4], relating global periods to L(1/2, π_1×π_2×π_3) times local factors.
    Used in Eq. (3) and Theorem 6 to translate local bounds into global mass equidistribution statements.
  • standard math ϑ-temperedness of cusp forms on GL_2 with ϑ≤7/64, proved in [BB11].
    Invoked before Eq. (4) and in the proof of Theorem 6 to satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem 1 and Proposition 13 and to justify convergence of local integrals.
  • standard math Matrix coefficient decay bound [Ven10, Lemma 9.1] for ϑ-tempered representations, used as Lemma 14, Eq. (17).
    Provides the polynomial-in-(dim_K u) pointwise decay used to reduce the general triple integral to the complementary-series case in §3.1.
  • standard math Michel-Venkatesh linearization identity [MV10, Lemma 3.4.2], used as Lemma 16, identifying the matrix coefficient integral with a product of local Rankin-Selberg integrals and continuing analytically.
    This is the bridge between Proposition 15 and the Rankin-Selberg bound (21); it is cited, not reproved, and is the weakest external input in the proof chain.
  • standard math Convexity principle and Stirling bounds for local Rankin-Selberg integrals and local γ-factors with analytic conductors (Lemmas 17 and 21).
    Used to bound P(s)I*(s,W) in the strip Re(s)∈[0,1] by powers of the analytic conductor.
  • standard math Spectral decomposition of L²(SL_2(Z)\SL_2(R)) into Hecke-Maass forms and Eisenstein series, plus the approximation argument for bounded measurable observables in Theorems 8 and 11.
    Used to pass from K-finite factorizable test functions to arbitrary bounded measurable Ψ in the global equidistribution statements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Soft bounds for local triple products and the subconvexity-QUE implication for $\mathrm{GL}_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DREV2SRH

@misc{pith2026250513256,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Soft bounds for local triple products and the subconvexity-QUE implication for $\mathrmGL_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DREV2SRH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13256}
}
read the original abstract

We give a soft proof of a uniform upper bound for the local factors in the triple product formula, sufficient for deducing effective and general forms of quantum unique ergodicity (QUE) from subconvexity.

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

  1. Weyl bound for trilinear periods via conformal bootstrap

    math.NT 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Weyl bound (conductor exponent 1/6+ε) for triple product L-functions in the spectral aspect, for cocompact lattices, derived from conformal bootstrap crossing equations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A proof of K irillov's conjecture

    Ehud Moshe Baruch. A proof of K irillov's conjecture. Ann. of Math. (2) , 158(1):207--252, 2003

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    On the R amanujan conjecture over number fields

    Valentin Blomer and Farrell Brumley. On the R amanujan conjecture over number fields. Ann. of Math. (2) , 174(1):581--605, 2011

    2011

  3. [3]

    Bernstein

    Joseph N. Bernstein. P -invariant distributions on GL (N) and the classification of unitary representations of GL (N) (non- A rchimedean case). In Lie group representations, II ( C ollege P ark, M d., 1982/1983) , volume 1041 of Lecture Notes in Math. , pages 50--102. Springer, Berlin, 1984

    1982

  4. [4]

    Twisted L -functions over number fields and H ilbert's eleventh problem

    Valentin Blomer and Gergely Harcos. Twisted L -functions over number fields and H ilbert's eleventh problem. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 20(1):1--52, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Subconvexity implies effective quantum unique ergodicity for H ecke- M aa \ cusp forms on SL_2( Z) SL_2( R)

    Ankit Bisain, Peter Humphries, Andrei Mandelshtam, Noah Walsh, and Xun Wang. Subconvexity implies effective quantum unique ergodicity for H ecke- M aa \ cusp forms on SL_2( Z) SL_2( R) . Essent. Number Theory , 3(1):101--144, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Valentin Blomer, Subhajit Jana, and Paul D. Nelson. The W eyl bound for triple product L -functions. Duke Math. J. , 172(6):1173--1234, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Arithmetic and equidistribution of measures on the sphere

    Siegfried B \"o cherer, Peter Sarnak, and Rainer Schulze-Pillot. Arithmetic and equidistribution of measures on the sphere. Comm. Math. Phys. , 242(1-2):67--80, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Automorphic Forms and Representations , volume 55 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics

    Daniel Bump. Automorphic Forms and Representations , volume 55 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997

    work page 1997

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    On Deligne's conjecture for certain automorphic L -functions for GL (3) GL (2) and GL (4)

    Shih-Yu Chen and Yao Cheng . On Deligne's conjecture for certain automorphic L -functions for GL (3) GL (2) and GL (4) . Documenta Mathematica , 24:2241--2297, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Special value formula for the twisted triple product L -function and an application to the restricted L^2 -norm problem

    Yao Cheng. Special value formula for the twisted triple product L -function and an application to the restricted L^2 -norm problem. Forum Math. , 33(1):59--108, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Cowling, U

    M. Cowling, U. Haagerup, and R. Howe. Almost L^2 matrix coefficients. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 387:97--110, 1988

    1988

  4. [12]

    J. W. Cogdell. Analytic theory of L -functions for GL _n . In An introduction to the L anglands program ( J erusalem, 2001) , pages 197--228. Birkh\" a user Boston, Boston, MA, 2003

    2001

  5. [13]

    Dissipation of correlations of holomorphic cusp forms

    Petru Constantinescu. Dissipation of correlations of holomorphic cusp forms. 12 2021. arXiv:2112.01427

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Michael Harris and Stephen S. Kudla. The central critical value of a triple product L -function. Ann. of Math. (2) , 133(3):605--672, 1991

    1991

  7. [15]

    Coefficients of M aass forms and the S iegel zero

    Jeffrey Hoffstein and Paul Lockhart. Coefficients of M aass forms and the S iegel zero. Ann. of Math. (2) , 140(1):161--181, 1994. With an appendix by Dorian Goldfeld, Hoffstein and Daniel Lieman

    1994

  8. [16]

    Some analytic aspects of automorphic forms on gl(2) of minimal type

    Yueke Hu, Paul Nelson, and Abhishek Saha. Some analytic aspects of automorphic forms on gl(2) of minimal type. Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici , 94:767--801, 12 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Mass equidistribution for H ecke eigenforms

    Roman Holowinsky and Kannan Soundararajan. Mass equidistribution for H ecke eigenforms. Ann. of Math. (2) , 172(2):1517--1528, 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    Hida families and p -adic triple product L -functions

    Ming-Lun Hsieh. Hida families and p -adic triple product L -functions. Amer. J. Math. , 143(2):411--532, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Triple product formula and mass equidistribution on modular curves of level N

    Yueke Hu. Triple product formula and mass equidistribution on modular curves of level N . Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , (9):2899--2943, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Trilinear forms and the central values of triple product L -functions

    Atsushi Ichino. Trilinear forms and the central values of triple product L -functions. Duke Math. J. , 145(2):281--307, 2008

    2008

  13. [21]

    Analytic number theory , volume 53 of American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications

    Henryk Iwaniec and Emmanuel Kowalski. Analytic number theory , volume 53 of American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2004

    2004

  14. [22]

    Small eigenvalues of L aplacian for _0(N)

    Henryk Iwaniec. Small eigenvalues of L aplacian for _0(N) . Acta Arith. , 56(1):65--82, 1990

    1990

  15. [23]

    Automorphic forms on GL (2)

    Herv \'e Jacquet. Automorphic forms on GL (2) . P art II . Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 278. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1972

    1972

  16. [24]

    Quantum unique ergodicity for E isenstein series on PSL _2( Z ) PSL _2( R )

    Dmitry Jakobson. Quantum unique ergodicity for E isenstein series on PSL _2( Z ) PSL _2( R ) . Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) , 44(5):1477--1504, 1994

    1994

  17. [25]

    Invariant measures and arithmetic quantum unique ergodicity

    Elon Lindenstrauss. Invariant measures and arithmetic quantum unique ergodicity. Ann. of Math. (2) , 163(1):165--219, 2006

    2006

  18. [26]

    Quantum ergodicity of eigenfunctions on PSL _2( Z) H^2

    Wenzhi Luo and Peter Sarnak. Quantum ergodicity of eigenfunctions on PSL _2( Z) H^2 . Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. , (81):207--237, 1995

    1995

  19. [27]

    Triple product L -functions and quantum chaos on SL(2, C )

    Simon Marshall. Triple product L -functions and quantum chaos on SL(2, C ) . Israel J. Math. , 200(1):423--448, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    The subconvexity problem for GL _2

    Philippe Michel and Akshay Venkatesh. The subconvexity problem for GL _2 . Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci. , (111):171--271, 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Paul D. Nelson. Equidistribution of cusp forms in the level aspect. Duke Math. J. , 160(3):467--501, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    Paul D. Nelson. Mass equidistribution of H ilbert modular eigenforms. The Ramanujan Journal , 27:235--284, 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    Paul D. Nelson. Microlocal lifts and quantum unique ergodicity on GL 2( Q _p) . Algebra Number Theory , 12(9):2033--2064, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Paul D. Nelson. Subconvex equidistribution of cusp forms: R eduction to E isenstein observables. Duke Math. J. , 168(9):1665--1722, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Nelson, Ameya Pitale, and Abhishek Saha

    Paul D. Nelson, Ameya Pitale, and Abhishek Saha. Bounds for R ankin-- S elberg integrals and quantum unique ergodicity for powerful levels. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 27(1):147--191, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    Laplace- B eltrami operator on a R iemann surface and equidistribution of measures

    Andre Reznikov. Laplace- B eltrami operator on a R iemann surface and equidistribution of measures. Comm. Math. Phys. , 222(2):249--267, 2001

    2001

  27. [35]

    Estimates for R ankin- S elberg L -functions and quantum unique ergodicity

    Peter Sarnak. Estimates for R ankin- S elberg L -functions and quantum unique ergodicity. J. Funct. Anal. , 184(2):419--453, 2001

    2001

  28. [36]

    Fourier transforms of intertwining operators and P lancherel measures for GL (n)

    Freydoon Shahidi. Fourier transforms of intertwining operators and P lancherel measures for GL (n) . Amer. J. Math. , 106(1):67--111, 1984

    1984

  29. [37]

    Quantum unique ergodicity for SL _2( Z ) H

    Kannan Soundararajan. Quantum unique ergodicity for SL _2( Z ) H . Ann. of Math. (2) , 172(2):1529--1538, 2010

    2010

  30. [38]

    Sarnak and P

    P. Sarnak and P. Zhao. The quantum variance of the modular surface. Ann. Sci. \' E c. Norm. Sup\' e r. (4) , 52(5):1155--1200, 2019. With an appendix by M. Woodbury

    2019

  31. [39]

    Sparse equidistribution problems, period bounds and subconvexity

    Akshay Venkatesh. Sparse equidistribution problems, period bounds and subconvexity. Ann. of Math. (2) , 172(2):989--1094, 2010

    2010

  32. [40]

    Rankin triple products and quantum chaos

    Thomas Crawford Watson. Rankin triple products and quantum chaos . ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2002. Thesis (Ph.D.)--Princeton University, arXiv.org:0810.0425

    2002 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Woodbury

    Michael C. Woodbury. Explicit trilinear forms and subconvexity of the triple product L -function . ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2011. Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Wisconsin - Madison

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.