Theta correspondence and the Borisov-Gunnells relations

Romain Branchereau

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 11 references

Theta correspondence and the Borisov-Gunnells relations

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A geometric theta lift maps modular caps and symbols to explicit Eisenstein series, yielding a geometric proof of the Borisov-Gunnells relations.

desk verdict A genuinely useful theta-lift computation, with one load-bearing analytic-continuation step that needs a written remainder estimate before it's fully rigorous. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.01473 v3 pith:44O7E3HC submitted 2026-02-01 math.NT

Romain Branchereau This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NT MSC 11F2711F6711F75

keywords thetacorrespondencemodularsymbolscapsEisensteinseriesBorisov-GunnellsrelationsBorel-SerrecompactificationHilbert-Eisensteinweight-2forms

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 constructs a theta lift from the first homology of the modular curve Y1(N) to weight-2 modular forms, and evaluates it on Stevens' generators of the homology: modular caps and unimodular symbols. It finds that the period of the theta form over a cap is a weight-two Eisenstein series, and over a unimodular symbol it is a product of two weight-one Eisenstein series. Because the boundary of a hyperbolic triangle is trivial in homology, the sum of these periods gives a linear relation among Eisenstein series—the Borisov-Gunnells relations. The same theta lift also sends hyperbolic cycles to diagonal restrictions of Hilbert-Eisenstein series, recovering Li's spanning theorem, so the two known spanning results arise from one geometric mechanism. A sympathetic reader would care because the relations are proved by geometry rather than by Fourier-coefficient manipulation, and the construction carries a natural generalization to higher rank.

What carries the argument

The central object is the theta lift E: H1(Y1(N);Z) → M2(Γ1(N)), induced by a closed differential form E(z,τ) on the modular curve that transforms as a weight-2 modular form in τ; its Fourier coefficients are Poincaré duals of Hecke translates of the modular symbol {0,∞}. The form is built from a Mathai-Quillen Thom form on a rank-two bundle over the symmetric space, pulled back by sections and paired with a theta series of the Weil representation. The other load-bearing piece is Stevens' description of the homology, which gives a splitting H1(Y1(N);Z) ≅ C(Z) ⊕ MS0(Z) into modular caps (loops around cusps) and degree-zero modular symbols; the paper evaluates the theta lift on these generator

What would settle it

For a small level N and a specific cusp, compute numerically the integral of the theta kernel over a modular cap and compare its q-expansion with H^{(2)}_{d,-c}(τ); a single coefficient mismatch would indicate the analytic continuation at s=0 is invalid and the relation would not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the theta lift E, defined by periods of a closed differential form, takes explicit values on the generators of H1(Y1(N);Z) that Stevens' Borel-Serre description provides. Over a modular cap Cr at a cusp r = γr∞, the period is the weight-two Eisenstein series H^{(2)}_{d,-c}(τ); over a unimodular symbol γ{0,∞}, it is -G^{(1)}_d(τ)G^{(1)}_c(τ) (Theorem 1.3). Since a hyperbolic triangle closed by three caps and three unimodular sides is a boundary, its total period is zero, which yields the relation G_a G_b + G_b G_c + G_c G_a = G_a^{(2)} + G_b^{(2)} + G_c^{(2)} for a+b+c≡0 mod N (Theorem 1.5). The author presents this as a geometric proof

Load-bearing premise

The proof evaluates the singular-vector contribution to the theta lift's constant term at s=0 by analytic continuation, and the paper notes the sum-integral interchange is only valid for Re(s) large without giving a full remainder estimate; if this continuation were wrong, the cap and symbol periods, and with them the Eisenstein relation, would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Borisov-Gunnells relations follow from the vanishing of the boundary of a hyperbolic triangle in Borel-Serre homology, giving a geometric proof rather than a coefficient-wise one.
The d-gon version (Corollary 4.7.1) shows the same argument produces relations for any geodesic polygon with unimodular sides: the sum of products of weight-one Eisenstein series equals the sum of weight-two Eisenstein series at the cusps.
Both known spanning results—Borisov-Gunnells' spanning by Eisenstein spaces and Li's spanning by diagonal restrictions of Hilbert-Eisenstein series—arise from a single theta lift, with hyperbolic cycles giving the diagonal restrictions.
The image of the theta lift contains H^(2) ⊕ S^{new}_{2,rk=0}; for prime N this containment is an equality, so the geometric construction accounts for exactly the Eisenstein and rank-zero newform parts of the weight-2 space.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper states that the construction generalizes to SL_n(R)/SO(n) and weight-n forms; a natural test is whether the d-gon relation becomes a polytope relation in the Borel-Serre boundary of the higher-rank symmetric space.
The explicit formulas invite a coefficient-by-coefficient check of the triangle relation from the known q-expansions of G^{(1)} and G^{(2)}; the geometric proof here does not by itself show the relations hold beyond the constant term.
One could seek new relations among higher-weight Eisenstein series by integrating the higher-weight analogue of the theta form over higher-dimensional geodesic cycles, which the present weight-1/weight-2 framework does not cover.

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 paper is worth engaging with. It evaluates a geometric theta lift on Stevens' generators of homology: caps go to weight-2 Eisenstein series, unimodular symbols to products of weight-1 Eisenstein series. From the boundary of hyperbolic triangles it then derives Borisov-Gunnells relations. If the evaluations are correct, this unifies Li's diagonal-restriction spanning result and the BG spanning result, and gives a natural SL_n generalization. The explicit period formulas in Theorem 1.3 are new in this geometric form, and the paper is candid about where it stands relative to BCG and Xu.

The central computation is mostly spelled out. Proposition 4.1 computes the constant term of E_{p,q} at the cusp, and Proposition 4.3 computes the integral over {0,∞}; both are detailed, and the constant-term check in §2.7 is an independent sanity check. The relation in Theorem 1.5 is a clean consequence of the triangle boundary.

Now the soft spots. The main one is exactly what the stress-test flags: the singular-vector contribution to the constant term in Prop. 4.1 is handled by term-wise integration valid only for Re(s) large, then continued to s=0 with no remainder estimate. The paper says this in §3.6 and then does it anyway. That is a real gap, and it's load-bearing because the cap period formula depends on it. It may be fixable with standard estimates, but right now it's a missing proof, not a matter of taste.

Smaller issues: Proposition 4.6 defers an integral evaluation to [Bra26b] with 'similar' — that should be spelled out or given a reference to a precise lemma. The identity (3.8) (E(ω_f) proportional to L(f,1) f) is used without proof; I'd want a pointer to BG or a few lines. And in Theorem 4.7 the reduction step has the index error noted in the stress-test: after replacing n_2, the n_3 replacement should preserve the zero sum, which the current text doesn't do. That's easily repaired.

None of this kills the strategy. The inclusion results in Corollary 4.4.1 are honest and the paper distinguishes inclusion from equality. The citation pattern looks appropriate; the self-citations to [Bra26b] are to the construction, which is the right place.

Who is this for? People working on Eisenstein cohomology, theta lifts, and modular symbols. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should push on Prop. 4.1's analytic continuation and Prop. 4.6 before signing off.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a geometric theta lift E from H_1(Y_1(N);Z) to weight-2 modular forms for Γ_1(N), using the author's previous construction in [Bra26b]. It evaluates the lift on the two families of generators supplied by Stevens' splitting of the homology: modular caps are sent to weight-2 Eisenstein series H^{(2)}_{j,-n} (Theorem 1.3(1)), and unimodular symbols are sent to products of two weight-1 Eisenstein series (Theorem 1.3(2)). From the decomposition of a hyperbolic cycle into caps and symbols (Theorem 2.3), it derives formulae for the images of parabolic and hyperbolic cycles (Theorem 4.4) and, by applying the lift to a hyperbolic triangle closed by caps, obtains the Borisov–Gunnells relation G_aG_b+G_bG_c+G_cG_a=G_a^{(2)}+G_b^{(2)}+G_c^{(2)} for a+b+c≡0 mod N (Theorem 1.5). The paper also identifies the hyperbolic-cycle image with a diagonal restriction of a Hilbert–Eisenstein series (Theorem 1.2), thereby connecting Li's spanning theorem with the Borisov–Gunnells picture. The exposition is detailed in §4.1–4.2, and §2.7 provides an independent constant-term verification of the main Eisenstein relation.

Significance. If the central computations are correct, the paper gives a genuinely geometric proof of the Borisov–Gunnells relations and explains how Li's result and the Borisov–Gunnells result arise from the same theta correspondence. The construction is parameter-free and the main relation is checked independently by a constant-term identity in §2.7, which is a real strength. The explicit formulae for the images of caps and symbols are concrete and falsifiable. However, acceptance depends on closing a nontrivial analytic-continuation gap in the singular-vector contribution (Proposition 4.1), and on supplying the deferred integral evaluation in Proposition 4.6. These are load-bearing rather than cosmetic issues.

major comments (3)

[§3.6 and §4.1, Proposition 4.1] In the proof of Theorem 3.6 the author explicitly states that, for singular vectors, the interchange of the sum over the lattice and the integral over A_R is only valid for Re(s) large enough. In Proposition 4.1, however, the (2,0)-component is decomposed as δ_{q0}A(τ,v,s) plus regular terms, and A(τ,v,s) is then evaluated at s=0 after a term-by-term integration and the use of the functional equation. No remainder estimate is supplied, and no argument is given that the analytic continuation of the term-wise integral agrees with the analytic continuation of the full integral at s=0. This is not a cosmetic omission: Proposition 4.2 uses the resulting limit lim_{v→∞}E_{p,q}=H^{(2)}_{p,q}du to compute cap periods, and Theorem 1.5 depends on those periods. The gap could be closed by a uniform estimate justifying the interchange at s=0, or by an independent Fourier-coefficient consistency chec
[§4.4, Proposition 4.6] The key integral evaluation for hyperbolic cycles is deferred with the phrase 'the computation is similar to the computation in [Bra26b]' and is not actually carried out in the paper. Since Theorem 1.2 and the connection to Li's result rest on this proposition, the manuscript should include the full computation or at least a precise reduction to the cited result, including the unfolding step, the convergence, and the treatment of the quotient by units. In its current form this is an unverified load-bearing step.
[§4.5, Theorem 4.7] The proof of the main relation contains two local sign/index slips. First, after replacing n_2 by n_2-k_2N, the residue n_3' needed to maintain n_1+n_2'+n_3'=0 is n_3-(k_3-k_2)N, not n_3-k_3N. Second, for the caps in the triangle, applying Proposition 4.2 to C_1=γ_{31}[0,1]_∞ (with γ_{31}=(m_1 m_3; -n_1 -n_3)) gives +G_{n_1}^{(2)}, and similarly for the other two caps; the displayed minus signs in ∫_{C_i}E=-G_{n_i}^{(2)} are inconsistent with the preceding equality ∫_M E = -∫_C E and, if taken literally, would prove the negative of the stated relation. Since the theorem's conclusion is confirmed by the independent constant-term check in §2.7, this is repairable, but the proof as printed needs correction.

minor comments (3)

[§2.1 and §2.4] Small typos: 'group homorphism' should be 'group homomorphism', and the heading 'Pairing and and cohomology' has a duplicated 'and'.
[§4.2, Proposition 4.3] The proof concludes ∫_{γ{0,∞}}E=G_{-c}G_d before the stated formula -G_dG_c; the identity G_{-c}^{(1)}=-G_c^{(1)} is used implicitly. This identity should be stated explicitly, since without it the sign jump is hard to follow.
[§4.5, Fig. 5 and cap notation] The notation C_1=[r_3,r_2]_{r_1}=γ_{31}[0,1]_∞ conflicts with the definition of [x,y]_r in §2.2, where [x,y]_r is oriented from π_r(y) to π_r(x). The figures and the text would be much clearer if the orientation conventions for caps were reconciled explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the Borisov-Gunnells relations are derived from the theta lift, not assumed, and the relevant computations are carried out in the paper.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. Theorem 1.5 is obtained by evaluating the theta lift on the boundary of a hyperbolic triangle, using the cap and symbol period formulas of Theorem 1.3, which are computed directly in Propositions 4.1–4.3 from the explicit Poisson-summed theta kernel. The weight-two Eisenstein series H^(2) appearing in the cap computation is not introduced to force the final relation; it arises from the separate (2,0) and (0,2) contributions to the constant term of the lift. The final relation G_a G_b + G_b G_c + G_c G_a = G_a^(2)+G_b^(2)+G_c^(2) is also independently checked by the constant-term comparison and Bernoulli-polynomial identity in Section 2.7, so the result does not depend on importing the target relation. The paper does cite the author's prior work [Bra26b] for the construction of the theta lift and for some computations, but [Bra26b] does not contain the Borisov-Gunnells relations, and the present paper recalls the main Fourier-expansion argument in Theorem 3.6 rather than merely invoking it. The analytic-continuation issue in Proposition 4.1 and the deferred computation in Proposition 4.6 are genuine proof gaps relevant to correctness, but they are not cases where a prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted and no new mathematical entities are postulated. The construction is built from the author's prior theta lift and standard Eisenstein/Kronecker series, so the ledger consists of domain assumptions rather than ad hoc items.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The differential form E(z,τ) from [Bra26b] is closed, Γ1(N)-invariant in z, and a weight-2 modular form in τ, with the stated Fourier expansion.
The entire lift rests on this construction; the present paper cites [Bra26b] and does not reprove it.
domain assumption The Borel-Serre splitting H1(Y;Z) ≅ C(Z) ⊕ MS0(Z) and the continued-fraction decomposition of cycles (Theorem 2.3) are valid.
Uses Stevens [Ste89] and Ash-Rudolph [AR79]; the explicit coefficients in Theorem 2.3 are asserted without proof in the text.
standard math Kronecker-Eisenstein series admit meromorphic continuation and functional equations, and the constant terms are given by Bernoulli polynomials.
Relies on Weil [Wei76], Lang [Lan87], Brunault [Bru17], Miyake [Miy89].
domain assumption [BG01, Prop. 4.5] and the Borisov-Gunnells map ρ(f) with the L-values identity (3.8).
Theorem 3.9 uses these external results to bound Im(E) and to include rank-0 newforms.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theta correspondence and the Borisov-Gunnells relations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/44O7E3HC

@misc{pith2026260201473,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theta correspondence and the Borisov-Gunnells relations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/44O7E3HC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.01473}
}

abstract

We consider a geometric theta correspondence from the first homology of a modular curve, to modular forms of weight $2$. Using Stevens' description of the homology, we find that this map sends modular symbols to product of weight one Eisenstein series, modular caps to weight $2$ Eisenstein series, and hyperbolic cycles to diagonal restrictions of Hilbert-Eisenstein series. We use it to revisit work of Borisov and Gunnells, and explain its connection to a theorem of Li. In particular, we give a geometric proof of certain relations between Eisenstein series.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.01473 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** We represent H in the Poincaré disc model. The polygon P is closed in the Borel-Serre compactification. The circles around the cusps are the horocycles at infinity containing the modular caps. The theta lift sends the modular symbols on each side to a product of two weight 1 Eisenstein series and each modular cap to a weight 2 Eisenstein series. The two segments between the interior and the cusp cancel out. For hype… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The hyperbolic triangle closes in the Borel–Serre compactification. Its ver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** We visualize the hyperbolic 2-space in the disk model. The cycle Zγ is moved to the boundary component at the cusp r. The two sides are Γ-translates and cancel out. For k ≥ 0 we deduce the following action of γk on the cusps γkbk+1 = pk+1 qk+1 , γk∞ = pk qk , γk0 = pk−1 qk−1 . Let P be the closure of the hyperbolic polygon with endpoints the cusps p0/q0, . . . , pn/qn as well as the interior points z and γz, which i… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The polygon P. Its boundary consists of modular caps, modular symbols and some geodesic segments with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A hyperbolic triangle with unimodular sides and closed by modular caps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

11 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

The modular symbol and continued fractions in higher dimensions

[AR79] Avner Ash and Lee Rudolph. “The modular symbol and continued fractions in higher dimensions”. In:Inventiones mathematicae55.3 (1979), pp. 241–250. [BCG20] Nicolas Bergeron, Pierre Charollois, and Luis E. Garcia. “Transgressions of the Eu- ler class and Eisenstein cohomology ofGLN (Z)”. In:Japanese Journal of Mathematics 15.2 (2020), pp. 311–379. [B...

1979
[39]

American Mathemat- ical Society, Providence, RI, 2023, p

CRM Monograph Series. American Mathemat- ical Society, Providence, RI, 2023, p

2023
[112]

With an appendix by J

Graduate Texts in Mathematics. With an appendix by J. Tate. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987, pp. xii+326.ISBN: 0-387-96508-4.DOI:10 . 1007 / 978 - 1 - 4612 - 4752 - 4.URL:https : / / doi . org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4752-4. [Lan95] Serge Lang.Introduction to modular forms. Vol

doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4752-4 1987
[127]

Eisenstein cohomology classes forGL N over imaginary quadratic fields

[BCG23b] Nicolas Bergeron, Pierre Charollois, and Luis E. García. “Eisenstein cohomology classes forGL N over imaginary quadratic fields”. In:J. Reine Angew. Math.797 (2023), pp. 1–40. [BG01] Lev A. Borisov and Paul E. Gunnells. “Toric modular forms and nonvanishing of L-functions”. In:J. Reine Angew. Math.539 (2001), pp. 149–165. [BT82] Raoul Bott and Lo...

2023
[222]

With appendixes by D

Grundlehren der mathema- tischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. With appendixes by D. Zagier and Walter Feit, Corrected reprint of the 1976 original. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,

1976
[228]

Products of Eisenstein series and Fourier expansions of modular forms at cusps

Grad- uate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005, pp. xvi+436.ISBN: 0-387-23229-X. [DN18] Martin Dickson and Michael Neururer. “Products of Eisenstein series and Fourier expansions of modular forms at cusps”. In:Journal of Number Theory188 (2018), pp. 137–164. 36Romain Branchereau [KMR17] Kamal Khuri-Makdisi and Wissam Raji. “Periods of mo...

2005
[1987]

De Gruyter, 1989, pp. 887–927. [Wei76] André Weil.Elliptic Functions according to Eisenstein and Kronecker. 1st edition. Ergeb- nisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,

1989
[1995]

Restriction of Coherent Hilbert Eisenstein series

[Li17] Yingkun Li. “Restriction of Coherent Hilbert Eisenstein series”. In:Mathematische Annalen368.1 (2017), pp. 317–338. [MQ86] Varghese Mathai and Daniel Quillen. “Superconnections, thom classes, and equiv- ariant differential forms”. In:Topology25.1 (1986), pp. 85–110. [Miy89] Toshitsune Miyake. “Modular Groups and Modular Forms”. In:Modular Forms. Be...

2017

Show all 11 references

[2023]

Elliptic functions according to Eisenstein and Kronecker: an update

arXiv:2303.15554 [math.NT].URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2303.15554. [CS16] Pierre Charollois and Robert Sczech. “Elliptic functions according to Eisenstein and Kronecker: an update”. In:Eur. Math. Soc. Newsl.101 (2016), pp. 8–14. [DS05] Fred Diamond and Jerry Shurman.A first cou...

2016 arXiv
[2024]

Rankin-Cohen brackets of Eisenstein series

arXiv:2409 . 06940 [math.NT].URL:https : / / arxiv . org / abs / 2409 . 06940. [Xue23] Hui Xue. “Rankin-Cohen brackets of Eisenstein series”. In:International Journal of Number Theory19.07 (2023), pp. 1563–1570. [Zha20] Hao Zhang. “Elliptic Cocycle forGL N (Z)and Hecke Operato...

2023
[2026]

An upper bound on the denominator of Eisenstein classes in Bianchi manifolds

arXiv:2411.08690 [math.NT].URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2411.08690. [Bra26a] Romain Branchereau. “An upper bound on the denominator of Eisenstein classes in Bianchi manifolds”. In:Annales de l’Institut FourierVolume 76.1 (2026), pp. 1–50. [Bru17] François Brunault. “Régulateurs ...

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The modular symbol and continued fractions in higher dimensions

[AR79] Avner Ash and Lee Rudolph. “The modular symbol and continued fractions in higher dimensions”. In:Inventiones mathematicae55.3 (1979), pp. 241–250. [BCG20] Nicolas Bergeron, Pierre Charollois, and Luis E. Garcia. “Transgressions of the Eu- ler class and Eisenstein cohomology ofGLN (Z)”. In:Japanese Journal of Mathematics 15.2 (2020), pp. 311–379. [B...

1979

[2] [39]

American Mathemat- ical Society, Providence, RI, 2023, p

CRM Monograph Series. American Mathemat- ical Society, Providence, RI, 2023, p

2023

[3] [112]

With an appendix by J

Graduate Texts in Mathematics. With an appendix by J. Tate. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987, pp. xii+326.ISBN: 0-387-96508-4.DOI:10 . 1007 / 978 - 1 - 4612 - 4752 - 4.URL:https : / / doi . org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4752-4. [Lan95] Serge Lang.Introduction to modular forms. Vol

doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4752-4 1987

[4] [127]

Eisenstein cohomology classes forGL N over imaginary quadratic fields

[BCG23b] Nicolas Bergeron, Pierre Charollois, and Luis E. García. “Eisenstein cohomology classes forGL N over imaginary quadratic fields”. In:J. Reine Angew. Math.797 (2023), pp. 1–40. [BG01] Lev A. Borisov and Paul E. Gunnells. “Toric modular forms and nonvanishing of L-functions”. In:J. Reine Angew. Math.539 (2001), pp. 149–165. [BT82] Raoul Bott and Lo...

2023

[5] [222]

With appendixes by D

Grundlehren der mathema- tischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. With appendixes by D. Zagier and Walter Feit, Corrected reprint of the 1976 original. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,

1976

[6] [228]

Products of Eisenstein series and Fourier expansions of modular forms at cusps

Grad- uate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005, pp. xvi+436.ISBN: 0-387-23229-X. [DN18] Martin Dickson and Michael Neururer. “Products of Eisenstein series and Fourier expansions of modular forms at cusps”. In:Journal of Number Theory188 (2018), pp. 137–164. 36Romain Branchereau [KMR17] Kamal Khuri-Makdisi and Wissam Raji. “Periods of mo...

2005

[7] [1987]

De Gruyter, 1989, pp. 887–927. [Wei76] André Weil.Elliptic Functions according to Eisenstein and Kronecker. 1st edition. Ergeb- nisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,

1989

[8] [1995]

Restriction of Coherent Hilbert Eisenstein series

[Li17] Yingkun Li. “Restriction of Coherent Hilbert Eisenstein series”. In:Mathematische Annalen368.1 (2017), pp. 317–338. [MQ86] Varghese Mathai and Daniel Quillen. “Superconnections, thom classes, and equiv- ariant differential forms”. In:Topology25.1 (1986), pp. 85–110. [Miy89] Toshitsune Miyake. “Modular Groups and Modular Forms”. In:Modular Forms. Be...

2017