Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

The hyperbolic lattice counting problem in large dimensions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 In hyperbolic spaces of dimension $n\geq 3$, the paper proves that normalized lattice-counting errors oscillate at least $\log\log\log T$ for $n=3$, and conditionally that local averages of the error are as small as $O(X^{n-2+\epsilon})$.

desk verdict The conditional local average is fine; the advertised Ω-results in Theorem 1.7 do not follow from the proof as written because the Dirichlet step aligns t_jR to 1 while the coefficient's real part is one power of t smaller. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17753 v1 pith:LGRXYWRS submitted 2025-06-21 math.NT

Christos Katsivelos This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NT MSC 11F7237C3537D40
keywords hyperboliclatticepointproblemerrortermlocalaveragequantumvariancespectralexponentialsumsOmegaresultscocompactlatticespre-traceformula
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 studies the error term in the hyperbolic lattice-counting problem: for a cocompact group $\Gamma$ acting on $n$-dimensional hyperbolic space $\mathbb{H}^n$, one counts the $\Gamma$-translates of a point inside a ball of radius $r\sim \log X$, and $E_\Gamma(X;z,w)$ is the discrepancy between that count and its smooth main term. The first result is conditional: if a weak quantum-variance estimate with exponent $n-2+\epsilon$ and a spectral exponential-sum bound $S(T,X)\ll X^\epsilon T^{n-1+\epsilon}$ both hold, then the average of $E_\Gamma(X;z,z)$ against any smooth compactly supported test function is $O_f(X^{n-2+\epsilon})$. The second result is unconditional: the normalized mean error $e(T,z)$ is $\Omega(\log\log\log T)$ for $n=3$ and $\Omega((\log\log T)^{(n-3)/(2n)-\epsilon})$ for $n\geq 4$, and these lower bounds transfer to the second moment. The appeal is that for $n=3$ the conditional local-average exponent is essentially as strong as one could hope, while the $\Omega$-results show the $X$-variable average fluctuates far more than the radial-variable average.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the spectral expansion supplied by the pre-trace formula. The counting error is written as $\sum_{t_j\neq 0} h_X(t_j)|\varphi_j(z)|^2$, where $h_X$ is the Selberg/Harish-Chandra transform of a smoothed indicator of a hyperbolic ball; its approximate size is $X^{(n-1)/2}|t|^{-(n+1)/2}$ times an oscillating factor $X^{it}$, up to angular constants. For the conditional local-average theorem, the two spectral inputs are a weak quantum-variance bound on the deviations of the measures $|\varphi_j(z)|^2\,d\mu$ from the volume measure and a bound for the spectral exponential sum $S(T,X)=\sum_{|t_j|\leq T}X^{it_j}$; these control respectively the test-function fluctuation term and the constant term in the pre-trace expansion. For the unconditional $\Omega$-results, the same transform, together with the local Weyl law and Dirichlet's box principle, is used to force the phases $X^{it_j}$ to align at a sequence of scales, producing a lower bound for the mollified mean error.

What would settle it

Numerically test Conjecture 1.2 by computing $S(T,X)=\sum_{|t_j|\leq T} X^{it_j}$ for a cocompact arithmetic quotient in dimension 3 at scales up to about $10^5$; if some sequence has $|S(T,X)|\gg X^\epsilon T^{3-\epsilon}$, the hypothesis behind Theorem 1.5 is untenable. For the $\Omega$-result, proving an upper bound $e(T,z)=o(\log\log\log T)$ for any single cocompact 3-fold would contradict Theorem 1.7(a).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that in every dimension $n\geq 3$ the large-eigenvalue part of the hyperbolic lattice-counting error satisfies two definitive statements. Unconditionally, for every cocompact lattice $\Gamma\subset \mathrm{SO}^+(1,n)$ and every base point $z$, the modified mean $e(T,z)=T^{-1}\int_{\sqrt{T}}^{T}E_\Gamma(x;z,z)x^{-(n-1)/2}\,dx$ obeys $e(T,z)=\Omega(\log\log\log T)$ for $n=3$ and $e(T,z)=\Omega((\log\log T)^{(n-3)/(2n)-\epsilon})$ for $n\geq 4$; Cauchy-Schwarz then transfers these lower bounds to the second moment of the normalized error. Conditionally, assuming the weak quantum-variance bound for the measures $|\varphi_j(z)|^2\,d\mu$ with exponent $q_n=n-2+\epsilon$ and the spectral exponential-sum bound $S(T,X)\ll X^\epsilon T^{n-1+\epsilon}$, the local average $\int f(z)E_\Gamma(X;z,z)\,d\mu(z)$ is $O_f(X^{n-2+\epsilon})$, with no improvement available from assuming a stronger quantum-variance exponent. The paper thus extends a local-average strategy previously applied to surfaces to all cocompact quotients of hyperbolic space, and it separates the $X$-variable mean behaviour from the radial-variable mean behaviour.

Load-bearing premise

The local-average theorem stands on two unproved spectral conjectures, a weak quantum-variance bound with exponent $n-2+\epsilon$ and a spectral exponential-sum bound with exponent $n-1+\epsilon$; the $\Omega$-theorem stands on a Dirichlet box-principle step that must align roughly $A^n$ oscillating phases while keeping the averaging parameter within a range that is only singly exponential in the smoothing scale.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $n=3$, the normalized mean error $e(T,z)$ is $\Omega(\log\log\log T)$, so it cannot converge as $T\to\infty$.
  • For $n\geq 4$, $e(T,z)=\Omega((\log\log T)^{(n-3)/(2n)-\epsilon})$, so the normalized error grows slowly but unboundedly in every dimension.
  • By Cauchy-Schwarz, the same lower bounds transfer to the second moment of the normalized error: $\Omega((\log\log\log T)^2)$ for $n=3$ and $\Omega((\log\log T)^{1-3/n-\epsilon})$ for $n\geq 4$.
  • If the two conjectures hold, the local average over any compact set is $O_f(X^{n-2+\epsilon})$; for $n=3$ this is essentially the strongest scaling available, and stronger quantum-variance assumptions would not improve it.
  • The results separate the $X$-variable mean from the radial-parameter mean: the latter has a finite mean value by earlier work, while the former is forced to oscillate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The local-average proof uses only the spectral expansion and the two conjectures, so the same $X^{n-2+\epsilon}$ bound should extend from cocompact $\Gamma$ to finite-volume non-compact quotients once the Eisenstein-series contribution is controlled; the exponential-sum conjecture is stated for essentially cuspidal groups, but the theorem is proved only in the cocompact case.
  • Because the $\Omega$-results use only the local Weyl law and phase alignment, they likely hold for every cocompact quotient, arithmetic or not; testing a non-arithmetic compact hyperbolic 3-manifold would check whether the $\log\log\log T$ rate is universal.
  • If the box-principle balance in the $\Omega$-proof could be replaced by a sharper almost-periodicity argument, the $n=3$ lower bound might improve to $\Omega(\log\log T)$, the natural analogue of the radial-variable result; this is outside the paper but suggested by its method.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the error term in the hyperbolic lattice point counting problem on compact quotients Γ\H^n for n ≥ 3. Its first main result, Theorem 1.5, is conditional: assuming a weakened quantum variance conjecture (Conjecture 1.1 with exponent q_n = n−2+ε) and a conjectural spectral exponential sum bound (Conjecture 1.2), it proves that the local average of EΓ(X;z,z) against a smooth compactly supported test function is O_f(X^{n−2+ε}). The second main result, Theorem 1.7, claims unconditional Ω-results for the normalized mean error e(T,z): Ω(log log log T) for n = 3 and Ω((log log T)^{1/2−3/(2n)−ε}) for n ≥ 4; Corollary 1.1 transfers these to the second moment of the normalized error term via Cauchy–Schwarz. The proofs use smooth approximations to the characteristic kernel, the pre-trace formula, dyadic summation, partial summation, and a Dirichlet box principle.

Significance. If valid, the local average result is a natural higher-dimensional analogue of the Petridis–Risager and Cherubini–Katsivelos theorems, and it clearly identifies the conjectural inputs needed for the bound: a quantum variance estimate and a spectral exponential sum estimate. The Ω-results would constitute a new contribution to the fluctuation theory of hyperbolic lattice point errors, complementing the earlier work of Phillips–Rudnick and Chatzakos. The paper is transparent about its conditional assumptions, contains no fitted free parameters, and the local-average section is a coherent dyadic-summation argument under the stated conjectures. However, as discussed below, the proof of the Ω-results has a load-bearing gap for dimensions n ≡ 3 mod 4, including the prominent n = 3 case.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Eqs. (4.3)–(4.4)] There is a coefficient error in the mollified pre-trace expansion. The antiderivative of x^{it_j} over the interval [√T,T] produces a factor 1/(1+it_j), not (1+it_j); this is also forced by the later tail bound in (4.3), which uses the decay (1+|t|)^{-(n+3)/2}. After correcting this to C(t) = Γ(it)/Γ((n+1)/2+it) · (1+it)^{-1}, the step from (4.4) to the displayed lower bound is invalid for n ≡ 3 mod 4. For n = 3, C(t) = 1/[it(1+it)^2] ≈ i/t^3, so Re(C(t)) ≈ −2/(1+t^2)^2 = O(t^{-4}), which is one full power of t smaller than |C(t)|. Lemma 4.1 only guarantees e^{it_jR} ≈ 1, hence Re(C(t_j)e^{it_jR}) ≈ Re(C(t_j)); the sum Σ_{t_j≤τ/ε}|φ_j(z)|^2 t_j^{-4} is O(1) by the local Weyl law (spectral density ∼ t^2), not ≫ log(1/ε). The same obstruction occurs for every n ≡ 3 mod 4. A repair would require simultaneous alignment of t_jR to the slowly varying phase of C(t_j) (for n = 3, to −i), which is not a consequence of the stated Dirichlet lemma and may fail for spectra with Q-linear relations. Thus Theorem 1.7(a), the n ≡ 3 mod 4 portion of Theorem 1.7(b), and the corresponding cases of Corollary 1.1 are not established.
  2. [§4, after Eq. (4.4)] The text states that Lemma 4.1 gives 'R ≤ N A^n' for t_j ≤ A, but the lemma as stated gives R ≤ M N^m with m ≍ A^n, i.e. R ≤ M N^{cA^n}. The balance in (4.5), which contains the exponential expression ε^{−2kn/(2k−(n−3))}, is consistent with the exponential bound, not with a polynomial bound. As printed, the bound R ≤ N A^n would give logR ≍ log(1/ε) and would change the final exponents. This appears to be a missing superscript, but it must be corrected because the transfer from the mollified lower bound to the Ω-statement for e(T,z) depends on the relation between R and ε.
  3. [§4, Eq. (4.4)] Even for dimensions n ≥ 4 with n not congruent to 3 mod 4, where Re(C(t)) has the same order of magnitude as |C(t)|, the sign of Re(C(t)) is negative for some residue classes of n. The argument currently asserts a positive lower bound of the form e* ≫ Σ |φ_j|^2 (1+|t_j|)^{−(n+3)/2}; when Re(C(t)) is negative, the correct conclusion is |e*| ≫ Σ |φ_j|^2 (1+|t_j|)^{−(n+3)/2}. The absolute value is sufficient for the Ω-statement, but the sign issue should be addressed explicitly so that the extraction of the lower bound is legitimate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4, Lemma 3.3] The statement writes Γ/H^n; this should be Γ\H^n.
  2. [§4, Eq. (4.3)] The displayed factor (1+it_j) should be 1/(1+it_j); the surrounding discussion and tail bound make this clear, but the equation itself is currently wrong.
  3. [§4, preceding Eq. (4.3)] The lower limit of the inner x-integral is written as e^Y/2 in one place; it should be e^{Y/2} = √T. This should be corrected for consistency with the definition of e(T,z).
  4. [§4, Eq. (4.5)] The typesetting of (4.5) is garbled; as printed it reads 'logR≪nϵ− 2kn 2k−(n−3) log(ϵ−1)' and should be written as a clear inequality of the form log R ≪ ε^{−2kn/(2k−(n−3))} log(1/ε).
  5. [§1.1, Conjecture 1.1] Conjecture 1.1 states q_n = 1+ε for every n ≥ 2, but Theorem 1.5 uses the weaker exponent q_n = n−2+ε. This is fine, but the statement could explicitly say that the full conjecture is not needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: Theorem 1.5 is explicitly conditional on stated conjectures, the Omega-results are self-contained, and the only self-citation to [14] is contextual and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 1.5 is a conditional statement: it assumes Conjecture 1.1 with the weaker exponent q_n = n-2+epsilon and Conjecture 1.2, and the proof invokes these hypotheses precisely where they are needed, namely in the Cauchy-Schwarz application for the quantum variance (display (3.14)) and in the partial summation bound involving the spectral exponential sum S(T,X) (display (3.15)). Neither conjecture is a restatement of the conclusion integral f(z) E_Gamma(X;z,z) dmu = O(X^{n-2+epsilon}), and no free parameter is fitted to the target quantity. The Omega-results in Theorem 1.7 are unconditional: the argument uses the spectral expansion (4.1)-(4.3), the external Dirichlet box principle Lemma 4.1 quoted from [44], and the local Weyl law, with no conjectural input and no fitted constants. Corollary 1.1 follows from Theorem 1.7 by an immediate Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. The only self-citation is to [14] in Theorem 1.3 and Remarks 1.2-1.3, where it is explicitly presented as announced context or as an analogy ('Conjecture 1.1 is analogous to Hypothesis QV in [14] and Conjecture 1.2 is analogous to Hypothesis STX in [14]'); it carries no weight in the proofs of the new results. The supplied skeptic objection about aligning phases in the Omega-proof is a correctness or fragility concern, not circularity, and therefore does not affect this assessment.

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

The paper's conditional theorem assumes two unproved conjectures; the unconditional theorem relies on standard spectral theory. No numerical free parameters are fitted to data; the smoothing scale δ = X^{-1+ε} and mollifier width ε are optimization parameters chosen inside proofs to balance error terms.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Conjecture 1.1 (weak quantum variance): Σ_{|t_j|≤T} |∫ f dμ_j - f̄|^2 = O_f(T^{q_n}) with q_n = n-2+ε for cocompact Γ\H^n.
    Assumed in Lemma 3.3 to bound the variance term in the local average via Cauchy-Schwarz. This is an open conjecture, a weakened form of the quantum variance problem.
  • domain assumption Conjecture 1.2: spectral exponential sum S(T,X) = Σ_{|t_j|≤T} X^{i t_j} = O(X^ε T^{n-1+ε}) for cocompact Γ.
    Assumed in Section 3.4 to bound the mean term Σ h±(t_j) via partial summation. Introduced in this paper and said to be 'may be well known to the experts'.
  • standard math Pre-trace formula for the automorphic kernel on cocompact Γ\H^n.
    Used in Sections 3.1 and 4 to expand the counting kernels spectrally. Standard for cocompact quotients.
  • standard math Weyl's law and local Weyl's law: #{j: |t_j|≤T} ~ c T^n and Σ_{|t_j|≤T}|φ_j(z)|^2 ~ c(z) T^n.
    Theorems 2.1 and 2.2; used in Lemma 3.3 and Section 4 for eigenvalue counting and lower bounds.
  • standard math Dirichlet's box principle (Lemma 4.1): for m real numbers, some R ≤ M N^m has |e^{i r_j R} - 1| < 1/N for all j.
    Used in Section 4 to align eigenphases in the Ω-proof.
  • standard math Selberg/Harish-Chandra transform asymptotics (2.5)-(2.9) and the convolution identity h± = h_{Y±δ}·hδ.
    Background formulas for the kernel transforms. The convolution identity is cited and stated without proof in H^n; see red flag.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The hyperbolic lattice counting problem in large dimensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LGRXYWRS

@misc{pith2026250617753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The hyperbolic lattice counting problem in large dimensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LGRXYWRS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17753}
}
abstract

For $n\geq 3$ and $\Gamma$ a cocompact lattice acting on the hyperbolic space $\mathbb{H}^n$, we investigate the average behaviour of the error term in the circle problem. First, we explore the local average of the error term over compact sets of $\Gamma\backslash\mathbb{H}^n$. Our upper bound depends on the quantum variance and the spectral exponential sums appearing in the study of the Prime geodesic theorem. We also prove $\Omega$-results for the mean value and the second moment of the error term.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Balkanova, D

    O. Balkanova, D. Chatzakos, G. Cherubini, D. Frolenkov and N. Laaksonen, Prime geodesic theorem in the 3-dimensional hyperbolic space. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 372 (2019), no. 8, 5355–5374

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Balkanova and D

    O. Balkanova and D. Frolenkov, Bounds for a spectral exponential sum. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 99 (2019), no. 2, 249–272

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Balkanova and D

    O. Balkanova and D. Frolenkov, Sums of Kloosterman sums in the prime geodesic theorem. Q. J. Math. 70 (2019), no. 2, 649–674

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    O.Balkanova, D.Frolenkov Prime geodesic theorem for the Picard manifold. Adv. Math. 375 (2020), 107377, 42 pp

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Bir´ o,Local average of the hyperbolic circle problem for Fuchsian groups

    A. Bir´ o,Local average of the hyperbolic circle problem for Fuchsian groups. Mathematika 64 (2018), no. 1, 159–183

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Bir´ o,On a generalization of the Selberg trace formula

    A. Bir´ o,On a generalization of the Selberg trace formula. Acta Arithmetica, 87 (4) (1999), 319-338

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Bir´ o,Local square mean in the hyperbolic circle problem

    A. Bir´ o,Local square mean in the hyperbolic circle problem. to appear in Algebra and Number Theory, https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16113

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    V.Blomer and C.Lutsko, Hyperbolic lattice counting points in unbounded rank. J. Reine Angew. Math. 812 (2024), 257–274

    work page 2024

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Chamizo, The large sieve in Riemann surfaces

    F. Chamizo, The large sieve in Riemann surfaces. Acta Arithmetica, 77, no. 4, 303–313, 1996

    1996

  2. [10]

    Chamizo, Some applications of large sieve in Riemann surfaces

    F. Chamizo, Some applications of large sieve in Riemann surfaces. Acta Arithmetica, 77, no. 4, 315–337, 1996

    1996

  3. [11]

    Chatzakos, Ω -results for the hyperbolic lattice point problem

    D. Chatzakos, Ω -results for the hyperbolic lattice point problem. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 145 (2017), no. 4, 1421–1437. 18 CHRISTOS KATSIVELOS

    2017

  4. [12]

    Chatzakos, G.Cherubini, N.Laaksonen, Second moment of the prime geodesic theorem for PSL 2(Z[i])

    D. Chatzakos, G.Cherubini, N.Laaksonen, Second moment of the prime geodesic theorem for PSL 2(Z[i]). Math. Z. 300 (2022), no. 1, 791–806

    2022

  5. [13]

    Chatzakos, G

    D. Chatzakos, G. Cherubini, St. Lester and M. Risager, The hyperbolic circle problem over Heegner points. (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13883

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Cherubini, C.Katsivelos, Local average in the Hyperbolic sphere problem

    G. Cherubini, C.Katsivelos, Local average in the Hyperbolic sphere problem. (2025) https://arxiv.org/ abs/2503.20455

    2025

  7. [15]

    Cherubini, Almost periodic functions and hyperbolic counting

    G. Cherubini, Almost periodic functions and hyperbolic counting. Int. J. Number Theory 14 (2018), no. 9, 2343–2368

    2018

  8. [16]

    Cram´ er,¨Uber zwei S¨ atze des Herrn G

    H. Cram´ er,¨Uber zwei S¨ atze des Herrn G. H. Hardy. Math. Z. 15 (1922), no. 1, 201–210

    1922

  9. [17]

    W. Duke, Z. Rudnick and P. Sarnak, Density of integer points on affine homogeneous varieties. Duke Math. J. 71, no. 1, 143–179, 1993

    1993

  10. [18]

    Fricker, Ein Gitterpunktproblem im dreidimensionalen hyperbolischen Raum

    F. Fricker, Ein Gitterpunktproblem im dreidimensionalen hyperbolischen Raum. Comment. Math. Helv. 43, 402–416, 1968

    1968

  11. [19]

    V. C. Garc´ ıa and W. G. Nowak, A mean-square bound concerning the lattice discrepancy of a torus in R3. Acta Math. Hungar. 128 (2010), no. 1-2, 106–115

    2010

  12. [20]

    Good, Local analysis of Selberg’s trace formula

    A. Good, Local analysis of Selberg’s trace formula. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1040. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983. i+128 pp

    1983

  13. [21]

    A.Gorodnik, A.Nevo, G.Yehoshua, Counting lattice points in norm balls on higher rank simple Lie groups. Math. Res. Lett. 24 (2017), 1285-1306

    2017

  14. [22]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of integrals, series, and products. Translated from the Rus- sian. Translation edited and with a preface by Alan Jeffrey and Daniel Zwillinger. Seventh edition. Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2007. xlviii+1171 pp

    2007

  15. [23]

    G¨ unther,Gitterpunktprobleme in symmetrischen Riemannschen R¨ aumen vom Rang 1

    P. G¨ unther,Gitterpunktprobleme in symmetrischen Riemannschen R¨ aumen vom Rang 1. Math. Nachr. 94, 5–27, 1980

    1980

  16. [24]

    Huber, Zur analytischen Theorie hyperbolischen Raumformen und Bewegungsgruppen

    H. Huber, Zur analytischen Theorie hyperbolischen Raumformen und Bewegungsgruppen. Math. Ann. 138 1959 1–26

    1959

  17. [25]

    Hill and L

    R. Hill and L. Parnovski, The variance of the hyperbolic lattice point counting function. Russ. J. Math. Phys. 12, no. 4, 472–482, 2005

    2005

  18. [26]

    Iwaniec, Prime geodesic theorem

    H. Iwaniec, Prime geodesic theorem. J. Reine Angew. Math., 349 (1984), 136–159

    1984

  19. [27]

    Iwaniec, Spectral methods of automorphic forms

    H. Iwaniec, Spectral methods of automorphic forms. Second edition. Graduate Studies in Mathematics,

  20. [28]

    Jarn´ ık,Uber die Mittelwerts¨ atze der Gitterpunktlehre

    V. Jarn´ ık,Uber die Mittelwerts¨ atze der Gitterpunktlehre. V.ˇCasopis Pˇ est. Mat. Fys.69 (1940), 148–174

    1940

  21. [29]

    Kaneko, The prime geodesic theorem for PSL2(Z[i]) and spectral exponential sums

    I. Kaneko, The prime geodesic theorem for PSL2(Z[i]) and spectral exponential sums. Algebra Number Theory 16 (2022), no. 8, 1845–1887

    2022

  22. [30]

    Kaneko, The prime geodesic theorem for the Picard orbifold

    I. Kaneko, The prime geodesic theorem for the Picard orbifold. preprint (2024) https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2403.06626

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kelmer, On the mean square of the remainder for the euclidean lattice point counting problem

    D. Kelmer, On the mean square of the remainder for the euclidean lattice point counting problem. Israel J. Math. 221 (2017), no. 2, 637–659

    2017

  24. [32]

    Koyama, Prime geodesic theorem for arithmetic compact surfaces

    S.-y. Koyama, Prime geodesic theorem for arithmetic compact surfaces. Internat. Math. Res. Notices 1998, no. 8, 383–388

    1998

  25. [33]

    Koyama, Prime geodesic theorem for the Picard manifold under the mean-Lindel¨ of hypothesis.Forum Math

    S.-y. Koyama, Prime geodesic theorem for the Picard manifold under the mean-Lindel¨ of hypothesis.Forum Math. 13 (2001), no. 6, 781–793

    2001

  26. [34]

    Laaksonen, Quantum Limits, Counting and Landau-type Formulae in Hyperbolic Space

    N. Laaksonen, Quantum Limits, Counting and Landau-type Formulae in Hyperbolic Space. PhD. Thesis. UCL 2016. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1474273/

    2016

  27. [35]

    Lax and R

    P. Lax and R. Phillips, The asymptotic distribution of lattice points in Euclidean and non-Euclidean spaces. Toeplitz centennial (Tel Aviv, 1981), pp. 365–375, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 4, Birkh¨ auser Verlag, Basel-Boston, Mass

    1981

  28. [36]

    B. M. Levitan, Asymptotic formulas for the number of lattice points in Euclidean and Lobachevski˘ ı spaces. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 42, no. 3 (255), 13–38, 255, 1987

    1987

  29. [37]

    Linderstrauss, Invariant measures and arithmetic quantum unique ergodicity

    E. Linderstrauss, Invariant measures and arithmetic quantum unique ergodicity. Ann. of Math. (2) 163 (2006), no. 1, 165–219

    2006

  30. [38]

    Luo and P

    W. Luo and P. C. Sarnak, Quantum ergodicity of eigenfunctions on P SL2(Z). Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. No. 81 (1995), 207–237. HYPERBOLIC LATTICE COUNTING IN LARGE DIMENSIONS 19

    1995

  31. [39]

    Luo and P

    W. Luo and P. C. Sarnak, Quantum variance for Hecke eigenforms. Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 37 (2004), no. 5, 769–799

    2004

  32. [40]

    Nelson, Quantum variance on quaternion algebras I

    P. Nelson, Quantum variance on quaternion algebras I. preprint (2016). https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.1601.02526

    2016 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    L. B. Parnovski, The Selberg trace formula and the Selberg zeta function for cocompact discrete subgroups SO+(1, n). Funct. Anal. Appl. 26 (1992), no. 3, 196–203; translated from Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. 26 (1992), no. 3, 55–64

    1992

  34. [42]

    S. J. Patterson, A lattice-point problem in hyperbolic space. Mathematika 22, no. 1, 81–88, 1975

    1975

  35. [43]

    Petridis and M

    Y. Petridis and M. Risager, Local average in hyperbolic lattice point counting, with an appendix by Niko Laaksonen. Math. Z. 285 (2017), no. 3-4, 1319–1344

    2017

  36. [44]

    Phillips and Z

    R. Phillips and Z. Rudnick. The circle problem in the hyperbolic plane. J. Funct. Anal. 121, no. 1, 78–116, 1994

    1994

  37. [45]

    Rudnick and P

    Z. Rudnick and P. C. Sarnak, The behaviour of eigenstates of arithmetic hyperbolic manifolds. Comm. Math. Phys.161(1994), no.1, 195—213

    1994

  38. [46]

    P. C. Sarnak, On cusp forms. The Selberg trace formula and related topics (Brunswick, Maine, 1984), 393–407. Contemp. Math., 53 American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1986

    1984

  39. [47]

    Selberg, Equidistribution in discrete groups and the spectral theory of automorphic forms

    A. Selberg, Equidistribution in discrete groups and the spectral theory of automorphic forms. http:// publications.ias.edu/selberg/section/2491

  40. [48]

    Soundararajan, Quantum unique ergodicity for SL2(Z)\ H

    K. Soundararajan, Quantum unique ergodicity for SL2(Z)\ H. Ann. of Math. (2) 172 (2010), no. 2, 1529–1538

    2010

  41. [49]

    Zhao, Quantum variance of Maass–Hecke cusp forms

    P. Zhao, Quantum variance of Maass–Hecke cusp forms. Comm. Math. Phys. 297 (2010), no. 2, 475–514

    2010

  42. [50]

    Sarnak and P

    P. Sarnak and P. Zhao, The quantum variance of the modular surface. Ann. Sci. ´Ec. Norm. Sup´ er. (4)52 (2019), no. 5, 1155–1200

    2019

  43. [51]

    Zelditch, Uniform distribution of eigenfunctions on compact hyperbolic surfaces

    S. Zelditch, Uniform distribution of eigenfunctions on compact hyperbolic surfaces. Duke Math. J. 55, (1987), 919–941

    1987

  44. [52]

    Zelditch, On the rate of quantum ergodicity I: Upper bounds

    S. Zelditch, On the rate of quantum ergodicity I: Upper bounds. Comm. Math. Phys. 160 (1994), no. 1, 81–92

    1994

  45. [53]

    xii+220 pp

    American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI; Revista Matem´ atica Iberoamericana, Madrid, 2002. xii+220 pp

    2002

  46. [54]

    Zelditch, Recent developments in mathematical quantum chaos

    S. Zelditch, Recent developments in mathematical quantum chaos. Current developments in mathematics, 2009, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2010, 115–204. University of Patras, Department of Mathematics, 26504 Patras, Greece Email address : up1112463@upatras.gr

    2009

Pith tools

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