Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Moments of Higher Logarithmic Derivatives and Exceptional Zeros in Cyclotomic Fields

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Averages of higher logarithmic-derivative moments of Dirichlet L-functions at s=1 converge unconditionally to explicit constants, and this rules out an exceptional zero for large prime cyclotomic fields.

desk verdict A real extension of IMS moments that is currently undermined by a false orthogonality identity and an absent advertised application. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06390 v2 pith:T7NEXMI7 submitted 2025-09-08 math.NT

Samprit Ghosh This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NT MSC 11M0611M2011R1811R42
keywords DirichletL-functionslogarithmicderivativemomentshigherderivativescyclotomicfieldsLicoefficientsexceptionalzeroscharacterorthogonality
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 studies the moments of higher derivatives of the logarithmic derivative of Dirichlet L-functions at s=1. For each order r and each pair of exponents (a,b), it proves that the average of P^(a,b)(L^(r)(1,χ)) over all non-principal characters modulo a large prime conductor m converges, unconditionally, to an explicitly computable constant μ^(a,b)(r), with error O(m^{ε−1}) for any ε>0. This extends the r=0 result of Ihara, Murty, and Shimura to all derivative orders. The author uses this moment control to argue that the second Li coefficient of a prime cyclotomic field of large conductor is positive and, combined with a zero-free criterion, to exclude a possible exceptional zero in a Stark-type zero-free region for these fields. A reader should care because these moment asymptotics describe how the values of L'/L near the central point distribute over a family of characters, and the zero-free consequence targets a classical exceptional-zero question in cyclotomic fields.

What carries the argument

The engine is the arithmetic function Φ(χ,r,x) = (x−1)^{-1} Σ_{n<x} (x/n−1)χ(n)Λ(n)(log n)^r, which Theorem 1.1 identifies with L^(r)(1,χ) up to sign as x→∞. To compute moments, the paper averages Φ(χ,r,x) first; a character-orthogonality lemma (Lemma 3.1) turns the product of two such character sums into a sum over residue classes j modulo m of convolutions λ^(a)(j,x)λ^(b)(j,x). The main term is the tail of Σ_j Λ_{r,a}(j)Λ_{r,b}(j)/j², while the error comes from bounding the long-residue-class shifts and, for the unconditional passage, from estimating sums of x^β over zeros of L(s,χ).

What would settle it

Evaluate the two sides of identity (25) for a small prime conductor, say m=7, with a=b=1 and a simple test function such as g(x,n)=1 for x=10; any non-zero difference between the average over the six non-principal characters and Σ_{j=1}^6 λ^(1)(j)λ^(1)(j) shows the lemma is false as stated. For the final theorem, numerically compute (1/|X_m|)Σ P^(1,1)(L^(1)(1,χ)) for primes up to a few hundred and check whether the deviation from μ^(1,1)(1) decays like O(m^{−1+ε}); a slower decay would contradict Theorem 1.3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.3: for fixed nonnegative integers a,b and r≥0, the average (1/|X_m|) Σ_{χ∈X_m} P^(a,b)(L^(r)(1,χ)) equals (−1)^{(r+1)(a+b)} μ^(a,b)(r) + O_{r,a,b}(m^{ε−1}) for every ε>0, so the limit holds unconditionally as m→∞. The constant is μ^(a,b)(r)=Σ_{j≥1} Λ_{r,a}(j)Λ_{r,b}(j)/j², built from k-fold Dirichlet convolutions of Λ(n)(log n)^r. The paper first derives an arithmetic formula (Theorem 1.1) expressing L^(r)(1,χ) as the limit of a weighted sum over prime powers, then computes the moments of that arithmetic sum under GRH via character orthogonality, and finally removes the GRH assumption using zero-density and zero-free-region estimates, treating the possible exce

Load-bearing premise

The moment proof depends on an orthogonality identity for non-principal characters; as written it omits a correction term that standard orthogonality predicts, and if that omission is real the proofs of the moment theorems need adjustment, even though the stated limits may still be true.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The unconditional moment limit holds for every fixed r,a,b: the averaged P^(a,b)(L^(r)(1,χ)) converges to (−1)^{(r+1)(a+b)} μ^(a,b)(r) as the prime conductor goes to infinity.
  • The error O(m^{ε−1}) has the same quality as the known r=0 case, so higher-derivative moments are controlled at essentially the same strength as the base case.
  • For r=0 the theorem recovers the Ihara–Murty–Shimura moment result with a uniform unconditional error term of the form O(m^{ε−1}).
  • According to the paper's stated application, positivity of the second Li coefficient for prime cyclotomic fields of large conductor follows, and together with a zero-free criterion this rules out an exceptional zero in a Stark-type zero-free region.
  • The arithmetic formula for L^(r)(1,χ) itself gives explicit finite approximations at scale x that are usable in numerical evaluations of these higher derivatives.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A corrected orthogonality identity—one that accounts for the bias term when products are divisible by the conductor—would likely preserve the main theorem, since the missing contribution is of order 1/(φ(m)−1) and should fall inside the O(m^{ε−1}) error.
  • The same machinery should extend to mixed moments such as P^(a,b)(L^(r)(1,χ)L^(s)(1,χ)), giving the joint distribution of the derivative vector (L^(0)(1,χ), L^(1)(1,χ), …).
  • For composite conductors the character orthogonality is messier, but an explicit bias term can be written down, suggesting the moment limit should persist for conductors tending to infinity without the primality restriction.
  • If the Li-coefficient criterion can be made effective, the method could quantify how large the conductor must be to exclude the exceptional zero, turning a qualitative statement into an explicit one.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the averages of monomials P^{(a,b)}(z)=z^a\bar z^b of the higher logarithmic derivatives \mathcal L^{(r)}(1,\chi)= (L'/L)^{(r)}(1,\chi) of Dirichlet L-functions attached to non-principal characters modulo a large prime m. Theorem 1.1 gives an arithmetic limit formula for \mathcal L^{(r)}(1,\chi) in terms of a truncated prime-power sum. Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 assert, under GRH and unconditionally respectively, that the (a,b)-moment equals (-1)^{(r+1)(a+b)} \mu^{(a,b)}(r)+O(m^{\varepsilon-1}), where \mu^{(a,b)}(r) is an explicit convergent series. The abstract additionally claims an application to positivity of the second Li coefficient and exclusion of an exceptional zero in a Stark-type region, but this application does not appear in the text.

Significance. If the moment theorems are established, they would naturally extend the Ihara--Murty--Shimura first-logarithmic-derivative moment result to all derivatives and provide an unconditional higher-derivative moment asymptotic at the edge of the critical strip. The constant \mu^{(a,b)}(r) is an intrinsic convergent Euler-type sum with no fitted parameters, and the strategy via an explicit arithmetic formula plus standard zero-density estimates is appropriate. The abstract's advertised application to Li coefficients would add arithmetic significance, but it is not present in the manuscript. However, the central computational lemma contains a correctness gap that currently invalidates the proofs of the main moment results as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Lemma 3.1, Eq (25)] The claimed exact identity is false for the average over non-principal characters. Orthogonality over the full group gives (1/\varphi(m))\sum_\chi \chi(n)\bar\chi(n')=1_{n\equiv n'}; after excluding \chi_0 the right-hand side becomes (\varphi(m)/(\varphi(m)-1))\sum_{j=1}^{m-1}\lambda^{(a)}\lambda^{(b)} - (1/(\varphi(m)-1))S_g^{a+b}, where S_g=\sum_{n<x}g(x,n). The proof's assertion that 'when summed over all \chi' only congruent products contribute omits the principal-character subtraction. Since Eq (27) and hence Proposition 3.2 use (25), the proofs of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 are not rigorous as written. The missing bias is O((\log x)^{(r+1)(a+b)}/m) for the g chosen in Prop 3.2, which is smaller than the claimed error, so a corrected proof is plausible; but the current statement is false.
  2. [Abstract and text] The abstract promises that the moment asymptotics imply positivity of the second Li coefficient of prime cyclotomic fields and rule out an exceptional zero in a Stark-type zero-free region. The visible manuscript ends with the proof of Theorem 1.3; there is no definition of Li coefficients, no Stark-type region, and no application. This unsupported claim must either be supplied as a genuine section or removed from the abstract.
  3. [Proposition 3.2, error analysis] After writing \lambda^{(k)}=\Lambda_{r,k}/j+E_k with E_k=O((\log x)^{(r+1)k+1}/m), the displayed estimate 1/|X_m|\sum P = \sum_j \Lambda_{r,a}\Lambda_{r,b}/j^2 + O((\log x)^{(r+1)(a+b)+2}/m^2) is not justified: the linear cross terms \sum_j (\Lambda_{r,a}/j)E_b + E_a(\Lambda_{r,b}/j) are of size O((\log x)^{(r+1)(a+b)+1}/m), not /m^2. This is still smaller than the proposition's final error, so the claim may survive, but the intermediate estimate is incorrect as written. Similarly, Proposition 3.8(2) states O((\log x)^{16}) while its proof concludes O((r+1)!2^r(\log x)^{2r+15}); the statement and proof need to be reconciled.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Lemma 3.1] The second factor in the product g_\chi(x)^a g_\chi(x)^b should be written with a conjugate bar, \overline{g_\chi(x)}^b, to match the definition of P^{(a,b)}(z)=z^a\bar z^b.
  2. [Proposition 3.2, final paragraph] The discussion about including the principal character is confusing, since X_m is already defined as the set of non-principal characters; the paragraph should be removed or clarified.
  3. [Introduction] The attribution 'Paley and Selberg' is followed by a reference only to Paley; a Selberg reference should be added or the name adjusted.
  4. [Section 3.1, Eq (34)] The error term O((\log x)^{r+2}/x) in (34) is dominated by the first error term for x=m^2; the display could be simplified to avoid the impression of a missing factor.
  5. [General] There are occasional grammatical slips (e.g., 'will effect' should be 'will affect'), and some displayed expressions have missing braces (e.g., around \Lambda_{r,k} in the introduction).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No substantive circularity: the moment constant is an intrinsic arithmetic series that emerges from orthogonality, and the self-citations are technical lemmas that do not assume the target result.

full rationale

The claimed moment asymptotics are not circular. The constant μ^{(a,b)}(r) is defined as an independent convergent series (Equation after Theorem 1.2), not fitted to the moment average. The proof computes the average of P^{(a,b)}(Φ(χ,r,x)) by orthogonality in Proposition 3.2, and then relates Φ to L^{(r)} via the explicit formula in Theorem 1.1/equation (34). The reduction to the limit is driven by standard zero-density estimates (Montgomery, Gronwall/Titchmarsh/Siegel) rather than by the desired conclusion. The paper cites the author's prior preprint [4] for technical lemmas (e.g. 'The details for the above are exactly similar to that of [4, Lemma 5.1]' and '[4, Remark 5.3]'), but those cited results are parameter-free and do not assume the present moment asymptotics, so under the review rules they count as independent support rather than circularity. Two non-circular defects should be recorded separately: Lemma 3.1's identity (25) appears to be false as written because averaging over X⋆_m excludes the principal character and therefore omits a bias term; and the abstract's advertised application to Li-coefficient positivity and exceptional-zero exclusion is not proved in the visible text. These are correctness/completeness issues, not equivalence-by-construction or fitted-parameter circularity, so they do not raise the circularity score. The only blemish is a reproducibility burden from relying on the author's unpublished preprint for proof details.

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

No numerical constants are fitted to data. The moment limit μ^{(a,b)}(r) is an explicit convergent series, and the results depend on external zero-free and zero-density theorems. The paper also depends on the author's earlier preprint [4] for several un-reproduced lemmas, and on a mis-stated orthogonality identity.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Functional equation and Hadamard product expansion for Hecke L-functions
    Invoked in equations (6)-(7) and (11) to express L^{(r)}(1,χ) via sums over zeros and Gamma factors.
  • standard math Standard zero-free region for Hecke L-functions: zeros satisfy 1-β ≫ 1/log(|t|+q) except for a possible exceptional real zero
    Used after Eq (17) to conclude lim E1=0 in Theorem 1.1; attributed to Lagarias-Montgomery-Odlyzko [10, Lemma 2.3].
  • standard math Montgomery zero-density estimate N(σ,T,m) ≪ (mT)^{2(1-σ)/σ} (log mT)^{14} for σ≥4/5
    Used in Lemma 3.5 and Proposition 3.8 to bound sums over zeros with large real part; quoted from Montgomery [12],[13].
  • standard math Effective zero-free region with a single possible exceptional real zero (Theorem (A) in the text)
    Used in Lemmas 3.3 and 3.6 and Proposition 3.8 to isolate χ1; cited to Davenport.
  • domain assumption GRH for Dirichlet L-functions
    Assumed in Theorem 1.2 and in equation (34) to control the error term E1.
  • ad hoc to paper The exact orthogonality identity of Lemma 3.1, Eq (25)
    This identity is not literally true for the non-principal average; a bias term involving the principal character's sum is omitted. It is load-bearing for Proposition 3.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Moments of Higher Logarithmic Derivatives and Exceptional Zeros in Cyclotomic Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T7NEXMI7

@misc{pith2026250906390,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Moments of Higher Logarithmic Derivatives and Exceptional Zeros in Cyclotomic Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T7NEXMI7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06390}
}
abstract

Let $\chi$ be a non-principal Dirichlet character, and let $L(s,\chi)$ be the associated Dirichlet $L$-function. We write $\mathcal{L}(s,\chi)$ for its logarithmic derivative $L'(s,\chi)/L(s,\chi)$. In this article, we prove arithmetic formulas for the higher derivatives $\mathcal{L}^{(r)}(1,\chi)$ and establish unconditional moment asymptotics for $P^{(a,b)}(\mathcal{L}^{(r)}(1,\chi))$ as $\chi$ runs over non-principal Dirichlet characters of large prime conductor. As an application, we show that these moment asymptotics imply positivity of the second Li coefficient of prime cyclotomic fields of sufficiently large conductor. Combined with a zero-free criterion in terms of this Li coefficient, this rules out the possible exceptional zero in a Stark-type zero-free region for these fields.

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. Distribution of values of higher derivatives of $L'(s,\chi)/L(s,\chi)$

    math.NT 2026-01 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The first derivative of the logarithmic derivative of Dirichlet L-functions has a limiting distribution with density M_{σ,1}(w) for σ>1, while higher derivatives are only sketched and need σ>2.93 for the m=2 case.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [4]

    Higher Euler-Kronecker Constants of Number fields

    S. Ghosh,Higher Euler-Kronecker constants of Number fields, (2024), arXiv:2411.17946 [math.NT]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Cassels and A

    J.W.S. Cassels and A. Fr¨olich,Algebraic Number Theory, Proceedings of an Instructional Conference by London Mathematical Society and International Mathematical Union, Academic press., 1976

    work page 1976

  3. [2]

    J. B. CONREY,The fourth moment of derivatives of the Riemann zeta-function, The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 21–36, doi:10.1093/qmath/39.1.21., March 1988

    work page doi:10.1093/qmath/39.1.21 1988

  4. [3]

    Davenport,Multiplicative Number Theory, Third edition, Springer Verlag, New York, 2000

    H. Davenport,Multiplicative Number Theory, Third edition, Springer Verlag, New York, 2000

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    Heath-Brown,Fractional moments of DirichletL-functions, Acta Arith., 145(4), 397–409, 2010

    D.R. Heath-Brown,Fractional moments of DirichletL-functions, Acta Arith., 145(4), 397–409, 2010

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    With introduc- tory material by B

    Erich Hecke,Mathematische Werke, third edition, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, G ¨ottingen. With introduc- tory material by B. Schoeneberg, C.L. Siegel, and J. Nielsen. MR 749754 (86a:01049), 1983

    work page 1983

  7. [7]

    M. N. Huxley and M. Jutila,Large values of Dirichlet polynomials IV, Acta Arithmetica32(1977), 297–312

    work page 1977

  8. [8]

    M-functions

    Y. Ihara,On “M-functions” closely related to the distribution of L’/L-values, (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 19 references
  1. [9]

    Yasutaka Ihara,On the Euler-Kronecker constants of global fields and primes with small norms, (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Lagarias, J.C

    Montgomery H.L. Lagarias, J.C. and A.M. Odlyzko,A bound for the least prime ideal in the chebotarev density theorem., Invent Math54(1979), 271–296

    1979

  3. [11]

    Milinovich,Moments of the Riemann zeta-function at its relative extrema on the critical line, Bull

    M.B. Milinovich,Moments of the Riemann zeta-function at its relative extrema on the critical line, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc., 43(6), 1119–1129, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Montgomery,Zeros ofL-functions., Inventiones mathematicae8(1969), 346–354

    H.L. Montgomery,Zeros ofL-functions., Inventiones mathematicae8(1969), 346–354

    1969

  5. [13]

    227, Springer Verlag, 1971

    ,Topics in Multiplicative Number Theory, Lecture Notes in Math. 227, Springer Verlag, 1971

    1971

  6. [14]

    R. E. A. C. Paley,On the k-analogues of some theorems in the theory of the Riemann ζ-function, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Vol s2-32, 1, P .273-311, 1931. 18

    1931

  7. [15]

    Keiju Sono,Upper bounds for the moments of derivatives of Dirichlet L-functions, Central European Journal of Mathematics, Vol 12(6), 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Soundararajan,Moments of the Riemann zeta function, Ann

    K. Soundararajan,Moments of the Riemann zeta function, Ann. of Math., 170(2), 981–993, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    H. M. Stark,Some effective cases of the Brauer-Siegel Theorem, Inventiones math. 23, 135-152, 1974

    1974

  10. [18]

    Kumar Murty,On the logarithmic derivatives of Dirichlet L-functions at s=1, Acta Arithmetica137(2009), no

    Mahoro Shimura Yasutaka Ihara, V . Kumar Murty,On the logarithmic derivatives of Dirichlet L-functions at s=1, Acta Arithmetica137(2009), no. 3, 253–276 (eng)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Zhang,On the fourth power mean of Dirichlet L-functions, Chinese Science Bulletin, Vol 35, page 1940-1945, 1990

    W. Zhang,On the fourth power mean of Dirichlet L-functions, Chinese Science Bulletin, Vol 35, page 1940-1945, 1990. MATHEMATICALSCIENCES468, UNIVERSITY OFCALGARY, 2500 UNIVERSITYDRIVENW, CALGARY, ALBERTA, T2N 1N4, CANADA. Email address:samprit.ghosh@ucalgary.ca 19

    1940

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.