On the Density Hypothesis for the Selberg Class

1 Introduction

The Selberg class $S$ of $\mathcal{L}$-functions was introduced by Atle Selberg in 1992 [10]. The elements of the class $S$ are Dirichlet series $F(s)$ satisfying the following axioms:

• $F(s)$ is absolutely convergent for $\sigma>1$;

• $(s-1)^{m}F(s)$ is an entire function of finite order with an integer $m\geq 0$;

• $F(s)$ satisfies a functional equation of the form

  $$\Phi(s)=\omega\overline{\Phi}(1-s),$$

  where $|\omega|=1$, $\overline{f}(s)=\overline{f(s)}$ and

  $$\Phi(s)=Q^{s}\prod_{j=1}^{r}\Gamma(\lambda_{j}s+\mu_{j})F(s),\ \ Q>0,\ \lambda_{j}>0,\ \text{\rm Re }\mu_{j}\geq 0;$$

• the Dirichlet coefficients $a(n)$ of $F(s)$ satisfy the Ramanujan condition $a(n)\ll n^{\varepsilon}$ for every $\varepsilon>0$;

• $\log F(s)$ is a Dirichlet series, $\log F(s)=\sum\limits_{p}\log F_{p}(s)$,

  $$\log F_{p}(s)=\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\frac{b(p^{m})}{p^{ms}},\ \ \ b(p^{m})\ll(p^{m})^{\vartheta}\ \text{ for some }\ \vartheta<1/2.$$

One of the most important notions is the degree $d_{F}$ of a function $F\in S$ defined by

$$d_{F}=2\sum_{j=1}^{r}\lambda_{j},$$ (1.1)

which is, in fact, an invariant of $F$.

One of the main goals of the theory would be to characterize elements of the Selberg class if their degree $d_{F}$ is given. Selberg conjectured that the degree is always a non-negative integer. One of the other main goals (clearly hopeless at present) would be to show the Riemann Hypothesis for all $F\in S$, i.e., that all non-trivial zeros of $F$ lie on the line $\text{\rm Re }s=1/2$.

Concerning the characterization problem Conrey and Ghosh [3] showed that there is no element $F$ with a degree $d_{F}\in(0,1)$ while the only function with $d_{F}=0$ (i.e. without $\Gamma$-factors) is $F=1$.

Very deep results were reached by Kaczorowski and Perelli ([7] and [9]). In [7] they showed that the only functions with $d_{F}=1$ are the Riemann zeta and ordinary Dirichlet $\mathcal{L}$-functions. In [9] they showed that there are no elements $F\in S$ with $1<d_{F}<2$.

For the number $N_{F}(T)$ of non-trivial zeros of $F$ with $0\leq Ims\leq T$ Selberg showed that

$$N_{F}(T)=d_{F}\frac{T(\log T+C)}{2\pi}+O(\log T),$$ (1.2)

similarly to the case of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$.

As an approximation to the Riemann Hypothesis Carlson proved more than hundred years ago [2] that

$$N(\sigma,T)\ll T^{4\sigma(1-\sigma)}\log^{c}T.$$ (1.3)

The best possible (eventually uniform) conjecture of type

$$N(1-\eta,T)\ll T^{A(\eta)\eta}\log^{c}T,\ \ \ (\eta\leq 1/2)$$ (1.4)

or

$$N(1-\eta,T)\ll_{\varepsilon}T^{A(\eta)\eta+\varepsilon}\ \text{ for any }\varepsilon>0$$ (1.5)

is by (1.2) with $A(\eta)\leq A=2$. It is called the Density Hypothesis.

Although there were many improvements of Carlson’s result in the past hundred years, the Density Hypothesis is still open. A breakthrough result was shown half a century later by Halász and Turán [4] who could show its validity in a fixed strip $\eta<c_{1}$ of the critical strip. Several mathematicians showed Carlson type density theorems for elements of the Selberg class, including Kaczorowski and Perelli [8] who showed for any $F\in S$

$$N_{F}(1-\eta,T)\ll_{\varepsilon}T^{A_{F}(\eta)\eta+\varepsilon}$$ (1.6)

with

$$A_{F}(\eta)=4(d_{F}+3)\ \ \text{ for }\ \eta<1/4.$$ (1.7)

Other works proved even the corresponding Density Hypothesis for several elements $F\in S$.

Our present goal is to show a density theorem, namely the following

Theorem. Under the above notations (1.6) holds with

$$A_{F}(\eta)=\max(d_{F},2)\ \ \text{ \it for }\ \eta\leq 1/10.$$ (1.8)

In particular, we obtain the Density Hypothesis if $d_{F}\leq 2$. We do not use the deep fact (resp. conjecture) that there are no elements of the Selberg class, if $d_{F}$ is not a non-negative integer.

2 Notation. Proof of Theorem. Preparation

We begin with some notation and a definition.

Let us assume that we have zeros $\varrho_{j}=\beta_{j}+i\gamma_{j}$ of $F(S)$ with $\gamma_{j}\in[T/2,T]$, $T$ large, $\beta_{j}=1-\eta_{j}$, $n_{j}\leq\eta\leq 1/4$, $\sigma=1-\eta$. Suppose further that for $j\neq\nu$

$$|\gamma_{j}-\gamma_{\nu}|\geq 3\mathcal{L}^{3}\ \ \text{ with }\ \ \mathcal{L}=\log T.$$ (2.1)

Let $\varepsilon$ be a generic arbitrary small positive constant which might be different at different occurrences.

Let us choose the parameters $X$ and $Y$ as

$$X=T^{\varepsilon},$$ (2.2)

$$Y=T^{d_{F}/2+\varepsilon}.$$ (2.3)

Definition. The implicit constants in the $\vartheta$ and $\ll$ symbols might depend on $\varepsilon$ and $F(s)$. A non-trivial zero $\varrho=\beta_{j}+i\gamma_{j}=1-\eta_{j}+i\gamma_{j}$ of $F(S)$ will be called an extreme right hand (eRH) zero if the rectangle (for $H=\mathcal{L}$)

$$R_{H}(\varrho):=\left\{\sigma+it;\,\sigma\geq\beta_{j}+\frac{1}{\mathcal{L}},\,|t-\gamma_{j}|\leq H^{2}\right\}$$ (2.4)

is free of zeros of $F(s)$.

Starting from any zero $\varrho_{0}$ with $\beta_{0}\geq 1/2$ we have two possibilities:

(i)  $\varrho_{0}$ is an eRH zero;

(ii) we can find another zero $\varrho_{1}=\beta_{1}+i\gamma_{1}$ with $\beta_{1}\geq\beta_{0}+1/\mathcal{L}$, $|\gamma_{1}-\gamma_{0}|\leq\mathcal{L}^{2}$.

In case (i) we are ready, in case (ii) we continue the same procedure with $\varrho_{1}$ in place of $\varrho_{0}$. In such a way we arrive after at most $\lceil\mathcal{L}/2\rceil$ steps at an eRH zero $\varrho^{\prime}$ with

$$\beta^{\prime}\geq\beta_{0},\ \ |\gamma^{\prime}-\gamma_{0}|\leq\mathcal{L}^{3}.$$ (2.5)

The advantage of using an eRH zero $\varrho^{\prime}$ instead of an arbitrary $\varrho$ in our counting procedure will be clear from the following

Lemma 1.

If for a point $s_{0}=\sigma_{0}+it_{0}=1-\eta_{0}+it_{0}$ with $\sigma_{0}\geq 1/2$, $|t_{0}|\leq 2T$ the rectangle $R_{H}(s_{0})$ defined by $H=\mathcal{L}$ and (2.4) with $\varrho$ replaced by $s_{0}$ is zero-free, then

$$F\left(\frac{1}{2}+it\right)\ll T^{\sigma_{0}-1/2+\varepsilon}\ \text{ for }\ |t-t_{0}|\leq\mathcal{L}^{2}/2.$$ (2.6)

Proof.

Let $\frac{3}{\mathcal{L}}<\delta$ be a sufficiently small parameter to be determined later. Let us use the Borel–Carathéodory theorem for $\log F(z)$ with the circles of radius $r=2-\sigma_{0}-\delta/2$ and $2-\sigma_{0}-\delta$ and centre $2+it_{0}$. Then we have on the larger circle

$$\text{\rm Re }\log F(z)=\log|F(z)|\ll\mathcal{L}.$$ (2.7)

Hence, on the smaller circle by $F(s)=t^{0(1)}$ and axiom (v)

$$|\log F(z)|\ll\frac{4-2\sigma_{0}-\delta}{\delta/2}\mathcal{L}+\frac{4-2\sigma_{0}-3\delta/2}{\delta/2}\bigl{|}\log F(2+it_{0})\bigr{|}\ll\frac{\mathcal{L}}{\delta}.$$ (2.8)

Afterwards apply Hadamard’s three circle theorem with circles $C_{1},C_{2},C_{3}$, centered at $1/\delta+it_{0}$ passing through the points $2+it_{0}$, $\sigma_{0}+10\delta+it_{0}$, $\sigma_{0}+\delta+it_{0}$, i.e. with radii $r_{1}=1/\delta-2$, $r_{2}=1/\delta-\sigma_{0}-10\delta$, $r_{3}=1/\delta-\sigma_{0}-\delta$. Let us denote the maximum of $F(z)$ on these circles by $M_{1}$, $M_{2}$, $M_{3}$. We have then

$$M_{2}\leq M_{1}^{1-a}\cdot M_{3}^{a}$$ (2.9)

where by $\log(1+x)=x-\frac{x^{2}}{2}(1+o(1))$ for $x\to 0$

$$a =\log\frac{r_{2}}{r_{1}}\!\!\biggm{/}\!\!\log\frac{r_{3}}{r_{1}}=\log\!\left(\!1\!+\frac{2\!-\!\sigma_{0}-10\delta}{1/\delta-2}\right)\!\!\biggm{/}\!\!\log\!\left(\!1\!+\frac{2-\sigma_{0}-\delta}{1/\delta-2}\right)$$ (2.10)

$$\leq\left(\frac{2-\sigma_{0}-10\delta}{1/\delta-2}\left(1-\frac{2\delta}{5}\right)\!\right)\!\!\biggm{/}\!\!\left(\frac{2-\sigma_{0}-\delta}{1/\delta-2}\left(1-\frac{2\delta}{3}\right)\right)$$

$$\leq\frac{2-\sigma_{0}-10\delta}{2-\sigma_{0}-\delta}\left(1+\frac{\delta}{3}\right).$$

For the elements $F$ of the Selberg class we have by axiom (v)

$$M_{1}=\max_{z\in C_{1}}|\log F(z)|\ll 1,$$ (2.11)

while the argument of the Borel–Carathéodory theorem, yields (2.8) for every point of the circle $C_{3}$ (not only for $\sigma_{0}+\delta+it_{0}$)

$$M_{3}=\max_{z\in C_{3}}|\log F(z)|\ll\frac{\mathcal{L}}{\delta}.$$ (2.12)

Taking into account (2.9)–(2.10) we obtain

$$\left|\log F(\sigma_{0}+10\delta+it_{0})\right| \leq M_{2}\ll\frac{1}{\delta}\mathcal{L}^{a}$$ (2.13)

$$\ll\frac{1}{\delta}\mathcal{L}^{(1-\frac{9\delta}{2-\sigma_{0}})(1+\frac{\delta}{3})}$$

$$\ll\frac{1}{\delta}\mathcal{L}^{1-6\delta}.$$

Choosing $\delta=1/\sqrt{\log\mathcal{L}}$

$$\left|\log F(\sigma_{0}+10\delta+it_{0})\right|\ll\sqrt{\log\mathcal{L}}\cdot\mathcal{L}e^{-6\sqrt{\log\mathcal{L}}}=o(\mathcal{L}).$$ (2.14)

Hence, from the functional equation we obtain

$$\left|\log F(1-\sigma_{0}-10\delta+it_{0})\right|\leq\frac{d_{F}}{2}(2\sigma_{0}-1+o(1))\log T.$$ (2.15)

If we replace in the definition $R_{\mathcal{L}}(s)$ the parameter $\mathcal{L}$ by $\mathcal{L}/2$ then the whole argument yielding (2.14)–(2.15) remains valid. Therefore we have (2.14)–(2.15) if $t_{0}$ is replaced by an arbitrary $t^{*}$ with

$$|t^{*}-t_{0}|\leq\mathcal{L}^{2}/4.$$ (2.16)

So, we can now use Hadamard’s three lines theorem for the function

$$f(z)=F(z)e^{(z-it^{*})^{2}}$$ (2.17)

on the lines $\sigma_{1}=\sigma_{0}+10\delta$, $\sigma_{2}=1/2$, $\sigma_{3}=1-\sigma_{0}-10\delta$.

Let us denote the corresponding maximums by $M_{1}$, $M_{2}$, $M_{3}$. First we note that as (2.14)–(2.15) are valid for $t_{0}$ replaced by $t^{*}$ we have

$$M_{1}=\sup_{t}|f(\sigma_{1}+it)|\ll|F(\sigma_{1}+it^{*})|\ll T^{\varepsilon}$$ (2.18)

and

$$M_{3}=\sup_{t}|f(\sigma_{3}+it)|\ll|F(\sigma_{3}+it^{*})|\ll T^{d_{F}(2\sigma_{0}-1)/2+\varepsilon}.$$ (2.19)

Consequently, by Hadamard’s three lines theorem we have

$$M_{2}=\sup_{t}|f(1/2+it)|\ll(M_{1}M_{3})^{1/2}\ll T^{d_{F}(\sigma_{0}-1/2)/2+\varepsilon}.$$ (2.20)

In particular we have for $t^{*}\in[t_{0}-\mathcal{L}^{2}/2,t_{0}+\mathcal{L}^{2}/2]$

$$\left|F\left(\frac{1}{2}+it^{*}\right)\right|=\left|f\left(\frac{1}{2}+it^{*}\right)\right|e^{-1/4}\ll T^{d_{F}(\sigma_{0}-1/2)/2+\varepsilon}.$$ (2.21)

∎

3 The zero detection method

We will use the now standard method of Montgomery to detect the zeros of $F(s)$ with $\beta\geq 3/4$ with slight modifications applied by Kaczorowski and Perelli [8] to prove (1.6)–(1.7). We will closely follow [8], so we will be brief. Until the end of (3.5) these zeros can be arbitrary with (2.1), later on we suppose that they are eRH zeros (see Section 2).

Denoting the $p$-th Euler factor of $F(s)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}a(n)n^{-s}$ by $F_{p}(s)$ with a $z=z(\varepsilon)$ to be chosen later we write

$$F(s,z):=\prod_{p>z}F_{p}(s),\ \ M_{X}(s,z):=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}n\leq X\\ (n,P(z))=1\end{subarray}}a^{-1}(n)n^{-s}.$$ (3.1)

Since $F_{p}(s)\neq 0$ for $\sigma\geq 1/2$ (see Section 2 of [7]), the zeros of $F(s)$ and $F(s,z)$ coincide in the halfplane $\sigma\geq 1/2$. For $\sigma>1$ we have

$$F(s,z)M_{X}(s,z)=1+\sum_{n>X}c(n,z,X)n^{-s},$$ (3.2)

where by Lemma 1 of [8]

$$c(n)=c(n,z,X)\ll n^{\varepsilon}.$$ (3.3)

By the well-known Mellin transform we have for a zero $\varrho$ of $F(s)$

$$I(\varrho): =e^{-1/Y}+\sum_{n>X}c(n)n^{-\varrho}e^{-n/Y}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int\limits_{(2)}F(\varrho+s,z)M_{X}(\varrho+s,z)Y^{s}\Gamma(s)ds$$ (3.4)

$$=r(X,Y,\varrho)+\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int\limits_{(1/2-\beta)}F(\varrho+s,z)M_{X}(\varrho+s,z)Y^{s}\Gamma(s),$$

where $r(X,Y,\varrho)$ denotes the residue of the integrand at $s=1-\varrho$, since the integrand is regular at $s=0$. We have

$$r(X,Y,\varrho)\ll\left(M_{X}(\varrho+s,z)Y^{s}\Gamma(s)\right)^{(m-1)}_{s=1-\varrho}\ll T^{\varepsilon}XY^{1-\beta}e^{-T}=o(1).$$ (3.5)

Further, we have by $b(n)\ll n^{\vartheta}$, $\vartheta<1/2$, in case of an eRH zero $\varrho$ for $|u|\leq\mathcal{L}^{2}/2$ by (2.21)

$$\left|F\left(\frac{1}{2}+i(u+\gamma)z\right)\right| \leq\prod_{p\leq z}F_{p}^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{2}+i(u+\gamma)\right)F\left(\frac{1}{2}+i(u+\gamma)\right)$$ (3.6)

$$\ll(|u+\gamma|+2)^{(d_{F}/2)(\beta-1/2)+\varepsilon}.$$

Due to the exponential decay of the $\Gamma$-function we can restrict the integral on the RHS of (3.4) to the interval $\bigl{[}1/2-\beta-i\mathcal{L}^{2}/2$, $1/2-\beta+i\mathcal{L}^{2}/2\bigr{]}$ and so we obtain from (3.4)–(3.6) and (2.1)

$$1+O\left(\frac{1}{Y}\right)+\sum_{x<n<Y\mathcal{L}^{2}}c(n)n^{-\varrho}e^{-n/Y} \ll T^{(d_{F}/2)(\beta-1/2)+\varepsilon}Y^{1/2-\beta}+o(1)$$ (3.7)

$$=o(1).$$

This implies by partial summation by $\beta\geq 1-\eta$

$$\sum_{X<n<Y\mathcal{L}^{2}}c(n)n^{-(1-\eta)-i\gamma}e^{-n/Y}\gg 1.$$ (3.8)

Hence, by a dyadic subdivision of the interval $[X,Y\mathcal{L}^{2}]$ we obtain an interval

$$[M,M^{\prime}]\subseteq[M,2M]\subset[X,Y\mathcal{L}^{2}]$$ (3.9)

with

$$\Bigl{|}\sum_{M<n\leq M^{\prime}}c(n)n^{-(1-\eta)-i\gamma_{j}}e^{-n/Y}\Bigr{|}\gg 1/\mathcal{L}$$ (3.10)

if $\varrho=1-\eta_{j}-i\gamma_{j}$ was an eRH zero of $F(s)$ with $\eta_{j}\leq\eta$.

We will now use Halász’s idea for a suitable $k$th power of the LHS of (3.9) in a version of Heath-Brown [6] which incorporates the twelfth power moment estimate of the Riemann zeta function due to Heath-Brown [5].

Lemma 2.

Suppose $t_{1},\ldots,t_{R}$ are real numbers, $a_{n}$ arbitrary complex numbers, $\varepsilon>0$

$$|t_{i}-t_{j}|\geq 1\ \text{ for }\ i,j\in[1,R],\ i\neq j,\ |t_{i}|\leq T.$$ (3.11)

Then

$$\sum_{r\leq R}\Bigl{|}\sum_{N}^{2N}a_{n}n^{-it_{r}}\Bigr{|}^{2}\ll T^{\varepsilon}\bigl{(}N+R^{11/12}T^{1/6}N^{1/2}\bigr{)}\sum_{N}^{2N}|a_{n}|^{2}.$$ (3.12)

Corollary 1.

Suppose that $s_{r}=1-\eta+it_{r}$ $(1\leq r\leq R)$ with $t_{r}$ satisfying (3.11), $b_{n}$ arbitrary complex with $b_{n}\ll n^{\varepsilon}$. Then

$$\sum_{r\leq R}\Bigl{|}\sum_{N}^{2N}b_{n}n^{-s_{r}}\Bigr{|}^{2}\ll T^{\varepsilon}N^{2\varepsilon}\bigl{(}N^{2\eta}+R^{11/12}T^{1/6}N^{-(1/2-2\eta)}\bigr{)}.$$ (3.13)

Now, if

$$\Bigl{|}\sum_{N}^{2N}b_{n}n^{-s_{r}}\Bigr{|}^{2}\gg T^{-\varepsilon},$$ (3.14)

then we obtain from (3.13)

$$R\ll T^{3\varepsilon}N^{2\eta+2\varepsilon}$$ (3.15)

or

$$R\ll R^{11/12}T^{1/6+3\varepsilon}N^{-(1/2-2\eta)+2\varepsilon};$$ (3.16)

consequently

$$R\ll T^{2+36\varepsilon}N^{24\eta-6+24\varepsilon}.$$ (3.17)

Now, (3.15) and (3.17) mean that in case of

$$N_{0}:=T^{\frac{2-2\eta}{6-24\eta}+C\varepsilon}\leq N\leq T^{C}$$ (3.18)

we have (we remind that $\varepsilon$ is a generic constant)

$$R\ll T^{\varepsilon}(N^{2\eta}+T^{2\eta})\ \ \text{ for any }\ \varepsilon>0.$$ (3.19)

We consider now two cases according to the size of $N=M^{k}$:

(i) If $N_{0}\leq N\ll Y^{1+\varepsilon}$ then by (3.19)

$$R\ll T^{\varepsilon}(Y^{2\eta}+T^{2\eta})=T^{d_{F}\eta+\varepsilon}+T^{2\eta+\varepsilon};$$ (3.20)

(ii) if $N_{0}\ll N\ll N_{0}^{3/2}$ then by (3.19)

$$R\ll T^{\varepsilon}(N_{0}^{3\eta}+T^{2\eta})=T^{\frac{(1-\eta)\eta}{(1-4\eta)}+\varepsilon}+T^{2\eta+\varepsilon}\ll T^{2\eta+\varepsilon}$$ (3.21)

since $\eta\leq 1/7$.

If the original value of $M$ was less than $N_{0}^{1/2+\varepsilon}$ we can find $k$ with $M^{k}\in\bigl{[}N_{0}^{1+\varepsilon},N_{0}^{3/2+\varepsilon}\bigr{]}$. If $M\in\bigl{[}N_{0}^{1/2+\varepsilon},N_{0}^{1+\varepsilon}\bigr{]}$, we choose $k=2$ and obtain

$$R\ll T^{\varepsilon}\bigl{(}N_{0}^{4\eta}+T^{2\eta}\bigr{)}\ll T^{\frac{4(1-\eta)\eta}{3(1-4\eta)}+\varepsilon}+T^{2\eta+\varepsilon}\ll T^{2\eta+\varepsilon}$$ (3.22)

since $\eta\leq 1/10$.

Finally, for $M\geq N_{0}^{1+\varepsilon}$ we have (3.20) by $M\leq Y$ with the choice $k=1$.

For the sake of completeness we have to note that we used the fact that if $\sum\limits_{M}^{2M}a_{m}m^{-s}$ is a Dirichlet polynomial with $|a_{m}|\leq C(\delta)m^{\delta}$ then its $k$th power, i.e.,

$$\sum_{N}^{2^{k}N}b_{n}n^{-s}$$ (3.23)

satisfies

$$b_{n}=\Bigl{|}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}n=n_{1}n_{2}\ldots n_{k}\\ n_{i}\in(M,2M]\end{subarray}}a_{n_{1}}a_{n_{2}}\ldots a_{n_{k}}\Bigr{|} \leq\tau_{k}(n)C(\delta)^{k}(n_{1}\ldots n_{R})^{\delta}$$ (3.24)

$$\leq C(\delta)^{k}n^{\delta}\tau^{k}(n)$$

$$\ll_{\delta,k}n^{2\delta}$$

where $\tau_{k}(n)$ is the generalized divisor function. In our case we have $\tau(n)\ll n^{c/\log\log n}$, $\delta=\varepsilon$ and $k\leq\log_{2}(1/\varepsilon)+1$ ($\log_{2}m$ denotes the logarithm of base $2$).

We note that in the course of proof we used that the number of eRH zeros satisfying (2.1) is at most a factor $C\mathcal{L}^{5}$ times higher than the total number of all zeros with $|\gamma|\leq T$, $\beta\geq\sigma=1-\eta$.

János Pintz
HUN-REN Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics
Budapest, Reáltanoda u. 13–15
H-1053 Hungary
e-mail: pintz@renyi.hu