Mean squares of quadratic twists of the Möbius function
Abstract.
In this paper, we evaluate asymptotically the sum
where is the Kronecker symbol and runs over positive, odd, square-free integers.
Mathematics Subject Classification (2010): 11N37, 11L05, 11L40
Keywords: mean square, quadratic Dirichlet character, Möbius function
1. Introduction
Let denote the Möbius function and the corresponding Mertens function is defined to be
The size of is inextricably connected with the Riemann hypothesis (RH). It is known (see [Sound09-1]) that RH is equivalent to
(1.1) |
for any .
There have been a number of subsequent refinements of the bounds in (1.1), all under RH. In [Landau24], E. Landau proved that (1.1) is valid with . This bound was improved to by E. C. Titchmarsh [Titchmarsh27], to by H. Maier and H. L. Montgomery [MM09] and by K. Soundararajan [Sound09-1] to
The power in the above expression has been improved to for any by
M. Balazard and A. de Roton in [BR08] upon refining the method of Soundararajan.
One may consider more generally the sum with the Möbius function twisted by a Dirichlet character modulo . More precisely, we define
Similar to the relation between and RH, the size of is related to the generalized Riemann hypothesis (GRH) of the corresponding Dirichlet -function . It follows from Perron’s formula that GRH implies that
(1.2) |
for any . Conversely, (1.2) gives, via partial summation, the convergence of the Dirichlet series of for any , and therefore GRH for . While studying sums of the Möbius function in arithmetic progressions, L. Ye [Ye] established that under GRH, uniformly for and ,
This improved an earlier result of K. Halupczok and B. Suger [H&S13, Lemma 1,2]. Moreover, it follows from a general result of H. Maier and A. Sankaranarayanan [M&S16] on multiplicative Möbius-like functions that in (1.2) under GRH, which is comparable to the above mentioned result of Titchmarsh [Titchmarsh27] on .
As noted in [MM09], the behavior of depends both on the distribution of as runs over the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function (under RH), and on the linear independence of the . This makes it difficult to predict the behavior of in any finer way. For example, a well-known conjecture of Mertens claiming that was disproved by A. M. Odlyzko and H. J. J. te Riele [O&R]. In connection to this, one also has the weak Mertens conjecture which asserts that
In [Ng04, Theorem 3], N. Ng proved that as , for some constant ,
(1.3) |
provided that one assumes RH and
One may interpret (1.3) as a mean square type of estimation for and in this situation one is able to evaluate the average asymptotically. We are thus motivated to seek for other mean square estimations involving the Möbius function and it is the aim of our paper to study one such case.
To state our result, we write for the Kronecker symbol and note that if is odd and square-free, is a primitive Dirichlet character. We are interested in the following sum
where the asterisk indicates that runs over odd and square-free integers.
We may view as a mean square expression involving and one expects an asymptotic expression for it. In fact, it is not difficult to obtain one if using the Pólya-Vinogradov inequality to control the contribution of the off-diagonal terms. The situation is more intriguing for larger ’s, especially if and are of comparable size. For instance, the sum
can be evaluated asymptotically if or using the Pólya-Vinogradov inequality. In [CFS], J. B. Conrey, D. W. Farmer and K. Soundararajan applied a Poisson summation formula developed by Soundararajan in [sound1] to obtain an asymptotic formula for the other ranges. We also note here that extensions and generalizations of this problem were studied by the authors in [G&Zhao2019, G&Zhao2020, G&Zhao2022].
In studying , we shall also utlize the Poisson summation formula given in [sound1] as well as the techniques developed by K. Soundararajan and M. P. Young [S&Y] in their work on the second moment of quadratic twists of modular -functions. For technical reasons, we consider smoothed sums instead. We thus fix two non-negative, smooth functions that are compactly supported on . Set
(1.4) |
We shall evaluate asymptotically as follows.
Theorem 1.1.
One checks that (1.5) gives a valid asymptotic formula if for any .
2. Preliminaries
We gather first a few auxiliary results necessary in the proof of Theorem 1.1 in this section.
2.1. Gauss sums
For all odd integers and all integers , define the Gauss-type sums , as in [sound1, Sect. 2.2],
(2.1) |
Let be the Euler totient of . Our next result is taken from [sound1, Lemma 2.3] and evaluates .
Lemma 2.2.
If then . Suppose that is the largest power of dividing (put if ). Then for we have
2.3. Poisson Summation
For any smooth function , we write for the Fourier transform of and we define
(2.2) |
We note the following Poisson summation formula from [sound1, Lemma 2.6].
2.5. Upper bounds for
From [iwakow, Theorem 5.19], we deduce the following.
Lemma 2.6.
Assume the truth of GRH. For any Dirichlet character modulo and any , we have
where the implied constant depends on alone.
2.7. Analytical behaviors of some Dirichlet Series
We define for any square-free ,
(2.3) |
where be defined as in (2.1). Note first that Lemma 2.2 implies that converges absolutely when , , and are all strictly greater than . We write for the Euler product of with the factors from removed. Our next lemma describes the analytical behavior of .
Lemma 2.8.
The function defined in (2.3) may be written as
(2.4) |
where is a function uniformly bounded in the region , for any .
Proof.
We deduce from Lemma 2.2 that the summand in (2.3) is jointly multiplicative in terms of , and , so that we can express as an Euler product over all primes . It suffices to match each Euler factor at for with the corresponding factor in (2.4).
The contribution of such an Euler factor for the generic case with is
If , , ,
Lemma 2.2 implies that the contribution from the terms is
and the contribution of the
term is . This calculation readily implies that this Euler factor for matches the corresponding one in (2.4).
Similarly, when and , , Lemma 2.2 implies that the Euler factor for but equals
Lastly, the corresponding Euler factor for the case is . The assertion of the lemma now follows from these computations. ∎
3. Proof of Theorem 1.1
3.1. Decomposition of
Expanding the square in (1.4) allows us to recast as
where is a smooth function on . We apply the Möbius inversion to remove the square-free condition on to obtain that, for an appropriate parameter to be chosen later,
3.2. Estimating
We first estimate . To this end, writing with square-free, and grouping terms according to , we deduce
(3.1) |
Applying Mellin transforms in the variables and yeilds that the inner triple sum over , , and in (3.1) is
(3.2) |
where
Now integration by parts gives that for , and any positive integers , ,
(3.3) |
Note that the sum over and in (3.2) equals and we can thus move the lines of integration in (3.2) to without encountering any poles under GRH. Moreover,
(3.4) |
where denotes the value of the divisor function at .
We conclude from the above estimation and (3.1) that
(3.5) |
3.3. Estimating , the main term
We evaluate now. Write for brevity and . We then apply the Poisson summation formula, Lemma 2.4, to deduce that
(3.6) |
Let for the terms in (3.6) with . Note that
Moreover, with denoting a perfect square, Lemma 2.2 implies that if , and is zero otherwise. Thus, upon setting , we infer that
(3.7) |
Mark that the definition of implies that and unless both and are . Furthermore, if , are square-free, then implies that . Consequently, the sum in the -term in (3.7) is and
We now apply the Mellin transform to recast as
Similar to (3.3), we have that for and any integer ,
(3.8) |
Now we can rewrite as
(3.9) |
We compute the Euler factors of to see that
(3.10) |
where converges absolutely in the region for any .
Moving the line of integration in (3.9) to , we encounter a simple pole at whose residue gives rise to the main term
Now to estimate the integral on the line, we apply the functional equation for (see [Da, §8]) and Stirling’s formula, together with the convexity bound for , rendering
The above and (3.8) with enable us to gather that the integral on the line contributes . One can easily check here that the Lindelöf hypothesis, a consequence of GRH whose truth we assume, does not lead to a better bound. Now the above discussion, together with (3.9), implies that
(3.11) |
Here we note that
(3.12) |
3.4. Estimating , the terms
Let denote the contribution to from the terms with in (3.6). Let be a smooth function on with rapid decay at infinity and itself and all its derivatives have finite limits as . We consider the transform given by
where stands for either the cosine or the sine function. It is shown in [S&Y, Sec. 3.3] that
Applying the above transform, we deduce that
(3.13) |
where
Integrating by parts implies that for , , and any integers , ,
(3.14) |
Applying the above bound in (3.6) leads to
(3.15) |
Note that by (3.14) and the estimation (see [S&Y, p. 1107]),
(3.16) |
the integral over in (3.15) may be taken over any vertical lines between and and
the integrals over in (3.15) may be taken over any vertical lines between and .
Hence we arrive at
(3.17) |
Now, we write with and square-free. We write . It follows from [Young2, (5.15)] that
We apply the above relation to recast the expression given in (3.17) for as
(3.18) |
where
Here the function is defined in (2.3). We make a change of variables to rewrite as
We split the sum over into two terms according to whether or not, with to be optimized later. If , we move the lines of integration to for some , . Otherwise, we move the lines of integration to for some , . We encounter no poles in either case. Applying Lemma 2.8 and the bound in (3.4) yields
The above and (3.14) with , together with (3.16) and the symmetry in and give that the terms with contribute
(3.19) |
We further apply Lemma 2.6 to get
Applying the above in (3.19), we infer that the terms with contribute
Similarly, the contribution from the complementary terms with is
We now balance these contributions by setting so that
Now taking yields the bound
Note that satisfies the above upper bound as well. Hence, we conclude from (3.5), (3.11), (3.18) and the above that
Acknowledgments. P. G. was supported in part by NSFC Grant 11871082 and L. Z. by the Faculty Silverstar Grant PS65447 at the University of New South Wales. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous referee for his/her careful and prompt inspection of the paper.