No Access

Upper bounds for geodesic periods over hyperbolic manifolds

Institute of Mathematics, AMSS, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, P. R. China

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129167X1850009XCited by:1 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

We prove an upper bound for geodesic periods of Maass forms over hyperbolic manifolds. By definition, such periods are integrals of Maass forms restricted to a special geodesic cycle of the ambient manifold, against a Maass form on the cycle. Under certain restrictions, the bound will be uniform.

Keywords:

AMSC: 22E43, 11F03, 11F70

References

1. J. Bourgain, Geodesic Restrictions and Lp-Estimates for Eigenfunctions of Riemannian Surfaces, American Mathematical Society Translations Series 2, Vol. 226 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2009). Crossref, Google Scholar
2. N. Burq, P. Gérard and N. Tzvetkov, Restrictions of the Laplace–Beltrami eigenfunctions to submanifolds, Duke Math. J. 138(3) (2007) 445–486. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
3. X. Chen and Ch. Sogge, On integrals of eigenfunctions over geodesics, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 143 (2015) 151–161. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
4. J. Franchi and Y. Le Jan, Hyperbolic Dynamics and Brownian Motions (Oxford Science Publications, 2012). Crossref, Google Scholar
5. W. Gan, B. H. Gross and D. Prasad, Symplectic local root numbers, central critical $L$ -values, and restriction problems in the representation theory of classical groups, Astérisque 346 (2012) 1–110. Google Scholar
6. I. M. Gelfand, M. I. Graev and I. I. Pyatetskii-Shapiro, Representation Theory and Automorphic Functions (Saunders, 1968). Google Scholar
7. A. Good, Local Analysis of Selberg’s Trace Formula, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1040 (Springer, 1983). Crossref, Google Scholar
8. D. Hejhal, Sur certaines séries de Dirichlet associées aux géodesiques fermées d’une surface de Riemann compacte, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 294 (1982) 637–640. Google Scholar
9. A. Ichino and T. Ikeda, On the periods of automorphic forms on special orthogonal groups and the Gross–Prasad conjecture, Geom. Funct. Anal. 19 (2010) 1378–1425. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
10. A. Knapp, Representation Theory of Semisimple Groups (Princeton University Press, 2001). Google Scholar
11. T. Kobayashi and B. Speh, Symmetry breaking for representations of rank one orthogonal groups, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 238 (2015) 1126. Web of Science, Google Scholar
12. H. Maass, Über eine neue Art von nichtanalytischen automorphen Funktionen und die Bestimmung Dirichletscher Reihen durch Funktionalgleichungen, Math. Ann. 121 (1949) 141–183. Crossref, Google Scholar
13. J. Möllers and B. Ørsted, Estimates for the restriction of automorphic forms on hyperbolic manifolds to compact geodesic cycles, Int. Math. Res. Notes (11) (2017) 3209–3236. Web of Science, Google Scholar
14. A. Reznikov, A uniform bound for the geodesic period, Forum Math. (3) 27 (2013) 1569–1590. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
15. J. Schwermer, Geodesic cycles, arithmetic groups and their cohomology, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 47(2) (2010) 187–279. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
16. J.-L. Waldspurger, Sur les valeurs de certaines fonctions $L$ automorphes en leur centre symmétrie, Compos. Math. 54(2) (1985) 173–242. Google Scholar
17. S. Zelditch, Kuznecov sum formulae and Szegö limit formulae on manifolds, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 17(1–2) (1992) 221–260. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
18. W. Zhang, Fourier transform and the global Gan–Gross–Prasad conjecture for unitary groups, Ann. Math. 180(3) (2014) 971–1049. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar