text:
# Collisional dynamics of ultracold OH molecules in an electrostatic field.

## I Introduction

Polar molecules bring something entirely new to the field of ultracold physics. As compared to the neutral atoms that have been studied experimentally in the past, polar molecules possess extremely strong, anisotropic interactions. It has been speculated that dipolar interactions will lead to new properties in Bose-Einstein condensates  or degenerate Fermi gases . It has also been suggested that polar molecules in optical lattices may be useful in implementing quantum logic elements . On the experimental side, cold polar molecules may be produced in several ways, including photoassociation of two distinct alkali species , buffer-gas cooling , or Stark slowing .

Regardless of the method or production, collisions of molecules are of paramount importance in describing the properties of the gas. Collisions should also be interesting in their own right, as detailed probes of intermolecular interactions. Several features of the collisional dynamics of ground-state polar molecules, based on a simplified “toy” model, were discussed in . This model accounted for the interplay between dipole-dipole interactions, an external electric field, and states of different parities. The dipole-dipole interaction, which scales with intermolecular separation $`R`$ as $`1/R^3`$, renders cold molecule collisions completely different from cold atom collisions. This is because a $`1/R^3`$ interaction is characterized by energy-independent low energy cross sections in all partial waves, not just in s-waves . The relatively strong, long-range interactions imply that molecules electrostatically trapped in weak-field-seeking states are generally susceptible to state-changing collisions that can rapidly deplete the trapped gas. The rates are in general far larger than those of magnetic dipolar transitions in stretched-state alkali atoms, owing largely to the relative strength of electric, as opposed to magnetic, dipolar interactions .

In this paper we address ultracold polar molecule collisions in a more realistic model, considering in detail the OH radical. This choice is motivated by the attractiveness of this molecule for Stark slowing from a supersonic jet . In particular, it has a $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ ground state with a small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-doublet splitting, making it easily manipulated by modest-sized electric fields. A full treatment of cold collisions is somewhat hindered by the fact that the OH-OH potential energy surface (PES) is poorly known, although it is known to be very deep and strongly anisotropic . It is not even known, for example, whether OH molecules may suffer chemical reactions at ultralow temperatures. As a point of reference, it was recently suggested that the reaction F+H2 $``$ HF + H may proceed at appreciable rates at ultralow temperatures, in spite of having a chemical barrier height of 700 K .

However, long-range dipole-dipole forces strongly dominate the scattering of OH molecules in their weak-field-seeking states. In this paper we will show that this arises from strong avoided crossings in the long-range adiabatic potential curves, which prevent the molecules from approaching close enough to one another for exchange potentials to become important. In this regard cooling and electrostatic trapping of OH molecules can provide a wealth of information on the long-range OH-OH interaction. Thus it appears possible to understand a class of ultracold OH-OH collisions without detailed knowledge of the short range PES. This strategy would be an important stepping stone toward understanding the full problem of ultracold OH collisions. Strong-field seekers, by contrast, will in addition experience the short-range interaction. The complete problem of exploring collisions of ultracold polar molecules might therefore most efficiently proceed by a two-step analysis, thus simplifying this very complicated problem.

Accordingly we focus in this paper on the first step, namely, collisions of weak-field-seeking states. After some discussion of the relevant properties of OH molecules in Sec. II and their interactions in Sec. III, we move on in Sec. IV to illustrate some prominent energy- and field-dependent features in elastic and inelastic cross sections. Mapping these features in experiments should help in unraveling the long-range part of this puzzle. We also present a simplified model of the long-range interaction, to help illustrate the basic physics behind the behavior of the cross sections. It will turn out that a new class of long-range bound states of the \[OH\]2 dimer play a significant role in ultracold collisions of this molecule.

## II OH molecule

The OH molecule has a fairly complicated internal structure, incorporating rotation, parity, electronic spin, and nuclear spin degrees of freedom, which are further confounded in the presence of an electric field. We therefore begin by describing the structure of this molecule and the simplifications we impose to render our model tractable.

Molecules cooled to sub-Kelvin temperatures by Stark slowing will be assumed to be in their electronic $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ ground state, and $`\upsilon =0`$ vibrational ground state. In this state OH is an almost pure Hund’s case (a) molecule, and has a dipole moment of 1.68 D . Spin-orbit coupling involving the lone electronic spin splits the ground state into $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{3/2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2}^{}`$ components, of which $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{3/2}^{}`$ is lower in energy and is therefore the state of greatest interest in ultracold collisions. In our model we take into account just the lowest rotational level of the corresponding ground state, $`J=3/2`$. The energy of the first rotationally excited state with $`|J=5/2,\mathrm{\Omega }=3/2>`$ is about 84K higher in energy  and we will neglect this and higher-lying states in our scattering calculations. Such states will, however, contribute rotational Feshbach resonances in realistic collisions.

The isotopomer 16O1H that we consider here has a nuclear spin of $`I=1/2`$, which with a half- integer rotational quantum number defines the OH molecule as a boson. Thus we should take into account hyperfine structure to ensure the proper Bose symmetry. We will see below that the inclusion of hyperfine structure is also important in determining details of collision properties. The calculations in an electric field also require knowing the Stark splitting for OH molecules. Thus the Hamiltonian for the OH molecule in a field is

$$H^{OH}=H_{rot}+H_{fs}+H_{hfs}+H_{field}$$
(1)
Wave functions for the spatial degrees of freedom of the molecule are constructed in the usual way. Namely, in the zero-electric-field limit, eigenstates of parity $`\epsilon `$ ($`=\pm `$) are given by the Hund’s case (a) representation:

$$|JM_J\mathrm{\Omega }\epsilon >=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|JM_J\mathrm{\Omega }>|\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }>+\epsilon |JM_J\mathrm{\Omega }>|\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }>\right),$$
(2)
where the rotational part is given by a Wigner function:

$$|JM_J\mathrm{\Omega }>=(\frac{2J+1}{8\pi ^2})^{1/2}D_{M_J\mathrm{\Omega }}^J(\theta ,\varphi ,\kappa ),$$
(3)
and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=|\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ is the projection of the total electronic angular momentum on the molecular axis. The total spin of the molecule, $`𝐅=𝐉+𝐈`$, with laboratory projection $`M_F`$, is then constructed by

$$|(JI)FM_F\mathrm{\Omega }\epsilon >=|\mathrm{\Lambda }>|S\mathrm{\Sigma }>\underset{M_J,M_I}{}|JM_J\mathrm{\Omega }\epsilon >|IM_I><FM_F|JM_JI_{M_I}>,$$
(4)
The matrix elements for the Hamiltonian (1) in this basis can be found elsewhere . In compact form these matrix elements are

$`<(JI)F\mathrm{\Omega }M_F\epsilon |H^{OH}|(J^{}I^{})F^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}M_F^{}\epsilon ^{}>=(\delta _{\mathrm{\Omega },3/2}\delta _{\mathrm{\Omega }^{},3/2}E_{3/2,3/2}+`$ (5)
$`\delta _{\mathrm{\Omega },1/2}\delta _{\mathrm{\Omega }^{},1/2}E_{1/2,1/2}+(\delta _{\mathrm{\Omega },3/2}\delta _{\mathrm{\Omega }^{},1/2}+\delta _{\mathrm{\Omega },1/2}\delta _{\mathrm{\Omega }^{},3/2}E_{3/2,1/2})\times `$ (6)
$`\delta _{J,J^{}}\delta _{F,F^{}}\delta _{\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}}\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+(1)^{J+J^{}}\epsilon \epsilon ^{})(1)^{F+F^{}+M_F+I\mathrm{\Omega }+1}\times `$ (7)
$`([J][J^{}][F][F^{}])^{1/2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J& 1& J^{}\\ \mathrm{\Omega }& 0& \mathrm{\Omega }^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}F^{}& 1& F\\ M_F^{}& 0& M_F\end{array}\right)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}1& J& J^{}\\ I& F& F^{}\end{array}\right\}.`$ (14)
In this expression $`\mu `$ is the molecular dipole moment, $``$ is the strength of the electric field, and $`E_{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}`$ are matrix elements for the fine structure $`H_{rot}+H_{fs}`$ which can be found in . These values depend on the rotational constant, spin-orbit coupling constant, hyperfine coupling constant, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-doublet parameters of OH. All of these constants can be found in .

Equation (5) shows that, strictly speaking, the only good quantum number for the OH molecule is the projection of its angular momentum on the laboratory axis, $`M_F`$. However, for our present purposes it suffices to treat the quantum numbers as “almost good.” For example, in view of the fact that OH is nearly a purely Hund’s case (a) molecule, the coupling between $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=3/2`$ states is fairly weak. We account for this interaction perturbatively, by replacing the values $`E_{3/2}`$ and $`E_{1/2}`$ by the eigenvalues of the $`2\times 2`$ matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}E_{3/2}& E_{3/2,1/2}\\ E_{3/2,1/2}& E_{1/2}\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
keeping all other quantum numbers constant.

Likewise, different values of the molecular spin $`J`$ are mixed in a field, but this mixing is small in laboratory strength fields. The total spin $`F`$ and the parity are far more strongly mixed. Accordingly, in practice we transform the molecular state to a field-dressed basis for performing scattering calculations:

$`|(\stackrel{~}{J}I)\stackrel{~}{F}M_F\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{\epsilon };>{\displaystyle \underset{JF\epsilon }{}}\alpha (JF\epsilon )|(JI)FM_F\mathrm{\Omega }\epsilon >,`$ (16)
where $`\alpha (JF\epsilon )`$ stands for eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian (1) determined numerically at each value of the field. We will continue to refer to molecular states by the quantum numbers $`J`$, $`F`$, and $`\epsilon `$, with the understanding that they are only approximately good in a field, and that (16) is the appropriate molecular state.

Figure 1 shows the Stark energies computed using all the ingredients described above. In zero field the energy levels are primarily determined by the $`\lambda `$-doublet splitting between opposite parity states, whose value is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.056cm^1`$. The alternative parity states, with $`\epsilon =1`$ (f states) and $`\epsilon =+1`$ (e states) are shown in Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(b), respectively. These states are further split into hyperfine components with total spin $`F=1`$ and $`F=2`$. The Stark shift is quadratic for fields below the critical field $`_0\mathrm{\Delta }/2\mu `$ ($`1000V/cm`$ for OH). For fields larger than $`_0`$ states with different parity are entirely mixed and the Stark effect transforms from quadratic to linear. In this case the molecular states are roughly equal linear combinations of the zero-field $`\epsilon =`$ and $`\epsilon =+`$ states (compare Eqn. 2) :

$`|JM_J\mathrm{\Omega }\epsilon =\pm 1>=\{\begin{array}{cc}|JM_J\mathrm{\Omega }>& M_J<0\\ |JM_J\pm \mathrm{\Omega }>& M_J>0\end{array}`$ (19)
## III OH-OH Interaction

We will consider diatom-diatom scattering as two interacting rigid rotors in their ground rotational states. The complete Hamiltonian for the collision process can then be written

$$H=T_1+T_2+H_1^{OH}+H_2^{OH}+V_s+V_{\mu \mu }+V_{qq}+V_{disp},$$
(20)
where $`T_i`$ and $`H_i^{OH}`$ are the translational kinetic energy and internal motion of molecule $`i`$, including the electric field as in Eqn. (1). $`V_s`$ is the short- range exchange interaction, $`V_{\mu \mu }+V_{qq}+V_{disp}`$ are the dipole- dipole, quadrupole- quadrupole and dispersion long- range interactions respectively. Explicit expression for the dipole-dipole ($`1/R^3`$) and quadrupole-quadrupole ($`1/R^5`$) interactions are given in Ref. . Matrix elements for the the dipole-quadrupole interaction vanish for rigid rotor molecules in identical states , hence will not be considered here.

The anisotropic potential between two interacting rigid-rotor molecules is conveniently recast into a standard set of angular functions :

$`V_s+V_{\mu \mu }+V_{qq}+V_{disp}V(\omega _A,\omega _B,\omega ,R)={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}V_\mathrm{\Lambda }A_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega _A,\omega _B,\omega ),`$ (21)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(L_A,K_A,L_B,K_B,L)`$ and the angular functions are defined as:

$`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega _A,\omega _B,\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{M_A,M_B,M}{}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}L_A& L_B& L\\ M_A& M_B& M\end{array}\right)D_{M_A,K_A}^{L_A}(\omega _A)D_{M_B,K_B}^{L_B}(\omega _B)C_M^L(\omega ),`$ (24)
where $`\omega _{A,B}=(\theta _{A,B},\varphi _{A,B})`$ are the polar angles of molecules A and B with respect to the lab-fixed quantization axis, and $`𝐑=(R,\omega )`$ is the vector between the center of mass of the molecules in the laboratory fixed coordinate frame. The indices $`K_A`$ and $`K_B`$ denote the dependence of the interaction on the orientation of the molecules about their own axes; in what follows we will ignore this dependence, setting $`K_A=K_B=0`$. For the long-range part of the interaction this approximates the quadrupole moment of OH as cylindrically symmetric.

The exchange potential $`V_s`$ is very complicated, consisting of four singlet and four triplet surfaces , and is moreover poorly characterized. The most complete treatment of this surface to date computes the lowest-energy potential for each value of internuclear separation $`R`$ . This potential finds an extremely deep minimum at $`R=2.7`$ a.u. corresponding to chemically bound hydrogen peroxide, and a second, shallower minimum at $`R=6`$ a.u. due to hydrogen bonding forces. However, in cold collisions, the scattering cross sections are so sensitive to details of the short-range interaction that knowing the complete interaction probably would not help anyway. More importantly, as we will see below, collisions of the weak-field-seeking states are strongly dominated by the long-range dipole-dipole interaction. Therefore, we will use at small $`R`$ simply the hydrogen-bonding part of the potential surface (see Fig. 13 of Ref. ), and we will treat this part of the interaction as if it were isotropic. Finally, we will assert that the spin states of the OH molecules are in their stretched states, so that ordinary spin-exchange processes will not play a role in these collisions.

We express the Hamiltonian in a basis of projection of total angular momentum,

$`=M_{F_1}+M_{F_2}+M_l,`$ (25)
$`M_{F_i}=M_{J_i}+M_{I_i},`$ (26)
where $`M_{F_i},M_{J_i},M_{I_i}`$ are the projections of the full molecule spin, rotational motion and nuclear spin on the laboratory axis respectively for each molecule. $`M_l`$ is the projection of the partial wave quantum number on the laboratory axis. In this basis the wave function for two molecules is described as:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}={\displaystyle \underset{1,2,l,M_l}{}}\left\{|1>|2>|lM_l>\right\}^{}\times \psi ^{,1,2}(R),`$ (27)
where $`\left\{\mathrm{}\right\}^{}`$ is angular momentum part of this wave function and $`|i>`$ is the wave function for each molecule as described by Eq.(4).

Because the target and the projectile are identical bosons, we must take into account the symmetry of the wave function under exchange. The properly symmetrized wave function is then

$`\left\{|1>|2>|lM_l>\right\}^s={\displaystyle \frac{\left\{|1>|2>|lM_l>\right\}+(1)^l\left\{|2>|1>|lM_l>\right\}}{\sqrt{2(1+\delta _{12})}}}`$ (28)
Using the expansion of the intermolecular potential (21), the wave function (25), and taking into account the Wigner-Eckart theorem, we can present the reduced angular matrix element as

$`<12lM_l|A_\mathrm{\Lambda }|1^{}2^{}l^{}M_l^{}>=`$ (29)
$`(1)^{L_A+L_B+J_1+J_1^{}+J_2+J_2^{}+M_{F_1}^{}+M_{F_2}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}+M_l1}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\epsilon _1\epsilon _1^{}(1)^{L_A})}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\epsilon _2\epsilon _2^{}(1)^{L_B})}{2}}\times `$ (30)
$`([l][l^{}][J_1][J_1^{}][J_2][J_2^{}][F_1][F_1^{}][F_2][F_2^{}])^{1/2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}L_A& L_B& L\\ M_{F_1}M_{F_1^{}}& M_{F_2}M_{F_2^{}}& M_lM_l^{}\end{array}\right)\times `$ (33)
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J_1^{}& L_A& J_1\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}& 0& \mathrm{\Omega }_1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J_2^{}& L_B& J_2\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}& 0& \mathrm{\Omega }_2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}L_A& F_1& F_1^{}\\ M_{F_1}M_{F_1^{}}& M_{F_1}& M_{F_1^{}}\end{array}\right)\times `$ (40)
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}L_B& F_2& F_2^{}\\ M_{F_2}M_{F_2^{}}& M_{F_2}& M_{F_2^{}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l^{}& L& l\\ M_l^{}& M_lM_l^{}& M_l\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l^{}& L& l\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\times `$ (47)
$`\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_A& F_1& F_1\\ I& J_1^{}& J_1\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_B& F_2& F_2\\ I& J_2^{}& J_2\end{array}\right\},`$ (52)
where $`I=1/2`$ is each molecule’s nuclear spin.

The reduced matrix elements of the angular functions $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ between symmetrized basis states (28) are

$`<12lM_l|A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^s|1^{}2^{}l^{}M_l^{}>={\displaystyle \frac{<12lM_l|A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^s|1^{}2^{}l^{}M_l^{}>+(1)^l<21lM_l|A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^s|1^{}2^{}l^{}M_l^{}>}{\sqrt{(1+\delta _{1,2})(1+\delta _{1^{},2^{}})}}}`$ (53)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1+(1)^{l+l^{}}}{2}}`$ (54)
In practice, before each scattering calculation we transform the Hamiltonian matrix from this basis into the field-dressed basis defined by (16). We solve the coupled- channel equations using a logarithmic derivative propagator method  to determine scattering matrices. Using these matrices we calculate total state-to-state cross sections and rate constants.

## IV Results

This paper considers the scattering problem for OH molecules in an electrostatic field for cold and ultracold temperatures. We are interested in particular in the highest energy weak-field-seeking state of the ground rotational state, $`|(J,I)FM_F,\mathrm{\Omega }\epsilon >=|(3/2,1/2)22,3/2,>`$. This state is indicated by the heavy solid line in Figure 1. Since the quantum numbers $`J`$, $`I`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are the same for all the scattering processes we will consider, we will refer to this state by the shorthand notation $`|FM_F,\epsilon `$ $`=|22,>`$.

The main novel feature of OH- OH scattering, as compared to atoms or nonpolar molecules, is the presence of the long-range dipole-dipole interaction and its dependence on the electrostatic field. Because these interactions strongly mix different partial waves, it is essential that we include more than one value of $`l`$. However, in the interest of emphasizing the basic underlying physics, we have included only the s- and d- partial waves. Sample calculations show that higher partial waves change the results only slightly at the energies considered. In this case, given the initial state with $`M_{F1}=M_{F2}=2`$, the only allowed values of the total projection are $`=2,3,4,5,6`$. Among these channels only the one with $`=4`$ contains a contribution from s-wave scattering, and so will deserve special attention in what follows. In this case the total number of scattering channels for all allowed values of $``$, is 208.

### A Prospects for evaporative cooling

One of the goals of the present work is to revisit the conclusions of Ref.  concerning the effectiveness of evaporative cooling for electrostatically trapped molecules. To this end Figure 2 plots the elastic and state-changing inelastic rate constants versus field strength for two different collision energies, 100 $`\mu K`$ and 1$`\mu K`$. Here “elastic” refers to collisions that do not change the internal state of either molecule, while “inel” denotes those collisions in which one or both molecules are converted into any other states. These transitions are typically exothermic, leading to trap heating. Not all these collisions produce untrapped states, however. We find that the main contributions to the $`K_{inel}`$ are given by processes in which quantum numbers $`F`$ and/or $`M_F`$ are changed by one. In particular, the process $`|22,+|22,`$ $``$ $`|22,>+|21,>`$ generally makes the largest contribution to $`K_{inel}`$, especially at high electric field.

At low field the rates are nearly independent of field, but begin to evolve when the field approximately exceeds the critical field $`_0=\mathrm{\Delta }/2\mu `$ where the Stark effect changes from quadratic to linear. Above this field the rate constants exhibit oscillations as a function of field. These oscillations provide an experimentally variable signature of resonant collisions, meaning that mapping this field dependence should help in untangling details of the long-range OH-OH interaction. This is similar to the ability of magnetic-field Feshbach resonances in the alkali atoms to yield detailed scattering parameters .

Following the example of ultracold atoms, we expect that evaporative cooling can proceed when the ratio of elastic to inelastic collisions, $`K_{el}/K_{inel}1`$. Figure 2 shows that this is hardly ever the case for large field values $`>_0`$, except, perhaps, at very special field values where $`K_{inel}`$ is at a minimum of its oscillation. Since the losses are dominated by exothermic processes, the ratio $`K_{el}/K_{inel}`$ in the threshold scattering limit scales as the ratio $`k_i/k_f`$ of the incident and final channel wave numbers, as can be seen from the Born approximation. Thus at high electric fields, where the Stark splitting is large (hence $`k_f`$ is large), the ratio may become more favorable. In our calculations this apparently happens for fields above $`10^4`$ V/cm.

For fields below $`_01000`$ V/cm, a favorable ratio of $`K_{el}/K_{inel}`$ is only somewhat more likely. For fields this low, however, the maximum depth of an electrostatic trap is $`8`$mK, as given by the magnitude of the Stark shift (Fig. 1). The temperature of the trapped gas must therefore be well below this temperature. In the example of a 100 $`\mu `$K gas, (Fig. 2a), the ratio $`K_{el}/K_{inel}`$ may indeed be favorable. However, if the gas is cooled further, say to 1 $`\mu `$K (Fig. 2b), this ratio becomes less favorable again. This is because of the Wigner threshold laws: the exothermic rate $`K_{inel}`$ is energy-independent at low energy, while the elastic scattering rate plummets to zero as the square root of collision energy. Thus, in general, evaporative cooling seems to be viable only over an extremely limited range of temperature and field range for the OH molecule, if at all. We therefore reiterate the message of Ref. , and recommend that cold OH molecules be trapped by a far-off-resonance optical dipole trap, in their lowest energy $`|F|M_F|,\epsilon =|11,+`$ states.

At this point we emphasize an essential difference between evaporative cooling of electrostatically trapped polar molecules and of magnetically trapped paramagnetic molecules. For polar molecules the transition from weak- to strong-field seeking states is always exothermic, even in zero applied field. This is because the lower member of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-doublet is always strong-field-seeking (e.g. Fig. 1). For paramagnetic molecules, by contrast, weak- and strong-field seeking states can be nearly degenerate at low magnetic field values (e.g., 17O2 as discussed in Refs. . In the present case, OH is also paramagnetic and hence could in principle be magnetically trapped. For example, the low-energy states with $`|FM_F\epsilon `$ $`=|11,+`$ might be suitable candidates. The influence of electric dipole interactions on evaporative cooling of magnetically trapped OH has yet to be explored.

### B Analysis of the long-range interaction

The general behavior of the rate constants in Fig. 2 can be explained qualitatively by simplifying our model even further, to a case that contains only the essential ingredients: the dipole-dipole interaction, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-doublet, and an electric field . Roughly speaking, the electric field has two effects on the molecules: 1) it mixes molecular states of opposite parity, thus creating induced dipole moments; and 2) the resulting dipole-dipole interaction strongly couples scattering channels with different partial waves, leading to long-range couplings between two molecules.

As a starting point in this analysis, Figure 3 breaks down the elastic and inelastic rates into their contributions from different values of the total projection of angular momentum $``$. This is done for the rates calculated at an energy $`E=100`$ $`\mu `$K, from Figure 2(a). In both elastic and inelastic scattering, the rates are dominated by the contribution from $`=4`$, which, it will be recalled, is the only value of $``$ that incorporates s partial waves in the present model. We will accordingly consider only this case in what follows.

The model used to obtain the results in Figs 2 and 3 consists of 32 channels for the block of the Hamiltonian matrix with $`=4`$. To simplify the analysis of this block even further, we focus on the sub-Hamiltonian with fixed quantum numbers $`F=M_F=2`$ for each molecule. This reduces the effective Hamiltonian to six channels: there are three non-degenerate thresholds $`E_{\epsilon _1\epsilon _2}`$ corresponding to different possible values of the field-dressed parity quantum number $`\epsilon _i=\pm `$. For each of these three thresholds there are two channels, corresponding at large $`R`$ to s- and d- partial waves.

The simplified six-channel Hamiltonian matrix then consists of $`3\times 3`$ blocks $`\widehat{V}^{ll^{}}`$ parameterized by partial wave quantum numbers $`l`$, $`l^{}`$:

$`\widehat{H}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{V}_{diag}^{00}& \widehat{V}_{}^{02}\\ \widehat{V}_{}^{20}& \widehat{V}_{diag}^{22}+\widehat{V}_{}^{22}\end{array}\right)`$ (57)
Here the diagonal components $`\widehat{V}_{diag}^{ll^{}}`$ include the parity thresholds and the centrifugal interactions,

$`\widehat{V}_{diag}^{ll}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}E_{}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2l(l+1)}{2mR^2}& 0& 0\\ 0& E_++\frac{\mathrm{}^2l(l+1)}{2mR^2}& 0\\ 0& 0& E_{++}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2l(l+1)}{2mR^2}\end{array}\right)`$ (61)
where the electric-field-dependent thresholds are given by $`E_{\epsilon _1\epsilon _2}=E_++E_{}(\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2)\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{1+k^2}/2`$, in terms of the dimensionless parameter

$$k\frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(62)
that relates the electric field strength $``$ to the zero-field lambda-doublet splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }=E_{}E_+`$. The simplified field-dependent dipole-dipole interaction term $`\widehat{V}_{}^{ll^{}}`$ is readily parameterized in the field-dressed basis as

$`\widehat{V}_{}^{ll^{}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}k^2& \sqrt{2}k& 1\\ \sqrt{2}k& 1k^2& \sqrt{2}k\\ 1& \sqrt{2}k& k^2\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{C^{ll^{}}}{(1+k^2)R^3}},`$ (66)
whose coefficient $`C^{ll^{}}`$, which is independent of both $`R`$ and the electric field, is given by

$`C^{ll^{}}=\mu ^2([l][l^{}])^{1/2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l^{}& 2& l\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2M_F^2(J(J+1)+F(F+1)I(I+1))}{2(J(J+1)F(F+1))^2}}`$ (69)
Notice that the dipole-dipole interaction vanishes for s-waves, so that $`\widehat{V}_{}^{00}=0`$.

Within this simplified model we will refer to the scattering channels by the parities $`\epsilon _1`$ and $`\epsilon _2`$ of the two molecules, along with the partial wave quantum number $`l`$. Thus the incident channel for weak-field-seekers will be denoted $`|\epsilon _1\epsilon _2,l`$ $`=|,0`$. Recall that all other quantum numbers ($`J`$, $`I`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`F`$, $`M_F`$) are assumed to have fixed values for each molecule.

The explicit field-dependence in the coupling matrix (66) explains qualitatively the behavior of our ultracold weak-field-seeking molecules, which have incident quantum number $`\epsilon =`$. For zero electric field ($`k=0`$), there is no direct dipole-dipole coupling between identical molecules. There is, however, an off-diagonal coupling to different channels with opposite parity, as can be seen in the form of the Hamiltonian (57). This interaction brings in the dipole-dipole coupling in second order, contributing an effective dispersion-like potential $`C_6^{eff}/R^6`$, with a coefficient

$$C_6^{eff}=\frac{(C^{20})^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{\mu ^4}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(70)
for both s- and d- partial waves. For the OH molecule this effective coefficient is $`4\times 10^4`$ atomic units, far larger than for the alkali atoms that are familiarly trapped. Thus, even in zero external field the effective interaction strength of polar molecules is quite large. This may imply the breakdown of the contact-potential approximation to describing Bose-Einstein condensates of polar molecules, even when their dipoles are not aligned by an external field . We note that the quadrupole-quadrupole interaction is relatively unimportant, becoming larger than this effective dispersion interaction only when $`R>3\times 10^5`$ a.u.

When the field is switched on, the s-wave channels undergo a qualitative change. Now the incident channel $`|,0`$ sees a direct coupling to its d-wave counterpart $`|,2`$, via the matrix element $`V^{l=0,l^{}=2}\frac{k^2}{1+k^2}\frac{\mu ^2}{R^3}`$. This perturbation generates an far stronger effective long-range potential of the form $`C_4^{eff}/R^4`$, with

$`C_4^{eff}=({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{1+k^2}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^42m}{l(l+1)}},`$ (71)
where $`l=2`$. Thus the electric field is able to completely alter the character of the intermolecular interaction.

For d-wave collisions, the dipole-dipole coupling is direct, but not in the limit of zero field, where the molecules are in parity eigenstates. At low fields ($`k1`$, where the Stark effect is quadratic), the diagonal coupling $`V_{}^{22}k^2/(1+k^2)`$, is small. In this limit the molecules are nearly in parity eigenstates, hence do not “know” that they have dipole moments. At larger fields this interaction grows in scale, thus “activating” the dipoles. This is why the rate constants shown in Figs 2,3 begin to evolve at fields near $`=_0`$. It is also why the contributions from all angular momentum projections except the one with $`=0`$ contribute only weakly to scattering at low field. The channels with $`4`$ are all of d-wave character, hence obey a threshold law $`\sigma E^2`$ at low fields, then evolve to a $`\sigma \mathrm{const}`$ threshold law at larger fields.

### C Large-field oscillations and long-range states of the \[OH\]2 dimer

At fields larger than the critical field $`_0`$, the rate constants in Fig.2 exhibit oscillations with field. Significantly, these occur only when the projection of total angular momentum $`=4`$, which is the only case in which s- and d- partial waves are mixed (Fig. 3). To understand this oscillating behavior of cross sections we show in Fig. 4(a) the adiabatic potential curves in the simplified 6-channel model (57). In the case shown the field is $`=10^4`$ V/cm. In this figure a strong avoided crossing can be seen at $`R60`$ a.u., corresponding to the crossing of the attractive $`|\epsilon _1\epsilon _2,l=`$ $`|,0`$ channel with the repulsive $`|+,2`$ channel. The strong dipole-dipole interaction between these different partial waves creates the adiabatic potential shown as a heavy black line and labeled $`U_0`$.

This potential curve supports bound states of the \[OH\]2 dimer. These bound states are of purely long-range character, similar to the long-range states of the alkali dimers  that have been used in photoassociation spectroscopy studies of ultracold collisions . Moreover, in the case of the \[OH\]2 states the shape of the potential $`U_0`$, hence the energies of the bound states, are strongly subject to the strength of the applied electric field. The curve in Fig. 4(a) in fact possesses no bound states in zero field, but five by the time the field reaches $`10^4`$ V/cm. More realistic adiabatic potentials are of course more elaborate, as shown in Fig. 4(b) for the more complete Hamiltonian that includes hyperfine levels. Nevertheless, in this figure, too, can be seen adiabatic potential wells that will support bound states.

The significance of these curves is twofold: the crossing is very adiabatic, implying that coupling to lower-energy channels is weak, and that therefore the cross sections depend only weakly on details of the short-range potentials. This we have indeed verified by altering the short-range potential in the full calculation.

Additionally, as the field strength grows and the potential becomes deeper, new bound states are added to the potential, causing scattering resonances to appear. This is the cause of the oscillations observed in the rate constants in Fig. 2. To illustrate this, we reproduce in Fig. 5 the complete elastic scattering rate constant (solid line), along with the same quantity as computed in the simple six-channel model (dashed line). The qualitative behavior is nearly the same, namely, oscillations appear at fields above $`_0`$. Moreover, the arrows in the figure indicate the values of the field for which a bound state of $`U_0`$ coincides with the scattering threshold. These fields correspond fairly well to the peaks, although they are somewhat offset by coupling to other channels. Nevertheless, this simple picture clearly identifies the origin of these oscillations with the existence of long-range bound states.

These resonant states are not Feshbach resonances, since there is no excitation of internal states of the molecules; nor are they shape resonances in the usual sense, since there is no barrier through which the wave function must tunnel. Instead, they are the direct result of altering the interaction potential to place a bound state exactly at threshold . Probing these states through direct scattering of weak-field-seeking states should reveal details about the long-range OH-OH interaction, making possible a comparison of theory and experiment without the need to fully understand the short-range \[OH\]2 potential energy surface.

## V Conclusion

In this paper we theoretically investigated ultracold collisions of ground state polar diatomic molecules in an electrostatic field, taking OH molecules as a prototype. Focusing on weak-field-seeking states, we have strengthened the suppositions in Ref.  that long-range dipolar interactions drive inelastic scattering processes that are generally unfavorable for evaporative cooling of this species. However, at electric fields above a characteristic value $`_0`$, oscillations occur in both elastic and inelastic collision rates, implying that a regime may be found where the ratio $`K_{elastic}/K_{inelastic}`$ is favorable for cooling. Even though evaporative cooling may be difficult, the inelastic rates may nevertheless prove useful diagnostic tools for cold collisions of these molecules. The Stark slowing technique provides a means of launching a bunch of molecules toward a stationary trapped target, i.e., of making a real scattering experiment .

For actual trapping and cooling purposes, for instance as a means of producing molecular Bose-Einstein condensates or degenerate Fermi gases, it seems likely that the molecules must be trapped in their strong-field seeking states. Collisions of these species will present their own difficulties, since they will depend strongly on the short-range part of the potential energy surface. However, the scattering length for OH-OH scattering may be determined by photoassociation spectroscopy to the long-range bound states we have described above. This will be analogous to the determination of alkali scattering lengths , except that microwave, rather than optical, photons will be used. The detailed properties of the long-range \[OH\]2 states, and prospects for using them in this way, therefore deserve further attention.

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation. We acknowledge useful discussions with J. Hutson and G. Shlyapnikov.


format: text

text:
# Toric modular forms of higher weight

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1.

In  we used the geometry of complete polyhedral fans to construct a subring $`𝒯_{}(l)`$ of the modular forms on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(l)`$. If $`l5`$, we showed that $`𝒯_{}(l)`$ is generated in weight one by certain Eisenstein series, and in \[1, Theorem 4.11\] we showed that for weight two the cuspidal part of $`𝒯_{}(l)`$ coincides with the space of cusp forms of analytic rank zero. The main result of this paper, Theorem 5.10, is that in weights greater than two, the cuspidal part of $`𝒯_{}(l)`$ coincides with the space of all cusp forms. In fact, we prove a stronger statement: we define certain weight $`k`$ toric modular forms $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$, and show that any cusp form can be written as a $``$-linear combination of the forms $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ and pairwise products of the form $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(m)}\stackrel{~}{s}_{b/l}^{(n)}`$, where $`m+n=k`$ and $`m,n>0`$.

The proof of Theorem 5.10 is formally very similar to the proof of \[1, Theorem 4.11\]. Let $`𝒮(l)`$ be the space of weight $`k`$ holomorphic cusp forms on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(l)`$. We define a map $`\rho :𝒮(l)𝒮(l)`$, and show that its image contains all newforms for $`k3`$. We describe the map $`\rho `$ in terms of Manin symbols, which allows us to write $`\rho (f)`$ in terms of products of certain explicit toric Eisenstein series. A key role is played by certain weight $`k`$ Manin symbols $`\{R_{(m,n)}|m,n\}`$ that satisfy relations similar to weight two Manin symbols.

### 1.2.

Here is an outline of the paper. In Section 2 we review results about toric modular forms, and in Section 3 review results about Manin symbols and introduce the symbols $`R_{(m,n)}`$. In Section 4 we describe *$`(modl)`$-polynomials*, a technical tool we use later to manipulate $`q`$-expansions. We prove the main result along with some corollaries in Section 5.

The remaining sections contain complements to the main result and results proved in . In Section 6 we use products of Eisenstein series of higher weight to define a map $`\mu `$ from weight $`k`$ Manin symbols to a certain quotient of the space of weight $`k`$ modular forms. This map is analogous to the map $`\mu `$ in \[1, Definition 3.11\], but some complications do occur in the higher case. Finally, in Section 7 we show that the map from symbols to forms is compatible with the action of the Hecke operators.

Throughout the paper we keep our arguments as elementary as possible. In particular, we avoid using results of  that are based on the Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch theorem for toric varieties. While this complicates the proofs a bit, it makes the paper accessible to readers with no knowledge of toric varieties. We outline an alternative approach to the results using toric geometry in Remarks 6.4 and 7.14.

## 2. Toric modular forms

### 2.1.

We briefly review the definition of toric forms; more details can be found in . Let $`k`$ and $`l`$ be positive integers, and suppose $`l5`$. As usual let $`q=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \mathrm{i}\tau }`$, where $`\tau `$ is in the upper halfplane $``$. A holomorphic modular form of weight $`k`$ on the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(l)`$ is called *toric* if it can be expressed as a homogeneous polynomial of degree $`k`$ in the functions $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}(q)`$ given by

$$\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}(q):=(\frac{1}{2}\frac{a}{l})+\underset{n>0}{}q^n\underset{d|n}{}(\delta _d^{amodl}\delta _d^{amodl}),a=1,\mathrm{},l1.$$

Here $`\delta _d^{amodl}`$ is $`1`$ if $`a=dmodl`$ and is $`0`$ otherwise. The space of toric forms $`𝒯_{}(l)`$ of all weights is thus generated as a graded ring by certain weight one Eisenstein series. By results of , $`𝒯_{}(l)`$ is known to be stable under the action of the Hecke operators, and under Atkin-Lehner lifting.

###### Proposition 2.2.

The ring $`𝒯_{}(l)`$ contains the modular forms

(1)
$$\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}:=C+\underset{n>0}{}q^n\underset{d|n}{}d^{k1}(\delta _d^{amodl}+(1)^k\delta _d^{amodl}),$$

where $`k2`$ and $`a=0,\mathrm{},l`$, except for $`(a,k)=(0,2)`$. Here $`C`$ is a constant determined uniquely by the modularity of $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\vartheta (z,\tau )`$ be Jacobi’s theta function . Then it is easy to construct a given $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ as a linear combination of the modular forms

$`s_{a/l}^{(k)}(q)`$ $`:=(2\pi \mathrm{i})^k\left({\displaystyle \frac{^k}{z^k}}\right)_{z=0}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z\vartheta (z+a/l,\tau )\vartheta ^{}(0,\tau )}{\vartheta (z,\tau )\vartheta (a/l,\tau )}}\right)`$
$`=C+{\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}q^n{\displaystyle \underset{d|n}{}}d^{k1}(\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \mathrm{i}da/l}+(1)^k\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \mathrm{i}da/l}2\delta _k^{0mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$
of \[2, Section 4.4\], and the standard level one Eisenstein series

(2)
$$E_k:=C+\underset{n>0}{}q^n\underset{d|n}{}d^{k1}$$

for even $`k4`$. The forms $`s_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ and $`E_k`$ for $`k>2`$ are toric, see \[2, Theorem 4.11 and Remark 4.13\]. We use here and in what follows the convention denoting constant terms whose exact value is irrelevant by $`C`$. ∎

### 2.3.

We must exclude $`(a,k)=(0,2)`$ from the statement since $`E_2`$ is not modular. However, it will be convenient to allow $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{0/l}^{(2)}`$ in later arguments, which merely amounts to working in the larger ring $`𝒯_{}(l)[E_2]`$. In fact, since we will never multiply more than two of the $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$’s together, we will be working in $`𝒯_{}(l)+E_2𝒯_{}(l)`$. We call elements of this ring *toric quasimodular forms* (cf. ).

###### Remark 2.4.

The statement of Proposition 2.2 is true for all $`l=2,3,4`$, but the definition of toric modular forms there is a bit more complicated. However, it turns out that for these levels all modular forms are toric, as defined in . From now on we will call any polynomial in $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ a toric quasimodular form of level $`l`$. Then the rest of the paper works for an arbitrary level $`l1`$.

###### Definition 2.5.

By a slight abuse of notations we say that a weight $`k`$ quasimodular form $`f`$ can be written as a *linear combination of pairs* if $`f`$ can be written as a $``$-linear combination of the forms $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(m)}\stackrel{~}{s}_{b/l}^{(n)}`$ where $`m,n>0`$, $`m+n=k`$, and $`a,b=0,\mathrm{},l1`$.

###### Proposition 2.6.

The space of toric quasimodular forms contains the derivatives $`_\tau \stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$. Moreover, each $`_\tau \stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ can be written as a linear combination of pairs.

###### Proof.

The span of $`\stackrel{~}{s}^{(k)}`$ is the same as the span of $`s^{(k)}`$ and $`E_k`$, so we will instead consider their derivatives. The $`q`$-expansion of $`_\tau s_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ is

(3)
$$2\pi \mathrm{i}\underset{n>0}{}q^n\underset{d|n}{}nd^{k1}(\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \mathrm{i}da/l}+(1)^k\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \mathrm{i}da/l}2\delta _k^{0mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}).$$

Now take (cf. \[1, proof of Prop. 3.8\])

(4)
$$s_\alpha ^{(2)}+s_\alpha ^2=\frac{1}{6}2\underset{n>0}{}q^n\underset{d|n}{}\frac{n}{d}(\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \mathrm{i}\alpha d}+\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \mathrm{i}\alpha d}),$$

and differentiate it $`k`$ times with respect to $`\alpha `$. Let $`F_\alpha (q)`$ be the resulting right hand side. It is easy to express (3) as a linear combination of $`\{F_{a/l}(q)\}`$ and the derivatives $`_\tau E_k`$, so it suffices to show that these forms can be expressed as a linear combination of pairs.

We consider first the derivatives of $`s_\alpha ^{(r)}`$ with respect to $`\alpha `$. Putting $`E_{\mathrm{odd}}=0`$, we have

$$(2\pi \mathrm{i})^1\frac{}{\alpha }s_\alpha ^{(r)}=s_\alpha ^{(r+1)}(2\pi \mathrm{i})^{r1}\left(\frac{^{r+1}}{z^{r+1}}\right)_{z=0}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{z\vartheta ^{}(0,\tau )}{\vartheta (z,\tau )}\right)=s_\alpha ^{(r+1)}2E_{r+1},$$

and the statement follows from the fact that $`E_r`$ and $`s^{(r)}`$ can be written as linear combinations of $`\stackrel{~}{s}^{(r)}`$. For $`_\tau E_k`$ we argue as follows. Expand both sides of the equation (4) in a Laurent series in $`\alpha `$ around $`\alpha =0`$. The coefficient at $`\alpha ^k`$ on the right hand side of (4) is equal to $`_\tau E_k`$, up to a multiplicative and an additive constant. To expand the left hand side notice that, up to the terms constant in $`q`$, the Laurent coefficient of $`s_\alpha `$ at $`\alpha ^k`$ is a multiple of $`E_{k+1}`$, which follows from expanding $`\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \mathrm{i}d\alpha }`$ in the definition of $`s_\alpha `$. It is easy to see that $`s_\alpha `$ has a simple pole at $`\alpha =0`$ with a constant residue, so the coefficient of the Laurent expansion of $`s_\alpha ^2`$ at $`\alpha ^k`$ is a linear combination of $`E_rE_{k+2r}`$, $`E_{k+2}`$ and some $`E_r`$ for $`r<k+2`$. Then the modular transformation properties of $`_\tau E_k`$ finish the argument. ∎

Next we describe the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(l)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(l)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$.

###### Proposition 2.7.

Let $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_0(l)`$ have diagonal entries $`p^1`$ and $`p`$ $`modl`$ respectively. Then

$$\gamma \stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}=\stackrel{~}{s}_{p^1a/l}^{(k)}.$$

###### Proof.

The transformation properties of $`\vartheta `$ (cf. \[2, Prop. 4.3\]) imply

$$\gamma s_{a/l}^{(k)}=s_{pa/l}^{(k)}.$$

One can then use linear combinations of the forms in the proof of Proposition 2.2 to determine the action of $`\gamma `$ on $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$. We leave the details to the reader. ∎

## 3. Manin symbols

### 3.1.

This section closely follows , to which the reader is referred for more details. Let $`l>1`$ be an integer, and let $`E_l(/l)^2`$ be the subset of pairs $`(u,v)`$ such that $`u+v=/l`$. The space of *Manin symbols* of weight $`k`$ and level $`l`$ is the $``$-vector space generated by the symbols $`x^ry^s(u,v)`$, where $`r`$ and $`s`$ are nonnegative integers summing to $`k2`$ and $`(u,v)E_l`$, modulo the following relations:

1. $`x^ry^s(u,v)+(1)^rx^sy^r(v,u)=0`$.
2. $`x^ry^s(u,v)+(1)^ry^r(xy)^s(v,uv)+(1)^s(yx)^rx^s(uv,u)=0`$.

We denote the space of Manin symbols by $`M`$ (we omit the level and weight from the notation since it will be clear from the context). Two subspaces of $`M`$ will play an important role in what follows. Let $`\iota :MM`$ be the involution $`x^ry^s(u,v)(1)^rx^ry^s(u,v)`$.

###### Definition 3.2.

The space of *plus symbols* $`M_+M`$ is the subspace consisting of symbols $`w`$ satisfying $`\iota (w)=w`$. Similarly, the space of *minus symbols* $`M_{}M`$ is the subspace consisting of symbols $`w`$ satisfying $`\iota (w)=w`$.

We have *symmetrization maps* $`(,)_\pm :MM_\pm `$ given by $`x^ry^s(u,v)_\pm :=(x^ry^s(u,v)\pm (1)^rx^ry^s(u,v))/2`$.

### 3.3.

Let $`M^{}=\mathrm{Hom}_{}(M,)`$ be the dual of the space of Manin symbols. For any $`\phi M^{}`$, we define $`\phi `$ on “degenerate” symbols $`x^ry^s(u,v)`$ with $`u+v/l`$ by setting $`\phi (x^ry^s(u,v))=0`$. This convention is somewhat artificial but turns out to be quite useful.

### 3.4.

There exists a natural pairing between the spaces of Manin symbols and the spaces of cusp forms, see . Let $`(l)`$ be the $``$-vector space of weight $`k`$ holomorphic modular forms on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(l)`$, and let $`𝒮(l)(l)`$ be the subspace of cusp forms. For $`x^ry^s(u,v)M`$ and $`f𝒮(l)`$ let $`g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)`$ be an element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$ with $`(c,d)=(u,v)modl`$. Then the integral

$$_0^\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}(c\tau +d)^kf(\frac{a\tau +b}{c\tau +d})\tau ^r𝑑\tau $$

does not depend on the choice of $`g`$. Moreover, it is compatible with the relations on modular symbols, and we obtain a pairing

$`M\times 𝒮(l)`$ $`,`$
$`(x^ry^s(u,v),f)`$ $`f,x^ry^s(u,v).`$
In general this pairing is degenerate, but one can identify a subspace of cuspidal Manin symbols $`S`$ such that the pairing is non-degenerate on $`S_\pm \times 𝒮(l)`$. We will not use this fact, but details can be found in .

### 3.5.

Next we present Merel’s description of the Hecke action on the Manin symbols. Let $`n1`$ be an integer, and let $`T_n`$ be the associated Hecke operator. We denote the action of $`T_n`$ on a modular form $`f`$ by $`f|T_n`$. For any positive integer $`n`$, we define a set $`H(n)^4`$ by

(5)
$$H(n)=\{(a,b,c,d)a>b0,d>c0,adbc=n\}.$$

###### Theorem 3.6.

\[6, Theorem 2 and Proposition 10\] For any positive integer $`n`$ coprime to $`l`$, define an operator $`T_n^{}:MM`$ by

(6)
$$T_n^{}x^ry^s(u,v)=\underset{H(n)}{}(ax+by)^r(cx+dy)^s(au+cv,bu+dv).$$

If $`n`$ is not coprime to $`l`$, then we define $`T_n^{}`$ by (6) but omit terms with $`g.c.d.(l,au+cv,bu+dv)>1`$. Then $`T_n^{}`$ is the adjoint of $`T_n`$ with respect to the pairing $`,`$, that is

$$f|T_n,x^ry^s(u,v)=f,T_n^{}x^ry^s(u,v).$$

We will abuse notation in what follows and write $`T_n`$ for $`T_n^{}`$. It is also proved in  that this Hecke action is compatible with the symmetrization maps:

###### Proposition 3.7.

We have

$$T_n(x^ry^s(u,v)_\pm )=(T_nx^ry^s(u,v))_\pm .$$

### 3.8.

To conclude this section we associate to every pair of integers $`(m,n)`$ a certain Manin symbol $`R_{(m,n)}`$. These symbols satisfy relations analogous to those satisfied by the weight two symbols.

###### Definition 3.9.

Let $`m,n`$. If $`g.c.d.(m,n,l)=1`$ then we let $`R_{(m,n)}=(mx+ny)^{k2}(m,n)`$. If $`g.c.d.(m,n,l)>1`$ then we put $`R_{(m,n)}=0`$.

We remark that even though $`R_{(m,n)}`$ is built out of the Manin symbol $`(m,n)`$, its value depends on more than just the residues of $`m`$ and $`n`$ modulo $`l`$. It is straightforward to see that the symbols $`R_{(m,n)}`$ obey the following relations:

1. $`R_{(m,n)}+R_{(n,m)}=0`$.
2. $`R_{(m,n)}+R_{(mn,m)}+R_{(n,mn)}=0`$.
3. $`\left(R_{(m,n)}\right)_\pm =(R_{(m,n)}\pm R_{(m,n)})/2`$.

We denote the images of $`R_{(m,n)}`$ under the symmetrization maps by $`R_{(m,n)}^\pm `$.

## 4. (Mod $`l`$)-polynomials

### 4.1.

To simplify later manipulations with $`q`$-expansions, we now introduce certain functions. Fix a positive integer $`l`$.

###### Definition 4.2.

A function $`h:`$ is called a *$`(modl)`$-polynomial* if its restriction to each coset $`l+k`$ is a polynomial.

One can think of a $`(modl)`$-polynomial as a set of $`l`$ ordinary polynomials, one for each residue modulo $`l`$. For example, the function that equals $`m^2+m`$ when $`m`$ is even and $`m^3`$ when $`m`$ is odd is a $`(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$-polynomial.

The set of all $`(modl)`$-polynomials forms a ring. One can analogously define $`(modl)`$-polynomials $`h(m,n)`$ of two variables by requiring polynomiality on each pair of cosets $`(l+k_1,l+k_2)`$.

### 4.3.

We say that a $`(modl)`$-polynomial $`h`$ is *odd* if $`h(m)=h(m)`$. Note that the individual polynomials constituting an odd $`(modl)`$-polynomial aren’t independent, since the polynomials sitting over the residues $`amodl`$ and $`amodl`$ are related. The space of odd $`(modl)`$-polynomials will be of particular importance to us, due to the following proposition.

###### Proposition 4.4.

Let $`h`$ be an odd $`(modl)`$-polynomial. Then up to a constant, the function

$$f(q)=\underset{D>0}{}q^D\underset{d|D}{}h(d)$$

is a linear combination of $`\{\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}k1,a=1,\mathrm{}l1\}`$. Conversely, every linear combination of $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ has the above form, up to an additive constant.

###### Proof.

Let $`r_{a,k}(m)`$ be the $`(modl)`$-polynomial given by

$$r_{a,k}(m)=m^k\delta _m^{amodl}(1)^km^k\delta _m^{amodl}.$$

Then any odd $`(modl)`$-polynomial is a linear combination of the $`r_{a,k}`$’s. The result follows easily from the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ in (1). ∎

The following result allows one to construct odd one-variable $`(modl)`$-polynomials from even two-variable $`(modl)`$-polynomials.

###### Proposition 4.5.

Let $`G:^2`$ be a two-variable $`(modl)`$-polynomial such that $`G(n_1,n_2)=G(n_1,n_2)`$, and let $`N`$ be a positive integer. Then

$$f(d):=\underset{0<n<Nd}{}G(n,d)+\frac{1}{2}G(0,d)+\frac{1}{2}G(Nd,d)$$

is an odd $`(modl)`$-polynomial.

###### Proof.

First we note that the space of all even two-variable $`(modl)`$-polynomials is spanned by the family of functions

$$G(n_1,n_2)=n_1^rn_2^s\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \mathrm{i}(k_1n_1+k_2n_2)/l}+(n_1)^r(n_2)^s\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \mathrm{i}(k_1n_1+k_2n_2)/l}$$

for nonnegative integers $`r`$ and $`s`$ and integers $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$. We use $`\alpha _i=2\pi \mathrm{i}k_i/l`$ to write such a $`G`$ as

$$G(n_1,n_2)=n_1^rn_2^s(\mathrm{e}^{\alpha _1n_1+\alpha _2n_2}+(1)^{r+s}\mathrm{e}^{\alpha _1n_1\alpha _2n_2}).$$

Now it suffices to treat the case $`r=s=0`$, since all others can then be handled by partial differentiation with respect to $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$. For $`r=s=0`$ and $`\mathrm{e}^{\alpha _1}1`$, an explicit calculation gives

$$f(d)=\underset{0<n<Nd}{}(\mathrm{e}^{\alpha _1n+\alpha _2d}+\mathrm{e}^{\alpha _1n\alpha _2d})+\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{e}^{\alpha _2d}+\mathrm{e}^{\alpha _2d})+\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{e}^{(\alpha _1N+\alpha _2)d}+\mathrm{e}^{(\alpha _1N+\alpha _2)d})$$

$$=\frac{(1+\mathrm{e}^{\alpha _1})}{2(1\mathrm{e}^{\alpha _1})}\left(\mathrm{e}^{\alpha _2d}\mathrm{e}^{(\alpha _1N+\alpha _2)d}\mathrm{e}^{\alpha _2d}+\mathrm{e}^{(\alpha _1N+\alpha _2)d}\right).$$

This is clearly an odd function in $`d`$, and after letting $`\alpha _i=2\pi \mathrm{i}k_i/l`$ is obviously $`(modl)`$-polynomial in $`d`$. The case $`\mathrm{e}^{\alpha _1}=1`$ follows by analytic continuation. ∎

### 4.6.

The following technical statement will be needed for the proof of Lemma 5.8.

###### Proposition 4.7.

Fix a weight $`k`$ cusp form $`f`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(l)`$, and define a function $`h:_{>0}`$ by

$$h(m):=f,R_{(m,0)}^++2f,\underset{m>i>0}{}R_{(m,mi)}^+.$$

Then $`h`$ extends to an odd $`(modl)`$-polynomial.

###### Proof.

We use the symmetries of $`R^+`$ to rewrite $`h(m)`$ as

$$h(m)=f,\underset{m<i<m}{}R_{(m,i)}^+=\underset{0<i<2m}{}f,R_{(m,im)}^++\frac{1}{2}f,R_{(m,m)}^++\frac{1}{2}f,R_{(m,m)}^+.$$

Then Proposition 4.5 finishes the proof. ∎

## 5. Main theorem

### 5.1.

Fix a weight $`k3`$ and a level $`l`$. In this section we define an endomorphism of the space $`𝒮(l)`$ of cusp forms of weight $`k`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(l)`$, and prove that its image contains all newforms. This definition is a generalization of \[1, Definition 4.2\] to $`k>2`$.

###### Definition 5.2.

Let $`\rho :𝒮(l)𝒮(l)`$ be the linear map

$$\rho (f)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(_0^\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}(f|T_n)(s)ds\right)q^n.$$

###### Proposition 5.3.

The form $`\rho (f)`$ is a cusp form with nebentypus equal to that of $`f`$.

###### Proof.

The statement follows from \[6, Theorem 6\]; see also \[1, Proposition 4.3\]. ∎

The map $`\rho `$ was used in  because its image contains all newforms of weight two whose $`L`$-functions don’t vanish at the center of the critical strip. The analogous statement for higher weights is the following:

###### Proposition 5.4.

The image of $`\rho `$ contains all newforms.

###### Proof.

One needs to show that for any newform $`f`$

$$_0^\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}f(\tau )𝑑\tau 0,$$

which is equivalent to $`L(f,1)0`$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $`f`$ is a Hecke eigenform. If $`k>3`$ then $`L(f,1)`$ is a special value outside the critical strip, and so cannot vanish by absolute convergence of the Euler product. If $`k=3`$ then $`L(f,1)`$ is a special value on the boundary of the critical strip. By \[5, Theorem 1.3\] this special value cannot vanish. ∎

### 5.5.

Fix a cusp form $`f`$. By Theorem 3.6 we can express $`\rho (f)`$ in terms of modular symbols as

$$\rho (f)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^nf,T_ny^{k2}(0,1)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}q^nf,T_nR_{(0,1)}^+=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^nf,\underset{H(n)}{}R_{(c,d)}^+.$$

Our goal is to show $`\rho (f)𝒯_{}(l)`$ and is a linear combination of pairs. To this end, we consider the following linear combination of toric quasimodular forms:

$$\rho _1(f)=\underset{r+s=k2}{}\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{l1}{}}\frac{(r+s)!}{r!s!}\stackrel{~}{s}_{m/l}^{(r+1)}\stackrel{~}{s}_{n/l}^{(s+1)}f,(x+y)^ry^s(m,m+n)(xy)^ry^s(m,mn)$$

$$=C+\underset{r=0}{\overset{k2}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{l1}{}}c_{r,m}\stackrel{~}{s}_{m/l}^{(r+1)}+\underset{D>0}{}q^D\underset{m,n,r,s}{}Af,(x+y)^ry^s(m,m+n)(xy)^ry^s(m,mn).$$

Here $`C,c_{r,m}`$ are constants whose exact values will not be needed, and the constant $`A=A(r,s,m,D)`$ is defined by

$$A:=\frac{(r+s)!}{r!s!}\underset{I(D)}{}k_1^rk_2^s(\delta _{k_1}^{mmodl}+(1)^{r1}\delta _{k_1}^{mmodl})(\delta _{k_1}^{mmodl}+(1)^{r1}\delta _{k_1}^{mmodl}),$$

where $`I(D)^4`$ denotes the set

(7)
$$I(D)=\{(m_1,k_1,m_2,k_2)m_1,k_1,m_2,k_2>0,m_1k_1+m_2k_2=D\}$$

A linear combination similar to $`\rho _1(f)`$ appears in the proof of \[1, Theorem 4.8\] as the composition of several maps, one of which is induced by the intersection pairing on Manin symbols. Here, however, we just take this as a definition. After some simplification, the formula for $`\rho _1(f)`$ becomes

$$\rho _1(f)=C+\underset{r=0}{\overset{k2}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{l1}{}}c_{r,m}\stackrel{~}{s}_{m/l}^{(r+1)}+4\underset{D>0}{}q^Df,\underset{I(D)}{}(R_{(k_1,k_1+k_2)}^+R_{(k_1,k_1k_2)}^+),$$

where $`R_{(m,n)}^+`$ is the Manin symbol from Section 3.8. The quasimodular form $`\rho _1(f)`$ and the modular form $`\rho (f)`$ are related as follows:

###### Proposition 5.6.

We have

$$\rho _1(f)12\rho (f)=C+4F_1+4F_2+\underset{r=0}{\overset{k2}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{l1}{}}c_{r,m}\stackrel{~}{s}_{m/l}^{(r+1)},$$

where $`C`$ is a constant and

$`F_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}q^n{\displaystyle \underset{d|n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2n}{d}}f,R_{(d,0)}^+,`$
$`F_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}q^n{\displaystyle \underset{d|n}{}}\left(f,R_{(d,0)}^++2{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}0<e<d\end{array}}{}}f,R_{(d,de)}^+\right).`$
###### Proof.

This follows from the identity

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{I(D)}{}(R_{(k_1,k_1k_2)}^+R_{(k_1,k_1+k_2)}^+)\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{d|n}{}\left(\frac{2n}{d}+1\right)R_{(d,0)}^+2\underset{\begin{array}{c}d|n\\ d>e>0\end{array}}{}R_{(d,de)}^+3\underset{H(n)}{}R_{(c,d)}^+.\end{array}$$

This identity with weight $`k=2`$ appears as an intermediate step of the proof of \[1, Theorem 4.8\]. However, its proof only uses relations among $`R_{(m,n)}^+`$ that are independent of the weight $`k`$. ∎

###### Lemma 5.7.

The quasimodular form $`F_1`$ is a linear combination of pairs.

###### Proof.

After some simplification, one can write

$$F_1=2\underset{n>0}{}q^n\underset{d|n}{}nd^{k3}f,x^{k2}(d,0)_+.$$

Let $`G`$ be the $`q`$-series

$$G=\underset{n>0}{}q^n\underset{d|n}{}d^{k3}f,x^{k2}(d,0)_+.$$

The complex number $`f,x^{k2}(d,0)_+`$ depends only on $`dmodl`$, and further satisfies

$$f,x^{k2}(d,0)_+=(1)^kf,x^{k2}(d,0)_+.$$

Hence $`d^{k3}f,x^{k2}(d,0)_+`$ is an odd $`(modl)`$-polynomial. By Proposition 4.4, $`G`$ is a linear combination of the $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ and a constant, and is hence toric quasimodular. Differentiating the linear combination for $`G`$ with respect to $`\tau `$ and applying Proposition 2.6 completes the proof. ∎

###### Lemma 5.8.

The quasimodular form $`F_2+C`$ is a linear combination of pairs for a suitably chosen constant $`C`$.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 4.7, we know that the function

$$df,R_{(d,0)}^++2\underset{\begin{array}{c}0<e<d\end{array}}{}f,R_{(d,de)}^+$$

extends to a unique odd $`(modl)`$-polynomial. The result then follows from Proposition 4.4, and weight considerations. ∎

### 5.9.

We are now ready to prove our main theorem.

###### Theorem 5.10.

All cusp forms of weight three or more are toric. Moreover, any such cusp form can be written as a linear combination of pairs (Definition 2.5).

###### Proof.

One can easily see that lifts of the forms $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(r)}`$ can be written as linear combinations of $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ for the new level. Therefore, we may assume without loss of generality that $`f`$ is a newform. Hence by the proof of Proposition 5.4, $`\rho (f)`$ is a non-zero multiple of $`f`$. Proposition 5.6 and Lemmas 5.7 and 5.8 show that $`\rho (f)`$ can be written up to a constant as a linear combination of toric quasimodular forms $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(m)}\stackrel{~}{s}_{b/l}^{(n)}`$ for $`m+n=k`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(n)}`$ for smaller $`nk`$. The transformation properties under $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(l)`$ insure that all lower weight forms come with zero coefficients, and that all the quasimodular forms used are actually modular, i.e. $`E_2s_{a/l}^{(k2)}`$ come with zero coefficients. ∎

###### Corollary 5.11.

If $`l5`$, then any cusp form of weight $`k3`$ can be written, up to a weight $`k`$ Eisenstein series, as a degree $`k`$ homogeneous polynomial in weight one Eisenstein series.

###### Proof.

This follows from Theorem 5.10, Proposition 2.2, and \[2, Theorem 4.11\]. ∎

###### Corollary 5.12.

The multiplication map

$$_m(l)_n(l)_{m+n}(l)$$

is surjective for all $`mn1`$, except for $`m=n=1`$.

###### Proof.

Theorem 5.10 assures that the image of the above map contains all cusp forms, so it is enough to insure that the forms of the image take arbitrary values at the cusps. To obtain a form which vanishes at all but one cusp $`p`$ we multiply a form in $`_m(l)`$ that vanishes at all cusps except $`p`$ and perhaps one other cusp $`q`$ (relevant only if $`m=2`$) by a form in $`_n(l)`$ that vanishes at $`q`$ but not at $`p`$. ∎

###### Remark 5.13.

A slightly weaker statement can be proved directly by using the fact that the ring of modular forms is Cohen-Macaulay. However, we are not aware of any other proofs for $`(m,n)=(2,1)`$ or $`(2,2)`$.

###### Remark 5.14.

One can also ask which Eisenstein series are toric. It is easy to see that for a prime level $`p`$ all Eisenstein series are toric. For composite levels, the situation is different. For example if $`l=25`$ then weight two toric Eisenstein series form a subspace of codimension one in the space of all weight two Eisenstein series. We do not know any similar examples for higher weight.

###### Theorem 5.15.

For every level $`l`$ there exists an $`N`$ such that the ring of toric forms coincides with the ring of modular forms for weights $`kN`$. When $`l`$ is prime, one can take $`N=3`$.

###### Proof.

In view of Theorem 5.10, one needs to show that all Eisenstein series are eventually contained in the ring of toric forms. Because the ring of toric forms is Hecke stable \[2, Theorem 5.3\], it suffices to show that the values of toric forms at the cusps eventually span a $`c`$-dimensional space, where $`c`$ is the number of cusps. For this one needs to show that the values of $`s_{a/l}`$ for two different cusps are not proportional. This is accomplished by a direct calculation that we leave to the reader. ∎

###### Remark 5.16.

Theorem 5.15 was used in  to analyze the embedding of the modular curve $`X_1(p)`$ given by the graded ring $`𝒯_{}(p)`$.

## 6. The map from symbols to forms in higher weight

### 6.1.

A key step in the proof of \[1, Theorem 4.11\] was the analysis of a map $`\mu `$ from the minus space $`M_{}`$ of weight 2 Manin symbols to a quotient of the space $`_2(l)`$ of weight 2 modular forms. Namely, we showed that the map

$$\mu :(m,n)\stackrel{~}{s}_{m/l}\stackrel{~}{s}_{n/l}$$

took $`M_{}`$ into the quotient $`_2(l)/_2(l)`$, where $`_2(l)`$ is the space of weight 2 Eisenstein series (<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1This is slightly inaccurate: the map we’re denoting by $`\mu `$ here is actually the composition of map called $`\mu `$ in  and the Fricke involution.). In this section we consider the analogous map in higher weight given by

(8)
$$\mu :x^ry^s(m,n)(1)^s\stackrel{~}{s}_{m/l}^{(s+1)}\stackrel{~}{s}_{n/l}^{(r+1)}$$

and describe the relevant quotient containing the image.

###### Theorem 6.2.

Let $`k>2`$. The map $`\mu `$ in (8) applied to the space generated by the Manin symbols $`x^sy^r(m,n)`$ takes the relations

(9)
$$x^ry^s(a,b)+(1)^ry^r(xy)^s(b,ab)+(1)^s(yx)^rx^s(ab,a)$$

to the subspace generated by the modular forms $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ and the quasimodular forms $`_\tau \stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k2)}`$.

###### Proof.

The symbol (9) maps to

(10)
$$(1)^s\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(s+1)}\stackrel{~}{s}_{b/l}^{(r+1)}+\underset{t=0}{\overset{s}{}}\frac{s!}{t!(st)!}\stackrel{~}{s}_{b/l}^{(r+t+1)}\stackrel{~}{s}_{(a+b)/l}^{(st+1)}+\underset{t=0}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{r!}{t!(rt)!}\stackrel{~}{s}_{(a+b)/l}^{(rt+1)}\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(s+t+1)}(1)^{s+r}.$$

Up to quasimodular forms of lower weight and $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$, the expression (10) can be simplified to

$$\underset{D>0}{}q^D\underset{I(D)}{}(A_{k_1,k_2}A_{k_1,k_2}+A_{k_2,k_1k_2}A_{k_2,k_1k_2}+A_{k_1k_2,k_1}A_{k_1k_2,k_1}).$$

Here $`I(D)`$ is defined in (7) and

$$A_{k_1,k_2}=(1)^sk_1^sk_2^r\overline{\delta }_{(k_1,k_2)}^{(a,b)},$$

where $`\overline{\delta }_{(k_1,k_2)}^{(a,b)}=\delta _{k_1}^{amodl}\delta _{k_2}^{bmodl}+(1)^k\delta _{k_1}^{amodl}\delta _{k_2}^{bmodl}`$.

The set $`I(D)`$ can be partitioned into subsets corresponding to different “runs” of the Euclidean algorithm. Namely, there are partially defined maps $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from $`I(D)`$ to itself given by

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}:(m_1,k_1,m_2,k_2)\{\begin{array}{cc}(m_2,k_1+k_2,m_1m_2,k_1),\hfill & \mathrm{if}m_1>m_2\hfill \\ (m_2m_1,k_2,m_1,k_1+k_2),\hfill & \mathrm{if}m_1<m_2\hfill \\ \mathrm{not}\mathrm{defined},\hfill & \mathrm{if}m_1=m_2\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:(m_1,k_1,m_2,k_2)\{\begin{array}{cc}(m_1+m_2,k_2,m_1,k_1k_2),\hfill & \mathrm{if}k_1>k_2\hfill \\ (m_2,k_2k_1,m_1+m_2,k_1),\hfill & \mathrm{if}k_1<k_2\hfill \\ \mathrm{not}\mathrm{defined},\hfill & \mathrm{if}k_1=k_2\hfill \end{array}$$

These maps are inverses of each other whenever their composition is defined. The whole set $`I(D)`$ can be pictured as a disjoint union of vertical threads, where each thread is obtained by starting at the top with a solution with $`m_1=m_2`$ and applying $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ until arriving at a solution with $`k_1=k_2`$(<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ stand for *up* and *down*.). The crucial observation is that for each thread $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the sum

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Theta }}{}A_{k_1,k_2}+A_{k_2,k_1k_2}+A_{k_1k_2,k_1}A_{k_1,k_2}A_{k_2,k_1k_2}A_{k_1k_2,k_1}$$

collapses. Indeed, the negative terms for elements $`(m_1,k_1,m_2,k_2)`$ cancel the positive terms for elements $`\mathrm{\Delta }(m_1,k_1,m_2,k_2)`$. To see this, observe that if $`k_1>k_2`$, then the positive terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(m_1,k_1,m_2,k_2)`$ equal

$$A_{k_2,k_1k_2}+A_{k_1k_2,k_1}+A_{k_1,k_2}.$$

The $`k_1<k_2`$ case is handled similarly, taking into account the symmetry $`A_{k_1,k_2}=A_{k_1,k_2}`$.

Hence, up to a linear combination of lower weight forms and the forms $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$, the image of the relation (9) is equal to

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{D>0}{}q^D(_{\{iI(D)m_1=m_2\}}(A_{k_1,k_2}+A_{k_2,k_1k_2}+A_{k_1k_2,k_1})\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{\{iI(D)k_1=k_2\}}{}(A_{k_1,k_2}+A_{k_2,k_1k_2}+A_{k_1k_2,k_1})).\end{array}$$

The coefficient of $`q^D`$ can be further simplified to

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{d|D}{}\underset{0<e<d}{}(A_{e,de}+A_{de,d}+A_{d,e})\underset{d|D}{}(\frac{D}{d}1)(d^{k2}(\delta _{(d,d)}^{(a,b)}+(1)^k\delta _{(d,d)}^{(a,b)})\hfill \\ \hfill +(1)^sd^s0^r(\delta _{(d,0)}^{(a,b)}+(1)^k\delta _{(d,0)}^{(a,b)})+0^sd^r(\delta _{(0,d)}^{(a,b)}+(1)^k\delta _{(0,d)}^{(a,b)})),\end{array}$$

where $`\delta `$ is now a Kronecker symbol for elements of $`(/l)^2`$, and our convention is $`0^s=1`$ if and only if $`s=0`$.

To finish the proof we first observe that the contribution of the terms with $`D/k`$ is, up to an additive constant, a derivative with respect to $`\tau `$ of

$$\delta _{a+b}^0\stackrel{~}{s}_{b/l}^{(k2)}+(1)^{s+1}0^r\delta _b^0\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k2)}0^s\delta _a^0\stackrel{~}{s}_{b/l}^{(k2)},$$

where $`\delta `$ is the usual Kronecker function. To show that the remaining contributions give linear combinations of the forms $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$, it is enough to establish that for any $`a,b,r,s`$ the $`(modl)`$-polynomial

$$h(d):=\underset{0<e<d}{}(A_{e,de}+A_{de,d}+A_{d,e})+A_{d,d}+A_{d,0}+A_{0,d}$$

is odd. This follows easily from Proposition 4.5 and the symmetry of $`A`$. ∎

###### Corollary 6.3.

The map $`\mu `$ induces a map from the space of weight $`k`$ Manin symbols $`M`$ to the quotient $`𝒬`$ of the space of weight $`k`$ quasimodular forms by subspace generated by the Eisenstein series $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ and the derivatives $`_\tau \stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k2)}`$.

###### Remark 6.4.

An alternative approach to Theorem 6.2 is to look at the identify

$$(s_\alpha ^{(1)}+s_\beta ^{(1)}+s_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)})^2+\frac{1}{2}(s_\alpha ^{(2)}+s_\beta ^{(2)}+s_{\alpha \beta }^{(2)})=0$$

which comes from a calculation of certain toric form for the complex projective plane $`^2`$, see . One can differentiate the above identity with respect to $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ several times and plug in rational values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. Then it remains to use the transformation that connects $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ and $`s_{a/l}^{(k)}`$. We leave the details to the reader.

## 7. Hecke equivariance of the symbols to forms map

### 7.1.

It is not hard to see by explicit computation that the subspace spanned by the Eisenstein series and derivatives mentioned in Corollary 6.3 is invariant under the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(l)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(l)`$, the Fricke involution, and the Hecke operators. Hence we can naturally extend their action to the quotient $`𝒬`$. The goal of this section is to show that the map of Corollary 6.3 is compatible with the action of Hecke operators. For this, one needs to show that the map

$$x^ry^s(m,n)(1)^s\stackrel{~}{s}_{m/l}^{(s+1)}\stackrel{~}{s}_{n/l}^{(r+1)}$$

is compatible with the action of Hecke operators, up to linear combinations of $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ and $`_\tau \stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k2)}`$.

###### Theorem 7.2.

Let $`p`$ be a prime number coprime to $`l`$ and $`T_p`$ be the corresponding Hecke operator on $`M_k`$ and $`_k`$, where we abuse notations slightly. Let $`\mu `$ be the map defined in Theorem 6.2. Then for every $`wM_k`$, the image $`\mu (T_pw)`$ is equal to $`T_p(\mu (ϵ_{p^1}w))`$ modulo a linear combination of $`s_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ and $`_\tau s_{a/l}^{(k2)}`$. Here $`ϵ_{p^1}`$ is the action of the element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(l)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(l)`$ given by $`x^ry^s(u,v)x^ry^s(pu,pv)`$, (cf. Proposition 2.7).

Before we begin the proof of Theorem 7.2, we need a lemma giving a geometric interpretation of the set $`H(p)`$ involved in Merel’s description of the $`T_p`$-action on Manin symbols (Theorem 3.6).

###### Lemma 7.3.

\[1, Theorem 3.16\] For each index $`p`$ sublattice $`S^2`$, consider the convex hull of all nonzero points of $`S`$ that lie in the first quadrant. Then the compact subset of the boundary of this convex hull is a union of segments. Moreover, the coordinates $`(a,c)`$, $`(b,d)`$ of the vertices of each segment (ordered from the $`x`$-axis) satisfy $`adbc=p`$ and $`a>b0`$, $`d>c0`$, and hence determine an element of $`H(p)`$. Conversely, all $`(a,b,c,d)H(p)`$ come from one such sublattice $`S`$ in this manner.

Given an index $`p`$ sublattice $`S^2`$, we write $`H(p,S)`$ for the subset of those $`(a,b,c,d)H(p)`$ corresponding to $`S`$.

###### Example 7.4.

Figure 1 shows the case $`p=2`$. There are three sublattices of index $`2`$, and altogether four distinct boundary segments. ¿From the segments we obtain the four elements of $`H(2)`$, namely $`(1,0,0,2)`$, $`(2,1,0,1)`$, $`(1,0,1,2)`$ and $`(2,0,0,1)`$.

We will also need the following duality operation on the set of sublattices.

###### Definition 7.5.

For an index $`p`$ sublattice $`S`$ we denote by $`S^{}`$ the sublattice of all points $`P`$ in $`^2`$ such that $`PSp`$. where $``$ is the standard scalar product on $`^2`$. It is clear that $`S^{}=S`$. Moreover, $`S^{}`$ can be obtained from $`S`$ by a $`\pi /2`$ rotation at the origin.

We are now ready to start the proof of Theorem 7.2.

###### Proof.

It is enough to consider $`w=x^ry^s(u,v)`$. By Theorem 3.6 and the definition of $`\mu `$,

$$\mu (T_px^ry^s(u,v))_l\underset{D}{}q^D\underset{hH(p)}{}\underset{iI(D)}{}\mathrm{\Phi }(h,i),$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(h,i)=(ak_2bk_1)^r(ck_2dk_1)^s\overline{\delta }_{k_1,k_2}^{au+cv,bu+dv}(ak_2+bk_1)^r(ck_2+dk_1)^s\overline{\delta }_{k_1,k_2}^{aucv,bu+dv}.$$

Here $`_l`$ means that equality holds modulo linear combinations of $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(<k)}`$, and $`I(D)`$ is defined in (7). We can use $`(p,l)=1`$ to rewrite the above as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(h,i)=A_{dk_1ck_2,ak_2bk_1}A_{dk_1ck_2,ak_2+bk_1},$$

where $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }=\beta ^r(\alpha )^s\overline{\delta }_{\alpha ,\beta }^{pu,pv}`$. On the other hand,

(11)
$$\begin{array}{c}T_p\mu (ϵ_{p^1}w)_{pl}\underset{D}{}q^D\underset{I(pD)}{}(A_{k_1,k_2}A_{k_1,k_2})\hfill \\ \hfill +p^{k1}\underset{D}{}q^D\underset{I(D)}{}(1)^sk_1^sk_2^r(\overline{\delta }_{k_1,k_2}^{u,v}\overline{\delta }_{k_1,k_2}^{u,v}).\end{array}$$

For each $`iI(pD)`$ there exists a sublattice $`S`$ such that $`(m_1,m_2)S`$ and $`(k_1,k_2)S^{}`$. Moreover, $`S`$ is unique unless $`m_1,k_1,m_2,k_2=0modp`$, in which case there are $`(p+1)`$ such sublattices $`S`$. To record this, we use the notation

$$I(pD,S)=\{iI(pD)(m_1,m_2)S,(k_1,k_2)S^{}\}.$$

Let us further write, for any two subsets $`U_1,U_2^2`$,

$$I(pD,S;U_1,U_2)=\{iI(pD,S)(m_1,m_2)U_1,(k_1,k_2)U_2\}.$$

Now we can rewrite (11) as

(12)
$$T_p\mu (ϵ_{p^1}w)_{pl}\underset{D}{}q^D\underset{S}{}\left(\underset{I(pD,S;Q_I,Q_I)}{}A_{k_1,k_2}\underset{I(pD,S;Q_{II},Q_{II})}{}A_{k_1,k_2}\right)$$

where $`Q_I`$ and $`Q_{II}`$ denote the open first and the second quadrants.

###### Remark 7.6.

The reason we must write $`_{pl}`$ here rather than $`_l`$ is that the action of $`T_p`$ defined for weight $`k`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ will be a linear combination $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/pl}^{(k)}`$.

Given any $`h=(a,b,c,d)H(p)`$, we also denote by $`h`$ the linear transformation $`^2^2`$ given by the multiplying by matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)`$ on the right. This allows us to write $`\mu (T_p(w))T_p\mu (ϵ_{p^1}w)`$ as

(13)
$$\mu (T_p(w))T_p\mu (ϵ_{p^1}w)_{pl}\underset{D}{}q^D\underset{S}{}(\mathrm{Sum}_1\mathrm{Sum}_2\mathrm{Sum}_3+\mathrm{Sum}_4),$$

where

$`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}hH(p,S)\\ iI(pD,S;h^t(Q_I),h^1(Q_I))\end{array}}{}}A_{k_1,k_2}`$
$`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}hH(p,S)\\ iI(pD,S;h^t(Q_{II}),h^1(Q_{II}))\end{array}}{}}A_{k_1,k_2}`$
$`\mathrm{Sum}_3`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{I(pD,S,Q_I)}{}}A_{k_1,k_2}`$
$`\mathrm{Sum}_4`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{I(pD,S,Q_{II})}{}}A_{k_1,k_2}`$
It is convenient to visualize $`\mathrm{Sum}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{Sum}_4`$ as indicated in Figure 2.

### 7.7.

Now we consider the right hand side of (13). It will turn out that most terms will cancel each other, but there will be some terms left over that will require careful consideration. To discuss these terms, we require some additional terminology.

For every sublattice $`S`$ of index $`p`$ we form the convex hulls of the nonzero points in *each* quadrant. The open 1-cones spanned by the points on the boundary of these hulls will be called rays of the lattice $`S`$, and will be denoted $`\rho (S)`$. The rays generated by the points $`(\pm p,0)`$ and $`(0,\pm p)`$ will be called the *axis* rays; all others will be called *non-axis* rays. By abuse of notation, given a point $`(x,y)`$ we write $`(x,y)\rho (S)`$ to mean that $`(x,y)`$ lies on a ray of $`S`$. Finally, for any nonzero point $`vS`$, we define a rational cone $`\mathrm{cone}(v)`$ as follows:

* If $`v`$ lies on a ray $`\rho `$, then we put $`\mathrm{cone}(v)=\rho `$.
* Otherwise, we set $`\mathrm{cone}(v)`$ to be the interior of the unique $`2`$-cone spanned by adjacent rays of $`S`$ and containing $`v`$.

The first step in investigating (13) is the following lemma, which is the heart of the proof.

###### Lemma 7.8.

Let $`S^2`$ have index $`p`$. Then for every $`(m_1,k_1,m_2,k_2)`$ such that $`(m_1,m_2)\rho (S)`$ and $`(k_1,k_2)\rho (S^{})`$, the total of the contributions of $`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$, $`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$, $`\mathrm{Sum}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{Sum}_4`$ at $`(m_1,k_1,m_2,k_2)`$ and $`(m_1,k_1,m_2,k_2)`$ is zero.

###### Proof of Lemma 7.8.

Clearly, it is enough to check this if $`(k_1,k_2)`$ is in the first or second quadrant.

First assume $`(k_1,k_2)Q_I`$. Then the only nontrivial contributions come from $`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{Sum}_3`$ when $`(m_1,m_2)Q_I`$, and in this case we claim $`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$ contributes $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$ and $`\mathrm{Sum}_3`$ contributes $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$. Indeed, if $`(m_1,m_2)Q_I`$, there is a contribution of exactly one $`(a,b,c,d)`$ in $`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$, which corresponds to $`\mathrm{cone}(m_1,m_2)`$. Hence the total contribution is zero.

Next assume $`(k_1,k_2)Q_{II}`$. In this case $`\mathrm{Sum}_3`$ doesn’t contribute, and we split the contributions of the remaining sums into types:

* ($`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$, type $`1`$) We assume $`(m_1,m_2)Q_I`$ lies in a cone above $`\mathrm{cone}(k_2,k_1)`$ (see Figure 3, graph 1). Then there is a unique $`(a,b,c,d)`$ in $`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$, that corresponds to $`\mathrm{cone}(m_1,m_2)`$, and the contribution of $`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$ is $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$.
* ($`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$, type $`2`$) We assume $`(m_1,m_2)Q_I`$ lies in a cone below the $`\mathrm{cone}(k_2,k_1)`$ (see Figure 3, graph 2). Again, there is one $`(a,b,c,d)`$, and the contribution is $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$.
* ($`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$, type $`1`$) We assume $`(m_1,m_2)Q_I`$ lies in a cone above $`\mathrm{cone}(k_2,k_1)`$. Then there is a unique $`(a,b,c,d)`$ in $`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$ that corresponds to $`\mathrm{cone}(k_2,k_1)`$, and the contribution of $`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$ is $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$.
* ($`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$, type $`2`$) We assume $`(m_1,m_2)Q_I`$ such that $`(m_1,m_2)`$ lies in a cone below $`\mathrm{cone}(k_2,k_1)`$. Then there is a unique $`(a,b,c,d)`$ in $`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$ that corresponds to $`\mathrm{cone}(k_2,k_1)`$, and the contribution of $`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$ is $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$.
* ($`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$, type $`3`$) If $`(m_1,m_2)Q_{II}`$, then there is a contribution of $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$. Indeed, the unique $`(a,b,c,d)`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{cone}(k_2,k_1)`$.

Clearly, the type $`1`$ contributions of $`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$ cancel; after we apply the symmetry $`A_{k_1,k_2}=A_{k_1,k_2}`$, the type $`2`$ contributions of $`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$ cancel as well. Finally, the contribution of $`\mathrm{Sum}_4`$ cancels the type $`3`$ contribution of $`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$, which completes the proof of Lemma 7.8. ∎

###### Remark 7.9.

In the terms that cancel, the matrices $`(a,b,c,d)`$ are different, which makes Lemma 7.3 crucial to the success of the proof.

We now return to the proof of Theorem 7.2. Having handled the bulk of the terms in $`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$$`\mathrm{Sum}_4`$, we now examine the cases when $`(m_1,m_2)`$ or $`(k_1,k_2)`$ lie on a ray. For any point $`(u,v)`$, we let $`(u,v)^{}`$ be the set of all $`(x,y)`$ with $`ux+vy=0`$.

For each $`(m_1,m_2)\rho (S)`$ we define a subset $`C(m_1,m_2)S^{}`$ as follows. If $`(m_1,m_2)`$ is not on a coordinate axis, then we let $`C(m_1,m_2)`$ be the set of all points with positive scalar product with $`(m_1,m_2)`$ *except* those that lie in one of the closed cones adjacent to $`(m_1,m_2)^{}`$ (Figure 4). We use the same notation to denote the similar set $`C(k_1,k_2)`$ constructed from a point $`(k_1,k_2)\rho (S^{})`$. If $`(m_1,m_2)`$ or $`(k_1,k_2)`$ lies on an axis, then we define $`C(m_1,m_2)`$ and $`C(k_1,k_2)`$ using the small diagrams in Figure 4.

The rays of the boundary of $`C(m_1,m_2)`$ (excluding the origin) will be denoted by $`C(m_1,m_2)`$ and similarly for $`C(k_1,k_2)`$. For any cone $`C`$, we write $`_{}^{}{}_{C}{}^{}`$ to indicate that the sum is taken over $`CC`$ with terms lying in $`C`$ taken with weight $`1/2`$.

###### Lemma 7.10.

With the above notation,

(14)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mu (T_p(w))T_p\mu (ϵ_{p^1}w)_{pl}\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{S}{}\underset{(k_1,k_2)\rho (S^{})Q_{II}^{}}{}\underset{(m_1,m_2)C(k_1,k_2)}{^{}}q^{(m_1k_1+m_2k_2)/p}A_{k_1,k_2}\\ \hfill \underset{S}{}\underset{(m_1,m_2)\rho (S)Q_I^{}}{}\underset{(k_1,k_2)C(m_1,m_2)}{^{}}q^{(m_1k_1+m_2k_2)/p}A_{k_1,k_2},\end{array}$$

where $`Q_I^{}`$ and $`Q_{II}^{}`$ are the closures of the first and second quadrants.

###### Proof of Lemma 7.10.

Because of Lemma 7.8, we need to examine the contribution of $`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$, $`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$, $`\mathrm{Sum}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{Sum}_4`$ to the quadruples $`\pm (m_1,k_1,m_2,k_2)`$ where at least one of $`(m_1,m_2)`$ and $`(k_1,k_2)`$ lie on the ray of the corresponding lattice. We will have to be especially careful when one of these vectors is located on a coordinate axis. In what follows we will fix lattices $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$.

First, let us deal with the case when $`(k_1,k_2)\rho (S^{})`$ and is not on an axis, and $`(m_1,m_2)\rho (S)`$. If $`(k_1,k_2)`$ is in the first or third quadrant, then $`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{Sum}_4`$ do not contribute, and the contributions of $`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{Sum}_3`$ cancel since they are respectively $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$ and $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$. Therefore, it is enough to consider when $`(k_1,k_2)`$ lies in the second or fourth quadrants. Now the terms of $`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{Sum}_3`$ do not contribute, and the total contribution of $`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{Sum}_4`$ equals $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$ if and only if $`(m_1,m_2)C(k_1,k_2)`$, and is zero otherwise. This clearly corresponds to the terms we get on the right of (14).

Now suppose $`(k_1,k_2)`$ lies on a coordinate axis. We may assume that it lies in the positive portion. If $`(m_1,m_2)\rho (S)`$, then only $`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$ contributes, and the contribution is $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$ if any only if $`(m_1,m_2)C(k_1,k_2)`$. Clearly this corresponds exactly to the contribution on the right of (14).

Analogously one can treat the case of $`(m_1,m_2)\rho (S)`$ with $`(k_1,k_2)\rho (S^{})`$. We have therefore shown that Lemma 7.10 holds up to the contributions of $`\pm (m_1,k_1,m_2,k_2)`$ with both $`(m_1,m_2)`$ and $`(k_1,k_2)`$ on the rays of the corresponding lattices.

If both $`(m_1,m_2)`$ and $`(k_1,k_2)`$ belong to non-axis rays of $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$, the contributions of $`\mathrm{Sum}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{Sum}_2`$ are zero. Hence, the contribution of $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$ occurs if both of them lie in the first or third quadrant and the contribution of $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$ occurs if both lie in the second or fourth quadrant. To show that this is consistent with the right hand side of the equation of the lemma, observe that if $`(k_1,k_2)Q_{II}`$ and $`(m_1,m_2)Q_I`$, the contributions of the two $`^{}`$ cancel. Indeed, in this case $`(k_1,k_2)C(m_1,m_2)`$ and $`(k_1,k_2)C(m_1,m_2)`$ is equivalent to $`(m_1,m_2)C(k_1,k_2)`$ and $`(m_1,m_2)C(k_1,k_2)`$, respectively.

The remaining case of one or both of $`(m_1,m_2)`$ and $`(k_1,k_2)`$ on the axis with both of them on the rays is treated similarly and is left to the reader. ∎

Continuing now with the proof of Theorem 7.2, we investigate the sums on the right of (14). We divide the contributions to the sums over $`\rho (S^{})`$ into two types: those coming from non-axis rays, and those coming from axis rays.

###### Lemma 7.11.

In the sums over $`S`$ in (14), the contributions of the non-axis rays give a linear combination of $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/pl}^{(k)}`$ and $`_\tau \stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k2)}`$.

###### Proof of Lemma 7.11.

First we calculate the contribution of a $`(k_1,k_2)\rho (S^{})`$ such that $`(k_1,k_2)`$ lies on the ray $`_{>0}(c,a)`$, where $`(a,c)`$ is in the first quadrant.

Let $`(b,d)`$ (respectively $`(b_1,d_1)`$) be the generator of the ray of $`S`$ adjacent to the ray generated by $`(a,c)`$ in the counterclockwise (resp. clockwise) direction. Then the sets of vectors $`\{(a,c),(b,d)\}`$ and $`\{(a,c),(b_1,d_1)\}`$ form a $``$-basis of $`S`$, which implies $`(b,d)+(b_1,d_1)=N(a,c)`$ where $`N`$ is a positive integer. Then any $`(m_1,m_2)C(k_1,k_2)`$ can be written

$$(m_1,m_2)=\alpha (a,c)+\beta (b,d),$$

where

(15)
$$\alpha ,\beta ,(m_1,m_2)(d,b)>0,(m_1,m_2)(d_1,b_1)>0.$$

The conditions (15) translate into the inequality $`0<\alpha <N\beta `$ on $`\alpha `$, which has $`N\beta 1`$ solutions for a given $`\beta `$. Note that the terms in $`C(K_1,K_2)`$ correspond to $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\alpha =N\beta `$, which contributes an extra $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$ for each value of $`\beta `$.

Now if we write $`(k_1,k_2)=t(c,a)`$ for some positive integer $``$, then $`(m_1k_1+m_2k_2)/p=t\beta `$, so that the contribution of the complete ray $`_{>0}(c,a)\rho (S^{})`$ to the first term of Lemma 7.10 is

$$\underset{t>0}{}\underset{\beta >0}{}q^{t\beta }(N\beta 1)A_{tc,ta}=\underset{D>0}{}q^D\underset{t|D}{}\frac{ND}{t}A_{tc,ta}.$$

When one recalls the definition of $`A`$, this is easily seen to be a linear combination of $`_\tau \stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k2)}`$.

Next we calculate the contribution of an $`(m_1,m_2)`$ that lies on ray $`_{>0}(a,c)`$ of $`S`$. The computation is very similar to the above. As before we denote by $`(b,d)`$ and $`(b_1,d_1)`$ the generators of the rays of $`S`$ adjacent to $`_{>0}(a,c)`$. Then in the second summation of (14), the pairs $`(k_1,k_2)`$ are of the form

$$(k_1,k_2)=\alpha (c,a)+\beta (d,b),\alpha ,\beta ,$$

where as before $`0<\alpha <N\beta `$ for $`(m_1,m_2)C(m_1,m_2)`$ and $`\alpha =0`$ or $`\alpha =N\beta `$ for $`(m_1,m_2)C(m_1,m_2)`$. If we write $`(m_1,m_2)=t(a,c)`$ for $`t`$ a positive integer, then we obtain

$$\underset{t>0}{}\underset{\beta >0}{}q^{t\beta }\left(\underset{0<\alpha <N\beta }{}A_{\alpha c+\beta d,\alpha a\beta b}+\frac{1}{2}A_{\beta d,\beta b}+\frac{1}{2}A_{\beta (Nd+c),\beta (Nab)}\right).$$

It remains to use Propositions 4.5 and 4.4 to see that the above is a linear combination of $`s_{a/l}^{(k)}`$. This completes the proof of the lemma. ∎

###### Lemma 7.12.

In the sums over $`S`$ in (14), the contributions of the axis rays give a linear combination of $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/pl}^{(k)}`$ and $`_\tau \stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k2)}`$.

###### Proof of Lemma 7.12.

First, if $`S`$ or $`S^{}`$ contain $`(0,1)`$ or $`(1,0)`$, then the contributions of the two sums in Lemma 7.10 cancel. Hence we may ignore lattices of this type.

If $`(k_1,k_2)`$ is on the positive half of the $`x`$-axis, then $`k_1`$ is a multiple of $`p`$. The top cone of $`S`$ in the first quadrant is the span of the positive half of $`y`$-axis and $`(1,a)`$, with $`a`$ taking all values from $`0`$ to $`p1`$, depending on $`S`$. One then observes that the contribution of $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ with $`a_1+a_2=p`$ can be thought of as the sum over $`(m_1,m_2)`$ in the interior of the cone spanned by $`(1,a_1)`$ and $`(1,a_2)`$, plus half the sum for $`(m_1,m_2)`$ on the boundary of the cone. It is then easily seen to give a linear combination of $`_\tau \stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k2)}`$. The case of $`(k_1,k_2)`$ on the positive half of the $`y`$-axis is treated similarly.

If $`(m_1,m_2)`$ is on one of the axes, then we observe that the sum of $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$ over $`C(m_1,m_2)`$ and its boundary can be thought of as the sum over all points of $`^2`$ that lie in that cone of an even two-variable $`modpl`$-polynomial $`\widehat{A}_{k_1,k_2}`$, which we define to equal $`A_{k_1,k_2}`$ if $`(k_1,k_2)S^{}`$ and zero otherwise. One then again invokes Propositions 4.5 and 4.4 to conclude that these terms contribute a linear combination of $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/pl}^{(k)}`$. ∎

Completion of the proof of Theorem 7.2. By Lemmas 7.11 and 7.12, we have that

$$\mu (T_p(w))T_p\mu (ϵ_{p^1}w)$$

is a linear combination of $`_\tau \stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k2)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/pl}^{(k)}`$. The modular transformation properties then imply that only $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k)}`$ and $`_\tau \stackrel{~}{s}_{a/l}^{(k2)}`$ appear, which finishes the proof of Theorem 7.2. ∎

###### Remark 7.13.

Another way to state Theorem 7.2 is to say that the composition of $`\mu `$ and Fricke involution is Hecke-equivariant.

###### Remark 7.14.

The discussion of this section simplifies a bit if one uses the geometry of toric varieties. More specifically, one has to consider toric modular forms $`f_{^2,\mathrm{deg}}`$ defined in  and then differentiate them with respect to the components of the degree function $`\mathrm{deg}`$. Then the Hecke action described in  can be interchanged with these partial differentiations, which gives the desired result. It worth mentioning that our proof is in some sense parallel to this calculation. For example, the number $`N`$ that appears in the treatment of the second sum of Lemma 7.10 is related to the self-intersection numbers of the boundary divisors on the toric surface given by the fans that correspond to the subgroups $`S`$.

###### Remark 7.15.

It may be interesting to analyze products of more than two $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$. Every such product may be associated to a symbol

$$x_1^{r_1}\mathrm{}x_n^{r_n}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)$$

where $`a_i/l`$. Then one expects to be able to develop a generalization of the theory of Manin symbols, by introducing relations on these symbols that come from linear relations on the products. The action of Hecke operators will then come from toric geometry, and will be related to subgroups of index $`p`$ in $`^n`$ as in .