text:
# Height zeta functions of equivariant compactifications of the Heisenberg group

## Introduction

Let $`\mathrm{G}=\mathrm{G}_3`$ be the three-dimensional Heisenberg group:

$$\mathrm{G}=\{g=g(x,z,y)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& x& z\\ 0& 1& y\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\}.$$

Let $`X`$ be a projective equivariant compactification of $`\mathrm{G}`$ (for example $`X=^3`$). Thus $`X`$ is a projective algebraic variety over $``$, equipped with a (left) action of $`\mathrm{G}`$ (and containing $`\mathrm{G}`$ as a dense Zariski open subset). Such varieties can be constructed as follows: consider a $``$-rational algebraic representation $`\rho :\mathrm{G}\mathrm{PGL}_{n+1}`$ and take $`X^n`$ to be the Zariski closure of an orbit (with trivial stabilizer). This closure need not be smooth (or even normal). Applying $`\mathrm{G}`$-equivariant resolution of singularities and passing to a desingularization, we may assume that $`X`$ is smooth and that the boundary $`D=X\mathrm{G}`$ consists of geometrically irreducible components $`D=_{\alpha 𝒜}D_\alpha `$, intersecting transversally. In this paper, we will always assume that $`X`$ is a bi-equivariant compactification, that is, $`X`$ carries a left and right $`\mathrm{G}`$-action, extending the left and right action of $`\mathrm{G}`$ on itself. Equivalently, $`X`$ is an equivariant compactification of the homogeneous space $`\mathrm{G}\times \mathrm{G}/\mathrm{G}`$.

Let $`L`$ be a very ample line bundle on $`X`$. It defines an embedding of $`X`$ into some projective space $`^n`$. Let $`=(L,_𝔸)`$ be a (smooth adelic) metrization of $`L`$ and

$$H_{}:X()_{>0}$$

the associated (exponential) height. Concretely, fix a basis $`\{f_j\}_{j=0,\mathrm{},n}`$ in the vector space of global sections of $`L`$ and put

$$H_{}(x):=\underset{p}{}\underset{j}{\mathrm{max}}(|f_j(x)|_p)(\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}f_j(x)^2)^{1/2}.$$

We are interested in the asymptotics of

$$N(B)=N(,B):=\{\gamma \mathrm{G}()|H_{}(\gamma )B\}$$

as $`B\mathrm{}`$.

The main result of this paper is the determination of the asymptotic behavior of $`N(B)`$ for arbitrary bi-equivariant compactifications $`X`$ of $`\mathrm{G}`$ and arbitrary projective embeddings.

To describe this asymptotic behavior it is necessary to introduce some geometric notions. Denote by $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ the Picard group of $`X`$. For smooth equivariant compactifications of unipotent groups, $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ is freely generated by the classes of $`D_\alpha `$ (with $`\alpha 𝒜`$). We will use these classes as a basis. In this basis, the (closed) cone of effective divisors $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)\mathrm{Pic}(X)_{}`$ consists of classes

$$[L]=(l_\alpha )=\underset{\alpha 𝒜}{}l_\alpha [D_\alpha ]\mathrm{Pic}(X)_{},$$

with $`l_\alpha 0`$ for all $`\alpha `$. Let $`=(L,_𝔸)`$ be a metrized line bundle on $`X`$ such that its class $`[L]`$ is contained in the interior of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)`$. Conjecturally, at least for varieties with sufficiently positive anticanonical class, asymptotics of rational points of bounded height are related to the location of (the class of) $`L`$ in $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ with respect to the anticanonical class $`[K_X]=\kappa =(\kappa _\alpha )`$ and the cone $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)`$ (see ,  and ). In the special case of $`\mathrm{G}`$-compactifications $`X`$ as above and $`[L]=(l_\alpha )`$, define:

* $`a(L):=inf\{a|a[L]+[K_X]\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)\}=\mathrm{max}_\alpha (\kappa _\alpha /l_\alpha );`$
* $`b(L):=\mathrm{\#}\{\alpha |\kappa _\alpha =a(L)l_\alpha \}`$;
* $`𝒞(L):=\{\alpha |\kappa _\alpha a(L)l_\alpha \}`$;
* $`c(L):=_{\alpha 𝒞(L)}l_\alpha ^1`$.

Let

$$𝒵(s,):=\underset{\gamma \mathrm{G}()}{}H_{}(\gamma )^s,$$

be the height zeta function (the series converges a priori to a holomorphic function for ample $``$ and $`\mathrm{}(s)0`$). The Tauberian theorems relate the asymptotics of $`N(,B)`$ to analytic properties of $`𝒵(s,)`$.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective bi-equivariant compactification of the Heisenberg group $`\mathrm{G}`$ and $`=(L,_𝔸)`$ a line bundle (equipped with a smooth adelic metrization) such that its class $`[L]\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ is contained in the interior of the cone of effective divisors $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)`$. Then

$$𝒵(s,)=\frac{c(L)\tau ()}{(sa(L))^{b(L)}}+\frac{h(s)}{(sa(L))^{b(L)1}},$$

where $`h(s)`$ is a holomorphic function (for $`\mathrm{}(s)>a(L)ϵ`$, some $`ϵ>0`$) and $`\tau ()`$ is a positive real number. Consequently,

$$N(,B)\frac{c(L)\tau ()}{a(L)(b(L)1)!}B^{a(L)}\mathrm{log}(B)^{b(L)1}$$

as $`B\mathrm{}`$.

###### Remark 0.1

The constant $`\tau (𝒦_X)`$ is the Tamagawa number associated to the metrization of the anticanonical line bundle (see ). For arbitrary polarizations $`\tau ()`$ has been defined in .

The paper is structured as follows: in Section 1 we describe the relevant geometric invariants of equivariant compactifications of unipotent groups. In Section 2 we introduce the height pairing

$$H=\underset{p}{}H_pH_{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{Pic}(X)_{}\times \mathrm{G}(𝔸),$$

between the complexified Picard group and the adelic points of $`\mathrm{G}`$, generalizing the usual height, and the height zeta function

$$𝒵(𝐬,g):=\underset{\gamma \mathrm{G}()}{}H(𝐬,\gamma g)^1.$$
(1)
By the projectivity of $`X`$, the series converges to a function which is continuous and bounded in $`g`$ and holomorphic in $`𝐬`$, for $`\mathrm{}(𝐬)`$ contained in some (shifted) cone $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{Pic}(X)_{}`$. Our goal is to obtain a meromorphic continuation of $`𝒵(𝐬,g)`$ to the tube domain $`𝖳`$ over an open neighborhood of $`[K_X]=\kappa \mathrm{Pic}(X)_{}`$ and to identify the poles.

The bi-equivariance of $`X`$ implies that $`H`$ is invariant under the action on both sides of a compact open subgroup $`\mathrm{K}`$ of the finite adeles $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸_{\mathrm{fin}})`$. Moreover, $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ is smooth. We observe that

$$𝒵𝖫^2(\mathrm{G}()\backslash \mathrm{G}(𝔸))^\mathrm{K}.$$

Next, we have, for $`\mathrm{}(𝐬)`$ contained in some shifted cone in $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)_{}`$, an identity in $`𝖫^2(\mathrm{G}()\backslash \mathrm{G}(𝔸))`$ (Fourier expansion):

$$𝒵(𝐬,g)=\underset{\varrho }{}𝒵_\varrho (𝐬,g),$$
(2)
where the sum is over all irreducible unitary representations $`(\varrho ,_\varrho )`$ of $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$ occuring in the right regular representation of $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$ in $`𝖫^2(\mathrm{G}()\backslash \mathrm{G}(𝔸))`$ and having $`\mathrm{K}`$-fixed vectors. We recall the relevant results from representation theory in Section 3.

We will establish the above identity as an identity of continuous functions by analyzing the individual terms on the right. Thus we need to use the (well-known) theory of irreducible unitary representations of the Heisenberg group. We will see that for $`L=K_X`$ the pole of highest order of the height zeta function is supplied by the trivial representation. This need not be the case for other line bundles. Depending on the geometry of $`X`$, it can happen that infinitely many non-trivial representations contribute to the leading pole of $`𝒵(s,)`$. In such cases the coefficient at the pole of highest order is an infinite (convergent) sum of Euler products.

To analyze the contributions in (2) from the various representations, we need to compute local height integrals. For example, for the trivial representation, we need to compute the integral

$$_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(𝐬,g_p)^1𝑑g_p$$

for almost all $`p`$ (see Section 4). This has been done in  for equivariant compactifications of additive groups $`𝐆_a^n`$; the same approach applies here. We regard the height integrals as geometric versions of Igusa’s integrals. They are closely related to “motivic” integrals of Batyrev, Kontsevich, Denef and Loeser (see ,  and ).

The above integral is in fact equal to:

$$p^{dim(X)}\left(\underset{A𝒜}{}\mathrm{\#}D_A^0(𝐅_p)\underset{\alpha A}{}\frac{p1}{p^{s_\alpha \kappa _\alpha +1}1}\right),$$
(3)
where

$$D_{\mathrm{}}:=\mathrm{G},D_A:=_{\alpha A}D_\alpha ,D_A^0:=D_A_{A^{}A}D_A^{},$$

and $`𝐅_p`$ is the finite field $`/p`$. The resulting Euler product has a pole of order $`\mathrm{rk}\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ at $`𝐬=\kappa `$ and also the expected leading coefficient at this pole.

The bi-$`\mathrm{K}`$-invariance of the height insures us that the trivial representation is “isolated” (c.f. especially Proposition 4.9). Using “motivic” integration as above, we prove that each of the terms on the right side in (2) admits a meromorphic continuation. We will identify the poles of $`𝒵_\varrho `$ for non-trivial representations: for $`𝐬𝖳`$ they are contained in the real hyperplanes $`s_\alpha =\kappa _\alpha `$ and the order of the pole at $`𝐬=\kappa `$ is strictly smaller than $`\mathrm{rk}\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$. Finally, it will suffice to prove the convergence of the series (2), for $`𝐬`$ in the appropriate domain. This is done in Section 4.

This paper is part of a program initiated in  to relate asymptotics of rational points of bounded height to geometric invariants. It continues the work of Chambert-Loir and the second author on compactifications of additive groups . Many statements are direct generalizations from that paper. In this paper we explore the interplay between the theory of infinite-dimensional representations of adelic groups and the theory of height zeta functions of algebraic varieties. The main theorem holds for bi-equivariant compactifications of arbitrary unipotent groups. We decided to explain in detail, in a somewhat expository fashion, our approach in the simplest possible case of the Heisenberg group over $``$ and to postpone the treatment of the general case to a subsequent publication. We have also included the example of $`^3`$ in which most of the technicalities are absent.

Acknowledgements. The second author was partially supported by the NSA, NSF and the Clay Foundation.

## 1 Geometry

###### Notation 1.1

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective algebraic variety. We denote by $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ the Picard group, by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)`$ the (closed) cone of effective divisors and by $`K_X`$ the canonical class of $`X`$. If $`X`$ admits an action by a group $`\mathrm{G}`$, we write $`\mathrm{Pic}^\mathrm{G}(X)`$ for the group of (classes of) $`\mathrm{G}`$-linearized line bundles on $`X`$.

###### Definition 1.2

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective algebraic variety. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)`$ is a finitely generated polyhedral cone. Let $`L`$ be a line bundle such that its class $`[L]`$ is contained in the interior of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)`$. Define

$$a(L)=inf\{a|a[L]+[K_X]\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)\}$$

and $`b(L)`$ as the codimension of the face of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)`$ containing $`a(L)[L]+[K_X]`$.

###### Notation 1.3

Let $`\mathrm{G}`$ be a linear algebraic group over a number field $`F`$. An algebraic variety $`X`$ (over $`F`$) will be called a good compactification of $`\mathrm{G}`$ if:

* $`X`$ is smooth and projective;
* $`X`$ contains $`\mathrm{G}`$ as a dense Zariski open subset and the action of $`\mathrm{G}`$ on itself (by left translations) extends to $`X`$;
* the boundary $`X\mathrm{G}`$ is a union of smooth geometrically irreducible divisors intersecting transversally (a divisor with strict normal crossings).

###### Remark 1.4

Equivariant resolution of singularities (over a field of characteristic zero) implies that for any equivariant compactification $`X`$ there exists an equivariant desingularization (a composition of equivariant blowups) $`\rho :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is a good compactification. By the functoriality of heights, the counting problem for a metrized line bundle $``$ on $`X`$ can then be transferred to a counting problem for $`\rho ^{}()`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$. Thus it suffices to prove Theorem 1 for good compactifications (the answer, of course, does not depend on the chosen desingularization).

###### Proposition 1.5

Let $`X`$ be a good compactification of a unipotent algebraic group $`\mathrm{G}`$. Let $`D:=X\mathrm{G}`$ be the boundary and $`\{D_\alpha \}_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ the set of its irreducible components. Then:

* $`\mathrm{Pic}^\mathrm{G}(X)_{}=\mathrm{Pic}(X)_{}`$;
* $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ is freely generated by the classes $`[D_\alpha ]`$;
* $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)=_\alpha _0[D_\alpha ]`$;
* $`[K_X]=_\alpha \kappa _\alpha [D_\alpha ]`$ with $`\kappa _\alpha 2`$ for all $`\alpha 𝒜`$.

###### Proof.

Analogous to the proofs in Section 2 of . In particular, it suffices to assume that $`X`$ carries only a one-sided action of $`\mathrm{G}`$. ∎

###### Notation 1.6

Introduce coordinates on $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ using the basis $`\{D_\alpha \}_{\alpha 𝒜}`$: a vector $`𝐬=(s_\alpha )`$ corresponds to $`_\alpha s_\alpha D_\alpha `$.

###### Corollary 1.7

The divisor of every non-constant function $`fF[\mathrm{G}]`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{div}(f)=E(f)\underset{\alpha }{}d_\alpha (f)D_\alpha ,$$

where $`E(f)`$ is the unique irreducible component of $`\{f=0\}`$ in $`\mathrm{G}`$ and $`d_\alpha (f)0`$ for all $`\alpha `$. Moreover, there is at least one $`\alpha 𝒜`$ such that $`d_\alpha (f)>0`$.

## 2 Height zeta function

###### Notation 2.1

For a number field $`F`$, we denote by $`\mathrm{Val}(F)`$ the set of all places of $`F`$, by $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ the set of archimedean and by $`S_{\mathrm{fin}}`$ the set of non-archimedean places. For any finite set $`S`$ of places containing $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$, we denote by $`𝔬_S`$ the ring of $`S`$-integers. We denote by $`𝔸`$ (resp. $`𝔸_{\mathrm{fin}}`$) the ring of adeles (resp. finite adeles).

###### Definition 2.2

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective algebraic variety over a number field $`F`$. A smooth adelic metrization of a line bundle $`L`$ on $`X`$ is a family $`_𝔸`$ of $`v`$-adic norms $`_v`$ on $`L_FF_v`$, for all $`v\mathrm{Val}(F)`$, such that:

* for $`vS_{\mathrm{}}`$ the norm $`_v`$ is $`𝖢^{\mathrm{}}`$;
* for $`vS_{\mathrm{fin}}`$, the norm of every local section of $`L`$ is locally constant in the $`v`$-adic topology;
* there exist a finite set $`S\mathrm{Val}(F)`$, a flat projective scheme (an integral model) $`𝒳`$ over $`\mathrm{Spec}(𝔬_S)`$ with generic fiber $`X`$ together with a line bundle $``$ on $`𝒳`$, such that for all $`vS`$, the $`v`$-adic metric is given by the integral model.

###### Proposition 2.3

Let $`\mathrm{G}`$ be a unipotent algebraic group defined over a number field $`F`$ and $`X`$ a good bi-equivariant compactification of $`\mathrm{G}`$. Then there exists a height pairing

$$H=\underset{v\mathrm{Val}(F)}{}H_v:\mathrm{Pic}(X)_{}\times \mathrm{G}(𝔸)$$

such that:

* for all $`[L]\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$, the restriction of $`H`$ to $`[L]\times \mathrm{G}(F)`$ is a height corresponding to some smooth adelic metrization of $`L`$;
* the pairing is exponential in the $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ component:

$$H_v(𝐬+𝐬^{},g)=H_v(𝐬,g)H_v(𝐬^{},g),$$

for all $`𝐬,𝐬^{}\mathrm{Pic}(X)_{}`$, all $`g\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$ and all $`v\mathrm{Val}(F)`$;
* there exists a compact open subgroup (depending on $`H`$)

$$\mathrm{K}=\mathrm{K}(H)=\underset{v}{}\mathrm{K}_v\mathrm{G}(𝔸_{\mathrm{fin}})$$

such that, for all $`vS_{\mathrm{fin}}`$, one has $`H_v(𝐬,kgk^{})=H_v(𝐬,g)`$ for all $`𝐬\mathrm{Pic}(X)_{}`$, $`k,k^{}\mathrm{K}_v`$ and $`g\mathrm{G}(F_v)`$.

###### Proof.

For $`\mathrm{G}=𝐆_a^n`$ the Proposition is proved in , Lemma 3.2. The same proof applies to any unipotent group. ∎

###### Notation 2.4

For $`\delta `$, we denote by $`𝖳_\delta \mathrm{Pic}(X)_{}`$ the tube domain $`\mathrm{}(s_\alpha )\kappa _\alpha >\delta `$ (for all $`\alpha 𝒜`$).

###### Definition 2.5

The height zeta function on $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)_{}\times \mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$ is defined as

$$𝒵(𝐬,g)=\underset{\gamma \mathrm{G}(F)}{}H(𝐬,\gamma g)^1.$$

###### Proposition 2.6

There exists a $`\delta >0`$ such that, for all $`𝐬𝖳_\delta `$ and all $`g\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$, the series defining the height zeta function $`𝒵(𝐬,g)`$ converges normally (for $`g`$ and $`𝐬`$ contained in compacts in $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$, resp. $`𝖳_\delta `$) to a function which is holomorphic in $`𝐬`$ and continuous in $`g`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is essentially analogous to the proof of Proposition 4.5 in  (and follows from the projectivity of $`X`$). ∎

###### Corollary 2.7

For $`𝐬𝖳_\delta `$, one has an identity in $`𝖫^2(\mathrm{G}(F)\backslash \mathrm{G}(𝔸))`$, as above:

$$𝒵(𝐬,g)=\underset{\varrho }{}𝒵_\varrho (𝐬,g).$$
(4)
The sum is over all irreducible unitary representations $`\varrho `$ of $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$ occuring $`𝖫^2(\mathrm{G}(F)\backslash \mathrm{G}(𝔸))`$ and having a $`\mathrm{K}`$-fixed vector (cf. Proposition 3.2).

## 3 Representations

### 3.1

From now on, for the sake of simplicity, we suppose $`F=`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{Z}=𝐆_a`$ the one-dimensional center and by $`\mathrm{G}^{\mathrm{ab}}=\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{Z}=𝐆_a^2`$ the abelianization of $`\mathrm{G}`$. Let $`\mathrm{U}\mathrm{G}`$ be the subgroup

$$\mathrm{U}:=\{u\mathrm{G}|u=(0,z,y)\}$$

and

$$\mathrm{W}:=\{w\mathrm{G}|w=(x,0,0)\}.$$

We have $`\mathrm{G}=\mathrm{W}\mathrm{U}=\mathrm{U}\mathrm{W}`$. We may assume that the compact open subgroup

$$\mathrm{K}=\underset{p}{}\mathrm{K}_p\mathrm{G}(𝔸_{\mathrm{fin}})$$

of Proposition 2.3 is given by

$$\mathrm{K}=\underset{pS_H}{}\mathrm{G}(_p)\underset{pS_H}{}\mathrm{G}(p^{n_p}_p),$$
(5)
where $`S_H`$ is a finite set of primes and the $`n_p`$ are positive integers. We denote by $`\mathrm{K}^{\mathrm{ab}},\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{Z}`$ etc. the corresponding compact subgroups of the (finite) adeles of $`\mathrm{G}^{\mathrm{ab}},\mathrm{Z},\mathrm{U},\mathrm{W}`$, respectively, and put

$$𝗇(\mathrm{K})=\underset{pS_H}{}p^{n_p}.$$

We denote by $`dg=_pdg_pdg_{\mathrm{}}`$ the Haar measure on $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$, where we have set $`dg_p=dx_pdy_pdz_p`$ with the normalization $`__p𝑑x_p=1`$ etc. (similarly at the real place). We write $`du_p=dz_pdy_p`$ (resp. $`du_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`du`$) for the Haar measure on $`\mathrm{U}(_p)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{U}()`$, $`\mathrm{U}(𝔸)`$). We let $`dk_p`$ be the Haar measure on $`\mathrm{K}_p`$ obtained by restriction of $`dg_p`$ to $`\mathrm{K}_p`$. Further, our normalization of measures implies that $`_{\mathrm{K}_p}𝑑k_p=1`$. As usual, a choice of a measure on the local (or global) points of $`\mathrm{G}`$ and of a subgroup $`\mathrm{H}\mathrm{G}`$ determines a unique measure on the local (resp. global) points of the homogeneous space $`\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{H}`$.

###### Lemma 3.1

One has:

* $`\mathrm{G}(_p)=(\mathrm{G}(_p)\mathrm{U}(_p))(\mathrm{G}(_p)\mathrm{W}(_p))`$;
* $`\mathrm{U}(_p)\mathrm{W}(_p)`$ is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{G}(_p)`$;
* $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)=\mathrm{G}()\mathrm{G}()\mathrm{K};`$
* there exists a subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{G}()`$ (of finite index) such that

$$\mathrm{G}()\backslash \mathrm{G}(𝔸)/\mathrm{K}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{G}();$$
* the quotient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{G}()`$ is compact.

These statements are well-known and easily verified.

We now recall the well-known representation theory of the Heisenberg group in an adele setting (). Denote by $`\varrho `$ the right regular representation of $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$ on the Hilbert space

$$:=𝖫^2(\mathrm{G}()\backslash \mathrm{G}(𝔸)).$$

Consider the action of the compact group $`\mathrm{Z}(𝔸)/\mathrm{Z}()`$ on $``$ (recall that $`\mathrm{Z}=𝐆_a`$). By the Peter-Weyl theorem, we obtain a decomposition

$$=_\psi $$

and corresponding representations $`(\varrho _\psi ,_\psi )`$ of $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$. Here

$$_\psi :=\{\phi |\varrho (z)(\phi )(g)=\psi (z)\phi (g)\}$$

and $`\psi `$ runs over the set of (unitary) characters of $`\mathrm{Z}(𝔸)`$ which are trivial on $`\mathrm{Z}()`$. For non-trivial $`\psi `$, the corresponding representation $`(\varrho _\psi ,_\psi )`$ of $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$ is non-trivial, irreducible and unitary. On the other hand, when $`\psi `$ is the trivial character, the corresponding representation $`\varrho _0`$ decomposes further as a direct sum of one-dimensional representations $`\varrho _\eta `$:

$$_0=_\eta _\eta .$$

Here $`\eta `$ runs once over all (unitary) characters of the group $`\mathrm{G}^{\mathrm{ab}}()\backslash \mathrm{G}^{\mathrm{ab}}(𝔸)`$. It is convenient to consider $`\eta `$ as a function on $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$, trivial on the $`\mathrm{Z}(𝔸)`$-cosets. Precisely, let $`\psi _1=_p\psi _{1,p}\psi _{1,\mathrm{}}`$ be the Tate-character (which has exponent zero at each finite prime, see  and ). For $`𝐚=(a_1,a_2)𝔸𝔸`$, consider the corresponding linear form on

$$\mathrm{G}^{\mathrm{ab}}(𝔸)=𝔸𝔸$$

given by

$$g(x,z,y)a_1x+a_2y$$

and denote by $`\eta =\eta _𝐚`$ ($`𝐚=(a_1,a_2)`$) the corresponding adelic character

$$\eta :g(x,z,y))\psi _1(a_1x+a_2y)$$

of $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$. For $`a𝔸`$, we will denote by $`\psi _a`$ the adelic character of $`\mathrm{Z}(𝔸)`$ given by

$$z\psi _1(az).$$

As in Section 2, the starting point of our analysis of the height zeta function is the spectral decomposition of $``$. A more detailed version of Corollary 2.7 is the following Proposition.

###### Proposition 3.2

There exists a $`\delta >0`$ such that, for all $`𝐬𝖳_\delta `$, one has an identity of $`𝖫^2`$-functions

$$𝒵(𝐬,g)=𝒵_0(𝐬,g)+𝒵_1(𝐬,g)+𝒵_2(𝐬,g),$$
(6)
where

$$𝒵_0(𝐬,id)=_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸)}H(𝐬,g)^1𝑑g,$$
(7)
$$𝒵_1(𝐬,g)=\underset{\eta }{}\eta (g)𝒵(𝐬,\eta ),$$
(8)
and

$$𝒵_2(𝐬,g)=\underset{\psi }{}\underset{\omega ^\psi }{}\omega ^\psi (g)𝒵(𝐬,\omega ^\psi ).$$
(9)
Here we have set

$$𝒵(𝐬,\eta ):=𝒵(𝐬,),\eta =_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸)}H(𝐬,g)^1\overline{\eta }(g)𝑑g,$$

$$𝒵(𝐬,\omega ^\psi ):=𝒵(s,g),\omega ^\psi =_{\mathrm{G}()\backslash \mathrm{G}(𝔸)}𝒵(𝐬,g)\overline{\omega }^\psi (g)𝑑g=$$

$$=_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸)}H(𝐬,g)^1\overline{\omega }^\psi (g)𝑑g,$$

$`\eta `$ ranges over all non-trivial characters of

$$\mathrm{G}^{\mathrm{ab}}()\mathrm{K}^{\mathrm{ab}}\backslash \mathrm{G}^{\mathrm{ab}}(𝔸),$$

$`\psi `$ ranges over all non-trivial characters of

$$\mathrm{Z}()\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{Z}\backslash \mathrm{Z}(𝔸),$$

and $`\omega ^\psi `$ ranges over a fixed orthonormal basis of $`_\psi ^\mathrm{K}`$ (for each $`\psi `$).

In particular, for $`\eta =\eta _𝐚`$ and $`\psi =\psi _a`$ occuring in this decomposition, we have

$$a_1,a_2,a\frac{1}{𝗇(\mathrm{K})}.$$

###### Proof.

We use the (right) $`\mathrm{K}`$-invariance of the height for the last statement (for $`\eta `$). For $`\psi `$ see also Lemma 3.8 as well as Proposition 2.6. ∎

###### Remark 3.3

The desired meromorphic properties of $`𝒵_0`$ and $`𝒵_1`$ have, in fact, already been established in . The height integrals are computed as in the abelian case and the convergence of the series $`𝒵_1`$ is proved in the same way as in . In particular, (8) is an identity of continuous functions. The novelty here is the treatment of $`𝒵_2`$.

We now proceed to describe the various standard models of infinite-dimensional representations of the Heisenberg group.

### 3.2

Locally: Let $`\psi =\psi _p`$ (resp. $`\psi =\psi _{\mathrm{}}`$) be a local non-trivial character of $`_p`$ (resp. $``$). Extend $`\psi `$ to $`\mathrm{U}(_p)`$ by setting

$$\psi ((0,z,y))=\psi (z).$$

The one-dimensional representation of $`\mathrm{U}(_p)`$ thus obtained induces a representation $`\pi _\psi =\pi _{\psi ,p}`$ of $`\mathrm{G}(_p)`$. The representation $`\pi _\psi `$ acts on the Hilbert space of measurable functions

$$\varphi :\mathrm{G}(_p)$$

which satisfy the conditions:

* $`\varphi (ug)=\psi (u)\varphi (g)`$ for all $`u\mathrm{U}(_p)`$ and $`g\mathrm{G}(_p)`$;
* $`\varphi ^2:=_{\mathrm{U}(_p)\backslash \mathrm{G}(_p)}|\varphi (g)|^2𝑑g<\mathrm{}`$.

The action is given by

$$\pi _\psi (g^{})\varphi (g)=\varphi (gg^{}),g^{}\mathrm{G}(_p).$$

On the other hand, we have a representation $`\pi _\psi ^{}=\pi _{\psi ,p}^{}`$ (the oscillator representation) on

$$𝖫^2(\mathrm{W}(_p))=𝖫^2(_p),$$

where the action of $`\mathrm{G}(_p)`$ on a function $`\phi 𝖫^2(_p)`$ is given by

$$\pi _\psi ^{}(g(x^{},0,0))\phi (x)=\phi (x+x^{})$$
(10)
$$\pi _\psi ^{}(g(0,0,y))\phi (x)=\psi (yx)\phi (x)$$

$$\pi _\psi ^{}(g(0,z,0))\phi (x)=\psi (z)\phi (x).$$

It is easy to see that the representations $`\pi _\psi `$ and $`\pi _\psi ^{}`$ are unitarily equivalent. We will identify the unitary representations $`\pi _\psi `$ and $`\pi _\psi ^{}`$ in what follows.

Globally: In the adelic situation, to each non-trivial character $`\psi `$ of $`\mathrm{Z}(𝔸)`$ we can associate a representation $`\pi _\psi `$ of $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$, where $`\pi _\psi =_p\pi _{\psi ,p}\pi _{\psi ,\mathrm{}}`$ and the action on $`𝖫^2(\mathrm{U}(𝔸)\backslash \mathrm{G}(𝔸))=𝖫^2(𝔸)`$, is given by the formulas (10) (with $`\psi _p`$ replaced by $`\psi `$). The representations $`\pi _\psi `$ and $`\varrho _\psi `$ are equivalent irreducible unitary representations of $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$. We will recall the explicit intertwining map between $`\pi _\psi `$ and $`\varrho _\psi `$ (c.f. Lemma 3.8).

We also recall that the space $`𝒮(𝔸)𝖫^2(𝔸)`$ of Schwartz-Bruhat functions coincides with the space of smooth vectors of $`\pi _\psi `$ (for the real place, see the Appendix in ) and note that $`𝖫^2(_p)^{\mathrm{K}_p}=𝒮(_p)^{\mathrm{K}_p}`$.

For a character $`\psi (z)=\psi _{\mathrm{}}(z)=e^{2\pi iaz}`$ (with $`a0`$) consider the following operators on the subspace of Schwartz functions $`𝒮()𝖫^2()`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝔡_\psi ^+\phi (x)& =& \frac{d}{dx}\phi (x)\hfill \\ \hfill 𝔡_\psi ^{}\phi (x)& =& 2\pi iax\phi (x)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }_\psi & =& (𝔡_\psi ^+)^2+(𝔡_\psi ^{})^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

We have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\psi \phi (x)=\phi ^{\prime \prime }(x)(2\pi ax)^2\phi (x)$$

(harmonic oscillator). The eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\psi `$ are given by

$$\lambda _n^\psi =2\pi (2n+1)|a|$$

(with $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$). They have multiplicity one. Denote by $`h_n^\psi (x)`$ the $`n`$-th Hermite polynomial:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill h_0^\psi (x)& =& 1\hfill \\ \hfill h_1^\psi (x)& =& 4\pi |a|x\hfill \\ \hfill h_2^\psi (x)& =& 4\pi |a|(14\pi |a|x^2)\hfill \end{array}$$

and, in general,

$$\frac{d^n}{dx^n}e^{2\pi |a|x^2}=(1)^nh_n^\psi (x)e^{2\pi |a|x^2}.$$

The (essentially unique) eigenfunction $`\phi _n^\psi `$ corresponding to $`\lambda _n^\psi `$ is given by

$$\phi _n^\psi :=c_ne^{\pi |a|x^2}h_n^\psi (x).$$

Here we choose the constants $`c_n`$, so that the $`𝖫^2`$-norm of $`\phi _n^\psi `$ is $`1`$.

###### Lemma 3.4

The set $`_{\mathrm{}}(\pi _\psi ^{}):=\{\phi _n^\psi \}`$ is a complete orthonormal basis of $`𝖫^2()`$.

###### Proof.

For details see, for example, , Chapter 13, or . ∎

### 3.3

###### Notation 3.5

For $`\eta =\eta _𝐚`$ with $`𝐚=(a_1,a_2)`$ and $`a_1,a_2\frac{1}{𝗇(\mathrm{K})}`$, denote by $`S_\eta `$ the set of primes $`p`$ dividing either $`𝗇(\mathrm{K})a_1`$ or $`𝗇(\mathrm{K})a_2`$. Similarly, for $`\psi =\psi _a`$ with $`a\frac{1}{𝗇(\mathrm{K})}`$, denote by $`S_\psi `$ the set of primes dividing $`𝗇(\mathrm{K})a`$.

###### Lemma 3.6

Let $`\psi =\psi _a`$ be a non-trivial character of $`\mathrm{Z}()\backslash \mathrm{Z}(𝔸)`$ and $`\varrho _\psi =_p\varrho _{\psi ,p}\varrho _{\psi ,\mathrm{}}`$ the corresponding infinite-dimensional automorphic representation. Suppose $`\varrho _\psi `$ contains a $`\mathrm{K}`$-fixed vector (for $`\mathrm{K}`$ as in (5)). Then:

* $`a\frac{1}{𝗇(\mathrm{K})}`$ (for $`𝗇(\mathrm{K})=_{pS_H}p^{n_p}`$);
* $`dim\varrho _{\psi ,p}^{\mathrm{K}_p}=1`$ for $`pS_\psi `$;
* $`dim\varrho _{\psi ,p}^{\mathrm{K}_p}=|𝗇(\mathrm{K})^2a|_p^1`$ for $`pS_\psi `$, provided $`p^{n_p}𝗇(\mathrm{K})_p`$.

###### Proof.

We need only use the explicit form of the representation $`\pi _{\psi ,p}`$ given in (10). Suppose first that $`\pi _{\psi ,p}`$ has a non-zero $`\mathrm{K}_p`$-fixed vector $`\phi `$. Taking $`zp^{n_p}_p`$, we get

$$\psi _p(p^{n_p}r)=\psi _{1,p}(ap^{n_p}r)=1$$

for all $`r_p`$. Since the exponent of $`\psi _{1,p}`$ is zero, we have

$$ap^{n_p}_p,$$

from which the first assertion follows.

Let us assume then that $`p^{n_p}𝗇(\mathrm{K})_p`$. Then the space of $`\mathrm{K}_p`$-fixed vectors $`\phi `$ in $`𝖫^2(_p)`$ is precisely the set of $`\phi `$ satisfying

1. $`\phi (u+p^{n_p}r_1)=\phi (u)`$;
2. $`\phi (u)=\psi (p^{n_p}r_2u)\phi (u)`$

for all $`r_1,r_2_p,u_p`$. The first identity implies that $`\phi `$ is a continuous function and the second that $`\mathrm{Supp}(\phi )a^1p^{n_p}_p`$. The second and the third assertions of the Lemma follow at once. ∎

###### Notation 3.7

Let $`V_{\psi ,p}`$ be the space of the induced representation of $`\pi _{\psi ,p}`$. Denote by $`V_{\psi ,p}^{\mathrm{}}`$ the space of smooth vectors in $`V_{\psi ,p}`$. Thus $`V_{\psi ,p}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the set of all $`\nu V_{\psi ,p}`$ fixed by some open compact subgroup of $`\mathrm{G}(_p)`$. Note that $`V_{\psi ,p}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is stable under the action of $`\mathrm{G}(_p)`$. Note also that in the explicit realization of $`\pi _{\psi ,p}`$ given in (10), $`𝖫^2(_p)^{\mathrm{}}=𝒮(_p)`$ (see the proof of Lemma 3.6).

For $`\phi 𝒮(𝔸)`$ define the theta-distribution

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\phi ):=\underset{x}{}\phi (x).$$

Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a $`\mathrm{G}()`$-invariant linear functional on $`𝒮(𝔸)`$. This gives a map

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill j_\psi :𝒮(𝔸)& & 𝖫^2(\mathrm{G}()\backslash \mathrm{G}(𝔸))\hfill \\ \hfill j_\psi (\phi )(g)& =& \mathrm{\Theta }(\pi _\psi (g)\phi ).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Lemma 3.8

The map $`j_\psi `$ extends to an isometry

$$j_\psi :𝖫^2(𝔸)\stackrel{}{}_\psi 𝖫^2(\mathrm{G}()\backslash \mathrm{G}(𝔸)),$$

intertwining $`\pi _\psi `$ and $`\varrho _\psi `$. Moreover,

$$j_\psi :𝖫^2(𝔸)^\mathrm{K}\stackrel{}{}_\psi ^\mathrm{K}.$$

Let us recall the definition of a restricted algebraic tensor product: for all primes $`p`$, let $`V_p`$ be a (pre-unitary) representation space for $`\mathrm{G}(_p)`$. Let $`(e_p)_p`$ be a family of vectors $`e_pV_p`$, defined for all primes $`p`$ outside a finite set $`S_0`$. Suppose that, for almost all $`p`$, $`e_p`$ is fixed by $`\mathrm{K}_p`$. We will also assume that the norm of $`e_p`$ is equal to $`1`$. Let $`S`$ be a finite set of primes containing $`S_0`$. A pure tensor is a vector, $`\nu =\nu _Se^S`$, where $`e^S=_{pS}e_p`$ and $`\nu _S`$ is a pure tensor in the finite tensor product $`_{pS}V_p`$. The restricted algebraic tensor product $`V=_pV_p`$ is generated by finite linear combinations of pure tensors (see  for more details).

###### Example 3.9

Consider the representation $`\pi _\psi `$ of $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$ on the Schwartz-Bruhat space $`𝒮(𝔸_{\mathrm{fin}})=_p𝒮(_p)`$ and the corresponding representation $`\pi _{\psi _p}`$ of $`\mathrm{G}(_p)`$ on $`𝒮(_p)`$. In this case, for all primes $`pS_\psi `$, $`e_p`$ is unique (up to scalars) and may be taken to be the characteristic function of $`_p`$. We have $`j_\psi (𝒮(𝔸_{\mathrm{fin}})𝒮())=_\psi ^{\mathrm{smooth}}`$ (by ).

We now fix an orthonormal basis $`_{\mathrm{fin}}(\pi _\psi )`$ for the space $`𝒮(𝔸_{\mathrm{fin}})^\mathrm{K}`$ as follows. We let $`_{\mathrm{fin}}(\pi _\psi )=_p_p(\pi _{\psi _p})`$, where, for $`pS_0=S=S_\psi `$, $`_p(\pi _{\psi _p})`$ is any fixed orthonormal basis for $`𝒮(_p)^{\mathrm{K}_p}`$ and, for $`pS`$, $`_p(\pi _{\psi _p})=e_p`$. Thus any $`\phi _{\mathrm{fin}}(\pi _\psi )`$ has the form

$$\phi =\phi _Se^S,$$

with $`e^S=_{pS}e_p`$, as above. We have then the following Lemma:

###### Lemma 3.10

The set

$$(\varrho _\psi ):=j_\psi (_{\mathrm{fin}}(\pi _\psi )_{\mathrm{}}(\pi _\psi ))$$

is a complete orthonormal basis of $`_\psi ^\mathrm{K}`$. The number of elements $`\omega (\varrho _\psi )`$ (c.f. Lemma 3.6) with given eigenvalue $`\lambda _n^\psi `$ is $`|𝗇(\mathrm{K})^2a|`$ if $`a\frac{1}{𝗇(\mathrm{K})}`$ (and zero otherwise).

###### Definition 3.11

Suppose $`pS_\psi `$. The normalized spherical function $`f_p`$ on $`\mathrm{G}(_p)`$ is defined by

$$f_p(g_p):=\pi _{\psi _p}(g_p)e_p,e_p.$$

Here $`,`$ is the standard inner product on $`𝖫^2(_p)`$.

###### Lemma 3.12 (Factorization)

For $`\omega (\varrho _\psi )`$ and $`S=S_\psi \{\mathrm{}\}`$, we have an identity

$$_{\mathrm{K}^S}\omega (k^Sg)𝑑k^S=\underset{pS}{}f_p(g_p)\omega (g_S).$$

Here $`\mathrm{K}^S=_{pS_\psi }\mathrm{K}_p`$, $`g=g^Sg_S`$, with $`g^S`$ (resp. $`g_S`$) in $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸^S)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸_S)`$).

###### Proof.

Define a linear form $`\mu `$ on $`V=𝒮(𝔸)`$ by setting

$$\mu (\phi ):=_{\mathrm{K}^S}j(\phi )(k^S)𝑑k^S,$$

(where $`\phi 𝒮(𝔸)`$). Set

$$V^S:=_{pS}𝒮(_p)$$

and

$$V_S:=_{pS_\psi }𝒮(_p)𝒮(),$$

so that $`V=V_SV^S`$. Then from Lemma 3.6 we have, for $`\phi ^SV^S`$, with $`\pi _\psi ^S=_{pS}\pi _{\psi ,p}`$, an equality of the form

$$_{\mathrm{K}^S}\pi _\psi ^S(k^S)\phi ^S𝑑k^S=\nu ^S(\phi ^S)e^S$$

for a unique linear form $`\nu ^S`$ on $`V^S`$. Note that $`\nu ^S(\phi ^S)=\phi ^S,e^S`$, for $`\phi ^SV^S`$. Now we have, for $`\phi `$ of the form $`\phi =\phi _S\phi ^S`$, with $`\phi _SV_S`$ and $`\phi ^SV^S`$,

$$\mu (\phi _S\pi _\psi ^S(k^S)\phi ^S)=\mu (\phi _S\phi ^S),$$

from which it follows at once that

$$\mu (\phi _S\phi ^S)=\mu _S(\phi _S)\nu ^S(\phi ^S),$$

for some linear form $`\mu _S`$ on $`V_S`$. From this we obtain in turn, for $`\phi =\phi _Se^S`$, the identity

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{\mathrm{K}^S}j(\phi )(k^Sg)𝑑k^S& =& \mu (\pi _\psi (g)\phi )\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& \mu _S(\pi _{\psi ,S}(g_S)\phi _S)\nu ^S(\pi _\psi ^S(g^S)e_S)\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& \mu _S(\pi _{\psi ,S}(g_S)\phi _S)_{pS}f_p(g_p)\hfill \end{array}$$

for $`g\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$. Here $`\pi _{\psi ,S}=_{pS}\pi _{\psi ,p}`$. Taking $`\omega =j(\phi )`$, with $`\phi =\phi _Se^S,\phi _SV_S`$ as above, we arrive next at the equality

$$_{\mathrm{K}^S}\omega (k^Sg)𝑑k^S=\omega ^{}(g_S)\underset{pS}{}f_p(g_p),$$

for some function $`\omega ^{}`$ on $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸_S)`$. Finally, if $`g=g_S\mathrm{G}(𝔸_S)`$, we obtain from the last expression

$$\omega ^{}(g_S)=_{\mathrm{K}^S}\omega (k^Sg_S)𝑑k^S=_{\mathrm{K}^S}\omega (g_Sk^S)𝑑k^S=\omega (g_S),$$

since, in fact, $`\omega `$ is $`\mathrm{K}`$-invariant on the right. This completes the proof of the Lemma. ∎

###### Corollary 3.13

Let $`\psi =\psi _a`$ be as above (with $`a^\times `$) and $`\varrho _\psi `$ the associated irreducible unitary automorphic representation of $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$. Suppose that $`\varrho _\psi `$ has a $`\mathrm{K}`$-fixed vector. Then, for $`S=S_\psi \{\mathrm{}\}`$, all $`\omega (\varrho _\psi )`$, all primes $`pS_\psi `$ and all (integrable) functions $`H`$ on $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$ such that

$$H_p(k_pg_p)=H_p(g_pk_p)=H_p(g_p),$$

for all $`k_p\mathrm{K}_p`$ and $`g_p\mathrm{G}(_p)`$, one has

$$_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸)}H(g)\omega (g)𝑑g=\underset{pS}{}_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(g_p)f_p(g_p)𝑑g_p_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸_S)}H(g_S)\omega _S(g_S)𝑑g_S,$$
(11)
where $`\omega _S`$ is the restriction of $`\omega `$ to $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸_S)`$.

###### Lemma 3.14

For all $`\psi `$ and all $`pS_\psi `$ one has, for $`H_p`$ as above,

$$_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(g_p)f_p(g_p)𝑑g_p=_{\mathrm{U}(_p)}H_p(u_p)\psi _p(u_p)𝑑u_p.$$

###### Proof.

Suppose $`pS_\psi `$. Let $`\chi _p`$ be the characteristic function of $`\mathrm{K}_p`$. Define a function $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p`$ on $`\mathrm{G}(_p)`$ by setting

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p(g_p):=_{\mathrm{U}(_p)}\chi _p(u_pg_p)\overline{\psi }_p(u_p)𝑑u_p$$

(with $`g_p\mathrm{G}(_p)`$). Clearly, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p`$ belongs to the space $`V_{\psi ,p}`$ of the induced representation $`\pi _{\psi ,p}`$; moreover, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p`$ is $`\mathrm{K}_p`$-invariant (on the right).

Next we have, with our normalization of Haar measures,

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p(g_p)=\psi _p(u_p)$$

provided $`g_p=u_pk_p`$, with $`u_p\mathrm{U}(_p),k_p\mathrm{K}_p`$, and zero otherwise. In particular,

$$|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p(g_p)|^2=_{\mathrm{U}(_p)}\chi _p(u_pg_p)𝑑u_p,$$

from which it follows that

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p^2=_{\mathrm{U}(_p)\backslash \mathrm{G}(_p)}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p(g_p)|^2d^{}g_p=_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}\chi _p(g_p)𝑑g_p=_{\mathrm{K}_p}𝑑g_p=1.$$

(Here $`d^{}g_p`$ is normalized so that $`dg_p=du_pd^{}g_p`$ as in Section 3.1.) Next, for $`\nu V_{\psi ,p}^{\mathrm{}}`$, we have, with $`\pi _p=\pi _{\psi ,p}`$,

$$_{\mathrm{K}_p}\pi _p(k_p)\nu 𝑑k_p=\mu (\nu )\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p,$$

for a unique linear form $`\mu `$ on $`V_{\psi ,p}^{\mathrm{}}`$. Note that $`\mu (\nu )=\nu ,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p`$. We have then, using $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p(e)=1`$,

$$f_p(g_p)=\pi _p(g_p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p=_{\mathrm{K}_p}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p(k_pg_p)𝑑k_p.$$

To complete the proof, we note first, from the left $`\mathrm{K}_p`$-invariance of $`H_p`$, that

$$_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(g_p)f_p(g_p)𝑑g_p=_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(g_p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_p(g_p)𝑑g_p.$$

In turn, the last integral is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& _{\mathrm{U}(_p)}\overline{\psi }_p(u_p)_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(g_p)\chi _p(u_pg_p)𝑑g_p\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& _{\mathrm{U}(_p)}\psi _p(u_p)_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(u_pg_p)\chi _p(g_p)𝑑g_p\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& _{\mathrm{U}(_p)}H_p(u_p)\psi _p(u_p)𝑑u_p,\hfill \end{array}$$

the last equality from the right $`\mathrm{K}_p`$-invariance of $`H_p`$.

## 4 Euler Products

In this section we show that each summand in the $`𝖫^2`$-expansion of the height zeta function in Proposition 3.2 is regularized by an explicit Euler product. First we record the integrability of local heights:

###### Lemma 4.1

For all compacts $`𝖪𝖳_1`$ and all primes $`p`$, there exists a constant $`𝖼_p(𝖪)`$ such that, for all $`𝐬𝖪`$, one has:

$$_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}|H_p(𝐬,g_p)^1|𝑑g_p𝖼_p(𝖪).$$

Moreover, for all $``$ in the universal enveloping algebra $`𝔘(𝔤)`$ of $`\mathrm{G}`$ and all compacts $`𝖪𝖳_1`$, there exists a constant $`𝖼(𝖪,)`$ such that, for all $`𝐬𝖪`$,

$$_{\mathrm{G}()}|H_{\mathrm{}}(𝐬,g_{\mathrm{}})^1|𝑑g_{\mathrm{}}𝖼(𝖪,).$$

###### Proof.

This is Lemma 8.2 and Proposition 8.4 of . ∎

###### Notation 4.2

Denote by $`S_X`$ the set of all primes such that one of the following holds:

* $`p`$ is $`2`$ or $`3`$;
* $`\mathrm{K}_p\mathrm{G}(_p)`$;
* over $`_p`$, the union $`_\alpha D_\alpha `$ is not a union of smooth relative divisors with strict normal crossings.

###### Remark 4.3

For all $`pS_X`$, the height $`H_p`$ is invariant with respect to the right and left $`\mathrm{G}(_p)`$-action.

###### Proposition 4.4

For all primes $`pS_X`$ and all $`𝐬𝖳_1`$, one has

$$_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H(𝐬,g_p)^1𝑑g_p=p^3\left(\underset{A𝒜}{}\mathrm{\#}D_A^0(𝐅_p)\underset{\alpha A}{}\frac{p1}{p^{s_\alpha \kappa _\alpha +1}1}\right),$$

where $`X=D_A^0`$ is the stratification of $`X`$ by locally closed subvarieties as in the Introduction and $`𝐅_p=/p`$ is the finite field with $`p`$ elements.

###### Proof.

This is Theorem 9.1 in . The proof proceeds as follows: for $`pS_X`$ there is a good model $`𝒳`$ of $`X`$ over $`_p`$: all boundary components $`D_\alpha `$ (and $`\mathrm{G}`$) are defined over $`_p`$ and form a strict normal crossing divisor. We can consider the reduction map

$$\mathrm{red}:X(_p)=X(_p)X(𝐅_p)=_{A𝒜}D_A^0(𝐅_p).$$

The main observation is that, in a neighborhood of the preimage in $`X(_p)`$ of the point $`\stackrel{~}{x}_vD_A^0(𝐅_p)`$, one can introduce local $`p`$-adic analytic coordinates $`\{x_\alpha \}_{\alpha =1,\mathrm{},n}`$ such that

$$H_p(𝐬,g)=\underset{\alpha A}{}|x_\alpha |_p^{s_\alpha }.$$

Now it suffices to keep track of the change of the measure $`dg_p`$:

$$dg_p=\underset{\alpha A}{}dx_\alpha \underset{\alpha A}{}|x_\alpha |_p^{k_\alpha }dx_\alpha ,$$

where $`dx_\alpha `$ are standard Haar measures on $`_p`$. The integrals obtained are elementary:

$$_{\mathrm{red}^1(\stackrel{~}{x}_p)}H_p(𝐬,g_p)^1𝑑g_p=\underset{\alpha A}{}_{p_p}𝑑x_\alpha \underset{\alpha A}{}_{p_p}p^{(s_\alpha k_\alpha )v_p(x_\alpha )}𝑑x_\alpha $$

(where $`v_p(x)=\mathrm{log}_p(|x|_p)`$ is the ordinal of $`x`$ at $`p`$). Summing over all $`\stackrel{~}{x}_pX(𝐅_p)`$, we obtain the proof (see  for more details.) ∎

###### Corollary 4.5

For all primes $`p`$ one has the identity

$$_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(𝐬,g_p)^1𝑑g_p=\underset{\alpha 𝒜}{}\zeta _p(s_\alpha \kappa _\alpha +1)f_{0,p}(𝐬),$$

where $`f_{0,p}(𝐬)`$ is a holomorphic function in $`𝖳_{1+ϵ}`$. Moreover, there exist a $`\delta >0`$ and a function $`f_0(𝐬,g)`$ which is holomorphic in $`𝖳_\delta `$ and continuous in $`g\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$, such that

$$𝒵_0(𝐬,g)=f_0(𝐬,g)\underset{\alpha 𝒜}{}\zeta (s_\alpha \kappa _\alpha +1);$$

moreover,

$$\underset{𝐬\kappa }{lim}𝒵_0(𝐬,e)\underset{\alpha 𝒜}{}(s_\alpha \kappa _\alpha )=\tau (𝒦_X)0,$$

where $`\tau (𝒦_X)`$ is the Tamagawa number defined in .

###### Proof.

Apply Corollary 9.6 in . ∎

###### Notation 4.6

Let $`𝐚=(a_1,a_2)^2`$ and let $`f_𝐚`$ be the $``$-rational linear form

$$(x,y)a_1x+a_2y.$$

The linear form $`f_𝐚`$ defines an adelic character $`\eta =\eta _𝐚`$ of $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$:

$$\eta (g(x,z,y))=\psi _1(a_1x+a_2y),$$

where again $`\psi _1`$ is the Tate-character of $`𝔸/`$. Write

$$\mathrm{div}(\eta )=E(\eta )\underset{\alpha 𝒜}{}d_\alpha (\eta )D_\alpha $$

for the divisor of the function $`f_𝐚`$ on the compactification $`X`$ (by Corollary 1.7, $`d_\alpha 0`$ for all $`\alpha 𝒜`$ and $`d_\alpha >0`$ for at least one $`\alpha 𝒜`$). Denote by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒜_0(\eta )& =& \{\alpha |d_\alpha (\eta )=0\}.\end{array}$$

Let $`VX`$ be the induced equivariant compactification of $`\mathrm{U}\mathrm{G}`$.

###### Assumption 4.7

From now on we will assume that the boundary $`V\mathrm{U}`$ is a strict normal crossing divisor whose components are obtained by intersecting the boundary components of $`X`$ with $`V`$:

$$V\mathrm{U}=_{\alpha 𝒜^V}D_\alpha ^V=_{\alpha 𝒜}D_\alpha V,$$

(with $`𝒜^V𝒜`$).

###### Remark 4.8

The general case can be reduced to this situation by (equivariant) resolution of singularities.

By Lemma 7.3 of , we have

$$K_V=\underset{\alpha 𝒜^V}{}\kappa _\alpha ^VD_\alpha ^V,$$

with $`\kappa _\alpha ^V\kappa _\alpha `$ (for all $`\alpha `$) and equality holding for $`\alpha `$ in a proper subset of $`𝒜`$.

Denote by $`f_a`$ the $``$-rational linear form on the center $`\mathrm{Z}`$ of $`\mathrm{G}`$

$$zaz.$$

The linear form $`f_a`$ defines an adelic character $`\psi =\psi _a`$ of $`\mathrm{U}(𝔸)/\mathrm{U}()`$:

$$\psi _a(g(0,z,y))=\psi _1(az).$$

Write

$$\mathrm{div}(\psi )=E(\psi )\underset{\alpha 𝒜^V}{}d_\alpha (\psi )D_\alpha $$

for the divisor of the function $`f_a`$ on $`V`$ and denote by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒜_0(\psi )& =& \{\alpha |d_\alpha (\psi )=0\}.\end{array}$$

We note that both $`𝒜_0(\eta )`$ and $`𝒜_0(\psi )`$ are proper subsets of $`𝒜`$. A precise formulation of the statement that the trivial representation of $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$ is “isolated” in the automorphic spectrum is the following Proposition.

###### Proposition 4.9

Let $`\eta =\eta _𝐚`$ and $`\psi =\psi _a`$ be the non-trivial adelic characters occuring in Proposition 3.2 ($`a_1,a_2,a\frac{1}{𝗇(\mathrm{K})}`$). For any $`ϵ>0`$ there exist a constant $`𝖼(ϵ)`$ and holomorphic bounded functions $`\varphi _\eta (𝐚,)`$, $`\phi _\psi (a,)`$ on $`𝖳_{1/2+ϵ}`$ such that, for any $`𝐬𝖳_0`$, one has

$$\underset{pS_\eta }{}_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(𝐬,g_p)^1\overline{\eta }_p(g_p)𝑑g_p=\varphi _\eta (𝐚,𝐬)\underset{\alpha 𝒜_0(\eta )}{}\zeta ^{S_\eta }(s_\alpha \kappa _\alpha +1);$$

$$\underset{pS_\psi }{}_{\mathrm{U}(_p)}H_p(𝐬,u_p)^1\overline{\psi }_p(u_p)𝑑u_p=\phi _\psi (a,𝐬)\underset{\alpha 𝒜_0(\psi )}{}\zeta ^{S_\psi }(s_\alpha \kappa _\alpha +1),$$

where $`\zeta ^S(s)=_{pS}(1p^s)^1`$ is the incomplete Riemann zeta function. Moreover,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|\varphi _\eta (𝐚,𝐬)|& & 𝖼(ϵ),\\ |\phi _\psi (a,𝐬)|& & 𝖼(ϵ).\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

The integrals can be computed as in Proposition 4.4. They are regularized by the indicated products of (partial) zeta functions. The remaining Euler products are expressions involving the number of $`𝐅_p`$-points for boundary strata (and their intersections with $`\mathrm{div}(\eta )`$, resp. $`\mathrm{div}(\psi )`$). In particular, they are uniformly bounded on compacts in $`𝖳_{1/2+ϵ}`$. For details we refer to , Proposition 5.5 (which follows from Proposition 10.2 in loc. cit.). ∎

###### Corollary 4.10

In particular, each  term in the sums $`𝒵_1(𝐬,g)`$ and $`𝒵_2(𝐬,g)`$ has a meromorphic continuation to the domain $`𝖳_{1/2}`$.

###### Lemma 4.11

For any $`ϵ>0`$ and any compact $`𝖪`$ in $`𝖳_{1/2+ϵ}`$, there exist constants $`𝖼(𝖪)`$ and $`𝗇^{}=𝗇^{}(\mathrm{K})>0`$, such that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|_{pS_\eta }_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(𝐬,g_p)^1𝑑g_p|& & 𝖼(𝖪)(1+𝐚)^𝗇^{}\\ |_{pS_\psi }_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(𝐬,g_p)^1𝑑g_p|& & 𝖼(𝖪)(1+|a|)^𝗇^{}\end{array}$$

for all $`𝐬𝖪`$.

###### Proof.

For $`pS_X`$ we use the bound from Lemma 4.1. For $`pS_\eta S_X`$ (resp. $`S_\psi S_X`$) we apply Proposition 4.4: there is a constant $`𝖼>0`$ (depending only on $`X`$ and $`𝖪`$) such that

$$|_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(𝐬,g_p)^1𝑑g_p|(1+\frac{𝖼}{\sqrt{p}})$$

for all $`p`$. Using the bound

$$\underset{p|b}{}(1+\frac{𝖼}{\sqrt{p}})|b|^𝗇^{},$$

(for $`b=a𝗇(\mathrm{K})`$ and some $`𝗇^{}=𝗇^{}(\mathrm{K})>0`$) we conclude the proof. ∎

###### Proposition 4.12

For any $`𝗇>0`$ and any compact $`𝖪𝖳_{1/2+ϵ}`$, there exists a constant $`𝖼(𝖪,𝗇)`$ such that, for any $`𝐬𝖪`$, and any $`𝐚=(a_1,a_2)`$ and $`a`$ as above, one has the estimates

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|_{\mathrm{G}()}H_{\mathrm{}}(𝐬,g_{\mathrm{}})^1\overline{\eta }_{\mathrm{}}(g_{\mathrm{}})𝑑g_{\mathrm{}}|& & 𝖼(𝖪,𝗇)(1+𝐚)^𝗇,\hfill \\ & & \\ |_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸_S)}H_S(𝐬,g_S)^1\overline{\omega }_S(g_S)𝑑g_S|& & 𝖼(𝖪,𝗇)(1+|\lambda |)^𝗇(1+|a|)^𝗇^{},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`𝗇^{}=𝗇^{}(\mathrm{K})`$ is the bound from Lemma 4.11, $`S=S_\psi \{\mathrm{}\}`$, $`\lambda =\lambda (\omega )`$ is the eigenvalue of $`\omega _S_S(\varrho _\psi )`$ (with respect to the elliptic operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$).

###### Proof.

We use Lemma 4.1 and integration by parts. For $`\eta `$ we apply the operator $`=_x^2+_y^2`$ (as in ) and for $`\psi `$ the elliptic operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_x^2+_y^2+_z^2`$ (and use the eigenfunction property of $`\omega _S`$, or, what amounts to the same, of $`\omega (\varrho _\psi )`$). More precisely, the second integral is majorized by

$$|\lambda |^𝗆|_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸_S)}\mathrm{\Delta }^𝗆H_S(𝐬,g_S)^1𝑑g_S|\underset{g_S\mathrm{G}(𝔸_S)}{sup}|\omega _S(g_S)|.$$

Using the class number one property

$$\mathrm{G}(𝔸)=\mathrm{G}()\mathrm{G}()\mathrm{K}$$

and the invariance of $`\omega `$ under $`\mathrm{G}()`$ and $`\mathrm{K}`$, we obtain the estimates

$$\underset{g_S\mathrm{G}(𝔸_S)}{sup}|\omega _S(g_S)|\underset{g\mathrm{G}(𝔸)}{sup}|\omega (g)|=\underset{g\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{G}()}{sup}|\omega _{\mathrm{}}(g)|.$$
(12)
Further we have

$$\underset{g\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{G}()}{sup}|\omega _{\mathrm{}}(g)||\lambda |^𝗆^{}\omega _{𝖫^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{G}())}=|\lambda |^𝗆^{}\omega _{𝖫^2(\mathrm{G}()\backslash \mathrm{G}(𝔸))}=|\lambda |^𝗆^{}$$
(13)
for some constant $`𝗆^{}`$ (see , , p. 22, and  for the comparison between the $`𝖫^2`$ and the $`𝖫^{\mathrm{}}`$ norms of an eigenfunction of an elliptic operator on a compact manifold and other applications of this inequality). The rest of the proof follows at once from Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.11. (Notice that the implied constants, including $`𝗆^{}`$, in the above inequalities depend only on the choice of $`\mathrm{K}`$.) ∎

Before continuing to the proof of the main theorem, we discuss the individual inner products

$$𝒵(𝐬,\eta )=𝒵(𝐬,),\eta ,$$

$$𝒵(𝐬,\omega ^\psi )=𝒵(𝐬,),\omega ^\psi .$$

Let us first set

$$\zeta _\eta (𝐬)=\underset{\alpha 𝒜_0(\eta )}{}\zeta (s_\alpha \kappa _\alpha +1),$$

$$\zeta _\psi (𝐬)=\underset{\alpha 𝒜_0(\psi )}{}\zeta (s_\alpha \kappa _\alpha +1).$$

We have then the following Corollary.

###### Corollary 4.13

The functions

$$\zeta _\eta (𝐬)^1𝒵(𝐬,\eta )$$

and

$$\zeta _\psi (𝐬)^1𝒵(𝐬,\omega ^\psi ),$$

initially defined for $`𝐬𝖳_\delta `$ (c.f. 2.4), have an analytic continuation to the domain $`𝖳_{1/2+ϵ}`$ (for all $`ϵ>0`$).

###### Proof.

We will consider the function $`\zeta _\psi (𝐬)^1𝒵(𝐬,\omega ^\psi )`$ and leave the first case to the reader. We start by observing that, for $`𝐬𝖳_\delta `$, we have

$$_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸)}|H(𝐬,g)|^1𝑑g<\mathrm{}$$
(14)
(this follows from Proposition 2.6 together with the compactness of $`\mathrm{G}()\backslash \mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$). Consequently,

$$𝒵(𝐬,\overline{\omega }^\psi )=_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸)}H(𝐬,g)^1\omega ^\psi (g)𝑑g,$$

again for $`𝐬𝖳_\delta `$. Using the left-$`\mathrm{K}`$, and in particular, the left $`\mathrm{K}^S`$-invariance of $`H`$, we have, for $`𝐬𝖳_\delta `$,

$$𝒵(𝐬,\overline{\omega }^\psi )=_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸)}H(𝐬,g)^1_{\mathrm{K}^S}\omega ^\psi (k^Sg)𝑑k^S𝑑g.$$

Then, from Lemma 3.12 (factorization), we have (with $`𝐬`$ in the same domain),

$$𝒵(𝐬,\overline{\omega }^\psi )=_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸_S)}H(𝐬,g_S)^1\omega ^\psi (g_S)𝑑g_S_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸^S)}H(𝐬,g^S)^1f^S(g^S)𝑑g^S,$$
(15)
where we have set

$$f^S(g^S):=\underset{pS}{}f_p(g_p)$$

(recall that $`S=S_\psi \{\mathrm{}\}`$). Both integrals above are convergent for $`𝐬𝖳_\delta `$ by (14). By Lemma 4.1, the first integral on the right in (15) is absolutely convergent for $`𝐬𝖳_1`$. Next it follows from Proposition 4.9 that the second integral above actually converges for $`𝐬𝖳_0`$. Moreover, we have for that integral the product expression

$$\underset{pS_\psi }{}_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(𝐬,g_p)^1f_p(g_p)𝑑g_p.$$

As we have noted in Proposition 4.9, the infinite product is convergent to a holomorphic function, for $`𝐬𝖳_0`$. Further, we then have for this infinite product the expression

$$\phi _\psi (a,𝐬)\underset{\alpha 𝒜_0(\psi )}{}\underset{pS_\psi }{}\zeta (s_\alpha \kappa _\alpha +1)\zeta _\psi (𝐬),$$

for $`𝐬𝖳_0`$. It follows, again from Proposition 4.9, that

$$\zeta _\psi (𝐬)^1𝒵(𝐬,\overline{\omega }^\psi )$$

can be continued holomorphically to the domain $`𝖳_{1/2+ϵ}`$. (Note that we have used the meromorphic continuation of $`\zeta (s)`$ to $`\mathrm{}(s)>1/2+ϵ`$.) ∎

Moreover, we have the following Lemma:

###### Lemma 4.14

For any $`ϵ,𝗇>0`$ and any compact $`𝖪𝖳_{1/2+ϵ}`$, there is a constant $`𝖼(𝖪,𝗇)`$ and an integer $`𝗇^{}>0`$ such that, for any $`𝐬𝖪`$ and $`a`$ as above ($`\psi =\psi _a`$), we have

$$|\zeta _\psi (𝐬)^1𝒵(𝐬,\overline{\omega }^\psi )|𝖼(𝖪,𝗇)(1+\lambda |)^𝗇(1+|a|)^𝗇^{}.$$

###### Proof.

We have from the preceeding (proof of Corollary 4.13)

$$\zeta _\psi (𝐬)^1𝒵(𝐬,\overline{\omega }^\psi )=$$

$$\phi _\psi (a,𝐬)_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸_S)}H(𝐬,g_S)^1\omega (g_S)𝑑g_S\underset{\alpha 𝒜_0(\psi )}{}\underset{pS_\psi }{}\zeta _p(s_\alpha \kappa _\alpha +1),$$

for $`𝐬𝖳_{1/2+ϵ}`$. Our conclusion follows from Proposition 4.9 and Proposition 4.12 and, for example, the elementary inequality

$$\underset{p|b}{}(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}})|b|^𝗇^{}$$

applied to $`b=a𝗇(\mathrm{K})`$ (for some $`𝗇^{}>0`$, independent of $`a`$). ∎

###### Theorem 4.15

The height zeta function $`𝒵(𝐬)`$ is holomorphic for $`𝐬𝖳_0`$. Moreover,

$$\underset{\alpha 𝒜}{}(s_\alpha \kappa _\alpha )𝒵(𝐬)$$

admits a holomorphic continuation to $`𝖳_\delta `$ (for some $`\delta >0`$) and

$$\underset{𝐬\kappa }{lim}\underset{\alpha 𝒜}{}(s_\alpha \kappa _\alpha )𝒵(𝐬)=\tau (𝒦_X).$$

###### Proof.

Set

$$𝗓(𝐬):=\underset{\alpha 𝒜}{}(s_\alpha \kappa _\alpha ).$$

We prove first that both series

$$\underset{\eta \mathrm{𝟏}}{}𝗓(𝐬)𝒵(𝐬,\eta )\eta (g)$$
(16)
and

$$\underset{\psi 1}{}\underset{\omega ^\psi (\varrho _\psi )}{}𝗓(𝐬)𝒵(𝐬,\omega ^\psi )\omega ^\psi (g)$$
(17)
are normally convergent for $`𝐬`$ in a compact subset of $`𝖳_{1/2+ϵ}`$ and $`g`$ in a compact subset of $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$. We note that, by Proposition 4.12, the products

$$𝗓(𝐬)𝒵(𝐬,\eta )\mathrm{and}𝗓(𝐬)𝒵(𝐬,\omega ^\psi )$$

are defined for $`𝐬𝖳_{1/2+ϵ}`$. We will prove our assertion for the second series; the proof for the first is entirely similar.

We have a map from the set of non-trivial characters $`\{\psi \}`$ of $`𝔸/`$ to the set of subsets of $`𝒜`$ given by

$$\psi 𝒜_0(\psi ).$$

It suffices to prove our assertion for each subseries $`𝒵_A`$ of $`𝒵_2`$ corresponding to $`\psi `$ with $`𝒜_0(\psi )=A`$ (for $`A𝒜`$). From Lemma 4.14 we have a uniform majoration (for real $`𝐬`$)

$$𝗓(𝐬)𝒵(𝐬,\omega ^\psi )𝗓(𝐬)\zeta _\psi (𝐬)(1+|\lambda |)^𝗇(1+|a|)^𝗇^{}.$$

By definition, the function $`\zeta _\psi `$ is the same for all for $`\psi `$ occuring in $`𝒵_A`$. It remains then to prove the assertion for the series

$$\underset{\psi }{}\underset{\omega ^\psi (\varrho _\psi )}{}|\lambda |^{𝗇+𝗆^{}}|a|^𝗇^{},$$
(18)
where we have used the estimates (12) and (13) (and the sum is over all characters $`\psi `$ occuring in $`𝒵_A`$). We recall that $`\lambda =\lambda (\omega ^\psi )`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-eigenvalue of $`\omega ^\psi `$ and $`\psi =\psi _a`$. We also recall (Lemma 3.10) that (with $`S=S_\psi `$)

$$\omega ^\psi =j(\phi _Se^S\phi _n^\psi ),$$

for $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, where $`\phi _S`$ varies over an orthonormal basis of $`𝒮(𝔸_S)^{\mathrm{K}_S}`$. Thus our series (18) is bounded from above by

$$\underset{a,a0}{}\underset{n}{}|\lambda _n|^𝗇|a|^{𝗇^{}+1}𝗇(𝖪)^2$$

(see Lemma 3.6). Our claim now follows upon remarking that

$$\lambda _n=(2\pi (n+1)|a|4\pi ^2a^2).$$

At this point we may conclude that the series (16) and (18) converge as stated. It now follows that, for $`𝐬𝖳_\delta `$.

$$𝒵(𝐬,g)=𝒵_0(𝐬,g)+𝒵_1(𝐬,g)+𝒵_2(𝐬,g),$$

as an equality of continuous functions on $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$. In particular, we have

$$𝗓(𝐬)𝒵(𝐬)=𝗓(𝐬)(𝒵_0(𝐬,id)+𝒵_1(𝐬,id)+𝒵_2(𝐬,id)),$$
(19)
again for $`𝐬𝖳_\delta `$. Finally, we obtain, from (19), Corollary 4.5 and the preceding, the meromorphic continuation of $`𝒵(𝐬)`$ to the domain $`𝖳_{1/2+ϵ}`$.

Further, since for non-trivial $`\psi `$ the set $`𝒜_0(\psi )`$ is a proper subset of $`𝒜`$, we also see that the function

$$𝗓(𝐬)(𝒵_1(𝐬,id)+𝒵_2(𝐬,id))$$

vanishes for $`𝐬=\kappa `$. Thus we have finally

$$𝗓(𝐬)𝒵(𝐬,id)|_{𝐬=\kappa }=𝗓(𝐬)𝒵_0(𝐬,id)|_{𝐬=\kappa }.$$

Applying Corollary 4.5 we conclude the proof. ∎

###### Remark 4.16

Theorem 4.15 implies that for each $`L`$ in the interior of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)`$ the (one-parameter) height zeta function $`𝒵(s,)`$ is holomorphic for $`\mathrm{}(s)>a(L)`$ and admits a meromorphic continuation to $`\mathrm{}(s)>a(L)ϵ`$ (for some $`ϵ>0`$) with an isolated pole at $`s=a(L)`$ of order at most $`b(L)`$. The proof that the order is exactly $`b(L)`$ and that the leading coefficient of $`𝒵(s,)`$ at this pole is $`c(L)\tau ()`$ is analogous to the proof of the corresponding statement for height zeta functions of equivariant compactifications of additive groups (see Section 7 in ).

## 5 Example: $`^3`$

A standard bi-equivariant compactification of the Heisenberg group $`\mathrm{G}`$ is the 3-dimensional projective space $`X=^3`$. The boundary $`D=X\mathrm{G}`$ consists of a single irreducible divisor (the hyperplane section). The class of this divisor generates the Picard group $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$. The anticanonical class $`[K_X]=4[D]`$ and the cone of effective divisors $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)=_0[D]`$. The height pairing is given by

$$H(s,g):=\underset{p}{}H_p(s,g_p)H_{\mathrm{}}(s,g_{\mathrm{}}),$$
(20)
where $`g\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$,

$$H_p(s,g_p)=\mathrm{max}\{1,|x|_p,|y|_p,|z|_p\}^s$$
(21)
and

$$H_{\mathrm{}}(s,g_{\mathrm{}})=(1+x^2+y^2+z^2)^{s/2}.$$
(22)
The heights $`H_p`$ are invariant with respect to the action of $`\mathrm{G}(_p)`$ (on both sides). We are interested in the analytic properties of the height zeta function

$$𝒵(s,g)=\underset{\gamma =(x,z,y)^3}{}H(s,\gamma g)^1.$$
(23)
As above, we consider the Fourier expansion of $`𝒵(s,g)`$. Each term in this expansion will be regularized by an explicit Euler product of height integrals. We need to compute these height integrals at good primes and estimate them at bad primes and at the real place.

###### Lemma 5.1

For $`\mathrm{}(s)>4`$, one has

$$_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸_{\mathrm{fin}})}H(s,g)^1𝑑g=\frac{\zeta (s3)}{\zeta (s)}.$$

###### Lemma 5.2

For $`\mathrm{}(s)>3`$ and all $`pS_\eta `$, one has

$$_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(s,g_p)^1\overline{\eta }_𝐚(g_p)𝑑g_p=\zeta _p^1(s).$$

###### Proof.

Both Lemmas may be proved by direct computation using the definition of $`H_p`$ in (21). ∎

###### Lemma 5.3

For $`\mathrm{}(s)>3`$, all $`\psi =\psi _a`$ and all $`pS_\psi `$, one has

$$_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(s,g_p)^1f_p(g_p)𝑑g_p=_{\mathrm{U}(_p)}H_p(s,u_p)^1\overline{\psi }_a(u_p)𝑑u_p=\zeta _p^1(s),$$

(where $`f_p`$ is the local normalized spherical function).

###### Proof.

Direct computation. Note that the second integral is similar to the integral in Lemma 5.2 for the variety $`^2^3`$ (the induced equivariant compactification of $`\mathrm{U}`$). ∎

###### Lemma 5.4

For all $`ϵ>0`$, $`𝗇>0`$ and all compacts $`𝖪`$ in the domain $`\mathrm{}(s)>3+ϵ`$, there exists a constant $`𝖼(𝗇,𝖪)`$ such that, for all $`s𝖪`$ and all $`\eta =\eta _𝐚`$ (with $`𝐚^2`$), the finite product

$$|\underset{pS_\eta }{}_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(s,g_p)^1\overline{\eta }(g_p)𝑑g_p_{\mathrm{G}()}H_{\mathrm{}}(s,g_{\mathrm{}})^1\overline{\eta }(g_{\mathrm{}})𝑑g_{\mathrm{}}|$$

is bounded by

$$𝖼(𝗇,𝖪)(1+|a_1|+|a_2|)^𝗇.$$

###### Proof.

We replace $`\eta `$ by 1, $`H_p(s,g_p)`$ by $`H_p(\mathrm{}(s),g)`$ and obtain

$$|_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(s,g_p)^1𝑑g_p|\frac{1}{1p^ϵ}.$$

For $`a`$, we have

$$\underset{p|a}{}(1+p^ϵ)(1+|a|)^𝗇^{}$$

(for some positive integer $`𝗇^{}`$). Using the definition of $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$:

$$|_^3(1+x^2+y^2+z^2)^{s/2}e^{2\pi i(a_1x+a_2y)}𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z|<𝖼(𝗇,𝖪)(1+|a_1|+|a_2|)^𝗇$$

for all $`𝗇`$ (this is an easy consequence of integration by parts). ∎

###### Lemma 5.5

For all $`ϵ>0`$, $`𝗇>0`$ and all compacts $`𝖪`$ in the domain $`\mathrm{}(s)>3+ϵ`$, there exists a constant $`𝖼(𝗇,𝖪)`$ such that, for all $`s𝖪`$, all $`\psi =\psi _a`$ (with $`a,a0`$), $`S=S_\psi \{\mathrm{}\}`$ and all $`\omega _S_S(\varrho _\psi )`$, the expression

$$|_{\mathrm{G}(𝔸_S)}H(s,g_S)^1\overline{\omega }_S(g_S)𝑑g_S|$$

is bounded by

$$𝖼(𝖪,𝗇)|an|^𝗇,$$

(where the real component of $`j_\psi ^1(\omega _S)`$ is equal to $`c_n\phi _n^\psi `$, cf. Lemma 3.10).

###### Proof.

Let $`\lambda `$ be the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-eigenvalue of $`\omega `$. Here

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=_x^2+_y^2+_z^2$$

is an elliptic differential operator on $`\mathrm{G}()\backslash \mathrm{G}()`$ and $`_x`$ (resp. $`_y,_z`$) is the invariant vector field corresponding to $`g(x,0,0)`$ (resp. $`g(0,0,y)`$ and $`g(0,z,0)`$). On each subspace

$$_\psi ^\mathrm{K}𝖫^2(\mathrm{G}()\backslash \mathrm{G}(𝔸))^\mathrm{K}=𝖫^2(\mathrm{G}()\backslash \mathrm{G}()),$$

we have

$$_z\omega =(2\pi ia)\omega $$

(here we used the $`\pi _\psi `$ realization). It follows that

$$_z^2\omega =4\pi ^2a^2\omega ,$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =(\lambda _n^\psi 4\pi ^2a^2)\omega ,$$

where $`\lambda _n^\psi =2\pi (2n+1)|a|`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\psi `$-eigenvalue of $`\phi _n^\psi `$, the real component of $`j_\psi ^1(\omega _S)`$.

After these preparations we can assume that $`s`$ is real. Using repeated integration by parts, we find the following estimate for the above integral:

$$\lambda ^𝗇\omega _𝖫^{\mathrm{}}\underset{p|a}{}_{\mathrm{G}(_p)}H_p(s,g_p)^1𝑑g_p_^3\mathrm{\Delta }^𝗇(1+x^2+y^2+z^2)^{s/2}𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z.$$

Here we have again used the estimates (12) and (13). Continuing, we estimate the finite product of $`p`$-adic integrals as in the proof of Lemma 5.4. Finally, we find from Lemma 4.1 that the integral

$$_^3\mathrm{\Delta }^𝗇(1+x^2+y^2+z^2)^{s/2}𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z$$

is convergent for $`s𝖪`$ and further is bounded on the same region. ∎

###### Proposition 5.6

The height zeta function $`𝒵(s)`$ defined in Equation (23)

* is holomorphic for $`\mathrm{}(s)>4`$;
* admits a meromorphic continuation to $`\mathrm{}(s)>3+ϵ`$ (for any $`ϵ>0`$) and
* has a simple pole in this domain at $`s=4`$ with residue

$$\zeta (4)^1_^3(1+x^2+y^2+z^2)^2𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z=\frac{\pi ^2}{\zeta (4)}.$$

###### Proof.

Using the estimates of Lemma 5.5, and (12) and (13), we see, as in the proof of Theorem4.15, that the series for $`𝒵_2(s,g)`$ in Proposition 3.2 is normally convergent for $`s`$ in a compact set $`𝖪`$ of $`\mathrm{}(s)>3`$ and for $`g\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$. It now follows (as in the proof of Theorem 4.15) that, for $`\mathrm{}(s)>4`$,

$$𝒵(s,g)=𝒵_0(s,g)+𝒵_1(s,g)+𝒵_2(s,g),$$

as an equality of continuous functions on $`\mathrm{G}(𝔸)`$. In particular,

$$𝒵(s,id)=𝒵_0(s,id)+𝒵_1(s,id)+𝒵_2(s,id),$$
(24)
again for $`\mathrm{}(s)>4`$. We obtain then, as in the proof of Theorem 4.15, the meromorphic continuation of $`𝒵(s)`$ to $`\mathrm{}(s)>3+ϵ`$ (see esp. Lemma 5.1 for $`𝒵_0`$). Finally,

$$(s4)𝒵(s)|_{s=4}=(s4)𝒵_0(s,id)|_{s=4}=\frac{\pi ^2}{\zeta (4)}.$$


format: text

text:
# Interacting neural networks and cryptography

## 1 Introduction

Neural networks learn from examples. This concept has extensively been investigated using models and methods of statistical mechanics HeKrPa ; EnVa . A ”teacher” network is presenting input/output pairs of high dimensional data, and a ”student” network is being trained on these data. Training means, that synaptic weights adopt by simple rules to the input/output pairs.

When the networks — teacher as well as student — have $`N`$ weights, the training process needs of the order of $`N`$ examples to obtain generalization abilities. This means, that after the training phase the student has achieved some overlap to the teacher, their weight vectors are correlated. As a consequence, the student can classify an input pattern which does not belong to the training set. The average classification error decreases with the number of training examples.

Training can be performed in two different modes: Batch and on-line training. In the first case all examples are stored and used to minimize the total training error. In the second case only one new example is used per time step and then destroyed. Therefore on-line training may be considered as a dynamic process: at each time step the teacher creates a new example which the student uses to change its weights by a tiny amount. In fact, for random input vectors and in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, learning and generalization can be described by ordinary differential equations for a few order parameters BiCa .

On-line training is a dynamic process where the examples are generated by a static network - the teacher. The student tries to move towards the teacher. However, the student network itself can generate examples on which it is trained. When the output bit is moved to the shifted input sequence, the network generates a complex time series EiKaKeKi . Such networks are called bit (for binary) or sequence (for continuous numbers) generators and have recently been studied in the context of time series prediction KaKePrEi .

This work on the dynamics of neural networks - learning from a static teacher or generating time series by self interaction - has motivated us to study the following problem: What happens if two neural networks learn from each other? In the following section an analytic solution is presented MeKiKa , which shows a novel phenomenon: synchronization by mutual learning. The biological consequences of this phenomenon are not explored, yet, but we found an interesting application in cryptography: secure generation of a secret key over a public channel.

In the field of cryptography, one is interested in methods to transmit secret messages between two partners A and B. An opponent E who is able to listen to the communication should not be able to recover the secret message.

Before 1976, all cryptographic methods had to rely on secret keys for encryption which were transmitted between A and B over a secret channel not accessible to any opponent. Such a common secret key can be used, for example, as a seed for a random bit generator by which the bit sequence of the message is added (modulo 2).

In 1976, however, Diffie and Hellmann found that a common secret key could be created over a public channel accessible to any opponent. This method is based on number theory: Given limited computer power, it is not possible to calculate the discrete logarithm of sufficiently large numbers St .

Here we show how neural networks can produce a common secret key by exchanging bits over a public channel and by learning from each other.

## 2 Dynamic transition to synchronization

Here we study mutual learning of neural networks for a simple model system: Two perceptrons receive a common random input vector $`\underset{¯}{x}`$ and change their weights $`\underset{¯}{w}`$ according to their mutual bit $`\sigma `$, as sketched in Fig. 1. The output bit $`\sigma `$ of a single perceptron is given by the equation

$$\sigma =\text{sign}(\underset{¯}{w}\underset{¯}{x})$$
(1)
$`\underset{¯}{x}`$ is an $`N`$-dimensional input vector with components which are drawn from a Gaussian with mean $`0`$ and variance $`1`$. $`\underset{¯}{w}`$ is a $`N`$-dimensional weight vector with continuous components which are normalized,

$$\underset{¯}{w}\underset{¯}{w}=1$$
(2)
The initial state is a random choice of the components $`w_i^{A/B},i=1,\mathrm{}N`$ for the two weight vectors $`\underset{¯}{w}^A`$ and $`\underset{¯}{w}^B`$. At each training step a common random input vector is presented to the two networks which generate two output bits $`\sigma ^A`$ and $`\sigma ^B`$ according to (1). Now the weight vectors are updated by the perceptron learning rule BiCa :

$`\underset{¯}{w}^A(t+1)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{w}^A(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{N}}\underset{¯}{x}\sigma ^B\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ^A\sigma ^B)`$ (3)
$`\underset{¯}{w}^B(t+1)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{w}^B(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{N}}\underset{¯}{x}\sigma ^A\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ^A\sigma ^B)`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the step function. Hence, only if the two perceptrons disagree a training step is performed with a learning rate $`\eta `$. After each step (3), the two weight vectors have to be normalized.

In the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, the overlap

$$R(t)=\underset{¯}{w}^A(t)\underset{¯}{w}^B(t)$$
(5)
has been calculated analytically MeKiKa . The number of training steps $`t`$ is scaled as $`\alpha =t/N`$, and $`R(\alpha )`$ follows the equation

$$\frac{dR}{d\alpha }=(R+1)\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\eta (1R)\eta ^2\frac{\phi }{\pi }\right)$$
(6)
where $`\phi `$ is the angle between the two weight vectors $`\underset{¯}{w}^A`$ and $`\underset{¯}{w}^B`$, i.e. $`R=\mathrm{cos}\phi `$. This equation has fixed points $`R=1,R=1`$, and

$$\frac{\eta }{\sqrt{2\pi }}=\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\phi }{\phi }$$
(7)
Fig. 2 shows the attractive fixed point of 6 as a function of the learning rate $`\eta `$. For small values of $`\eta `$ the two networks relax to a state of a mutual agreement, $`R1`$ for $`\eta 0`$. With increasing learning rate $`\eta `$ the angle between the two weight vectors increases up to $`\phi =133^{}`$ for

$$\eta \eta _c1.816$$
(8)
Above the critical rate $`\eta _c`$ the networks relax to a state of complete disagreement, $`\phi =180^{},R=1`$. The two weight vectors are antiparallel to each other, $`\underset{¯}{w}^A=\underset{¯}{w}^B`$.

As a consequence, the analytic solution shows, well supported by numerical simulations for $`N=100`$, that two neural networks can synchronize to each other by mutual learning. Both of the networks are trained to the examples generated by their partner and finally obtain an antiparallel alignment. Even after synchronization the networks keep moving, the motion is a kind of random walk on an N-dimensional hypersphere producing a rather complex bit sequence of output bits $`\sigma ^A=\sigma ^B`$ MeKiEiKa .

## 3 Random walk in weight space

We want to apply synchronization of neural networks to cryptography. In the previous section we have seen that the weight vectors of two perceptrons learning from each other can synchronize. The new idea is to use the common weights $`\underset{¯}{w}^A=\underset{¯}{w}^B`$ as a key for encryption KaKiKa . But two problems have to be solved yet: (i) Can an external observer, recording the exchange of bits, calculate the final $`\underset{¯}{w}^A(t)`$, (ii) does this phenomenon exist for discrete weights? Point (i) is essential for cryptography, it will be discussed in the following section. Point (ii) is important for practical solutions since communication is usually based on bit sequences. It will be investigated in the following.

Synchronization occurs for normalized weights, unnormalized ones do not synchronize MeKiKa . Therefore, for discrete weights, we introduce a restriction in the space of possible vectors and limit the components $`w_i^{A/B}`$ to $`2L+1`$ different values,

$$w_i^{A/B}\{L,L+1,\mathrm{},L1,L\}$$
(9)
In order to obtain synchronization to a parallel – instead of an antiparallel – state $`\underset{¯}{w}^A=\underset{¯}{w}^B`$, we modify the learning rule (3) to:

$`\underset{¯}{w}^A(t+1)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{w}^A(t)\underset{¯}{x}\sigma ^A\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ^A\sigma ^B)`$ (10)
$`\underset{¯}{w}^B(t+1)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{w}^B(t)\underset{¯}{x}\sigma ^B\mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma ^A\sigma ^B)`$ (11)
Now the components of the random input vector $`\underset{¯}{x}`$ are binary $`x_i\{+1,1\}`$. If the two networks produce an identical output bit $`\sigma ^A=\sigma ^B`$, then their weights move one step in the direction of $`x_i\sigma ^A`$. But the weights should remain in the interval (9), therefore if any component moves out of this interval, $`|w_i|=L+1`$, it is set back to the boundary $`w_i=\pm L`$.

Each component of the weight vectors performs a kind of random walk with reflecting boundary. Two corresponding components $`w_i^A`$ and $`w_i^B`$ receive the same random number $`\pm 1`$. After each hit at the boundary the distance $`|w_i^Aw_i^B|`$ is reduced until it has reached zero. For two perceptrons with a $`N`$-dimensional weight space we have two ensembles of $`N`$ random walks on the internal $`\{L,\mathrm{},L\}`$. If we neglect the global signal $`\sigma ^A=\sigma ^B`$ as well as the bias $`\sigma ^A`$, we expect that after some characteristic time scale $`\tau =𝒪(L^2)`$ the probability of two random walks being in different states decreases as

$$P(t)P(0)e^{t/\tau }$$
(12)
Hence the total synchronization time should be given by $`NP(t)1`$ which gives

$$t_{\mathrm{sync}}\tau \mathrm{ln}N$$
(13)
In fact, our simulations for $`N=100`$ show that two perceptrons with $`L=3`$ synchronize in about 100 time steps and the synchronization time increases logarithmically with $`N`$. However, our simulations also showed that an opponent, recording the sequence of $`(\sigma ^A,\sigma ^B,\underset{¯}{x})_t`$ is able to synchronize, too. Therefore, a single perceptron does not allow a generation of a secret key.

## 4 Secret key generation

Obviously, a single perceptron transmits too much information. An opponent, who knows the set of input/output pairs, can derive the weights of the two partners after synchronization. Therefore, one has to hide so much information, that the opponent cannot calculate the weights, but on the other side one has to transmit enough information that the two partners can synchronize.

In fact, we found that multilayer networks with hidden units may be candidates for such a task KaKiKa . More precisely, we consider parity machines with three hidden units as shown in Fig. 3. Each hidden unit is a perceptron (1) with discrete weights (9). The output bit $`\tau `$ of the total network is the product of the three bits of the hidden units

$`\tau ^A`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _1^A\sigma _2^A\sigma _3^A`$ (14)
$`\tau ^B`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _1^B\sigma _2^B\sigma _3^B`$ (15)
At each training step the two machines $`A`$ and $`B`$ receive identical input vectors $`\underset{¯}{x}_1,\underset{¯}{x}_2,\underset{¯}{x}_3`$. The training algorithm is the following: Only if the two output bits are identical, $`\tau ^A=\tau ^B`$, the weights can be changed. In this case, only the hidden unit $`\sigma _i`$ which is identical to $`\tau `$ changes its weights using the Hebbian rule

$$\underset{¯}{w}_i^A(t+1)=\underset{¯}{w}_i^A(t)\underset{¯}{x}_i\tau ^A$$
(16)
For example, if $`\tau ^A=\tau ^B=1`$ there are four possible configurations of the hidden units in each network:

$`(+1,+1,+1),(+1,1,1),(1,+1,+1),(1,1,+1)`$

In the first case, all three weight vectors $`\underset{¯}{w}_i,\underset{¯}{w}_2,\underset{¯}{w}_3`$ are changed, in all other three cases only one weight vector is changed. The partner as well as any opponent does not know which one of the weight vectors is updated.

The partners $`A`$ and $`B`$ react to their mutual stop and move signals $`\tau ^A`$ and $`\tau ^B`$, whereas an opponent can only receive these signals but not influence the partners with its own output bit. This is the essential mechanism which allows synchronization but prohibits learning. Numerical KaKiKa  as well as analytical RoKaKi  calculations of the dynamic process show that the partners can synchronize in a short time whereas an opponent needs a much longer time to lock into the partners.

This observation holds for an observer who uses the same algorithm (16) as the two partners $`A`$ and $`B`$. Note that the observer knows 1. the algorithm of $`A`$ and $`B`$, 2. the input vectors $`\underset{¯}{x}_1,\underset{¯}{x}_2,\underset{¯}{x}_3`$ at each time step and 3. the output bits $`\tau ^A`$ and $`\tau ^B`$ at each time step. Nevertheless, he does not succeed in synchronizing with $`A`$ and $`B`$ within the communication period.

Since for each run the two partners draw random initial weights and since the input vectors are random, one obtains a distribution of synchronization times as shown in Fig. 4 for $`N=100`$ and $`L=3`$. The average value of this distribution is shown as a function of system size $`N`$ in Fig. 5. Even an infinitely large network needs only a finite number of exchanged bits - about 400 in this case - to synchronize, in agreement with the analytical calculation for $`N\mathrm{}`$.

If the communication continues after synchronization, an opponent has a chance to lock into the moving weights of $`A`$ and $`B`$. Fig. 6 shows the distribution of the ratio between the synchronization time of $`A`$ and $`B`$ and the learning time of the opponent. In our simulations, for $`N=100`$, this ratio never exceeded the value $`r=0.1`$, and the average learning time is about 50000 time steps, much larger than the synchronization time. Hence, the two partners can take their weights $`\underset{¯}{w}_i^A(t)=\underset{¯}{w}_i^B(t)`$ at a time step $`t`$ where synchronization most probably occurred as a common secret key. Synchronization of neural networks can be used as a key exchange protocol over a public channel.

## 5 Conclusions

Interacting neural networks have been calculated analytically. At each training step two networks receive a common random input vector and learn their mutual output bits. A new phenomenon has been observed: Synchronization by mutual learning. If the learning rate $`\eta `$ is large enough, and if the weight vectors keep normalized, then the two networks relax to an antiparallel orientation. Their weight vectors still move like a random walk on a hypersphere, but each network has complete knowledge about its partner.

It has been shown how this phenomenon can be used for cryptography. The two partners can agree on a common secret key over a public channel. An opponent who is recording the public exchange of training examples cannot obtain full information about the secrete key used for encryption.

This works if the two partners use multilayer networks, parity machines. The opponent has all the informations (except the initial weight vectors) of the two partners and uses the same algorithms. Nevertheless he does not synchronize.

This phenomenon may be used as a key exchange protocol. The two partners select secret initial weight vectors, agree on a public sequence of input vectors and exchange public bits. After a few steps they have identical weight vectors which are used for a secret encryption key. For each communication they agree on a new secret key, without having stored any secret information before. In contrast to number theoretical methods the networks are very fast; essentially they are linear filters, the complexity to generate a key of length $`N`$ scales with $`N`$ (for sequential update of the weights).

Of course, one cannot rule out that algorithms for the opponent may be constructed which find the key in much shorter time. In fact, ensembles of opponents have a better chance to synchronize. In addition, one can show that, given the information of the opponent, the key is uniquely determined, and, given the sequence of inputs, the number of keys is huge but finite, even in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ Ur . These may be good news for a possible attacker. However, recently we have found advanced algorithms for synchronization, too. Such variations are subjects of active research, and future will show whether the security of neural network cryptography can compete with number theoretical methods.

Acknowledgments: This work profitted from enjoyable collaborations with Richard Metzler and Michal Rosen-Zvi. We thank the German Israel Science Foundation (GIF) and the Minerva Center of the Bar-Ilan University for support.


text:
# Stochastic gauges in quantum dynamics for many-body simulations

## 1 Introduction

One of the oldest problems in quantum physics is also conceptually the simplest. How does one calculate the quantum dynamical time evolution of many-body or strongly interacting systems? In this paper, we will treat some recent progress towards solving this problem. This uses a novel technique of stochastic gauge fields. We will focus here on a relatively simple example, which allows us to compare numerical results with an exact solution. The present results show dramatic improvements in sampling error compared to the previous positive-P  distribution methods.

The chief difficulty in many-body quantum dynamics, is that the relevant Hilbert space of all but the most trivial cases is typically enormous. For example, the formation of a small Bose-Einstein condensate  may easily involve $`N=1000`$ atoms with $`M=1000`$ modes, giving $`10^{600}`$ participating quantum states. Similar problems also occur in the static calculation of many-body ground states and thermal equilibrium ensembles. These problems have been solved by the use of methods called quantum Monte-Carlo techniques . It is noteworthy that the difficulty of a large Hilbert space is exactly the same in both the dynamic and static calculations. Thus, we have to conclude that dimensionality is not an insuperable barrier.

The main technique treated here is a class of stochastic methods which sample the Hilbert space, rather than storing every element of a quantum dynamical problem. Provided sampling errors can be controlled, there is no reason why stochastic methods shouldn’t be used for quantum dynamics, just as they are in QMC  methods used for calculating ground-state or thermal equilibrium properties. We present methods that are a great improvement on the previously used positive-P simulation method , which is most useful for open systems coupled to damping reservoirs. In comparison to an earlier approach of modifying the noise terms dynamically , we focus on methods that allow the drift terms responsible for the deterministic evolution, to be changed.

The approach used here is to expand the quantum density matrix using non-orthogonal coherent state projection operators, together with a phase term. This allows a choice of time-evolution equations to be made in a way that minimizes the phase-oscillations that would otherwise occur in a direct path-integral approach, while still preventing the phase-space oscillations that can occur in the positive-P method.

## 2 The anharmonic oscillator: a tractable model system

A very successful method for time-domain simulations of damped quantum systems is the positive P-representation used in quantum optics. In this method, the quantum state is expanded using non-orthogonal coherent states. This allows multi-boson and multi-mode interacting quantum systems to be simulated as stochastic processes in the time-domain. These methods have been applied to quantum solitons , BEC phase fluctuations , and to the theory of evaporative cooling  — where the theory correctly reproduces the formation of a BEC, as observed in experiment .

However, the positive P-representation usually has large sampling errors for times after the BEC has condensed. This is typical for this method, which is most effective for open systems coupled to reservoirs. For this reason, the remainder of the research presented here has been into methods of minimizing the sampling error for a very simplified, one-mode version of the BEC Hamiltonian:

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a})^2.$$
(1)
Here $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ is the creation operator for a single mode of the boson field, with a positive scattering length constant. The exact solutions for some observables can be found directly for this simple case, which is clearly very helpful while investigating errors. We will focus on the evolution of the Y-quadrature observable: $`\widehat{Y}(t)=[\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^{}]/(2i)`$, given an initial coherent state.

## 3 Hermitian P-distribution

The positive-P expansion of the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ uses a kernel of non-Hermitian coherent-state projection operators. Instead, consider a P-like distribution with a Hermitian kernel:

$$\widehat{\rho }=P(\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\beta },\theta ,t)\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^gd^{2N}\stackrel{}{\alpha }d^{2N}\stackrel{}{\beta }𝑑\theta ,$$
(2)
with kernel:

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\theta }||\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{\beta }||+\text{h.c.},`$
$`e^g`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]=2e^{n_r}\mathrm{cos}(\theta +n_i).`$ (3)
Here, $`||\stackrel{}{\alpha }=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha _i\widehat{a}_i^{})|0`$ is an un-normalized coherent state, $`\theta `$ is a real variable representing a quantum phase, and $`n=n_r+in_i=\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{\beta }^{}`$. Any state can be represented with a positive hermitian P-distribution, and expectation values of an observable like $`\widehat{Y}`$ can be calculated according to averages over $`P`$. For example, in the one-mode case, if the initial condition is a coherent state with $`\widehat{\rho }=||\stackrel{}{\alpha _0}\stackrel{}{\alpha _0}||`$, then we expect that:

$`\widehat{Y}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}[\widehat{Y}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]/\text{Tr}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]_{\text{traj.}}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\text{Im}\left(\alpha _0\mathrm{exp}\left[|\alpha _0|^2(e^{it}1)it/2\right]\right).`$
## 4 Stochastic gauges

Let us now apply the hermitian P-distribution to the case of the anharmonic oscillator. The master equation is

$$\frac{\widehat{\rho }}{t}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[\widehat{H},\widehat{\rho }].$$
(5)
The next step is to note that there are a number of operator identities between terms in the Hamiltonian and differential operations on the kernel. The ones of interest for this system are

$$\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\left(\alpha \frac{}{\alpha }+\beta \frac{}{\beta }\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(6)
and its adjoint. By using this identity, it is possible to transform the operator equation into a corresponding Fokker-Planck equation for $`P`$. First, we change to the more convenient variables $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ defined by:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha & =& \mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{1i}{2}\right)\varphi \right],\hfill \\ \beta & =& \mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{1i}{2}\right)\psi \right].\hfill \end{array}$$

To take advantage of the new phase variable $`\theta `$, consider that the hermitian P-distribution kernel $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ also obeys a number of additional differential identities in $`\theta `$. In particular:

$`F\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\varphi _r\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi _i}}\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{F}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\psi _r\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\psi _i}}\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0,`$
$`E^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\theta ^2}}+1\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (7)
Since these are equal to zero, any multiple of them can be added to the master equation with no effect, so we have multiplied them by the completely arbitrary functions $`F,\overline{F},E^2`$, which can be dependent on $`\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\psi ,\psi ^{},\theta `$ and $`t`$. In the Fokker-Planck equation formalism, these become correspondences for zero. For example, defining $`T=\mathrm{tan}(\theta +n_i)`$ we have:

$$0\left[\frac{}{\theta }2T+\frac{^2}{\theta ^2}\right](E^2P).$$
(8)
These correspondences can be added in any amount without disturbing the dynamics, as long as the boundary terms from partial integration vanish . We now wish to convert the Fokker-Planck equation to stochastic Langevin equations. To do this, the diffusion must be positive, and hence we choose: $`E^2=F^2+\overline{F}^2`$. It is convenient to define $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\theta +n_i`$, and to introduce the functions $`G(F)`$ and $`\overline{G}(\overline{F}):`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}G& =& F+\frac{1}{2}[n_in_r];\hfill \\ \overline{G}& =& \overline{F}+\frac{1}{2}[n_i+n_r].\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
When these are zero the equations are identical to those obtained using the positive P-distribution. Converting the differential equation in $`P`$ to Ito stochastic equations, we obtain:

$`d\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\left[n(1i)2G(T+i)\right]dt+\sqrt{2}dW,`$
$`d\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\left[n^{}(1i)2\overline{G}(Ti)\right]dt+\sqrt{2}d\overline{W},`$ (10)
$`d\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`2T\left[G^2+\overline{G}^2\right]dt+\sqrt{2}\left(\overline{G}d\overline{W}GdW\right).`$
The noises $`dW`$ and $`d\overline{W}`$ are random, Gaussian, mutually uncorrelated, and uncorrelated for different times, with variance $`dW(t)dW(t)=dt`$.

## 5 Anharmonic oscillator with stochastic gauges

Since $`G`$ and $`\overline{G}`$ are *completely arbitrary*, they can be used to tailor the equations to our liking, without changing the final results. This is akin to what is done with electromagnetic gauges, which is why we refer to the $`G`$’s as itstochastic gauges. A suitable gauge, with a free parameter $`\mu `$ is as follows:

$`G={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}[n_in_r+|\alpha |^2],`$
$`\overline{G}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}[n_i+n_r|\beta |^2].`$ (11)
The results of simulating the one-mode anharmonic oscillator with this gauge (with two different values of $`\mu `$) are shown in Fig. 1, together with the positive P results. It can be seen that the sampling error in the quadratures has been contained and reduced by *over twenty orders of magnitude!*

Closer inspection of Fig. 1, reveals that the simulated expectation value of the $`\widehat{Y}`$ quadrature, does not quite match the analytically predicted value for $`\mu =1`$ for large times. This systematic error is due to non-vanishing boundary terms in the $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ variable, making the change from master to Fokker-Planck equations inexact. The discrepancy can be reduced by using the optimized gauge with $`\mu =0.01`$, given by the solid line, although the sampling error increases. It is clear that further investigation into the trade-offs between reducing sampling error and reducing boundary term error is required.

## 6 Final Comments

The successful control and immense reduction of sampling error in the above one-mode example gives us confidence that the sampling error in the many-mode calculation can also be reduced using this method, and BEC’s can be simulated after the point of condensation reached in . The particular realization of the stochastic gauge idea discussed above is aimed toward the simulation of a BEC. However the approach is quite general, and may also be fruitful for simulations of many-mode higher dimensional bosonic systems.