text:
# Baryons in Partially-Quenched Chiral Perturbation Theory

## 1 Introduction

The motivation for including baryons into partially-quenched QCD (PQQCD), or more specifically partially-quenched chiral perturbation theory (PQ$`\chi `$PT), is clear. One wishes to take partially-quenched (PQ) lattice simulations of observables of interest that in the foreseeable future will be performed with quark masses that are heavier than those of nature, and make rigorous predictions for these observables in QCD. The way that such predictions will be made is to use PQ lattice simulations to “match” onto a PQ effective field theory (PQEFT), and then use the explicit quark mass dependence of the PQEFT to make predictions at the physical values of the light quark masses, i.e. the coefficients of the local operators in the PQEFT will be determined from the PQ lattice simulations.

### 1.1 Quenching and Partial-Quenching

Ideally, all lattice simulation would be unquenched and the quarks would have their physical masses. At some point in the future this will happen, but at this point in time and for the foreseeable future such simulations will not be possible, simply due to the lack of computing power. It is the quark loops that are disconnected from external sources (the quark determinant), participating through gluons alone, that are the most time consuming to simulate as they scale as a relatively high power of the inverse quark mass. In contrast, simulation of quark loops that are coupled to the external sources is much less time consuming. In quenched QCD (QQCD) , the quark determinant is set equal to unity, and thus the time-expensive disconnected quark loops are discarded, allowing for relatively rapid simulation at relatively light quark masses. From a formal standpoint, the quenched simulations correspond to introducing an equal mass “ghost” fermion for each light quark, so that disconnected loop contributions from the light quarks and the ghosts exactly cancel. Thus the $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ chiral symmetry of QCD is extended to $`SU(2|2)_LSU(2|2)_R\times U(1)`$. There is no formal limit in which quenched simulations can be used to make rigorous predictions about QCD 111However, it has recently been noted that QQCD in the large-$`N_C`$ limit is identical to QCD in the large-$`N_C`$ limit .. The discovery of PQQCD  was a major step forward in this regard. In addition to the ghosts that are added in QQCD, additional quarks are added to partially unquench the simulation, increasing the flavor symmetry of the theory to $`SU(4|2)_LSU(4|2)_RU(1)`$. These additional “sea”-quarks participate in the disconnected loop diagrams, but if they are heavier than the “valence”-quarks they require less time to simulate. In the limit that the mass of the sea-quarks become equal to those of the valence-quarks (and ghosts) the matrix elements of PQQCD between physical states become equal to those of QCD. Thus one can make QCD predictions from PQQCD.

In order to describe the low-momentum dynamics and the light-quark mass dependence of the low-lying hadrons in QCD one, of course, uses an EFT, such as $`\chi `$PT in the meson sector and heavy baryon $`\chi `$PT (HB$`\chi `$PT) in the single baryon sector. In extending the theory to PQQCD one has to extend $`\chi `$PT to PQ$`\chi `$PT. This allow one to determine the contributions that are non-analytic in external momentum and $`m_q`$, and also to parameterize short-distance physics in the local operators that enter order-by-order in the expansion. As it is presently quite difficult to isolate the non-analytic contributions from the analytic ones in lattice simulations due to the relatively large values of $`m_q`$ that can be simulated, knowledge of the low-energy EFT is vital. The lattice simulations are used to determine the values of counterterms that appear at any given order in the EFT. Thus, PQ simulations will be used to fix counterterms in PQ$`\chi `$PT, which can then be used, to make QCD predictions as the $`m_q`$-dependence is explicit. Such determinations are beginning to be performed in the meson sector  .

## 2 Baryons in PQ$`\chi `$PT

Baryon properties in quenched $`\chi `$PT (Q$`\chi `$PT) have been studied somewhat during the past six years, starting with the seminal paper by Labrenz and Sharpe . The representations of the baryons are extended from those of ordinary lie-groups to those of graded lie-groups, $`SU(3)`$ to $`SU(3|3)`$ for three-flavor flavor QCD and from $`SU(2)`$ to $`SU(2|2)`$ for two-flavor QCD, so that the tools developed for HB$`\chi `$PT can be used directly in PQHB$`\chi `$PT. In the quenched theory, the octet-baryon masses , magnetic moments  and the matrix elements of isovector twist-2 operators  have been studied at the one-loop level in the chiral expansion.

Including baryons in PQ$`\chi `$PT is similar to including them into Q$`\chi `$PT . One constructs the irreducible representations of the graded lie-group, which for two-flavors is $`SU(4|2)`$, and assigns baryon fields, just as one does in QCD and QQCD. The 70 dimensional representation of baryons that contains the nucleons is described by a tensor of the form $`_{ijk}`$, where $`i,j,k`$ run from $`1`$ to $`6`$ (we have dropped the Dirac index). To determine the particle assignment it is particularly simple to use the interpolating fields discussed by Labrenz and Sharpe,

$`\left[Q_i^{\alpha ,a}Q_j^{\beta ,b}Q_k^{\gamma ,c}Q_i^{\alpha ,a}Q_j^{\gamma ,c}Q_k^{\beta ,b}\right]ϵ_{abc}\left(C\gamma _5\right)_{\alpha \beta }`$ (1)
for the representation containing the nucleons. The objects $`Q_i`$ are quark field operators that include the valence, sea and ghost quarks. $`C`$ is the charge conjugation operator, $`a,b,c`$ are color indices and $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ are Dirac indices. The interpolating field for the 44 dimensional representation that contains the $`3/2`$-baryon resonances, $`𝒯_{ijk}`$ (we have dropped lorentz and Dirac indices), is

$`\left[Q_i^{\alpha ,a}Q_j^{\beta ,b}Q_k^{\gamma ,c}+\mathrm{cyclic}\right]\epsilon _{abc}(C\gamma ^\mu )_{\beta \gamma }.`$ (2)
One finds that under the interchange of flavor indices ,

$`_{ijk}=()^{1+\eta _j\eta _k}_{ikj}`$ (3)
$`_{ijk}+()^{1+\eta _i\eta _j}_{jik}+`$
$`()^{1+\eta _i\eta _j+\eta _j\eta _k+\eta _k\eta _i}_{kji}=0`$
$`𝒯_{ijk}=()^{1+\eta _i\eta _j}𝒯_{jik}=()^{1+\eta _j\eta _k}𝒯_{ikj}.`$
with $`\eta _k=+1`$ for $`k=1,2,3,4`$ and $`\eta _k=0`$ for $`k=5,6`$.

The only baryons that appear as intermediate states in one-loop diagrams involve either three valence quarks, or two valence quarks and one ghost quark, or two valence quarks and one sea quark. Thus we only need to determine the location of these baryons in the tensors $``$ and $`𝒯`$. It turns out to be convenient to classify the baryons according to how they transform under $`SU(2)_{\mathrm{valence}}SU(2)_{\mathrm{sea}}SU(2)_{\mathrm{ghost}}`$, and it is straightforward to show that for the 70 one needs to include fields $`N_a`$, $`{}_{a}{}^{}t`$, $`{}_{a}{}^{}s_{bc}^{}`$, $`{}_{a}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{t}`$ and $`{}_{a}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{s}_{bc}^{}`$ that transform as $`(2,1,1)`$, $`(1,2,1)`$, $`(3,2,1)`$, $`(1,1,2)`$ and $`(3,1,2)`$ respectively. For the 44, one introduces fields $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{abc}`$, $`{}_{a}{}^{}x_{bc}^{}`$ and $`{}_{a}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{x}_{bc}^{}`$ that transform as $`(4,1,1)`$, $`(3,2,1)`$ and $`(3,1,2)`$ respectively. For the three-flavor case the octet of baryons are part of a 240 dimensional irrep of $`SU(6|3)`$ while the decuplet of baryon resonances are part of a 138 dimensional irrep.

It is straightforward to construct the lagrange density describing the baryons and their interactions with the pseudo-Goldstone bosons associated with the spontaneous breaking of $`SU(4|2)_LSU(4|2)_R`$ down to $`SU(4|2)_V`$. Thus the loop expansion for the low-energy properties of the nucleons in PQ$`\chi `$PT is the same as that in $`\chi `$PT except that the number of particles that can participate in loops is much larger, and one needs to keep track of minus signs associated with the loops involving fermionic mesons.

Calculations of several observables at the one-loop level, both in two- and three-flavor PQ$`\chi `$PT, have recently been completed, in addition to a tree-level analysis of the nucleon-nucleon (NN) potential. A summary of what presently exists can be seen in Table 1. In the two-flavor calculations, both the valence- and sea-quarks are non-degenerate, while in the three-flavor calculations the two light-quarks are taken to be degenerate (both valence and sea) while the strange quark is non-degenerate in both, i.e. $`2+1`$.

Instead of detailing each of these calculations, I wish to focus on a few aspects and observables that are somewhat out of the ordinary. For further details of the mainstream observables, such as the masses, magnetic moments and so forth I refer the reader to the appropriate papers.

### 2.1 The Nucleon-Nucleon Potential

In QCD it is well established that one pion exchange (OPE) gives the dominant contribution to the long-distance component of the NN (NN) potential. OPE yields a NN potential that is Yukawa potential at large-distances, falling like $`e^{m_\pi r}/r`$ and also provides a $`1/r^3`$ short-distance tensor contribution that mixes $`S`$-wave and $`D`$-waves.

Efforts have been made to explore the interactions between nucleons on the lattice by determining their scattering lengths. However, this is exceptionally challenging due to the fact that the scattering lengths are unnaturally large, $`6\mathrm{fm}`$ in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ coupled channels and $`24\mathrm{fm}`$ in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channel. What’s more the simulations have been performed in QQCD  and currently no unquenched or PQ calculations exist (for a recent discussion see Ref. ).

In both QQCD and PQQCD the long-distance component of the NN potential is very different to that in QCD. The hairpin interaction that gives rise to a double pole in the iso-singlet propagator, that in QQCD is proportional to $`M_0^2`$, and in PQQCD is proportional to $`m_{vv}^2m_{ss}^2`$ and vanishes in the QCD limit, provides the dominant contribution to the long-distance component of the NN potential . In the isospin limit, the $`SU(2)`$ singlet ($`\eta `$, distinct from the $`SU(4|2)`$ singlet) propagator has the form

$`G_{\eta \eta }(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{i(m_{ss}^2m_{vv}^2)}{(q^2m_{vv}^2+iϵ)^2}},`$ (4)
where $`v=u=d`$ denotes valence-quarks and $`s=j=l`$ denotes sea-quarks. The mass $`m_{vv}`$ denotes the mass of a meson containing two valence-quarks, and $`m_{sv}`$ denotes the mass of a meson containing one valence-quark and one sea-quark. Fourier transforming the momentum-space NN potential gives

$`V^{(PQ)}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _1\sigma _2}{8\pi f^2}}e^{m_\pi r}`$ (5)
$`\left(g_A^2{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _1\tau _2}{r}}g_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(m_{\eta _j}^2m_\pi ^2\right)}{2m_\pi }}\right),`$
which does not exhibit Yukawa type fall off at large distance but rather falls exponentially. Therefore, unfortunately, efforts to observe the long-distance behavior of the NN interaction in QQCD and PQQCD will need to subtract this large contribution.

### 2.2 Charges

When one considers processes involving electroweak gauge fields, there is an additional freedom in charge assignments that is not present in QCD. One requires that QCD is recovered in the limit where the mass of the sea-quarks become identical to the mass of the valence quarks, and thus the electromagnetic charge matrix in QCD, $`𝒬^{\mathrm{QCD}}=\mathrm{diag}(+\frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{3})`$, is extended to $`𝒬=\mathrm{diag}(+\frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{3},q_j,q_l,q_j,q_l)`$ in PQQCD. The charges $`q_j`$, $`q_l`$ are arbitrary, and in the QCD limit, observables become independent of them. However, away from the QCD limit quantities do depend upon them, and it may be useful to make specific choices for particular observables. For instance, choosing $`q_j=q_l=0`$ means that disconnected loops coupling to a photon involve only valence-quarks, while choosing $`q_j=+\frac{2}{3}`$ and $`q_l=\frac{1}{3}`$ means that disconnected loops coupling to a photon involve only sea-quarks. Thus, numerically, there may be some advantage in choosing the latter set of charges over the former, but this remains to be explored. In addition, there are sets of charges that minimize the contribution from one-loop diagrams in PQ$`\chi `$PT. As higher orders are parametrically suppressed, this will lead to the smallest variation in the matrix element with respect to changes in $`m_q`$.

The non-uniqueness in the extension of electroweak operators from QCD to PQQCD is not confined to the electric charges. It is also present for the twist-2 operators , and for four-quark operators, such as those responsible for $`K\pi \pi `$  and for $`NN\pi `$ parity-violation .

### 2.3 Proton Magnetic Moment

As an example of a calculation in PQ$`\chi `$PT, we discuss the proton magnetic moment, $`\mu _p`$, up to order $`𝒪(m_Q^{1/2})`$ in the chiral expansion. The leading order contributions to the nucleon magnetic moment arise from the dimension-5 operators

$`^{(5)}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{4M_N}}F_{\mu \nu }[\mu _\alpha \left(\overline{}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }𝒬\right)`$ (6)
$`+\mu _\beta \left(\overline{}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }𝒬\right)+\mu _\gamma \left(\overline{}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\right)\mathrm{str}𝒬],`$
where the brackets $`(..)`$ denote contractions of the flavor indices as discussed in Ref. , and “$`\mathrm{str}`$” denotes a supertrace. At tree-level, the coefficients $`\mu _\alpha ,\mu _\beta `$ and $`\mu _\gamma `$ are related to the isoscalar, $`\mu _0`$, and isovector, $`\mu _1`$, magnetic moments of the nucleon,

$`\mu _0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(\mu _\alpha +\mu _\beta +2\mu _\gamma \right)`$
$`\mu _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(2\mu _\alpha \mu _\beta \right).`$ (7)
Up to $`𝒪(m_Q^{1/2})`$, the magnetic moment of the proton can be written as

$$\mu _p=\alpha _p+\frac{M_N}{4\pi f^2}\left[\beta _p+\beta _p^{}\right]+\mathrm{},$$
(8)
where

$`\alpha _p=\mu _0+\mu _1`$ (9)
$`\beta _p=g_A^2m_{vv}`$
$`+\left(m_{sv}m_{vv}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}g_A^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}g_Ag_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}g_1^2\right]`$
$`+q_{jl}\left(m_{sv}m_{vv}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}g_A^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_Ag_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}g_1^2\right]`$
$`\beta _p^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{27}}g_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^2\left[6_{vv}+q_{jl}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\left(_{vv}_{sv}\right)\right],`$
with $`q_{jl}=q_j+q_l`$. The function $`_{ij}=(m_{ij},\mathrm{\Delta },\mu )`$ is given by

$`\pi =\eta \mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }{\mathrm{\Delta }+\eta }}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}}\right),`$ (10)
where $`\eta =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2m^2+iϵ}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-nucleon mass splitting in the chiral limit, and $`\mu `$ is the dimensional regularization renormalization scale. $`g_A`$ is the usual axial coupling constant, while $`g_1`$ is an additional axial coupling that contributes in PQ$`\chi `$PT, but whose contribution must vanish in the QCD limit. $`g_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi `$ coupling constant.

There are two distinct contributions from the loop diagrams away from the QCD limit. One is a contribution that is independent of the choice of charges that vanishes like $`m_{sv}m_{vv}`$, while the other also vanishes like $`m_{sv}m_{vv}`$ but depends upon the choice of charges of the sea- and ghost-quarks. Therefore, one is able to find sets of charges for which the one-loop contribution to the proton magnetic moment from intermediate states in the 70 vanish, however, due to the non-trivial mass-dependences arising from intermediate states in the 44, the one-loop contributions cannot be eliminated entirely.

### 2.4 $`NN\pi `$ Parity Violation

While flavor-changing parity-violating (PV) interactions are well understood theoretically and a great deal of precise data exists, knowledge of flavor-conserving parity-violation is rather primitive. Flavor-conserving parity-violation continues to be an area of intense investigation in the nuclear physics community. Its study is presently serving both to uncover the structure of the nucleon in electron-scattering experiments such as SAMPLE, and to determine PV flavor-conserving couplings between pions and nucleons. The problems that are encountered in this sector are both experimental and theoretical. On the experimental side, the PV signals, unlike those in flavor-changing processes, appear as small deviations in either a strong or an electromagnetic process, such as PV in $`epep`$, or in the circular polarization of the $`\gamma `$-ray emitted in $`{}_{}{}^{18}F_{}^{}^{18}F\gamma `$ . The current situation is somewhat confused by the fact that measurements of parity-violation in atoms and nuclei do not give rise to a consistent set of couplings between hadrons . However, it is important to keep in mind that many of the “experimental” determinations of these couplings require theoretical inputs with varying degrees of reliability. Recently, it has been reemphasized that measurements of PV observables in the single-nucleon sector would significantly ameliorate the situation by eliminating many-body uncertainties . Despite the inherent difficulty of such experiments, there are ongoing efforts to measure PV processes in systems with only one or two nucleons, such as the angular-asymmetry in $`\stackrel{}{n}pd\gamma `$ . Such measurements should provide a reliable determination of the leading-order (LO), momentum-independent weak $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant, $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$.

On the theoretical side, despite heroic efforts to model  hadronic matrix elements of the four-quark operators that appear in the low-energy effective theory of the standard model, there are no reliable calculations of the PV couplings between hadrons. A first principles calculation of $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$ in lattice QCD would therefore be extremely welcome. This would require a lattice QCD simulation of a correlator with three hadronic sources interacting via a four-quark operator. Unfortunately, chiral symmetry does not allow one to relate the $`\pi NN`$ correlator to a correlator without the pion. On the bright side, the structure of the four-quark weak Hamiltonian requires a flavor change in the nucleon and therefore there are no disconnected diagrams to be computed on the lattice.

The extraction of $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$ from $`NN\pi `$ requires an injection of energy at the PV weak vertex which can occur because the weak operator is inserted on one time-slice only. Therefore, we must include contributions from operators that are total derivatives, which usually vanish. Recently, chiral perturbation theory has been used to describe $`K\pi \pi `$ with the kinematics appropriate for a lattice determination of the matrix elements of the relevant four-quark operators, $`m_K^{\mathrm{latt}}=m_\pi ^{\mathrm{latt}}`$ and $`m_K^{\mathrm{latt}}=2m_\pi ^{\mathrm{latt}}`$, including the necessary total derivative terms . In QCD, the LO Lagrange density describing PV interactions is given by

$`_{\mathrm{wk}}=h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{4}}\overline{N}\left[X_L^3X_R^3\right]N`$ (11)
$`h_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{4}}\overline{T}^{abc,\mu }\left[X_L^3X_R^3\right]_c^dT_{abd,\mu }`$
$`i\pi ^{}[h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}\overline{n}p+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(1)}}{\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{+\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^{++}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2h_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(1)}}{3}}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{0\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^++{\displaystyle \frac{h_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(1)}}{\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^0]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$
while the Lagrange density at NLO is (keeping only nucleon operators)

$`_{\mathrm{wk}}^{(NLO)}={\displaystyle \frac{h_D^{(1)}}{4}}ivD\overline{N}\left[X_L^3X_R^3\right]N,`$ (12)
where $`v^\mu `$ is the nucleon four-velocity. This is the leading contribution from a heavy baryon reduction of $`iD^\mu \overline{N}\gamma _\mu \left[X_L^3X_R^3\right]N`$. Given baryon number conservation, the total derivative gives a non-zero contribution from the energy and momentum injected by the $`X_L^3X_R^3`$ insertion. Working in the frame where the initial state nucleon (proton) is at rest, $`v^\mu =(1,0,0,0)`$, the amplitude at NLO resulting from eq. (2.4) and eq. (12) is

$`𝒜_{\overline{n}p\pi }=n\pi |i{\displaystyle d^3𝐱^{\mathrm{\Delta }I=1}(E)}|p`$
$`=\overline{U}_n\left[h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}+h_D^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{f}}\right]U_p.`$ (13)
where $`E`$ is the energy injected by the weak vertex. In order to produce an on-shell $`n\pi `$ final state, the injected energy must exceed $`Em_\pi +M_nM_p`$. Near threshold, where the final state neutron and pion are at rest and $`E=m_\pi +M_nM_p`$, the contribution from the total-derivative operator, $`h_D^{(1)}`$, scales as $`m_q^{1/2}`$, and is formally dominant over loop corrections and counterterms .

## 3 Conclusions

Lattice simulations will first make rigorous predictions about observables by matching onto the appropriate EFT and using its explicit quark mass dependence to extrapolate from the lattice quark masses to those of nature. Therefore the EFT’s must be known, which is the case in the meson sector and single baryon sector. However more work is required in the multi-nucleon sector to be sure that the candidate theory  (for a review see Ref. ), in fact, is consistent and converges. PQ simulations represent the future of this field until fully unquenched calculations can be performed at the physical values of the light quark masses, and in this work we have made the small step of including baryons in PQQCD. We have constructed PQ$`\chi `$PT and shown that there are some interesting features beyond QCD. This field is just beginning and calculations beyond one-loop level are certainly required in order to understand the convergence properties of PQ$`\chi `$PT and the uncertainties introduced in chiral extrapolations.

I am indebted to my colleagues, Silas Beane and Jiunn-Wei Chen, my collaborators on these works.


format: text

text:
# A prime geodesic theorem for higher rank spaces

## 1 The Lefschetz formula

In this section we prove a Lefschetz formula for higher rank groups. We give a more general version then actually needed in section 2, as we allow twists by nontrivial $`M`$-representations $`\sigma `$ (see below).

Let $`G`$ be a connected semisimple Lie group with finite center and choose a maximal compact subgroup $`K`$ with Cartan involution $`\theta `$, i.e., $`K`$ is the group of fixed points of $`\theta `$. Let $`P`$ be a minimal parabolic subgroup with Langlands decomposition $`P=MAN`$. Modulo conjugation we can assume that $`A`$ and $`M`$ are stable under $`\theta `$. Then $`A`$ is a maximal split torus of $`G`$ and $`M`$ is a subgroup of $`K`$. The centralizer of $`A`$ is $`AM`$. Let $`W(A,G)`$ be the *Weyl group* of $`A`$, i.e. $`W`$ is the quotient of the normalizer of $`A`$ by the centralizer. This is a finite group acting on $`A`$.

We have to fix Haar measures. We use the normalization of Harish-Chandra . Note that this normalization depends on the choice of an invariant bilinear form $`B`$ on $`𝔤_{}`$ which we keep at our disposal until later. Changing $`B`$ amounts to scaling the metric of the symmetric space. Note further that in this normalization of Haar measures the compact groups $`K`$ and $`M`$ have volume $`1`$.

We write $`𝔤_{},𝔨_{},𝔞_{},𝔪_{},𝔫_{}`$ for the real Lie algebras of $`G,K,A,M,N`$ and $`𝔤,𝔨,𝔞,𝔪,𝔫`$ for their complexifications. $`U(𝔤)`$ is the universal enveloping algebra of $`𝔤`$. This algebra is isomorphic to the algebra of all left invariant differential operators on $`G`$ with complex coefficients. Pick a Cartan subalgebra $`𝔱`$ of $`𝔪`$. Then $`𝔥=𝔞𝔱`$ is a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$. Let $`W(𝔥,𝔤)`$ be the corresponding absolute Weyl group.

Let $`𝔞^{}`$ denote the dual space of the complex vector space $`𝔞`$. Let $`𝔞_{}^{}`$ be the real dual of $`𝔞_{}`$. We identify $`𝔞_{}^{}`$ with the real vector space of all $`\lambda 𝔞^{}`$ that map $`𝔞_{}`$ to $``$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }𝔞^{}`$ be the set of all roots of the pair $`(𝔞,𝔤)`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ be the subset of positive roots with respect to $`P`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ be the set of simple roots. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a basis of $`𝔞^{}`$. The open negative Weyl chamber $`𝔞_{}^{}𝔞_{}`$ is the cone of all $`X𝔞_{}`$ with $`\alpha (X)<0`$ for every $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let $`\overline{𝔞_{}^{}}`$ be the closure of $`𝔞_{}^{}`$. The $`W(A,G)`$-translates $`w𝔞_{}^{}`$ of $`𝔞_{}^{}`$ are pairwise disjoint and their union equals $`𝔞_{}`$ minus a finite number of hyperplanes. This is called the *regular set*,

$$𝔞_{}^{reg}\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{def}}\\ ^=\end{array}\underset{wW(A,G)}{}w𝔞_{}^{}.$$

Let $`A^{reg}=\mathrm{exp}\left(𝔞_{}^{reg}\right)`$ be the regular set in $`A`$. The elements are called the regular elements of $`A`$. A given $`aA`$ lies in $`A^{reg}`$ if and only if the centralizer of $`a`$ in $`G`$ equals the centralizer of $`A`$ in $`G`$ which is $`AM`$.

The bilinear form $`B`$ is indefinite on $`𝔤_{}`$, but the form

$$X,Y\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{def}}\\ ^=\end{array}B(X,\theta (Y))$$

is positive definite, ie an inner product on $`𝔤_{}`$. We extend it to an inner product on the complexification $`𝔤`$. Let $`X=\sqrt{X,X}`$ be the corresponding norm. The form $`B`$, being nondegenerate, identifies $`𝔤`$ to its dual space $`𝔤^{}`$. In this way we also define an inner product $`.,.`$ and the corresponding norm on $`𝔤^{}`$. Furthermore, if $`V𝔤`$ is any subspace on which $`B`$ is nondegenerate, then $`B`$ gives an identification of $`V^{}`$ with $`V`$ and so one gets an inner product and a norm on $`V^{}`$. This in particular applies to $`V=𝔥`$, a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$, which is defines over $``$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }G`$ be a discrete, cocompact, torsion-free subgroup. We are interested in the closed geodesics on the locally symmetric space $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash X=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G/K`$. Every such geodesic $`c`$ lifts to a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-orbit of geodesics on $`X`$ and gives a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-conjugacy class $`[\gamma _c]`$ of elements closing the particular geodesics. This induces a bijection between the set of all homotopy classes of closed geodesics in $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the set of all non-trivial conjugacy classes in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

An element $`am`$ of $`AM`$ is called split regular if $`a`$ is regular in $`A`$. An element $`\gamma `$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called split regular if $`\gamma `$ is in $`G`$ conjugate to a split regular element $`a_\gamma m_\gamma `$ of $`AM`$. In that case we may (and do) assume that $`a_\gamma `$ lies in the negative Weyl chamber $`A^{}=\mathrm{exp}(𝔞_{}^{})`$ in $`A`$. Let $`(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ denote the set of all conjugacy classes in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that consist of split regular elements. Via the above correspondence the set $`(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ can be identified with the set of all homotopy classes of regular closed geodesics in $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, .

Let $`[\gamma ](\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. There is a closed geodesic $`c`$ in the Riemannian manifold $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G/K`$ which gets closed by $`\gamma `$. This means that there is a lift $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ to the universal covering $`G/K`$ which is preserved by $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$ acts on $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ by a translation. The closed geodesic $`c`$ is not unique in general but lies in a unique maximal flat submanifold $`F_\gamma `$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G/K`$. Let $`\lambda _\gamma `$ be the volume of that flat,

$$\lambda _\gamma \begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{def}}\\ ^=\end{array}\mathrm{vol}(F_\gamma ).$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma `$ and $`G_\gamma `$ denote the centralizers of $`\gamma `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`G`$ respectively. The flat $`F_\gamma `$ is the image of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma \backslash G_\gamma /K_\gamma `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G/K`$, where we assume that $`K`$ is chosen so that $`K_\gamma =G_\gamma K`$ is a maximal compact subgroup of $`G_\gamma `$. In Harish-Chandra’s normalization $`G_\gamma `$ is equipped with the Haar measure that satisfies $`_{G_\gamma }=_{G_\gamma /K_\gamma }_{K_\gamma }`$, where $`K_\gamma `$ has the Haar measure with $`\mathrm{vol}(K_\gamma )=1`$ and $`G_\gamma /K_\gamma `$ gets the measure induced by the metric of $`G/K`$. Therefore

$$\lambda _\gamma =\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma \backslash G_\gamma /K_\gamma )=\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma \backslash G_\gamma ).$$

Note that for not maximally split elements $`\gamma `$ the relation between $`\lambda _\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma \backslash G_\gamma )`$ is more complicated .

Let $`𝔫`$ denote the complexified Lie algebra of $`N`$. For any $`𝔫`$-module $`V`$ let $`H_q(𝔫,V)`$ and $`H^q(𝔫,V)`$ for $`q=0,\mathrm{},dim𝔫`$ be the Lie algebra homology and cohomology . Let $`\widehat{G}`$ denote the unitary dual of $`G`$, i.e., the set of isomorphism classes of irreducible unitary representations of $`G`$. For $`\pi \widehat{G}`$ let $`\pi _K`$ be the $`(𝔤,K)`$-module of $`K`$-finite vectors. If $`\pi \widehat{G}`$, then $`H_q(𝔫,\pi _K)`$ and $`H^q(𝔫,\pi _K)`$ are finite dimensional $`AM`$-modules . Note that they a priori only are $`(𝔞𝔪,M)`$-modules, but since $`A`$ is isomorphic to its Lie algebra they are $`AM`$-modules.

Note that $`AM`$ acts on the Lie algebra $`𝔫`$ of $`N`$ by the adjoint representation. Let $`[\gamma ](\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Since $`a_\gamma A^{}`$ it follows that every eigenvalue of $`a_\gamma m_\gamma `$ on $`𝔫`$ is of absolute value $`<1`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{det}(1a_\gamma m_\gamma |𝔫)0`$.

For $`[\gamma ](\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ let

$$\mathrm{ind}(\gamma )=\frac{\lambda _\gamma }{\mathrm{det}(1a_\gamma m_\gamma 𝔫)}>0.$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is cocompact, the unitary $`G`$-representation on $`L^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G)`$ splits discretely with finite multiplicities

$$L^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G)=\underset{\pi \widehat{G}}{}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )\pi ,$$

where $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )`$ is a non-negative integer and $`\widehat{G}`$ is the unitary dual of $`G`$. Fix a finite dimensional irreducible representation $`\sigma `$ of $`M`$ and denote by $`\stackrel{˘}{\sigma }`$ the dual representation. A quasi-character of $`A`$ is a continuous group homomorphism to $`^\times `$. Via differentiation the set of quasi-characters can be identified with the dual space $`𝔞^{}`$. For $`\lambda 𝔞^{}`$ we write $`aa^\lambda `$ for the corresponding quasicharacter on $`A`$. We denote by $`\rho 𝔞^{}`$ the modular shift with respect to $`P`$, i.e., for $`aA`$ we have $`\mathrm{det}(a|𝔫)=a^{2\rho }`$.

For a complex vector space $`V`$ on which $`A`$ acts linearly and $`\lambda 𝔞^{}`$ let $`(V)_\lambda `$ denote the generalized $`(\lambda +\rho )`$-eigenspace, i.e.,

$$(V)_\lambda =\{vV(aa^{\lambda +\rho }Id)^nv=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}n\}.$$

Since $`H^p(𝔫,\pi _K)`$ is finite dimensional, the Jordan Normal Form Theorem implies that

$$H^p(𝔫,\pi _K)=\underset{\nu 𝔞^{}}{}H^p(𝔫,\pi _k)_\nu .$$

Let $`T`$ be a Cartan subgroup of $`M`$ and let $`𝔱`$ be its complex Lie algebra. Then $`AT`$ is a Cartan subgroup of $`G`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi (𝔞𝔱)^{}`$ be a representative of the infinitesimal character of $`\pi `$. By Corollary 3.32 of  it follows,

$$H_p(𝔫,\pi _K)=\underset{\nu =w\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi |_𝔞}{}H_p(𝔫,\pi _K)_\nu ,$$

where $`w`$ ranges over $`W(𝔤,𝔥)`$.

###### Lemma 1.1

For $`0pd=dim(𝔫)`$ we have

$$H_p(𝔫,\pi _K)H^{dp}(𝔫,\pi _K)\mathrm{det}(𝔫),$$

where the determinant of a finite dimensional space is the top exterior power. So $`\mathrm{det}(𝔫)`$ is a one dimensional $`AM`$-module on which $`AM`$ acts via the quasi-character $`am\mathrm{det}(am|𝔫)=a^{2\rho }`$. This in particular implies

$$H^p(𝔫,\pi _K)=\underset{\nu =w\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi |_𝔞}{}H^p(𝔫,\pi _K)_{\nu 2\rho }.$$

Proof: The first part follows straight from the definition of Lie algebra cohomology. The second part by Corollary 3.32 of .  $`\mathrm{}`$

For $`\lambda 𝔞^{}`$ and $`\pi \widehat{G}`$ let

$$m_\lambda ^\sigma (\pi )=\underset{q=0}{\overset{dim𝔫}{}}(1)^{q+dim𝔫}dim\left(H^q(𝔫,\pi _K)_\lambda \stackrel{˘}{\sigma }\right)^M,$$

where the superscript $`M`$ indicates the subspace of $`M`$-invariants. Then $`m_\lambda ^\sigma (\pi )`$ is an integer and by the above, the set of $`\lambda `$ for which $`m_\lambda ^\sigma (\pi )0`$ for a given $`\pi `$ has at most $`|W(𝔤,𝔥)|`$ many elements.

For $`\mu 𝔞^{}`$ and $`j`$ let $`𝒞^{j,\mu ,}(A)`$ denote the space of functions $`\phi `$ on $`A`$ which

* are $`j`$-times continuously differentiable on $`A`$,
* are zero outside $`A^{}`$,
* are such that $`a^\mu D\phi (a)`$ is bounded on $`A`$ for every invariant differential operator $`D`$ on $`A`$ of degree $`j`$.

For every invariant differential operator $`D`$ of degree $`j`$ let $`N_D(\phi )=sup_{aA}\left|a^\mu D\phi (a)\right|`$. Then $`N_D`$ is a seminorm. Let $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_n`$ be a basis of the space of invariant differential operators of degree $`j`$, then $`N(\phi )=_{j=1}^nN_{D_j}(\phi )`$ is a norm that makes $`𝒞^{j,\mu ,}(A)`$ into a Banach space. A different choice of basis will give an equivalent norm.

###### Theorem 1.2

(Lefschetz Formula)
There exists $`j`$ and $`\mu 𝔞^{}`$ such that for any $`\phi 𝒞^{j,\mu ,}(A)`$ we have

$$\underset{\pi \widehat{G}}{}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )\underset{\lambda 𝔞^{}}{}m_\lambda ^\sigma (\pi )_A^{}\phi (a)a^{\lambda +\rho }𝑑a=\underset{[\gamma ](\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}\mathrm{ind}(\gamma )\mathrm{tr}\sigma (m_\gamma )\phi (a_\gamma ),$$

where all sums and integrals converge absolutely. The inner sum on the left is always finite, more precisely it has length $`|W(𝔥,𝔤)|`$. The left hand side is called the *global side* and the other the *local side* of the Lefschetz Formula. Both sides of the formula give a continuous linear functional on the Banach space $`𝒞^{j,\mu ,}(A)`$.

Proof: The Selberg trace formula  says that for a compactly supported function $`f`$ on $`G`$ that is $`(dimG+1)`$-times continuously differentiable one has

$$\underset{\pi \widehat{G}}{}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )\mathrm{tr}\pi (f)=\underset{[\gamma ]}{}\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma \backslash G_\gamma )𝒪_\gamma (f),$$

where the sum on the right hand side runs over the conjugacy classes of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`𝒪_\gamma (f)`$ is the orbital integral $`𝒪_\gamma (f)=_{G/G_\gamma }f(x\gamma x^1)𝑑x`$. We need to extend the trace formula beyond compactly supported functions.

For $`d`$ let $`𝒞^{2d}(G)`$ be the space of all functions $`f`$ on $`G`$ which are $`2d`$-times continuously differentiable and satisfy $`DfL^1(G)`$ for every $`DU(𝔤)`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}D2d`$.

###### Lemma 1.3

Let $`d>\frac{dimG}{2}`$ and let $`f𝒞^{2d}(G)`$. Then the trace formula is valid for $`f`$.

Proof: In  Lemma 2.6 the lemma is proven in the following two cases:

1. $`f0`$, or
2. the geometric side of the trace formula converges with $`f`$ replaced by $`|f|`$.

Now let $`f`$ be arbitrary. First there is $`\stackrel{~}{f}𝒞^{2d}(G)`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{f}|f|`$. To construct such a function one proceeds as follows. First choose a smooth function $`b:[0,\mathrm{})`$ with $`b(x)=|x|`$ for $`|x|1`$ and $`b(x)|x|`$ for every $`x`$. Next let $`b(\epsilon ,x)=\epsilon b(x/\epsilon )`$ for $`\epsilon >0`$. Choose a function $`h𝒞^{2d}(G)`$ with $`0<h(x)1`$ and let $`\stackrel{~}{f}(x)=b(h(x),f(x))`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{f}𝒞^{2d}(G)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}|f|`$. By (a) the trace formula is valid for $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$, hence the geometric side converges for $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$, so it converges for $`|f|`$, so, by (b) the trace formula is valid for $`f`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

We now take $`j`$ and $`\mu 𝔞^{}`$ and keep these at our disposal. We let $`\phi 𝒞^{j,\mu ,}(A)`$ and we construct a test function $`f`$ which has the following orbital integrals for semisimple $`yG`$. If $`y`$ is not conjugate to an element of $`A^{}M`$, then $`𝒪_y(f)=0`$. For $`amA^{}M`$ one has

$$𝒪_{am}(f)=\frac{\mathrm{tr}\sigma (m)}{\mathrm{det}(1am𝔫)}\phi (a).$$

The construction of such a function $`f`$ is rather straightforward. One chooses a function $`\eta C_c^{\mathrm{}}(N)`$ with $`\eta 0`$ and $`_N\eta (n)𝑑n=1`$. Then one sets

$$f(knam(kn)^1)=\eta (n)\mathrm{tr}\sigma (m)\frac{\phi (a)}{\mathrm{det}(1am𝔫)},$$

for $`amA^{}M`$, $`kK`$ and $`nN`$; further, one sets $`f(x)=0`$ if $`f`$ is not conjugate to an element of $`A^{}M`$. We have to show that $`f`$ is well defined. This follows from the next lemma.

###### Lemma 1.4

Let $`am,a^{}m^{}A^{}M`$ and $`xG`$ suppose that $`a^{}m^{}=xamx^1`$. Then $`a=a^{}`$ and $`xAM`$.

Proof: Every eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{Ad}(am)`$ on $`𝔫`$ is less than $`1`$ in absolute value. The space $`𝔫`$ is the maximal subspace of $`𝔤`$ with this property. The same holds for $`am`$ replaced by $`a^{}m^{}`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{Ad}(x)`$ must preserve $`𝔫`$ and so $`x`$ lies in the normalizer of $`𝔫`$ which is $`P=NMA`$. Suppose $`x=nm_1a_1`$ and write $`\widehat{m}=m_1mm_1^1`$. Then $`xamx^1=na\widehat{m}n^1=a\widehat{m}((a\widehat{m})^1na\widehat{m})n^1.`$ Since this lies in $`A^{}M`$ and $`AMN=\{1\}`$ we infer that $`(a\widehat{m})^1na\widehat{m}=n`$, which implies that $`n=1`$. The lemma follows.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`d`$. We will show that for $`\mathrm{Re}(\mu )`$ and $`j`$ sufficiently large the function $`f`$ lies in $`𝒞^{2d}(G)`$.

Note that the factor $`1/\mathrm{det}(1am𝔫)`$ has a pole at $`am=1`$ of order equal to the dimension of $`𝔫`$. To make this more precise let $`r=dimA`$ and let $`\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _r`$ be the simple roots of $`(A,P)`$. There are $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_r`$ such that $`2\rho =q_1\beta _1+\mathrm{}+q_r\beta _r`$. Define coordinates $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_r`$ on $`A`$ by $`a_j=\beta _j(\mathrm{log}a)`$. Then $`a`$ lies in $`A^{}`$ if an only if the coordinates $`a_j`$ are all $`>0`$. The function on $`A`$ given by $`a\frac{a_1^{q_1}\mathrm{}a_r^{q_r}}{\mathrm{det}(1am|𝔫)}`$ extends continously to the boundary of $`A^{}`$, and the $`q_j`$ are minimal with this property. So, if we assume $`j>dim𝔫`$, the function $`f`$ will on $`AM`$ be $`(j1dim𝔫)`$-times continuously differentiable. To investigate the differentiability on $`G`$ we need to look at the conjugation map.

Consider the map

$$\begin{array}{cccc}F:& K\times N\times M\times A& & G\\ & (k,n,m,a)& & knam(kn)^1.\end{array}$$

Then $`f`$ is a $`j1dim(𝔫)`$-times continuously differentiable function on $`K\times N\times M\times A`$ which factors over $`F`$. To compute the order of differentiability as a function on $`G`$ we have to take into count the zeroes of the differential of $`F`$. So we compute the differential $`F_{}`$ of $`F`$ which we view as a map on tangent spaces. Let at first $`X𝔨`$, then

$$F_{}(X)f(knam(kn)^1)=\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}f(k\mathrm{exp}(tX)namn^1\mathrm{exp}(tX)k^1),$$

which implies the equality

$$F_{}(X)_x=(\mathrm{Ad}(k)(\mathrm{Ad}(n(am)^1n^1)1)X)_x,$$

when $`x`$ equals $`knam(kn)^1`$. Similarly for $`X𝔫`$ we get that

$$F_{}(X)_x=(\mathrm{Ad}(kn)(\mathrm{Ad}((am)^1)1)X)_x$$

and for $`X𝔞𝔪`$ we finally have $`F_{}(X)_x=(\mathrm{Ad}(kn)X)_x`$. From this it becomes clear that $`F`$, regular on $`K\times N\times M\times A^{}`$, may on the boundary have vanishing differential of order $`dim(𝔫)+dim(𝔨)`$. Together we get that $`f`$ is $`(j12dim𝔫dim𝔨)`$-times continuously differentiable on $`G`$. So we assume $`j2dim(𝔫)+dim(𝔨)+1`$ from now on. In order to show that $`f`$ goes into the trace formula for $`\mathrm{Re}(\mu )`$ and $`j`$ large we fix $`d>\frac{dimG}{2}`$. We have to show that $`DfL^1(G)`$ for any $`DU(𝔤)`$ of degree $`2d`$. For this we recall the map $`F`$ and our computation of its differential. Let $`𝔮𝔨`$ be a complementary space to $`𝔨_M`$. On the regular set $`F_{}`$ is surjective and it becomes bijective on $`𝔮𝔫𝔞𝔪`$. Fix $`x=knam(kn)^1`$ in the regular set and let $`F_{,x}^1`$ denote the inverse map of $`F_{,x}`$ which maps to $`𝔮𝔫𝔞𝔪`$. Introducing norms on the Lie algebras we get an operator norm for $`F_{,x}^1`$ and the above calculations show that $`F_{,x}^1P(am)`$, where $`P`$ is a class function on $`AM`$, which, restricted to any Cartan $`H=AB`$ of $`AM`$ is a linear combination of quasi-characters. Supposing $`j`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}(\mu )`$ large enough we get for $`DU(𝔤)`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}(D)2d`$:

$$|Df(knam(kn)^1)|\underset{D_1}{}P_{D_1}(am)|D_1f(k,n,a,m)|,$$

where the sum runs over a finite set of $`D_1U(𝔨𝔫𝔞𝔪)`$ of degree $`2d`$ and $`P_{D_1}`$ is a function of the type of $`P`$. On the right hand side we have considered $`f`$ as a function on $`K\times N\times A\times M`$. This discussion uses the facts that $`K`$ is compact, $`N`$ is unipotent, and $`\mathrm{det}\left(\mathrm{Ad}(n(am)^1n^1)1\right)=\mathrm{det}\left(\mathrm{Ad}(am)^11\right)`$. Finiteness of the sum in the inequality above follows from the Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt Theorem.

It follows that if $`j,\mathrm{Re}(\mu )>>0`$ then $`(D_1f)PP_{D_1}`$ lies in $`L^1(K\times N\times A\times M)`$ for any $`D_1`$. We have proven that the trace formula is valid for $`f`$.

We plug this test function into the trace formula and we claim that the result is precisely the Lefschetz formula. To start with the geometric side recall that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, being cocompact, only contains semisimple elements and that the orbital integrals over $`f`$ vanish except for $`[\gamma ](\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, where we get

$$𝒪_\gamma (f)=\frac{\mathrm{tr}\sigma (m_\gamma )}{\mathrm{det}(1a_\gamma m_\gamma 𝔫)}\phi (a_\gamma ).$$

For $`[\gamma ](\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ we have $`\lambda _\gamma =\mathrm{vol}(G_\gamma /\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma )`$. So we see that

$$\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma \backslash G_\gamma )𝒪_\gamma (f)=\mathrm{ind}(\gamma )\mathrm{tr}\sigma (m_\gamma )\phi (a_\gamma ),$$

which means that the geometric side of the trace formula is the local side of the local side of the Lefschetz formula.

To compute the spectral side of the trace formula let $`\pi \widehat{G}`$. Harish-Chandra showed that there is a locally integrable function $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi ^G`$ on $`G`$, called the global character of $`\pi `$, such that $`\mathrm{tr}\pi (h)=_Gh(x)\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi ^G(x)𝑑x`$ for every $`hC_c^{\mathrm{}}`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi ^G`$ is invariant under conjugation. Hecht and Schmid have shown in  that for $`amA^{}M`$,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi ^G=\frac{_{q=0}^{dim𝔫}(1)^q\mathrm{\Theta }_{H_q(𝔫,\pi _K)}^{AM}(am)}{\mathrm{det}(1am𝔫)},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{AM}`$ is the corresponding global character on the group $`AM`$.

Let $`gL^1(G)`$ be supported in the set $`\{xamx^1|amA^{}M,xG\}`$. Then, as a consequence of the Weyl integration formula or by direct proof one gets that $`_Gg(x)𝑑x`$ equals

$$_{KN}_{A^{}M}g(knam(kn)^1)|\mathrm{det}(1am|𝔫\overline{𝔫})|dadmdkdn.$$

We apply this to $`g(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi ^G(x)f(x)`$ to get

$`\mathrm{tr}\pi (f)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _B}\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi ^G(x)f(x)𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{A^{}M}}\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi ^G(am)\mathrm{tr}\sigma (m)\phi (a)|\mathrm{det}(1am|\overline{𝔫})|dadm.`$
Using the result of Hecht and Schmid we see that this equals

$$_{A^{}M}\mathrm{tr}\sigma (m)\phi (a)\underset{p=0}{\overset{dim𝔫}{}}(1)^p\mathrm{\Theta }_{H_p(𝔫.\pi _K)}^{AM}(am)\frac{|\mathrm{det}(1am|\overline{𝔫})|}{\mathrm{det}(1am|𝔫)}dadm.$$

For $`amA^{}M`$ we have

$`|\mathrm{det}(1am|\overline{𝔫})|`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{dim𝔫}\mathrm{det}(1am|\overline{𝔫})`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{dim𝔫}a^{2\rho }det(a^1m|\overline{𝔫})`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{dim𝔫}a^{2\rho }det((am)^11|\overline{𝔫})`$
$`=`$ $`a^{2\rho }det(1(am)^1|\overline{𝔫})`$
$`=`$ $`a^{2\rho }det(1am|𝔫)`$
So that

$$\mathrm{tr}\pi (f)=_{A^{}M}\mathrm{tr}\sigma (m_\gamma )\underset{p=0}{\overset{dim𝔫}{}}(1)^p\mathrm{\Theta }_{H_p(𝔫,\pi _K)}^{AM}(am)a^{2\rho }\phi (a)dadm.$$

Lemma 1.1 implies

$$\underset{p=0}{\overset{dim𝔫}{}}(1)^p\mathrm{\Theta }_{H_p(𝔫,\pi _K)}^{AM}(am)a^{2\rho }=\underset{p=0}{\overset{dim𝔫}{}}(1)^{p+dim𝔫}\mathrm{\Theta }_{H^p(𝔫,\pi _K)}^{AM}(am).$$

And so

$`\mathrm{tr}\pi (f)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{A^{}M}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{dim𝔫}{}}}(1)^{p+dim𝔫}\mathrm{\Theta }_{H^p(𝔫,\pi _K)}^{AM}(am)\phi (a)\mathrm{tr}\sigma (m)dadm`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda 𝔞^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{dim𝔫}{}}}(1)^{p+dim𝔫}dim(H^p(𝔫,\pi _K)_\lambda \stackrel{˘}{\sigma })^M{\displaystyle _A^{}}a^{\lambda +\rho }\phi (a)𝑑a.`$
the convergence of the trace formula implies that for given $`\lambda 𝔞^{}`$ the number

$$N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )\underset{p=0}{\overset{dim𝔫}{}}(1)^{p+dim𝔫}dim(H^p(𝔫,\pi _K)_\lambda \stackrel{˘}{\sigma })^M$$

is nonzero only for finitely many $`\pi \widehat{G}`$. Thus the spectral side of the trace formula gives the global side of the Lefschetz formula which therefore is proven. The continuity also follows from the proof.  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 2 The Dirichlet series

Let $`r=dimA`$ and for $`k=1,\mathrm{},r`$ let $`\alpha _k`$ be a positive real multiple of a simple root of $`(A,P)`$ such that the modular shift $`\rho `$ satisfies

$$2\rho =\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _r.$$

This defines $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _r`$ uniquely up to order. We fix a Haar measure (i.e., a form $`B`$) such that the subset of A,

$$\{aA0\alpha _k(\mathrm{log}a)1,k=1,\mathrm{},r\}$$

has volume $`1`$.

For $`aA`$ and $`k=1,\mathrm{}r`$ let $`l_k(a)=|\alpha _k(\mathrm{log}a)|`$ and $`l(a)=l_1(a)\mathrm{}l_r(a)`$. For $`s=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_r)^r`$ and $`j`$ define

$$L^j(s)=\underset{[\gamma ](\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}\mathrm{ind}(\gamma )l(a_\gamma )^{j+1}a_\gamma ^{s\alpha },$$

where $`s\alpha =s_1\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+s_r\alpha _r`$. We will show that this series converges if $`\mathrm{Re}(s_k)>1`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},r`$. Let $`D`$ denote the differential operator

$$D=(1)^r\left(\frac{}{s_1}\mathrm{}\frac{}{s_r}\right).$$

Let $`\widehat{G}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ denote the set of all $`\pi \widehat{G}`$, $`\pi triv`$ with $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )0`$. For given $`\pi \widehat{G}`$ let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\pi )`$ denote the set of all $`\lambda 𝔞^{}`$ with $`m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )0`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\pi )`$ has at most $`|W(𝔥,𝔤)|`$ elements.

Let $`\lambda 𝔞^{}`$. Since $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _r`$ is a basis of $`𝔞^{}`$ we can write $`\lambda =\lambda _1\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _r\alpha _r`$ for uniquely determined $`\lambda _k`$.

Let $`R_k(s)`$, $`k`$ be a sequence of rational functions on $`^r`$. For an open set $`U^r`$ let $`(U)`$ be the set of natural numbers $`k`$ such that the pole-divisor of $`R_k`$ does not intersect $`U`$. We say that the series

$$\underset{k}{}R_k(s)$$

*converges weakly locally uniformly on* $`^r`$ if for every open $`U^r`$ the series

$$\underset{k(U)}{}R_k(s)$$

converges locally uniformly on $`U`$.

###### Theorem 2.1

For $`j`$ large enough the series $`L^j(s)`$ converges locally uniformly in the set

$$\{s:\mathrm{Re}(s_k)>1,k=1,\mathrm{},r\}.$$

The function $`L^j(s)`$ can be written as Mittag-Leffler series,

$`L^j(s)`$ $`=`$ $`D^{j+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(s_11)\mathrm{}(s_r1)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \widehat{G}(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ){\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }(\pi )}{}}m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )D^{j+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(s_1+\lambda _1)\mathrm{}(s_r+\lambda _r)}}.`$
The double series converges weakly locally uniformly on $`^r`$. For $`\pi triv`$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }(\pi )`$ we have $`\mathrm{Re}(\lambda _k)1`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},r`$ and there is $`k\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$ with $`\mathrm{Re}(\lambda _k)>1`$. So in particular, the double series converges locally uniformly on $`\{\mathrm{Re}(s_k)>1\}`$.

The proof will occupy the rest of this section. We will show that the series $`L^j(s)`$ converges if the real parts $`\mathrm{Re}(s_k)`$ are sufficiently large for $`k=1,\mathrm{},r`$. Since $`L^j(s)`$ is a Dirichlet series with positive coefficients, the convergence in the set $`\{\mathrm{Re}(s_k)>1\}`$ will follow, once we have established holomorphy there. This holomorphy will in turn follow from the convergence of the Mittag-Leffler series.

Let

$$𝔞_{}^{,+}=\{\lambda _1\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _r\alpha _r\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r>0\}$$

be the dual positive cone. Let $`\overline{𝔞_{}^{,+}}`$ be the closure of $`𝔞_{}^{,+}`$ in $`𝔞_{}^{}`$.

###### Proposition 2.2

Let $`\pi \widehat{G}`$, $`\lambda 𝔞^{}`$ with $`m_\lambda (\pi )0`$. Then $`\mathrm{Re}(\lambda )`$ lies in the set

$$C=3\rho +\overline{𝔞_{}^{,+}}.$$

For $`\pi \widehat{G}`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}(\lambda )=3\rho `$ we have $`m_\lambda (\pi )=0`$ unless $`\pi `$ is the trivial representation and $`\lambda =3\rho `$ in which case $`m_\lambda (\pi )=1`$.

Proof: We introduce a partial order on $`𝔞^{}`$ by

| $`\mu >\nu `$ | $``$ | $`\mu \nu `$ is a linear combination, |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | with positive integral coefficients, of roots in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$. |

###### Lemma 2.3

Let $`p`$, let $`\pi \widehat{G}`$ and $`\mu 𝔞^{}`$ such that $`H_p(𝔫,\pi _K)_\mu 0`$. Then there exists $`\nu 𝔞^{}`$ with $`\nu <\mu `$ and $`H_0(𝔫,\pi _K)_\nu 0`$.

Equivalently, if $`0p<d=dim(𝔫)`$ and $`H^p(𝔫,\pi _K)_\mu 0`$, then there exists $`\eta 𝔞^{}`$ with $`\eta <\mu `$ and $`H^d(𝔫,\pi _K)_\eta 0`$.

Proof: The first assertion is a weak version of Proposition 2.32 in  and the second follows from the first and Lemma 1.1.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 4.25 of  states that the set of $`\nu 𝔞^{}`$ with $`H_0(𝔫,\pi _K)_\nu 0`$ which are minimal with respect to $`<`$ are precisely the leading exponents of the asymptotic of matrix coefficients of $`\pi `$. Since $`\pi `$ is unitary, its matrix coefficients are bounded and thus its leading coefficients in the normalization of Theorem 4.16 of  all lie in the set $`\rho +\overline{𝔞_{}^{,+}}`$. Now Lemma 2.3 and Lemma 1.1 imply the first statement of Proposition 2.2.

It remains to consider the case $`\mathrm{Re}(\lambda )=3\rho `$. So let $`\lambda =3\rho +i\mu `$ for $`\mu 𝔞_{}^{}`$. Using the definition of Lie algebra homology it is easy to show that $`m_{3\rho }(triv)=1`$. Let $`\pi \widehat{G}`$ and assume that $`H^{}(𝔫,\pi _K)_{3\rho +i\mu }^M0`$. The claim will follow, if we show that this implies $`\pi =triv`$.

Since $`H^{}(𝔫,\pi _K)H_{}(𝔫,\pi _K)^{top}𝔫`$ we find that our condition is equivalent to $`H_{}(𝔫,\pi _K)_{\rho +i\mu }0`$.

Let $`\xi `$ be an irreducible representation of $`M`$ and let $`\nu 𝔞^{}`$. let $`\pi _{\xi ,\nu }`$ be the induced principal series representation. Recall that if $`\mathrm{Re}(\nu )𝔞_{}^{,+}`$, then $`\pi _{\xi ,\nu }`$ has a unique irreducible quotient, its Langlands quotient. The representation dual to $`\pi _{\xi ,\nu }`$ is $`\pi _{\stackrel{˘}{\xi },\nu }`$, where $`\stackrel{˘}{\xi }`$ is the dual to $`\xi `$. Therefore $`\pi _{\stackrel{˘}{\xi },\nu }`$ has a unique irreducible subrepresentation. Replacing $`\xi `$ by $`\stackrel{˘}{\xi }`$ and $`\nu `$ by $`\nu `$ it follows that for $`\mathrm{Re}(\nu )𝔞_{}^{,+}`$ the principal series representation $`\pi _{\xi ,\nu }`$ has a unique irreducible subrepresentation, namely the dual of the Langlands quotient of $`\pi _{\stackrel{˘}{\xi },\nu }`$.

Frobenius reciprocity says that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_G(\pi ,\pi _{\xi ,\nu })\mathrm{Hom}_{AM}(H_0(𝔫,\pi _K),\xi (\nu +\rho )).$$

So in particular,

$$\mathrm{Hom}_G(\pi ,\pi _{1,\nu })\mathrm{Hom}_A(H_0(𝔫,\pi _K)^M,\nu +\rho ).$$

If $`H_p(𝔫,\pi _K)_{\rho +i\mu }^M0`$ for some $`p>0`$ then by Schmid’s vanishing result it follows that $`\pi `$ must have a leading coefficient with real part $`<3\rho `$ which we already have ruled out. So it follows that $`H_0(𝔫,\pi _K)_{\rho +i\mu }^M0`$ and hence $`\mathrm{Hom}_G(\pi ,\pi _{1,\rho +i\mu })0`$. None of the representations $`\pi _{1,\rho +i\mu }`$, however, has a unitary subrepresentation, except for $`\mu =0`$.

The representation $`\pi _{1,\rho }`$ has a unique irreducible subrepresentation which is the trivial representation. This implies $`\pi =triv`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

For $`aA`$ set

$$\phi (a)=l(a)^{j+1}a^{s\alpha }.$$

For $`\mathrm{Re}(s_k)>>0`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},r`$ the Lefschetz formula is valid for this test function. The local side of the Lefschetz formula for $`\sigma =triv`$ equals

$$\underset{[\gamma ](\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}\mathrm{ind}(\gamma )l(a_\gamma )^{j+1}a_\gamma ^{s\alpha }=L^j(s).$$

The convergence assertion in the Lefschetz formula implies that the series converges absolutely if $`\mathrm{Re}(s_k)`$ is sufficiently large for every $`k=1,\mathrm{}r`$. Since $`L^j(s)`$ is a Dirichlet series with positive coefficients it will converge locally uniformly for $`s`$ in some open set. We will show that it extends to a holomorphic function in the set $`\mathrm{Re}(s_k)>1`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},r`$. Again, since it is a Dirichlet series with positive coefficients it must therefore converge in that region.

With our given test function and the Haar measure chosen we compute

$`{\displaystyle _A^{}}\phi (a)a^\lambda 𝑑a`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{r(j+1)}{\displaystyle _A^{}}(\alpha _1(\mathrm{log}a)\mathrm{}\alpha _r(\mathrm{log}a))^{j+1}a^{s\alpha +\lambda }𝑑a`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{r(j+1)}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left(t_1\mathrm{}t_r\right)^{j+1}e^{((s_1+\lambda _1)t_1+\mathrm{}+(s_r+\lambda _r)t_r)}𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_r`$
$`=`$ $`D^{j+1}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{((s_1+\lambda _1)t_1+\mathrm{}+(s_r+\lambda _r)t_r)}𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_r`$
$`=`$ $`D^{j+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(s_1+\lambda _1)\mathrm{}(s_r+\lambda _r)}}.`$
Writing $`m_\lambda =m_\lambda ^{triv}`$ and performing a $`\rho `$-shift we see that the Lefschetz formula gives

$`L^j(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \widehat{G}}{}}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ){\displaystyle \underset{\lambda 𝔞^{}}{}}m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )D^{j+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(s_1+\lambda _1)\mathrm{}(s_r+\lambda _r)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \widehat{G}}{}}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ){\displaystyle \underset{\lambda 𝔞^{}}{}}m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{((j+1)!)^r}{(s_1+\lambda _1)^{j+2}\mathrm{}(s_r+\lambda _r)^{j+2}}}`$
for $`\mathrm{Re}(s_k)>>0`$. For every $`\pi \widehat{G}`$ we fix a representative $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi (𝔞+𝔱)^{}`$ of the infinitesimal character of $`\pi `$. According to Lemma 1.1, if $`m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )0`$, then $`\lambda w\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi |_𝔞\rho `$ for some $`wW(𝔥,𝔤)`$. By abuse of notation we will write $`w\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ instead of $`w\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi |_𝔞`$. Hence we get

$$L^j(s)=\underset{\pi \widehat{G}}{}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )\underset{wW(𝔥,𝔤)}{}m_{w\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi 2\rho }(\pi )D^{j+1}\frac{1}{(s_1+\lambda _1)\mathrm{}(s_r+\lambda _r)}.$$

For $`\lambda 𝔞^{}`$ let $`\lambda `$ be the norm given by the form $`B`$ as explained in the beginning of section 1.

###### Proposition 2.4

There are $`m`$, $`C>0`$ such that for every $`\pi \widehat{G}`$ and every $`\lambda 𝔞^{}`$ one has

$$|m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )|C(1+\lambda )^m.$$

Proof: Recall from the first section that for $`aA^{}`$,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda 𝔞}{}}m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )a^\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{dim𝔫}{}}}(1)^p\mathrm{\Theta }_{H^p(𝔫,\pi _K)}^{AM}(am)dm`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{dim𝔫}a^{2\rho }{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}(1)^p\mathrm{\Theta }_{H_p(𝔫,\pi _K)}^{AM}(am)dm`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{dim𝔫}a^{2\rho }{\displaystyle _M}\mathrm{det}(1am|𝔫)\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi ^G(am)𝑑m`$
Choose a set of positive roots $`\varphi ^+(𝔱,𝔪)\varphi (𝔱,𝔪)`$ compatible to the choice of $`P`$. Let $`\rho _M=\frac{1}{2}_{\alpha \varphi ^+(𝔱,𝔪)}\alpha `$. For $`tT`$ set

$$D_T(t)\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{def}}\\ ^=\end{array}t^{\rho _M}\underset{\alpha \varphi ^+(𝔱,𝔪)}{}(1t^\alpha ).$$

This is the Weyl denominator for $`T`$. The Weyl integral formula gives

$$\underset{\lambda 𝔞^{}}{}m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )a^\lambda =_{T^reg}(1)^{dim𝔫}a^{2\rho }\mathrm{det}(1am|𝔫)|D_T(t)|^2\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi ^G(at)𝑑t.$$

The function $`(1)^{dim𝔫}a^{2\rho }\mathrm{det}(1am|𝔫)D_T(t)`$ equals the Weyl denominator for $`H=AT`$. By Theorems 10.35 and 10.48 of  there are constants $`c_w`$, $`wW(𝔥,𝔤)`$ such that

$$(1)^{dim𝔫}a^{2\rho }\mathrm{det}(1am|𝔫)D_T(t)\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi ^G(at)=\underset{wW(𝔥𝔤)}{}c_w(at)^{w\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi }.$$

We thus have proved the following Lemma.

###### Lemma 2.5

For $`aA^{}`$,

$$\underset{\lambda 𝔞^{}}{}m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )a^\lambda =\underset{wW(𝔥,𝔤)}{}c_wa^{w\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi }_{T^{reg}}t^{w\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi \rho _M}\underset{\alpha \varphi ^+(𝔱,𝔪)}{}(1t^\alpha )dt.$$

Proposition 2.4 will follow from explicit formulae for the global character $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi ^G`$ (see below) which give bounds on the $`c_w`$. Another remarkable consequence of Lemma 2.5 is the fact that there is a finite set $`E𝔱^{}`$ such that whenever $`m_{\lambda \rho }(\lambda )0`$ for some $`\lambda 𝔞^{}`$ it follows $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi |_𝔱E`$. Hence Proposition 2.4 will follow from the estimate

$$|m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )|C(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi )^m.$$

In  Harish-Chandra gives an explicit formula for characters of discrete series representations which imply the sharper estimate $`|m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )|C`$ for the discrete series representations. From Harish-Chandra’s paper a similar formula can be deduced for limit of discrete series representations. Alternatively, one can use Zuckerman tensoring (Prop. 10.44 of ) to deduce the estimate for limits of discrete series representations. Next, if $`\pi =\pi _{\sigma ,\nu }`$ is induced from some parabolic $`P_1=M_1A_1N_1`$, then the character of $`\pi `$ can be computed from the character of $`\sigma `$ and $`\nu `$, see formula (10.27) in . From this it follows that the claim holds for standard representations, i.e. admissible representations which are induced from discrete series or limit of discrete series representations.

###### Lemma 2.6

There are natural numbers $`n,m`$ and a constant $`d>0`$ such that for every $`\pi \widehat{G}`$ there are standard representations $`\pi _1,\mathrm{},\pi _n`$ and integers $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_n`$ with

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi =\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_k\mathrm{\Theta }_{\pi _k}$$

and $`|c_k|d(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^m)`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

Proof: By the Langlands classification, $`\pi `$ is a quotient $`p/q`$ of a standard representation $`p`$. Then $`\pi `$ and $`p`$ and thus every constituent of $`q`$ share the same infinitesimal character $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$. The $`A`$-parameter of every constituent of $`q`$ is smaller than the one of $`\pi `$, so one can perform an induction on this $`A`$-parameter as suggested by (, Problem 10.2) to get the linear combination as above. The length of this linear combination is globally bounded because the combination only contains characters of representations that share a common infinitesimal character and the number of such is globally bounded. The coefficients are bounded by the multiplicity that a constituent $`\pi `$ of an induced representation $`\pi _{\sigma ,\nu }`$ might have, where $`\sigma `$ is a discrete series or limit of discrete series representation. Now assume that $`\pi `$ contains a $`K`$-type $`\tau `$. Then the multiplicity of $`\pi `$ in $`\pi _{\sigma ,\nu }`$ is bounded by the multiplicity of $`\tau `$ in $`\pi _{\sigma ,\nu }`$ which in turn is bounded by $`dim\tau `$. It remains to show that every irreducible admissible $`\pi `$ contains a minimal $`K`$-type whose dimension is bounded by a power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$. By Weyl’s character formula this is equivalent to say that the norm of the infinitesimal character of $`\tau `$ is bounded by a power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$. This indeed follows from the minimal $`K`$-type formula (, Theorem 15.1) together with (, Theorem 15.10). So we have shown that the $`m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )`$ grow at most like a power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ and Lemma 2.6 follows. By the above, this also implies Proposition 2.4.  $`\mathrm{}`$

It remains to deduce Theorem 2.1. Since the coefficients $`m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )`$ grow at most like a power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$, the convergence assertion in Theorem 2.1 will be implied by the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.7

Let $`S`$ denote the set of all pairs $`(\pi ,\lambda )\widehat{G}\times 𝔞^{}`$ such that $`m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )0`$. There is $`m_1`$ such that

$$\underset{(\pi ,\lambda )S}{}\frac{N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )}{(1+\lambda )^{m_1}}<\mathrm{}.$$

Proof: By the remark following Lemma 2.5 it suffices to show that there is $`m`$ such that

$$\underset{(\pi ,\lambda )S}{}\frac{N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )}{(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi )^{m_1}}<\mathrm{}.$$

Let $`\pi \widehat{G}`$. The restriction of $`\pi `$ to the maximal compact subgroup $`K`$ decomposes into finite dimensional isotypes

$$\pi |_K=\underset{\tau \widehat{K}}{}\pi (\tau ).$$

Let $`C_K`$ be the Casimir operator of $`K`$ and let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_G\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{def}}\\ ^=\end{array}C+2C_K.$$

Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_G`$ is the Laplacian on $`G`$ given by the left invariant metric which at the point $`eG`$ is given by $`.,.=B(.,\theta (.))`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_G`$ is left invariant it induces an operator on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G`$ denoted by the same letter. This operator is $`0`$ and elliptic, so there is a natural number $`k`$ such that $`(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_G)^k`$ is of trace class on $`L^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G)`$. Hence

$`\mathrm{}`$ $`>`$ $`\mathrm{tr}(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_G)^k`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \widehat{G}}{}}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ){\displaystyle \underset{\tau \widehat{K}}{}}(1\pi (C)+2\tau (C_K))^kdim\pi (\tau )`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \widehat{G}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )}{(1\pi (C)+2\tau _\pi (C_K))^k}},`$
where for each $`\pi \widehat{G}`$ we fix a minimal $`K`$-type $`\tau _\pi `$. Since the infinitesimal character of the minimal $`K`$-type grows like the infinitesimal character of $`\pi `$ the Lemma follows.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Finally, to prove Theorem 2.1, let $`U^r`$ be open. Let $`S(U)`$ be the set of all pairs $`(\pi ,\lambda )\widehat{G}\times 𝔞^{}`$ such that $`m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )0`$ and the pole divisor of

$$\frac{1}{(s_1+\lambda _1)\mathrm{}(s_r+\lambda _r)}$$

does not intersect $`U`$. Let $`VU`$ be a compact subset. We have to show that for some $`j`$ which does not depend on $`U`$ or $`V`$,

$$\underset{sV}{sup}\underset{(\pi ,\lambda )S(U)}{}\left|\frac{N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )}{(s_1+\lambda _1)^{j+2}\mathrm{}(s_r+\lambda _r)^{j+2}}\right|<\mathrm{}.$$

Let $`m`$ be as in Lemma 2.4 and $`m_1`$ as in Lemma 2.7. Then let $`jm+m_12`$. Since $`VU`$ and $`V`$ is compact there is $`\epsilon >0`$ such that $`sV`$ and $`(\pi ,\lambda )S(U)`$ implies $`|s_k+\lambda _k|\epsilon `$ for every $`k=1,\mathrm{},r`$. Hence there is $`c>0`$ such that for every $`sV`$ and every $`(\pi ,\lambda )S(U)`$,

$$|(s_1+\lambda _1)\mathrm{}(s_r+\lambda _r)|c(1+\lambda ).$$

This implies,

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )}{(s_1+\lambda _1)^{j+2}\mathrm{}(s_r+\lambda _r)^{j+2}}}\right|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^{j+2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|m_{\lambda \rho }(\pi )|}{(1+\lambda )^{j+2}}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{c^{j+2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\lambda )^{j+2m}}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{c^{j+2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\lambda )^{m_1}}}.`$
The claim now follows from Lemma 2.7. The proof of Theorem 2.1 is finished.  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 The prime geodesic theorem

We now give the main result of the paper.

###### Theorem 3.1

(Prime Geodesic Theorem)
For $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_r>0`$ let

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)=\underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{\left[\gamma \right]\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)}{}}{\stackrel{}{a_\gamma ^{\alpha _k}T_k,k=1,\mathrm{},r}}}{}\lambda _\gamma .$$

Then, as $`T_k\mathrm{}`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},r`$ we have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)T_1\mathrm{}T_r.$$

The proof of the theorem will occupy the rest of the section.

For $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_r>0`$ let

$$A(x)=A(x_1,\mathrm{},x_r)=\underset{\stackrel{\left[\gamma \right]\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)}{l_k(a_\gamma )x_k}}{}l(a_\gamma )^{j+1}\mathrm{ind}(\gamma ).$$

Let $`_+`$ be the set of positive real numbers. Then $`L^j(s)=_{_+^r}A(x)e^{sx}𝑑x.`$

We need a higher dimensional analogue of the Wiener-Ikehara Theorem. For this we introduce a partial order on $`^r`$. We define

$$(x_1,\mathrm{},x_r)(y_1,\mathrm{},y_r)x_1y_1\mathrm{and}\mathrm{}\mathrm{and}x_ry_r.$$

A real valued function $`F`$ on a subset of $`^r`$ is called *monotonic* if $`xy`$ implies $`F(x)F(y)`$. The partial order also gives sense to the assertion that a sequence $`x^n`$ tends to $`+\mathrm{}`$. It does so if all its components $`x_k^n`$ tend to $`+\mathrm{}`$ separately.

###### Theorem 3.2

(Higher dimensional version of the Wiener-Ikehara Theorem)
Let $`A0`$ be a monotonic measurable function on $`_+^r`$. Suppose that the integral $`L(s)=_{_+^r}A(x)e^{sx}𝑑x`$ converges for $`\mathrm{Re}(s_k)>1`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},r`$. Suppose further that there is a countable set $`I`$ and for each $`iI`$, there is $`\theta _i^r`$ such that $`\mathrm{Re}(\theta _{i,k})1`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{}r`$. Assume that for each $`iI`$ there is $`k\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$ such that $`\mathrm{Re}(\theta _{i,k})<1`$ and that there are integers $`c_i`$ such that the function

$$L(s)D^{j+1}\frac{1}{(s_11)\mathrm{}(s_r1)}\underset{iI}{}c_iD^{j+1}\frac{1}{(s_1\theta _{i,1})\mathrm{}(s_r\theta _{i,r})}$$

extends to a holomorphic function on the set of all $`s^r`$ with $`\mathrm{Re}(s_k)1`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},r`$. Here we assume that the sum converges weakly locally uniformly absolutely on $`^r`$. Under these circumstances we can conclude

$$\underset{x+\mathrm{}}{lim}A(x)(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{(j+1)}e^{(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_r)}=1.$$

The proof of this theorem is a fairly straightforward application of methods from analytic number theory. We include it for the convenience of the reader.

Proof: Let $`A`$ as in the theorem and let

$$B(x)=A(x)(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{(j+1)}e^{(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_r)}.$$

To simplify notations we will frequently identify a complex number $`z`$ with the vector $`(z,\mathrm{},z)^r`$. Since

$$\frac{1}{(s_11)\mathrm{}(s_r1)}=_{_+^r}e^{(s1)x}𝑑x$$

we get

$$D^{j+1}\frac{1}{(s_11)\mathrm{}(s_r1)}=_{_+^r}(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{(s1)x}𝑑x.$$

Likewise,

$$D^{j+1}\frac{1}{(s_1\theta _{i,1})\mathrm{}(s_r\theta _{i,r})}=_{_+^r}(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{(s\theta _i)x}𝑑x.$$

Let $`f`$ be a smooth function of compact support of $``$ which is real valued and even. Then its Fourier transform $`\widehat{f}`$ will also be real valued. We further assume $`f`$ to be of the form $`f=f_1f_1`$ for some $`f_1`$. Then $`\widehat{f}=(\widehat{f}_1)^2`$ is positive on the reals. Let $`I(f)`$ be the set of $`iI`$ such that $`\mathrm{Im}(\theta _i)(\mathrm{supp}f)^r`$. Then the function

$`g(s)`$ $`=`$ $`L(s)D^{j+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(s_11)\mathrm{}(s_r1)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{iI(f)}{}}c_iD^{j+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(s_1\theta _{i,1})\mathrm{}(s_r\theta _{i,r})}}`$
extends to an analytic function on $`\{\mathrm{Re}(s_k)1,\mathrm{Im}(s_k)\mathrm{supp}f\}`$. It follows

$`g(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{R_+^r}}(B(x)1)(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{(s1)x}𝑑x`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{iI(f)}{}}c_i{\displaystyle _{_+^r}}(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{(s\theta _i)x}𝑑x`$
Let $`\epsilon >0`$. For $`y`$ the integral

$$_^rg(1+\epsilon +it)f(t_1)\mathrm{}f(t_r)e^{iyt}𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_r$$

equals

$$_^rf(t_1)\mathrm{}f(t_r)e^{iyt}_{_+^r}(B(x)1)(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{(\epsilon +it)x}𝑑x𝑑t$$

$$\underset{iI(f)}{}c_i_^rf(t_1)\mathrm{}f(t_r)e^{iyt}_{_+^r}(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{(1\theta _i)x}e^{\epsilon x}𝑑x𝑑t.$$

We want to interchange the order of integration. This only causes a problem for the summand involving $`B(x)`$. To justify the interchange, note that by the monotonicity of $`A`$ we have for real $`s`$, and $`x_+^r`$,

$$L(s)=_{_+^r}A(u)e^{su}𝑑uA(x)_{x+_+^r}_{x+_+^r}e^{su}𝑑u=\frac{A(x)e^{xs}}{s_1\mathrm{}s_r}.$$

In other words, $`A(x)s_1\mathrm{}s_rL(s)e^{xs}`$. Therefore $`A(x)=O(e^{sx})`$ for every $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_r>1`$ which implies $`A(x)=o(e^{sx})`$ for every $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_r>1`$. So for $`\delta >0`$, $`B(x)(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{\delta x}=A(x)e^{(1+\delta )x}=o(1)`$ for every $`\delta >0`$. This implies that the integral

$$_{_+^r}(B(x)1)(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{(\epsilon +it)x}𝑑x$$

converges locally uniformly in $`t`$. So we can interchange the order of integration to obtain that

$$_^rg(1+\epsilon +it)f(t_1)\mathrm{}f(t_r)e^{iyt}𝑑t$$

equals

$$_{_+^r}(B(x)1)(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{\epsilon x}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)𝑑x$$

$$\underset{iI(f)}{}c_i_{_+^r}(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{(1\theta _i)x}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)e^{\epsilon x}𝑑x.$$

Since $`g(s)`$ is analytic in the set $`\mathrm{Re}(s_1),\mathrm{},\mathrm{Re}(s_r)1`$ we can let $`\epsilon 0`$ to obtain that

$$_^rg(t)f(t_1)\mathrm{}f(t_r)e^{iyt}𝑑t$$

equals

$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}_{_+^r}(B(x)1)(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{\epsilon x}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)𝑑x.$$

$$\underset{iI(f)}{}c_i_{_+^r}(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{(1\theta _i)x}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)e^{\epsilon x}𝑑x.$$

Since $`\widehat{f}`$ is rapidly decreasing the limit for $`\epsilon 0`$ of

$$_{_+^r}(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{\epsilon x}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)𝑑x$$

exists and equals

$$_{_+^r}(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)𝑑x.$$

For the sum over $`I(f)`$ recall that the imaginary parts of the $`\theta `$’s are in a compact set, therefore the real parts must tend to $`\mathrm{}`$ and so the convergence is uniform in $`\epsilon `$, i.e., the limit can be interchanged with the summation. Hence also the limit

$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}_{_+^r}B(x)(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{\epsilon x}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)𝑑x$$

exists. Since we assume $`\widehat{f}0`$ the integrand is nonnegative and monotonically increasing as $`\epsilon 0`$. Therefore the limit may be drawn under the integral sign. We conclude that

$$_^rg(t)f(t_1)\mathrm{}f(t_r)e^{iyt}𝑑t$$

equals

$$_{_+^r}(B(x)1)(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)𝑑x.$$

$$\underset{iI(f)}{}c_i_{_+^r}(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{(1\theta _i)x}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)𝑑x.$$

By the Riemann-Lebesgue Lemma this tends to zero as $`y\mathrm{}`$. For $`y>>0`$ we estimate

$`{\displaystyle _{_+^r}}(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{(\theta 1)x}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)𝑑x`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _^r}(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{(\theta 1)x}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _^r}((x_1+y_1)\mathrm{}(x_r+y_r))^{j+1}e^{(\theta 1)(x+y)}\widehat{f}(x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(x_r)𝑑x`$
$``$ $`(const)(y_1\mathrm{}y_r)^{j+1}e^{(\theta 1)y}.`$
This implies that the sum over $`I(f)`$ tends to zero as $`y\mathrm{}`$.

Therefore

$$\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim}_{_+^r}(B(x)1)(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)𝑑x=0.$$

###### Lemma 3.3

For every $`k=0,1,2,`$,

$$\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{y^k}_0^{\mathrm{}}x^k\widehat{f}(yx)𝑑x=2\pi f(0).$$

Proof: Start with $`k=0`$. Then

$`\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{f}(yx)𝑑x`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{f}(yx)𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{f}(x)𝑑x=2\pi f(0)`$
For $`kk+1`$ consider

$`\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^{k+1}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}x^{k+1}\widehat{f}(yx)𝑑x`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^{k+1}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}x^{k+1}\widehat{f}(yx)𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^{k+1}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}(x+y)^{k+1}\widehat{f}(x)𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`2\pi f(0).`$
$`\mathrm{}`$

This lemma implies that

$$\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim}_{_+^r}B(x)\left(\frac{x_1\mathrm{}x_r}{y_1\mathrm{}y_r}\right)^{j+1}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)𝑑x=(2\pi f(0))^r.$$

Let $`S>0`$. Since $`A(x)`$ is monotonic we have $`A(yS)A(x)A(y+S)`$ whenever $`ySxy+S`$. In that range we then have

$$B(yS)((y_1S)\mathrm{}(y_rS))^{j+1}e^{(yS)1}B(x)(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}e^{x1}$$

$$B(y+S)((y_1+S)\mathrm{}(y_r+S))^{j+1}e^{(y+S)1}.$$

The first inequality implies

$`B(x)(x_1\mathrm{}x_r)^{j+1}`$ $``$ $`B(yS)((y_1S)\mathrm{}(y_rS))^{j+1}e^{(yxS)1}`$
$``$ $`B(yS)((y_1S)\mathrm{}(y_rS))^{j+1}e^{2S1}.`$
So for $`yS`$,

$$e^{2rS}B(yS)\left(\frac{(y_1S)\mathrm{}(y_rS)}{y_1\mathrm{}y_r}\right)^{j+1}_{yS}^{y+S}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)𝑑x$$

$``$ $`{\displaystyle _{yS}^{y+S}}B(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1\mathrm{}x_r}{y_1\mathrm{}y_r}}\right)^{j+1}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)𝑑x`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _{_+^r}}B(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1\mathrm{}x_r}{y_1\mathrm{}y_r}}\right)^{j+1}\widehat{f}(y_1x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(y_rx_r)𝑑x.`$
This implies

$$\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B(y)e^{2rS}\frac{(2\pi f(0))^2}{_S^S\widehat{f}(x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{f}(x_r)𝑑x}.$$

We vary $`f`$ so that $`\widehat{f}`$ is small outside $`[S,S]`$. In this way we get

$$\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B(y)e^{2rS}.$$

Since this is true for any $`S>0`$ it follows

$$\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B(y)1.$$

The inequality $`lim\; inf_y\mathrm{}B(y)1`$ is obtained in a similar fashion. The Wiener-Ikehara Theorem is proven.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Let

$$\varphi (T)=\varphi (T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{def}}\\ ^=\end{array}\underset{\stackrel{\left[\gamma \right]\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)}{a_\gamma ^{\alpha _k}T_k}}{}\frac{\lambda _\gamma }{\mathrm{det}(1a_\gamma m_\gamma 𝔫)}.$$

###### Lemma 3.4

As $`T_1,\mathrm{}T_r\mathrm{}`$ we have

$$\varphi (T_1,\mathrm{}T_r)T_1\mathrm{}T_r.$$

Proof: Let

$$\varphi _j(T)\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{def}}\\ ^=\end{array}\underset{\stackrel{\left[\gamma \right]\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)}{a_\gamma ^{\alpha _k}T_k}}{}\frac{\lambda _\gamma \left(l_1(a_\gamma )\mathrm{}l_r(a_\gamma )\right)^{j+1}}{\mathrm{det}(1a_\gamma m_\gamma 𝔫)}.$$

By the Wiener -Ikehara theorem we know that

$$\frac{\varphi _j(T)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r(\mathrm{log}T_1)^{j+1}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}T_r)^{j+1}}$$

tends to $`1`$ as $`T\mathrm{}`$. Obviously

$$\frac{\varphi _j(T)}{(\mathrm{log}T_1)^{j+1}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}T_r)^{j+1}}\varphi (T),$$

which implies

$$\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{\varphi (T)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}1.$$

Let $`0<\mu <1`$. Then

$`\varphi _j(T)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\left[\gamma \right]\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)}{T_k^\mu <a_\gamma ^{\alpha _k}T_k}}{}}\mathrm{ind}(\gamma )\left(l_1(a_\gamma )\mathrm{}l_r(a_\gamma )\right)^{j+1}`$
$``$ $`\mu ^{r(j+1)}\left((\mathrm{log}T_1)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}T_r)\right)^{j+1}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\left[\gamma \right]\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)}{T_k^\mu <a_\gamma ^{\alpha _k}T_k}}{}}\mathrm{ind}(\gamma )`$
$`=`$ $`\mu ^{r(j+1)}\left((\mathrm{log}T_1)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}T_r)\right)^{j+1}(\varphi (T)\varphi (T^\mu ))`$
From this we get

$$\frac{\varphi (T)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}$$

$$\mu ^{r(j+1)}\frac{\varphi _j(T)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r(\mathrm{log}T_1)^{j+1}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}T_r)^{j+1}}+\frac{\varphi (T^\mu )}{T_1^\mu \mathrm{}T_r^\mu (T_1\mathrm{}T_r)^{1\mu }}$$

Assume first that $`\varphi (T)/T_1\mathrm{}T_r`$ tends to infinity as $`T\mathrm{}`$. Then there is a sequence $`{}_{n}{}^{}T`$ in $`_+^r`$, tending to infinity such that $`\varphi ({}_{n}{}^{}T)/{}_{n}{}^{}T_{1}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{n}{}^{}T_{r}^{}`$ tends to infinity and

$$\frac{\varphi ({}_{n}{}^{}T)}{{}_{n}{}^{}T_{1}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{n}{}^{}T_{r}^{}}\frac{\varphi (S)}{S_1\mathrm{}S_r}$$

for every $`S{}_{n}{}^{}T`$. In particular, one can choose $`S=({}_{n}{}^{}T)^a`$. Then

$$\frac{\varphi ({}_{n}{}^{}T)}{{}_{n}{}^{}T_{1}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{n}{}^{}T_{r}^{}}\mu ^{r(j+1)}\frac{\varphi _j({}_{n}{}^{}T)}{{}_{n}{}^{}T_{1}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{n}{}^{}T_{r}^{}(\mathrm{log}{}_{n}{}^{}T_{1}^{})^{j+1}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}{}_{n}{}^{}T_{r}^{})^{j+1}}$$

$$+\frac{\varphi ({}_{n}{}^{}T)}{{}_{n}{}^{}T_{1}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{n}{}^{}T_{r}^{}}\frac{1}{({}_{n}{}^{}T_{1}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{n}{}^{}T_{r}^{})^{1\mu }},$$

so that

$$\frac{\varphi ({}_{n}{}^{}T)}{{}_{n}{}^{}T_{1}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{n}{}^{}T_{r}^{}}\frac{\mu ^{r(j+1)}\frac{\varphi _j({}_{n}{}^{}T)}{{}_{n}{}^{}T_{1}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{n}{}^{}T_{r}^{}(\mathrm{log}{}_{n}{}^{}T_{1}^{})^{j+1}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}{}_{n}{}^{}T_{r}^{})^{j+1}}}{1\frac{1}{({}_{n}{}^{}T_{1}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{n}{}^{}T_{r}^{})^{1\mu }}}.$$

Since the right hand side converges we reach a contradiction. This implies that

$$L\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{def}}\\ ^=\end{array}\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\varphi (T)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}=\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\varphi (T^\mu )}{T_1^\mu \mathrm{}T_r^\mu }$$

is finite. We get

$`L`$ $``$ $`\mu ^{r(j+1)}+L\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(T_1\mathrm{}T_r)^{1\mu }}}`$
$`=`$ $`\mu ^{r(j+1)}.`$
Since $`\mu `$ is arbitrary we get $`L1`$. The lemma follows.  $`\mathrm{}`$

We now finish the proof of the theorem. We have that $`\frac{\varphi (T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}`$ tends to $`1`$ as $`T_k\mathrm{}`$. Since $`aA^{}`$ has only eigenvalues of absolute value $`<1`$ on $`𝔫`$ it follows that $`0<\mathrm{det}(1am𝔫)<1`$ for every $`amA^{}M`$. Let $`0<\epsilon <1`$. Let $`\psi _\epsilon (T)`$ and $`\varphi _\epsilon (T)`$ denote the same sums as above extended only over those classes $`[\gamma ]`$ with $`1\epsilon <\mathrm{det}(1a_\gamma m_\gamma 𝔫)<1`$

###### Lemma 3.5

As $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_r\mathrm{}`$ we have

$$\frac{\varphi (T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)\varphi _\epsilon (T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}0,$$

and

$$\frac{\psi (T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)\psi _\epsilon (T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}0.$$

Proof: Note that $`\mathrm{det}(1a_\gamma m_\gamma 𝔫)`$ can only be $`1\epsilon `$ if $`a_\gamma `$ is close to a wall in $`A^{}`$. In other words, $`a_\gamma `$ has to lie in one of the segments

$$S_\alpha ^c=\{aA^{}a^\alpha <c(\epsilon ,\alpha )\}$$

for some $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$ and some $`c(\epsilon ,\alpha )>1`$. With $`c=\mathrm{max}(c(\epsilon ,\alpha ),\alpha \mathrm{\Delta })`$ it follows that

$$\varphi (T)\varphi _\epsilon (T)\underset{j=1,\mathrm{},r}{}\varphi (T_1,\mathrm{},c,\mathrm{},T_r).$$

The $`k`$th summand on the right hand side does not depend upon $`T_k`$. This implies the first assertion. For the second note that

$$\varphi (T)\varphi _\epsilon (T)\frac{1}{1\epsilon }(\psi (T)\psi _\epsilon (T)).$$

The lemma follows.  $`\mathrm{}`$

It follows that

$$\frac{\varphi _\epsilon (T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}1\mathrm{as}T_j\mathrm{}.$$

For each $`[\gamma ]`$ in this sum we have

$$1\epsilon <\mathrm{det}(1a_\gamma m_\gamma 𝔫)<1,$$

and so

$$\frac{1\epsilon }{\mathrm{det}(1a_\gamma m_\gamma 𝔫)}<1<\frac{1}{\mathrm{det}(1a_\gamma m_\gamma 𝔫)}.$$

Summing up we get

$$\frac{\varphi _\epsilon (T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}(1\epsilon )<\frac{\psi _\epsilon (T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}<\frac{\varphi _\epsilon (T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}.$$

Since $`\frac{\varphi _\epsilon (T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}`$ tends to $`1`$ it follows that

$$1\epsilon \underset{T_j\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{\psi _\epsilon (T_1,\mathrm{}T_r)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}\underset{T_j\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\psi _\epsilon (T_1,\mathrm{}T_r)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}1.$$

The second part of Lemma 3.5 gives

$$1\epsilon \underset{T_j\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{\psi (T_1,\mathrm{}T_r)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}\underset{T_j\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\psi (T_1,\mathrm{}T_r)}{T_1\mathrm{}T_r}1.$$

Since $`\epsilon `$ is arbitrary the prime geodesic theorem follows.  $`\mathrm{}`$

We will finish this section with a conjecture. For each $`[\gamma ](\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ pick a closed geodesic $`g_\gamma `$ which is closed by $`\gamma `$. Note that $`\lambda _\gamma `$ equals the volume of the unique maximal flat that contains the geodesic $`g_\gamma `$. The contribution of all geodesics that lie in a given flat $`F`$ grows like $`\frac{(\mathrm{log}T_1)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}T_r)}{\mathrm{vol}(F)}`$, as $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_r\mathrm{}`$. This motivates the following conjecture.

###### Conjecture 3.6

Let

$$\pi (T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{def}}\\ ^=\end{array}\mathrm{\#}\{[\gamma ](\mathrm{\Gamma })a_\gamma ^{\alpha _1}T_1,\mathrm{},a_\gamma ^{\alpha _r}T_r\}.$$

Then, as $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_r\mathrm{}`$,

$$\pi (T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)\frac{T_1}{\mathrm{log}T_1}\mathrm{}\frac{T_r}{\mathrm{log}T_r}.$$

It is not hard to show that the conjecture holds for products of rank one spaces.

## Appendix A Appendix: An application to class numbers

In this section we give a new asymptotic formula for class numbers of orders in number fields. It is quite different from known results like Siegel’s Theorem (, Thm 6.2). The asymptotic is in several variables and thus contains more information than a single variable one. In a sense it states that the units of the orders are equally distributed in different directions if only one averages over sufficiently many orders.

Let $`d`$ be a prime number $`3`$. Let $`S`$ be a finite set of primes with $`|S|2`$. Let $`C(S)`$ be the set of all totally real number fields $`F`$ with the property $`pSp`$ is non-decomposed in $`F`$.

Let $`O(S)`$ denote the set of all orders $`𝒪`$ in number fields $`FC(S)`$ which are maximal at each $`pS`$. For such an order $`𝒪`$ let $`h(𝒪)`$ be its class number, $`R(𝒪)`$ its regulator and $`\lambda _S(𝒪)=_{pS}f_p`$, where $`f_p`$ is the inertia degree of $`p`$ in $`F=𝒪`$. Then $`f_p\{1,d\}`$ for every $`pS`$.

For $`\lambda 𝒪^\times `$ let $`\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _d`$ denote the real embeddings of $`F`$ ordered in a way that $`|\rho _k(\lambda )||\rho _{k+1}(\lambda )|`$ holds for $`k=1,\mathrm{},d1`$.

For $`k=1,\mathrm{},d1`$ let

$$\alpha _k(\lambda )\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{def}}\\ ^=\end{array}k(dk)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{|\rho _k(\lambda )|}{|\rho _{k+1}(\lambda )|}\right).$$

Let

$$c=(\sqrt{2})^{1d}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{d1}{}}2k(dk)\right).$$

So $`c>0`$ and it comes about as correctional factor between the Haar measure normalization used in the Prime Geodesic Theorem and the normalization used in the definition of the regulator.

###### Theorem A.1

For $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_r>0`$ set

$$\vartheta _S(T)\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{def}}\\ ^=\end{array}\underset{\stackrel{\lambda 𝒪^\times /\pm 1,𝒪O\left(S\right)}{\stackrel{0<\alpha _k\left(\lambda \right)T_k}{k=1,\mathrm{},d1}}}{}R(𝒪)h(𝒪)\lambda _S(𝒪).$$

Then we have, as $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_{d1}\mathrm{}`$,

$$\vartheta (T_1,\mathrm{},T_{d1})\frac{c}{\sqrt{d}}T_1\mathrm{}T_{d1}.$$

Proof: For given $`S`$ there is a division algebra $`M`$ over $``$ of degree $`d`$ which splits exactly outside $`S`$. Fix a maximal order $`M()`$ in $`M`$ and for any ring $`R`$ define $`M(R)\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{def}}\\ ^=\end{array}M()R`$. Let $`\mathrm{det}:M(R)R`$ denote the reduced norm then

$$𝒢(R)\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{def}}\\ ^=\end{array}\{xM(R)\mathrm{det}(x)=1\}$$

defines a group scheme over $``$ with $`𝒢()\mathrm{SL}_d()=G`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝒢()`$ is a cocompact discrete torsion-free subgroup of $`G`$ (see ). As can be seen in , Theorem A.1 can be deduced from the prime geodesic theorem.  $`\mathrm{}`$

University of Exeter, Mathematics, Exeter EX4 4QE, England
a.h.j.deitmar@ex.ac.uk