In this paper we introduce a certain space of higher order modular forms of weight 0 and show that it has a Hodge structure coming from the geometry of the fundamental group of a modular curve. This generalizes the usual structure on classical weight 2 forms coming from the cohomology of the modular curve. Further we construct some higher order Poincare series to get higher order higher weight forms and using them we define a space of higher weight, higher order forms which has a mixed Hodge structure as well.
Let \int {\omega}_1\dots{\omega}_s be an iterated line integral and \alpha and \beta two paths such that \alpha(1)=\beta(0). Then
where an empty integral is to be understood as 1.
If \alpha_i are loops and \beta(0)=\alpha_i(1), then
If {\omega}_1 \dots {\omega}_r are smooth one-forms on X and \alpha_1,\dots \alpha_s are loops based at x_0 then
Suppose {\omega}_1,\dots {\omega}_s are 1-forms on X and \gamma is a path on X. If f is a function on M then
Let I be an iterated integral on X of length \leq s which is a homotopy functional. Let x_0 denote a point on X. Let z_0 denote a point of {\mathfrak H} lying in the fibre over x_0. Then the function F_{I} on {\mathfrak H} defined by
is a higher order modular form of order s+1. Here and from now on by abuse of notation we use I to denote both the integral on X as well as its pullback \pi^*(I) on {\mathfrak H}. As before we define an empty integral to be 1 and hence integrals of iterated integrals of length 0, namely constants, are just constants.
Further, this gives a well defined injective linear map
Let I be homotopy functional of length \leq s. This has an expression of the form
where {\omega}_J={\omega}_{j_1}\dots {\omega}_{j_{r_J}} are iterated line integrals. We need to show that for any \gamma_1,\gamma_2,\dots,\gamma_{s+1} \in \Gamma,
Let \eta be a path from z_0 to z on {\mathfrak H}. If \gamma is a loop on X based at x_0, then one has a composite path \gamma \pi(\eta) on X from x_0 to \pi(z). This can be lifted to a unique path on {\mathfrak H} from z_0 to \gamma z passing through \gamma z_0. We denote it by \gamma\eta.
Notice that
as
since I is \Gamma-invariant.
For each iterated line integral {\omega}_J={\omega}_{j_1}\dots {\omega}_{j_r} appearing in I we can apply Corollary 2.2 and Proposition ? to get
Therefore
and this expression is independent of z. In particular, applying \gamma_{s+1}-1 annihilates it so F_I|_{J^{s+1}} \equiv 0.
It should be remarked that since I is a homotopy functional, F_I(z) does not depend on the path from z_0 to z but the iterated line integrals {\omega}_J need not be homotopy invariant and hence we had to choose paths. However, by construction, the sums of iterated line integrals that appear in the expression of F_I|_{\gamma_{1} - 1)}(z) as a sum of products of iterated line integrals are homotopy functionals. That is, we can collect terms together such that
where I_1^r and I_2^r are homotopy functionals. Note that I_2^s=I_1^0=I.
To prove injectivity, suppose I is of order s and F_{I} \equiv 0. Then in particular, for any \gamma in \Gamma,
hence I is 0 as a homotopy functional. Hence I=0 in H^0(B_s(X), x_0).
For K in H^0(B_s(\bar{X}),x_0) we have
for all parabolic \sigma \in \Gamma_{{\mathbf a}} for all cusps {\mathbf a}. In particular, for a geometric higher order cusp form f we have
for all parabolic \sigma \in \Gamma_{{\mathbf a}} for all cusps {\mathbf a}.
Any K in H^0(B_s(\bar{X}),x_0) is of the form I+a, where a is a constant and I is in H^0(\bar{B}(\bar{X}),x_0). Hence
From Proposition 2.1 we have
Where I'_r and I''_r are certain iterated integrals which are homotopy functionals but of order between 1 and s-1. Since this calculation is happening with respect to forms on \bar{X}, I, I_r' and I_r'' are all in H^0(\bar{B}_s(\bar{X}), \pi(z)). Explicitly, this expansion comes from a repeated application of Propostion 2.1 – so the forms which constitute the I_r's and I_r''s are the forms which constitute I and I is made up of forms on {\bar {X}}. Hence all the iterated integrals are in \bar{B}_s({\bar {X}}). Since we also know they are homotopy invariant, they are in H^0(\bar{B}_s({\bar {X}}),\pi(z)).
Since \sigma \in \Gamma_{{\mathbf a}} one has
therefore most of the terms vanish and
A geometric cusp form is of the form f(z)=\int_{z_0}^{z} K for some K \in H^0(B_s(\bar{X}),x_0) for some s. Hence for all z,
[hain] If X is an algebraic variety over {\mathbb C} and x_0 is a point on X, there is a mixed Hodge structure on the space
which is natural with respect to morphisms of pointed varieties. Further, if X is smooth and projective the length and weight filtrations coincide.
More generally one can construct the motive underlying this Hodge structure as the motive underlying the Hodge structure on the fundamental group is understood. This is described in the paper of Deligne and Goncharov [dego] Section 3, ( Proposition 3.4 ).
There they show that the the Hodge structure on the graded pieces of the group ring of the fundamental group can be realized as the Hodge structure on the relative cohomology groups of pairs (X^s, \cup_{i=0}^{s} X_i ), where
X^s=X \times \dots \times X s-times
X_0 is the sub-variety given by t_1=x_0 – namely x_0 \times X^{s-1}
X_i is the sub-variety given by t_i=t_{i+1} for 0 < i <s – namely X^{i-1}\times \Delta \times X^{s-(i+1)}, where \Delta is the diagonal in X \times X in the i^{th} and (i+1)^{st} places.
X_s is given by t_s=x_0 – namely X^{s-1} \times x_0.
We have
so precisely we get the space of weight 0 geometric modular forms of order s modulo those of order 0.
For example, when s=1 we have
Hence the motive underlying the Hodge structure on the space of geometric higher order modular forms of weight 0 and order s and base point x_0 is the motive associated to the pair (X^s,\cup_{i=0}^{s} X_i). Namely, to this object one can associate a de Rham, étale and Betti realization which are isomorphic when the field of coefficients is large enough.
Classically one way of understanding Hecke operators is as follows. The space of classical modular forms of weight k along with the complex conjugates of the cusp forms is, via the Eichler Shimura map, identified with the cohomology of a local system on the modular curve, and this imposes a Hodge structure on this space. Hecke operators can then be understood as the morphisms of this Hodge structure induced by certain algebraic correspondences called Hecke correspondences.
One might hope that the same algebraic correspondences would induce morphisms on the Hodge structure of the space of geometric higher order modular forms of weight 0 thus suggesting a way to define Hecke operators on these forms. However, unfortunately they do not, as, for example, they do not preserve base points and the Hodge structure does depend on the base point for s>2. Hence one cannot get notions of Hecke eigenfunctions or Hecke eigenspaces using Hecke correspondences and, as things stand, one cannot use this approach to define a motive of a higher order modular form.
Let k>2 be an even integer and let {I} be an element of H^0(B_s({\bar {X}}), x_0) and z_0 a point on {\mathfrak H} lying in the fibre over x_0. Then, for every cusp {\mathbf a} and non-negative integer m we get three twisted Poincaré series. All of these are weight k, order s+1 modular forms and when m>0 they are cusp forms.
\displaystyle{P^1_{m,{\mathbf a}}(z,{I})=\sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{{\mathbf a}}\backslash \Gamma} \left ( \int_{z_0}^{z} {I} \right )\frac{e(m\sigma_{{\mathbf a}}^{-1}\gamma z)}{j(\sigma_{{\mathbf a}}^{-1}\gamma,z)^k}}
\displaystyle {P^2_{m,{\mathbf a}}(z,{I})=\sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{{\mathbf a}}\backslash \Gamma}\left ( \int_{z_0}^{\gamma z_0} {I} \right ) \frac{e(m\sigma_{{\mathbf a}}^{-1} \gamma z)}{j(\sigma_{{\mathbf a}}^{-1}\gamma,z)^k}}
\displaystyle{P^3_{m,{\mathbf a}}(z,{I})=\sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{{\mathbf a}}\backslash \Gamma}\left ( \int_{z}^{\gamma z} {I} \right ) \frac{e(m\sigma_{{\mathbf a}}^{-1}\gamma z)}{j(\sigma_{{\mathbf a}}^{-1}\gamma,z)^k}}
Further, there are relations between these modular forms coming from the fact that the integral of {I} over the path \{z_0,\gamma z_0\} can be expressed, using Proposition 2.1, as a sum of products of integrals over \{z_0,z\}, \{z,\gamma z\} and \{\gamma z,\gamma z_0\}, where \{z_0,z_1\} denotes a path from z_0 to z_1 in {\mathfrak H}.
We first show that the summand is well defined. For P^1 there is no question. The arguments for P^2 and P^3 are similar and we have the following argument which we give for P^2.
It suffices to show that the term \int_{z_0}^{\gamma z_0} I is well defined on \Gamma_{{\mathbf a}}\backslash \Gamma. Let \sigma \in \Gamma_{{\mathbf a}} and \gamma \in \Gamma. Since I is in H^0(B_s (\bar{X}),x_0) and \sigma \in \Gamma_{{\mathbf a}}, from Lemma 3.2, we have
In particular, if z=\gamma z_0 we have
Hence the summand \int_{z_0}^{\gamma z_0} I is well defined on \Gamma_{{\mathbf a}} \backslash \Gamma.
We now have a lemma regarding convergence.
The series P^{i}(z,{I}) converge for k>2.
For i=1, the series P^1 is simply a product of the classical Poincaré series and \int_{z_0}^{z} {I}, both of which converge for k>2.
For P^3(z,{I}) the argument is similar to the case of {I}=f in [dios]. We can assume I is in H^0(\bar{B}_s({\bar {X}}),x_0) since an element of H^0(B_s({\bar {X}}),x_0) differs from such an I by a constant, and in the twisted Poincaré series this amounts to adding a constant multiple of a classical Poincaré series.
We use the estimate [DKMO], Lemma 3 – for a classical cusp form f of weight 2, any cusp {\mathbf a},
To simplify exposition, we use the notation y_{{\mathbf a}}(z) for Im(\sigma_{{\mathbf a}}(z)). Using the above estimate repeatedly, we have that for an iterated integral {I} of length r,
Observe that
as exp(|\log(x)|)=x or x^{-1}. Replacing y_{{\mathbf a}} (z) by y_{{\mathbf a}}( z)^{\epsilon}, we have, for 0<\epsilon<1, using that \epsilon^{r}<\epsilon,
To apply this to the convergence of the twisted Poincaré series we need an estimate for \int_{z}^{\gamma z} {I}. We have
where {I}_j and {I}'_j are iterated integrals of lengths j and r-j respectively. From (?) and (?) we have
So we have
We have y_{{\mathbf a}}(\gamma z)=\frac{y_{{\mathbf a}}(z)}{j(\gamma,z)^{2}}. Replacing j(\gamma,z)^{-k} by \left (\frac{y_{{\mathbf a}}(\gamma z)}{y_{{\mathbf a}}(z)}\right )^{k/2} in the expression above we get,
The sum
is the classical non-holomorphic Eisenstein series for the cusp {\mathbf a} and is known to be absolutely convergent in the region Re(s)>1. So as long as k/2-\epsilon >1, that is, k>2, our series will converge.
Using the change of basepoint formula, P^2(z,{I}) can be expressed as a finite linear combination terms of the form P^1(z,{I}') P^3(z,{I}'') for some iterated integrals {I}' and {I}'', so converges in the same region.
It remains to show the invariance property.
The P^i(z,{I}) are higher order modular forms of weight k and order s+1.
For P^1 this is immediate from the earlier proposition, as \int_{z_0}^{z} {I} is a weight 0 order s+1 form, while P(z) is order 1, weight k, so the product is order s+1, weight k. For the second one, let P(z,{I})=P_{m,{\mathbf a}}^2(z,{I}). We will show that P(z,{I})|_{\beta-1} can be expressed as a linear combination of terms of the form P(z,I') where I' is an iterated integral which is a homotopy functional, but of length strictly less than that of I. The theorem will then follow by induction.
We have
We can once more apply Propostion 2.1 with \alpha=\{z_0, \gamma z_0\} and \beta=\{\gamma z_0, \gamma \beta^{-1}z_0\}. Since \{\gamma z_0, \gamma \beta^{-1} z_0\} is homotopic to \{z_0, \beta^{-1} z_0\} on \Gamma \backslash {\mathfrak H}, and {I} is homotopy invariant, we obtain:
where I_1^r and I_2^r are sums of iterated line integrals appearing in the proof of Theorem ?. They are homotopy functionals by construction.
Combining this with (?) we have
This, by induction on s, is a higher order modular form of weight k and order s. Hence P(z,{I}) is a higher order modular form of weight k and order s+1.
The third type of Poincaré series is a higher order modular form as the iterated integral can be expressed in terms of the first two and products of lower order integrals using the change of basepoint formula which comes out of Proposition 2.1 and the fact that
for \gamma \in \Gamma.
To show that P_{m,{\mathbf a}}(z,I) is cuspidal for m>0 using (?) we have, by induction, that P_{m,{\mathbf a}}(z,I)|_{\beta-1} is cuspidal. Further, if \phi is a parabolic element, P_{m,{\mathbf a}}(z,I)|_{\phi-1}=0 as \int_{z_0}^{\phi z_0} I_2^r=0 as all the I_2^i lie in H^0(B_s(\bar{X}, x_0)). In fact, this condition is also satisfied for m=0 when s>0.
This completes the proof that the twisted Poincaré series give higher order modular forms.
The text on this page is from arXiv:0909.0714v2 by Ramesh Sreekantan, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/0909/0909.0714.jsonl.