format: text

text:
# Thermodynamic relations in a driven lattice gas: numerical experiments

## Model:

Let $`\sigma _i`$ be an occupation variable defined on each site $`i=(i_x,i_y)`$ in a two-dimensional square lattice $`\{(i_x,i_y)|0i_xL+1,0i_yM+1\}`$. The variable $`\sigma _i`$ is 1 when the i-th site is occupied, and is 0 if it is empty. We assume periodic boundary conditions in the $`x`$-direction ( i.e. $`\sigma _i=\sigma _j`$ when when $`i=j+(L,0)`$), and no flux boundary conditions in the $`y`$-direction (i.e. $`\sigma _i=0`$ when $`i_y=0,M+1`$). The array of all occupation variables $`\{\sigma _i\}`$ is denoted as $`\sigma `$ and called the “configuration”.

We study a driven lattice gas with the Hamiltonian

$$H(\sigma )=\underset{i,j}{}\sigma _i\sigma _jE\underset{i}{}i_x\sigma _i,$$
(1)
where $`i,j`$ represents a nearest neighbor pair and $`E`$ is an external force KL . The time evolution of $`\sigma `$ is described by the following rule: At each time step, choose randomly a nearest neighbor pair $`i,j`$, and exchange the values of $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\sigma _j`$ with the probability $`c(i,j;\sigma )`$ given by

$$c(i,j;\sigma )=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(\beta [H(\sigma ^{ij})H(\sigma )])},$$
(2)
where $`\sigma ^{ij}`$ is the configuration obtained from $`\sigma `$ through this exchange and $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature. This exchange probability is called the heat bath method and is one of the most standard update rules satisfying the local detailed balance condition, which condition is regarded to be natural in physical systems. The particle number $`N=_i\sigma _i`$ is conserved throughout the time evolution. In this study, we fix $`\beta =0.5`$, in which case the system is far from critical in the high temperature region.

## Pressure:

In the equilibrium case ($`E=0`$), the pressure is calculated by using equilibrium statistical mechanics. However, because we do not know the proper statistical measure in NESS, in this case we should define the pressure in an operational manner. Although the pressure is usually defined as the normal force exerted on a unit area of a surface, there is no quantity corresponding to the force in a lattice gas. We thus define the pressure in terms of the quasi-static work required to change the system size. In order to allow for the calculation of this quantity in our lattice gas LG:pre , we add a wall potential to the Hamiltonian $`H(\sigma )`$ in the form

$$H_w(\sigma )=H(\sigma )+\underset{i:i_y=M}{}\sigma _iw.$$
(3)
Because of the boundary conditions we impose, no particles cannot exist at sites with $`i_y=M+1`$, and therefore the system size in the $`y`$ direction is $`M`$. Now, according to (3), as $`w`$ is increased, it becomes increasingly unlikely for particles to exist at sites with $`i_y=M`$. When $`w`$ becomes sufficiently large, the average occupation number for sites with $`i_y=M`$ can be considered zero. We denote the value of $`w`$ beyond which this is the case as $`w_\mathrm{m}`$. Hence, in the process that $`w`$ changes from 0 to $`w_\mathrm{m}`$, the effective system size in the $`y`$ direction changes from $`M`$ to $`M1`$. The quasi-static work performed to the system through this process is interpreted as the pressure multiplied by $`L`$. That is, the pressure $`p`$ is written as

$$p=\underset{w_\mathrm{m}\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{L}_0^{w_\mathrm{m}}𝑑w\underset{\sigma }{}P_{N,M}^w(\sigma )\frac{H_w(\sigma )}{w},$$
(4)
where $`P_{N,M}^w`$ is the steady state distribution for a given value of $`w`$. It is easily proved that this definition of the pressure is equivalent to statistical mechanical formula in equilibrium.

In the numerical experiments, values of $`p`$ are obtained in the following way. Starting from random initial conditions, we carry out the time evolution with $`w=0`$ for a sufficiently long time, say $`t_0`$. In this way, we obtain a steady state with $`w=0`$. Next, we increase the value of $`w`$ by a quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }w`$ per Monte Carlo step per site (mcs) until $`w`$ reaches $`w_\mathrm{m}`$. Then, noting that $`H_w(\sigma )/w=_{i:i_y=M}\sigma _i`$, we measure the value of $`_{i:i_y=M}\sigma _i`$ as $`n(t)`$ at time $`t`$, where zero of the time is defined as the point at which $`w`$ starts to increase. In one process from $`w=0`$ to $`w=w_\mathrm{m}`$, we calculate

$$p=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }w}{L}\underset{t=1}{\overset{t_\mathrm{m}}{}}n(t),$$
(5)
where $`t_\mathrm{m}`$ is the time at which $`w=w_\mathrm{m}`$. Then, determining carefully how the statistical distribution of $`p`$ depends on $`w_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }w`$, we estimate the value of $`p`$ in the limit $`w_\mathrm{m}\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }w0`$ Ha-S .

In Fig. 1, we display an example of measured values of the pressure for densities in systems with $`E=0`$ and $`E=10`$. It is important to note that our analysis is not restricted to systems near equilibrium. Indeed, the system with $`E=10`$ is close to the strong field limit, in which the particle current is saturated to a constant value, and the equation of state for $`E=10`$ clearly deviates from the equilibrium one. This difference shows that the statistical distribution in the $`y`$ direction differs from the equilibrium one. Also, the pressure becomes an intensive variable in the thermodynamic limit, as seen in the inset of Fig. 1.

## Chemical potential:

The chemical potential is measured by placing a particle reservoir in contact with the system in the direction transversal to the driving field. We first assume that the chemical potential of the reservoir, $`\mu _\mathrm{R}(T,\rho _\mathrm{R})`$, is known. We also assume that there exists a chemical potential $`\mu `$ in this NESS that is a function of $`T`$, $`\rho `$ and $`E`$. From the definition of the chemical potential, we should have $`\mu (T,\rho ,E)=\mu _\mathrm{R}(T,\rho _\mathrm{R})`$. Then, using $`\mu (T,1\rho ,E)=\mu _\mathrm{R}(T,1\rho _\mathrm{R})`$, which holds due to the particle-hole symmetry, the equality $`\mu (T,\rho =1/2,E)=\mu _\mathrm{R}(T,\rho _\mathrm{R}=1/2)`$ is derived. Thus, by measuring $`\mu (T,\rho ,E)/\rho `$ for all values of $`\rho `$ without contacting a particle reservoir, we can determine the form of the function $`\mu (T,\rho ,E)`$.

In order to measure $`\mu (T,\rho ,E)/\rho `$ numerically, we add the one-body potential term $`_i\sigma _i\varphi _i`$ to the Hamiltonian $`H(\sigma )`$, where $`\varphi _i=\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ for $`i_yM/2+1`$, and $`\varphi _i=0`$ for $`i_yM/2`$. We then measure the density profile along the $`y`$ direction, in which there are two flat regions, $`1i_yM/2`$ and $`M/2+1i_yM`$. We denote the density in the region $`1i_yM/2`$ as $`\rho _1`$ and the density in the region $`M/2+1i_yM`$ as $`\rho _2`$. When $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ is sufficiently small, the chemical potentials of the two regions are equal by the definition of the chemical potential. By taking into account the shift in the potential energy, this condition can be written as

$$\mu (T,\rho _1,E)=\mu (T,\rho _2,E)+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi .$$
(6)
We thus obtain

$$\frac{\mu (T,\rho ,E)}{\rho }|_{\rho =\overline{\rho }}=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 0}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi }{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho },$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =\rho _1\rho _2`$ and $`\overline{\rho }=(\rho _1+\rho _2)/2.`$ Measuring $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ and $`\overline{\rho }`$ for several values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$, we can evaluate the right-hand side of (7) Ha-S .

## Free energy:

We begin by conjecturing that the relation

$$\frac{p(T,\rho ,E)}{\rho }=\rho \frac{\mu (T,\rho ,E)}{\rho },$$
(8)
which holds in equilibrium, holds also in our NESS. This is equivalent to the Maxwell relation, because $`p`$ and $`\mu `$ are numerically confirmed to be intensive. Here, we estimate the value of $`p/\rho `$ (at $`\rho =0.5`$, for example) by calculating values of $`p`$ for several values of $`\rho `$ in a small interval around $`\rho =0.5`$ Ha-S . The results summarized in Fig. 2 suggest the validity of the equality (8). If indeed this relation does hold, its implication is significant, because when we define the quantity $`F(T,M,N,E)`$ as

$$F(T,M,N,E)=N\mu (T,\frac{N}{ML},E)MLp(T,\frac{N}{ML},E),$$
(9)
$`p`$ and $`\mu `$ become

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{F(T,M,N,E)}{M}},`$ (10)
$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F(T,M,N,E)}{N}}.`$ (11)
That is, $`F(T,M,N,E)`$ can be regarded as the free energy extended to the present NESS. Using the single function $`F(T,M,N,E)`$, we can derive various thermodynamic relations, including the Clapeyron law, under non-equilibrium conditions.

## Fluctuation relation:

Consider the strip $`\mathrm{\Omega }_l=\{(i_x,i_y)|1i_xL,M/2\mathrm{}/21i_yM/2+\mathrm{}/2\},`$ and define the density variable $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}=_{i\mathrm{\Omega }_l}\sigma _i/|\mathrm{\Omega }_l|`$, which is coarse-grained over the strip $`\mathrm{\Omega }_l`$. Let $`\xi `$ be the correlation length of density fluctuations in the y-direction. We define the free energy density $`f(\rho )`$ for fixed $`(T,E)`$ by $`F(T,M,N,E)=Mf(N/M)`$ in the thermodynamic limit. It is then conjectured that the probability distribution of the density $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`\xi \mathrm{}M`$ can be written as

$$P(\rho _{\mathrm{}}=\rho )\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mathrm{}[f(\rho )f(\overline{\rho })]),$$
(12)
where $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the thermodynamic density. In the equilibrium case, such a form can be derived from a fundamental principle of statistical mechanics. Although there is no general proof of this form in the case of NESS, (12) seems plausible in the present case, because we have been able to define a free energy eyink .

Recently, for some non-equilibrium lattice gases, the large deviation functionals of density fluctuations have been rigorously derived in non-local forms DLS . These nonlocal forms are related to long-range correlations that exist generically in NESS LRC . Here we shall not discuss this important issue further, and simply state our numerical finding that the scaling form (12) has been clearly observed provided that one examines the density fluctuation in the strip $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$.

If (12) is valid (at least locally), the fluctuation relation

$$\beta \frac{\mu }{\rho }=\frac{1}{L\mathrm{}(\rho \overline{\rho })^2}$$
(13)
can be derived. This relation is known to be valid for describing fluctuations about equilibrium states, but it is not known whether it is valid in NESS. To study this point, we investigate (13) numerically.

We first note the asymptotic form

$$d_{\mathrm{}}\rho _l^2\rho _l^2d_{}\frac{1}{L\mathrm{}}\frac{M\mathrm{}}{M}$$
(14)
for $`\xi \mathrm{}M`$ (see Fig. 3), where $`d_{}`$ is defined. According to this, $`L\mathrm{}(\rho \overline{\rho })^2`$ in (13) should correspond to $`d_{}`$. The values of $`d_{}`$ and $`\beta ^1\rho /\mu `$ are plotted in Fig . 4. This result suggests the validity of (13). In addition, combining (13) with (8), the relation we obtain between the compressibility and density fluctuations is the same as that existing in equilibrium.

We remark here that the asymptotic form (14) can be understood by considering the following simple situation. Consider $`n`$ random variables $`x_i`$ ($`1in`$), with the conservation constraint $`_{i=1}^nx_i=0`$. The statistical properties of $`x_i`$ are given by $`E(x_i)=0`$ and $`E(x_ix_j)=\delta _{ij}`$, where $`E(x)`$ represents the expected value of the random variable $`x`$. Let $`X_k`$ be the partial sum of $`k`$ elements randomly chosen from the set $`\{x_i\}`$. Then, the probability of $`X_k`$ with large $`k`$ and large $`nk`$ is given by the Gaussian distribution with $`E(X_k)=0`$ and $`E(X_k^2)=k(nk)/n`$ sol . This supports the form of (14).

## Discussion:

We have presented new relations obtained using numerical experiments on a driven lattice gas. We hope that the present study can be extended to a wider variety of systems. Also, finding a connection between the entropy, which is defined as $`(F/T)_{M,N,E}`$ in our formulation, and the Shannon entropy would be important in future construction of a statistical mechanical theory of NESS HS .

The authors acknowledge H. Tasaki for stimulating discussions on steady state thermodynamics and driven lattice gases. They also thank Y. Oono and A. Shimizu for fruitful discussions on NESS. This work was supported by grants from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan, No. 14654064.


text:
# From 3 nucleons to 3 quarks

## 1 Introduction

The Skornyakov and Ter-Martirosyan paper  which appeared in 1956 marked the beginning of a new era in few-body physics, when a somewhat neglected part of nuclear physics was promoted to the successful domain of theoretical physics. As a result the few-body science has become a field accumulating fast developing methods: L.D.Faddeev generalized the Skornyakov-Ter-Martirosyan Equation (STME)  and has given a rigorous mathematical foundation for the theory of 3 particles , many numerical methods have been introduced, for a review and references see . As an immediate consequence of STME, a new effect was found in 1971, called the Efimov effect , which is studied till now with respect to possible experimental consequences .

The STME and Faddeev technic is most useful when particles are nearly on-shell, so that e.g. 3-body results do not depend much on the potential shape, but rather described by the on-shell two-body $`t`$-matrix as it is for the quartet $`nd`$ scattering. The bound states of tritium and $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ provide another example, where the interaction at small distances (far off- shell) is important. To treat such systems an alternative method - the Hyperspherical Formalism (HF) (or $`K`$-harmonics method) was developed and the system of the Schroedinger-like equations was written . Its development was marked with many successful applications both in nuclear and atomic physical see e.g. . Recently it was understood that HF is probably the best suitable for systems with confinement such as 3 quarks, where the interaction is a three-body one, and confining so that the $`t`$-matrix formalism cannot be applied. Accuracy of HF as applied to the 3q system was found to be remarkably good  allowing for the 1% bias in the baryon mass .

This talk is intended to demonstrate the physics of the 3-body system, and a qualitative analysis of two alternative approaches discussed above.

## 2 The STME and Faddeev approach

In the system of 3 equal-mass particles with arbitrary numeration one can introduce the total kinetic energy $`E`$ and the momentum $`𝐤`$ in the pair (2,3) and the relative momentum $`𝐩`$ of particle 1, namely $`𝐩=\frac{𝐤_2+𝐤_3}{3}\frac{2}{3}𝐤_1,𝐤=\frac{𝐤_2𝐤_3}{2}`$.

The symmetric function of the ground state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{symm}`$ is expressed through partial w.v.

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{symm}=\psi (𝐤_{23},𝐩_1)+\psi (𝐤_{31},𝐩_2)+\psi (𝐤_{12},𝐩_3)$$
(1)
with the normalization condition

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{symm}|^2d^3𝐤d^3𝐩=1.$$
(2)
It is convenient to extract the free 3-body Green’s function, introducing

$$\psi (𝐤,𝐩)=\frac{\chi (𝐤,𝐩)}{𝐤^2+\frac{3}{4}𝐩^2mE}$$
(3)
and the 3-body rescattering equation, equivalent to the summing the ”bridge” Feynman diagrams (nonrelativistic) is

$$\chi (𝐤,𝐩)=\chi _0(𝐤,𝐩)2m\frac{t(k,|\frac{𝐩}{2}+𝐩^{}|,E\frac{3}{4}\frac{p^2}{m})\chi (|𝐩+\frac{p^{}}{2}|,p^{})d𝐩^{}}{𝐩^2+𝐩𝐩^{}+𝐩^2mE}.$$
(4)
Here $`t(k,k^{},\epsilon )`$ is the 2-body $`t`$-matrix, representing the ”knot” in a bridge diagram, and

$$\chi _0(𝐤,𝐩)=2m\frac{t(k,\frac{𝐩}{2}+𝐩_0,E\frac{3}{4}\frac{p^2}{m})\phi _\alpha (𝐩+\frac{1}{2}𝐩_0)}{𝐩^2+𝐩_0^2+𝐩𝐩_0mE},$$
(5)
where $`\phi _\alpha `$ is the 2-body bound state, while $`𝐩_0`$ is the momentum of incident particle.

Near the bound-state pole $`t`$-matrix can be written as

$$t(k,k^{},\epsilon )=\frac{g(k\epsilon )g(k^{},\epsilon )}{(2\pi )^2m(\alpha +i\sqrt{2m\epsilon })}+O(r_0)$$
(6)
where $`\alpha =1/a,a`$ is the scattering length and $`g(k,\epsilon )`$ formfactor, $`g(0,0)=1`$ and $`g(k,\epsilon )`$ fast decreases when $`k1/r_0`$ and $`\epsilon \frac{1}{mr_0^2}`$.

Let us assume now that the range of integration in (4) is small $`p,p^{}1/r_0`$. Then one can insert (6) in (4) with $`g1`$, and one gets- for the 3-body bound-state w.f.

$$(\alpha \sqrt{\frac{3}{4}𝐩^2E})\chi (𝐤,𝐩)+8\pi \frac{d𝐩^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\chi (|𝐩+\frac{𝐩^{}}{2}|,p^{})}{𝐩^2+𝐩𝐩^{}+𝐩^2mE}=0.$$
(7)
This is the STME for a 3-body bound state. The off-shell generalization of STME is the Faddeev equation(4). As it was correctly stated in , the bound-state equation (7) cannot be used for tritium and $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$, since it has no lower bound for energy due to the Thomas theorem . This can be easily understood rewriting (7) in the form $`\chi =K\chi 𝑑𝐩^{}`$, and calculating the norm of $`K,K=𝑑𝐩𝑑𝐩(K(𝐩,𝐩^{}))^2`$, which diverges logarithmically at large momenta, implying that there are formally infinitely many bound states. The physical situation corresponds to the cut-off form-factors $`g(k,\epsilon )`$ present in $`K`$, which leads to the finite result for the norm $`K`$.

A specific situation occurs when the 2-body scattering length $`a`$ is large, $`ar_0`$. Then the number of bound states lying between $`\left(\frac{1}{ma^2}\right)`$ and $`\left(\frac{1}{mr_0^2}\right)`$ is approximately equal to

$$N\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{|a|}{r_0}$$
(8)
and when $`|a|`$ is increasing, $`|a|\mathrm{}`$, there appears an accumulation point of bound states (the Efimov effect). For 3 nucleons however $`N<1`$ and the effect is absent, but for three $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ atoms $`a=104\AA ,r_07\AA `$ and the effect is theoretically possible .

Since the Efimov states are almost on-shell, it is convenient to calculate them using the 3-body unitarity and the $`N/D`$ method . Numerical results obtained (see Fig. 7 of ) support the estimate (8) and yield the explicit position of levels near the energy threshold.

To conclude with the bound state equation (7) it is interesting to study the properties of the bound wave function, e.g. the size of the bound system. Here one encounters an important difference between 2- and 3-body systems . Namely the 2-body loosely bound system with a small binding energy $`\epsilon `$, $`m\epsilon r_0^21`$ has a radius of the order of $`r_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{m\epsilon }},r_2r_0`$. For the 3-body system the situation may be twofold. In case when a bound 2-body system exists as a subsystem and the 3-body bound state is close to the 2+1 threshold, one has a quasi-two-body situation, whereas when 2-body bound subsystems are absent the size of the 3-body bound state is always $`r_0`$ however small binding energy is . Modern calculations of 3-body bound states in the framework of STME and its development – Faddeev equations are done for $`{}_{}{}^{3}H`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ using systems of around 30 equations and exploiting realistic potentials describing $`NN`$ scattering and bound states in the large energy interval (0-350 MeV). see e.g. the review in . Unfortunately results of calculations yield significant underbinding of around 10-15%, may be due to three-body forces, which are not exactly known, hence final results are model dependent, see  for an example and references.

We go now to the $`dN`$ scattering which was also the topic of the primary paper . The corresponding equations look like

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{(\sqrt{3k^2/4ME}\alpha _t)}{k^2k_0^2}a_{3/2}(𝐤,𝐤_0)=\frac{1}{k_0^2+k^2+𝐤𝐤_0ME}\\ \frac{4\pi a_{3/2}(𝐤^{},𝐤_0)}{(k^2+k^2+𝐤𝐤^{}ME)(k^2k_0^2)}\frac{d𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^3};\\ \frac{(\sqrt{3k^2/4ME}\alpha _t)}{k^2k_0^2}a_{3/2}(𝐤,𝐤_0)=\frac{1/2}{k_0^2+k^2+𝐤𝐤_0ME}+\\ +\frac{4\pi \{1/2a_{1/2}(𝐤^{},𝐤_0)+3/2b_{1/2}(𝐤^{},𝐤_0)\}}{(k^2+k^2+𝐤𝐤^{}ME)(k^2k_0^2)}\frac{d𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^3},\\ \frac{(\sqrt{3k^2/4ME}\alpha _t)}{k^2k_0^2}b_{1/2}(𝐤,𝐤_0)=\frac{3/2}{k_0^2+k^2+𝐤𝐤_0ME}+\\ +\frac{4\pi \{3/2a_{1/2}(𝐤^{},𝐤_0)+1/2b_{1/2}(𝐤^{},𝐤_0)\}}{(k^2+k^2+𝐤𝐤^{}ME)(k^2k_0)}\frac{d𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^3}.\end{array}$$
(9)
Here $`a_{3/2}`$ is the $`Nd`$ quartet $`(S=3/2)`$ scattering amplitude, while $`b_{1/2}`$ and $`a_{1/2}`$ are doublet ($`S=\frac{1}{2})`$ amplitudes corresponding to the singlet and triplet last $`NN`$ interaction respectively. It is seen that the kernel for $`S=3/2`$ is mostly negative and allows for a faster convergence, in contrast to the doublet ($`S=1/2`$) case. Numerical result for quartet scattering length $`a_{3/2}=5.1`$fm obtained in  is not far from experimental value , whereas doublet scattering requires full off-shell calculation .

## 3 Hyperspherical Method

Heretofore the basic dynamics was assumed to be quasi-two-body (however the Faddeev technic allows for the full off-shell description), in the sense that typical distance $`R`$ between an interacting pair and a third spectator particle is large, $`Rr_0`$. However this situation is an exclusion, and not the rule, which can be understood from the representation of the w.f. through the 3 body Green’s function $`(𝝃,𝜼`$ are Jacobi coordinates)

$$\psi (𝝃,𝜼)=\psi _0(𝝃,𝜼)+G(𝝃𝝃^{},𝜼𝜼^{})V_3(𝝃^{},𝜼)\psi (𝝃^{}.,𝜼^{})d𝝃^{}d𝜼^{}.$$
(10)
Here $`G(\xi ,𝜼)=\frac{K_2(\kappa \rho )}{\rho ^2},\kappa =\sqrt{2m|E|},\rho =\sqrt{𝝃^2+𝜼^2},`$ and $`V_3`$ includes all interaction terms. The asymptotics of $`\psi `$ is given by $`G`$ and is equal to

$$\psi (𝝃,𝜼)\frac{1}{\rho ^4},\rho \mathrm{}.$$
(11)
Hence the 3-body kynematics tends to concentrate all 3-body w.f. inside the interaction region of all 3 particles which generates small radius of w.f. even for barely bound 3-body states. (This is also true for $`N`$ -body systems $`N3`$). In this situation any pair angular momentum $`l_{ij}`$ contributes to the total energy of the system an amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\frac{l_{ij}(l_{ij}+1)}{2mr_0^2}`$ which for the 3 nucleon system with $`r_01`$ fm and for $`l_{ij}=1`$ is of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E50`$ MeV, while for the $`3q`$ system with $`m=m_q0.3`$ GeV and $`r_00.5`$ fm, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_q600`$ MeV.

Therefore it is advantageous to have a wave function with the minimal number of pair internal angular momenta for the given total momentum $`L`$. This basis is provided by hyperspherical functions ($`K`$ \- harmonics) due to the following properties:

i) the solution of the condition $`\widehat{l}_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }=0,ij=1,\mathrm{}N`$ is given by the representation $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{K=0}=\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\rho )`$,

$$\rho ^2=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i<j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(𝐫_i𝐫_j)^2$$
(12)
where all particles are assumed to have the same mass.

ii) The function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_K(𝐫_i,\mathrm{}𝐫_N)=u_K(\mathrm{\Omega })\chi _K(\rho ),`$ where $`u_K(\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{𝒫_K(𝐫_i,\mathrm{}𝐫_N)}{\rho ^K}`$ and $`𝒫_K`$ \- harmonic polynomial contains excited angular momenta $`l_1,\mathrm{}l_{N1}`$ the arithmetic sum of which is equal to $`K`$.

Therefore the basis $`\mathrm{\Psi }_K`$ corresponds to the minimal excitation of angular momenta and is advantageous for compact $`N`$-body systems. Since as was explained the majority of such systems are compact, the Hyperspherical Expansion Approach (HEA)  formulated as a system of coupled integral or differential equations has proved to be very successful both for few-nucleon systems ,, where short-range correlations can be taken into account in the hyperspherical correlated basis (last ref. in ), and atomic physics . It was understood afterwards , that the HEA works even better for $`3q`$ systems, since interaction there contains no repulsive core and confinement excludes two-body channels.

Therefore already the lowest approximation with $`K=0`$ yields the 1% accuracy for the baryon energy .

In this case the baryon state is characterized by the grand angular momentum $`K`$ and radial quantum number $`n=0,1,2`$, which counts number of zeros of the w.f. in the $`\rho `$-space. A typical calculation was done in , and the result depends on only two input parameters: string tension $`\sigma =0.15`$ GeV2 and $`\alpha _s=0.4`$, while current masses of light quarks have been put to zero. The spin-averaged masses $`\frac{1}{2}(M_n+M_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ have been computed to eliminate effect of hyperfine splitting.

To illustrate the simplicity of the method, let us quote the the equation for the for the dominant hyperspherical harmonics $`\psi _K(\rho )=\frac{\chi _K(\rho )}{\sqrt{\rho }},`$

$$\frac{1}{2\mu }\frac{d^2\psi _K}{d\rho ^2}+W_{KK}(\rho )\psi _K(\rho )=E_K\psi _K(\rho )$$
(13)
where $`W_{KK}(\rho )`$ is the sum of kinetic (angular) and potential energies, and $`\mu `$ is a constituent quark mass to be found below dynamically. The nonrelativistic appearance of this equation contains nevertheless the full relativistic dynamics, since $`\mu `$ is the einbein field needed to get rid of square roots in the relativistic quark action.

The explicit expression for $`W_{KK}`$ is

$$W_{KK}(\rho )=\frac{d}{2\mu \rho ^2}+V_{KK}(\rho ),d=(K+\frac{3}{2})(K+\frac{5}{2}),$$
(14)
while $`V_{KK}(\rho )=(u_K^+(\mathrm{\Omega })\widehat{V}u_K(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$, is the total potential $`\widehat{V}`$, including 2-body and 3-body parts, averaged over hyperspherical harmonics, which is done analytically. E.g. for the $`Y`$-type $`3q`$ confining potential one has $`V_{KK}(\rho )=1.58\sigma \rho `$. It is remarkable that to find the eigenvalues $`E_K`$ with the 1% accuracy one does not need to solve equation (13), but instead is approximating $`W_{KK}(\rho )`$ near the minimum point $`\rho _0`$ by the oscillator well:

$$W_{KK}(\rho )=W_{KK}(\rho _0)+\frac{1}{2}(\rho \rho _0)^2W_{KK}^{\prime \prime }(\rho _0),\frac{dW_{KK}}{d\rho }|_{\rho =\rho _0}=0.$$
(15)
The resulting eigenvalues are found immediately:

$$E_{Kn}W_{KK}(\rho _0)+\omega (n+\frac{1}{2}),\omega ^2=W_{KK}^{\prime \prime }/\mu .$$
(16)
The total baryon mass is calculated as $`M_{Kn}(\mu )=\frac{3}{2}\mu +E_{Kn}(\mu )`$, and finally $`\mu =\mu _0`$ is to be found from the stationary point condition $`\frac{M_{Kn}(\mu )}{\mu }|_{\mu =\mu _0}=0`$. This gives the constituent quark mass $`\mu _0=0.957\sqrt{\sigma }=0.37`$ GeV and finally the baryon mass is $`M_{Kn}(\mu _0)`$. The masses $`\frac{1}{2}(M_n+M_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ computed in this way are shown below in Table 1.

Table 1

Baryon masses (in GeV) averaged over hyperfine spin splitting for

$`\sigma =0.15`$ GeV2, $`\alpha _s=0.4,m_i=0`$.

| State | $`M_{Kn}+\mathrm{\Delta }H_{self}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{coul}`$ | $`M_{Kn}^{tot}`$ | $`M^{tot}(\mathrm{exp})`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`K=0,n=0`$ | 1.36 | -0.274 | 1.08 | 1.08 |
| $`K=0,n=1`$ | 2.19 | -0.274 | 1.91 | ? |
| $`K=0,n=2`$ | 2.9 | -0.274 | 2.62 | ? |
| $`K=L=1,n=0`$ | 1.85 | -0.217 | 1.63 | 1.6 |
| $`K=2,n=0`$ | 2.23 | -0.186 | 2.04 | ? |

As it seen from the Table the calculated spin-averaged mass $`\frac{1}{2}(M_N+M_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ agrees well with the experimental average, the same is also true for lowest negative parity states with $`K=L=1`$, which should be compared with $`\frac{1^{}}{2},\frac{3^{}}{2}`$ states of $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ respectively.

We also notice that breathing modes $`(n>0)`$ have excitation energy around 0.8 GeV while orbital excitations $`K=L=1`$ have energy interval around 0.5 GeV.

One of important advantages of HEA is that in the lowest approximation there is no need for numerical computations – as demonstrated above the result for the mass can be obtained analytically with 1% accuracy as can be checked by comparison with exact calculations, see -.

To conclude, the on-shell approach of STME ( and its Faddeev generalization) and the HEA are two alternatives which describe opposite physical situations. Their coexistence has played a very important stimulating role for the development of the few-body physics in the last four decades.

The author is greatly indebted to L.N.Bogdanova for the help and useful discussions.

The financial support of RFBR grants 00-02017836, 00-15-96736 and INTAS grants 00-110 and 00-366 is acknowledged.


text:
# Arithmetic and equidistribution of measures on the sphere

## 1. Introduction

Let $`X`$ be a Riemannian manifold of finite volume. Starting out from problems of theoretical physics (quantum chaos) several authors have recently studied questions of equidistribution of eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator.

In particular, precise versions of conjectures on equidistribution properties have been put forward by Rudnick and Sarnak  for arithmetic hyperbolic manifolds $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash H,`$ where $`H`$ is the upper half plane of the complex numbers and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ an arithmetic subgroup of $`SL_2(𝐑)`$ and for eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator, that are eigenfunctions of the (arithmetically defined) Hecke operators as well. The phenomenon of (conjectural) equidistribution of eigenfunctions in this arithmetical situation is one of the central problems in what has become known as arithmetic quantum chaos.

We investigate here the analogous question for the situation of the $`2`$-dimensional unit sphere. Although the dynamics of geodesics for this manifold is certainly not chaotic it turns out that it nevertheless makes sense to look for an equidistribution property of eigenfunctions. At first sight, the well known fact that the usual spherical eigenfunctions $`Y_{l,m}`$ (see \[20, Chapter III\]) concentrate for $`l=m\mathrm{}`$ around the equator seems to contradict the expectation of equidistribution, but since the eigenvalues occur on the sphere with multiplicities bigger than one, it makes sense to look into the question what happens if one varies the basis of eigenfunctions.

In this direction, it has been proved by Zelditch  that for a random orthonormal basis of eigenfunctions the equidistribution of mass conjecture is true.

We consider here, in analogy to the arithmetic hyperbolic surfaces, an orthonormal basis of eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator that are also eigenfunctions of an algebra of Hecke operators that acts on the space of spherical functions. The papers  and  also consider questions of the behaviour of eigenfunctions for such bases of spherical harmonics.

Concretely, a definite quaternion algebra such as the Hamilton Quaternions $``$ over $``$, gives rise to Hecke operators on $`L^2(S^2)`$ (see , ). For

$$\alpha =x_0+x_1i+x_2j+x_3k(),$$

let

$$S(\alpha )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N(\alpha )}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\hfill x_0+x_1i& x_2+x_3i\hfill \\ \hfill x_2+x_3i& x_0x_1i\hfill \end{array}\right]SU(2).$$

Here

$$N(\alpha )=\alpha \overline{\alpha }=x_0^2+x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2.$$

For $`n1`$ an odd integer define the Hecke operator $`T_n`$ on $`L^2(S^2)`$ by

$$(T_n\varphi )(P)=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N(\alpha )=n}{\alpha ()}}{}\varphi (S(\alpha )P),$$

where $`PS^2`$ and $`SU(2)`$ acts on $`S^2`$ by isometries after one realizes $`S^2`$ as $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ via stereographic projection and $`SU(2)`$ acts by linear fractional transformations. The $`T_n`$’s are selfadjoint, they commute with each other as well as with the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on the round sphere. Thus the $`T_n`$’s can be simultaneously diagonalized in each of the $`2\nu +1`$ dimensional spaces $`H_\nu ,`$ consisting of spherical harmonics on $`S^2`$ of degree $`\nu `$ (that is the restriction of harmonic polynomials in $`^3`$, homogeneous of degree $`\nu `$). This algebra of Hecke operators arises naturally if one views the spherical harmonics as components at infinity of automorphic forms on the multiplicative group of the adelization of the rational Hamilton quaternions. We denote by $`\psi _\nu `$ such a Hecke eigenform with $`\nu `$ indicating its degree (so that its Laplace eigenvalue is $`\nu (\nu +1)/2)`$.

The analogue of the equidistribution of mass conjecture  for the $`\psi _\nu `$’s is the following:
Conjecture 1. Normalize $`\psi _\nu `$ on $`S^2`$ to have $`L^2`$-norm equal to $`1`$, so that

$$\mu _{\psi _\nu }:=|\psi _\nu (P)|^2dv(P)$$

is a probability measure. Then

$$\underset{\nu \mathrm{}}{lim}\mu _{\psi _\nu }=\frac{dv}{2\pi },$$

in the sense of integration against continuous functions on $`S^2`$.
The analogue of the Gaussian equidistribution conjecture of Berry and others  in this context is as follows:
Conjecture 2. Fix $`q0`$ an integer then

$$\underset{\nu \mathrm{}}{lim}_{S^2}\psi _\nu ^q𝑑v\frac{c_q}{(2\pi )^{q/2}},$$

where $`c_q`$ is the $`q`$-th moment of the Gaussian distribution.

By the work of Eichler  and of Jacquet/Langlands it is known that there is a correspondence between spherical harmonic polynomials and modular forms via the theory of theta series with spherical harmonics. This correspondence is Hecke-equivariant, and thus methods and results from the theory of modular forms, in particular from the theory of $`L`$-functions associated to Hecke eigenforms (or irreducible automorphic representations), can be used in the study of the spherical harmonics.

The crucial point for our study of the integrals appearing in the equidistribution conjecture above is a formula proved in  that connects the integral of a product of 3 eigenfunctions over the sphere with the central critical value of the automorphic $`L`$-functions associated to a triple of modular Hecke eigenforms; this allows one to connect the equidistribution conjecture with conjectural properties of such automorphic $`L`$-functions. We note in passing that such integrals of products of $`3`$ eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator on the sphere have been considered in various places in the physics literature, see .

The purpose of this note is to show that combining the main formula in  with the recent subconvex estimates for special values of $`L`$-functions of holomorphic modular forms  allows one to prove Conjecture 2 for $`q=3`$ (the cases $`q=1`$ and $`q=2`$ are obvious). We also show that Conjecture 1 would follow from subconvex estimates for the degree 8 $`L`$-functions mentioned above. Such subconvex estimates are an immediate consequence of the Riemann Hypothesis for these $`L`$-functions. At the present time such subconvex estimates are known only for special forms, see  and .

In his recent thesis , Watson has derived general explicit identities relating integrals of products of 3 Maass (or holomorphic) Hecke eigenforms on arithmetic surfaces, to special values of degree 8 $`L`$-functions. As a consequence he obtains similar results for “chaotic” eigenstates.

As an appendix to this paper we give a list of corrections to the article , on whose results the estimates in the present paper depend. A revised version of that article is available at
www.math.uni-sb.de/~ag-schulze/Preprints.

We would like to thank T. Ibukiyama for the permission to use his unpublished results in .

## 2. Equidistribution

Our first goal is to describe explicitly the connection between the central critical value of the triple product $`L`$-function associated to a triple of cusp forms on one side and integrals of harmonic polynomials over the unit sphere on the other side. We fix first some notations.

We consider a definite quaternion algebra $`D`$ of discriminant $`N`$ (where $`N`$ is the product of the primes ramified in $`D`$) over $`𝐐`$ and a maximal order $`R`$ in $`D`$, we assume that the class number (i.e., the number of classes of left $`R`$-ideals) of $`D`$ is 1; this restricts $`D`$ to be one of the algebras of discriminant equal to $`2,3,5,7,13.`$

On $`D`$ we have the involution $`x\overline{x}`$, the (reduced) trace tr$`(x)=x+\overline{x}`$ and the (reduced) norm $`n(x)=x\overline{x}`$.

For $`\nu 𝐍`$ let $`U_\nu ^{(0)}`$ be the space of homogeneous harmonic polynomials of degree $`\nu `$ on $`𝐑^3`$ and view $`PU_\nu ^{(0)}`$ as a polynomial on $`D_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}=\{xD_{\mathrm{}}=D𝐑|\text{tr}(x)=0\}`$ by putting $`P(_{i=1}^3x_ie_i)=P(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ for an orthonormal basis $`\{e_i\}`$ of $`D_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}`$ with respect to the norm form $`n`$. Integrating the polynomial in this identification over the set of $`xD_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}`$ of norm $`1`$ is the same as integrating the original polynomial in 3 real variables over the unit sphere $`S^2,`$ we will freely use this identification below.

In the same way we fix an orthonormal basis of $`D_{\mathrm{}}`$ extending the one from above and use it to identify (harmonic) polynomials in 4 variables with (harmonic) polynomial functions on $`D_{\mathrm{}}`$.

The representation of $`D_{\mathrm{}}^\times `$ on $`U_\nu ^{(0)}`$ by conjugation of the argument is denoted by $`\tau _\nu `$. By $`,`$ we denote the invariant scalar product in the representation space $`U_\nu ^{(0)}`$ (where the choice of normalization will be discussed later). The $`D^\times \times D^\times `$-space $`U_\nu ^{(0)}U_\nu ^{(0)}`$ is isomorphic to the $`D^\times \times D^\times `$-space $`U_{2\nu }`$ of harmonic polynomials on $`D_{\mathrm{}}`$ of degree $`2\nu ,`$ where $`(d_1,d_2)D^\times \times D^\times `$ acts by sending $`P(x)`$ to $`P(d_1^1xd_2).`$ An explicit isomorphism is given by mapping $`P_1P_2`$ to the polynomial $`P_1P_2(d):=P_2(x),P_1(dx\overline{d}).`$ We will henceforth identify $`U_\nu ^{(0)}U_\nu ^{(0)}`$ with $`U_{2\nu }`$ using this isomorphism.

There is a Hecke action on $`U_\nu ^{(0)}`$ which has been described by Eichler  in terms of Brandt matrices with polynomial entries, it is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{T}(p)P=\underset{yR,n(y)=p}{}\tau _\nu (y)(P),$$

see also . In particular the space $`U_\nu ^{(0)}`$ has a basis consisting of eigenforms of all the $`\stackrel{~}{T}(p)`$ for the $`pN.`$

To $`P_1U_\nu ^{(0)}`$ we associate the theta series of $`R`$ with harmonic polynomial $`P_1P_1`$ given as usual as

$$f_{P_1}(z):=\frac{1}{|R^\times |}\underset{xR}{}(P_1P_1)(x)\mathrm{exp}(\pi in(x)z).$$

For this to be nonzero we have to restrict to polynomials $`P_1`$ that are invariant under the action of the group $`R^\times `$ of $`R,`$ we will always do so in the sequel. The function $`f_{P_1}`$ is then a cusp form for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N)`$ of weight $`2+2\nu `$ if $`\nu >0`$ and it is an eigenform for the Hecke operators $`T(p)`$ for $`pN`$ if $`P_1`$ is an eigenfunction of the $`\stackrel{~}{T}(p)`$ for the $`pN.`$ In fact it is a normalized newform if $`P_1,P_1=1,`$ and it is a result of  that one gets all normalized newforms of level $`N`$, weight $`2+2\nu `$ and trivial character in this way (we will actually not use the latter fact). With these notations we can now formulate:

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`P_1,P_2,P_3U_{\nu _1}^{(0)},U_{\nu _2}^{(0)},U_{\nu _3}^{(0)}`$ (with $`\nu _1=\nu _2,\nu _3>0`$) be harmonic polynomials that are Hecke eigenforms as above, denote by $`f_1,f_2,f_3`$ the associated cusp forms of weights $`k_1=k_2=2+2\nu _1,k_3=2+2\nu _3`$ and by $`L(f_1,f_2,f_3;s)`$ the triple product $`L`$-function associated to $`f_1,f_2,f_3,`$ (as defined for the good primes e.g. in , for the Euler factors at the bad primes we refer to ).
Then one has for all $`ϵ>0:`$

(2.1)
$$L(f_1,f_2,f_3;\frac{2k_1+k_3}{2}1)C_1(N,\nu _3)\nu _1^{1ϵ}(_{S^2}P_1(x)P_2(x)P_3(x)𝑑x)^2$$

with a poitive constant $`C_1(N,\nu _3)`$ depending only on $`N,\nu _3`$ and $`ϵ.`$

If $`\nu _1=\nu _2=\nu _3=:\nu ,`$ one has for all $`ϵ>0`$ (with $`k:=k_1=k_2=k_3=2+2\nu `$):

(2.2)
$$L(f_1,f_2,f_3;2+3\nu )C_2(N)\nu ^{2ϵ}(_{S^2}P_1(x)P_2(x)P_3(x)𝑑x)^2$$

with a positive constant $`C_2(N)`$ depending only on $`N`$ and $`ϵ.`$

Proof. According to  the central critical value is:

(2.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}(1)^a^{}2^{5+4a+3b\omega (N)}\pi ^{5+9a^{}+4b}\frac{(a^{}+1)^{[b]}}{2^{[a+b]}2^{[a^{}]}(b+1)^{[a^{}]}(1)^{[a^{}]}}\hfill \\ \hfill \times f_1,f_1f_2,f_2f_3,f_3\left(T_0\left(\frac{1}{|R^\times |}P_1P_2P_3\right)\right)^2\end{array}$$

with a certain trilinear form $`T_0`$ on $`U_{nu_1}^{(0)}U_{nu_2}^{(0)}U_{nu_3}^{(0)}`$ whose definition is recorded below.

Here we have the following notations:

$$\alpha ^{[\nu ]}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )}=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}1\hfill & & \nu =0\hfill \\ \alpha (\alpha +1)\mathrm{}(\alpha +\nu 1)\hfill & & \nu >0\hfill \end{array}\right\},$$

hence

$$\frac{(a^{}+1)^{[b]}}{2^{[a+b]}2^{[a^{}]}(b+1)^{[a^{}]}(1)^{[a^{}]}}=\frac{b!}{(a^{}!)^2(a^{}+1)!(a+b+1)!}.$$

Unfortunately,  contains a mistake at this point, the correct value of the factor arising here is

(2.4)
$$\frac{(a^{}+1+b)b!}{(a^{}!)^2(a^{}+1)!(3a^{}+b+1)!}.$$

Moreover, there should be an additional factor of $`N^1`$ in (2.3), the exponent at $`\pi `$ should be $`5+6a^{}+2b`$ and the factor $`(1)^a^{}`$ should be omitted.

The forms $`f_1,f_2,f_3`$ are normalized newforms of weights $`k_1k_2k_3`$ with $`k_2+k_3>k_1,`$ in our case we have $`k_1=k_2`$. We write $`k_1=k_2=2+a+b`$ and $`k_3=2+a,a=2a^{}.`$ For our purposes we can restrict to the case that both $`a^{}`$ and $`b`$ are even.

We normalize the invariant scalar product on the latter space in such a way that the Gegenbauer polynomial $`G^{(\alpha )}(x,x^{})`$ obtained from

$$G_1^{(\alpha )}(t)=2^\alpha \underset{j=0}{\overset{[\frac{\alpha }{2}]}{}}(1)^j\frac{1}{j!(\alpha 2j)!}\frac{(\alpha j)!}{2^{2j}}t^{\alpha 2j}$$

by

$$G^{(\alpha )}(x_1,x_2)=2^\alpha (n(x_1)n(x_2))^{\alpha /2}G_1^{(\alpha )}(\frac{\text{tr}(x_1\overline{x_2})}{2\sqrt{n(x_1)n(x_2)}})$$

is a reproducing kernel.

The invariant scalar product on $`U_\alpha ^{(0)}`$ is then normalized such that we obtain the product on $`U_{2\alpha }`$ given above under the identification $`U_{2\alpha }=U_\alpha ^{(0)}U_\alpha ^{(0)}.`$

Given this, the polynomials $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ are normalized to

$$P_i,P_i=1.$$

The normalization of the trilinear form is then as follows:
We have a harmonic polynomial $`PU_{a+b}U_{a+b}U_a`$ in three vector variables (each vector being a quaternion) derived from the action of a certain differential operator on an exponential in Section 1 of . This gives an invariant trilinear form $`T`$ on $`U_{a+b}U_{a+b}U_a`$ defined by taking the scalar product with $`P_0:=(\pi i)^{3a^{}b}i^{3a^{}}P`$ (notice that in  we write erroneously $`\pi ^{3a2b}P`$). Using the identification $`U_{2\alpha }=U_\alpha ^{(0)}U_\alpha ^{(0)}`$ from above $`T`$ decomposes as $`T_0T_0.`$

For the intended application the form $`T_0(Q_1^{(0)},Q_2^{(0)},Q_3^{(0)})`$ should be replaced by the integral

$$Q_1^{(0)}(𝐱)Q_2^{(0)}(𝐱)Q_2^{(0)}(𝐱)𝑑𝐱$$

over the unit sphere.

As a first step we compare $`T(Q_1,Q_2,Q_3)`$ with

$$Q_1(x)Q_2(x)Q_2(x)𝑑x;$$

since both expressions give invariant trilinear forms they have to be proportional.

We compute $`T`$ for special polynomials $`Q_i`$ on the space of quaternions:
Write $`G_w^{(\alpha )}(x)`$ for $`G^{(\alpha )}(w,x).`$

Then we have

$$T(G_w^{(a+b)},G_w^{(a+b)},G_w^{(a)})=P_0(w,w,w)$$

by the reproducing property of the $`G^{(\alpha )}.`$

On the other hand, by \[20, p.490\] the integral

$$G_w^{(a+b)}(x)G_w^{(a+b)}(x)G_w^{(a)}(x)𝑑x$$

is equal to $`\pi /2`$ and hence

(2.5)
$$T(Q_1,Q_2,Q_3)=2P_0(w,w,w)Q_1(𝐱)Q_2(𝐱)Q_2(𝐱)𝑑𝐱.$$

We have to compute $`P_0(w,w,w)`$ explicitly. This looks at first sight rather awkward since our description in  gives us an explicit formula only for one coefficient of the polynomial.

Fortunately there are some results on such polynomials in forthcoming work of Ibukiyama and Zagier, see :
For $`n`$ we denote by $`_n(4)`$ the space of harmonic homogeneous polynomials of degree $`n`$ in $`4`$ variables. For nonnegative integers $`\mu _1,\mu _2,\mu _3`$ we then put

$$_{\mu _1,\mu _2,\mu _3}(4):=\left(_{\mu _2+\mu _3}(4)_{\mu _1+\mu _3}(4)_{\mu _1+\mu _2}(4)\right)^{O(4)}$$

This space is then always one-dimensional and a nonzero element of $`_{\mu _1,\mu _2,\mu _3}(4)`$ is (explicitly!) given as the coefficient of $`X_1^{\mu _1}X_2^{\mu _2}X_3^{\mu _3}`$ in the formal power series

$$G_4(𝐗,T)=G_4(X_1,X_2,X_3;T)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐗,T)^24d(T)X_1X_2X_3}}$$

Here $`T`$ is (twice of) a Gram matrix

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2m_1& r_3& r_2\\ r_3& 2m_2& r_1\\ r_2& r_1& 2m_3\end{array}\right)=2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(𝐱,𝐱)& (𝐱,𝐲)& (𝐱,𝐳)\\ (𝐲,𝐱)& (𝐲,𝐲)& (𝐲,𝐳)\\ (𝐳,𝐱)& (𝐳,𝐲)& (𝐳,𝐳)\end{array}\right)(𝐱,𝐲,𝐳^4)$$

and

$$d(T)=4m_1m_2m_3m_1r_1^2m_2r_2^2m_3r_3^2+r_1r_2r_3=\frac{1}{2}det(T)$$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(X_1,X_2,X_3;T)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐗,T)`$
$`=`$ $`1r_1X_1r_2X_2r_3X_3+r_1m_1X_2X_3+r_2m_2X_3X_1+r_3m_3X_1X_2`$
$`+m_1m_2X_3^2+m_2m_3X_1^2+m_3m_1X_2^2.`$
We are interested in the coefficient of $`X_1^a^{}X_2^a^{}X_3^{a^{}+b}`$ which we call $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ in the sequel. The coefficient of $`m_1^0m_2^0m_3^0r_1^a^{}r_2^a^{}r_3^{a^{}+b}`$ in the polynomial $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ can be read off from the expression above (putting $`m_1=m_2=m_3=0`$); it is

$$\underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{a^{}}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2a^{}2\alpha }{a^{}\alpha }\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2a^{}+b+\alpha }{3\alpha +b}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3\alpha +b}{\alpha ,\alpha ,\alpha +b}\right),$$

where we write

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j}{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma }\right):=\frac{j!}{\alpha !\beta !\gamma !}.$$

This is known to be equal to

$$\frac{(2a^{})!(b+2a^{})!^2}{a^{}!^4(b+a^{})!^2};$$

an identity which can be reduced to a special case of an exercise on page 44 in  with hints to , who traces it back to ”Saalschutz summation”.

Now we compare $`P_0`$ with Ibukiyama’s polynomial $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$; it is enough to compare the coefficients in the monomial above. From Section 1 of  one reads off that the coefficient of $`P_0`$ in the same monomial is

$$\frac{2^b}{(b+1)!b!}.$$

Again, there is a mistake in  here. The correct value is

(2.6)
$$\frac{2^b2^{4a^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(a^{}+2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a^{}+b+2)b!},$$

so that we arrive at

$$P_0=2^{b+4a^{}}\frac{a^{}!^4(b+a^{})!^2(a^{}+1)!}{(2a^{})!(b+2a^{})!^2(a^{}+b+1)!b!}\stackrel{~}{P}.$$

Next we have to evaluate $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ at the triple $`(w,w,w)`$, i. e., at the matrix $`T`$ with $`m_1=m_2=m_3=1,r_1=r_2=r_3=2.`$ We get in this case

$$G_4(𝐗,T)=(1\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}X_i)^2,$$

the coefficient of which at $`X_1^a^{}X_2^a^{}X_3^{a^{}+b}`$ is the value we try to compute.

It is proved easily (Taylor expansion) that this is equal to

$$\frac{(3a^{}+b+1)!}{(a^{})!(a^{})!(a^{}+b)!},$$

which leads us to

$`P_0(w,w,w)`$ $`=`$ $`2^{b+4a^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a^{}+1)!(3a^{}+b+1)!a^{}!^4(b+a^{})!^2}{a^{}!^2(a^{}+b)!(2a^{})!(b+2a^{})!^2(a^{}+b+1)!b!}}`$
$`=`$ $`2^{b+4a^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(3a^{}+b+1)!a^{}!^2(a^{}+1)!(a^{}+b)!}{(2a^{})!(b+2a^{})!^2b!(a^{}+b+1)!}}.`$
For polynomials $`Q_1^{(0)},Q_2^{(0)}U_{a^{}+b/2}^{(0)},Q_3^{(0)}U_a^{}^{(0)}`$ we have by definition

$$(T_0(Q_1^{(0)},Q_2^{(0)},Q_3^{(0)}))^2=T(Q_1^{(0)}Q_1^{(0)},Q_2^{(0)}Q_2^{(0)},Q_3^{(0)}Q_3^{(0)})$$

and hence (as a consequence of the discussion given above)

$$\begin{array}{c}(T_0(Q_1^{(0)},Q_2^{(0)},Q_3^{(0)}))^2=2^{b+4a^{}+1}\pi ^1\frac{(3a^{}+b+1)!a^{}!^2(a^{}+1)!(a^{}+b)!}{(2a^{})!(b+2a^{})!^2b!(a^{}+b+1)!}\hfill \\ \hfill \times (Q_1^{(0)}Q_1^{(0)})(x)(Q_2^{(0)}Q_2^{(0)})(x)(Q_3^{(0)}Q_3^{(0)})(x)dx,\end{array}$$

where the integration is over the 3-dimensional unit sphere.

Our next task is to relate the integral

(2.7)
$$(Q_1^{(0)}Q_1^{(0)})(x)(Q_2^{(0)}Q_2^{(0)})(x)(Q_3^{(0)}Q_3^{(0)})(x)𝑑x$$

with $`(\stackrel{~}{T}_0(Q_1^{(0)},Q_2^{(0)},Q_3^{(0)})^2,`$ where we put

(2.8)
$$\stackrel{~}{T}_0(Q_1^{(0)},Q_2^{(0)},Q_3^{(0)}):=Q_1^{(0)}(z)Q_2^{(0)}(z)Q_3^{(0)}(z)𝑑z,$$

and where the integration is now over the 2-dimensional unit sphere (the factor of proportionality arising here depends on the identification between $`U_{2\alpha }`$ and $`U_\alpha ^{(0)}U_\alpha ^{(0)}`$ and hence on the degrees of the polynomials involved).

In order to do this we need again special polynomials which show us the normalization of our isomorphism. We recall first how this isomorphism is described:

Given $`P_1^{(0)},P_2^{(0)}U_\alpha ^{(0)}`$ we defined the polynomial $`P_1^{(0)}P_2^{(0)}`$ by $`(P_1P_2)(x)=P_1^{(0)}(d),P_2^{(0)}(xd\overline{x})_0,`$ where $`,_0`$ denotes the invariant scalar product chosen in $`U_\alpha ^{(0)}.`$

We consider again the Gegenbauer polynomial $`G^{(\alpha ,0)}`$ of degree $`\alpha `$ in $`U_\alpha ^{(0)}U_\alpha ^{(0)}`$, derived in the same way from the one-variable polynomial with indices $`l=\alpha ,p=1/2`$ given in  as we did it above for the $`G^\beta `$ in $`U_\beta `$ and let $`,_0`$ be normalized such that this polynomial is a reproducing kernel, this normalization determines then our choice of the isomorphism between $`U_{2\alpha }`$ and $`U_\alpha ^{(0)}U_\alpha ^{(0)}.`$

In order to relate the integrals in (2.7) and (2.8) we evaluate them for a special choice of polynomials: We put $`Q_1^{(0)}=Q_2^{(0)}=G_z^{(a^{}+b/2,0)}`$ and $`Q_3^{(0)}=G_z^{(a^{},0)}`$ for some quaternion $`z`$ of norm $`1`$ and trace $`0`$.

The integral in (2.8) is then by \[20, p.490\] equal to

(2.9) $`c_1`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3a^{}+b}{2}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{a^{}+1}{2})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{a^{}+b+1}{2})}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{a^{}}{2}+1)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{a^{}+b}{2}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3a^{}+b+3}{2})}}`$
(2.10) $`=`$ $`16{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a^{})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(a^{}+b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3a^{}+b}{2}+1)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3a^{}+b+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{a^{}}{2})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{a^{}}{2}+1)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{a^{}+b}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{a^{}+b}{2}+1)}}`$
(where the second form is derived from the first using the duplication formula for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function and where a factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2w)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(w)`$ has to be replaced by $`2`$ if $`w=0`$).

On the other hand, the definition of the isomorphism between $`U_{2\alpha }`$ and $`U_\alpha ^{(0)}U_\alpha ^{(0)}`$ and the reproducing property of the Gegenbauer polynomials imply that

$$(G_z^{(\alpha ,0)}G_z^{(\alpha ,0)})(x)=G_z^{(\alpha ,0)}(\overline{x}zx),$$

and hence that

(2.11)
$$\begin{array}{c}(G_z^{((a^{}+b/2),0)}G_z^{((a^{}+b/2),0)})(x)(G_z^{((a^{}+b/2),0)}G_z^{((a^{}+b/2),0)})(x)\hfill \\ \hfill \times (G_z^{(a^{},0)}G_z^{(a^{},0)})(x)dx\\ \hfill =\text{vol}(\text{Stab}(z))G_z^{((a^{}+b/2),0)}(z^{})G_z^{((a^{}+b/2),0)}(z^{})G_z^{(a^{},0)}(z^{})𝑑z^{},\end{array}$$

where Stab$`(z)`$ is the set of $`x`$ of norm 1 with $`\overline{x}zx=z.`$

The normalizations of the integrals over the $`3`$-sphere and over the $`2`$-sphere in  are such that $`\text{vol}(\text{Stab}(z))=\frac{\pi }{4}`$ holds.

Taken together we obtain

(2.12)
$$\begin{array}{c}(Q_1^{(0)}Q_1^{(0)})(x)(Q_2^{(0)}Q_2^{(0)})(x)(Q_3^{(0)}Q_3^{(0)})(x)𝑑x\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{\pi }{4c_1}\left(Q_1^{(0)}(z)Q_2^{(0)}(z)Q_3^{(0)}(z)𝑑z\right)^2,\end{array}$$

where $`c_1`$ is the constant computed in (2.9).

This gives us the first formula for the central critical value of the triple product $`L`$-function.

(2.13)
$$\begin{array}{c}N^12^{12a^{}+4b4\omega (N)}\pi ^{5+6a^{}+2b}f_1,f_1f_1,f_1f_3,f_3\hfill \\ \hfill \times \frac{(b+a^{})a^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{a^{}+b}{2})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{a^{}}{2})^4\mathrm{\Gamma }(3a^{}+b+2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a^{})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(2a^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3a^{}+b}{2}+1)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(a^{}+b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2a^{}+b+1)^2}\\ \hfill \times \left(P_1(x)P_1(x)P_3(x)𝑑x\right)^2\end{array}$$

In this we replace the Petersson product $`f_i,f_i`$ by

$$(4\pi )^{1k_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }(k_i)D_{f_i}(k1)$$

(where $`D_{f_i}`$ denotes the symmetric square $`L`$-function of $`f_i`$), which leads us to

(2.14)
$$\begin{array}{c}2^{9\omega (N)}\pi ^2D_{f_1}(k_11)D_{f_1}(k_11)D_{f_3}(k_31)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \frac{(a^{})^2(2a^{}+1)(a^{}+b)(b+2a^{}+1)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{a^{}+b}{2})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(3a^{}+b+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{a^{}}{2})^4}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a^{})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3a^{}+b}{2}+1)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(a^{}+b)}\\ \hfill \times \left(P_1(x)P_1(x)P_3(x)𝑑x\right)^2\end{array}$$

Here the factor $`D_{f_1}(k_11)D_{f_1}(k_11)D_{f_3}(k_31)`$ does not contribute in an essential way to the asymptotics as $`k_1\mathrm{}`$ since it is well known that $`k_i^\delta <<D_{f_i}(k_i1)<<k_i^\delta `$ for all $`\delta >0`$, see e.g. .

We analyze the total factor on the right hand side in front of

$$D_{f_1}(k_11)D_{f_1}(k_11)D_{f_3}(k_31)\left(P_1(x)P_2(x)P_3(x)𝑑x\right)^2$$

with Stirling’s formula: For the first assertion of the proposition we fix $`\nu _3`$ and let $`\nu _1`$ tend to infinity; we find that the factor from above can for all $`ϵ>0`$ be bounded from below by

$$c^{}b^{3ϵ}$$

for some nonzero constant $`c^{}`$ depending on $`a^{},ϵ`$ and the level $`N`$ as $`b`$ tends to infinity.

For the second part of the proposition we have all the $`\nu _i`$ equal, which implies $`b=0`$ in the notation used above; we find that the factor can (for all $`ϵ>0`$) be bounded from below by

$$c^{\prime \prime }a^{5ϵ}$$

for some nonzero constant $`c^{\prime \prime }`$ depending on $`ϵ`$ and the level $`N.`$ We have to adjust a final normalization: The $`\phi _i`$ were normalized to have

$$\phi _i,\phi _i_0=1$$

whereas we want them to have $`L^2`$-norm $`1.`$

A comparison of $`\phi _i,\phi _i_0`$ with the scalar product on the space of $`\phi `$ derived from the $`L^2`$-norm with the help of \[20, p. 461\] shows that we have

$$P_1=\sqrt{a^{}+(b+1)/2}^1\stackrel{~}{P_1},P_3=\sqrt{a^{}+1/2}^1\stackrel{~}{P_3},$$

where the $`\stackrel{~}{P_i}`$ are $`L^2`$-normalized.

This multiplies the last formula with

$$(a^{}+(b+1)/2)^2(a^{}+1/2)^1$$

in the first case and leads to an expression that is bounded from below for every $`ϵ>0`$ by

$$C_1b^{1ϵ}$$

for some nonzero constant $`C_1`$ depending on $`ϵ,a^{}`$ and the level $`N`$ as $`b`$ tends to infinity.

In the second case the formula gets multiplied with $`(a^{}+1/2)^3`$ and leads to an expression that is bounded from below for every $`ϵ>0`$ by

$$C_2a^{2ϵ}$$

for some nonzero constant $`C_2`$ depending on $`ϵ`$ and the level $`N`$ as $`a`$ tends to infinity. This finishes the proof of the Proposition.

On the other hand one can investigate the dependence of the central critical value $`L(f_1,f_1,f_3;\frac{2k_1+k_3}{2}1)`$ on the level and weights with analytic methods from the theory of $`L`$-functions.

We do this first for the equidistribution of mass conjecture, i. e., for the situation in which $`\nu _3`$ is fixed and $`\nu _1=\nu _2`$ tends to infinity:

As usual in the theory of $`L`$-functions the first step is to establish the convexity bound.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`f_1,f_3`$ be newforms of level $`N`$ and weights $`k_1,k_3`$ as above. Then

$$L(f_1,f_1,f_3;\frac{2k_1+k_3}{2}1)=O_N(k_1^{1+ϵ})$$

for all $`ϵ>0.`$

Proof. In  a general description of the convexity bound of (standard) automorphic L-functions for $`GL(n)`$ is given. That bound is also applicable for our triple $`L`$-function.
We recall the (normalized) functional equation of the triple $`L`$-function (quoting from  for weight 2 and more generally from ; we restrict ourselves to the case where all the cusp forms involved are newforms of the same -squarefree- level): Putting

(2.15)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Lambda }(s)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(s+k_1+\frac{k_3}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(s+1+\frac{k_3}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(s+1+\frac{k_3}{2})\hfill \\ \hfill \times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(s+1+k_1\frac{k_3}{2})(f_1,f_2,f_3,s)\end{array}$$

with

(2.16)
$$(f_1,f_2,f_3,s)=L(f_1,f_2,f_3,s+\frac{k_1+k_2+k_33}{2})$$

and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(s)=(2\pi )^s\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)`$ we get the functional equation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(1s)=(N^5)^{s\frac{1}{2}}w\mathrm{\Lambda }(s)$$

Under such circumstances, the convexity bound (as described in ) is

$$(f_1,f_2,f_3,\frac{1}{2}+it)<<_ϵ(C(f_1,f_2,f_3,t))^{\frac{1}{4}+ϵ}$$

Here $`C(f_1,f_2,f_3,t)`$ is given in terms of the gamma factors; in our case this means

(2.17)
$$\begin{array}{c}C(f_1,f_2,f_3,t)=(N^5)(1+itk_1\frac{k_3}{2}^2)\hfill \\ \hfill \times (1+it1\frac{k_3}{2}^2)^2(1+it1k_1+\frac{k_3}{2}^2)\end{array}$$

In our special case (i.e.$`k_1=k_2`$ and $`k_3`$ fixed) this implies an estimate of type

$$(f_1,f_1,f_3,\frac{1}{2})<<k_1^{1+ϵ}$$

or

$$(f_1,f_1,f_3,\frac{1}{2})<<b^{1+ϵ}$$

For our intended application this result is just too weak.

We will therefore assume henceforth that one can break convexity for the estimate of $`L(f_1,f_1,f_3;\frac{2k_1+k_3}{2}1)`$ in the $`k_1`$-aspect (see  for a survey of subconvex estimates).

Subconvexity hypothesis. Fix $`f_3`$ as above. There is $`\delta >0`$ such that for all $`f_1`$ as above

$$(f_1,f_1,f_3,\frac{1}{2})=O_{f_3}(k_1^{1\delta }).$$

Then the result from our proposition immediately translates into a statement about equidistribution of measures on the unit sphere that are associated to Hecke eigenfunctions on a quaternion algebra which proves the last assertion in the introduction (concerning Conjecture 1).

###### Proposition 2.3.

Let $`D`$ be as above, let $`S^2^3`$ be identified with
$`\{xD_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}|n(x)=1\}`$ as above. For a harmonic polynomial $`P[X_1,X_2,X_3]`$ let the measure $`\mu _P`$ on $`S^2`$ be defined by

$$_{S^2}f(x)𝑑\mu _P(x):=_{S^2}|P(x)|^2f(x)𝑑x.$$

Then under our subconvexity hypothesis the measures $`\mu _P`$ become equidistributed if $`P`$ runs through Hecke eigenfunctions of degree $`\nu `$ for $`\nu \mathrm{}`$, i.e., one has

$`()`$
$$\underset{\nu (P)\mathrm{}}{lim}_{S^2}f(x)𝑑\mu _P(x)=_{S^2}f(x)𝑑x$$

for all continuous $`f`$ on $`S^2`$.

Proof. We have to check $`()`$ only for Hecke eigenfunctions $`f=Q`$, as these form a Hilbert space basis of $`L^2(S^2)`$.

Then for $`Q1`$ the right hand side of $`()`$ is zero, for $`Q=1`$ it is 1.

For $`Q=1`$ we have equality in $`()`$ for all $`P`$ (of $`L^2`$-norm 1).

For $`Q1`$, Proposition 2 together with the convexity breaking assumption implies that

$$\underset{\nu \mathrm{}}{lim}_{S^2}Q(x)|P(x)|^2𝑑x=0,$$

which proves the assertion.

We end with the statement and proof of Conjecture 1 for the case $`q=3`$

###### Proposition 2.4.

Let $`D`$ and $`P`$ (harmonic of degree $`\nu (P)`$) be as in Proposition 2.3. Then

(2.18)
$$\underset{\nu (P)\mathrm{}}{lim}_{S^2}P(x)^3𝑑x=0$$

Proof. According to (2.2) we have for $`ϵ>0`$

(2.19)
$$|_{S^2}P(x)^3𝑑x|^2<<\nu (P)^{ϵ2}L(f_1,f_2,f_3;2+3\nu (P))$$

Now with the notation from (2.16) (i. e. denoting by $``$ an $`L`$-function normalized to have functional equation under $`s(1s)`$) we have

(2.20)
$$(f,f,f,s)=(\text{Sym}^3f,s)((f,s))^2.$$

Furthermore $`(\text{Sym}^3f,s)`$ is the $`L`$-function of a $`GL_4`$-cusp form , so we may apply the general Molteni subconvexity bound (see ) to $`(\text{Sym}^3f,\frac{1}{2}).`$ This combined with the subconvex bound for $`(f,\frac{1}{2})`$ due to Peng  shows that

$$\nu (P)^{ϵ2}L(f_1,f_2,f_3;2+3\nu (P))=O(\nu ^\delta )$$

for a fixed $`\delta >0.`$ This proves the Proposition.

Remark. We see presently no way to extend the statement of Proposition 2.1 (and hence our arguments in this article) to a product of more than three polynomials, since our proofs here and in  use several special features of the case of three polynomials. In particular our proofs depend on

* the existence of an integral representation for the triple product $`L`$-function using an Eisenstein series whose special value is expressed by theta series with spherical harmonics
* the existence and uniqueness of trilinear forms on tensor products of spaces of harmonic polynomials (and their explicit description by Ibukiyama’s generating series in ).

Remark. In the case that the class number of the quaternion algebra is $`h1`$ Hecke eigenforms (on the adelic quaternion algebra) give rise to $`h`$-tuples of harmonic polynomials, they should then be viewed as functions on the disjoint sum of $`h`$ copies of the unit sphere. All arguments from above can be carried out for such $`h`$-tuples of harmonic polynomials (resp. functions on the disjoint sum of $`h`$ copies of the unit sphere).

Siegfried Böcherer, Kunzenhof 4B, 79117 Freiburg, Germany,
boech@siegel.math.uni-mannheim.de

Peter Sarnak, Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, Fine Hall, Washington Road, Princeton, NJ 08544, sarnak@math.princeton.edu

Rainer Schulze-Pillot, Fachrichtung 6.1 Mathematik, Universität des Saarlandes (Geb. 27.1), Postfach 151150, 66041 Saarbrücken, Germany, schulzep@math.uni-sb.de

Appendix
S. Böcherer, R. Schulze-Pillot: Corrections to our article “On the central critical value of the triple product L-function” (reference  of this article)

* p.5:
l.8 f.a.: read $`\left(L_\alpha ^{(b)}f\right)`$ rather than $`\left(L_\alpha ^{(b)}\right)`$
* p.5:
l.9 f.b. read $`_{12}X_2`$ rather than $`_{12}X_1`$
* p.7:
l.12 f.b.: read ”(1.9)” rather than ”(1.10)”
* p.7:
Skip the sentences ”It is easy…” (l.8 f.b.) until ”…polynomial in $`_{12},_{13},_{23}`$ (l.5 f.b.)
* p.7:
l.4.f.b.: read $`a^{}`$ rather than $`a`$
* p.7:
l.3 f.b.:Formula (1.11) should read

$$\frac{2^b2^a^{}(2i)^{3a^{}}}{(\alpha +a^{})^{[b]}b!}\left(_{12}_{13}_{23}\right)^a^{}\left(_{12}X_2+_{13}X_3\right)^b$$
* p.9:
l.11 f.a.: read $`a^{}`$ rather than $`a`$
* p.12
l.8 f.b.: the formula should be

$$A(s,b)=(1)^b\frac{2^a(2s2)^{[a]}(s)^{[a^{}]}(2s+a2)^{[b]}}{b!(s+a^{}1)^{[b]}}$$
* p.13:
in formula (2.11)

$$(g<Z>^{})\text{rather than}\times <g<Z>^{}>$$

$$\stackrel{k+a}{det}\text{rather than}\stackrel{k+a}{det}$$
* p.17:
l.7 f.b.: read $`h^{}`$ rather than $`h`$
* p.18:
delete factor $`2`$ in formula (2.28)
* p.32
in formula (4.1) read $`L_p(f,\varphi ,\psi ,s+3a^{}+2r+b2)`$
* p.33
Formula (4.3) is correct only under the additional assumption $`r=2`$
* p.33
In (4.3) read $`\zeta `$ rather than zeta
* p.33
In the functional equation (4.4) the exponent of $`N`$ should be
$`4(s\frac{k_1+k_2+k_3}{2}+1)`$; the exponent of $`gcd(N_f,N_\varphi ,N_\psi )`$ should be
$`(s\frac{k_1+k_2+k_3}{2}+1)`$
* p.34:
l.10: read allows for $`pN`$ rather than allows for $`pN`$
* p.35:
l.5.f.a.: read (2.1) rather than (2.2)
* p.37:
l.9 f.b. read $`i^{3a^{}}\pi ^{3a^{}+b}`$ rather than $`\pi ^{3a+2b}`$
* p.37:
l.7 f.b: read $`\left(i^{3a^{}}\pi ^{3a^{}+b}\right)^1`$ rather than $`\pi ^{3a2b}`$
* p.38:
in formula 5.4: read $`i^{3a^{}}\pi ^{3a^{}+b}`$ rather than $`\pi ^{3a+2b}`$
* p.42:
In Lemma 5.5 and in line 19 read

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}\frac{T_0(\phi _f(y_i)\phi _\varphi (y_i)\phi _\psi (y_i))}{e_i}\right)$$
* p.44:
The first line of formula (5.9) should read

$`(1)^{\omega (N)+\omega (M_1,M_2)}2^{5+3b+8a^{}\omega (gcd(N_f,N_\varphi ,N_\psi )}\pi ^{5+6a^{}+2b}`$
$`\times N^2(M_1M_2)^3M_3^6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b}{\nu _2}\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{b!(a^{}+1)^{[b]}}{2^{[a]}2^{[a^{}]}(a+2)^{[b]}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(a^{}+b+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2a^{}+b+2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3a^{}+b+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a^{}+\nu _2+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a^{}+\nu _3+1)}}`$
* p.45:
l.8.f.a.: Nagoya Math.J.147(1997), 71-106
* p.45
l.3 f.b.: Comm.Math.Univ.S.Pauli 48(1999), 103-118