text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

As $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry in four dimensions is of phenomenological interest, it is important to understand possible dualities between different ways of arriving at the same amount of supersymmetry via suitable compactifications. In this regard, the results of  are of particular interest. While  construct such string dual pairs,  also give $`𝒩=1`$ Heterotic/$`M`$-theory dual pairs. As $`M`$-theory on $`G_2`$-holonomy manifolds gives $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry, especially after explicit examples of the same (and Spin(7)) in , exceptional holonomy compactifications of $`M`$-theory becomes quite relevant for the above purpose. In the literature, so far, the $`𝒩=1,D=4`$ Heterotic/$`M`$-theory dual pair constructions, stem one way or the other from the Heterotic on $`T^3`$ and $`M`$-theory on $`K3`$ $`D=7`$ duality . Lets elaborate this point a little. Assuming the ‘adiabatic argument’ of , the duality between heterotic on a $`CY`$ that is a $`T^3`$-fibration over a 3-fold and $`M`$-theory on a $`G_2`$-holonomy manifold that is a $`K3`$-fibration over the same 3-fold of  was obtained by fiberwise application of duality with a twist (to get $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry) to the abovementioned $`D=7`$ Heterotic/$`M`$-theory duality. Similarly, by application of fiberwise duality, accompanied by a twist, with the 3-fold base above being a $`T^3`$, the heterotic/$`M`$-theory dual pair of  was obtained. The 7-manifold on the $`M`$-theory side in  will be the motivation for the choice of the 7-manifold relevant to us. Now, lets come to string-string duality in $`D=6`$: Heterotic on $`T^4`$ is dual to type IIA on $`K3`$. By fiberwise application of duality using a common $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$ base, and taking $`K3`$ to be elliptically fibered ($`T^2`$-fibration over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$) and the $`CY`$ to be a $`K3`$-fibration over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$, $`𝒩=2`$ dual pairs of heterotic on $`K3\times T^2`$ with vector bundles on $`K3`$ embedded in $`E_8\times E_8`$, and type IIA on the $`K3`$-fibered Calabi-Yau were constructed in . From these dual pairs, $`𝒩=1`$ dual pairs were obtained in  by orientifolds of the $`CY`$ on the type IIA side whose image on the heterotic side corresponded to the self-mirror $`CY`$ of . The question is what the $`𝒩=1`$ Heterotic/$`M`$-theory analog of the Heteoric/type IIA $`𝒩=1`$ dual pair of  is. As the $`D=7`$ Heterotic/$`M`$-Theory duality is related to the $`D=6`$ Heterotic/String duality (as the decompactification limit - see ), it is reasonable to think that there has to be such an $`𝒩=1`$ Heterotic/$`M`$-theory dual pair. Additionally, it will be interesting to work out an example that is able to explicitly relate an $`𝒩=1`$ Heterotic theory to M and F theories, as opposed to examples in the literature on only $`𝒩=1`$ Heteorotic/type IIA or Heterotic/M-theory or Heterotic/F-theory dual pairs (See  for some comments). In Section 2, we propose that the $`M`$-theory side is given by a 7-manifold of $`SU(3)\times 𝐙_2`$-holonomy of the type $`(CY\times S^1)/g.`$, where $`g`$ is a suitably defined freely-acting antiholomorphic involution on the $`CY`$ which is precisely the same as the one considered in , $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the world-sheet parity and $``$ reflects the $`S^1`$. These 7-manifolds are referred to as “barely $`G_2`$ manifolds” in . In addition, the $`D=4,𝒩=1`$ Heterotic/F-theory dual models constructed have the following in common (as a consequence of applying fiberwise duality to Heterotic on $`T^2`$ being dual to F-theory on $`K3`$). The Heterotic theory is compactified on a $`CY_3`$ that is elliptically fibered over a 2-manifold $`B_2`$. The F-theory dual of this Heterotic theory is constructed by considering an elliptically fibered Calabi-Yau 4-fold $`X_4`$ that is elliptically fibered over a 3-manifold $`B_3`$. Additionally, the base $`B_3`$ is a $`𝐏^1`$-fibration over $`B_2`$ (the same one that figures on the heterotic side). In Section 3, we propose that the required Calabi-Yau 4-fold on the F-theory side is elliptically fibered over a trivially rationally ruled base given by $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1\times `$, $``$ being the Enriques surface. We raise an apparent puzzle regarding the derived Hodge data and the one that one might have naively guessed based on string/M/F dualities. Section 4 has a discussion on the results obtained and outlook for future work.

## 2 M-Theory Dual

In this section we construct the M-theory uplift of type IIA background of . Now, the specific $`𝒩=1`$ Heterotic/type IIA dual pair of  that we will be considering in this letter is Heterotic on a $`CY`$ given by $`\frac{K3\times T^2}{𝐙_2^E}`$ and type IIA on orientifolds of $`CY`$’s (the mirrors of which are) given as hypersurface of degree 24 in $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐂𝐏}^4[1,1,2,8,12]`$, the mirror duals to which, are given by:

$`z_1^{24}+z_2^{24}+z_3^{12}+z_4^3+z_5^212\alpha z_1z_2z_3z_4z_52\beta z_1^6z_2^6z_3^6\gamma z_1^{12}z_2^{12}=0.`$
The $`𝐙_2^E`$ represents the Enriques involution times reflection of the $`T^2`$ as considered in  given by the action

$$𝐙_2^E:(u_1,u_2,u_3)(u_1+\frac{1}{2},u_2+\frac{1}{2},u_3),$$
(2)
($`u_{1,2}`$ and $`u_3`$ are coordinates on $`K3`$ and $`T^2`$ respectively) and the space-time orientation reversing antiholomorphic involution used for constructing the CY orientifold is:

$$\omega :(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4,z_5)(\overline{z}_2,\overline{z}_1,\overline{z}_3,\overline{z}_4,\overline{z}_5).$$
(3)
Now, (barely) $`G_2`$-Manifolds of the type $`\frac{CICY\times S^1}{g.I}`$ where $`g`$ was an antiholomorphic involution, were considered in  where $`g`$ was one of the following, the former corresponding to an involution with fixed points, leading to $`G_2`$-holonomy manifolds and the latter acting freely leading to ’barely $`G_2`$-manifolds”:

$`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n+1})(\overline{z}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{z}_{n+1})\mathrm{for}\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n,\mathrm{or}`$
$`(z_1,z_2\mathrm{},z_{2n})(\overline{z}_2,\overline{z}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{z}_{2n},\overline{z}_{2n1})\mathrm{for}\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{2n1},`$ (4)
(for CICY expressed as a set of homogenous equations in a single $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^m`$ space) where in the second choice, it is understood that the antiholomorphic involution acts pairwise on the homogenous coordinates. The antiholomorphic involution that we require is $`\omega `$ of (3), which is a combination of the ones in (2).222To see that $`\omega `$ is an involution, one sees that $`\omega ^2`$ takes $`(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4,z_5)`$ to $`(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4,z_5)`$, which is projectively equal to unity as can be seen by setting the $`C^{}`$ variable $`t`$ to -1 in $`z_it^{w_i}z_i`$ in $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐂𝐏}^4`$ homogenous coordinates. Another point worth keeping in mind is that under $`\omega `$ of (3), the Kähler form $`J`$ going over to -$`J`$ is only a statement in the cohomology group $`H^{1,1}`$. One can define inhomogenous coordinates for, e.g., Y, in the $`z_20`$ coordinate patch:

$$u\frac{z_1}{z_2};v\frac{z_3}{z_2^2};w\frac{z_4}{z_2^4},$$
(5)
\[using which one can solve for $`\frac{z_5}{z_2^{12}}`$ from the defining equation (2), and hence is not included as part of the $`CY`$ coordinate system\]. Then, one can show that

$$J\stackrel{\omega }{}J+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{|u|^{m>0}}\mathrm{or}g_{u\overline{u}}\mathrm{independent}\mathrm{terms}\right),$$
(6)
such that the $`J`$ and $`J+`$ extra terms both belong to the same cohomology class of $`H^{1,1}`$. As $`u\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$-base coordinate and $`g_{u\overline{u}}`$ gives the size of the $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$ base, in the large base-limit of , $`J`$ under the antiholomorphic involution $`\omega `$ goes over to $`J`$ exactly. Similarly, $`H^{2,1}`$ goes over to $`H^{1,2}`$ (and $`X_{2,1}H^{2,1}`$ goes over to $`X_{1,2}H^{1,2}`$ exactly in the large-base limit of ) but an element $`Y^{1,1}`$ of $`H^{1,1}`$ goes over to an element of the cohomology class $`[Y^{1,1}]`$ of $`H^{1,1}`$ and no statement can be made for large base-limit exactness like the ones for $`J`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ above. 333The exact expressions for $`J`$ and an element of $`H^{2,1}`$ under the action of $`\omega `$, written in terms of inhomogenous coordinates in the $`z_20`$ coordinate patch are as follows.
$$J=g_{u\overline{u}}dud\overline{u}+g_{v\overline{v}}dvd\overline{v}+g_{w\overline{w}}dwd\overline{w}+2i\mathrm{Im}\left[g_{u\overline{v}}dud\overline{v}+g_{u\overline{w}}dud\overline{w}+g_{v\overline{w}}dvd\overline{w}\right],$$
under (3), which in terms of the $`CY`$ coordinates $`(u,v,w)`$ is written as $`\omega :(u,v,w)(\frac{1}{\overline{u}},\frac{\overline{v}}{\overline{u}^2},\frac{\overline{w}}{\overline{u}^2})`$, goes over to      $`J+d\overline{u}du\left({\displaystyle \frac{4|v|^2}{|u|^2}}g_{v\overline{v}}+{\displaystyle \frac{64|w|^2}{|u|^2}}g_{w\overline{w}}+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2v}{u}}g_{v\overline{u}}{\displaystyle \frac{8w}{u}}g_{w\overline{u}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16\overline{v}w}{|u|^2}}g_{w\overline{v}}\right]\right)`$      $`4i\mathrm{Im}\left(\left[{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}g_{v\overline{v}}+4{\displaystyle \frac{w}{u}}g_{w\overline{u}}\right]d\overline{v}du\right)+2i\mathrm{Im}\left(g_{w\overline{v}}d\overline{v}dw\right)`$      $`+2i\mathrm{Im}\left(\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8\overline{w}}{\overline{u}}}g_{w\overline{w}}+g_{w\overline{u}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{v}}{\overline{u}}}g_{w\overline{v}}\right]d\overline{u}dw\right)\stackrel{|u|\mathrm{},\frac{g_{u_i\overline{u}_j}}{g_{u\overline{u}}}0,i,j1}{}J.`$   Consider $`AH^{2,1}(CY_3)`$, written out in components as:
$$A=\underset{ijk=1}{\overset{3}{}}A_{u_uu_j\overline{u}_k}du_idu_jd\overline{u}_k+\underset{ij=1}{\overset{3}{}}A_{u_iu_j\overline{u}_i}du_idu_jd\overline{u}_i,$$
where $`u_{1,2,3}u,v,w`$. Then,      $`A\stackrel{\omega }{}A^{}+d\overline{u}d\overline{v}du\left({\displaystyle \frac{2v}{u}}A_{\overline{v}\overline{u}v}{\displaystyle \frac{16v\overline{w}}{|u|^2}}A_{\overline{v}\overline{w}v}+{\displaystyle \frac{64|w|^2}{|u|^2}}A_{\overline{w}v\overline{v}w}{\displaystyle \frac{8w}{u}}A_{\overline{u}\overline{v}w}+{\displaystyle \frac{8\overline{w}}{\overline{u}}}A_{\overline{v}\overline{w}u}\right)`$      $`+d\overline{u}d\overline{w}du\left({\displaystyle \frac{2|v|^2}{|u|^2}}A_{\overline{v}\overline{w}v}+{\displaystyle \frac{8w}{u}}A_{\overline{w}\overline{u}w}{\displaystyle \frac{16\overline{v}w}{|u|^2}}A_{\overline{w}\overline{v}w}{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{v}}{\overline{u}}}A_{\overline{v}\overline{w}u}+{\displaystyle \frac{2v}{u}}A_{\overline{w}\overline{u}v}\right)`$      $`+d\overline{v}d\overline{u}dv({\displaystyle \frac{8\overline{w}}{\overline{u}}}A_{\overline{v}\overline{w}v})+d\overline{w}d\overline{u}dw({\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{v}}{\overline{u}}}A_{\overline{w}\overline{v}w})+d\overline{v}d\overline{w}du({\displaystyle \frac{2v}{u}}A_{\overline{v}\overline{w}v}+{\displaystyle \frac{8w}{u}}A_{\overline{w}\overline{v}w})`$      $`+d\overline{u}d\overline{w}dv({\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{v}}{\overline{u}}}A_{\overline{v}\overline{w}v})+d\overline{u}d\overline{v}dw({\displaystyle \frac{8\overline{w}}{\overline{u}}}A_{\overline{w}\overline{v}w})\stackrel{|u|\mathrm{}}{}A^{}.`$   To summarize, we get:

$`[\omega ^{}(J)]=[J];\omega ^{}(J)\stackrel{\mathrm{large}\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1}{}J,`$
$`[\omega ^{}(X)]=[\overline{X}];\omega ^{}(X)\stackrel{\mathrm{large}\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1}{}\overline{X};`$
$`[\omega ^{}(Y)]=[Y],`$ (9)
where $`XH^{2,1}(CY_3_{K3}\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1)`$ and $`YH^{1,1}(CY_3_{K3}\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1)`$, and $`[]`$ denotes the cohomology class. The closed and co-closed calibration 3-form $`\varphi `$ is given by:

$$\varphi =Jdx+Re(e^{\frac{i\theta }{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(10)
where $`x`$ is the $`S^1`$ coordinate, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the holomorphic 3-form of the $`CY_3(3,243)`$. To get the spectrum for $`M`$-theory compactified on the ‘barely $`G_2`$ manifold’ $`𝒵\frac{CY\times S^1}{\omega .}`$, one sees (See ) that $`\frac{1}{2}(H^{3,0}(CY)+H^{0,3}(CY))`$ corresponding to $`\frac{1}{2}(h^{3,0}(CY)+h^{0,3}(CY))=1`$, is invariant under the $`𝐙_2`$ involution $`\omega `$. Similarly, $`\frac{1}{2}(H^{2,1}(CY)+H^{1,2}(CY))`$ corresponding to $`\frac{1}{2}(h^{1,2}(CY)+h^{2,1}(CY))=h^{2,1}(CY)`$ elements, is invariant under the involution $`\omega `$. As shown in , $`\omega `$ acts as $`1`$ on $`H^{1,1}(CY)`$ implying that $`H_+^{1,1}(CY)`$, i.e., the part of $`H^{1,1}(CY)`$ even under $`\omega `$ is zero, and the part odd, $`H_{}^{1,1}(CY)=H^{1,1}(CY)`$. Hence, $`n_V`$, $`n_C`$ that denote respectively the number of vector and hypermultiplets, will be given by:

$`n_V(𝒵)=h_+^{1,1}(CY)=0,`$
$`n_C(𝒵)=h^{2,1}(CY)+h^{3,0}(CY)+h_{}^{1,1}(CY)=243+1+3=247.`$ (11)
$`M`$-theory on barely $`G_2`$ manifolds yielding $`n_V=0`$ have also been considered in . Lets now briefly review the spectrum of heterotic theory on $`\frac{K3\times T^2}{𝐙_2}`$ (See ), where the $`𝐙_2`$-involution is the Enriques involution on the $`K3`$ and a reflection on the $`T^2`$. Because of the reflection on $`T^2`$, the four $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplets get projected out. The $`S,T,U`$ moduli survive the involution as $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets. In addition, one gets 20 $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets from the Enriques surface moduli and 224 from the $`E_8\times E_8`$ gauge bundle moduli (assuming that interchange of the two $`E_8`$ factors under the action of $`\omega `$)444One gets 224 $`𝒩=2`$ hypermultiplets by noting that the dual coexter for $`E_8`$, $`C_2(E_8)=30`$ and using that the total number of neutral hypermultiplets coming from a single $`E_8`$ factor with $`_{K3}c_2=12`$ (for (12,12) instantons embedded in the two $`E_8`$’s) is given by $`30\times 12248=112`$. Of each $`𝒩=2`$ hypermultiplet, one $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplet survives the involution. . Thus one gets a total of 3+20+224=247 $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multipets.

Now coming to the spectrum of type IIA theory compactified on $`\frac{CY}{\omega .\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ (See ). Denoting the $`CY`$ indices by $`i,\overline{j}`$ and the four-dimensional indices by $`\mu `$, the $`𝒩=2`$ spectrum consist of $`h^{1,1}(CY)`$ vector multiplets the scalar components of each of which consists $`(g_{i\overline{j}},b_{i\overline{j}},c_{\mu i\overline{j}})`$ ($`g_{i\overline{j}}`$ from the $`D=10`$ metric $`g_{MN}`$ and $`b_{i\overline{j}}`$ from the $`D=10`$ antisymmetric tensor $`B_{MN}`$ from the NS-NS sector, and $`c_{\mu i\overline{j}}`$ from the $`D=10`$ 3-form gauge potential $`c_{MNP}`$ from the RR sector), and $`h^{2,1}(CY)`$ hypermultiplets the bosonic components of each of which is given by $`(g_{[ij]},g_{[\overline{i}\overline{j}]},c_{ij\overline{k}},c_{\overline{i}\overline{j}k})`$ ($`g_{[ij]}`$ and its complex conjugate from $`g^{l\overline{l}}g^{k\overline{k}}X_{[i|\overline{l}\overline{k}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{j]lk}`$, $`X_{1,2}H^{1,2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{3,0}`$ being the nowhere vanishing holomorphic 3-form)+ another hypermultiplet whose bosonic components are given by $`(\varphi ,a(b_{\mu \nu }),c_{ijk},c_{\overline{i},\overline{j},\overline{k}})`$. Among the $`h^{1,1}(CY)𝒩=2`$ vector multiplets, the gauge field gets projected out under $`\omega .\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to give $`h^{1,1}(CY)𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets. From the $`h^{2,1}(CY)+1𝒩=2`$ hypermultiplets, one each from the two NS-NS and RR states survive the orientifold projection, yielding $`h^{2,1}(CY)+1𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets. Hence, one gets a total of $`h^{1,1}(CY)+h^{2,1}(CY)+1=3+243+1=247`$ $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets

This one sees that the spectra associated with Heterotic on $`\frac{K3\times T^2}{𝐙_2}`$, type IIA on $`\frac{CY}{\omega .\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, and $`M`$-theory on $`\frac{CY\times S^1}{\omega .}`$ match.

## 3 F-Theory Dual

We now show the possibility of finding an $`𝒩=1`$ triality between the $`𝒩=1`$ heterotic on $`CY_3(11,11)`$(/type IIA on $`\frac{CY_3(3,243)}{\omega .\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ dual pair) of Vafa-Witten, $`M`$ theory on the “barely $`G_2`$ manifold” $`\frac{CY_3(3,243)\times S^1}{\omega .}`$ of $`SU(3)\times 𝐙_2`$ holonomy, and F-theory on an elliptically fibered $`X_4`$ , where the “11,11” and “3,243” denote the Hodge numbers, $`\omega `$ is an orienation-reversing antiholomorphic involution, $``$ reverses the $`S^1`$. The $`X_4`$ that we obtain in this section will be obtained by assuming that the required F-theory dual must exist. Of course, given the basic string/M/F dualities, we know that such an F-theory dual must exist - what we show is given the same, what the geometric data of the required $`X_4`$ must be. In principle, one should be able to get the right $`𝒩=1`$ F-theory model by following the $`𝒩=2`$ Higgs chain of : $`E_8\times E_8E_7\times E_7E_6\times E_6`$ $`SO(10)\times SO(10)SO(9)\times SO(9)SO(8)\times SO(8)`$ $`SO(7)\times SO(7)SU(4)\times SU(4)SU(3)\times SU(3)`$ $`SU(2)\times SU(2)SU(1)\times SU(1)`$ by embedding of suitable gauge commutants on the $`K3`$, or equivalently by embedding of $`E_8\times E_8`$ vector bundle on $`K3`$ in one step, followed by tensoring with a $`T^2`$ and taking a suitable $`𝐙_2`$-involution. One uses the Kodaira classification of singularities to count the F-theory moduli. We however do not follow this approach in the following.

The $`CY_3`$ on the heterotic side that we are interested in is one that is obtained by a freely-acting Enriques involution acting on the $`K3`$ times a reflection of the $`T^2`$, in $`K3\times T^2`$, i.e., the Voisin-Borcea elliptically fibered $`CY_3(11,11)\frac{K3\times T^2}{g.}`$, where $`g`$ is the generator of the Enriques involution and $``$ reflects the $`T^2`$. Hence, the $`B_2`$ above is $`\frac{K3}{g}`$. Now, the $`𝒩=2`$ dual pair in  consisted of embedding $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ in $`E_8\times E_8`$ on the Heterotic side, resulting in $`E_7\times E_7`$, which is then Higgsed away. All that survives from the $`T^2`$ in $`K3\times T^2`$ are the abelian gauge fields corresponding to $`U(1)^4`$. As shown in Vafa-Witten’s paper, in the $`𝒩=1`$ dual pair obtained by suitable $`𝐙_2`$-moddings of both sides of the $`𝒩=2`$ Heterotic/type IIA dual pair, the $`U(1)^4`$ gets projected out so that there are no vector multiplets and one gets 247 $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets on the Heterotic side on $`CY_3(11,11)`$. We should be able to get the same spectrum on the F-theory side. If $`r`$ denotes the rank of the unbroken gauge group in Heterotic theory, then the number of $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets in F-theory is given by the formula ():

$$n_C=\frac{\chi (X_4)}{6}10+h^{2,1}(X_4)r,$$
(12)
which excludes the $`S`$ modulus of the Heterotic theory. The rank $`r`$ in turn is expressed as:

$$r=h^{1,1}(X_4)h^{1,1}(B_3)1+h^{2,1}(B_3).$$
(13)
For Heterotic theory on $`CY_3(11,11)`$, $`r=0`$.

The fibration structure can be summarized as: $`X_4_{T^2}B_3_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1}B_2\frac{K3}{g}`$Enriques surface. Given that for elliptically fibered $`X_4`$, $`h^{1,1}(X_4)h^{1,1}(B_3)10`$, $`r=0`$ implies that

$`h^{1,1}(X_4)=h^{1,1}(B_3)+1>0;`$
$`h^{2,1}(B_3)=0.`$ (14)
Now, in , $`r=0`$ was obtained by embedding an $`E_8\times E_8`$ vector bundle for which it was shown that the number of space-time filling F-theory 3 branes, needed for tadpole cacellation, matched the number of Heterotic 5-branes needed for anomaly cancellation. In  the brane match was shown for the case of embedding an $`SU(n_1)\times SU(n_2)`$ vector bundle in $`E_8\times E_8`$, resulting in some unbroken gauge group. The difference in our situation is that unlike , for the $`𝒩=1`$ model of , at the $`𝒩=2`$ level, one has to embed an $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ in the $`E_8\times E_8`$ on the $`K3(\times T^2`$), a Calabi-Yau 2-fold($`\times T^2`$), and the resulting $`E_7\times E_7`$ is Higgsed away, or equivalently, an $`E_8\times E_8`$ vector bundle is embedded in $`E_8\times E_8`$ on the Calabi-Yau 2-fold and not a Calabi-Yau 3-fold. The $`𝒩=1`$ Heterotic model on the Voisin-Borcea Calabi-Yau 3-fold with Hodge numbers 11,11 is then obtained by a suitable $`𝐙_2`$ modding of the $`𝒩=2`$ model. Hence, it is not that one gets an $`𝒩=1`$ model by embedding a gauge bundle on a Calabi-Yau 3-fold $`Z`$ (that may or may not be followed by a Higgsing), but one gets the required $`𝒩=1`$ model as a three-step process: embedding a gauge bundle on a Calabi-Yau 2-fold times $`T^2`$, followed by complete Higgsing away of the resultant gauge group (the embedding and Higgsing can be combined into a single step of suitable embedding as discussed above), and finally modding by a (freely acting) involution yielding a Calabi-Yau 3-fold $`Z`$. We can still write that the total number of Heterotic moduli is given by the expression:

$$N_{het}=h^{1,1}(Z)+h^{2,1}(Z)+n_{bundle},$$
(15)
where the bundle moduli correspond to an involution $`\tau `$ which acts trivially on the base and as reflection of the fiber (that can always be defined on an elliptically fibered $`Z`$ ). It no longer can be defined as $`h^1(Z,ad(V))=I+2n_o`$, where the character-valued index $`I`$ is given by -$`_{i=}^3()^iTr_{H^i(Z,Ad(V))}(\frac{1+\tau }{2})=_{i=0}^3()^ih_e^i(Z,Ad(V))=n_en_o`$ for no unbroken $`𝒩=1`$ gauge group, and $`e,o`$ referring to even,odd respectively under the involution $`\tau `$. However, given that such an involution $`\tau `$ exists, one can still write that

$$n_{bundle}=n_e+n_o=+2n_o,$$
(16)
for a suitable “index” $``$. We assume that at the $`\tau `$-invariant point, the action of $`\tau `$ can be lifted to an action of the gauge bundle embedded at the level of $`K3`$. This index will encode the information about $`I(K3,Ad(SU(2)\times SU(2)))`$ and the Higgsing away of the $`E_7\times E_7`$, or equivalently $`I(K3,Ad(E_8\times E_8))`$ at the $`𝒩=2`$ level, and the freely acting Enriques involution times reflection of $`T^2`$. 555As A.Klemm pointed out to us, in general, one can always write the index $``$ as $`a+b_{}c_1^2()+c_{}c_2()+d_{}c_1^2(𝒯)+e_{}c_2(𝒯)+f_{}c_1()c_1(𝒯)`$, where $`a,b,c,d,e,f`$ are constants and $`𝒯`$ is a line bundle over $``$. There are no non-perturbative Heterotic 5-branes in the $`𝒩=1`$ model of . Hence, for the $`𝒩=1`$ Heterotic/F-theory duality to hold, there will no F-theory 3-branes(given by $`\frac{\chi (X_4)}{24}`$) either, which implies that the elliptically fibered Calabi-Yau 4-fold must satisfy the constraint:

$$\chi (X_4)=0.$$
(17)
Now,

$`h^{1,1}\left(CY_3(11,11)\right)=11{\displaystyle _{}}c_1^2()=11,`$
$`h^{2,1}\left(CY_3(11,11)\right)=11+29{\displaystyle _{}}c_1^2()=11,`$ (18)
as $`c_1^2()=0`$. Further, $`_{}c_2()=12`$. Assuming only a single section of the elliptic fibration: $`Z_{T^2}(`$ Enriques surface) and no 4-flux, from general considerations (See ), the Hodge data of $`X_4`$ will be given by:

$`h^{1,1}(X_4)=h^{1,1}(Z)+1+r=12{\displaystyle _{}}c_1^2()+r,`$
$`h^{2,1}(X_4)=n_o,`$
$`h^{3,1}(X_4)=h^{2,1}++n_o+1=12+29{\displaystyle _{}}c_1^2()++h^{2,1}(X_4).`$ (19)
Now $`tc_1(𝒯)`$ ($`𝒯`$ being a line bundle over $`B_2`$), the analog of $`n`$ in the Hirzebruch surface $`F_n`$, is a measure of the non-triviality of the $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$-fibration of the rationally ruled $`B_3`$. Now, the $`CY_3(3,243)`$ on the type IIA side, can be represented as elliptic fibration over the Hirzebruch surface $`F_n`$, where $`n`$ denotes the non-triviality of fibration of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}_f^1`$ over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}_b^1`$. The Weierstrass equation for $`n=0`$ is given by:

$$y^2=x^3+\underset{i=0}{\overset{8}{}}f_i^{(8)}(z_1)z_2^ix+\underset{i=0}{\overset{12}{}}g_i^{(12)}(z_1)z_2^i,$$
(20)
implying that the number of complex structure deformations, $`h^{2,1}`$ is given by $`9\times 9+13\times 13(3+3+1)=243`$. 666Interestingly, for $`n=2`$, the Weierstrass equation is given by:
$$y^2=x^3+\underset{i=4}{\overset{4}{}}f_{84i}(z_1)z_2^{4i}x+\underset{i=8}{\overset{8}{}}g_{122i}(z_1)z_2^{8i},$$
(21)  implying that the number of complex structure deformations, $`h^{2,1}`$ is given by $`(17+15+13+\mathrm{}+3+1=)81+(25+23+\mathrm{}+3+1=)169(3+3+1)=243`$. Hence, elliptic fibrations over both $`F_0`$ and $`F_2`$ give the same hodge numbers. We will work with $`F_0`$. Hence, analogous to setting $`n=0`$, we can set $`t=0`$ and doing so would imply the triviality of the fibration: $`B_3=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1\times B_2=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1\times `$, for which $`h^{2,1}(B_3)=0`$ thereby satisfying (3).

Equating $`n_{het}`$ to 246, one gets from (15) and (16) the following

$$+2n_o=224.$$
(22)
There are no vector multiplets, and in addition to the heterotic dilaton, $`n_{het}`$ has to correspond to the number of $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets $`n_C`$ on the F-theory side. Given that $`r=\chi (X_4)=0`$, from (12) one gets:

$$h^{2,1}(X_4)=128=n_o.$$
(23)
This using (22), one gets

$$=32.$$
(24)
Using the relation from :

$$\frac{\chi (X_4)}{6}=8+h^{1,1}(X_4)h^{2,1}(X_4)+h^{3,1}(X_4),$$
(25)
one sees that the elliptically 4-manifold $`X_4`$ that we are looking for is characterized by:

$`h^{1,1}(X_4)=12,`$
$`h^{2,1}(X_4)=128,`$
$`h^{3,1}(X_4)=108.`$ (26)
This is consistent with (3). The $`h^{2,2}(X_4)`$ can be determined by the following relation

$$h^{2,2}(X_4)=2(22+2h^{1,1}(X_4)+2h^{3,1}(X_4)h^{2,1}(X_4))=268,$$
(27)
which has been obtained from the definitions of elliptic genera in terms of hodge numbers and as integrals involving suitable powers of suitable Chern classes, and $`c_1(X_4)=0`$. Hence, $`𝒩=1`$ Heterotic Theory on $`\frac{K3\times T^2}{𝐙_\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ is dual to F-theory on an elliptically fibered Calabi-Yau 4-fold: $`X_4[h^{1,1}=12,h^{2,1}=128,h^{3,1}=108;0]_{T^2}\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1\times `$. We now discuss an apparent puzzle. At the $`𝒩=2`$ level, Heterotic on $`K3\times T^2`$ should be dual to F-theory on $`CY_3(3,243)\times T^2`$ as a consequence of repeated fiberwise application of duality to the basic duality that Heterotic on $`T^2`$ is dual to F-theory on $`K3`$, as well as because type IIA on a $`CY_3`$ should be dual to F-theory on $`CY_3\times T^2`$ and Heterotic on $`K3\times T^2`$ is dual to type IIA on $`CY_3(3,243)`$. Hence, it is possible that an orbifold of $`K3\times T^2`$ on the Heterotic side should correspond to a suitable orbifold of $`CY_3\times T^2`$ on the F-theory side. Note, however, even though a naive freely acting orbifold of $`CY_3(3,243)\times T^2`$ gives the right null Euler Characteristic, it can not, for instance, give $`h^{1,1}=12`$, i.e., an enhancement over the $`h^{1,1}(CY_3(3,243)\times T^2)=3+1=4`$. This is unlike the case of the F-theory dual of Heterotic on Voisin-Borcea $`CY_3(19,19)`$ which corresponded to an involution with fixed points, considered in . Of course, given the string/M/F dualities, the $`X_4`$ with the derived fibration structure and Hodge data must exist, as the F-theory dual corresponding to Heterotic on $`CY_3(11,11)`$ must exist. One needs to look further into this issue.

The $`CY_4`$ with the required fibration structure and Hodge data given in (3) and (27) is missing from the list of hypersurfaces in $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐂𝐏}^5`$ of Kreuzer and Skarke because it is not possible to get the desired $`CY_4`$ as a hypersurface in any toric variety as fibrations of toric hypersurfaces have bases that are toric varieties, and the Enriques surface, $``$, is not a toric variety. Perhaps, one needs a “nef partition” (one could use “nef.x” part of the package PALP) that makes the base, $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1\times `$ a toric hypersurface. One might have to work with complete intersections in toric varieties.777We are grateful to H.Skarke and M.Kreuzer for clarifications on this issue.

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper, we relate the $`𝒩=1`$ Heterotic theory on a self-mirror $`CY_3`$ to the nonperturbative formulations of type IIA and IIB, namely M and F theories. While on the M-theory side, the suitable manifold turned out to one of $`SU(3)\times 𝐙_2`$ holonomy, referred to as a ‘barely $`G_2`$ manifold’, the elliptically fibered Calabi-Yau 4-fold involves a trivial $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$-fibration over the Enriques surface for its base, and surprisingly has a Hodge data that can not be obtained as a free involution of ($`𝒩=2`$ F-theory on) $`CY_3(3,243)\times T^2`$. The orientation-reversing antiholomorphic involution used, both in constructing $`CY_3`$ orientifold on the type IIA side, as well as the barely $`G_2`$ manifold, has some interesting properties that become manifest in the large $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$-base limit of $`CY_3(3,243)`$ which we also discuss.

The precise construction of the $`CY_4`$ used in the F-theory dual and its connection with the $`𝒩=2`$ parent model of F-theory on $`CY_3(3,243)\times T^2`$, needs to be understood. It will also be interesting to calculate and compare quantities like the superpotentials on all sides.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank S.Govindrajan for bringing  to our attention, and H.Skarke, M.Kreuzer, A.Grassi, D.Joyce, H.Partouche, E.Scheidegger and especially S.Kachru for useful communications and clarifications. We are particularly grateful to A.Klemm for several very useful discussions. We thank D.Lüst for going through a preliminary draft of the manuscript and making useful comments, and S.Bhattacharyya for pointing out the typos in the earlier version. This research was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt foundation.


format: text

text:
# On the global Gross-Prasad conjecture for Yoshida liftings

## Introduction

In two articles in the Canadian Journal , B. Gross and D. Prasad proclaimed a global conjecture concerning the decomposition of an automorphic representation of an adelic special orthogonal group $`G_1`$ upon restriction to an embedded orthogonal group $`G_2`$ of a quadratic space in smaller dimension and also its local counterpart. In the local situation, one can summarize the conjecture by saying that the occurrence of $`\pi _2`$ in the restriction of $`\pi _1`$ depends on the $`ϵ`$-factor attached to the representation $`\pi _1\pi _2;`$ in the global situation, assuming the existence of the local nontrivial invariant functional at all places and its nonvanishing on the spherical vector at almost all unramified places, one considers a specific linear functional given by a period integral. This period integral is then conjectured to give a nontrivial functional if and only if the central critical value of the $`L`$-function attached to $`\pi _1\pi _2`$ is nonzero. In particular in the case when $`G_1`$ is the group of an $`n`$-dimensional nondegenerate quadratic space $`V`$ and $`G_2`$ is the group of an $`(n1)`$-dimensional subspace $`W`$ of $`V`$, they showed that in low dimensions ($`n4`$) known results can be interpreted as evidence for this conjecture, using the well known isomorphisms for orthogonal groups in low dimensions.

The case $`n=5`$ has been treated in the local situation by Prasad ; it can also be reinterpreted using these isomorphisms: The split special orthogonal group in dimension $`5`$ is isomorphic to the projective symplectic similitude group $`\mathrm{PGSp}_2,`$ and the spin group of the $`4`$-dimensional split orthogonal group is $`\mathrm{SL}_2\times \mathrm{SL}_2.`$ Prasad then showed that for forms on $`\mathrm{PGSp}_2`$ that are lifts from the orthogonal group of a 4-dimensional space, the situation can be understood in terms of the seesaw dual reductive pair (in Kudla’s sense)

$$\text{}.$$

In classical terms, the analogous global question leads to the problem to determine those pairs of cuspidal elliptic modular forms (eigenforms of almost all Hecke operators) that can occur as summands if one decomposes the restriction of a cuspidal Siegel modular form $`F`$ of degree $`2`$ (that is an eigenform of almost all Hecke operators) to the diagonally embedded product of two upper half planes into a sum of (products of) eigenforms of almost all Hecke operators (for a discussion of the problems that arise in translating the representation theoretic statement into a classical statement see below and Remark 2.13. One can also rephrase this as the problem of calculating the period integral

$$_{\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash 𝐇\right)\times \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash 𝐇\right)}F\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right)\right)\overline{f_1(z_1)}\overline{f_2(z_2)}d^{}z_1d^{}z_2$$

for two elliptic Hecke eigenforms $`f_1,f_2.`$ The $`L`$-function that should occur then according to the conjecture of Gross and Prasad is the degree $`16`$ $`L`$-function associated to the tensor product of the $`4`$-dimensional representation of the $`L`$-group $`\mathrm{Spin}(4)`$ of $`\mathrm{SO}(5)`$ with the two $`2`$-dimensional representation associated to two copies of $`\mathrm{SO}(3)`$ (due to the decomposition of $`\mathrm{SO}(4)`$ or rather its covering group mentioned above). We denote this $`L`$-function as $`L(\mathrm{S}pin(F),f_1,f_2,s).`$

In this reformulation it is natural to go beyond the original question of nonvanishing and to try and get an explicit formula connecting the $`L`$-value in question with the period integral. In general, it seems rather difficult to calculate the period integral as above, since little is known about the restriction of Siegel modular forms to the diagonally embedded product of two upper half planes. One should also point out that an integral representation for the degree $`16`$ $`L`$-function in question is not known yet. However, for theta series of quadratic forms the restriction to the diagonal of a degree two theta series becomes simply the product of the degree one theta series in the variables $`z_1,z_2,`$ which allows one to get a calculation started. Thus here we only consider Siegel modular forms (of trivial character) that arise as linear combinations of theta series of quaternary quadratic forms. Such Siegel modular forms, if they are eigenforms, are called Yoshida liftings, attached to a pair of elliptic cusp forms or, equivalently, to a pair of automorphic forms on the multiplicative group of an adelic quaternion algebra. These liftings have been investigated in , and the connection between the trilinear forms on the spaces of automorphic forms on the multiplicative group of an adelic quaternion algebra and the triple product $`L`$-function has been investigated in . If one combines these results and applies them to the present situation, it turns out that the period integral in question can indeed be explicitly calculated in terms of the central critical value of the $`L`$-function mentioned; in the case of a Yoshida-lifting attached to the pair $`h_1,h_2`$ of elliptic cusp forms, this $`L`$-function is seen to split into the product $`L(h_1,f_1,f_2,s)L(h_2,f_1,f_2,s),`$ so that the central critical value becomes the product of the central critical values of these two triple product $`L`$-functions. We prove a formula that expresses the square of the period integral explicitly as the product of these two central critical values, multiplied by an explicitly known non-zero factor. We reformulate the obtained identity in a way which makes sense as well for an arbitrary Siegel modular form $`F`$ in terms of the original $`L(\mathrm{S}pin(F),f_1,f_2,s)`$, in place of $`L(h_1,f_1,f_2,s)L(h_2,f_1,f_2,s)`$, hoping that such an identity indeed holds for any Siegel modular form $`F`$. At present we cannot prove it except for the case when $`F`$ is a Siegel or Klingen Eisenstein series of level $`1.`$ In the case when $`F`$ is the Saito-Kurokawa lifting of an elliptic Hecke eigenform $`h`$, one sees easily that the period integral is zero unless one has $`f_1=f_2=f`$; in this case the period integral can be transformed into the Petersson inner product of the restriction of the first Fourier Jacobi coefficient of $`F`$ to the upper half plane with $`f`$ and then leads us to a conjectural identity for the square of this Petersson inner product with the central critical value of $`L(h,f,f;s).`$

Our calculation leaves the question open whether it can happen that the period integral vanishes for the classical modular forms considered but is non-zero for other functions in the same adelic representation space. Viewed locally, this amounts to the question whether an invariant nontrivial linear functional on the local representation space is necessarily non-zero at the given vector. At the infinite place we can exhibit such a vector (depending on the weights given) by applying a suitable differential operator to the Siegel modular form considered. At the finite places not dividing the level, it comes down to the question whether (for an unramified representation) a nontrivial invariant linear functional is necessarily non-zero at the spherical (or class 1) vector invariant under the maximal compact subgroup. This is generally expected, at least for generic representations. We intend to come back to this question in future work.

We also investigate the situation where the pair $`f_1,f_2`$ and the product $`𝐇\times 𝐇`$ are replaced by a Hilbert modular form and the modular embedding of a Hilbert modular surface; in terms of the Gross-Prasad conjecture this amounts to replacing the split orthogonal group of a $`4`$-dimensional space from above by a non split (but quasisplit) orthogonal group that is split at infinity. It turns out that one gets an analogous result; we prove this only in the simplest case when all modular forms involved have weight $`2,`$ the class number of the quadratic field involved is $`1`$ and the order in a quaternion algebra belonging to the situation is a maximal order. The proof for the general case should be possible in an analogous manner.

## 1. Yoshida liftings and their restriction to the diagonal

For generalities on Siegel modular forms we refer to \[Fre1\]. For a symplectic matrix $`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)GSp_n()`$ (with $`n\times n`$-blocks $`A,B,C,D`$) we denote by $`(M,Z)M<Z>=(AZ+B)(CZ+D)^1`$ the usual action of the group $`G^+Sp(n,)`$ of proper symplectic similitudes on Siegel’s upper half space $`𝐇_n`$.
We shall mainly be concerned with Siegel modular forms for congruence subgroups of type

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{(n)}(N)=\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)Sp(n,𝐙)C0modN\}.$$

The space of Siegel modular forms (and cusp forms respectively) of degree $`n`$ and weight $`k`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{(n)}(N)`$ will be denoted by $`M_n^k(N)`$ $`(S_n^k(N)),`$ for a vector valued modular form transforming according to the representation $`\rho `$ the weight $`k`$ above should be replaced by $`\rho .`$ By $`<,>`$ we denote the Petersson scalar product.

We recall from  some notations concerning the Yoshida-liftings whose restrictions we are going to study in this article. For details we refer to the cited articles. We consider a definite quaternion algebra $`D`$ over $``$ and an Eichler order $`R`$ of square free level $`N`$ in it and decompose $`N`$ as $`N=N_1N_2`$ where $`N_1`$ is the product of the primes that are ramified in $`D`$. On $`D`$ we have the involution $`x\overline{x}`$, the (reduced) trace tr$`(x)=x+\overline{x}`$ and the (reduced) norm $`n(x)=x\overline{x}`$.

The group of proper similitudes of the quadratic form $`q(x)=n(x)`$ on $`D`$ is isomorphic to $`(D^\times \times D^\times )/Z(D^\times )`$ (as algebraic group) via

$$(x_1,x_2)\sigma _{x_1,x_2}\text{ with }\sigma _{x_1,x_2}(y)=x_1yx_2^1,$$

the special orthogonal group is then the image of

$$\{(x_1,x_2)D^\times \times D^\times n(x_1)=n(x_2)\}.$$

We denote by $`H`$ the orthogonal group of $`(D,n)`$ and by $`H^+`$ the special orthogonal group.

For $`\nu `$ let $`U_\nu ^{(0)}`$ be the space of homogeneous harmonic polynomials of degree $`\nu `$ on $`^3`$ and view $`PU_\nu ^{(0)}`$ as a polynomial on

$$D_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}=\{xD_{\mathrm{}}|\text{tr}(x)=0\}$$

by putting

$$P(\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}x_ie_i)=P(x_1,x_2,x_3)$$

for an orthonormal basis $`\{e_i\}`$ of $`D_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}`$ with respect to the norm form $`n`$. The space $`U_\nu ^{(0)}`$ is known to have a basis of rational polynomials (i.e., polynomials that take rational values on vectors in $`D^{(0)}=D_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}D`$).

The group $`D_{\mathrm{}}^\times /^\times `$ acts on $`U_\nu ^{(0)}`$ through the representation $`\tau _\nu `$ (of highest weight $`(\nu )`$) given by

$$(\tau _\nu (y))(P)(x)=P(y^1xy).$$

Changing the orthonormal basis above amounts to replacing $`P`$ by $`(\tau _\nu (y))(P)`$ for some $`yD_{\mathrm{}}^\times .`$

By $`,_0`$ we denote the suitably normalized invariant scalar product in the representation space $`U_\nu ^{(0)}`$.

For $`\nu _1\nu _2`$ the $`H^+()`$-space

$$U_{\nu _1}^{(0)}U_{\nu _2}^{(0)}$$

(irreducible of highest weight $`(\nu _1+\nu _2,\nu _1\nu _2))`$ is isomorphic to the $`H^+()`$-space $`U_{\nu _1,\nu _2}`$ of $`[X_1,X_2]`$-valued harmonic forms on $`D_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ transforming according to the representation of $`GL_2()`$ of highest weight $`(\nu _1+\nu _2,\nu _1\nu _2).`$

An intertwining map $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has been given explicitly in \[5, Section 3\]; for $`𝐱=(x_1,x_2)D_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ the polynomial $`\mathrm{\Psi }(Q)(𝐱)[X_1,X_2]`$ is homogeneous of degree $`2\nu _2.`$ We write now for $`QU_{\nu _1}^{(0)}U_{\nu _2}^{(0)}`$

(1.1)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }(Q)(𝐱)=\underset{\alpha _1+\alpha _2=2\nu _2}{}c_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(𝐱,Q)X_1^{\alpha _1}X_2^{\alpha _2}.$$

The map $`𝐱c_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(𝐱,Q)`$ is (for fixed $`Q`$) a polynomial in $`x_1,x_2`$ that is harmonic of degree $`\alpha _1^{}=\alpha _1+\nu _1\nu _2`$ in $`x_1`$ and harmonic of degree $`\alpha _2^{}=\alpha _2+\nu _1\nu _2`$ in $`x_2,`$ and for $`hH^+(𝐑)`$ we have

$$c_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(h𝐱,Q)=c_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(𝐱,h^1Q).$$

The irreducibility of the space $`U_{\nu _1}^{(0)}U_{\nu _2}^{(0)}`$ implies that this map is nonzero for some $`Q.`$ We denote by $`U_\alpha `$ the space of harmonic polynomials of degree $`\alpha `$ on $`D_{\mathrm{}}`$ with invariant scalar product $`,`$. If $`\alpha `$ is even, the $`H()`$-spaces $`U_\alpha `$ and $`U_{\alpha /2}^{(0)}U_{\alpha /2}^{(0)}`$ are isomorphic and will be identified.

The map

(1.2)
$$(Q,R_1,R_2)c_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(,Q),R_1R_2$$

for $`QU_{\nu _1}^{(0)}U_{\nu _2}^{(0)},R_1U_{\alpha _1^{}},R_2U_{\alpha _2^{}}`$ defines then a nontrivial invariant trilinear form for the triple of $`H(𝐑)`$-spaces $`((U_{\nu _1}^{(0)}U_{\nu _2}^{(0)}),U_{\alpha _1^{}},U_{\alpha _2^{}}).`$

###### Lemma 1.1.

Let integers $`\nu _1\nu _2`$ and $`\beta _1,\beta _2`$ be given for which

$$\beta _1^{}=\beta _1+\nu _1\nu _2,\beta _2^{}=\beta _2+\nu _1\nu _2$$

are even. Then there exists a nontrivial $`H(𝐑)`$\- invariant trilinear form $`T`$ on the space $`U_{\nu _1,\nu _2}U_{\beta _1^{}}U_{\beta _2^{}}`$ if and only if there exist integers $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\gamma `$ such that $`\beta _i=\alpha _i+\gamma `$ and $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2=2\nu _2`$ holds. This form is unique up to scalar multiples and can be decomposed as

$$T=T_1^{(0)}T_2^{(0)}$$

with (up to scalars) unique nontrivial invariant trilinear forms

$$T_i^{(0)}=T_{i,\beta _1^{},\beta _2^{}}^{(0)}$$

on

$$U_{\nu _i}^{(0)}U_{\beta _1^{}/2}^{(0)}U_{\beta _2^{}/2}^{(0)}.$$

In particular, for $`\gamma =0`$ and $`T`$ fixed, the trilinear form given in (1.2) is proportional to $`T`$ (with a nonzero factor $`\stackrel{~}{c}(\nu _1,\nu _2,\alpha _1,\alpha _2))`$.

Proof. Decomposing

$$U_{\beta _1^{}}=U_{\beta _1^{}/2}^{(0)}U_{\beta _1^{}/2}^{(0)},U_{\beta _2^{}}=U_{\beta _2^{}/2}^{(0)}U_{\beta _2^{}/2}^{(0)}$$

as a $`D_{\mathrm{}}^\times /^\times \times D_{\mathrm{}}^\times /^\times `$-space one sees that $`T`$ as asserted exists if and only if there are nontrivial invariant trilinear forms

$$T_i^{(0)}=T_{i,\beta _1^{},\beta _2^{}}^{(0)}$$

on

$$U_{\nu _i}^{(0)}U_{\beta _1^{}/2}^{(0)}U_{\beta _2^{}/2}^{(0)}$$

for $`i=1,2.`$ In this case $`T`$ decomposes as

$$T=T_1^{(0)}T_2^{(0)}.$$

The $`T_i^{(0)}`$ are known to exist if and only if the triples

$$(\beta _1^{}/2,\beta _2^{}/2,\nu _1),(\beta _1^{}/2,\beta _2^{}/2,\nu _2)$$

are balanced, i.e, the numbers in either triple are the lengths of the sides of a triangle (and then the form is unique up to scalars); they are unique up to scalar multiplication. It is then easily checked that the numerical condition given above is equivalent to the existence of nonnegative integers $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\gamma `$ satisfying $`\beta _i=\alpha _i+\gamma `$ and $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2=2\nu _2.`$

Consider now 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

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

and normalize the scalar product on $`U_\alpha `$ such that $`G^{(\alpha )}`$ is a reproducing kernel, i. e.

$$G^{(\alpha )}(x,x^{}),Q(x)_\alpha =Q(x^{})$$

for all $`QU_\alpha `$. Then for $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _1^{},\alpha _2^{}`$ as above and some fixed $`QU_{\nu _1,\nu _2}`$ the map

$$(x_1,x_2)T(Q,G^{(\alpha _1^{})}(x_1,),G^{(\alpha _2^{})}(x_2,))$$

defines a polynomial $`R_Q(x_1,x_2)`$ in $`x_1,x_2`$ that is harmonic of degree $`\alpha _1^{}=\alpha _1+\nu _1\nu _2`$ in $`x_1`$ and harmonic of degree $`\alpha _2^{}=\alpha _2+\nu _1\nu _2`$ in $`x_2,`$ and for $`hH^+(𝐑)`$ we have $`R_Q(h𝐱)=R_{h^1Q}(𝐱).`$

As above we can therefore conclude that one has

(1.3)
$$c_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(𝐱,Q)=\stackrel{~}{c}(\nu _1,\nu _2,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)T(Q,G^{(\alpha _1^{})}(x_1,),G^{(\alpha _2^{})}(x_2,),$$

where the factor of proportionality $`\stackrel{~}{c}(\nu _1,\nu _2,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$ is not zero.

We denote by

$$𝒜(D_𝔸^\times ,R_𝔸^\times ,\nu )$$

the space of functions $`\phi :D_𝔸^\times U_\nu ^{(0)}`$ satisfying $`\phi (\gamma xu)=\tau _\nu (u_{\mathrm{}}^1)\phi (x)`$ for $`\gamma D_{}^\times `$ and $`u=u_{\mathrm{}}u_fR_𝔸^\times `$, where

$$R_𝔸^\times =D_{\mathrm{}}^\times \times \underset{p}{}R_p^\times $$

is the adelic group of units of $`R`$. These functions are determined by their values on the representatives $`y_i`$ of a double coset decomposition

$$D_𝔸^\times =_{i=1}^rD^\times y_iR_𝔸^\times $$

(where we choose the $`y_i`$ to satisfy $`y_{i,\mathrm{}}=1`$ and $`n(y_i)=1).`$

The natural inner product on the space $`𝒜(D_𝔸^\times ,R_𝔸^\times ,\nu )`$ is given by

$$\phi ,\psi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{\phi (y_i),\psi (y_i)_0}{e_i},$$

where $`e_i=(y_iRy_i^1)^\times `$ is the number of units of the order $`R_i=y_iRy_i^1`$ of $`D.`$

On the space $`𝒜(D_𝔸^\times ,R_𝔸^\times ,\nu )`$ we have for $`pN`$ (hermitian) Hecke operators $`\stackrel{~}{T}(p)`$ (given explicitly by the $`\text{End}(U_\nu ^{(0)})`$-valued Brandt matrices $`(B_{ij}(p))`$) and for $`pN`$ involutions $`\stackrel{~}{w_p}`$ commuting with the Hecke operators and with each other.

For $`i=1,2`$ and $`\nu _1\nu _2`$ with $`\nu _1\nu _2`$ even we consider now functions $`\phi _i`$ in $`𝒜(D_𝔸^\times ,R_𝔸^\times ,\nu _i).`$

The Yoshida lifting (of degree $`2`$) of the pair $`(\phi _1,\phi _2)`$ is then given as

(1.4)
$$\begin{array}{c}Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)(Z)(X_1,X_2)=\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{1}{e_ie_j}\underset{(x_1,x_2)(y_iRy_j^1)^2}{}\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi _1(y_i)\phi _2(y_j))(x_1,x_2)(X_1,X_2)\times \\ \hfill \times \mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\mathrm{tr}\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}n(x_1)& tr(\overline{x_1}x_2)\\ tr(\overline{x_1}x_2)& n(x_2)\end{array}\right)Z\right).\end{array}$$

This is a vector valued holomorphic Siegel modular form for the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{(2)}(N)`$ with trivial character and with respect to the representation $`\sigma _{2\nu _2}det^{\nu _1\nu _2+2}`$ (where $`\sigma _{2\nu _2}`$ denotes the $`2\nu _2`$-th symmetric power representation of $`GL_2`$).

If we consider the restriction of such a modular form to the diagonal $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right),`$ the coefficient of $`X_1^{\alpha _1}X_2^{\alpha _2}`$ becomes a function $`F^{(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}(z_1,z_2)`$ which is in both variables a scalar valued modular form for the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N)`$ with trivial character of weight

$$\alpha _1+\nu _1\nu _2+2\text{ in }z_1,\alpha _2+\nu _1\nu _2+2\text{ in }z_2.$$

In particular the weights in the variables $`z_1,z_2`$ add up to $`2\nu _1+4`$ for each pair $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$ with $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2=2\nu _2`$ and the coefficient of $`X_1^{\alpha _1}X_2^{\alpha _2}`$ vanishes unless

$$\alpha _1^{}=\alpha _1+\nu _1\nu _2,\alpha _2^{}=\alpha _2+\nu _1\nu _2$$

are even.

If $`f_1,f_2`$ are elliptic modular forms of weights $`k_1,k_2`$ we define then

$$F\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right)\right),f_1(z_1)f_2(z_2)_{k_1,k_2}$$

to be the double Petersson product

$$F^{(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}(z_1,z_2),f_1(z_1)_{k_1},f_2(z_2)_{k_2}$$

if

$$k_1=\alpha _1+\nu _1\nu _2+2,k_2=\alpha _2+\nu _1\nu _2+2$$

for some $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$ with $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2=2\nu _2`$ and to be zero otherwise (this definition coincides with the Petersson product of the corresponding automorphic forms on the groups $`Sp_2(𝔸)`$ or $`Sp_2()`$ (restricted to the naturally embedded $`SL_2(𝔸)\times SL_2(𝔸)`$) and $`SL_2(𝔸)`$ (or the respective real groups)).

We will mainly consider Yoshida liftings for pairs of forms that are eigenforms of all Hecke operators and of all the involutions. It is then easy to see that $`Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)(Z)`$ is identically zero unless $`\phi _1,\phi _2`$ have the same eigenvalue under the involution $`\stackrel{~}{w_p}`$ for all $`pN`$. The precise conditions under which the lifting is nonzero have been stated in .

We will finally need some facts about the correspondence studied e.g. in  between modular forms for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N)`$ (with trivial character) and automorphic forms on the adelic quaternion algebra $`D_𝔸^\times .`$

We consider the essential part

$$𝒜_{\text{ess}}(D_𝔸^\times ,R_𝔸^\times ,\nu )$$

consisting of functions $`\phi `$ that are orthogonal to all $`\psi 𝒜(D_𝔸^\times ,(R_𝔸^{})^\times ,\nu )`$ for orders $`R^{}`$ strictly containing $`R`$; this space is invariant under the $`\stackrel{~}{T}(p)`$ for $`pN`$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{w}_p`$ for $`pN`$ and hence has a basis of common eigenfunctions of all the $`\stackrel{~}{T}(p)`$ for $`pN`$ and all the involutions $`\stackrel{~}{w}_p`$ for $`pN`$. Being the components of eigenvectors of a rational matrix with real eigenvalues the values of these eigenfunctions are real, (i.e., polynomials with real coefficients in the vector values case) when suitably normalized.

Moreover the eigenfunctions are in one to one correspondence with the newforms in the space

$$S^{2+2\nu }(N)$$

of elliptic cusp forms of weight $`2+2\nu `$ for the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N)`$ that are eigenfunctions of all Hecke operators (if $`\tau `$ is the trivial representation and $`R`$ is a maximal order one has to restrict here to functions orthogonal to the constant function $`1`$ on the quaternion side in order to obtain cusp forms on the modular forms side). This correspondence (Eichler’s correspondence) preserves Hecke eigenvalues for $`pN`$, and if $`\phi `$ corresponds to $`fS^{2+2\nu }(N)`$ then the eigenvalue of $`f`$ under the Atkin-Lehner involution $`w_p`$ is equal to that of $`\phi `$ under $`\stackrel{~}{w}_p`$ if $`D`$ splits at $`p`$ and equal to minus that of $`\phi `$ under $`\stackrel{~}{w}_p`$ if $`D_p`$ is a skew field. The correspondence can be explicitly described by associating to $`\phi `$ the modular form

$$h(z)=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{1}{e_ie_j}\underset{x(y_iRy_j^1)}{}(\phi (y_i)\phi (y_j))(x)\mathrm{exp}(2\pi in(x)z)$$

(where as above $`\phi (y_i)\phi (y_j)`$ denotes the harmonic polynomial in $`U_{2\nu }`$ obtained by identifying $`U_\nu ^{(0)}U_\nu ^{(0)}`$ with $`U_{2\nu }.`$)

An extension of Eichler’s correspondence to forms $`\phi `$ as above that are not essential but eigenfunctions of all the involutions $`\stackrel{~}{w_p}`$ has been given in .

## 2. Computation of periods

Our goal is the computation of the periods

$$Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right)\right),f_1(z_1)f_2(z_2)_{k_1,k_2}$$

defined above for elliptic modular forms $`f_1,f_2`$ for the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N).`$ For this we study first how the vanishing of this period integral depends on the eigenvalues of the functions involved under the Atkin-Lehner involutions or their quaternionic and Siegel modular forms counterparts.

For a Siegel modular form $`F`$ for the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{(2)}(N)`$ we let the Atkin-Lehner involutions with respect to the variables $`z_1,z_2`$ act on the restriction of $`F`$ to the diagonal matrices $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right)`$ and denote by $`F\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right)\right)|\stackrel{~}{W_p}`$ the result of this action.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`N`$ be squarefree and let $`F`$ be a vector valued Siegel modular form of degree $`2`$ for the representation $`\rho `$ of $`GL_2()`$ of highest weight $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$ in the space $`[X_1,X_2]_{\lambda _1\lambda _2}`$ of homogeneous polynomials of degree $`\lambda _1\lambda _2`$ in $`X_1,X_2`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{(2)}(N)`$ and assume for $`pN`$ that the restriction of $`F`$ to the diagonal is an eigenform of $`\stackrel{~}{W_p}`$ with eigenvalue $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_p^{(0)}`$. Let $`f_1,f_2`$ be elliptic cusp forms of weights $`k_1,k_2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N)`$ that are eigenforms of the Atkin-Lehner involution $`w_p`$ with eigenvalues $`ϵ_p^{(1)},ϵ_p^{(2)}`$. Then the period integral

(2.1)
$$F\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right)\right),f_1(z_1)f_2(z_2)_{k_1,k_2}$$

is zero unless one has $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p^{(0)}}ϵ_p^{(1)}ϵ_p^{(2)}=1.`$

Proof. Applying the Atkin-Lehner involution $`w_p`$ to both variables $`z_1,z_2`$ one sees that this is obvious.

We can view the condition of Lemma 2.1 as a (necessary) local condition for the nonvanishing of the period integral at the finite primes dividing the level, with a similar role being played at the infinite primes by the condition that modular forms of the weights $`k_1,k_2`$ of $`f_1,f_2`$ appear in the decomposition of the restriction of the vector valued modular form $`F`$ to the diagonal (or of a suitable form in the representation space of $`F`$, see below).

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`f_1,f_2,h_1,h_2`$ be modular forms for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N)`$ that are eigenfunctions of all Atkin-Lehner involutions for the $`pN`$ with $`f_1,f_2`$ cuspidal. Let $`h_1,h_2`$ have the same eigenvalue $`ϵ_p^{}`$ for all the $`w_p`$ for the $`pN`$ and denote by $`ϵ_p^{(1)},ϵ_p^{(2)}`$ the Atkin-Lehner eigenvalues at $`pN`$ of $`f_1,f_2.`$

For a factorization $`N=N_1N_2`$ where $`N_1`$ has an odd number of prime factors let $`D_{N_1}`$ be the quaternion algebra over $``$ that is ramified precisely at $`\mathrm{}`$ and the primes $`pN_1`$ and $`R_{N_1}`$ an Eichler order of level $`N`$ in $`D_{N_1}.`$

Let $`\phi _1^{(N_1)},\phi _2^{(N_1)}`$ be the forms in $`𝒜((D_{N_1})_𝔸^\times ,(R_{N_1})_𝔸^\times ,\tau _i)(i=1,2)`$ corresponding to $`h_1,h_2`$ under Eichler’s correspondence.

Then the period integral

(2.2)
$$Y^{(2)}(\phi _1^{(N_1)},\phi _2^{(N_1)})\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right)\right),f_1(z_1)f_2(z_2)_{k_1,k_2}$$

is zero unless $`ϵ_p^{}ϵ_p^{(1)}ϵ_p^{(2)}=1`$ holds for precisely those $`p`$ that divide $`N_1`$; in particular it is always zero unless $`_{pN}ϵ_p^{}ϵ_p^{(1)}ϵ_p^{(2)}=1`$ holds.

Proof. For each factorization of $`N`$ as above we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p}(N_1)`$ the eigenvalue under $`\stackrel{~}{w_p}`$ of $`\phi _1^{(N_1)},\phi _2^{(N_1)},`$ we have $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p}(N_1)=ϵ_p^{}`$ for the $`p`$ dividing $`N_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p}(N_1)=ϵ_p^{}`$ for the $`p`$ dividing $`N_2`$. Hence the product $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p}(N_1)ϵ_p^{(1)}ϵ_p^{(2)}`$ is $`1`$ for all $`p`$ dividing $`N`$ if $`N_1`$ is the product of the primes $`pN`$ such that $`ϵ_p^{}ϵ_p^{(1)}ϵ_p^{(2)}=1`$ and is $`1`$ for at least one $`pN`$ otherwise; in particular a decomposition for which $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p}(N_1)ϵ_p^{(1)}ϵ_p^{(2)}=1`$ for all $`pN`$ holds and $`N_1`$ has an odd number of prime factors exists if and only if we have $`_{pN}\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p}(N_1)ϵ_p^{(1)}ϵ_p^{(2)}=1.`$

The $`\stackrel{~}{W_p}`$-eigenvalue of the restriction of $`Y^{(2)}(\phi _1^{(N_1)},\phi _2^{(N_1)})`$ to the diagonal is $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p}(N_1)`$ by the result of Lemma 9.1 of  on the eigenvalue of $`Y^{(2)}(\phi _1^{(N_1)},\phi _2^{(N_1)})`$ under the analogue for Siegel modular forms of the Atkin-Lehner involution. The assertion then follows from the previous lemma.

For simplicity we will in the sequel assume that $`h_1,h_2,f_1,f_2`$ are all newforms of (square free) level $`N`$; essentially the same results can be obtained for more general quadruples of forms of square free level using the methods of .

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`N1`$ be squarefree, $`D,R`$ as described in Section 1, let $`f_1,f_2`$ be normalized newforms of weights $`k_1,k_2`$ for the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N)`$. Let $`\phi _1,\phi _2𝒜(D_𝔸^\times ,R_𝔸^\times ,\tau _i)`$ be as above. Assume that the (even) weights $`k_1,k_2`$ of $`f_1,f_2`$ can be written as $`k_i=\alpha _i+\nu _1\nu _2+2=\alpha _i^{}+2`$ with nonnegative integers $`\alpha _i`$ satisfying $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2=2\nu _2`$ and denote for $`i=1,2`$ by $`\psi _i`$ the $`U_{\alpha _i^{}/2}`$-valued form in $`𝒜(D_𝔸^\times ,R_𝔸^\times ,\tau _{\alpha _i^{}})`$ corresponding to $`f_i`$ under Eichler’s correspondence.

Then the period integral

(2.3)
$$Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right)\right),f_1(z_1)f_2(z_2)_{k_1,k_2}$$

has the (real) value

(2.4)
$$\begin{array}{c}cf_1,f_1f_2,f_2(\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}T_{\nu _1,\alpha _1^{},\alpha _2^{}}^{(0)}(\phi _1(y_i)\psi _1(y_i)\psi _2(y_i)))\hfill \\ \hfill \times (\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}T_{\nu _2,\alpha _1^{},\alpha _2^{}}^{(0)}(\phi _2(y_i)\psi _1(y_i)\psi _2(y_i))),\end{array}$$

with a nonzero constant $`c`$ depending only on $`\nu _1,\nu _2,k_1,k_2.`$

Proof. The coefficient of $`X_1^{\alpha _1}X_2^{\alpha _2}`$ of the $`(i,j)`$-term in $`F(z_1,z_2)=Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right)`$ is (with $`Q_{ij}:=\phi _1(y_i)\phi _2(y_j)`$) equal to

(2.5)
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{c}(\nu _1,\nu _2,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)\underset{(x_1,x_2)I_{ij}}{}T(Q_{ij},G^{(\alpha _1^{})}(x_1,),G^{(\alpha _2^{})}(x_2,))\hfill \\ \hfill \times \mathrm{exp}(2\pi in(x_1)z_1)\mathrm{exp}(2\pi in(x_2)z_2)\end{array}$$

by (1.3). We write

(2.6)
$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}^{(\alpha ^{})}(z)(x^{})=\underset{xI_{ij}}{}G^{(\alpha ^{})}(x,x^{})\mathrm{exp}(2\pi in(x)z)$$

for the $`U^\alpha ^{}`$-valued theta series attached to $`I_{ij}`$ and the Gegenbauer polynomial $`G^{(\alpha )}(x,x^{})`$ and rewrite (2.5) as

(2.7)
$$\stackrel{~}{c}(\nu _1,\nu _2,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)T(Q_{ij},\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}^{(\alpha _1^{})}(z_1),\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}^{(\alpha _2^{})}(z_2)).$$

The $`ij`$-term of the period integral (2.3) becomes then

(2.8)
$$\stackrel{~}{c}(\nu _1,\nu _2,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)T(Q_{ij},\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}^{(\alpha _1^{})}(z_1),f_1(z_1),\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}^{(\alpha _2^{})}(z_2),f_2(z_2),$$

which by (3.13) of  and the factorization

(2.9)
$$T=T_{\nu _1,\nu _2,\alpha _1^{},\alpha _2^{}}=T_{\nu _1,\alpha _1^{},\alpha _2^{}}^{(0)}T_{\nu _2,\alpha _1^{},\alpha _2^{}}^{(0)}=T_1^{(0)}T_2^{(0)}$$

is equal to

(2.10)
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{c}(\nu _1,\nu _2,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)f_1,f_1f_2,f_2T_1^{(0)}(\phi _1(y_i),\psi _1(y_i),\psi _2(y_i))\hfill \\ \hfill \times T_2^{(0)}(\phi _2(y_j),\psi _1(y_j),\psi _2(y_j)).\end{array}$$

Summation over $`i,j`$ proves the assertion. The value computed is real since the values of the $`\phi _i,\psi _i`$ are so and since $`T_0`$ is known to be real.

###### Theorem 2.4.

Let $`h_1,h_2,f_1,f_2,\psi _1,\psi _2`$ be as in Lemma 2.2, Lemma 2.3 with Atkin-Lehner eigenvalues $`ϵ_p^{}`$ for $`h_1,h_2`$ and $`ϵ_p^{(1)},ϵ_p^{(2)}`$ for $`f_1,f_2`$; assume $`_{pN}ϵ_p^{}ϵ_p^{(1)}ϵ_p^{(2)}=1`$. Let $`D`$ be the quaternion algebra over $``$ which is ramified precisely at the primes $`pN`$ for which $`ϵ_p^{}ϵ_p^{(1)}ϵ_p^{(2)}=1`$ holds and $`R`$ an Eichler order of level $`N`$ in $`D,`$ let $`\phi _1,\phi _2`$ be the forms in $`𝒜(D_𝔸^\times ,R_𝔸^\times ,\tau _{1,2})`$ corresponding to $`h_1,h_2`$ under Eichler’s correspondence.

Then the square of the period integral

(2.11)
$$Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right)\right),f_1(z_1)f_2(z_2)_{k_1,k_2}$$

is equal to

(2.12)
$$\frac{c}{h_1,h_1h_2,h_2}L(h_1,f_1,f_2;\frac{1}{2})L(h_2,f_1,f_2;\frac{1}{2}),$$

where $`c`$ is an explicitly computable nonzero number depending only on $`\nu _1,\nu _2,k_1,k_2,N`$ and the triple product $`L`$-function $`L(h,g,f;s)`$ is normalized to have its functional equation under $`s1s.`$

In particular the period integral is nonzero if and only if the central critical value of $`L(h_1,f_1,f_2;s)L(h_2,f_1,f_2;s)`$ is nonzero.

Proof. The choice of the decomposition $`N=N_1N_2`$ made above implies that we can use Theorem 5.7 of  to express the right hand side of (2.4) by the product of central critical values of the triple product $`L`$-functions associated to $`(h_1,f_1,f_2),(h_2,f_1,f_2).`$ The Petersson norms of $`f_1,f_2`$ appearing in Theorem 5.7 of  cancel against those appearing in the proof of Lemma 2.3.

###### Remark 2.5.

* If the product $`_{pN}ϵ_p^{}ϵ_p^{(1)}ϵ_p^{(2)}`$ is $`+1`$ we know from  that the sign in the functional equation of the triple product $`L`$-functions $`L(h_1,f_1,f_2;s),L(h_2,f_1,f_2;s)`$ is $`1`$ and hence the central critical values are zero; from Lemma 2.2 we know that for any Yoshida lifting $`F`$ associated to $`h_1,h_2`$ as in Lemma 2.2 the Petersson product of the restriction of $`F`$ to the diagonal and $`f_1(z_1),f_2(z_2)`$ is zero as well.
* It should be noticed that given $`h_1,h_2`$ there are $`2^{\omega (N)1}`$ possible choices of the quaternion algebra with respect to which one considers the Yoshida lifting associated to $`h_1,h_2.`$ All these Yoshida liftings are different, but have the same Satake parameters for all $`pN.`$ Given $`f_1,f_2`$ with $`_{pN}ϵ_p^{}ϵ_p^{(1)}ϵ_p^{(2)}=1`$ there is then precisely one choice of quaternion algebra that leads to a nontrivial result for the period integral, all the others give automatically zero by Lemma 2.2. The choice of this quaternion algebra should be seen as variation of the Vogan $`L`$-packet of the $`p`$-adic component of the adelic representation generated by the Siegel modular form for the $`pN`$ in such a way that the resulting $`L`$-packet satisfies the local Gross-Prasad condition for the split $`5`$-dimensional and $`4`$-dimensional orthogonal groups.

We want to rephrase the result of Theorem 2.4 in order to replace the factor of comparison $`h_1,h_1h_2,h_2`$ occurring by a factor depending only on $`F=Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)`$ instead of $`h_1,h_2.`$ Concerning the symmetric square $`L`$-function of $`F`$ occurring in the following corollary we remind the reader that we view $`F`$ as as an automorphic form on the adelic orthogonal group of the $`5`$-dimensional quadratic space $`V`$ of discriminant $`1`$ over $`𝐐`$ that contains a 2-dimensional totally isotropic subspace.

###### Corollary 2.6.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.4 and the additional assumption that $`h_1,h_2`$ are not proportional, the value of (2.12) is equal to:

(2.13)
$$\frac{cF,F}{L^{(N)}(F,\text{Sym}^2,1)}L(h_1,f_1,f_2;\frac{1}{2})L(h_2,f_1,f_2;\frac{1}{2}),$$

where again $`c`$ is an explicitly computable nonzero constant depending only on the levels and weights involved and $`L^{(N)}(F,\text{Sym}^2,s)`$ is the $`N`$-free part of the $`L`$ function of $`F`$ with respect to the symmetric square of the $`4`$ dimensional representation of the $`L`$-group of the group $`SO(V)`$ ($`V`$ as above).

Proof. Since $`h_1,h_2`$ are not proportional, the Siegel modular form $`F`$ is cuspidal and the Petersson product $`F,F`$ is well defined. From \[4, Proposition 10.2\] we recall that $`F,F`$ is (up to a nonzero constant) equal to the the residue at $`s=1`$ of the $`N`$-free part $`D_F^{(N)}(s)`$ of the degree $`5`$ $`L`$-function associated to $`F`$ (normalizing the $`\phi _i`$ to $`\phi _i,\phi _i=1`$; the formulas given in  generalize easily to the situation where the $`\phi _i`$ take values in harmonic polynomials). It is also well known that $`h_i,h_i`$ is equal (up to a nonzero constant depending only on weights and levels) to $`D_{h_i}^{(N)}(1)`$ where $`D_{h_i}^{(N)}(s)`$ is the symmetric square $`L`$-function associated to $`h_i`$. Comparing the parameters of the $`L`$-functions $`L^{(N)}(F,\text{Sym}^2,s)`$ and $`D_F^{(N)}(s)D_{h_1}^{(N)}(s)D_{h_2}^{(N)}(s)`$ we see that the value of $`L^{(N)}(F,\text{Sym}^2,s)`$ at $`s=1`$ is equal to the residue at $`s=1`$ of $`D_F^{(N)}(s)D_{h_1}^{(N)}(s)D_{h_2}^{(N)}(s),`$ which gives the assertion.

Remark.  We can as well view $`L^{(N)}(F,\text{Sym}^2,s)`$ as the exterior square of the degree $`5`$ $`L`$-function associated to $`F`$.

Let us discuss now two degenerate cases:

###### Corollary 2.7.

* Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.4 replace $`\phi _2`$ by the constant function $`(_i\frac{1}{e_i})^1`$ (and hence $`h_2(z)`$ by the Eisenstein series $`E(z)=(_{i,j}\frac{1}{e_ie_j})^1_{i,j}\frac{1}{e_ie_j}\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}^{(0)}(z)).`$ Then the period integral

(2.14)
$$Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right)\right),f_1(z_1)f_2(z_2)_{k_1,k_2}$$

is zero unless $`f_1=f_2=:f,`$ in which case its square is equal to the value at $`s=1`$ of

(2.15)
$$\frac{cF,F}{L^{(N)}(F,\text{Sym}^2,s)}L(h_1,f,f;s\frac{1}{2})L(E,f,f;s\frac{1}{2}),$$

where again $`c`$ is an explicitly computable nonzero constant depending only on the levels and weights involved and $`L(E,f_1,f_2;s)`$ is defined in the same way as the triple product $`L`$-function for a triple of cusp forms, setting the $`p`$-parameters of $`E`$ equal to $`p^{1/2},p^{1/2}`$ for $`pN.`$
* Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.4 let $`h=h_1=h_2.`$ Then the period integral (2.11) is equal to

(2.16)
$$\frac{c}{h,h}L(h,f_1,f_2;\frac{1}{2}),$$

where $`c`$ is a nonzero constant depending only on the levels and weights involved.

Proof.  Both assertions are obtained in the same way as Theorem 2.4 and Corollary 2.6; notice that in case a) (with $`\omega (N)`$ denoting the number of prime factors of $`N)`$ both $`L(E,f,f;s\frac{1}{2})`$ and $`L^{(N)}(F,\text{Sym}^2,s)`$ are of order $`\omega (N)1`$ at $`s=1.`$

Remark

* The form of our result given in Corollary 2.6 could in principle be true for any Siegel modular form $`F`$ instead of a Yoshida lifting if one replaces $`L(h_1,f_1,f_2;\frac{1}{2})L(h_2,f_1,f_2;\frac{1}{2})`$ by the value $`L(\mathrm{S}pin(F),f_1,f_2,\frac{1}{2})`$ of the spin $`L`$-function mentioned in the introduction. There is, however, not much known about the analytic properties of $`L^{(N)}(F,\text{Sym}^2,s),`$ in particular this $`L`$\- function might have a zero or a pole at $`s=1.`$
* In the degenerate case of Corollary 2.7 a) the Yoshida lifting $`F`$ is the Saito-Kurokawa lifting associated to $`h_1.`$ The result of that case could also be true in the case that $`h_1,f_1,f_2`$ are of level $`1`$ and $`F`$ is the Saito-Kurokawa lifting of $`h_1,`$ but we can not prove this at present (except for the vanishing of the period integral in the case that $`f_1f_2`$, which is easily proved).

We notice that in that last case (as well as in the related case of a Yoshida lifting of Saito-Kurokawa type) the period integral is seen to be equal to the Petersson product $`\varphi _1(\tau ,0),f(\tau ),`$ where $`\varphi _1(\tau ,z)`$ is the first Fourier Jacobi coefficient of $`F.`$

In the case of Corollary 2.7 b) the Yoshida lift $`F`$ can be viewed as an Eisenstein series of Klingen type associated to $`h,`$ in particular its image under Siegel’s $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-operator is equal to $`h`$ (more precisely, the Klingen Eisenstein series in question is a sum of Yoshida liftings associated to various quaternion algebras of level dividing $`N`$ (see ), where the other contributions yield a vanishing period integral). One checks that the result of Corollary 2.7 b) is valid also for $`F`$ denoting the Klingen Eisenstein series attached to a cuspidal normalized Hecke eigenform $`h`$ of level $`1`$ and $`f_1,f_2`$ two cuspidal normalized Hecke eigenforms of level $`1.`$

We can obtain a result similar to that of Theorem 2.4 for more general weights $`k_1,k_2`$ of the modular forms $`f_1,f_2.`$ For this, remember that according to Lemma 1.1 the value given in (2.4) for the period integral in question also makes sense if one replaces throughout $`\alpha _1^{},\alpha _2^{}`$ by $`\beta _1^{}=\alpha _1^{}+\gamma ,\beta _2^{}=\alpha _2^{}+\gamma `$ for some fixed $`\gamma >0;`$ the forms $`f_1,f_2`$ then having weights $`k_i=\alpha _i^{}+2+\gamma `$ for $`i=1,2.`$ As noticed above, our period integral becomes $`0`$ in this situation. We can, however, modify the function $`Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)(Z)`$ by a differential operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{2,\alpha _1,\alpha _2}^\gamma `$ in such a way that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{2,\alpha _1,\alpha _2}^\gamma Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)`$ is a function on $`𝐇\times 𝐇`$ that is a modular form of weights $`k_1,k_2`$ of $`z_1,z_2`$ as described above and yields a value for the period integral of the same form as the one given in form (2.4).

More precisely, we have:

###### Proposition 2.8.

For nonnegative integers $`k`$, $`r`$ and $`l`$ with $`k2`$ and any partition $`l=a+b`$, there exists a (non-zero) holomorphic differential operator $`𝒟_{k,a,b}^r`$ (polynomial in $`X_1^2\frac{}{z_1},X_1X_2\frac{}{z_{12}},X_2^2\frac{}{z_2}`$, evaluated in $`z_{12}=0`$) mapping $`𝐂[X_1,X_2]_l`$-valued functions on $`𝐇_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ to $`𝐂X_1^{a+r}X_2^{b+r}`$-valued functions on $`𝐇\times 𝐇`$ and satisfying

$$𝒟_{k,a,b}^r\left(F_{k,l}M_1^{}M_2^{}\right)=(𝒟_{k,a,b}^rF)_{k+a+r}^{z_1}M_1_{k+b+r}^{z_2}M_2$$

for all $`M_1,M_2SL(2,𝐑)`$; here the upper indices $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ at the slash-operator indicate the variable, with respect to which one has to apply the elements of $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ and $``$ denote the standard embedding of $`SL(2)\times SL(2)`$ into $`Sp(2)`$ given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)^{}\times \left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a& 0& b& 0\\ 0& A& 0& B\\ c& 0& d& 0\\ 0& C& 0& D\end{array}\right)$$

Of course one can consider $`𝒟_{k,a,b}^rF`$ as a $`𝐂`$-valued function.

###### Remark 2.9.

One may indeed show, that there exists (up to multiplication by a constant) precisely one such nontrivial holomorphic differential operator.

###### Corollary 2.10.

The differential operator $`𝒟_{k,a,b}^r`$ defined above gives rise to a map

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{k,a,b}^r:M_{k,l}^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2(N))M_{k+a+r}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1(N))M_{k+b+r}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1(N))$$

of spaces of modular forms. (It is easy to see that for $`r>0`$ this map actually goes into spaces of cusp foms).

###### Corollary 2.11.

Denoting by $`Sym_2(𝐂)`$ the space of complex symmetric matrices of size 2 we define a polynomial function

$$Q:Sym_2(𝐂)𝐂[X_1,X_2]_{2r}$$

by

$$𝒟_{k,a,b}^re^{tr(TZ)}=Q(T)e^{t_1z_1+t_2z_2}$$

where $`Z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& z_3\\ z_3& z_2\end{array}\right)𝐇_2`$.
Furthermore we assume (with $`k=\frac{m}{2}+\nu `$) that $`P:𝐂^{(m,2)}𝐂[X_1,X_2]_l`$ is a polynomial function satisfying

* $`P`$ is pluriharmonic
* $`P((X_1,X_2)A)=\rho _{\nu ,l}(A)P(X_1,X_2)`$ for all $`AGL(2,𝐂)`$.

Then, for $`𝐘_1,𝐘_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐂^m`$

$$(𝐘_1,𝐘_2)\left\{P(𝐘_1,𝐘_2)Q(\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝐘_1^t𝐘_1& 𝐘_1^t𝐘_2\\ 𝐘_2^t𝐘_1& 𝐘_2^t𝐘_2\end{array}\right))\right\}_{a+r+\nu ,b+r+\nu }$$

defines an element of $`H_{a+r+\nu }(m)H_{b+r+\nu }(m)`$, where $`H_\mu (m)`$ is the space of harmonic polynomials in $`m`$ variables (for the standard quadratic form), homogeneous of degree $`\mu `$ and for any $`R𝐂[X_1,X_2]_{l+2r}`$ we denote by $`\{R\}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ the coefficient of $`X_1^\alpha X_2^\beta `$ in $`R`$, $`\alpha +\beta =l+2r`$.

The proof of Corollary 2.11 is a vector-valued variant of similar statements in  and \[9, p.200\], using the proposition above and the characterization of harmonic polynomials by the Gauß-transform; we leave the details of proof to the reader.

Proof of Proposition 2.8.
We start from a Maaß-type differential operator $`\delta _{k+l}`$ which maps $`𝐂[X_1,X_2]_l`$-valued functions on $`𝐇_2`$ to $`𝐂[X_1,X_2]_{l+2}`$-valued ones and satisfies

$$\left(\delta _{k+l}F\right)_{k,l+2}M=\delta _{k+l}\left(F_{k,l}M\right)$$

for all $`MSp(2,𝐑)`$.
It is well known, how such operators arise from elements of the universal enveloping algebra of the complexified Lie algebra of $`Sp(2,𝐑)`$, see e.g.  . In our case (we refer to  for details) we can describe these operators quite explicitly in terms of the simple operators

$$DF:=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{}{Z}\right)[𝐗]$$

and

$$NF:=\left(\frac{1}{4\pi }(ImZ)^1F\right)[𝐗]$$

Here $`𝐗`$ stands for the column vector $`\left(\begin{array}{c}X_1\\ X_2\end{array}\right)`$. Then we define

$$\delta _kF=kNF+DF$$

It is remarkable (and already incorporated in our notation!) that $`\delta _{k+l}`$ depends only on $`k+l`$.
The iteration

$$\delta _{k+l}^r:=\delta _{k+l+2r2}\mathrm{}\delta _{k+l+2}\delta _{k+l}$$

can also be described explicitly by

$$\delta _{k+l}^r=\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+l+r)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+l+ri)}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{i}\right)N^iD^{ri}$$

For a function $`F:𝐇_2𝐂[X_1,X_2]_l`$ and a decomposition $`l=a+b`$ we put

$$_{k+l}^r(a,b)F=:X_1^{a+r}X_2^{b+r}\text{coefficient of}\left(\delta _{2,k+l}^rF\right)_{𝐇\times 𝐇}$$

Then $``$ has already the transfomation properties required in the proposition, i.e.

$$_{k+l}^r(a,b)\left(F_{k,l}M_1^{}M_2^{}\right)=\left(_{k+l}^r(a,b)F\right)_{k+a+r}^{z_1}M_1_{k+b+r}^{z_2}M_2$$

for $`M_1,M_2SL(2,𝐑)`$.
Moreover, if $`F`$ is in addition a holomorphic function on $`𝐇_2`$, then $`_{k+l}^r(a,b)F`$ is a nearly holomorphic function in the sense of Shimura (with respect to both variables $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$), as polynomials in $`\frac{1}{y_1}`$ and $`\frac{1}{y_2}`$ they are of degree $`r`$. Shimura’s structure theorem on nearly holomorphic functions  says that all nearly holomorphic functions on $`𝐇`$ can be obtained from holomorphic functions by applying Maaß type operators

$$\delta _k:=\frac{k}{2iy}+\frac{}{z}$$

and their iterates. This however is only true if the weight (i.e. $`k+a+r`$ or $`k+r+b`$) is bigger than $`2r`$, which is not necessarily true in our situation. We therefore use a weaker version of Shimura’ theorem (see \[31, Theorem 3.3\]), valid under the assumption ”$`w>1+r`$”, where $`w`$ is the weight at hand and $`r`$ is the degree of the nearly holomorphic function: Every such function $`f`$ on $`𝐇`$ of degree $`r`$ has an expression

$$f=f_{hol}+L_w(\stackrel{~}{f})$$

where $`f_{hol}`$ is holomorphic and $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is again nearly holomorphic of degree $`r`$; in this expression

$$L_w:=\delta _{w2}\left(y^2\frac{}{\overline{z}}\right)=\frac{w}{2i}y\frac{}{\overline{z}}+y^2\frac{^2}{z\overline{z}}$$

is a ”Laplacian” of weight $`w`$ commuting with the $`_w`$-action of $`SL(2,𝐑)`$. We also point out that $`f_{hol}`$ is uniquely determined by $`f`$ (in particular, $`f=f_{hol}`$, if $`f`$ is holomorphic) and we have $`\left(f_wM\right)_{hol}=\left(f_{hol}\right)_wM`$ for all $`MSL(2,𝐑)`$.
If we apply this statement to $`_{k+l}^r(a,b)F`$, considered as function of $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$, we get an expression of type

$$_{k+l}^r(a,b)F=f+L_{k+a+r}^{z_1}g_1+L_{k+r+b}^{z_2}g_2+L_{k+a+r}^{z_1}L_{k+r+b}^{z_2}h$$

where $`f,g_1,g_2,h`$ are nearly holomorphic functions on $`𝐇\times 𝐇`$, $`f`$ being holomorphic in both variables, $`g_1`$ holomorphic in $`z_2`$, $`g_2`$ holomorphic in $`z_1`$. Note that (due to our assumption $`k2`$ ) Shimura’s theorem is applicable here. An inspection of Shimura’s proof (which is quite elementary for our case) shows that $`f`$ is indeed of the form $`f=𝐃F`$, where $`𝐃`$ is a polynomial $`p`$ in $`\frac{}{z_1},\frac{}{z_{12}},\frac{}{z_2}`$, evaluated in $`z_{12}=0`$. This polynomial does not depend on $`F`$ at all and it has the required transformation properties.
It remains however to show that $`𝐃`$ is not zero:
For this purpose, we consider the special function

$$𝐳_{12}^r:\{\begin{array}{ccc}𝐇_2& & 𝐂[X_1,X_2]_l\\ Z& & z_{12}^rX_1^aX_2^b\end{array}$$

It is easy to see that $`_{k+l}^r(a,b)(𝐳_{12}^r)`$ is then equal to the constant function $`r!`$, therefore

$$_{k+l}^r(a,b)(𝐳_{12}^r)=𝐃(𝐳_{12}^r)=r!,$$

in particular, $`𝐃`$ is non-zero and we may put

$$𝒟_{k,a,b}^r=p(X_1^2\frac{}{z_1},X_1X_2\frac{}{z_{12}},X_2^2\frac{}{z_2}),$$

evaluated at $`z_{12}=0`$

We can then prove in the same way as above:

###### Corollary 2.12.

The assertions of Lemma 2.3 and Theorem 2.4 remain true if $`f_1,f_2`$ have weights $`k_i=\alpha _i^{}+2+\gamma (i=1,2)`$ with some $`\gamma >0,`$ if one replaces

$$Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right)\right)$$

by

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{2,\alpha _1,\alpha _2}^\gamma Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)(z_1,z_2)$$

###### Remark 2.13.

Application of the differential operator to $`Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)(Z))`$ before restriction to the diagonal does not change the $`Sp_2()`$-representation space of that function, i.e., we have found a different function in the same representation space whose period integral assumes the value that is predicted by the conjecture of Gross and Prasad. More precisely, (using remark 2.9 and some additional considerations) one can show that the vanishing of this predicted value is already sufficient for the vanishing of the period integral for all triples $`F^{},f_1^{},f_2^{}`$ of functions in the Harish-Chandra modules generated by the original functions $`F,f_1,f_2`$. To obtain a similar statement for the local representations at the finite places not dividing the level one would have to show that a nonvanishing invariant linear functional on the tensor product of the representations is not zero on the product of the spherical (or class 1) vectors invariant under the maximal compact subgroup. This is expected to be true as well; we plan to come back to these problems in future work.

## 3. Restriction to an embedded Hilbert modular surface

To avoid technical difficulties we deal here only with the simplest case: The quaternion algebra $`D`$ is ramified at all primes $`p`$ dividing the level $`N`$ and we have $`\nu _1=\nu _2=0`$, i.e., the Yoshida lifting is a scalar valued Siegel modular form of weight $`2`$ and the order $`R`$ we are considering is a maximal order. We put $`F=𝐐(\sqrt{N})`$ and assume that $`N`$ is such that the class number of $`F`$ is 1. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the discriminant of $`F,`$ by $`aa^\sigma `$ its nontrivial automorphism and consider the basis $`1,w`$ with $`w=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}`$ of the ring $`𝔬_F`$ of $`F`$. Denoting by $`C`$ the matrix

$$C:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ w& \overline{w}\end{array}\right)$$

we have the usual modular embedding

(3.1)
$$\iota :(z_1,z_2)C\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right){}_{}{}^{t}C$$

of $`𝐇\times 𝐇`$ into the Siegel upper half plane $`𝐇_2`$ and

(3.2)
$$\stackrel{~}{\iota }:\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}C& 0\\ 0& {}_{}{}^{t}C_{}^{1}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a& 0& b& 0\\ 0& a^\sigma & 0& b^\sigma \\ c& 0& d& 0\\ 0& c^\sigma & 0& d^\sigma \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}C^1& 0\\ 0& {}_{}{}^{t}C\end{array}\right)$$

from $`SL_2(F)`$ into $`Sp_2(𝐐).`$

We have then for $`\gamma SL_2(F):`$

(3.3)
$$\stackrel{~}{\iota }(\gamma )(\iota ((z_1,z_2))=\stackrel{~}{\iota }(\gamma ((z_1,z_2)))$$

with the usual actions of the groups $`SL_2(F)`$ on $`𝐇\times 𝐇`$ and of $`Sp_2(𝐐)`$ on the Siegel upper half plane.

We put now

$$J=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$

and consider for a Siegel modular form $`f`$ of weight $`k`$ for the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }Sp_2(𝐐)`$ the function

(3.4)
$$\stackrel{~}{f}(\tau _1,\tau _2):=f|_kJ(\iota (\tau _1,\tau _2)).$$

Writing $`\iota _0=J\iota ,\stackrel{~}{\iota _0}(\gamma ):=J\iota (\gamma )J^1`$ we see that $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is a Hilbert modular form for the group $`\stackrel{~}{\iota _0}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }).`$

By calculating $`\stackrel{~}{\iota _0}(\gamma )`$ explicitly for $`\gamma SL_2(F)`$ one checks that $`\stackrel{~}{\iota _0}(\gamma )`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{(2)}(N)`$ if and only if $`\gamma `$ is in $`SL_2(𝔬_F𝔡)`$, the group of matrices $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)`$ with $`a,d𝔬_F,c𝔡,b𝔡^1`$, where $`𝔡`$ is the different of $`F.`$

If $`L`$ is a $`𝐙`$-lattice of (even) rank $`m=2k`$ with quadratic form $`q`$ and associated bilinear form $`B(x,y):=q(x+y)q(x)q(y)`$ satisfying $`q(L)𝐙`$ and $`Nq(L^\mathrm{\#})=𝐙`$ ($`N`$ is the level of $`(L,q)`$) then it is shown in  that

(3.5)
$$\vartheta ^{(2)}(L,q,Z)|_kJ=c_1\underset{x_1L,x_2L^\mathrm{\#}}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i\mathrm{tr}\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}q(x_1)& B(x_1,x_2)/2\\ B(x_1,x_2)/2& q(x_2)\end{array}\right)Z\right)\right),$$

where $`c_1`$ is a nonzero constant depending only on the genus of $`(L,q)`$ and where $`\vartheta ^{(2)}(L,q,Z)`$ is the usual theta series of degree $`2`$ of $`(L,q).`$ One checks therefore that, writing $`K=\{x_1+x_2wLFx_1L,x_2L^\mathrm{\#}\},`$ we have

(3.6)
$$\vartheta ^{(2)}(L,q,\stackrel{~}{\iota _0}(z_1,z_2))=\vartheta (K,q,(z_1,z_2)),$$

where we denote by $`\vartheta (K,q,(z_1,z_2))=_{yK}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i(q(y)z_1+q(y)^\sigma z_2))`$ the theta series of the $`𝔬_F`$-lattice $`K`$ with the extended form $`q`$ on it.

It is again easily checked that $`L^\mathrm{\#}N^1L`$ implies that $`K`$ is an integral unimodular $`𝔬_F`$-lattice, and it is well known that then the theta series $`\vartheta (K,q,(z_1,z_2))`$ is a modular form of weight $`k`$ for the group $`SL_2(𝔬_F𝔡).`$

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ be a quaternion algebra over $`F`$ ramified at both infinite primes and let $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ be a maximal order in $`\stackrel{~}{D}.`$ Let

$$𝒜(\stackrel{~}{D}_𝔸^\times ,\stackrel{~}{R}_𝔸^\times ,0)=:𝒜(\stackrel{~}{D}_𝔸^\times ,\stackrel{~}{R}_𝔸^\times )$$

be defined in the same way as in Section 1 for $`D`$ and let $`𝒜(\stackrel{~}{D}_𝔸^\times ,\stackrel{~}{R}_𝔸^\times )`$ be equipped with the natural action of Hecke operators $`T(𝔭)`$ for the $`𝔭`$ not dividing $`N`$ described by Brandt matrices as explained in .Then by associating to a Hecke eigenform $`\psi 𝒜(\stackrel{~}{D}_𝔸^\times ,\stackrel{~}{R}_𝔸^\times )`$ the Hilbert modular form

$$f(z_1,z_2)=_{(\stackrel{~}{D}^\times \backslash \stackrel{~}{D}_𝔸^\times )\times (\stackrel{~}{D}^\times \backslash \stackrel{~}{D}_𝔸^\times )}\psi (y)\psi (y^{})\vartheta (y^{}\stackrel{~}{R}y^1,(z_1,z_2))𝑑y𝑑y^{}$$

one gets a bijective correspondence between the $`\psi `$ as above and the Hecke eigenforms of weight $`2`$ and trivial character for the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(𝔫,𝔡)`$ of precise level $`𝔫`$ giving an explicit realization of the correspondence of Shimizu und Jacquet/Langlands . Here $`𝔫`$ denotes the product of the prime ideals ramified in $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(𝔫,𝔡)`$ is the subgroup of $`SL_2(𝔬_F𝔡)`$ whose lower left entries are in $`𝔫𝔡.`$

The function $`\rho (y,y^{})`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{D}_𝔸^\times \times \stackrel{~}{D}_𝔸^\times `$ given by setting $`\rho (y,y^{})`$ equal to the Petersson product of $`f`$ with $`\vartheta (y^{}\stackrel{~}{R}y^1,(z_1,z_2))`$ is proportional to $`(y,y^{})\psi (y)\psi (y^{}).`$

Proof. The first part of this Lemma is due to Shimizu  (taking into account that by  the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(𝔫,𝔡)`$ is the correct transformation group for the theta series in question). Let $`\widehat{\rho }`$ be the function on the adelic orthogonal group of $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ induced by $`\rho `$ and let $`\widehat{\psi }`$ be the function on the adelic orthogonal group of $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ induced by $`(y,y^{})\psi (y)\psi (y^{}).`$ The function $`\widehat{\psi }`$ generates an irreducible representation space of $`\stackrel{~}{D}_𝔸^\times `$ whose theta lifting to $`SL_2(F_𝔸)`$ is generated by $`f,`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is a vector in the theta lifting of this latter representation of $`SL_2(F_𝔸),`$ which by  coincides with the original representation space generated by $`\widehat{\psi }.`$ Since both $`\widehat{\rho },\widehat{\psi }`$ are invariant under the same maximal compact subgroup of $`\stackrel{~}{D}_𝔸^\times ,`$ the uniqueness of such a vector implies that they must coincide up to proportionality. That $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is not zero follows from the obvious fact that $`f`$ by its construction can not be orthogonal to all the theta series.

###### Lemma 3.2.

With the above notations let $`\phi _1,\phi _2`$ in $`𝒜(D_𝔸^\times ,R_𝔸^\times ,0)`$ be Hecke eigenforms with the same eigenvalue under the involutions $`\stackrel{~}{w_p}`$ for the $`pN`$ with associated newforms $`h_1,h_2`$ of weight $`2`$ and level $`N.`$ Let $`f`$ be a Hilbert modular form of weight $`2`$ for the group $`SL_2(𝔬_F𝔡)`$ that corresponds in the way described in Lemma 3.1 to the function $`\psi 𝒜(\stackrel{~}{D}_𝔸^\times ,\stackrel{~}{R}_𝔸^\times )`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{D}=DF`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ being the maximal order in $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ containing $`R.`$ Then the value of the period integral

(3.7)
$$_{SL_2(𝔬_F𝔡)\backslash H\times H}(Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)|_2J(\iota ((z_1,z_2)))f((z_1,z_2))dz_1dz_2$$

is equal to

(3.8)
$$c_2f,f(\underset{i}{}\phi _1(y_i)\psi (y_i))(\underset{i}{}\phi _2(y_i)\psi (y_i)),$$

where we identify $`y_i`$ with $`y_i1\stackrel{~}{D}`$ and where $`c_2`$ is some constant depending only on $`N.`$

In order to interpret the value obtained in (3.8) in the same way as in Section 2 as the central critical value of an $`L`$-function, we review briefly the integral representation of the $`L`$-function that one obtains when one replaces in a triple $`(h,f_1,f_2)`$ of elliptic cusp forms the pair $`(f_1,f_2)`$ by one Hilbert cusp form $`f`$ for a real quadratic field.

For the moment, both the Hilbert cusp form $`f`$ and the elliptic cusp form $`h`$ can be of arbitrary even weight $`k.`$ Now we consider the Siegel type Eisenstein series of weight $`k`$, defined on $`𝐇_3`$ by

$$E_3^k(W,s)=\underset{\gamma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ C& D\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^3(N)_{\mathrm{}}\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_0^3(N)}{}det(CW+D)^kdet(\mathrm{}(\gamma <W>)^s$$

Here and in the sequel we denote by $`G_{\mathrm{}}`$ the subgroup of $`G`$ defined by ”$`C=0`$”, where $`G`$ is any group of symplectic matrices.
We restrict this Eisenstein series to $`W=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\tau & 0\\ 0& Z\end{array}\right)`$ with $`\tau 𝐇`$, $`Z𝐇_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and furthermore we consider then the modular embedding with respect to $`Z`$.

In this way we get a function $`E(\tau ,z_1,z_2,s)`$, which behaves like a modular form for $`\tau `$ and like a Hilbert modular form for $`(z_1,z_2)`$ of weight $`k`$.
We want to compute the twofold integral

$$I(f,h,s):=_{SL_2(𝔬_F𝔡)\backslash 𝐇^2}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N)\backslash 𝐇}\overline{h(\tau )f(z_1,z_2)}E(\tau ,z_1,z_2,s)𝑑\tau ^{}𝑑z_1^{}𝑑z_2^{}$$

where $`dz^{}=y^{k2}dxdy`$ for $`z=x+iy𝐇`$.
This can be done in several ways: One can relate this integral to similar ones in  or in  (both these works are in an adelic setting) or one can try to do it along classical lines as in . We sketch the latter approach here (for class number one, $`h`$ being a normalized newform of level $`N`$.)

The inner integration over $`\tau `$ (which can be done with $`Z𝐇_2`$ instead of the embedded $`(z_1,z_2)`$) is the same as in the papers mentioned above, producing an $`L`$-factor $`L_2(h,2s+2k2)`$ (with $`L_2(,)`$ denoting the symmetric square $`L`$-function) times a Klingen type Eisenstein series $`E_{2,1}(h,s)`$, which is defined as follows: We denote by $`C_{2,1}`$ the maximal parabolic subgroup of $`Sp(2)`$ for which the last line is of the form $`(0,0,0,)`$ and we put $`C_{2,1}(N)=C_{2,1}(𝐐)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2(N)`$. Furthermore we define a function $`h_s(Z)`$ on $`𝐇_2`$ by

$$h_s(Z)=h(z_1)\left(\frac{det(Y)}{y_1}\right)^s,$$

where $`z_1=x_1+iy_1`$ denotes the entry in the upper left corner of $`Z=X+iY𝐇_2`$. Then we put

$$E_{2,1}(h,s)(Z)=\underset{\gamma C_{2,1}\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2(N)}{}h_s(Z)_k\gamma $$

To do the second integration, one needs information on certain cosets: This is the only new ingredient entering the picture:

###### Lemma 3.3.

A complete set of representatives for $`C_{2,1}(N)\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2(N)`$ is given by

$$\{d(M)J^1\stackrel{~}{\iota }_0(\gamma )\}$$

with $`\gamma `$ running over $`SL_2(𝔬_F𝔡)_{\mathrm{}}\backslash SL_2(𝔬_F𝔡)`$, and $`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ u& v\end{array}\right)`$ running over those elements of $`SL(2,𝐙)_{\mathrm{}}\backslash SL(2,𝐙)`$ with $`v0(N)`$, where $`d`$ denotes the standard embedding of $`GL(2)`$ in $`Sp(2)`$ given by $`d(M)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(M^1\right)^t& 0\\ 0& M\end{array}\right)`$.

This lemma is related to the double coset decomposition

$$C_{2,1}(N)\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2(N)/\stackrel{~}{\iota }_0(SL_2(𝔬_F𝔡))$$

and somewhat analogous to the coset decomposition in \[28, p.692\]; we omit the proof.
We may now do the usual unfolding to get

(3.9)
$$\begin{array}{c}_{SL_2(𝔬_F𝔡)\backslash 𝐇^2}\overline{h(z_1,z_2)}\stackrel{~}{E_{2,1}(h,,s)}(z_1,z_2)𝑑z_1^{}𝑑z_2^{}\hfill \\ \hfill =_{SL_2(𝔬_F𝔡)_{\mathrm{}}\backslash 𝐇^2}\underset{M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ v& u\end{array}\right)}{}h((v,u)C\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& 0\\ 0& z_2\end{array}\right)C^t\left(\begin{array}{c}v\\ u\end{array}\right))\\ \hfill \times \overline{f(z_1,z_2)}\left(\frac{Dy_1y_4}{(v+u\omega )^2y_1+(v+u\overline{\omega }^2y_2}\right)^sdz_1^{}dz_2^{}\end{array}$$

Using the Fourier expansions of $`f`$ and $`F`$,

$$h(z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a(n)e^{2\pi inz},f(z_1,z_2)=\underset{\nu \mathrm{𝟎}_F,\nu 0}{}A(\nu )e^{2\pi itr(\nu z)}$$

one can (after some standard calculations) write the integral above as

$$\gamma (s)\underset{n}{}\underset{\backslash (u,v)}{}a(n)\overline{A(n(v+u\omega )^2)}n^{s2k+2}N(v+u\omega )^{2s2k+2}$$

where we use the following equivalence relation: two pairs $`(u,v)`$ and $`(u^{},v^{})`$ are called equivalent iff $`v+u\omega `$ and $`v^{}+u^{}\omega `$ are equal up to a unit from $`𝔬_F`$ as a factor.
Assume now in addition that $`h`$ is a normalized eigenfunction of all Hecke operators; then we define the $`L`$-function $`L(hf,s)`$ as an Euler product over all primes $`p`$ with Euler factors (at least for $`p`$ coprime to $`N`$)

$$L_p(hf,s):=L_p^{Asai}(f,\alpha _pp^s)L_p^{Asai}(f,\beta _pp^s)$$

where we use the Euler factors $`L_p^{Asai}(f,s)`$ of the Asai-L-function attached to $`f`$ (see ) and $`\alpha _p`$ and $`\beta _p`$ are the Satake-p-parameters attached to the eigenform $`h`$ (normalized to have absolute values $`p^{\frac{k1}{2}}`$). We will write later $`L(h,f;s)`$ to denote the shift of this $`L`$-function that is normalized to have functional equation under $`s1s`$.
By standard calculation, we see that the integral above is, after multiplication by $`L_2(h,2s+2k2)`$, equal to the $`L`$-function $`L(hf,s+2k2)`$ (up to elementary factors; the condition $`v0(N)`$ also creates some extra contribution for $`p`$-Euler factors with $`pN`$). This calculation of course requires some formal calculations similar to those given e.g. in .

###### Remark 3.4.

If the class number $`H`$ of $`F`$ is different from one, then the orbit structure is more complicated. One gets $`H`$ different sets of representatives of the type described in the lemma above (each one twisted by a matrix in $`SL_2(F)`$ mapping a cusp into $`\mathrm{}`$). After unfolding, one gets then a Dirichlet series also involving Fourier coefficients of $`f`$ at all the $`H`$ different cusps. If we assume that $`f`$ is the first component (i.e. the one corresponding to the principal ideal class) in a tuple of $`H`$ Hilbert modular forms such that the corresponding adelic modular form is an eigenform of all Hecke operators, then it is possible (but quite unpleasant) to transfer that Dirichlet series into the Euler product in question.

Now we return to the case of weight $`2`$. We can compute the integral $`I(f,h,s)`$ at $`s=0`$ not only by unfolding as above but also by using the Siegel-Weil formula for the Eisenstein series in the integrand. Then one gets in the same way as in  that the square of the right hand side of (3.8) is (up to an explicit constant) the product of the central critical values of the $`L`$-functions attached to the pairs $`h_1,f`$ and $`h_2,f`$ as above:

###### Theorem 3.5.

Let $`\phi _1,\phi _2,h_1,h_2,f,\psi `$ be as in Lemma 3.2. Then the square of the period integral

(3.10)
$$_{SL_2(𝔬_F𝔡)\backslash 𝐇\times 𝐇}(Y^{(2)}(\phi _1,\phi _2)|_2J(\iota ((z_1,z_2)))f((z_1,z_2))dz_1dz_2$$

is equal to

(3.11)
$$\frac{c_3}{h_1,h_1h_2,h_2}L(h_1,f;1/2)L(h_2,f;1/2),$$

where $`c_3`$ is an explicitly computable nonzero number depending only on $`N`$ and the product $`L`$-function $`L(h,f;s)`$ is normalized to have its functional equation under $`s1s.`$

In particular the period integral is nonzero if and only if the central critical value of $`L(h_1,f;s)L(h_2,f,s)`$ is nonzero.

Siegfried Böcherer
Kunzenhof 4B
79117 Freiburg
Germany
boech@siegel.math.uni-mannheim.de
Masaaki Furusawa
Department of Mathematics
Graduate School of Science
Osaka City University
Sugimoto 3–3–138, Sumiyoshi-ku
Osaka 558-8585, Japan
furusawa@sci.osaka-cu.ac.jp
Rainer Schulze-Pillot
Fachrichtung 6.1 Mathematik
Universität des Saarlandes (Geb. 27)
Postfach 151150
66041 Saarbrücken
Germany
schulzep@math.uni-sb.de