--- abstract: 'Sarnak's Density Conjecture is an explicit bound on the multiplicities of non-tempered representations in a sequence of cocompact congruence arithmetic lattices in a semisimple Lie group, which is motivated by the work of Sarnak and Xue ([@sarnak1991bounds]). The goal of this work is to discuss similar hypotheses, their interrelation and applications. We mainly focus on two properties – the spectral Spherical Density Hypothesis and the geometric Weak Injective Radius Property. Our results are strongest in the $p$-adic case, where we show that the two properties are equivalent, and both imply Sarnak's General Density Hypothesis. One possible application is that either the Spherical Density Hypothesis or the Weak Injective Radius Property imply Sarnak's Optimal Lifting Property ([@sarnak2015lettermiller]). Conjecturally, all those properties should hold in great generality. We hope that this work will motivate their proofs in new cases.' author: - Konstantin Golubev and Amitay Kamber bibliography: - './database.bib' title: 'On Sarnak's Density Conjecture and its Applications' --- [^1] Introduction ============ Let $k$ be a local field (Archimedean or non-Archimedean), let $G$ be the $k$-rational points of a semisimple algebraic group defined over $k$, let $\Gamma_1\subset G$ be a lattice, and let $(\Gamma_N) $ be a sequence of finite index subgroups of $\Gamma_1$ with $[\Gamma_{1}:\Gamma_N]\to\infty$. There are various results about the multiplicities in the decomposition of $L^{2}(\Gamma_N\backslash G)$ into irreducible representation (e.g., [@degeorge1978limit; @sauvageot1997principe; @abert2017growth]). An extremely strong property is the *very naive Ramanujan property*, stating that if $\pi$ is non-tempered and non-trivial, then it does not appear in the decomposition. However, the *very naive Ramanujan property* is usually not true in high rank (see, e.g., [@burger1992ramanujan]). Notice that we do not make a distinction between cusp forms and non-cusp forms – the *naive Ramanujan conjecture* states that cusp forms are tempered, and it is also not true in general ([@howe1979counterexample]). Moreover, even when the naive Ramanujan conjecture is expected to be true, it is usually out of reach by the existing methods. Recently, Sarnak made a density conjecture which is an approximation to the very naive Ramanujan property and should serve as a replacement of it for applications. Some instances of this general idea were previously given for hyperbolic surfaces ([@sarnak2015lettermiller; @golubev2019cutoff]), and for graphs ([@bordenave2021cutoff; @kamber2019p]). Our goal here is to give a general framework for similar density conjectures and their use in applications. We give a geometric and somewhat elementary approach to the problem. An alternative approach based on deep results in the Langlands program may be found in an ongoing work of Shai Evra. To state Sarnak's Density Conjecture, we first set some notations. Let $(\pi,V)$ be a unitary irreducible representation of $G$ and let $0\ne v_{0}\in V$ be a $K$-finite vector, where $K$ is a maximal compact subgroup of $G$, which is good in the sense of Bruhat and Tits in the non-Archimedean case ([@bruhat1972groupes]). We let $1\le p(\pi)\le\infty$ be the infimum over $p\ge1$ such that the matrix coefficient $\beta\colon G\to\C$, $\beta(g)=\left\langle v_{0},\pi(g)v_{0}\right\rangle $ is in $L^{p}(G)$. It is a well-known fact that $p(\pi)$ does not depend on the choice of $v_{0}$. Let $\Pi(G)$ be the set of isomorphism classes of irreducible unitary representations of $G$ endowed with the Fell topology. For a cocompact lattice $\Gamma$ and $(\pi,V)\in\Pi(G)$, denote $m(\pi,\Gamma)=\dim\operatorname{Hom}_{G}(V,L^{2}(\Gamma\backslash G))$, i.e., the multiplicity of $\pi$ in the decomposition of $L^{2}(\Gamma\backslash G)$ into irreducible representations. For a subset $A\subset\Pi(G)$, denote $M(A,\Gamma,p)=\sum_{\pi\in A,p(\pi)\ge p}m(\pi,\Gamma)$. \[Sarnak's Density Conjecture\] Let $G$ be a real, semisimple, almost-simple and simply connected Lie group, let $\Gamma_1$ be a cocompact arithmetic lattice of $G$ and let $(\Gamma_N)$ be a sequence of finite index congruence subgroups of $\Gamma_1$, with $[\Gamma_{1}:\Gamma_N]\to\infty$. Then for every precompact subset $A\subset\Pi(G)$ and $\epsilon>0$ there exists a constant $C_{\epsilon,A}$ such that for every $N$ and $p>2$, $$M(A,\Gamma,p)\le C_{A,\epsilon}[\Gamma_{1}:\Gamma_N]^{2/p+\epsilon}.$$ We refer to a sequence of lattices satisfying this multiplicity property as a sequence which satisfies the *General Density Hypothesis*. A similar conjecture appeared in the work of Sarnak and Xue ([@sarnak1991bounds]), but they only considered the case when $A=\left\{ \pi\right\} $ is a singleton. In such a case, we say that the sequence of lattices satisfies the *Pointwise Multiplicity Hypothesis*. We will prefer to work with a different spectral definition, the *Spherical Density Hypothesis*, which is easier to use for applications, and concerns only spherical representations. Let $\Pi(G)_{\operatorname{sph}}\subset\Pi(G)$ be the set of isomorphism classes of spherical representations, i.e., of irreducible unitary representations with a non-zero $K$-invariant vector. In the $p$-adic case, or the rank $1$ case, the set $\left\{ \pi\in\Pi(G)_{\operatorname{sph}}:p(\pi)>2\right\} $ is precompact, and the Spherical Density Hypothesis is simply the case when $A=\left\{ \pi\in\Pi(G)_{\operatorname{sph}}:p(\pi)>2\right\} $ in the General Density Hypothesis. When $G$ is Archimedean of high rank, $\left\{ \pi\in\Pi(G)_{\operatorname{sph}}:p(\pi)>2\right\} $ is not necessarily precompact, so we associate to a spherical representation $(\pi,V)\in\Pi(G)$ a number $\lambda(\pi)\in\R_{\ge0}$, which is the eigenvalue of the Casimir operator on the $K$-invariant subspace of $\pi$, and define: The sequence $(\Gamma_N) $ of cocompact lattices satisfies the *Spherical Density Hypothesis* if: - In the $p$-adic or rank $1$ case, for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists $C_{\epsilon}$ such that for every $N\ge1$, $p>2$, $$M(\Pi(G)_{\operatorname{sph}},\Gamma_N,p)\le C_{\epsilon}[\Gamma_{1}:\Gamma_N]^{2/p+\epsilon}.$$ - In the general Archimedean case, there exists $L>0$ large enough, such that for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists $C_{\epsilon}$ such that for every $\lambda\ge0$, $N\ge1$, $p>2$, $$M(\left\{ \pi\in\Pi(G)_{\operatorname{sph}}:\lambda(\pi)\le\lambda\right\} ,\Gamma_N,p)\le C_{\epsilon}(1+\lambda)^{L}[\Gamma_{1}:\Gamma_N]^{2/p+\epsilon}.$$ In the second case, the Spherical Density Hypothesis does not a priori follows from the General Density Hypothesis. To state our main geometric definition, we need to set some more notations. We view $G$, $\Gamma_1$ and the sequence $(\Gamma_N)$ as fixed. We use the standard $O,\Theta,o$ notations, where for example $f(N,\epsilon)=O_{\epsilon}(g(N,\epsilon))$ says that for every $\epsilon$ there exists $C$ depending only on $\epsilon$ (and on $G,\Gamma_1,(\Gamma)_N$), such that $f(N,\epsilon)\le Cg(N,\epsilon)$ for $N$ large enough. The notation $f(N,\epsilon)\ll_{\epsilon}g(N,\epsilon)$ is the same as $f(N,\epsilon)=O_{\epsilon}(g(N,\epsilon))$ and $f(N,\epsilon)\asymp_{\epsilon}g(N,\epsilon)$ is the same as $f(N,\epsilon)\ll_{\epsilon}g(N,\epsilon)$ and $g(N,\epsilon)\ll_{\epsilon}f(N,\epsilon)$. We fix a Cartan decomposition $G=KA_{+}K$ and an Iwasawa decomposition $G=KP$. Let $\delta\colon P\to \R_{>0}$ be the left modular character of $P$ (see Section \[sec:Preliminaries\] for more details). We define a length $l\colon G\to \R_{\ge 0}$ by first denoting for $a\in A_{+}$, $l(a)=\log_{q}\delta(a)$, where $q$ is equal to $e$ in the Archimedean case and is equal to the size of the quotient field of $k$ otherwise. Then we extend $l$ to $G$ using the Cartan decomposition, i.e., $l(k_{1}ak_{2})=l(a)$. Finally, we define a metric on $G/K$ by $d(x,y)=l(x^{-1}y)$. The Weak Injective Radius Property is based on the lattice point counting approach of Sarnak and Xue ([@sarnak1991bounds Conjecture 2]). Given an element $y=\Gamma_N y\in\Gamma_N\backslash\Gamma_1$, we denote $$\boldsymbol{N}(\Gamma_N,d_{0},y)=\#\left\{ \gamma\in\Gamma_N:l(y^{-1}\gamma y)\le d_{0}\right\} .$$ The sequence $(\Gamma_N)$ satisfies the *Weak Injective Radius Property* if for every $0\le d_{0}\le2\log_{q}([\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N])$, $\epsilon>0$, $$\frac{1}{[\Gamma_{1}:\Gamma_N]}\sum_{y\in\Gamma_N\backslash\Gamma_{1}}\boldsymbol{N}(\Gamma_N,d_{0},y)\ll_{\epsilon}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{\epsilon}q^{d_{0}/2}.$$ This definition is somewhat different from [@sarnak1991bounds Conjecture 2]. For rank $1$, it is slightly weaker (see Proposition \[prop:Counting for large\]), while for higher rank we use a different length. In this form, the Weak Injective Radius Property follows from the Spherical Density Hypothesis – see Theorem \[thm:density implies counting\] below. On the other hand, the Weak Injective Radius Property makes sense also for non-uniform lattices. We can now state our intended application. First, we say that a sequence of lattices $(\Gamma_N) $ has a Spectral Gap if there exists $p_{0}<\infty$ such that $p(\pi)\le p_{0}$ for every non-trivial spherical $\pi\in\Pi(G)$ weakly contained in $L^{2}(\Gamma_N\backslash G)$. This definition can be applied to the non-uniform case as well, and in the cocompact case we may replace *weakly contained* by $m(\pi,\Gamma)>0$. We look at the natural action $\pi_N\colon \Gamma_1\to\operatorname{Aut}(\Gamma_N\backslash\Gamma_1)$, defined by $\pi_N(\gamma)(\Gamma_N\gamma')=\Gamma_N\gamma'\gamma^{-1}$. Given $x,y\in\Gamma_N\backslash\Gamma_1$, we look for a *small* element $\gamma\in\Gamma_1$ such that $\pi_N(\gamma)x=y$. A very general way of measuring how small is an element is by the Cartan Decomposition, $G=KA_{+}K$. For $\gamma\in\Gamma\subset G$ we let $a_{\gamma}$ be the element in $A_{+}$ in the Cartan decomposition of $\gamma$. We also fix some norm $\n{\cdot}_{\a}$ on the underlying coroot space of $A_{+}$. By [@duke1993density], the number of $\gamma\in\Gamma_1$ with $\n{a_{\gamma}-a}_{\a}<\delta$ is $\asymp_{\Gamma_{1}}q^{l(a)}$. Therefore, the following definition is optimal. The sequence $(\Gamma_N) $ has the *Optimal Lifting Property* if for every $\epsilon>0$, for every $a\in A_{+}$ with $l(a)\ge(1+\epsilon)\log_{q}([\Gamma_{1}:\Gamma_N])$, $$\#\left\{ (x,y)\in(\Gamma_N\backslash\Gamma_1)^{2}:\exists\gamma\in\Gamma_1\text{ s.t. }\pi_N(\gamma)x=y,\n{a_{\gamma}-a}_{\a}<\epsilon\n a_{\a}\right\} =(1-o_{\epsilon}(1))[\Gamma_{1}:\Gamma_N]^{2}.$$ Conjecturally, every sequence of congruence subgroups of an arithmetic lattice in an almost-simple and simply connected Lie group satisfies the Optimal Lifting Property. We refer to Conjecture \[conj: weak injective radius conjetcure\] for a full statement. The following two theorems show that our two main properties imply the Optimal Lifting Property. \[thm:injective radius implies optimal lifting\]Let $(\Gamma_N)$ be a sequence of lattices having a Spectral Gap and satisfying the Weak Injective Radius Property. Then the sequence $(\Gamma_N)$ has the Optimal Lifting Property. \[thm:density implies counting\]Let $(\Gamma_N)$ be a sequence of cocompact lattices satisfying the Spherical Density Hypothesis. Then $(\Gamma_N)$ satisfies the Weak Injective Radius Property. Therefore, assuming also Spectral Gap, the sequence also has the Optimal Lifting Property. The definition of Optimal Lifting is based on the main result in an influential letter of Sarnak ([@sarnak2015lettermiller]), who proved the Optimal Lifting Property for principal congruence subgroups of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(\Z)$, by utilizing a version of the Spherical Density Hypothesis proved by Huxley ([@huxley1986exceptional]). In the cocompact case, one may relate the Optimal Lifting Property to almost-diameter of the quotient space as follows. If we give $X_N=\Gamma_N\backslash G/K$ the quotient metric $d$, the Optimal Lifting Property implies that the distances between the points of $X_N$ are concentrated at the optimal location $\log_{q}(\mu(X_N))$, i.e. for every $\epsilon>0$, $$\mu\left(\left\{ (x,y)\in X_N\times X_N:d(x,y)<(1+\epsilon)\log_{q}([\Gamma_{1}:\Gamma_N])\right\} \right)=(1-o_{\epsilon}(1))\mu^{2}(X_N).$$ This concentration of distances phenomena was proven for Ramanujan graphs by Sardari ([@sardari1diameter]) and Lubetzky-Peres ([@lubetzky2016cutoff]), who also related it to the cutoff phenomena. In higher dimensions, similar results for Ramanujan complexes appear in [@kamber2016lpcomplex; @lubetzky2020random]. Theorem \[thm:injective radius implies optimal lifting\] implies that one may get results which are almost as strong, as long as we assume only the far weaker Spherical Density Hypothesis or the Injective Radius Property. The Weak Injective Radius Property is intended as the arithmetic, or geometric, input to our approach, and we discuss it further in Section \[sec:Applications-and-Open\]. There are a few cases where it is known, most notably, following the work of Sarnak and Xue, for principal congruence subgroups of arithmetic lattices in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(\R)$ and $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(\C)$ (see Subsection \[subsec:Sarnak-Xue work\]). In a companion paper by the second named author and Hagai Lavner, the Weak Injective Radius Property is proved for some non-principal congruence subgroups of $\operatorname{SL}_{3}(\Z)$, and this result is closely related to the works [@blomer2017applications; @blomer2019density] (see Subsection \[subsec:Gamma0\] for a full discussion). If we allow ourselves to relax the definition and add a parameter $0<\alpha\le1$ to the definition of the Weak Injective Radius Property (see Subsection \[subsec:Adding-a-Parameter\]), then it is quite straightforward to show that *principal* congruence subgroups of arithmetic groups satisfy the Weak Injective Radius Property with some explicit parameter $\alpha>0$ (see Corollary \[cor:principal congruence\]). As a matter of fact, recent results in [@abert2017growth; @finis2018approximation] show that every sequence of congruence subgroups satisfy the Weak Injective Radius Property with some explicit parameter $\alpha>0$ (see Theorem \[thm:non-principal congruence subgroups\]). However, one must have $\alpha=1$ for the Optimal Lifting application. \[subsec:intro part 2\]The Relations Between the Different Properties --------------------------------------------------------------------- We already stated that the Spherical Density Hypothesis implies the Weak Injective Radius Property. For the deduction of spectral results from the Weak Injective Radius Property, we have partial results in the Archimedean case and full results in the $p$-adic case. We believe that the following is true: \[conj:injective radius implies density archimedean\]The Weak Injective Radius Property implies both the General Density Hypothesis and the Spherical Density Hypothesis. In the $p$-adic case, one can choose larger and larger sets covering $\Pi(G)$ as follows. For a compact open subgroup $K'$ of $G$, let $\Pi(G)_{K^{\prime}-\operatorname{sph}}$ be the set of isomorphism classes of irreducible unitary representations with a non-zero $K^{\prime}$-invariant vector. If we have a sequence $( K_{m}^{\prime})$ of arbitrarily small compact open subgroups (i.e., they generate the topology of $G$ near the identity), then we have $$\Pi(G)=\bigcup_{m}\Pi(G)_{K_{m}^{\prime}-\operatorname{sph}}.$$ We can now state: \[thm:p-adic injective radius implies density\]Conjecture \[conj:injective radius implies density archimedean\] is true when $G$ is non-Archimedean. More precisely, there exists a sequence $( K_{m}^{\prime})$ consisting of arbitrarily small compact open subgroups of $G$, such that if the Weak Injective Radius Property holds for a sequence of cocompact lattices $(\Gamma_N)$, then for every $N\ge1$, $m\ge1$, $p>2$, $\epsilon>0$, $$M(\Pi(G)_{K_{m}^{\prime}-\operatorname{sph}},\Gamma_N,p)\ll_{K_{m}^{\prime},\epsilon}[\Gamma_{1}:\Gamma_N]^{2/p+\epsilon}.$$ In the Archimedean case, we do not know even whether the Weak Injective Radius Property implies the Spherical Density Hypothesis. However, for rank $1$ it was essentially proven in [@sarnak1991bounds] (see the remark after the statement of Theorem 3 in [@sarnak1991bounds]): \[thm:rank one injective radius implies density\]If $G$ is of rank one and $(\Gamma_N) $ is a sequence of cocompact lattices, then the Weak Injective Radius Property implies the Spherical Density Hypothesis. For general representations in the Archimedean case, we have the following theorem. For rank $1$ it was proven in [@sarnak1991bounds Theorem 3]. \[thm:Diophantine implies pointwise\]If the sequence $(\Gamma_N) $ of cocompact lattices satisfies the Weak Injective Radius Property, then $(\Gamma_N) $ satisfies the Pointwise Multiplicity Hypothesis. Figure \[fig:SX properties relation\] summarizes the different relations between our main properties for a sequence of cocompact lattices. \(m) \[matrix of math nodes, row sep=3em, column sep=3em\]<span> & &\ & &\ & &\ </span>; (m-2-1) edge node \[right\] <span>Thm \[thm:injective radius implies optimal lifting\]</span>(m-3-1) (m-2-2) edge node \[above\]<span>Thm \[thm:density implies counting\]</span> (m-2-1) (m-2-1) edge \[densely dotted\] node \[above\] <span>p-adic Thm \[thm:p-adic injective radius implies density\]</span>(m-1-2) (m-1-2) edge \[densely dotted\] node <span>rank 1 or p-adic</span>(m-2-2) (m-1-2) edge \[bend left = 80\](m-3-2) (m-2-1) edge node \[below\] <span>Thm \[thm:Diophantine implies pointwise\]</span>(m-3-2) (m-2-1) edge \[densely dotted,bend right=18\] node \[above\] <span>rank 1 Thm \[thm:rank one injective radius implies density\]</span>(m-2-2); Let us end this introduction by stating some open problems this work leads to. The main open problem is to prove either the Spherical Density Hypothesis or the Injective Radius Property for new cases, which would lead to a proof of the Optimal Lifting Property. See Conjecture \[conj: weak injective radius conjetcure\] for a general conjecture for the Archimedean case. Very few cases of this conjecture are known for groups of rank greater than $1$. We remark that it seems that the problem is harder for principal congruence subgroups, and easier for group that are far from being normal, such as $\Gamma_{0}(N)$ of $\operatorname{SL}_{m}(\Z)$ (see Subsection \[subsec:Gamma0\]). See, for example, the *Density Amplification* phenomena for graphs in [@golubev2019cutoff2]. In the more technical side, a main problem this work does not resolve is Conjecture \[conj:injective radius implies density archimedean\], which would show, in particular, that the Spherical Density Hypothesis and the Injective Radius Property are indeed equivalent, also for the Archimedean high rank case. It relates in particular to the understanding of uniform *lower bounds* on matrix coefficients, see, e.g., Conjecture \[conj:mat-coeff-lower-bound\]. Finally, we only discuss multiplicities for cocompact lattices. We strongly believe that the Weak Injective Radius Property has spectral implications for non-uniform lattices as well, e.g., for bounds of multiplicities of representations in the discrete spectrum. This problem is related to the concentration of $L^{2}$-mass of non-tempered automorphic functions away from the cusp, in a uniform way. In hyperbolic spaces this problem is essentially solved, even for some discrete groups that are not lattices, thanks to the work of Gamburd on hyperbolic surfaces ([@gamburd2002spectral]) and the work of Magee on general hyperbolic spaces ([@magee2015quantitative]). Therefore, Theorem \[thm:rank one injective radius implies density\] can be generalized to such cases. Structure of the Article {#structure-of-the-article .unnumbered} ------------------------ In Section \[sec:Applications-and-Open\] we give some applications of our results, and state some open problems. In Section \[sec:Main-Ideas\] we present the main ideas behind the proofs. In Section \[sec:Preliminaries\] we collect various results, mainly from representation theory. In particular, we discuss upper bounds for matrix coefficients, which are well understood. Using those upper bounds, we prove the essential Convolution Lemma \[lem:convolution lemma\]. In Section \[sec:Weak Injective Radius implies density\] we discuss the Weak Injective Radius Property and the spectral results it implies. We prove Proposition \[prop:good family proposition\], which reduces Theorem \[thm:Diophantine implies pointwise\], Theorem \[thm:rank one injective radius implies density\], and Theorem \[thm:p-adic injective radius implies density\] to finding some explicit and strict lower bounds on matrix coefficients. In Section \[sec:Injective Radius implies Lifitng\] we prove Theorem \[thm:injective radius implies optimal lifting\]. In Section \[sec:Density implies Stuff\] we discuss the Spherical Density Hypothesis and the results it implies. We prove Theorem \[thm:density implies counting\] and prove Theorem \[thm:spherical density implies optimal lifting\], which is a version of Theorem \[thm:injective radius implies optimal lifting\] which assumes the Spherical Density Hypothesis and has stronger implications. In Section \[sec:Bernstein-Theory-of-NonBacktracking\] we discuss Bernstein description of the Hecke algebra in the non-Archimedean case, and prove Theorem \[thm:good family padic intro\], which implies Theorem \[thm:p-adic injective radius implies density\] together with Proposition \[prop:good family proposition\] In Section \[sec:pointwise lower bound\] we discuss the theory of leading coefficients and prove Theorem \[thm: good family pointwise intro\], which implies Theorem \[thm:Diophantine implies pointwise\] together with Proposition \[prop:good family proposition\]. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} --------------- The authors are thankful to Amos Nevo and Peter Sarnak for their support of this project. During the work on this project, the first author was supported by the SNF grant 200020-169106 at ETH Zurich. This work was part of the Ph.D. thesis of the second author at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, under the guidance of Prof. Alexander Lubotzky, and was supported by the ERC grant 692854. \[sec:Applications-and-Open\]Applications and Open Problems =========================================================== Ramanujan Graphs and Complexes ------------------------------ We shortly note that the results of this paper, and in particular Theorem \[thm:injective radius implies optimal lifting\] (or the stronger Theorem \[thm:spherical density implies optimal lifting\]) apply to Ramanujan Complexes, by which we mean here the situation when $G$ is $p$-adic, $\Gamma_1$ is cocompact, and no non-tempered and non-trivial spherical representation appears in the decomposition of $L^{2}(\Gamma_{N}\backslash G)$. In this case, the sequence $(\Gamma_N) $ obviously satisfies the Spherical Density Hypothesis. The Ramanujan complexes themselves are the quotients of the Bruhat-Tits buildings of $G$ by $\Gamma_{N}$. Such complexes were constructed (with the same definition) by Lubotzky, Samuels and Vishne (see [@lubotzky2005ramanujan; @lubotzky2005explicit]). Similar results to Theorem \[thm:spherical density implies optimal lifting\] appear in [@kamber2016lpcomplex; @lubetzky2020random; @chapman2019cutoff]. Note that the definition we use is not the same as in the more modern approach to Ramanujan complexes, where one considers not only spherical representation but also representations with a non-trivial vector fixed by the Iwahori subgroup (See [@lubotzky2018high Subsection 2.3] and the references within). The standard way of proving that a complex is a Ramanujan complex is to use results from the Langlands program (e.g. [@lafforgue2002chtoucas]), and to eventually apply Deligne's proof of the Weil conjectures ([@deligne1974conjecture]). This approach has obvious limitations, and in particular it seems that one must assume that $G$ is $p$-adic for it to succeed. We refer to [@evra2018ramanujan] for some recent work on this subject, and to an ongoing and yet unpublished work of Shai Evra. We will avoid diving deeper into this subject, as it is based on spectral input, unlike our approach which is geometric. \[subsec:Adding-a-Parameter\]Adding a Parameter to the Properties ----------------------------------------------------------------- It is useful to add a parameter $0<\alpha\le1$ to the properties, with $\alpha=1$ being equivalent to the property without the parameter. We say that the sequence $(\Gamma_N) $ satisfies the *Weak Injective Radius Property with parameter $\alpha$,* if for every $0\le d_{0}\le2\alpha\log_{q}([\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N])$, $\epsilon>0$, $$\frac{1}{[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]}\sum_{y\in\Gamma_{N}\backslash\Gamma_{1}}\boldsymbol{N}(\Gamma_N,d_{0},y)\ll_{\epsilon}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{\epsilon}q^{d_{0}/2}.$$ We say that the sequence $(\Gamma_N) $ satisfies the General Density Hypothesis with parameter $\alpha$ if for every precompact subset $A\subset\Pi(G)$ and every $\epsilon>0$, $N$ and $p\ge2$, $$M(A,\Gamma,p)\ll_{\epsilon,A}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{1-\alpha(1-2/p)+\epsilon}.$$ One may similarly define the Spherical Density Hypothesis with parameter $\alpha$ and the Pointwise Density Hypothesis with parameter $\alpha$, by changing the exponent $2/p$ to $1-\alpha(1-2/p).$ Figure \[fig:SX properties relation\] remains true if we replace the properties with their parameterized version, for the same parameter $0<\alpha\le1$, with the exception that the derivation of the Optimal Lifting Property from the Spherical Density Hypothesis requires $\alpha =1$. In the work itself, we work with the parameterized version of the properties. \[subsec:Density-from-inj-radius\]Congruence Subgroups of Arithmetic Groups --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let $\Gamma_1$ be an arithmetic lattice in a semisimple non-compact Lie group $G$. Following [@sarnak1991bounds], by arithmetic we mean that $G$ is defined over $\Q$, $\Gamma_1\subset G(\Q)$, there is a $\Q$-embedding $\rho\colon G\to \operatorname{GL}_{n}$ and $\Gamma_1$ is commensurable with $\rho^{-1}(\operatorname{GL}_{n}(\Z))$. In this case we may define a sequence of principle congruence subgroups $(\Gamma_N) $ of $\Gamma_1$ by letting $$\Gamma_{N}=\Gamma_1(N)=\Gamma_1\cap\rho^{-1}(\left\{ A\in \operatorname{GL}_{n}(\Z):A\equiv I\mod N\right\}).$$ It is a well known fact that such subgroups have an injective radius which is logarithmic in the index (e.g., [@sarnak1991bounds Lemma 1] or [@guth2014quantum Proposition 16]). Let us shortly give the argument – we assume by moving to a finite index in $\Gamma_1$ that $\Gamma_1\subset\rho^{-1}(\operatorname{GL}_{n}(\Z))$. In this case $\Gamma_{N}$ is normal in $\Gamma_1$ and it is left to verify that for every $d_{0}\le2\alpha\ln([\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N])$ and $\epsilon>0$, $$\#\left\{ \gamma\in\Gamma_{N}:l(\gamma)\le d_{0}\right\} \ll_{\epsilon}e^{d_{0}(1/2+\epsilon)}.$$ We note that there exists a constant $C$ such that for $g\in G$ outside a compact set the length $l(g)$ we defined satisfies $$C^{-1}\ln(\n{\rho(g)})\le l(g)$$ where $\|\cdot\|\colon \operatorname{GL}_{n}(\R)\to\R_{\ge0}$ is the maximal absolute value of an entry of the matrix. Since each element of $\rho(\Gamma_N)$ which is not the identity has an entry of size $N$, We deduce that for every $N$ large enough, $$\left\{ \gamma\in\Gamma_{N}:l(\gamma)<C\ln(N)\right\} =\{ I\} .$$ On the other hand, there is an injective map of $\Gamma_1/\Gamma_N$ into $\operatorname{GL}_n(\Z/N\Z)$, so $$[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]\ll N^{n^{2}}$$ (and the exponent $n^2$ can usually be improved). Combining the different estimates, for $d_{0}<2\frac{C}{2n^{2}}\ln([\Gamma_{1}:\Gamma_N])\le2\frac{C}{2n^{2}}N^{n^{2}})=C\ln(N)$, it holds that for $N$ large enough, $$\#\left\{ \gamma\in\Gamma_{N}:l(\gamma)\le d_{0}\right\} =1.$$ Therefore, the Weak Injective Radius Property is satisfied with parameter $\alpha=\frac{C}{2n^{2}}$. Pushing this argument further, we may take the parameter to be $\alpha=\frac{C}{d}$, where $d = \dim G$, at least when $G$ is split. For example, for the principal congruence subgroups of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(\Z)$ one gets this way the parameter $\alpha=\frac{2}{3}$, while $\alpha=1$ can be reached by a better analysis, see Subsection \[subsec:Sarnak-Xue work\] below. As a direct application of this fact we have: \[cor:principal congruence\]Let $G$ be Archimedean, let $\Gamma_1$ be an arithmetic lattice and let $(\Gamma_N) $ be the sequence of principle congruence subgroups of $\Gamma_1$. Then the sequence $(\Gamma_N) $ satisfies the Weak Injective Radius Property with parameter $\alpha=\alpha(\Gamma_1)$. As a matter of fact, this corollary can be easily be extended to principal congruence subgroups of $S$-arithmetic groups, once those are properly defined. For arbitrary congruence subgroups, let us recall some of the results of [@finis2018approximation] (the same result can be deduced from [@abert2017growth Theorem 1.11 and Theorem 5.6]). First, for $\gamma\in\Gamma_1$, we denote $$c_{\Gamma_{N}}(\gamma)=\left|\left\{ y\in\Gamma_{N}\backslash\Gamma_{1}:y\gamma y^{-1}\in\Gamma_N\right\} \right|,$$ which is the number of fixed points of the right action of $\gamma$ on $\Gamma_{N}\backslash\Gamma_1$. Then the Weak Injective Radius Property with parameter $\alpha$ is equivalent to the fact that for every $0\le d_{0}\le2\alpha\ln([\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N])$, $\epsilon>0$, $$\frac{1}{[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]}\sum_{l(\gamma)\le d_{0}}c_{\Gamma_{N}}(\gamma)\ll_{\epsilon}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{\epsilon}e^{d_{0}(\nicefrac{1}{2}+\epsilon)}.$$ A congruence subgroup is a subgroup of one of the groups $\Gamma_1(N)$ as above. \[<span>Following [@finis2018approximation Corollary 5.9]</span>\] \[thm:non-principal congruence subgroups\]Let $G$ be Archimedean, semisimple, almost-simple and simply connected, let $\Gamma_1$ be an arithmetic lattice and let $(\Gamma_N) $ be a sequence of congruence subgroups of $\Gamma_1$. Then there exist constants $\mu>0,c>0$ depending only on $\Gamma_1$ such that for every $d_{0}>0$, $N\ge1$ it holds that $$\frac{1}{[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]}\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma_1,l(\gamma)\le d_{0}}c_{\Gamma_{N}}(\gamma)\ll1+e^{cd_{0}}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{-\mu}.\label{eq:7samurai}$$ In particular, the injective radius property holds with parameter $\alpha=\frac{\mu}{c}$. By [@finis2018approximation Corollary 5.9], there exists a constant $c'$ such that for every $\gamma\in\Gamma_1$ which does not belong to a proper normal subgroup of $G$ it holds that $$\frac{1}{[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]}c_{\Gamma_{N}}(\gamma)\ll e^{c'l(\gamma)}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{-\mu}.$$ We remark that the dependence on $\gamma$ in [@finis2018approximation] is different, but it is obvious that $e^{cl(\gamma)}$ for $c$ large enough is an upper bound on it. By our assumptions on $G$, the number of $\gamma\in\Gamma_1$ belonging to a proper normal subgroup is $\ll 1$. By summing over all $\gamma\in\Gamma_1$ with $l(\gamma)\le d_{0}$ we get $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]}\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma_1,l(\gamma)\le d_{0}}c_{\Gamma_{N}}(\gamma) & \ll\frac{[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]}{[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]}+e^{c'd_{0}}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{-\mu}\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma_1,l(\gamma)\le d_{0}}1\\ & \ll1+e^{(1+c')d_{0}}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{-\mu},\end{aligned}$$ which implies Equation $\eqref{eq:7samurai}$ with $c=1+c'$. When $d_{0}\le2\frac{\mu}{c}\ln([\Gamma_{1}:\Gamma_N])$, or $[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{-\mu}\le e^{d_{0}c/2}$ we get $$\frac{1}{[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]}\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma_1,l(\gamma)\le d_{0}}c_{\Gamma_{N}}(\gamma)\ll e^{d_{0}/2},$$ which implies the Weak Injective Radius Property with parameter $\alpha=\frac{\mu}{c}$, as needed. In the cocompact case, Theorem \[thm:Diophantine implies pointwise\] implies the Pointwise Multiplicity Hypothesis with parameter $\alpha=\frac{\mu}{c}$, namely $$m(\pi,\Gamma_N)\ll_{\pi,\epsilon}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{1-\frac{\mu}{c}(1-\nicefrac{2}{p(\pi)})+\epsilon}.$$ It should be compared with [@abert2017growth Theorem 7.15], which states $$m(\pi,\Gamma_N)\ll_{\pi}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{1-\alpha(\pi)}.$$ Finally, we with to make the following conjecture: \[conj: weak injective radius conjetcure\]Let $G$ be Archimedean, semisimple, almost-simple and simply connected, let $\Gamma_1$ be an arithmetic lattice and let $(\Gamma_N) $ be a sequence of congruence subgroups of $\Gamma_1$. Then the sequence $(\Gamma_N) $ satisfies the Weak Injective Radius Property with parameter $\alpha=1$, and if $\Gamma_1$ is cocompact then the sequence $(\Gamma_N) $ satisfies the General Density Hypothesis with parameter $\alpha=1$. As a corollary, the sequence $(\Gamma_N) $ has the Optimal Lifting Property. The conjecture generalizes Conjecture $1$ and Conjecture $2$ from the work of Sarnak and Xue ([@sarnak1991bounds]). Finally, a similar conjecture should also hold in the $S$-arithmetic setting when $G$ is $p$-adic. \[subsec:Sarnak-Xue work\]The Work of Sarnak and Xue and its Implications ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarnak and Xue proved the Weak Injective Radius Property with parameter $\alpha=1$ for principal congruence subgroups of cocompact arithmetic lattices in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(\R)$ and $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(\C)$, and proved the Weak Injective Radius Property with parameter $\alpha=5/6$ for principal congruence subgroups of cocompact arithmetic lattices of $\operatorname{SU}(2,1)$. We refer to [@sarnak1991bounds Section 3] for their calculations. Their argument actually works also for principal congruence subgroups of lattices in $\operatorname{SL}_2$ over $p$-adic fields coming from division algebras. See, e.g., [@davidoff2003elementary Theorem 4.4.4]. As a simple example, let us prove here the Weak Injective Radius Property for the principal congruence subgroups of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}(\Z)$. In this case, we need to show that the number $\boldsymbol{N}(T,\Gamma(N))$, of solutions to $ad-bc=1$, with $a\equiv d\equiv1\mod N$, $b\equiv c\equiv0\mod N$ and $\max\left\{ \left|a\right|,\left|b\right|,\left|c\right|,\left|d\right|\right\} \le T$, for $T\le N^{3}$, is bounded by $$\boldsymbol{N}(T,\Gamma(N))\ll_{\epsilon}T^{1+\epsilon}.$$ This is done as follows (see also [@gamburd2002spectral Proposition 5.3]). From the congruence condition it follows that $$a+d-2=-(a-1)(d-1)+bc\equiv0\mod N^{2}.$$ One may therefore choose $a+d$ in $(2T/N^{2}+1)$ ways, and choose $(a,d)$ in $(2T/N^{2}+1)(2T/N+1)$ ways. If $ad\ne1$, from $bc=1-ad$ and bounds on the divisor function, there are $T^{\epsilon}$ ways of choosing $bc$. If $ad=1$ it is also simple to bound the number of possibilities of $b,c$ by $4(T/N+1)$. In total, we get for $T\le N^{3}$, $$\boldsymbol{N}(T,\Gamma(N))\ll_{\epsilon}T^{\epsilon}(T/N^{2}+1)(T/N+1)\ll_{\epsilon}T^{1+\epsilon}.$$ \[subsec:Gamma0\]On Some Congruence Subgroups of $\operatorname{SL}_3(\Z)$ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider the following subgroups of $\Gamma_{1}=\operatorname{SL}_{3}(\Z)$: $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma_{0}(N)&=\left\{ \left(\begin{array}{ccc} * & * & *\\* * & * & *\\ a & b & * \end{array}\right)\in \operatorname{SL}_{3}(\Z):a\equiv b\equiv0\mod N\right\} \subset \\ \Gamma_{2}(N)&=\left\{ \left(\begin{array}{ccc} * & * & *\\* c & * & *\\ a & b & * \end{array}\right)\in \operatorname{SL}_{3}(\Z):a\equiv b\equiv c \equiv 0\mod N\right\} \subset\Gamma_{1}=\operatorname{SL}_{3}(\Z).\end{aligned}$$ In a companion paper by the second named author and Hagai Lavner ([@kamber2019optimal]), the following is proven: The sequences of lattices $(\Gamma_{0}(N))$ and $(\Gamma_2(N))$, for $N$ prime, have the Weak Injective Radius Property (with parameter $1$). As a result, the sequences have the Optimal Lifting Property. We refer to [@kamber2019optimal] for an interpretation of this result in terms of the action of $\operatorname{SL}_{3}(\Z)$ on the projective plane over the field with $N$ elements, or on the corresponding flag space. The work [@kamber2019optimal] is strongly influenced by a deep work of Blomer, Buttcane and Maga on $\Gamma_0(N)$ ([@blomer2017applications]), which is based on the Kuznetsov trace formula: \[<span>[@blomer2017applications Theorem 4]</span>\] For $\pi\in\Pi(\operatorname{SL}_3(\R))_{\operatorname{sph}}$, let $m_{\operatorname{cusp}}(\pi,\Gamma_{0}(N))$ be the multiplicity of $\pi$ in the cuspidal part of $L^{2}(\Gamma_{0}(N)\backslash \operatorname{SL}_3(\R))$. Then for every compact $A\subset\Pi(\operatorname{SL}_3(\R))_{\operatorname{sph}}$, it holds that for every $N$ prime, $p>2$, $\epsilon>0$, $$\sum_{\pi\in A,p(\pi)>0}m_{\operatorname{cusp}}(\pi,\Gamma_{0}(N))\ll_{A,\epsilon}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_{0}(N)]^{1-2(1-2/p)+\epsilon}.$$ The result of the theorem is very similar to the Spherical Density Hypothesis with parameter $\alpha=2$. There are also a number of differences: first, $\operatorname{SL}_{3}(\Z)$ is not cocompact, so our discussion does not apply to it. In particular, we have to deal with the continuous spectrum if we wish to deduce the Optimal Lifting Property. Secondly and less crucially, the dependence on the subset $A$ is not explicit, as needed in the definition of the Spherical Density Hypotheses, so it is hard to use it for geometric applications. This result was recently generalized by Blomer ([@blomer2019density]) to general $\operatorname{SL}_{M}(\Z)$, where the subgroup $\Gamma_{0}(N)$ is similarly defined to be the set of matrices with the entries in the last row, except for the $(M,M)$ entry, equal to $0$ modulo $N$. We remark that Blomer uses a slightly weaker way to measure temperedness, rather than $p(\pi)$ (for $\operatorname{SL}_3$ the two ways are equivalent). In any case, it seems that the methods of [@blomer2017applications; @blomer2019density] are not applicable to the subgroups of the form $\Gamma_2(N)$. \[subsec:Weak-Injective-Radius-Principal-SLn\]The Weak Injective Radius of Principal Congruence Subgroups of $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(\protect\Z)$ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If the Weak Injective Radius Property would hold for the principal congruence subgroups of $\operatorname{SL}_{n}(\Z)$, then it will imply that $$\#\left\{ \gamma\in \operatorname{SL}_{n}(\Z):\gamma\equiv I\mod N,\n{\gamma}\le T\right\} \ll_\epsilon T^{\epsilon}N^{\epsilon}\left(\frac{T^{n^{2}-n}}{N^{n^{2}-1}}+T^{(n^{2}-n)/2}\right),$$ where $\n{\cdot}$ is the maximal absolute value of an entry. One may also try to improve this estimate, in particular the "error" part $T^{(n^{2}-n)/2}$. One of the results of [@katznelson1993singular], which is also cited in [@sarnak1991bounds], states that $$\#\left\{ \gamma\in \operatorname{SL}_{n}(\Z):\gamma\equiv I\mod N,\n{\gamma}\le T\right\} \ll\frac{T^{n^{2}-n}}{N^{n^{2}-1}}\log T+1.$$ As was pointed to us by Sarnak, the proof contains as error. As a matter of fact, this naive estimate is actually *false*, for simple reasons. For example, in $\operatorname{SL}_{2}$, $$\#\left\{ \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & *\\ 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)\in \operatorname{SL}_{2}(\Z):\gamma\equiv I\mod N,\n{\gamma}\le T\right\} \asymp T/N+1.$$ and this is larger than $\frac{T^{2}}{N^{3}}\log T$ in the range $N^{1+\epsilon}<T<N^{2(1-\epsilon)}$. The same argument works for every $n$, but there are $n(n-1)/2$ entries we can use. Therefore, we have the lower bound: $$\#\left\{ \gamma\in \operatorname{SL}_{n}(\Z):\gamma\equiv I\mod N,\n{\gamma}\le T\right\} \gg\left(\frac{T^{n^{2}-n}}{N^{n^{2}-1}}+\left(\frac{T}{N}\right)^{(n^{2}-n)/2}+1\right).$$ Up to $T^{\epsilon}$, this is also the upper bound for $n=2$. We conjecture that up to $T^{\epsilon}$ this is also the upper bound for larger values of $n$. \[sec:Main-Ideas\]Main Ideas of the Proofs ========================================== In this section, we discuss some ideas from the proofs of the main theorems and the technical problems they lead to. All the proofs are based on a reduction of the geometric properties into spectral ones. We first restate the Weak Injective Radius Property in terms of traces of operators. \[def:chi and psi\]For $d_{0}\in\R_{\ge0}$, let $\chi_{d_0}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(K\backslash G/K)$ be a function that is equal to 1 for $l(g)\le d_{0}$, equal to $0$ for $l(g)\ge d_{0}+1$ and for $d_{0}\le l(g)\le d_{0}+1$ it is defined between $0$ and 1 so that $\chi_{d_0}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(K\backslash G/K)$. Let $\psi_{d_0}(g)\in C_{c}^{\infty}(K\backslash G/K)$ be $\psi_{d_0}(g)=q^{\nicefrac{(d_{0}-l(g))}{2}}\chi_{d_0}(g)$ for $l(g)\ge1$ and for $0\le l(g)\le1$ $\psi_{d_0}(g)$ is defined between $q^{(d_{0}-1)/2}$ and $q^{d_{0}/2}$ so that eventually $\psi_{d_0}(g)\in C_{c}^{\infty}(K\backslash G/K)$. As $\chi_{d_0},\psi_{d_0}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(K\backslash G/K)$, they act naturally on $L^{2}(\Gamma_{N}\backslash G)$, and moreover, are of trace class ([@gelfand1968representation Chapter 1], see also Subsection \[subsec:Traces-of-Operators\]). The trivial eigenvalues of $\chi_{d_0},\psi_{d_0}$ satisfy $q^{d_0}\ll\intop_{G}\chi_{d_0}(g)dg\ll_{\epsilon}q^{d_{0}(1+\epsilon)}$ and $q^{d_0}\ll\intop_{G}\psi_{d_0}(g)dg\ll_{\epsilon}q^{d_{0}(1+\epsilon)}$. Since $\chi_{d_0},\psi_{d_0}\in C_{c}(K\backslash G/K)$, their action is actually on $L^{2}(\Gamma_{N}\backslash G/K)$. The reason that we look at $\psi_{d_0}$, and one of the main reasons we use the length $l(g)$, is the following Convolution Lemma, which replaces the rank $1$ case in [@sarnak1991bounds Lemma 3.1]. The lemma says that $\psi_{d_0}$ provides an approximated upper bound for the convolution of $\chi_{\nicefrac{d_0}{2}}$ with itself: \[See Lemma \[lem:convolution lemma\]\] \[lem:convolution lemma intro\]It holds that $c_{d_0}=\chi_{d_0}\ast\chi_{d_0}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(K\backslash G/K)$, and for every $g\in G$ and $\epsilon>0$, we have $$c_{d_0}(g)\ll_{\epsilon}q^{d_{0}\epsilon}\psi_{2d_{0}}(g).$$ Using the pre-trace formula (see Subsection \[subsec:The trace formula\]), we get: \[prop:Trace equivalent to Lattice point Counting\]The following are equivalent for a sequence $(\Gamma_N)$ of cocompact lattices: 1. The sequence $(\Gamma_N) $ satisfies the Weak Injective Radius Property with parameter $\alpha$. 2. For every $0\le d_{0}\le2\alpha\log_{q}([\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N])$, $\epsilon>0$, $$\operatorname{tr}\chi_{d_0}|_{L^{2}(\Gamma_{N}\backslash G)}\ll_{\epsilon}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{1+\epsilon}q^{d_{0}(\nicefrac{1}{2}+\epsilon)}.\label{eq:trace formula to prove}$$ 3. For every $\epsilon>0$, for every $h\in C_c(G)$ satisfying $h(g)\ll_{\epsilon}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{\epsilon}\psi_{2\alpha\log_{q}([\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N])}(g)$, it holds that $$\operatorname{tr}h|_{L^{2}(\Gamma_{N}\backslash G)}\ll_{\epsilon}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{1+\alpha+\epsilon}.\label{eq:trace formula to use}$$ The proposition allows one to prove the Weak Injective Radius Property using the trace formula and Equation . It also allows proving various multiplicity results using Equation . By combining the Convolution Lemma \[lem:convolution lemma intro\], Spectral Gap, and a version of Equation , we prove Theorem \[thm:injective radius implies optimal lifting\]. See Section \[sec:Injective Radius implies Lifitng\]. The direction "spectral to geometric" uses carefully Harish-Chandra's upper bounds on spherical functions, and its generalization to arbitrary matrix coefficients of representations. Our analysis is closely related to the work of Ghosh, Gorodnik and Nevo on Diophantine exponents ([@ghosh2013diophantine; @ghosh2014best] and the reference therein). Very generally, the main difference between our analysis and theirs is that we assume Density, while they assume Spectral Gap. The new idea is to note that one applies the spectral estimates to characteristic functions of "small sets", and if there are few "bad eigenvectors" they correlate poorly with such functions. Let us state some concrete results. Let $\Xi(g)=\int\delta(gk)^{-\nicefrac{1}{2}}dk$ be Harish-Chandra's function of $G$. This function satisfies $\left|\Xi(g)\right|\ll_{\epsilon}q^{-l(g)(\nicefrac{1}{2}+\epsilon)}$ (which is another motivation for the definition of $l$). Now, combining the two theorems of [@cowling1988almost], we get: \[[@cowling1988almost]\] Let $(\pi,V)$ be a unitary irreducible representation of $G$ with $p(\pi)\le2$, and let $v_1,v_{2}\in V$ be two $K$-finite vectors, such that $\dim\operatorname{span}Kv_{1}=d_{1}$, $\dim\operatorname{span}Kv_{2}=d_{2}$. Then $$\left|\left\langle v_1,gv_{2}\right\rangle \right|\le\sqrt{d_{1}d_{2}}\n{v_{1}}\n{v_{2}}\Xi(g).$$ However, this theorem is not sufficient for our uses, since we wish to consider $p(\pi)$ arbitrary. We remark that [@cowling1988almost] does give some results for arbitrary $\pi$ and $p$, but they are not precise enough for us. Let us state here a general theorem which generalizes the above, which gives a bound of the form that we need. For $2\le p\le\infty$, let $\Xi_{p}(g)=\int\delta(gk)^{-\nicefrac{1}{p}}dk$ be the $p$-th version of Harish-Chandra's function of $G$. This function satisfies $\Xi_{p}(g)\ll\Xi(g)q^{-l(g)(\nicefrac{1}{p}-\nicefrac{1}{2})}\ll_{\epsilon}q^{-l(g)(\nicefrac{1}{p}+\epsilon)}$. Then we have: \[See Theorem \[thm:CHH-Spherical Lp\]\] \[thm:Upper bounds intro\]Let $(\pi,V)$ be a unitary irreducible representation of $G$ with $p(\pi)\le p$, $p\ge2$, and let $v_1,v_{2}\in V$ be two $K$-finite vectors, such that $\dim\operatorname{span}Kv_{1}=d_{1}$, $\dim\operatorname{span}Kv_{2}=d_{2}$. Then $$\left|\left\langle v_1,gv_{2}\right\rangle \right|\le\sqrt{d_{1}d_{2}}\n{v_{1}}\n{v_{2}}\Xi_{p}(g).$$ We discuss such bounds further in Subsection \[subsec:Harish-Chandra bounds\]. Using Theorem \[thm:Upper bounds intro\] one may deduce various *upper bounds* on matrix coefficients, norms of operators, and traces of operators. In particular, a useful bound is: \[See Corollary \[cor:Hecke Bounds\]\] \[thm:Upper Bounds Xi Intro\]Let $(\pi,V)$ be a unitary irreducible representation of $G$ with $p(\pi)=p$, $p\ge2$. Then for every $d_{0}>0$ and $\epsilon>0$ $$\n{\pi(\chi_{d_0})}\ll_{\epsilon}q^{d_{0}(1-\nicefrac{1}{p}+\epsilon)}.$$ Applying Theorem \[thm:Upper Bounds Xi Intro\] carefully allows us to deduce Theorem \[thm:density implies counting\]. To prove Theorem \[thm:Diophantine implies pointwise\], Theorem \[thm:rank one injective radius implies density\] and Theorem \[thm:p-adic injective radius implies density\], which deduce multiplicity bounds from the Weak Injective Radius Property, we use Equation of Proposition \[prop:Trace equivalent to Lattice point Counting\]. To deduce from it upper bounds on multiplicity, one needs *lower bounds* on traces on representations of functions $h\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G)$. The following definition and proposition capture the situation: \[def:Good family\]Let $A\subset\Pi(G)$ be a precompact subset. We say that a family of functions $\left\{ f_{d_0}\right\} \subset C_{c}^{\infty}(G)$, $d_{0}\in\R$, $d_{0}\ge D$ is *good* for $A$ if it holds that: 1. For every $\pi\in A$, and $\epsilon>0$, $$q^{d_{0}(1-\nicefrac{1}{p(\pi)}-\epsilon)}\ll_{A,\epsilon}\operatorname{tr}(\pi(f_{d_0})).$$ 2. It holds that for every $g\in G$, $\epsilon>0$, $f_{d_0}(g)\ll_{\epsilon}q^{d_{0}\epsilon}\psi_{d_0}(g)$, where $\psi_{d_0}(g)$ is from Definition \[def:chi and psi\]. 3. For every representation $\pi'\in\Pi(G)$, it holds that $0\le\operatorname{tr}(\pi'(f_{d_0}))$. If we replace $(2)$ by the slightly stronger condition $\left|f_{d_0}(g)\right|\ll_{\epsilon}q^{d_{0}\epsilon}\psi_{d_0}(g)$ and further assumes that $f_{d_0}$ is left and right $K$-finite, then one actually has by Theorem \[thm:Upper bounds intro\] $$\operatorname{tr}(\pi(f_{d_0}))\ll_{\pi,\epsilon}q^{d_{0}(1-\nicefrac{1}{p(\pi)}+\epsilon)},$$ so the lower bound is rather tight. \[prop:good family proposition\]Let $A\subset\Pi(G)$ be a precompact subset, and assume that it has a good family of functions. Under this condition, if the sequence $(\Gamma_N) $ of cocompact lattices satisfies the Weak Injective Radius Property with parameter $\alpha$ then for every $N\ge1$, $p>2$, $\epsilon>0$, $$M(A,\Gamma_N,p)\ll_{A,\epsilon}[\Gamma_1:\Gamma_N]^{1-\alpha(1-\nicefrac{2}{p})+\epsilon}.$$ Finding general lower bounds on traces (uniformly for a family of representations) is not well studied. Two special cases, which appear (somewhat implicitly) in the work of Sarnak and Xue, correspond to Theorem \[thm:rank one injective radius implies density\] and Theorem \[thm:Diophantine implies pointwise\]: 1. In rank $1$, one has a simple classification of spherical irreducible unitary representations. In the Archimedean case, for each $2<p\le\infty$ there is at most a single spherical irreducible unitary representation $(\pi,V)$ with $p(\pi)=p$ (with a corresponding spherical function $\Xi_{p}(g)$), and one can easily deduce lower bounds on the trace of $f_{d_0}=\chi_{d_{0}/2}*\chi_{d_{0}/2}$, and deduce Theorem \[thm:rank one injective radius implies density\]. In the non-Archimedean case, Theorem \[thm:rank one injective radius implies density\] reduces to some statement on graphs, see Subsection \[subsec:Lower-Bounds-rank1\]. 2. If one is interested in a single representation, one has the following, from which we deduce Theorem \[thm:Diophantine implies pointwise\]. In the Archimedean case, it follows from the asymptotic behavior of leading exponents ([@casselman1982asymptotic; @knapp2016representation Chapter VIII]). The non-Archimedean case is easier, and in any case follows from Theorem \[thm:good family padic intro\] below. \[See Section \[sec:pointwise lower bound\]\] \[thm: good family pointwise intro\]Let $(\pi,V)\in\Pi(G)$. Then the set $A=\left\{ \pi\right\} $ has a good family of functions. Finally, we provide the following theorem, which implies Theorem \[thm:p-adic injective radius implies density\] together with Proposition \[prop:good family proposition\]. \[See Theorem \[thm:Good family p-adic\]\] \[thm:good family padic intro\]Let $G$ be non-Archimedean. Then there exists a set $\left\{ K'\right\} $ of arbitrarily small open-compact subgroups of $G$, such that for every $K'$, $\Pi(G)_{K'-sph}$ has a good family. The proof of Theorem \[thm:good family padic intro\] is based on two sources. The first is the connection between the Ihara graph Zeta function and expansion (see [@hashimoto1989zeta]), and the second is Bernstein's description of the Hecke algebra $C_{c}(K'\backslash G/K')$ (see [@bernshtein1974all]). A precise connection for $(q+1)$-regular graphs between $p(\pi)$ for spherical function and poles of the Ihara zeta function may be found in [@kamber2019p]. In recent years, there were various generalizations of the graph zeta function to higher dimensional buildings (see, e.g., [@kang2010zeta] and the references within). In [@kamber2016lpcomplex] the second named author generalized the connection between $p(\pi)$ for representations $\pi\in\Pi(G)$ with Iwahori-fixed vector and the poles of some generalized zeta function. By a slight variant of those ideas one may prove the special case of Theorem \[thm:good family padic intro\] when $K'$ is the Iwahori subgroup. For more general $K'$ we follow the same ideas, by using Bernstein's description of the Hecke algebra $C_{c}(K'\backslash G/K')$. See Section \[sec:Bernstein-Theory-of-NonBacktracking\] for details. If we consider only the spherical case, it would be useful if the functions $f_{d_0}$ in the definition of a good family will be left and right $K$-invariant, i.e., $f_{d_0}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(K\backslash G/K)$. Recently, Matz and Templier proved a similar theorem for $G=\operatorname{PGL}_{n}$ using the Satake isomorphism ([@matz2021sato]). However, their results are less precise than we desire – they find a spherical function $f_{d_0}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(K\backslash G/K)$ which satisfies $f_{d_0}(g)\ll_{\epsilon}q^{d_{0}\epsilon}\psi_{d_0}(g)$, with a lower bound $q^{\beta d_{0}(1-\nicefrac{1}{p(\pi)})}\ll\operatorname{tr}(\pi(f_{d_0}))$ for some $\beta<1$, instead of the optimal bound $q^{d_{0}(1-\nicefrac{1}{p(\pi)})}\ll\operatorname{tr}(\pi(f_{d_0}))$. Let us finish this discussion with the following conjecture, which concerns only spherical functions. For $g\in G$, let $S(g)$ be the $K$-bi-invariant function such that $\intop_{G}f(g)dg=\intop_{K}\intop_{K}\intop_{A_{+}}f(kak')S(a)dadkdk'$ . It holds that for $g$ "far from the walls" $S(g)\approx q^{l(g)}$ (see Subsection \[subsec:Distnaces and Length of Elements\]). \[conj:mat-coeff-lower-bound\]There exist $D>0$, $L>0$ such that for every $\epsilon>0$ and every $(\pi,V)\in\Pi(G)_{\operatorname{sph}}$ (i.e. a unitary irreducible spherical representation) with $p(\pi)>2$, if $v\in V$, $\n v=1$ is $K$-fixed, then: 1. In the non-Archimedean case, for $d_{0}>D$ $$\intop_{l(g)\le d_{0}}S(g)\left|\left\langle v,\pi(g)v\right\rangle \right|^{2}dg\gg_{\epsilon}q^{2d_{0}(1-1/p(\pi)-\epsilon)}.$$ 2. In the Archimedean case, for $d_{0}>D$, $$\intop_{l(g)\le d_{0}}S(g)\left|\left\langle v,\pi(g)v\right\rangle \right|^{2}dg\gg_{\epsilon}(\lambda(\pi)+1)^{-L}q^{2d_{0}(1-1/p(\pi)-\epsilon)}.$$ The exponents in the conjecture are tight, as the corresponding upper bounds can be deduced from Theorem \[thm:Upper bounds intro\]. \[sec:Preliminaries\]Preliminaries ================================== \[subsec:Distnaces and Length of Elements\]Distances and Length of Elements --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Besides our definition of length, the following is standard, see e.g., [@ghosh2013diophantine Section 3]. We mainly follow [@knapp2016representation] when $G$ is Archimedean and [@cartier1979representations] when $G$ is non-Archimedean. Let $k$ be $\R$ or a $p$-adic field, and $\left|\cdot\right|_{k}\colon k\to\R_{+}$ its standard non-trivial valuation. Let $G$ be a semisimple non-compact algebraic group over $k$, of $k$-rank $r$. Let $T\cong G_{m}^{r}\subset G$ be a maximal $k$-split torus. The choice of $T$ determines the set of weights $X^{\ast}(T)$, i.e., of rational characters of $T$. Let $\Phi(T,G)\subset X^{\ast}(T)$ be the set of roots of $G$ with respect to $T$. In the Archimedean case, if $T_{0}\cong\left\{ \pm1\right\} ^{r}$ is the maximal compact subgroup of $T$, the connected component $A\cong T/T_{0}$ of the identity of $T$ is the Lie group of a real Cartan subalgebra $\a$ of $\mathfrak{g}$, and we define $\nu\colon T\to A\to\a\cong\R^{r}$ by the logarithm map. In the non-Archimedean case, let $T_{0}$ be a maximal compact subgroup of $T$. Then $T/T_{0}\cong\Z^{r}$, this identification defines $\nu\colon T\to\Z^{r}\subset\R^{r}$, and we identify $\R^{r}$ with $\a$. Let $X^{\ast}(T)_{\R}\cong X^{\ast}(T)\otimes\R$ be the weight space. For an element $\alpha\in X^{\ast}(T)$, we let $\chi_{\alpha}\in\a^{\ast}$ be the linear functional defined such that for $t\in T$ $\left|\alpha(t)\right|_{k}=q^{\chi_{\alpha}(\nu(t))}$, where $q=e$ in the Archimedean case and otherwise the size of the quotient field of $k$. For $\alpha\in X^{\ast}(T)_{\R}$ we define $\chi_{\alpha}\in\a^{\ast}$ by extension of the action above. This isomorphism (as linear spaces) between $X^{\ast}(T)_{\R}$ and $\a^{*}$ defines an isomorphism between the coweight space $(X^{*}(T)_{\R})^{*}$ and $\a$. Choose an ordering on the root system which defines the positive roots $\Phi_{+}\subset\Phi(T,G)$ and let $\Delta=\left\{ \alpha_1,...,\alpha_{r}\right\} \subset X^{*}(T)_{\R}\cong\a^{*}$ be the simple roots of $\Phi$ with respect to this ordering. Let $\left\{ \omega_1,...,\omega_{r}\right\} \subset\a$ be the set of simple coweights, i.e. the dual basis to $\Delta$. The set $\left\{ \sum_{i=1}^{r}x_{i}\omega_{i}:x_{i}\ge0\right\} \subset\a$ is called the dominant sector, or the positive Weyl chamber. It is isomorphic to $\a/W$, where $W$ is the Weyl group of the root system. Let $\Phi_{+}^{\vee}\subset\a$ be the corresponding coroot system, let $\Delta^{\vee}=\left\{ \alpha_{1}^{\vee},...,\alpha_{r}^{\vee}\right\} $ be the dual basis of simple coroots and let $\left\{ \omega_{1}^{\vee},...,\omega_{r}^{\vee}\right\} \subset\a^{*}$ be the set of simple weights. We define a partial ordering on $\a$ by $\alpha\ge_{\a}\alpha'$ if and only if $\omega_{i}^{\vee}(\alpha)\ge\omega_{i}^{\vee}(\alpha)$ for every simple weight, or alternatively $\alpha-\alpha'$ is a non-negative sum of elements of $\Delta^{\vee}$. Let $P$ be the Borel subgroup with respect to the set of positive roots. It holds that $P=MN$, where $M$ is the centralizer of $T$ in $G$ and $N$ is the unipotent radical of $P$ ([@cartier1979representations p. 134]). Let $K$ be a maximal special compact open subgroup (i.e., in the $p$-adic case we choose it to be "good" in the sense of Bruhat and Tits [@bruhat1972groupes]). The Iwasawa decomposition $G=KP$ holds ([@knapp2016representation Proposition 1.2],[@cartier1979representations p. 140]). It holds that $M=(M\cap K)\cdot T$, and we extend $\nu\colon M\to\R^{r}$ by $\nu(k)=1$ for $k\in M\cap K$. Let us recall the Cartan decomposition $G=KA_{+}K$: - In the real case, following [@knapp2016representation Theorem 5.20], $A\cong T/T_{0}$ is the Lie group of the Cartan subalgebra $\a$ of $\mathfrak{g}$. $A_{+}$ is the exponent of the closure of the dominant sector in $\a$, i.e. the set of elements $A_{+}=\left\{ t\in A:\forall\alpha\in\Phi_{+},\alpha(t)\ge1\right\} $. It is isomorphic (as a set, using the exponential map) to the dominant sector in $\a$. - In the $p$-adic case, following [@cartier1979representations p. 140], let $\Lambda\cong M/M^{0}$, where $M^{0}$ is the maximal compact subgroup of $M$. We identify elements of $\Lambda$ with elements of $M\subset P$. Elements of the weight space are unramified characters of $M$, and therefore are characters of $\Lambda$ as well. We let $A_{+}=\left\{ \lambda\in\Lambda:\forall\alpha\in\Phi_{+},\alpha(\lambda)\ge1\right\}$. The action $\nu\colon T/T_{0}\to\a$ extends to $\nu\colon M/M^{0}\to\a$. Then $A_{+}$ is isomorphic as a set with the intersection of $\nu(\Lambda)$ with the dominant sector in $\a$ . It is also isomorphic to a subset of the special vertices in the dominant sector in an apartment in the Bruhat-Tits building of $G$. In both cases, there exists a map $\nu\colon A_{+}\to\a$. It is also useful to extend it to a map $H\colon G\to\a$, using the Iwasawa decomposition $G=KMN$, by $H(kmn)=\nu(m)$. We will need the following fundamental technical lemma: \[lem:HFunctionTechnicalLemma\]For $a\in A_{+}$ and $k\in K$ $$H(ak)\le_{\a}H(a).$$ For the non-Archimedean case see [@bruhat1972groupes Proposition 4.4.4(i)]. For the Archimedean case see [@gangolli1988harmonic Corollary 3.5.3]. \[Cor:KaKaK technical Lemma\]Let $a,a',a''\in A_{+}$. If $KaKa'K\cap Ka''K\ne\phi$ then $\nu(a'')\le_{\a}\nu(a)+\nu(a')$. We first notice that the following property of the $H$-function: for $k\in K$, $g\in G$, $m\in M$, $n\in N$ $$\begin{aligned} H(kgmn) & =H(g)+H(m)\end{aligned}$$ Now, if $KaKa'K\cap Ka''K\ne\phi$ then $a''=k_{0}ak_{1}a'k_{2}$. Applying the Iwasawa decomposition to $a'k_{2}$ we have $a'k_{2}=k_{2}^{\prime}mn$ with $H(m)\le_{\a}H(a')$ by Lemma \[lem:HFunctionTechnicalLemma\]. Applying Lemma \[lem:HFunctionTechnicalLemma\] again, we have $$\begin{aligned} \nu(a'') & =H(k_{0}ak_{1}k_{2}^{\prime}mn)=H(k_{0}ak_{1}k_{2}^{\prime})+H(m)\\ & \le_{\a}H(a)+H(a')=\nu(a)+\nu(a').\end{aligned}$$ Corollary \[Cor:KaKaK technical Lemma\] in the non-Archimedean case is [@bruhat1972groupes Proposition 4.4.4(iii)], and is deduced from Lemma \[lem:HFunctionTechnicalLemma\] in the same way. Let $\delta(\tilde{p})$ be the left modular character of $P$, i.e. if $d\tilde{p}$ is a left Haar measure on $P$ then $\delta(\tilde{p})d\tilde{p}$ is a right Haar measure. Normalize the measures so that for $f\in C_c(G)$, $\int_{G}f(g)dg=\int_{K}\int_{P}f(k\tilde{p})\delta(\tilde{p})d\tilde{p}dk=\int_{K}\int_{P}f(\tilde{p}k)d\tilde{p}dk$, $\int_{K}dk=1$. It can also be defined as follows: $M$ acts by conjugation on the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{n}$ of $N$. Then for $m\in M$, $\delta(m)=\left|\operatorname{Det}\operatorname{Ad}_{\mathfrak{n}}(m)\right|_{k}$ ([@cartier1979representations p. 135], [@knapp2016representation Proposition 5.25]). Unwinding the definitions, $\delta(m)=q^{2\rho(\nu(m))}$, where $\rho=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha\in\Phi_{+}}(\dim\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha})\chi_{\alpha}$. Here $\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}$ is the root space of $\alpha$ in the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of $G$. Also recall that $q=e$ for $k=\R$ and otherwise is the size of the quotient field of $k$. As an example, for $G=\operatorname{SL}_{n}(\R)$, and the matrix $a=\operatorname{diag}(a_{0},\dots,a_{n-1})$, $\delta(a)=\prod a_{i}^{n-1-2i}$. We associate with each element $a\in A_{+}\subset G$ a length $l\colon A_{+}\to\R_{\ge0}$ by $l(a)=\log_{q}\delta(a)=2\rho(a)$. We extend $l\colon G\to\R_{\ge0}$ by $l(kak')=l(a)$. By definition, $l$ is left and right $K$-invariant. For $a\in T$, we may identify $l(a)$ by the entropy (taken with logarithm in base $q$) of the dynamical system of translation of $\Gamma\backslash G$ by $a$, with respect to the Haar measure ($\Gamma$ here is an arbitrary lattice, see [@einsiedler2010diagonal Theorem 7.9]). Using this fact, we have for $a\in A$, $l(a)=l(a^{-1})$ and therefore for every $g\in G$, $l(g)=l(g^{-1})$. The same fact can be proven directly. For $g_1,g_{2}\in G$, it holds that $l(g_{1}g_{2})\le l(g_{1})+l(g_{2})$. The proposition actually states that if $KaKa'K\cap Ka''K\ne\phi$ for $a,a',a''\in A_{+}$, then $l(a'')\le l(a)+l(a')=l(aa')$. Since $l(a)=2\rho(a)$ it follows from Corollary \[Cor:KaKaK technical Lemma\]. For $a\in A_{+}$, define $S(a)=\int\delta(ak)dk$. For $f\in C_c(G)$, we have $$\int f(g)dg=\int_{K}\int_{K}\int_{A_{+}}f(kgk')S(a)dkdk'da.$$ We interpret $S(a)$ as the measure of the "circle" $KaK$. In the non-Archimedean case $S(a)\asymp\delta(a)$ ([@cartier1979representations p. 141]). In the Archimedean case, by [@knapp2016representation Proposition 5.28], $$S(a)=\prod_{\alpha\in\Phi_{+}}(\sinh(\chi_{\alpha}(a)))^{\dim\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}}.$$ Since $\sinh(x)\asymp_{\beta}e^{x}$ for $x>\beta$, for $a\in A_{+}$ "far from the walls", i.e. with $\chi_{\alpha}(a)>\beta$ for every $\alpha\in\Delta$ (and therefore $\chi_{\alpha}(a)>\beta$ for every $\alpha\in\Phi_{+}$), we have $S(a)\asymp_\beta\delta(a)=e^{l(a)}$. Near the walls where $\sinh x\approx x$ this approximation fails, but we still have $S(a)\ll\delta(a)$. In any case, if we choose some norm $\n{\cdot}_{\a}$ on $A_{+}$ then for every $\tau>0$, $a\in A_{+}$, $\mu(\left\{ g:\n{a_{g}-a}_{\a}\le\tau\right\} )\asymp_{\tau}q^{l(a)}$, since the set $\left\{ a'\in A_{+}:\n{a'-a}_{\a}\le\tau\right\} $ contains elements which are far enough (with respect to $\tau$) from the walls. We deduce that the size of balls for $l\gg1$, $$q^{l}\ll\mu(\cup_{a':l(a')\le l}Ka'K)=\intop_{a\in A_{+}:l(a)\le l}S(a)da\ll p(l)q^{l}\ll_{\epsilon}q^{l(1+\epsilon)},\label{eq:size of ball-1}$$ for some polynomial $p$. The literature has two popular choices of "distance" or "length" on $G/K$ or $G$. 1. For $G\subset \operatorname{SL}_{n}$, where $K=G\cap K'$ for $K'$ maximal compact in $\operatorname{SL}_{n}$, one defines $\tilde{l}(g)=\log\n g$, where $\n{\cdot}$ is some matrix norm on $\operatorname{GL}_{n}$. Recall that we are mainly interested in distances as $g\to\infty$, so the specific choice of matrix norm does not matter. Such choice (without calling it a distance) is studied in [@sarnak1991bounds; @duke1993density]. 2. For $G$ Archimedean, let $\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{t}$ be the Lie algebras of $G$ and $K$, and let $B\colon \mathfrak{g}\times\mathfrak{g}\to\C$ the Killing form of $G$. Let $\mathfrak{p}=\left\{ X\in\mathfrak{g}:B(X,Y)=0\,\forall Y\in\mathfrak{t}\right\} $. Then $B|_{\mathfrak{p}\mathfrak{\times}\mathfrak{p}}$ is positive definite. $\mathfrak{p}$ can be identified with the tangent space of $G/K$ at the identity, and it defines a natural Riemannian structure on $G/K$, with length $\hat{l}(g)=\hat{d}(g,1)$. See, e.g., [@degeorge1978limit Section 2], [@sarnak1991bounds]. A similar distance is used in the $p$-adic case in [@tits1979reductive 2.3]. Since we mostly care about far distances in the group, and since $K$ is compact, by the Cartan decomposition it suffices to compare $l$ to other distances on $A_{+}$. In general, $l$ and $\tilde{l}$ look like an $L^{1}$-norm on $A_{+}$, and $\hat{l}$ looks like an $L^{2}$-norm. Let us concentrate on $G=\operatorname{SL}_{n}(\R)$ and $\tilde{l}(g)=\ln(\n g_{2})$, $\n g_{2}^{2}=\operatorname{tr}(gg^{t})$. For $G=\operatorname{SL}_{2}(\R)$, its symmetric space is the hyperbolic plane with the standard metric of curvature $-1$, and $l$ we defined above coincides with the hyperbolic metric. For example, consider the matrix $g=\left(\begin{array}{cc} e^{\frac{t}{2}} & 0\\ 0 & e^{-\frac{t}{2}} \end{array}\right)$. Then $l(g)=t$, and $\tilde{l}(g)=\frac{1}{2}\ln(e^{t}+e^{-t})\approx\frac{t}{2}$ . In fact, for every $g\in \operatorname{SL}_{2}(\R)$, $l(g)-2\tilde{l}(g)=O(1)$, and $l$ and $\tilde{l}$ are equal up to an additive constant. For $G=\operatorname{SL}_{3}(\R)$ it is no longer true. For $$g_{1}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc} e^{t/3}\\ & e^{t/3}\\ & & e^{-2t/3} \end{array}\right), g_{2}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc} e^{2t/3}\\ & e^{-t/3}\\ & & e^{-t/3} \end{array}\right),$$ it holds that $l(g_{1})=l(g_{2})=2t$, while $\tilde{l}(g_{1})\approx t/3$, $\tilde{l}(g_{2})\approx2t/3$. So the two distances $l,\tilde{l}$ are not equal up to an additive constant, but are only Lipschitz-equivalent, with $\frac{3}{2}\tilde{l}\le l+O(1)\le3\tilde{l}$. However, if we chose $\tilde{\tilde{l}}(g)=2(\tilde{l}(g)+\tilde{l}(g^{-1}))$, then $l(g)-2\tilde{\tilde{l}}(g)=O(1)$. This solution no longer works for $\operatorname{SL}_{4}(\R)$. \[subsec:Harish-Chandra bounds\]Growth of Matrix Coefficients and Harish-Chandra's Bounds ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For $2\le p\le\infty$, let $\Xi_{p}(g)=\int\delta(gk)^{-\nicefrac{1}{p}}dk$ be the $p$-th version of Harish-Chandra's function. Let $\Xi(g)=\Xi_{2}(g)$ be the standard Harish-Chandra's function. Note that since $\Xi(g)$ is left and right $K$-invariant it only depends on $a\in A_{+}$ from the Cartan decomposition of $g$. An explicit upper bound on Harish-Chandra's function is given by the following Theorem: \[thm: Explicit Bounds\]There is a constant $C$ such that for every $g\in G$ and $\epsilon>0$, $$\Xi_{p}(g)\le\Xi^{\nicefrac{2}{p}}(g)\le q^{(\nicefrac{1}{2}-\nicefrac{1}{p})l(g)}\Xi(g)\ll (l(g)+1)^{C}q^{-\nicefrac{l(g)}{p}}\ll_{\epsilon}q^{-l(g)(\nicefrac{1}{p}-\epsilon)}.$$ By the Cartan decomposition, it suffices to verify the theorem for $a\in A_{+}$, where $q^{l(a)}=\delta(a)$. The first inequality follows from convexity, the second inequality follows from $\Xi(g)\ge q^{-l(g)/2}$ (see Equation ), and the fourth inequality is trivial. We are left with the third inequality. For the Archimedean case, see [@harish1958spherical Theorem 3] or [@knapp2016representation Proposition 7.15]. For the non-Archimedean case the standard reference is [@silberger2015introduction 4.2.1], (where there is an assumption that $\operatorname{char}k=0$), but the theorem is well known to experts. In any case, the general non-Archimedean result can be deduced from the results of [@kamber2016lpcomplex] for arbitrary affine buildings. A representation $(\pi,V)$ of $G$ is called tempered if $p(\pi)\le2$. The following theorem is the standard reference for upper bounds on matrix coefficients: \[[@cowling1988almost]\] \[thm:CHH-Thm2\]Let $(\pi,V)$ be a unitary irreducible tempered representation of $G$ and let $v_1,v_{2}\in V$ be two $K$-finite vectors, such that $\dim \operatorname{span}Kv_{1}=d_{1}$, $\dim\operatorname{span}Kv_{2}=d_{2}$. Then $\left|\left\langle v_1,gv_{2}\right\rangle \right|\le\sqrt{d_{1}d_{2}}\n{v_{1}}\n{v_{2}}\Xi(g)$. The work [@cowling1988almost] also provides a bound when $p(\pi)>2$: \[[@cowling1988almost]\] \[thm:CHH-corollary\]Let $(\pi,V)$ be a unitary irreducible representation of $G$ with $p(\pi)\le2k$, $k\in\N$ and let $v_1,v_{2}\in V$ be
{'source': 'arXiv_out/2004'}