**by Paul E. Gunnells**

This book has addressed the theoretical and practical problems of performing computations with modular forms. Modular forms are the simplest examples of the general theory of automorphic forms attached to a reductive algebraic group with an arithmetic subgroup ; they are the case with a congruence subgroup of . For such pairs the Langlands philosophy asserts that there should be deep connections between automorphic forms and arithmetic, connections that are revealed through the action of the Hecke operators on spaces of automorphic forms. There have been many profound advances in recent years in our understanding of these phenomena, for example:

- the establishment of the modularity of
elliptic curves defined over
[
**Wil95**,**TW95**,**Dia96**,**CDT99**,**BCDT01**], - the proof by Harris–Taylor of the local Langlands
correspondence [
**HT01**], and - Lafforgue’s proof of the
global Langlands correspondence for function fields [
**Laf02**].

Nevertheless, we are still far from seeing that the links between automorphic forms and arithmetic hold in the broad scope in which they are generally believed. Hence one has the natural problem of studying spaces of automorphic forms computationally.

The goal of this appendix is to describe some computational techniques for automorphic forms. We focus on the case and , since the automorphic forms that arise are one natural generalization of modular forms, and since this is the setting for which we have the most tools available. In fact, we do not work directly with automorphic forms, but rather with the cohomology of the arithmetic group with certain coefficient modules. This is the most natural generalization of the tools developed in previous chapters.

Here is a brief overview of the contents. Section *A.2 Automorphic Forms and Arithmetic Groups*
gives background on automorphic forms and the cohomology of arithmetic
groups and explains why the two are related. In Section
*A.3 Combinatorial Models for Group Cohomology* we describe the basic topological tools used to
compute the cohomology of explicitly. Section
*A.4 Hecke Operators and Modular Symbols* defines the Hecke operators, describes the
generalization of the modular symbols from Chapter *General Modular Symbols* to
higher rank, and explains how to compute the action of the Hecke
operators on the top degree cohomology group. Section
*A.5 Other Cohomology Groups* discusses computation of the Hecke action on
cohomology groups below the top degree. Finally, Section *A.6 Complements and Open Problems*
briefly discusses some related material and presents some open
problems.

The theory of automorphic forms is notorious for the difficulty of its
prerequisites. Even if one is only interested in the cohomology of
arithmetic groups—a small part of the full theory—one needs
considerable background in algebraic groups, algebraic topology, and
representation theory. This is somewhat reflected in our
presentation, which falls far short of being self-contained. Indeed,
a complete account would require a long book of its own. We have
chosen to sketch the foundational material and to provide many
pointers to the literature; good general references are
[**BW00**, **Harb**, **Lab90**, **Vog97**]. We hope
that the energetic reader will follow the references and fill many
gaps on his/her own.

The choice of topics presented here is heavily influenced (as usual)
by the author’s interests and expertise. There are many computational
topics in the cohomology of arithmetic groups we have completely
omitted, including the trace formula in its many incarnations
[**GP05**], the explicit Jacquet–Langlands correspondence
[**Dem04**, **SW05**], and moduli space techniques
[**FvdG**, **vdG**]. We encourage the reader to investigate
these extremely interesting and useful techniques.

I thank Avner Ash, John Cremona, Mark McConnell, and Dan Yasaki for helpful comments. I also thank the NSF for support.

Let be the usual Hecke
congruence subgroup of matrices upper-triangular mod . Let
be the modular curve , and let
be its canonical compactification obtained by adjoining
cusps. For any integer , let be the space of
weight holomorphic cuspidal modular forms on . According
to Eichler–Shimura [**Shi94**, Chapter 8], we have the isomorphism

(1)

where the bar denotes complex conjugation and where the isomorphism is one of Hecke modules.

More generally, for any integer , let be the subspace of degree homogeneous polynomials. The space admits a representation of by the “change of variables” map

(2)

This induces a local system on the curve . [1] Then the analogue of (1) for higher-weight modular forms is the isomorphism

(3)

Note that (3) reduces to (1) when .

Similar considerations apply if we work with the open curve instead, except that Eisenstein series also contribute to the cohomology. More precisely, let be the space of weight Eisenstein series on . Then (3) becomes

(4)

These isomorphisms lie at the heart of the modular symbols method.

The first step on the path to general automorphic forms is a reinterpretation of modular forms in terms of functions on . Let be a congruence subgroup. A weight modular form on is a holomorphic function satisfying the transformation property

Here is the *automorphy factor* . There
are some additional conditions must satisfy at the cusps of ,
but these are not so important for our discussion.

The group acts transitively on , with the
subgroup fixing . Thus can be written as the
quotient . From this, we see that can be viewed as a function
that is *`K`-invariant on the right* and that
satisfies a certain symmetry condition with respect to the
(-action on the left*. Of course not every with these
properties is a modular form: some extra data is needed to take the
role of holomorphicity and to handle the behavior at the cusps.
Again, this can be ignored right now.

We can turn this interpretation around as follows. Suppose
is a function that is *-invariant on the left*, that is,
for all . Hence can be thought of as a
function . We
further suppose that satisfies a certain symmetry condition
with respect to the *`K`-action on the right.* In particular,
any matrix can be written

(5)

with uniquely determined modulo . Let be the complex number . Then the -symmetry we require is

where is some fixed nonnegative integer.

It turns out that such functions are very closely related to
modular forms: *any* uniquely determines such a
function . The
correspondence is very simple. Given a weight modular form , define

(6)

We claim is left -invariant and satisfies the desired -symmetry on the right. Indeed, since satisfies the cocycle property

we have

Moreover, any stabilizes . Hence

From (5) we have , and thus .

Hence in (6) the weight and the automorphy factor “untwist” the -action to make left -invariant. The upshot is that we can study modular forms by studying the spaces of functions that arise through the construction (6).

Of course, not every will arise as for some : after all, is holomorphic and satisfies rather stringent growth conditions. Pinning down all the requirements is somewhat technical and is (mostly) done in the sequel.

Before we define automorphic forms, we need to find the correct generalizations of our groups and . The correct setup is rather technical, but this really reflects the power of the general theory, which handles so many different situations (e.g., Maass forms, Hilbert modular forms, Siegel modular forms, etc.).

Let be a connected Lie group, and let be a maximal
compact subgroup. We assume that is the set of real points of a
connected semisimple algebraic group defined over . These
conditions mean the following [**PR84**, Section 2.1.1]:

The group has the structure of an affine algebraic variety given by an ideal in the ring , where the variables should be interpreted as the entries of an “indeterminate matrix,” and is the polynomial . Both the group multiplication and inversion are required to be morphisms of algebraic varieties.

The ring is the coordinate ring of the algebraic group . Hence this condition means that can be essentially viewed as a subgroup of defined by polynomial equations in the matrix entries of the latter.

*Defined over*means that is generated by polynomials with rational coefficients.*Connected*means that is connected as an algebraic variety.*Set of real points*means that is the set of real solutions to the equations determined by . We write .*Semisimple*means that the maximal connected solvable normal subgroup of is trivial.

Example A.1

The most important example for our purposes is
the *split form of *. For this choice we have

Example A.2

Let be a number field. Then there is a -group such
that . The group is constructed as
, where denotes the
*restriction of scalars* from to
[**PR84**, Section 2.1.2]. For example, if is totally real, the
group appears when one studies Hilbert modular
forms.

Let be the signature of the field , so that . Then and .

Example A.3

Another important example is the *split symplectic group*
. This is the group that arises when one studies Siegel
modular forms. The group of real points is the
subgroup of preserving a fixed nondegenerate
alternating bilinear form on . We have .

To generalize , we need the notion of an
*arithmetic group*. This is a discrete subgroup of the
group of rational points that is commensurable with the set
of integral points . Here commensurable simply means that
is a finite index subgroup of both and
; in particular itself is an arithmetic group.

Example A.4

For the split form of we have . A trivial way to obtain other arithmetic groups is by conjugation: if , then is also arithmetic.

A more interesting collection of examples is given by the congruence
subgroups. The *principal congruence subgroup* is
the group of matrices congruent to the identity modulo for some
fixed integer . A *congruence subgroup* is a group
containing for some .

In higher dimensions there are many candidates to generalize the Hecke subgroup . For example, one can take the subgroup of that is upper-triangular mod . From a computational perspective, this choice is not so good since its index in is large. A better choice, and the one that usually appears in the literature, is to define to be the subgroup of with bottom row congruent to .

We are almost ready to define automorphic forms. Let be the Lie algebra of , and let be its universal enveloping algebra over . Geometrically, is just the tangent space at the identity of the smooth manifold . The algebra is a certain complex associative algebra canonically built from . The usual definition would lead us a bit far afield, so we will settle for an equivalent characterization: can be realized as a certain subalgebra of the ring of differential operators on , the space of smooth functions on .

In particular, acts on by *left translations*: given and , we define

Then can be identified with the ring of all differential
operators on that are invariant under left
translation. For our purposes the most important part of is
its center . In
terms of differential operators, consists of those operators
that are also invariant under *right translation*:

Definition A.5

An *automorphic form* on with
respect to is a function satisfying

- for all ,
- the right translates span a finite-dimensional space of functions,
- there exists an ideal of finite codimension such that annihilates , and
- satisfies a certain growth condition that we do not
wish to make precise. (In the literature, is said to be
*slowly increasing*.)

For fixed and , we denote by the
space of all functions
satisfying the above four conditions. It is a basic theorem, due to
Harish-Chandra [**HC68**], that is
finite-dimensional.

Example A.6

We can identify the cuspidal modular forms in the language
of Definition *Definition A.5*. Given a modular form , let
be the function from
(6). Then the map identifies
with the subspace of functions satisfying

for all ,

for all ,

, where is the

*Laplace–Beltrami–Casimir operator*andis slowly increasing, and

is

*cuspidal*.

The first four conditions parallel *Definition A.5*. Item (1) is the
-invariance. Item (2) implies that the right translates of
by lie in a fixed finite-dimensional
representation of . Item (3) is how holomorphicity appears,
namely that is killed by a certain differential operator.
Finally, item (4) is the usual growth condition.

The only condition missing from the general
definition is (5), which is an extra constraint placed on to
ensure that it comes from a cusp form. This condition can be
expressed by the vanishing of certain integrals (“constant terms”);
for details we refer to [**Bum97**, **Gel75**].

Example A.7

Another important example appears when we set in (2) in Example
*Example A.6* and relax (3) by requiring only that for *some* nonzero . Such
automorphic forms cannot possibly arise from modular forms, since
there are no nontrivial cusp forms of weight 0. However, there are
plenty of solutions to these conditions: they correspond to
*real-analytic* cuspidal modular forms of weight 0 and
are known as *Maass forms*. Traditionally one writes . The positivity of implies that or is purely imaginary.

Maass forms are highly elusive objects. Selberg proved that there are
infinitely many linearly independent Maass forms of full level
(i.e., on ), but to this date no explicit construction of
a single one is known. (Selberg’s argument is indirect and relies on
the trace formula; for an exposition see [**Sar03**].) For higher
levels some explicit examples can be constructed using theta series
attached to indefinite quadratic forms [**Vig77**]. Numerically
Maass forms have been well studied; see for example [**FL**].

In general the arithmetic nature of the eigenvalues
that correspond to Maass forms is unknown, although a famous
conjecture of Selberg states that for congruence subgroups they
satisfy the inequality (in other words, only purely
imaginary appear above). The truth of this
conjecture would have far-reaching consequences, from analytic number
theory to graph theory [**Lub94**].

As *Example A.6* indicates, there is a notion of
*cuspidal automorphic form*.
The exact definition is too technical to state
here, but it involves an appropriate generalization of the notion of
constant term familiar from modular forms.

There are also *Eisenstein series*
[**Lan66**, **Art79**]. Again the complete definition is technical; we only
mention that there are different types of Eisenstein series
corresponding to certain subgroups of . The Eisenstein series that
are easiest to understand are those built from cusp forms on lower
rank groups. Very explicit formulas for Eisenstein series on
can be seen in [**Bum84**]. For a down-to-earth
exposition of some of the Eisenstein series on , we refer to
[**Gol05**].

The decomposition of into cusp forms and
Eisenstein series also generalizes to a general group , although
the statement is much more complicated. The result is a theorem of
Langlands [**Lan76**] known as the
*spectral decomposition of* .
A thorough recent presentation of
this can be found in [**MW94**].

Let be the space of all automorphic forms, where and range over all possibilities. The space is huge, and the arithmetic significance of much of it is unknown. This is already apparent for . The automorphic forms directly connected with arithmetic are the holomorphic modular forms, not the Maass forms [2] . Thus the question arises: which automorphic forms in are the most natural generalization of the modular forms?

One answer is provided by the isomorphisms (1),
(3), (4). These show that modular forms
appear naturally in the cohomology of modular curves. Hence a
reasonable approach is to generalize the *left* of (1),
(3), (4), and to study the resulting
cohomology groups. This is the approach we will take. One drawback
is that it is not obvious that our generalization has anything to do
with automorphic forms, but we will see eventually that it certainly
does. So we begin by looking for an appropriate generalization of the
modular curve .

Let and be as in Section *A.2.3*, and let be the quotient
. This is a global Riemannian symmetric space [**Hel01**]. One can prove
that is contractible. Any arithmetic group acts
on properly discontinuously. In particular, if is
torsion-free, then the quotient is a smooth
manifold.

Unlike the modular curves, will not have a
complex structure in general [3]; nevertheless,
is a very nice space. In particular, if
is torsion-free, it is an *Eilenberg–Mac Lane* space for
, otherwise known as a . This means that the
only nontrivial homotopy group of is its
fundamental group, which is isomorphic to , and that the
universal cover of is contractible. Hence
is in some sense a “topological
incarnation” [4] of .

This leads us to the notion of the *group cohomology* of with trivial complex coefficients. In the
early days of algebraic topology, this was defined to be the complex
cohomology of an Eilenberg–Mac~Lane space for
[**Bro94**, Introduction, I.4]:

(7)

Today there are purely algebraic approaches to
[**Bro94**, III.1], but for our purposes (7) is
exactly what we need. In fact, the group cohomology can be identified with the cohomology of the quotient even if has torsion, since we are working with
complex coefficients. The cohomology groups ,
where is an arithmetic group, are our proposed generalization
for the weight 2 modular forms.

What about higher weights? For this we must replace the trivial coefficient module with local systems, just as we did in (3). For our purposes it is enough to let be a rational finite-dimensional representation of over the complex numbers. Any such gives a representation of and thus induces a local system on . As before, the group cohomology is the cohomology . In (3) we took , the symmetric power of the standard representation. For a general group there are many kinds of representations to consider. In any case, we contend that the cohomology spaces

are a good generalization of the spaces of modular forms.

It is certainly not obvious that the cohomology groups
have *anything* to do with automorphic forms, although
the isomorphisms (1), (3), (4) look
promising.

The connection is provided by a deep theorem of Franke [**Fra98**],
which asserts
that

the cohomology groups can be directly computed in terms of certain automorphic forms (the automorphic forms of “cohomological type,” also known as those with “nonvanishing cohomology” [

**VZ84**]); andthere is a direct sum decomposition

(8)

where the sum is taken over the set of classes of

*associate proper**-parabolic subgroups of*.

The precise version of statement (?) is known in the literature
as the *Borel conjecture*. Statement (8) parallels
Langlands’s spectral decomposition of .

Example A.8

For , the decomposition (8) is exactly (4). The cuspforms correspond to the summand . There is one class of proper -parabolic subgroups in , represented by the Borel subgroup of upper-triangular matrices. Hence only one term appears in big direct sum on the right of (8), which is the Eisenstein term .

The summand of
(8) is called the *cuspidal cohomology*; this
is the subspace of classes represented by cuspidal automorphic forms.
The remaining summands constitute the *Eisenstein cohomology* of
[**Har91**]. In particular the summand indexed by is
constructed using Eisenstein series attached to certain cuspidal
automorphic forms on lower rank groups. Hence is in some sense the most important part of the
cohomology: all the rest can be built systematically from cuspidal
cohomology on lower rank groups [5]. This leads us to our
basic computational problem:

Problem A.9

Develop tools to compute explicitly the cohomology spaces and to identify the cuspidal subspace .

In this section, we restrict attention to and
, a congruence subgroup of . By the previous
section, we can study the group cohomology by
studying the cohomology . The latter spaces can be studied using standard
topological techniques, such as taking the cohomology of complexes
associated to cellular decompositions of . For
, one can construct such decompositions using a
version of explicit reduction theory of real positive-definite
quadratic forms due to Voronoi [**Vor08**]. The goal of this section is
to explain how this is done. We also discuss how the cohomology can
be explicitly studied for congruence subgroups of .

Let be the -vector space of all symmetric matrices, and let be the subset of positive-definite matrices. The space can be identified with the space of all real positive-definite quadratic forms in variables: in coordinates, if (column vector), then the matrix induces the quadratic form

and it is well known that any positive-definite quadratic form arises in this way. The space is a cone, in that it is preserved by homotheties: if , then for all . It is also convex: if , then for . Let be the quotient of by homotheties.

Example A.10

The case is illustrative. We can take coordinates on by representing any matrix in as

The subset of singular matrices is a quadric cone in dividing the complement into three connected components. The component containing the identity matrix is the cone of positive-definite matrices. The quotient can be identified with an open -disk.

The group acts on on the left by

This action commutes with that of the homotheties and thus descends to a -action on . One can show that acts transitively on and that the stabilizer of the image of the identity matrix is . Hence we may identify with our symmetric space . We will do this in the sequel, using the notation when we want to emphasize the coordinates coming from the linear structure of and using the notation for the quotient .

We can make the identification more explicit. If , then the map

(9)

takes to a symmetric positive-definite matrix. Any coset is taken to the same matrix since . Thus (9) identifies with a subset of , namely those positive-definite symmetric matrices with determinant . It is easy to see that maps diffeomorphically onto .

The inverse map is more complicated. Given a
determinant positive-definite symmetric matrix , one must find
such that . Such a representation
always exists, with determined uniquely up to right multiplication
by an element of . In computational linear algebra, such a can
be constructed through *Cholesky decomposition* of .

The group acts on via the -action and does so
properly discontinuously. This is the “unimodular change of
variables” action on quadratic forms [**Ser73**, V.1.1].
Under our identification of with , this is the usual action of
by left translation from Section *A.2.7*.

Now consider the group cohomology . The identification shows that the dimension of is . Hence vanishes if . Since grows quadratically in , there are many potentially interesting cohomology groups to study.

However, it turns out that there is some additional vanishing of the cohomology for deeper (topological) reasons. For , this is easy to see. The quotient is homeomorphic to a topological surface with punctures, corresponding to the cusps of . Any such surface can be retracted onto a finite graph simply by “stretching” along its punctures. Thus , even though .

For , a theorem of Borel–Serre implies
that vanishes if
[**BS73**, Theorem 11.4.4]. The number is
called the *virtual cohomological dimension* of and is
denoted . Thus we only need to consider cohomology in
degrees .

Moreover we know from Section *A.2.8* that the most interesting part
of the cohomology is the cuspidal cohomology. In what degrees can it
live? For , there is only one interesting cohomology group
, and it contains the cuspidal cohomology. For
higher dimensions, the situation is quite different: for most , the
subspace vanishes! In fact in
the late 1970’s Borel, Wallach, and Zuckerman observed that the cuspidal
cohomology can only live in the cohomological degrees lying in an
interval around of size linear in . An explicit
description of this interval is given in
[**Sch86**, Proposition 3.5];
one can also look at *Table A.1*, from which
the precise statement is easy to determine.

Another feature of *Table A.1* deserves to be mentioned.
There are exactly two values of , namely , such that
virtual cohomological dimension equals the upper limit of the cuspidal
range. This will have implications later, when we study the action of
the Hecke operators on the cohomology.

Table A.1

The virtual cohomological dimension and the cuspidal range for subgroups of .

Recall that a point in is said to be *primitive* if the
greatest common divisor of its coordinates is . In particular, a
primitive point is nonzero. Let be the set of
primitive points. Any , written as a column vector,
determines a rank- symmetric matrix in the closure
via . The *Voronoi polyhedron* is defined
to be the closed convex hull in of the points , as
ranges over . Note that by construction, acts
on , since preserves the set and
acts linearly on .

Example A.11

*Figure A.1* represents a crude attempt to show what
looks like for . These images were constructed by computing a
large subset of the points and taking the convex hull (we took
all points such that for some large
integer ). From a distance, the polyhedron looks almost
indistinguishable from the cone ; this is somewhat conveyed by the
right of *Figure A.1*. Unfortunately is not locally
finite, so we really cannot produce an accurate picture. To get a more
accurate image, the reader should imagine that each vertex meets
infinitely many edges. On the other hand, is not hopelessly
complex: each maximal face is a triangle, as the pictures suggest.

Figure A.1

The polyhedron for . In (a) we see from the origin, in (b) from the side. The small triangle at the right center of (a) is the facet with vertices , where is the standard basis of . In (b) the -axis runs along the top from left to right, and the -axis runs down the left side. The facet from (a) is the little triangle at the top left corner of (b).

The polyhedron is quite complicated: it has infinitely many faces and is not locally finite. However, one of Voronoi ‘s great insights is that is actually not as complicated as it seems.

For any , let be the minimum value attained by
on and let be the set on which attains
. Note that and is finite since is
positive-definite. Then is called *perfect* if it is
recoverable from the knowledge of the pair . In
other words, given , we can write a system of
linear equations

(10)

where is a symmetric matrix of variables. Then is perfect if and only if is the unique solution to the system (10).

Example A.12

The quadratic form is perfect. The smallest nontrivial value it attains on is , and it does so on the columns of

and their negatives. Letting be an undetermined quadratic form and applying the data , we are led to the system of linear equations

From this we recover .

Example A.13

The quadratic form is not perfect. Again the smallest nontrivial value of on is , attained on the columns of

and their negatives. But every member of the one-parameter family of quadratic forms

(11)

has the same set of minimal vectors, and so cannot be recovered from the knowledge of .

Example A.14

*Example A.12* generalizes to all . Define

(12)

Then is perfect for all . We have , and consists of all points of the form

where is the standard basis of . This quadratic
form is closely related to the root lattice
[**FH91**], which explains its name. It is one of two
infinite families of perfect forms studied by Voronoi (the other is
related to the root lattice).

We can now summarize Voronoi ‘s main results:

- There are finitely many equivalence classes of perfect forms modulo the action of . Voronoi even gave an explicit algorithm to determine all the perfect forms of a given dimension.
- The facets of , in other words the codimension faces, are in bijection with the rank perfect quadratic forms. Under this correspondence the minimal vectors determine a facet by taking the convex hull in of the finite point set . Hence there are finitely many faces of modulo and thus finitely many modulo any finite index subgroup .
- Let be the set of cones over the faces of . Then
is a
*fan*, which means (i) if , then any face of is also in ; and (ii) if , then is a common face of each [6]. The fan provides a reduction theory for in the following sense: any point is contained in a unique , and the set is finite. Voronoialso gave an explicit algorithm to determine given , the*Voronoi reduction algorithm*.

The number of equivalence classes of perfect forms modulo the
action of grows rapidly with
(*Table A.2*); the complete classification is known
only for . For a list of perfect forms up to , see
[**CS88**]. For a recent comprehensive treatment of perfect forms,
with many historical remarks, see
[**Mar03**].

Our goal now is to describe how the Voronoi fan can be used to compute the cohomology . The idea is to use the cones in to chop the quotient into pieces.

For any , let be the open cone obtained by taking the complement in of its proper faces. Then after taking the quotient by homotheties, the cones pass to locally closed subsets of . Let be the set of these images.

Any is a *topological cell*, i.e., it is homeomorphic to
an open ball, since is homeomorphic to a face of . Because
comes from the fan , the cells in have good incidence
properties: the closure in of any can be written as a
finite disjoint union of elements of . Moreover, is
locally finite: by taking quotients of all the
meeting , we have eliminated the open cones lying in , and
it is these cones that are responsible for the failure of local
finiteness of . We summarize these properties by saying that
gives a *cellular decomposition* of . Clearly acts on , since is constructed using the fan .
Thus we obtain a cellular decomposition [7] of for
any torsion-free . We call the *Voronoi decomposition* of .

Some care must be taken in using these cells to perform topological
computations. The problem is that even though the individual pieces
are homeomorphic to balls and are glued together nicely, the
boundaries of the closures of the pieces are not homeomorphic to
spheres in general. (If they were, then the Voronoi decomposition
would give rise to a *regular* cell complex [**CF67**],
which can be used as a substitute for a simplicial or CW complex in
homology computations.) Nevertheless, there is a way to remedy this.

Recall that a subspace of a topological space is a
*strong deformation retract* if there is a continuous map
such that , , and for all . For such pairs
we have . One can show that there
is a strong deformation retraction from to itself equivariant
under the actions of both and the homotheties and that
the image of the retraction modulo homotheties, denoted , is
naturally a locally finite regular cell complex of dimension .
Moreover, the cells in are in bijective, inclusion-reversing
correspondence with the cells in . In particular, if a cell in
has *codimension* , the corresponding cell in has
*dimension* . Thus, for example, the vertices of modulo
are in bijection with the top-dimensional cells in
, which are in bijection with equivalence classes of perfect
forms.

In the literature is called the *well-rounded retract*. The
subspace has a beautiful geometric
interpretation. The quotient

can be interpreted as the moduli space of lattices in modulo
the equivalence relation of rotation and positive scaling
(cf. [**AG00**]; for one can also see
[**Ser73**, VII, Proposition 3]).
Then corresponds to those lattices whose
shortest nonzero vectors span . This is the origin of the
name: the shortest vectors of such a lattice are “more round” than
those of a generic lattice.

The space was known classically for and was constructed for
by Lannes and Soul’e, although Soul’e only published the
case [**Sou75**]. The construction for all appears in work
of Ash [**Ash80**, **Ash84**], who also generalized to a much
larger class of groups. Explicit computations of the cell structure
of have only been performed up to [**EVGS02**]. Certainly
computing explicitly for seems very difficult, as
*Table A.2* indicates.

Example A.15

*Figure A.2* illustrates and for . As in
*Example A.11*, the polyhedron is 3-dimensional, and
so the Voronoi fan has cones of dimensions . The
-cones of , which correspond to the vertices of , pass to
infinitely many points on the boundary . The -cones become triangles in with
vertices on . In fact, the identifications realize as the Klein model for the
hyperbolic plane, in which geodesics are represented by Euclidean line
segments. Hence, the images of the -cones of are none other
than the usual cusps of , and the triangles are the -translates of the ideal triangle with vertices . These triangles form a tessellation of sometimes known as
the *Farey tessellation*. The edges of the Voronoi are the -translates of the ideal geodesic between and .
After adjoining cusps and passing to the quotient , these
edges become the supports of the Manin symbols from Section *Manin Symbols*
(cf. *Figure 3.2*). This example also shows how the
Voronoi decomposition fails to be a regular cell complex: the
boundaries of the closures of the triangles in do not contain the
vertices and thus are not homeomorphic to circles.

The virtual cohomological dimension of is 1. Hence the
well-rounded retract is a graph (*Figure A.2* and
*Figure A.3*). Note that is not a manifold. The vertices
of are in bijection with the Farey triangles—each vertex lies at
the center of the corresponding triangle—and the edges are in
bijection with the Manin symbols. Under the map ,
the graph becomes the familiar “-tree” embedded in
, with vertices at the order 3 elliptic points (*Figure A.3*).

Figure A.2

The Voronoi decomposition and the retract in .

Figure A.3

The Voronoi decomposition and the retract in .

We now discuss the example in some detail. This example gives a good feeling for how the general situation compares to the case .

We begin with the Voronoi fan . The cone is 6-dimensional, and the quotient is 5-dimensional. There is one equivalence class of perfect forms modulo the action of , represented by the form (12). Hence there are 12 minimal vectors; six are the columns of the matrix

(13)

and the remaining six are the negatives of these. This implies that the cone corresponding to this form is 6-dimensional and simplicial. The latter implies that the faces of are the cones generated by , where ranges over all subsets of (13). To get the full structure of the fan, one must determine the orbits of faces, as well as which faces lie in the boundary . After some pleasant computation, one finds:

There is one equivalence class modulo for each of the 6-, 5-, 2-, and 1-dimensional cones.

There are two equivalence classes of the 4-dimensional cones, represented by the sets of minimal vectors

There are two equivalence classes of the 3-dimensional cones, represented by the sets of minimal vectors

The second type of 3-cone lies in and thus does not determine a cell in .

The 2- and 1-dimensional cones lie entirely in and do not determine cells in .

After passing from to , the cones of dimension determine
cells of dimension .
Therefore, modulo the action of there are five types of
cells in the Voronoi decomposition , with dimensions from to .
We denote these cell types by , , , ,
and . Here corresponds to the first type of 4-cone in item
(?) above, and to the second. For a beautiful way
to index the cells of using configurations in projective spaces,
see [**McC91**].

The virtual cohomological dimension of is 3, which
means that the retract is a 3-dimensional cell complex. The
closures of the top-dimensional cells in , which are in bijection
with the Voronoi cells of type , are homeomorphic to solid cubes
truncated along two pairs of opposite corners
(*Figure A.4*). To compute this, one must see how many Voronoi cells
of a given type contain a fixed cell of type (since the
inclusions of cells in are the *opposite* of those in ).

A table of the incidence relations between the cells of and
is given in *Table A.3*. To interpret the table, let be the integer in row and column .

- If is below the diagonal, then the boundary of a cell of type contains cells of type .
- If is above the diagonal, then a cell of type appears in the boundary of cells of type .

For instance, the entry in row and column means
that a Voronoi cell of type meets the boundaries of cells
of type . This is the same as the number of vertices in the
Soul’e cube (*Figure A.4*).
Investigation of the table shows that the triangular
(respectively, hexagonal) faces of the Soul’e cube correspond to the
Voronoi cells of type (resp., ).

*Figure A.5* shows a Schlegel diagram for the Soul’e
cube. One vertex is at infinity; this is indicated by the arrows on
three of the edges. This Soul’e cube is dual to the Voronoi cell of
type with minimal vectors given by the columns of the identity
matrix. The labels on the -faces are additional minimal vectors
that show which Voronoi cells contain . For example, the central
triangle labelled with is dual to the Voronoi cell of type
with minimal vectors given by those of together with
. Cells of type containing in their closure
correspond to the edges of the figure; the minimal vectors for a given
edge are those of together with the two vectors on the -faces
containing the edge. Similarly, one can read off the minimial vectors
of the top-dimensional Voronoi cells containing , which correspond to
the vertices of *Figure A.5*.

Table A.3

Incidence relations in the Voronoi decomposition and the retract for .

Figure A.4

The Soul’e cube

Figure A.5

A Schlegel diagram of a Soul’e cube, showing the minimal vectors that correspond to the -faces.

Now let be a prime, and let be the Hecke subgroup of matrices with bottom row
congruent to (*Example A.4*). The
virtual cohomological dimension of is , and the cusp
cohomology with constant coefficients can appear in degrees and
. One can show that the cusp cohomology in degree is dual to
that in degree , so for computational purposes it suffices to focus
on degree .

In terms of , these will be cochains supported on the 3-cells. Unfortunately we cannot work directly with the quotient since has torsion: there will be cells taken to themselves by the -action, and thus the cells of need to be subdivided to induce the structure of a cell complex on . Thus when has torsion, the “set of -cells modulo ” unfortunately makes no sense.

To circumvent this problem, one can mimic the idea of Manin symbols.
The quotient is in bijection with the
finite projective plane , where is the
field with elements (cf. *Proposition 3.10*).
The group acts transitively on the set of all -cells
of ; if we fix one such cell , its stabilizer is a finite subgroup
of . Hence the set of -cells modulo should
be interpreted as the set of orbits in of the
finite group . This suggests describing in terms of the space of complex-valued functions . To carry this out, there are two problems:

- How do we explicitly describe in terms of ?
- How can we isolate the cuspidal subspace in terms of our description?

Fully describing the solutions to these problems is rather
complicated. We content ourselves with presenting the following
theorem, which collects together several statements in [**AGG84**].
This result should be compared to Theorems *Theorem 3.13* and
*Theorem 1.25*.

Theorem A.16

We have

where is the dimension of the space of weight holomorphic cusp forms on . Moreover, the cuspidal cohomology is isomorphic to the vector space of functions satisfying

- ,
- ,
- , and
- .

Unlike subgroups of , cuspidal cohomology is
apparently much rarer for . The
computations of [**AGG84**, **vGvdKTV97**] show that the only prime levels
with nonvanishing cusp cohomology are , , , ,
and . In all these examples, the cuspidal subspace is
-dimensional.

For more details of how to implement such computations, we refer to
[**AGG84**, **vGvdKTV97**]. For further details about the additional
complications arising for higher rank groups, in particular subgroups
of , see [**AGM02**, Section 3].

There is one ingredient missing so far in our discussion of the cohomology of arithmetic groups, namely the Hecke operators.index{Hecke operator} These are an essential tool in the study of modular forms. Indeed, the forms with the most arithmetic significance are the Hecke eigenforms, and the connection with arithmetic is revealed by the Hecke eigenvalues.

In higher rank the situation is similar. There is an algebra of Hecke operators acting on the cohomology spaces . The eigenvalues of these operators are conjecturally related to certain representations of the Galois group. Just as in the case , we need tools to compute the Hecke action.

In this section we discuss this problem. We begin with a general
description of the Hecke operators and how they act on cohomology.
Then we focus on one particular cohomology group, namely the top
degree , where and
has finite index in . This is the setting that
generalizes the modular symbols method from Chapter *General Modular Symbols*.
We conclude by giving examples of Hecke eigenclasses in the cuspidal
cohomology of .

Let . The group has finite index in both and . The element determines a diagram

called a *Hecke correspondence*. The map is induced by the
inclusion , while is induced by the
inclusion followed by the
diffeomorphism given by left multiplication by . Specifically,

The maps and are finite-to-one, since the indices and are finite. This implies that we obtain maps on cohomology

Here the map is the usual induced map on cohomology, while the “wrong-way” map [8] is given by summing a class over the finite fibers of . These maps can be composed to give a map

This is called the *Hecke operator* associated to . There is
an obvious notion of isomorphism of Hecke correspondences. One can
show that up to isomorphism, the correspondence and thus the
Hecke operator depend only on the double coset . One can compose Hecke correspondences, and thus we obtain
an algebra of operators acting on the cohomology, just as in the
classical case.

Example A.17

Let , and let . If we take , where is a prime, then the action of on is the same as the action of the classical Hecke operator on the weight holomorphic modular forms. If we take , we obtain an operator for all prime to , and the algebra of Hecke operators coincides with the (semisimple) Hecke algebra generated by the , . For , one can also describe the operators in this language.

Example A.18

Now let and let . The picture is very similar, except that now there are several Hecke operators attached to any prime . In fact there are operators , . The operator is associated to the correspondence , where and where occurs times. If we consider the congruence subgroups , we have operators for and analogues of the operators for .

Just as in the classical case, any double coset can be written as a disjoint union of left cosets

for a certain finite set of integral matrices .
For the operator , the set can be taken to be all
upper-triangular matrices of the form [**Kri90**, Proposition 7.2]

where

- and exactly of the are equal to and
- unless and , in which case satisfies .

Remark A.19

The number of coset representatives for the operator is the
same as the number of points in the finite Grassmannian . A similar phenomenon is true for the Hecke operators for
any group , although there are some subtleties [**Gro98**].

Recall that in Section *A.3.6* we constructed the Voronoi
decomposition and the well-rounded retract and that we can
use them to compute the cohomology .
Unfortunately, we cannot directly use them to compute the action of the
Hecke operators on cohomology, since the Hecke operators do not act
cellularly on or . The problem is that the Hecke image of a
cell in (or ) is usually not a union of cells in (or
). This is already apparent for . The edges of are the
-translates of the ideal geodesic from to
(Example *Example A.15*). Applying a Hecke operator takes such an
edge to a union of ideal geodesics, each with vertices at a pair of
cusps. In general such geodesics are not an -translate
of .

For , one solution is to work with all possible ideal geodesics
with vertices at the cusps, in other words the space of modular
symbols from Section *Modular Symbols*. Manin’s trick (Proposition
*Proposition 3.11*) shows how to write any modular symbol as a
linear combination of unimodular symbols, by which we mean modular
symbols supported on the edges of . These are the ideas we now
generalize to all .

Definition A.20

Let be the -vector space spanned by the symbols , where , modulo the following relations:

If is a permutation on letters, then

where is the sign of .

If , then

If the points are linearly dependent, then .

Let be the subspace generated by linear combinations of the form

(14)

where and where means to omit .

We call the space of *modular symbols*. We caution the
reader that there are some differences in what we call modular symbols
and those found in Section *Modular Symbols* and Definition
*Definition 1.23*; we compare them in
Section *A.4.4*. The group acts on by
left multiplication: . This
action preserves the subspace and thus induces an action on the
quotient . For a finite
index subgroup, let be the space of -coinvariants
in . In other words, is the quotient of by the
subspace generated by .

The relationship between modular symbols and the cohomology of
is given by the following theorem, first proved for
by Ash and Rudolph [**AR79**] and by Ash for general
[**Ash86**]:

Theorem A.21

Let be a finite index subgroup. There is an isomorphism

(15)

where acts trivially on and where .

We remark that *Theorem A.21* remains true if is
replaced with nontrivial coefficients as in Section *A.2.7*.
Moreover, if is assumed to be torsion-free then we can
replace with .

The great virtue of is that it admits an action of the Hecke operators. Given a Hecke operator , write the double coset as a disjoint union of left cosets

(16)

as in *Example A.18*.
Any class in can be lifted to a representative , where
and almost all vanish.
Then we define

(17)

and extend to by linearity. The right side of (17) depends on the choices of and , but after taking quotients and coinvariants, we obtain a well-defined action on cohomology via (15).

The space is closely related to the space from
Section *Modular Symbols* and Section *Modular Symbols*. Indeed, was
defined to be the quotient , where is
the free abelian group generated by ordered pairs

(18)

and is the subgroup generated by elements of the form

(19)

The only new feature in Definition *Definition A.20* is item
(?). For this corresponds to the condition , which follows from (19).
We have

Hence there are two differences between and : our
notion of modular symbols uses rational coefficients instead of
integral coefficients and is the space of symbols *before*
dividing out by the subspace of relations ; we further caution the
reader that this is somewhat at
odds with the literature.

We also remark that the general arbitrary weight definition of modular
symbols for a subgroup given in
Section *Modular Symbols* also includes taking -coinvariants, as
well as extra data for a coefficient system. We have not included the
latter data since our emphasis is trivial coefficients, although it
would be easy to do so in the spirit of Section *Modular Symbols*.

Elements of also have a geometric interpretation: the symbol
corresponds to the ideal geodesic in with
endpoints at the cusps and . We have a similar
picture for the symbols . We can assume
that each is primitive, which means that each
determines a vertex of the Voronoi polyhedron . The rational cone
generated by these vertices determines a subset , where is the linear model of the symmetric space from Section *A.3.2*. This subset is
then an “ideal simplex” in . There is also a connection between
and torus orbits in ; we refer to [**Ash86**]
for a related discussion.

Now we need a generalization of the Manin trick
(Section *Computing with Modular Symbols*). This is known in the literature as the
*modular symbols algorithm*.

We can define a kind of norm function on as follows. Let be a modular symbol. For each , choose such that is primitive. Then we define

Note that is well defined, since the are unique up to sign, and permuting the only changes the determinant by a sign. We extend to all of by taking the maximum of over the support of any : if , where and almost all vanish, then we put

We say a modular symbol is *unimodular* if
. It is clear that the images of the unimodular symbols generate
a finite-dimensional subspace of . The next theorem shows
that this subspace is actually *all* of .

Theorem A.22

The space is spanned by the images of the unimodular symbols. More precisely, given any symbol with ,

in we may write

(20)

where if , then , and

the number of terms on the right side of (20) is bounded by a polynomial in that depends only on the dimension .

Proof

(Sketch)
Given a modular symbol , we may assume
that the points are primitive. We will show that if
, we can find a point such that when we apply the
relation (14) using the points , all
terms other than have norm less than . We call such
a point a *reducing point* for .

Let be the open parallelotope

Then is an -dimensional centrally symmetric convex body with
volume . By Minkowski’s theorem from the geometry of numbers
(cf. [**FT93**, IV.2.6]), contains a nonzero point
.
Using (14), we find

(21)

where is the symbol

Moreover, it is easy to see that the new symbols satisfy

(22)

This completes the proof of the first statement.

To prove the second statement, we must estimate how many times relations of the form (21) need to be applied to obtain (20). A nonunimodular symbol produces at most new modular symbols after (21) is performed; we potentially have to apply (21) again to each of the symbols that result, which in turn could produce as many as new symbols for each. Hence we can visualize the process of constructing (20) as building a rooted tree, where the root is , the leaves are the symbols , and where each node has at most children. It is not hard to see that the bound (22) implies that the depth of this tree (i.e., the longest length of a path from the root to a leaf) is . From this the second statement follows easily.

Statement (1) of *Theorem A.22* is due to Ash and Rudolph
[**AR79**]. Instead of , they used the larger
parallelotope defined by

which has volume . The observation that can be
replaced by and the proof of (2) are both due to Barvinok
[**Bar94**].

The relationship between *Theorem A.22* and Manin’s
trick should be clear. For , the Manin
symbols correspond exactly to the unimodular symbols mod . So
*Theorem A.22* implies that every modular symbol (in the
language of Section *Modular Symbols*) is a linear combination of Manin
symbols. This is exactly the conclusion of Proposition
*Proposition 1.24*.

In higher rank the relationship between Manin symbols and unimodular symbols is more subtle. In fact there are two possible notions of “Manin symbol,” which agree for but not in general. One possibility is the obvious one: a Manin symbol is a unimodular symbol.

The other possibility is to define a Manin symbol to be a modular
symbol corresponding to a top-dimensional cell of the retract .
But for , such modular symbols need not be unimodular. In
particular, for there are two equivalence classes of
top-dimensional cells. One class corresponds to the unimodular
symbols, the other to a set of modular symbols of norm . However,
Theorems *Theorem A.21* and *Theorem A.22* show that
is spanned by unimodular symbols. Thus as far
as this cohomology group is concerned, the second class of symbols is
in some sense unnecessary.

We return to the setting of Section *A.3.8* and give
examples of Hecke eigenclasses in the cusp cohomology of . We closely follow
[**AGG84**, **vGvdKTV97**].
Note that since the top of the cuspidal range for
is the same
as the virtual cohomological dimension , we can use modular
symbols to compute the Hecke action on cuspidal classes.

Given a prime coprime to , there are two Hecke operators of
interest and . We can compute the action of these
operators on as follows. Recall
that can be identified with a
certain space of functions
(*Theorem A.16*). Given , let be a matrix such that under the
identification . Then determines a unimodular symbol
by taking the to be the columns of . Given any Hecke
operator , we can find coset representatives such that
(explicit representatives
for and are given in
[**AGG84**, **vGvdKTV97**]). The modular symbols are no
longer unimodular in general, but we can apply Theorem
*Theorem A.22* to write

Then for as in Theorem
*Theorem A.16*, we have

where is the class of in .

Now let be a simultaneous eigenclass for all the Hecke operators , , as ranges over all primes coprime with . General considerations from the theory of automorphic forms imply that the eigenvalues , are complex conjugates of one other. Hence it suffices to compute . We give two examples of cuspidal eigenclasses for two different prime levels.

Example A.23

Let . Then is -dimensional. Let . One eigenclass is given by the data

and the other is obtained by complex conjugation.

Example A.24

Let . Then is -dimensional. Let . One eigenclass is given by the data

and the other is obtained by complex conjugation.

In Section *A.4 Hecke Operators and Modular Symbols* we saw how to compute the Hecke action on
the top cohomology group . Unfortunately for
, this cohomology group does not contain any cuspidal
cohomology. The first case is ; we have
, and the cusp cohomology lives in degrees and
. One can show that the cusp cohomology in degree is dual to
that in degree , so for computational purposes it suffices to be
able to compute the Hecke action on . But
modular symbols do not help us here.

In this section we describe a technique to compute the Hecke action on
, following [**Gun00a**]. The
technique is an extension of the modular symbol algorithm to these
cohomology groups. In principle the ideas in this section can be
modified to compute the Hecke action on other cohomology groups
, , although this has not been
investigated [9]. For , we have
applied the algorithm in joint work with Ash and McConnell to
investigate computationally the cohomology ,
where [**AGM02**].

To begin, we need an analogue of *Theorem A.21* for
lower degree cohomology groups. In other words, we need a
generalization of the modular symbols for other cohomology groups.
This is achieved by the *sharbly complex* :

Definition A.25

Let be the chain complex given by the following data:

For , is the -vector space generated by the symbols , where , modulo the relations:

If is a permutation on letters, then

where is the sign of .

If , then

- If the rank of the matrix is less than , then .

For , the boundary map is

We define to be identically zero on .

The elements

are called
*-sharblies* [10]. The -sharblies
are exactly the modular symbols from Definition
*Definition A.20*, and the subspace is the
image of the boundary map .

There is an obvious left action of on commuting with . For any , let be the space of -coinvariants. Since the boundary map commutes with the -action, we obtain a complex . The following theorem shows that this complex computes the cohomology of :

Theorem A.26

There is a natural isomorphism

We can extend our norm function from modular symbols to all of as follows. Let be a -sharbly, and let be the set of all submodular symbols determined by . In other words, consists of the modular symbols of the form , where ranges over all -fold subsets of . Define by

Note that is well defined modulo the relations in
Definition *Definition A.25*. As for modular symbols, we extend
the norm to sharbly chains taking the maximum
norm over the support. Formally, we let and , and then we define by

We say that is *reduced* if . Hence
is reduced if and only if all its submodular symbols are unimodular or
have determinant . Clearly there are only finitely many reduced
-sharblies modulo for any .

In general the cohomology groups are *not*
spanned by reduced sharblies. However, it is known (cf. [**McC91**])
that for , the group is spanned by reduced -sharbly cycles. The best one can say
in general is that for each pair , there is an integer such that for , is spanned by -sharblies of norm . This set
of sharblies is also finite modulo , although it is not known
how large must be for any given pair .

Recall that the cells of the well-rounded retract are indexed by sets of primitive vectors in . Since any primitive vector determines a point in and since sets of such points index sharblies, it is clear that there is a close relationship between and the chain complex associated to , although of course is much bigger. In any case, both complexes compute .

The main benefit of using the sharbly complex to compute cohomology is that it admits a Hecke action. Suppose is a sharbly cycle mod , and consider a Hecke operator . Then we have

(23)

where is a set of coset representatives as in (16). Since in general, the Hecke image of a reduced sharbly is not usually reduced.

We are now ready to describe our algorithm for the computation of the Hecke operators on . It suffices to describe an algorithm that takes as input a -sharbly cycle and produces as output a cycle with

- the classes of and in the same, and
- if .

Below, we will present an algorithm satisfying (a). In
[**Gun00a**], we conjectured (and presented evidence) that the
algorithm satisfies (b) for . Further evidence is provided
by the computations in [**AGM02**], which relied on the
algorithm to compute the Hecke action on , where
.

The idea behind the algorithm is simple: given a -sharbly cycle
that is not reduced, (i) simultaneously apply the modular symbol
algorithm (*Theorem A.22*) to each of its submodular
symbols, and then (ii) package the resulting data into a new -sharbly
cycle. Our experience in presenting this algorithm is that most
people find the geometry involved in (ii) daunting. Hence we will
give details only for and will provide a sketch for .
Full details are contained in [**Gun00a**]. Note that is
topologically and arithmetically uninteresting, since we are computing
the Hecke action on ; nevertheless, the geometry
faithfully represents the situation for all .

Fix , let be a -sharbly cycle mod for some , and suppose is not reduced. Assume is torsion-free to simplify the presentation.

Suppose first that all submodular symbols are nonunimodular. Select reducing points for each and make these choices -equivariantly. This means the following. Suppose and and are modular symbols such that for some . Then we select reducing points for and for such that . (Note that since is torsion-free, no modular symbol can be identified to itself by an element of ; hence .) This is possible since if is a modular symbol and is a reducing point for , then is a reducing point for for any . Because there are only finitely many -orbits in , we can choose reducing points -equivariantly by selecting them for some set of orbit representatives.

It is important to note that -equivariance is the only global criterion we use when selecting reducing. In particular, there is a priori no relationship among the three reducing points chosen for any .

Now we want to use the reducing points and the -sharblies in to build . Choose , and denote the reducing point for by , where . We use the and the to build a -sharbly chain as follows.

Let be an octahedron in . Label the vertices of with
the and such that the vertex labeled is
opposite the vertex labeled (*Figure A.6*).
Subdivide into four tetrahedra by connecting two opposite
vertices, say and , with an edge
(*Figure A.7*).
For each tetrahedron , take the labels of four vertices and arrange
them into a quadruple. If we orient , then we can use the induced
orientation on to order the four primitive points. In this way,
each determines a -sharbly, and is defined to be
the sum. For example, if we use the decomposition in
*Figure A.7*, we have

(24)

Repeat this construction for all , and let . Finally, let .

Figure A.6

Figure A.7

By construction, is a cycle mod in the same class as . We claim in addition that no submodular symbol from appears in . To see this, consider . From (24), we have

Note that this is the boundary in , not in . Furthermore, is independent of which pair of opposite vertices of we connected to build .

From (?), we see that in the -sharbly is canceled by . We also claim that -sharblies in (?) of the form vanish in .

To see this, let , and suppose equals
for some . Since
the reducing points were chosen -equivariantly, we have
. This means that the -sharbly will be canceled mod by
. Hence, in passing
from to , the effect in is to replace
with *four* -sharblies in :

(25)

Note that in (25), there are no -sharblies of the form .

Remark A.27

For implementation purposes, it is not necessary to explicitly construct . Rather, one may work directly with (25).

Why do we expect to satisfy ? First of all, in the right hand side of (25) there are no submodular symbols of the form . In fact, any submodular symbol involving a point also includes a reducing point for .

On the other hand, consider the submodular symbols in (25) of the form . Since there is no relationship among the , one has no reason to believe that these modular symbols are closer to unimodularity than those in . Indeed, for certain choices of reducing points it can happen that .

The upshot is that some care must be taken in choosing reducing
points. In [**Gun00a**, Conjectures 3.5 and 3.6] we describe
two methods for finding reducing points for modular symbols, one using
Voronoi reduction and one using LLL-reduction. Our experience is that
if one selects reducing points using either of these conjectures,
then for each of the new modular symbols
. In fact, in practice these symbols are trivial or
satisfy .

In the previous discussion we assumed that no submodular symbols of any were unimodular. Now we say what to do if some are. There are three cases to consider.

First, all submodular symbols of may be unimodular. In this case there are no reducing points, and (25) becomes

(26)

Second, one submodular symbol of may be nonunimodular, say the
symbol . In this case, to build , we use a
tetrahedron
and put
(*Figure A.8*). Since vanishes
in the boundary of mod , (25) becomes

(27)

Figure A.8

Finally, two submodular symbols of may be nonunimodular, say
and . In this case we use the cone on
a square (*Figure A.9*). To construct , we must choose a decomposition of into tetrahedra.
Since has a nonsimplicial face, this choice affects (in
contrast to the previous cases). If we subdivide by connecting
the vertex labelled with the vertex labelled , we
obtain

(28)

Figure A.9

Now consider general . The basic technique is the same, but the combinatorics become more complicated. Suppose satisfies in a -sharbly cycle , and for let be the submodular symbol . Assume that all are nonunimodular, and for each let be a reducing point for .

For any subset , let be the
-sharbly , where if ,
and otherwise. The polytope used to build is the *cross polytope*, which is the higher-dimensional
analogue of the octahedron [**Gun00a**, Section 4.4]. We suppress the
details and give the final answer:
(25) becomes

(29)

where the sum is taken over all subsets
of cardinality *at least `2`*.

More generally, if some happen to be unimodular, then the polytope used to build is an iterated cone on a lower-dimensional cross polytope. This is already visible for :

- The 2-dimensional cross polytope is a square, and the polytope is a cone on a square.
- The 1-dimensional cross polytope is an interval, and the polytope is a double cone on an interval.

Now we describe how these computations are carried out in practice,
focusing on and . Besides discussing technical details,
we also have to slightly modify some aspects of the construction in
Section *A.5.6*, since is not torsion-free.

Let be the well-rounded retract. We can represent a cohomology class as , where denotes a codimension cell in . In this case there are three types of codimension cells in . Under the bijection , these cells correspond to the Voronoi cells indexed by the columns of the matrices

(30)

Thus each in modulo corresponds to an -translate of one of the matrices in (30). These translates determine basis -sharblies (by taking the points to be the columns), and hence we can represent by a 1-sharbly chain that is a cycle in the complex of coinvariants .

To make later computations more efficient, we precompute more data
attached to . Given a -sharbly , a *lift* of is defined to be an
integral matrix with primitive columns such that . Then we encode , once and for all, by
a finite collection of -tuples

where

- ranges over the support of ,
- is the coefficient of in ,
- is the set of submodular symbols appearing in the boundary of , and
- is a set of lifts for .

Moreover, the lifts in *(4)* are chosen to satisfy the
following -equivariance condition. Suppose that for
we have
and satisfying
for some . Then we require . This is possible since is a cycle modulo
, although there is one complication since has torsion:
it can happen that some submodular symbol
of a -sharbly is identified to *itself* by an
element of .
This means that in constructing for , we must somehow choose more than one lift for .
To deal with this, let be any lift of , and let be
the stabilizer of . Then in , we replace by

where has the same data as , except [11] that we give the lift .

Next we compute and store the 1-sharbly transformation laws generalizing (26)–(28). As a part of this we fix triangulations of certain cross polytopes as in (28).

We are now ready to begin the actual reduction algorithm. We take a Hecke operator and build the coset representatives as in (23). For each and each -sharbly in the support of , we obtain a non-reduced -sharbly . Here acts on all the data attached to in the list . In particular, we replace each lift with , where the dot means matrix multiplication.

Now we check the submodular symbols of and choose reducing points for the nonunimodular symbols. This is where the lifts come in handy. Recall that reduction points must be chosen -equivariantly over the entire cycle. Instead of explicitly keeping track of the identifications between modular symbols, we do the following trick:

- Construct the
*Hermite normal form*of the lift (see [**Coh93**, Section 2.4] and*Exercise 7.5*). Record the transformation matrix such that . - Choose a reducing point for .

3. Then the reducing point for is .
This guarantees -equivariance: if , are submodular
symbols of with and with reducing
points , we have . The reason is that the
Hermite normal form is a *uniquely determined*
representative of the -orbit of
[**Coh93**]. Hence if , then .

After computing all reducing points, we apply the appropriate transformation law. The result will be a chain of -sharblies, each of which has (conjecturally) smaller norm than the original -sharbly . We output these -sharblies if they are reduced; otherwise they are fed into the reduction algorithm again. Eventually we obtain a reduced -sharbly cycle homologous to the original cycle .

The final step of the algorithm is to rewrite as a cocycle on
. This is easy to do since the relevant cells of are in
bijection with the reduced -sharblies. There are some nuisances in
keeping orientations straight, but the computation is not difficult.
We refer to [**AGM02**] for details.

We now give some examples, taken from [**AGM02**], of Hecke
eigenclasses in for various levels
.
Instead of giving a table of eigenvalues, we give the *Hecke polynomials*.
If is an eigenclass with
, then we define

For almost all , after putting where is a complex variable, the function is the inverse of the local factor at of the automorphic representation attached to .

Example A.28

Suppose . Then the cohomology is 2-dimensional. There are two Hecke eigenclasses , each with rational Hecke eigenvalues.

Example A.29

Suppose . Then the cohomology is 3-dimensional. There are three Hecke eigenclasses , each with rational Hecke eigenvalues.

In these examples, the cohomology is completely accounted for by the Eisenstein summand of (8). In fact, let be the usual Hecke congruence subgroup of matrices upper-triangular modulo . Then the cohomology classes above actually come from classes in , that is from holomorphic modular forms of level .

For , the space of weight two cusp forms is 1-dimensional. This cusp form lifts in two different ways to , which can be seen from the quadratic part of the Hecke polynomials for the . Indeed, for the quadratic part is exactly the inverse of the local factor for the -function attached to , after the substitution . For , we see that the lift is also twisted by the square of the cyclotomic character. (In fact the linear terms of the Hecke polynomials come from powers of the cyclotomic character.)

For , the space of weight two cusp forms is again
1-dimensional. The classes and are lifts of this
form, exactly as for . The class , on the other hand,
comes from , the space of weight cusp forms on
. In fact, , with one Hecke
eigenform defined over and another defined over a totally real
cubic extension of . Only the rational weight four eigenform
contributes to . One can show that
whether or not a weight four cuspidal eigenform contributes to the
cohomology of depends only on the sign of the
functional equation of [**Wes**]. This phenomenon
is typical of what one encounters when studying Eisenstein cohomology.

In addition to the lifts of weight 2 and weight 4 cusp forms, for
other levels one finds lifts of Eisenstein series of weights 2 and 4
and lifts of cuspidal cohomology classes from subgroups of . For some levels one finds cuspidal classes that appear to be
lifts from the group of symplectic similitudes . More
details can be found in [**AGM02**, **AGM**].

Here are some notes on the reduction algorithm and its implementation:

Some additional care must be taken when selecting reducing points for the submodular symbols of . In particular, in practice one should choose for such that is minimized. Similar remarks apply when choosing a subdivision of the crosspolytopes in Section

*A.5.10*.In practice, the reduction algorithm has

*always*terminated with a reduced -sharbly cycle homologous to . However, at the moment we cannot prove that this will always happen.Experimentally, the efficiency of the reduction step appears to be comparable to that of

*Theorem A.22*. In other words the depth of the “reduction tree” associated to a given -sharbly seems to be bounded by a polynomial in . Hence computing the Hecke action using this algorithm is extremely efficient.On the other hand, computing Hecke operators on is still a much bigger computation—relative to the level—than on and . For example, the size of the full retract modulo is roughly , which grows rapidly with . The portion of the retract corresponding to is much smaller, around , but this still grows quite quickly. This makes computing with out of reach at the moment.

The number of Hecke cosets grows rapidly as well, e.g., the number of coset representatives of is . Hence it is only feasible to compute Hecke operators for small ; for large levels only is possible.

Here are some numbers to give an idea of the size of these computations. For level , the rank of is 20. There are 39504 cells of codimension and 4128 top-dimensional cells in modulo . The computational techniques in [

**AGM02**] used at this level (a Lanczos scheme over a large finite field) tend to produce sharbly cycles supported on almost all the cells. Computing requires a reduction tree of depth and produces as many as 26 reduced -sharblies for each of the 15 nonreduced Hecke images. Thus one cycle produces a cycle supported on as many as 15406560 -sharblies, all of which must be converted to an appropriate cell of modulo . Also this is just what needs to be done for*one*cycle; do not forget that the rank of is 20.In practice the numbers are slightly better, since the reduction step produces fewer -sharblies on average and since the support of the initial cycle has size less than . Nevertheless the orders of magnitude are correct.

Using lifts is a convenient way to encode the global -identifications in the cycle , since it means we do not have to maintain a big data structure keeping track of the identifications on . However, there is a certain expense in computing the Hermite normal form. This is balanced by the benefit that working with the data associated to allows us to reduce the supporting -sharblies

*independently*. This means we can cheaply parallelize our computation: each -sharbly, encoded as a -tuple , can be handled by a separate computer. The results of all these individual computations can then be collated at the end, when producing a -cocycle.

We conclude this appendix by giving some complements and describing some possible directions for future work, both theoretical and computational. Since a full explanation of the material in this section would involve many more pages, we will be brief and will provide many references.

Since Voronoi’s pioneering work [**Vor08**], it has been the goal of
many to extend his results from to a general algebraic number
field . Recently Coulangeon [**Cou01**], building on work of Icaza
and Baeza [**Ica97**, **BI97**], has found a good notion of
*perfection* for quadratic forms over number
fields [12]. One of the key ideas in [**Cou01**] is that the correct
notion of equivalence between Humbert forms involves not only the
action of , where is the ring of integers
of , but also the action of a certain continuous group related
to the units . One of Coulangeon’s basic results
is that there are finitely many equivalence classes of perfect Humbert
forms modulo these actions.

On the other hand, Ash’s original construction of retracts
[**Ash77**] introduces a geometric notion of perfection. Namely he
generalizes the Voronoi polyhedron and defines a quadratic form to
be perfect if it naturally indexes a facet of . What is the
connection between these two notions? Can one use Coulangeon’s
results to construct cell complexes to be used in cohomology
computations? One tempting possibility is to try to use the group
to collapse the Voronoi cells of [**Ash77**] into a
cell decomposition of the symmetric space associated to .

In his study of multiple -values, Goncharov has recently defined
the *modular complex* [**Gon97**, **Gon98**]. This is an
-step complex of -modules closely related both to the
properties of multiple polylogarithms evaluated at , the
roots of unity, and to the action of on , the
pro- completion of the algebraic fundamental group of
.

Remarkably, the modular complex is very closely related to the Voronoi decomposition . In fact, one can succinctly describe the modular complex by saying that it is the chain complex of the cells coming from the top-dimensional Voronoi cone of type . This is all of the Voronoi decomposition for , and Goncharov showed that the modular complex is quasi-isomorphic to the full Voronoi complex for . Hence there is a precise relationship among multiple polylogarithms, the Galois action on , and the cohomology of level congruence subgroups of .

The question then arises, how much of the cohomology of congruence
subgroups is captured by the modular complex for all ?
*Table A.2* indicates that asymptotically very little of the Voronoi
decomposition comes from the cone, but this says nothing about
the cohomology. The first interesting case to consider is .

The most general construction of retracts known [**Ash84**]
applies only to *linear* symmetric spaces.index{linear symmetric spaces}
The most familiar
example of such a space is ; other examples are
the symmetric spaces associated to over number fields and
division algebras.

Now let be an arithmetic group, and let be the associated symmetric space. What can one say about cell
complexes that can be used to compute ? The
theorem of Borel–Serre mentioned in Section *A.3.3* implies the
vanishing of for , where
is the *-rank* of . For example, for the split
form of , the -rank is . For the split symplectic
group , the -rank is . Moreover, this bound is
sharp: there will be coefficient modules for which . Hence any minimal cell complex used to compute the
cohomology of should have dimension .

Ideally one would like to see such a complex realized as a subspace of and would like to be able to treat all finite index subgroups of simultaneously. This leads to the following question: is there a -equivariant deformation retraction of onto a regular cell complex of dimension ?

For , McConnell and MacPherson showed that the answer is
yes. Their construction begins by realizing the symplectic symmetric
space as a subspace of the special linear symmetric space
. They then construct subsets of by intersecting
the Voronoi cells in with . Through explicit
computations in coordinates they prove that these intersections are
cells and give a cell decomposition of . By taking an
appropriate dual complex (as suggested by *Figure A.2* and
*Figure A.3* and as done in [**Ash77**]), they construct the
desired cell complex .

Other progress has been recently made by Bullock [**Bul00**],
Bullock and Connell [**BC06**], and Yasaki
[**Yas05b**, **Yas05a**] in the case of groups of -rank 1. In particular, Yasaki
uses the *tilings* of Saper [**Sap97**] to construct an explicit
retract for the unitary group over the Gaussian integers.
His method also works for Hilbert modular groups, although further
refinement may be needed to produce a regular cell complex. Can one
generalize these techniques to construct retracts for groups of
arbitrary -rank? Is there an analogue of the Voronoi decomposition
for these retracts (i.e., a dual cell decomposition of the symmetric
space)? If so, can one generalize ideas in
Sections *A.4 Hecke Operators and Modular Symbols* – *A.5 Other Cohomology Groups* and use
that generalization to compute the
action of the Hecke operators on the cohomology?

The algorithm in Section *A.5 Other Cohomology Groups* can be used
to compute the Hecke action on
. For , this group no longer contains
cuspidal cohomology classes. Can one generalize this algorithm to
compute the Hecke action on deeper cohomology groups? The first
practical case is . Here , and the highest degree in
which cuspidal cohomology can live is . This case is also
interesting since the cohomology of full level has been studied
[**EVGS02**].

Here are some indications of what one can expect. The general
strategy is the same: for a -sharbly representing a
class in , begin by -equivariantly
choosing reducing points for the nonunimodular submodular symbols of
. This data can be packaged into a new -sharbly cycle as in
Section *A.5.7*, but the crosspolytopes must be replaced
with *hypersimplices*. By definition, the hypersimplex is the convex hull in of the points , where ranges over all order subsets of and denotes the standard
basis of .

The simplest example is , . From the point of view of cohomology, this is even less interesting than , , since now we are computing the Hecke action on ! Nevertheless, the geometry here illustrates what one can expect in general.

Each -sharbly in the support of can be written as
and determines six submodular symbols, of
the form , . Assume for simplicity that all these
submodular symbols are nonunimodular. Let be the reducing
point for . Then use the ten points to
label the vertices of the hypersimplex as in
*Figure A.10* (note that is -dimensional).

Figure A.10

The boundary of this hypersimplex gives the analogue of (25). Which -sharblies will appear in ? The boundary is a union of five tetrahedra and five octahedra. The outer tetrahedron will not appear in , since that is the analogue of the left side of (25). The four octahedra sharing a triangular face with the outer tetrahedron also will not appear, since they disappear when considering modulo . The remaining four tetrahedra and the central octahedron survive to and constitute the right side of the analogue of (25). Note that we must choose a simplicial subdivision of the central octahedron to write the result as a -sharbly cycle and that this must be done with care since it introduces a new submodular symbol.

If some submodular symbols are unimodular, then again one must
consider iterated cones on hypersimplices, just as in
Section *A.5.10*. The analogues of these steps become more
complicated, since there are now many simplicial subdivisions of a
hypersimplex [13]. There is
one final complication: in general we cannot use reduced -sharblies
alone to represent cohomology classes. Thus one must terminate the
algorithm when is less than some predetermined bound.

Let be a number field, and let
(*Example A.2*). Let be an
arithmetic subgroup. Can one compute the action of the
Hecke operators on ?

There are two completely different approaches to this problem. The
first involves the generalization of the modular symbols method. One
can define the analogue of the sharbly complex, and can try to extend
the techniques of Sections *A.4 Hecke Operators and Modular Symbols*–*A.5 Other Cohomology Groups*.

This technique has been extensively used when
is *imaginary quadratic* and . We have , which is isomorphic to -dimensional hyperbolic
space . The arithmetic groups are known as *Bianchi groups*. The retracts and
cohomology of these groups have been well studied; as a representative
sample of works we mention
[**Men79**, **EGM98**, **Vog85**, **GS81**].

Such groups have -rank 1 and thus have cohomological dimension
. One can show that the cuspidal classes live in degrees and
. This means that we can use modular symbols to investigate the
Hecke action on cuspidal cohomology. This was done by Cremona
[**Cre84**] for *euclidean* fields . In that case Theorem
*Theorem A.22* works with no trouble (the euclidean algorithm is
needed to construct reducing points). For noneuclidean fields
further work has been done by Whitley [**Whi90**], Cremona and Whitely
[**Cre97c**] (both for principal ideal domains), Bygott
[**Byg99**] (for and any field with class group
an elementary abelian -group), and Lingham [**Lin05**] (any
field with odd class number). Putting all these ideas together allows
one to generalize the modular symbols method to *any* imaginary
quadratic field [**Cre**].

For imaginary quadratic and , very little has been studied.
The only related work to the best of our knowledge is that of
Staffeldt [**Sta79**]. He determined the structure of the Voronoi
polyhedron in detail for , where . We have and . The cuspidal
cohomology appears in degrees , so one could try to use the
techniques of Section *A.5 Other Cohomology Groups* to investigate it.

Similar remarks apply to *real quadratic* and . The
symmetric space has dimension and the
-rank is 1, which means . Unfortunately the cuspidal
cohomology appears only in degree , which means modular symbols
cannot see it. On the other hand, 1-sharblies can see it, and so one
can try to use ideas in Section *A.5 Other Cohomology Groups* here to compute the Hecke
operators. The data needed to build the retract already
(essentially) appears in the literature for certain fields; see for
example [**Ong86**].

The second approach shifts the emphasis from modular symbols and the
sharbly complex to the Voronoi fan and its cones. For this approach we
must assume that the group is associated to a
*self-adjoint homogeneous cone* over . (cf. [**Ash77**]).
This class of groups includes arithmetic subgroups of , where is a totally real or CM field. Such groups have
all the nice structures in Section *A.3.2*. For example, we have
a cone with a -action. We also have an analogue of the Voronoi
polyhedron . There is a natural compactification of
obtained by adjoining certain self-adjoint homogeneous cones of
lower rank. The quotient is singular in
general, but it can still be used to compute . The
polyhedron can be used to construct a fan that gives a
-equivariant decomposition of all of . But the
most important structure we have is the Voronoi reduction algorithm:
given any point , we can determine the unique Voronoi
cone containing .

Here is how this setup can be used to compute the Hecke action. Full
details are in [**Gun99**, **GM03**]. We define two chain complexes
and . The latter is essentially the chain
complex generated by all simplicial rational polyhedral cones in
; the former is the subcomplex generated by the Voronoi cones.
These are the analogues of the sharbly complex and the chain complex
associated to the retract , and one can show that either can be used
to compute . Take a cycle
representing a cohomology class in and act on it
by a Hecke operator . We have , and we
must push back to .

To do this, we use the linear structure on to subdivide very finely into a chain . For each -cone in , we choose a -cone and assemble them using the combinatorics of into a polyhedral chain homologous to . Under certain conditions involved in the construction of , this chain will lie in .

We illustrate this process for the split group ; more details
can be found in [**Gun99**]. We work modulo homotheties, so that the
three-dimensional cone becomes the extended upper
half plane , with passing to the cusps . As
usual top-dimensional Voronoi cones become the triangles of the Farey
tessellation, and the cones become cusps. Given any
, let be the set of cusps of the unique triangle or
edge containing (this can be computed using the Voronoi reduction
algorithm). Extend to a function on by putting for any cusp .

In , the support of becomes a geodesic between
two cusps , , in other words the support of a modular symbol
(*Figure A.11*). Subdivide by choosing points
such that , , and . (This is easily done, for
example by repeatedly barycentrically subdividing .)
For each choose a
cusp , and put . Then
we have a relation in :

(31)

Moreover, each is unimodular, since and are both vertices of a triangle containing . Upon lifting (31) back to , the cusps become the -cones and give us a relation .

Figure A.11

A subdivision of . Since the lie in the same or adjacent Voronoi cells, we can assign cusps to them to construct a homology to a cycle in

In [**Gun00b**] we generalized *Theorem A.22* (without
the complexity statement) to the symplectic group . Using
this algorithm and the symplectic retract [**MM93**, **MM89**], one can
compute the action of the Hecke operators on the top-degree cohomology
of subgroups of .

More recently, Toth has investigated modular symbols for other groups.
He showed that the unimodular symbols generate the top-degree
cohomology groups for an arithmetic subgroup of a split
classical group or a split group of type or
[**Tot05**]. His technique of proof is completely different from that
of [**Gun00b**]. In particular he does not give an analogue of the
Manin trick. Can one extract an algorithm from Toth’s proof that can
be used to explicitly compute the action of the Hecke operators on
cohomology?

The proof of the main result of [**Gun00b**] uses a description of
the relations among the modular symbols. These relations were
motivated by the structure of the cell complex in [**MM93**, **MM89**].
The modular symbols and these relations are analogues of the groups
and in the sharbly complex. Can one
extend these combinatorial constructions to form a *symplectic sharbly complex*?
What about for general groups ?

Already for , resolution of this question would have immediate
arithmetic applications. Indeed, Harder has a beautiful conjecture
about certain congruences between holomorphic modular forms and Siegel
modular forms of full level [**Hara**]. Examples of these
congruences were checked numerically in [**Hara**] using techniques of
[**FvdG**] to compute the Hecke action.

However, to investigate higher levels, one needs a different technique.
The relevant cohomology classes live in ,
so one only needs to understand the first three terms of the complex
. We understand ,
from [**Gun00b**]; the key is understanding , which
should encode relations among elements of . If one could do
this and then could generalize the techniques of [**Gun00a**],
one would have a way to investigate Harder’s conjecture.

We conclude this appendix by discussing a geometric approach to modular symbols. This complements the algebraic approaches presented in this book and leads to many new interesting phenomena and problems.

Suppose and are connected semisimple algebraic groups over with an injective map . Let be a maximal compact subgroup of , and suppose is a maximal compact subgroup containing . Let and .

Now let be a torsion-free arithmetic
subgroup. Let . We get a map
, and we
denote the image by . Any
compactly supported cohomology class can be pulled back via to and integrated to obtain a complex number. Hence
defines a linear form on . By Poincar’e duality, this linear form
determines a class , called a *generalized modular symbol*.
Such classes have been considered by many authors,
for example
[**AB90**, **SV03**, **Har05**, **AGR93**].

As an example, we can take to be the split form of ,
and we can take to be the inclusion of
connected component of the diagonal subgroup. Hence . In this case is trivial. The image of in
is the ideal geodesic from to . One way to vary is by
taking an -translate of this geodesic, which gives a
geodesic between two cusps. Hence we can obtain the support of any
modular symbol this way. This example generalizes to to
yield the modular symbols in Section *A.4 Hecke Operators and Modular Symbols*. Here . Note that , so the cohomology classes
we have constructed live in the top degree .

Another family of examples is provided by taking to be a Levi
factor of a parabolic subgroup; these are the modular symbols studied
in [**AB90**].

There are many natural questions to study for such objects. Here are two:

Under what conditions on is nonzero? This question is connected to relations between periods of automorphic forms and functoriality lifting. There are a variety of partial results known; see for example [

**SV03**,**AGR93**].We know the usual modular symbols span the top-degree cohomology for any arithmetic group . Fix a class of generalized modular symbols by fixing the pair and fixing some class of maps . How much of the cohomology can one span for a general arithmetic group ?

A simple example is given by the Ash–Borel construction for and a Levi factor of a rational parabolic subgroup of type . In this case and sits inside via

For these symbols define a subspace

Are there for which equals the full cohomology space? For general how much is captured? Is there a nice combinatorial way to write down the relations among these classes? Can one cook up a generalization of Theorem

*Theorem A.22*for these classes and use it to compute Hecke eigenvalues?

Footnotes::

[1] | The classic references for cohomology with local systems are
[Ste99a, Section 31] and [Eil47, Ch. V]. A
more recent exposition (in the language of v Cech cohomology and
locally constant sheaves) can be found in [BT82, II.13].
For an exposition tailored to our needs, see
[Harb, Section 2.9].} |

[2] | However, Maass forms play a very important indirect role in
arithmetic. |

[3] | The symmetric spaces that have a complex structure are known
as bounded domains, or Hermitian symmetric spaces
[Hel01]. |

[4] | This apt phrase is due to Vogan [Vog97]. |

[5] | This is a bit of an oversimplification, since it is a highly
nontrivial problem to decide when cusp cohomology from lower rank
groups appears in . However, many results are known; as a
selection we mention [Har91, Har87, LS04]. |

[6] | Strictly speaking, Voronoi actually showed that every codimension 1 cone is contained in two top-dimensional cones. |

[7] | If has torsion, then cells in can have nontrivial stabilizers in , and thus should be considered as an “orbifold” cellular decomposition. |

[8] | Under the identification
,
the map becomes the transfer map in group cohomology
[Bro94, III.9]. |

[9] | The first interesting case is , for which the cuspidal cohomology lives in . |

[10] | The terminology for is due to Lee Rudolph, in honor
of Lee and Szczarba. They introduced a very similar complex in
[LS76] for . |

[11] | In fact, we can be slightly more clever than this and only introduce denominators that are powers of . |

[12] | Such forms are called Humbert forms in the
literature. |

[13] | Indeed, computing all simplicial subdivisions of is a difficult problem in convex geometry. |