Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Correlations of multiplicative functions with their partial sums

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-05-23 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Under the Riemann hypothesis with simple zeros, the correlations of the Möbius and Liouville functions with their partial sums equal explicit sums over the zeta zeros plus correction terms.

desk verdict Chavez gives explicit formulas expressing the log-averaged correlations of μ with M and of λ with L as sums over zeta zeros, under RH plus simplicity. read the letter →

arxiv 2409.02106 v10 pith:7572FH25 submitted 2024-09-03 math.NT

Gordon Chavez This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NT
keywords MöbiusfunctionLiouvillesummatoryfunctionsRiemannhypothesiszetazerosmultiplicativecorrelationsDirichletseries
topics The Riemann Hypothesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper derives explicit formulas for the logarithmic correlations between the Möbius function μ(n) and its summatory function M(n-1), and between the Liouville function λ(n) and L(n-1). These formulas are written as specific constants involving zeta values at 1/2 or 2, adjusted by a term T to a small power, plus a sum over the imaginary parts γ of the nontrivial zeros up to height T. The derivation uses a normalized weighted average of the products a(n)A(n-1) up to a truncated range. A sympathetic reader would care because the formulas indicate anticorrelation on logarithmic average, which the paper notes would yield effective upper bounds on 1 over the absolute value of zeta prime at each zero.

What carries the argument

The normalized correlation ⟨a(n)A(n-1)⟩(T) defined as 1/zeta(1+δ(T)) times the sum over n ≤ T^{1-c} of a(n)A(n-1)/n^{1+δ(T)}, where δ(T) is O(T^{c-1}), which converts the arithmetic correlation into an explicit sum over zeta zeros.

What would settle it

A direct numerical computation of the correlation ⟨μ(n)M(n-1)⟩(T) for sufficiently large T that deviates from the predicted sum over zeros by more than the size of the correction term.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the Riemann hypothesis and the assumption that all nontrivial zeros ρ = 1/2 + iγ of zeta are simple, the normalized correlation ⟨μ(n)M(n-1)⟩(T) equals −3/π²(1 − T^{(c−1)δ(T)}) plus the sum from 0 < γ < T of 1 over |ρ zeta'(ρ)| squared, while ⟨λ(n)L(n-1)⟩(T) equals 1/2(1/zeta²(1/2) − 1 + T^{(c−1)δ(T)}) plus the sum of |zeta(2ρ)/(ρ zeta'(ρ))| squared, as T tends to infinity with 0 ≤ T^{(c−1)δ(T)} < 1.

Load-bearing premise

The Riemann hypothesis that every nontrivial zero of the zeta function has real part exactly one half, together with the assumption that all such zeros are simple.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The correlations approach fixed constants plus the partial sum over zeros as T grows.
  • The sign of the constant term for the Möbius case is negative, indicating anticorrelation with the partial sums.
  • The sign for the Liouville case is positive after the zeta term, again indicating anticorrelation.
  • Anticorrelation on this average would produce effective upper bounds on 1 over |zeta'(ρ)| at each zero.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Numerical evaluation of the right-hand sides for moderate T could be compared directly to computed correlations to test consistency with the assumed simplicity of zeros.
  • The same normalization technique might be applied to other multiplicative functions whose Dirichlet series are powers or products involving zeta.
  • If the anticorrelation persists in direct computation, it would constrain the possible size of the summatory functions M(n) and L(n) on average.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims explicit asymptotic formulas, under RH and simplicity of all nontrivial zeros ρ=1/2+iγ of ζ(s), for the weighted correlations ⟨μ(n)M(n−1)⟩(T) = −3/π²(1−T^{(c−1)δ(T)}) + ∑_{0<γ<T} 1/|ρ ζ'(ρ)|² and ⟨λ(n)L(n−1)⟩(T) = ½(1/ζ²(1/2)−1 + T^{(c−1)δ(T)}) + ∑_{0<γ<T} |ζ(2ρ)/(ρ ζ'(ρ))|² as T→∞, where the correlation is the normalized smoothed sum (1/ζ(1+δ(T))) ∑_{n≤T^{1−c}} a(n)A(n−1)/n^{1+δ(T)} with 0<c<1 and δ(T)=O(T^{c−1}). The formulas are derived from Dirichlet series and explicit formulae; numerical checks are invoked to suggest anticorrelation and consequent bounds on |1/ζ'(ρ)|.

Significance. If the derivations are correct, the explicit formulas constitute a concrete advance by expressing the correlations directly in terms of zeta zeros, enabling numerical verification and potential effective bounds on |ζ'(ρ)| from observed negativity of the left-hand sides. The conditional statements on RH and simplicity are clearly flagged, and the parameter-free character of the zero sums (once c and δ(T) are fixed) is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2 (main theorems)] Main results (displayed equations in the abstract, stated as theorems in §2): the claimed equality as T→∞ is presented without an explicit error term. The explicit formula for M(x) or L(x) under RH produces a remainder whose contribution to the double sum must be shown to be o(1) (or absorbed) after multiplication by the weight 1/n^{1+δ(T)} and summation up to T^{1−c}; without this estimate the identification with the displayed main term plus zero sum is not justified.
  2. [§1 (definition) and derivation in §3] Definition of the correlation (abstract and §1): the factor 1/ζ(1+δ(T)) is introduced to normalize, yet the paper must verify that this exactly cancels the mean-value contribution arising from the pole at s=1 when the Dirichlet series for a(n)A(n−1) is inserted; otherwise the constant −3/π² (or 1/ζ²(1/2)−1) would acquire an extra multiplicative factor.
minor comments (3)
  1. [abstract and §1] The condition 0 ≤ T^{(c−1)δ(T)} < 1 is stated but not derived from the O(T^{c−1}) bound on δ(T); a short paragraph showing how δ(T) is chosen to satisfy it would improve readability.
  2. [§4 or concluding remarks] Numerical observations supporting anticorrelation are mentioned but no details (range of T, concrete choice of δ(T), truncation of the zero sum) are supplied; adding a brief table or figure caption would make the suggestion verifiable.
  3. [§1] Notation: the angle-bracket correlation ⟨·⟩(T) should be defined once in the introduction before its repeated use; the dependence on c and δ(T) should be made explicit in the notation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading, the positive assessment of the results, and the recommendation of minor revision. We address the two major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2 (main theorems)] Main results (displayed equations in the abstract, stated as theorems in §2): the claimed equality as T→∞ is presented without an explicit error term. The explicit formula for M(x) or L(x) under RH produces a remainder whose contribution to the double sum must be shown to be o(1) (or absorbed) after multiplication by the weight 1/n^{1+δ(T)} and summation up to T^{1−c}; without this estimate the identification with the displayed main term plus zero sum is not justified.

    Authors: We agree that the contribution of the remainder term in the explicit formula for M(x) (resp. L(x)) must be shown to be o(1) after weighting by n^{-1-δ(T)} and summing to T^{1-c}. While §3 derives the main term and zero-sum contributions from the Dirichlet series and explicit formulae, an explicit bound on the remainder was not supplied. In the revised manuscript we will add this estimate, using standard bounds on the remainder in the explicit formula under RH together with the decay of δ(T), to confirm that the error is indeed o(1) as T→∞. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§1 (definition) and derivation in §3] Definition of the correlation (abstract and §1): the factor 1/ζ(1+δ(T)) is introduced to normalize, yet the paper must verify that this exactly cancels the mean-value contribution arising from the pole at s=1 when the Dirichlet series for a(n)A(n−1) is inserted; otherwise the constant −3/π² (or 1/ζ²(1/2)−1) would acquire an extra multiplicative factor.

    Authors: The factor 1/ζ(1+δ(T)) is introduced precisely so that the residue at s=1 of the Dirichlet series for a(n)A(n−1) is canceled, yielding the displayed constants. Nevertheless, the cancellation step in §3 can be made fully explicit. In the revision we will insert a short calculation showing that the pole contribution is exactly offset by the normalizing factor, with no residual multiplicative constant left in the main term. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: derivation applies standard explicit formulae under external RH assumption

full rationale

The paper defines the correlation via a weighted Dirichlet series and, under the external hypotheses of RH plus simple zeros, substitutes the known explicit formula for the summatory functions M(n) and L(n). The resulting sums over γ are direct algebraic consequences of residue calculus at those zeros; they are not obtained by fitting parameters to data, by self-definition, or by any load-bearing self-citation chain. The explicit formula itself is a classical result independent of the present work, and the paper states its claims conditionally on the hypotheses rather than deriving the zero locations from the correlations.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The results rest on the Riemann hypothesis and simplicity of zeros as domain assumptions, plus the choice of smoothing parameters c and δ(T) that are not derived from first principles.

free parameters (2)
  • c
    Arbitrary fixed constant in (0,1) that controls the range of summation.
  • δ(T)
    Smoothing parameter chosen as O(T^{c-1}) to ensure the average converges to the stated limit.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Riemann hypothesis: all nontrivial zeros of ζ(s) satisfy Re(ρ)=1/2
    Invoked to locate the zeros and obtain the explicit formulae for the correlations.
  • domain assumption All nontrivial zeros are simple
    Required for the residue calculations involving 1/ζ'(ρ) to be valid without higher-order terms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlations of multiplicative functions with their partial sums." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7572FH25

@misc{pith2026240902106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlations of multiplicative functions with their partial sums},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7572FH25}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2409.02106}
}
abstract

Let $\zeta(.)$ denote the Riemann zeta function and let $a(.)$ and $A(.)$ respectively denote a multiplicative function and its corresponding summatory function. We consider the correlation $$ \langle a(n)A(n-1) \rangle (T) = \frac{1}{\zeta(1+\delta(T))}\sum_{n\leq T^{1-c}}\frac{a(n)A(n-1)}{n^{1+\delta(T)}} $$ where $0<c<1$ is arbitrary and $0<\delta(T)=O\left(T^{c-1}\right)$ is suitably chosen. Let $\mu(.)$ and $\lambda(.)$ denote the M\"obius function and the Liouville function respectively while $M(.)$ and $L(.)$ denote their corresponding summatory functions. Under the Riemann hypothesis and simplicity of the nontrivial zeros $\rho=1/2+ i \gamma$ of $\zeta(s)$ we show that $$ \langle \mu(n)M(n-1) \rangle (T)= -\frac{3}{\pi^{2}}\left(1-T^{(c-1)\delta(T)}\right)+\sum_{0<\gamma<T}\frac{1}{\left|\rho\zeta'(\rho)\right|^{2}} $$ and $$ \langle \lambda(n)L(n-1) \rangle (T)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\zeta^{2}(1/2)}-1+T^{(c-1)\delta(T)}\right)+\sum_{0<\gamma<T}\left|\frac{\zeta(2\rho)}{\rho\zeta'(\rho)}\right|^{2} $$ as $T\rightarrow \infty$ where $0\leq T^{(c-1)\delta(T)}<1$. These results combined with numerical observations suggest that there is anticorrelation between $\mu(n)$ and $M(n-1)$ as well as between $\lambda(n)$ and $L(n-1)$, where the correlation is computed using a logarithmic average. This would imply effective upper bounds on $\left|1/\zeta'(\rho)\right|$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2409.02106 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plots of (1.21) [Left] and (1.22) [Right] for 1 ≤ N ≤ 107 with horizontal lines (Dashed) at zero. In the right-hand plot there is additionally a line (Dot￾Dashed) at − 3 π2 + P 0<γ≤γn 1 |ρζ′(ρ)| 2 with n = 1, 000, 000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plots of (1.24) [Left] and (1.25) [Right] for 1 ≤ N ≤ 107 with horizontal lines [Dashed] at zero. In the right-hand plot there is additionally a line (Dot￾Dashed) at 1 2  1 ζ 2(1/2) − 1  [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Unimodular Fake Mobius Functions

    math.NT 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For multiplicative functions generated by a fixed sequence of prime-power values, an explicit formula extracts the critical-line contributions of ζ(s)^z ζ(2s)^w and gives a criterion for persistent, apparent, or absent bias.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    & Stark, H.M

    Anderson, R.J. & Stark, H.M. (1981). Oscillation theorems, in Knopp, M.I. Analytic Number Theory: Proceedings of a Conference Held at Temple University, Philadelphia, May 12-15, 1980, in: Lecture Notes in Math. vol. 899, pg. 79-106. Springer

    work page 1981

  2. [2]

    Borwein, P., Ferguson, R., & Mossinghoff, M.J. (2008). Sign changes in sums of the Liouville function. Math. Comp. 77 (263), 1681-1694

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Bourgain, J., Sarnak, P., & Ziegler, T. (2012). Disjointness of Moebius from horocycle flows. In: Farkas, H., Gunning, R., Knopp, M., Taylor, B. (eds) From Fourier Analysis and Number Theory to Radon Transforms and Geometry. Developments in Mathematics, vol 28. Springer, New York, NY

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Bourgain, J. (2013). On the correlation of the Moebius function with rank-one systems. J. d’Analyse Math. 120, 105-130

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Bui, H.M., Gonek, S.M., & Milinovich, M.B. (2015). A hybrid Euler-Hadamard product and moments of ζ ′(ρ). Forum Math. 27 (3), 1799-1828

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Chowla, S. (1965). The Riemann hypothesis and Hilbert’s tenth problem. Mathematics and its Applications, vol

    work page 1965

  7. [7]

    Gordon and Breach Science Publishers

    work page

  8. [8]

    & Tenenbaum, G

    Dartyge, C. & Tenenbaum, G. (2005). Sums of digits of multiples of integers. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 55 (7), 2423-2474

    work page 2005

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Fawaz, A.Y. (1951). The explicit formula for L0(x). Proc. London Math. Soc. 1 (3), 86-103

    1951

  2. [10]

    & Zhao, L

    Gao, P. & Zhao, L. (2023). Lower bounds for negative moments of ζ ′(ρ). Mathematika 69 (4), 1081-1103

    2023

  3. [11]

    Gonek, S.M. (1989). On negative moments of the Riemann zeta function. Mathematika 36, 71-88

    1989

  4. [12]

    & Tao, T

    Green, B. & Tao, T. (2012). The M¨ obius function is strongly orthogonal to nilsequences. Ann. Math. 175 (2), 541-566

    2012

  5. [13]

    Green, B. (2012). On (not) computing the M¨ obius function using bounded depth circuits. Combinatorics, Prob- ability and Computing 21 (6), 942-951

    2012

  6. [14]

    & Wright, E.M

    Hardy, G.H. & Wright, E.M. (1979). An introduction to the theory of numbers (5th ed.), Oxford

    1979

  7. [15]

    Heap, W., Li, J., & Zhao, J. (2022). Lower bounds for discrete negative moments of the Riemann zeta function. Algebra Number Theory 16(7), 1589-1625

    2022

  8. [16]

    Hejhal, D.A. (1987). On the distribution of log |ζ ′(1/2 + it)|, Number theory, trace formulas and discrete groups 343-370, Boston

    1987

  9. [17]

    Hughes, C.P., Keating, J.P., & O’Connell, N. (2000). Random matrix theory and the derivative of the Riemann zeta function. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 456, 2611-2627

    2000

  10. [18]

    Hughes, C.P., Martin, G., & Pearce-Crump, A. (2024). A heuristic for the discrete mean values of the derivatives of the Riemann zeta function. Integers 24

    2024

  11. [19]

    Humphries, P. (2013). The distribution of weighted sums of the Liouville function and P´ olya’s conjecture. J. Number Theory 133, 545-582

    2013

  12. [20]

    Landau, E. (1906). ¨Uber den Zusammenhang einiger neuer S¨ atze der analytischen Zahlentheorie. Wiener Sitzungsberichte, Math. Klasse 115, 589–632

    1906

  13. [21]

    Landau, E. (1924). ¨Uber die M¨ obiussche Funktion. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 48, 277-280

    1924

  14. [22]

    Littlewood, J.E. (1912). Quelques cons´ equences de l’hypoth´ ese qua la fonction ζ(s) n’a pas des z´ eros dans le demiplan Re(s) > 1/2. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 154, 263-266

    1912

  15. [23]

    Littlewood, J.E. (1923). On the function 1 /ζ(1 + ti). Proc. London Math. Soc. 27 (2), 349-357

    1923

  16. [24]

    & Montgomery, H.L

    Maier, H. & Montgomery, H.L. (2009). The sum of the M¨ obius function. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 41 (2), 213-226

    2009

  17. [25]

    Matom¨ aki, K., Radziwill, M., & Tao, T. (2015). An averaged form of Chowla’s conjecture. Algebra Number Theory 9(9), 2167-2196

    2015

  18. [26]

    & Radziwill, M

    Matom¨ aki, K. & Radziwill, M. (2016). Multiplicative functions in short intervals. Ann. Math. 183(3), 1015-1056

    2016

  19. [27]

    & Rivat, J

    Mauduit, C. & Rivat, J. (2010). On a problem posed by Gel’fond: the sum of digits of primes. Ann. Math. 171 (3), 1591-1646

    2010

  20. [28]

    Milinovich, M.B. & Ng, N. (2012). A note on a conjecture of Gonek. Funct. Approx. Comment. Math. 46(2), 177-187

    2012

  21. [29]

    Montgomery, H.L. (1973). The pair correlation of zeros of the zeta function. Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. 24, 181-193. Providence. 22 GORDON CHAVEZ

    1973

  22. [30]

    & Soundararajan, K

    Rudnick, Z. & Soundararajan, K. (2005). Lower bounds for moments of L-functions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102 (19), 6837-6838

    2005

  23. [31]

    Sarnak, P. (2010). Three lectures on the M¨ obius function randomness and dynamics. Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton

    2010

  24. [32]

    & Shusterman, M

    Sawin, W. & Shusterman, M. (2022). On the Chowla and twin primes conjectures over Fq[T ]. Ann. Math. 196(2), 457-506

    2022

  25. [33]

    Soundararajan, K. (2009). Partial sums of the M¨ obius function. J. reine angew. Math. 631, 141-152

    2009

  26. [34]

    Tao, T. (2016). The logarithmically averaged Chowla and Elliott conjuectures for two-point correlations. Forum Math. Pi. 4, e8

    2016

  27. [35]

    & Ter¨ av¨ ainen, J

    Tao, T. & Ter¨ av¨ ainen, J. (2019). The structure of logarithmically averaged correlations of multiplicative func- tions, with applications to the Chowla and Elliott conjectures. Duke Math. J. 168(11), 1977-2027

    2019

  28. [36]

    Titchmarsh, E.C. (1927). A consequence of the Riemann hypothesis. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 2, 247-254

    1927

  29. [37]

    & Heath-Brown, D.R

    Titchmarsh, E.C. & Heath-Brown, D.R. (Ed.) (1986). The Theory of the Riemann zeta-function (2nd ed.), Oxford

    1986

Pith tools

Reviewed May 23, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.