Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2025 Feb 21;12(1):17. doi: 10.1007/s40687-025-00502-0

Residue class biases in unrestricted partitions, partitions into distinct parts, and overpartitions

Michael J Schlosser 1,✉,#, Nian Hong Zhou 2,✉,#
PMCID: PMC11845404  PMID: 39990102

Abstract

We prove specific biases in the number of occurrences of parts belonging to two different residue classes a and b, modulo a fixed nonnegative integer m, for the sets of unrestricted partitions, partitions into distinct parts, and overpartitions. These biases follow from inequalities for residue-weighted partition functions for the respective sets of partitions. We also establish asymptotic formulas for the numbers of partitions of size n that belong to these sets of partitions and have a symmetric residue class bias (i.e., for 1≤a<m/2 and b=m-a), as n tends to infinity.

Keywords: Residue class biases, Unrestricted partitions, Distinct partitions, Overpartitions, Asymptotics

Introduction

Let N and N0 denote the sets of positive and nonnegative integers, respectively. Throughout this paper, we assume q to be a fixed complex number satisfying 0<|q|<1. For any indeterminant a and complex number c, let the q-shifted factorial (cf. [12]) be defined by

(a;q)∞:=∏j≥0(1-aqj),and(a;q)c:=(a;q)∞(aqc;q)∞.

Products of q-shifted factorials are compactly denoted as

(a1,…,am;q)c:=∏1≤j≤m(aj;q)c

for m∈N and c∈C∪{∞}.

A partition λ of a positive integer n (cf. [2]) is a nonincreasing sequence of positive integers (called the parts), λ=(λ1,λ2,…,λl), such that λ1+λ2+⋯+λl=n. The integer l=:ℓ(λ) is called the number of parts of λ. If λ is a partition of n then we write the size of λ as |λ|=n. We also define that ℓ(∅)=|∅|=0 for the empty partition, ∅, of 0. Let P(n) and D(n) denote the sets of all partitions and all partitions with distinct parts (which we shall call “distinct partitions” for short), of n, respectively. Let P=⋃n≥0P(n) and D=⋃n≥0D(n) denote the sets of all partitions and distinct partitions, respectively. Let a,b,m∈N with 1≤a<b≤m. We define ℓa,m(λ) to be the number of parts of λ congruent to a modulo m, and define ℓa,m(λ,μ):=ℓa,m(λ)+ℓa,m(μ) for each pair (λ,μ)∈P×D.

In this paper, we consider the following weighted partition function, defined as

pn(x,y)=∑|λ|+|μ|=n(λ,μ)∈P×Dxℓ(λ)yℓ(μ). 1.1

where x and y are nonnegative real numbers, and n∈N0. It is clear that p(n)=pn(1,0), q(n)=pn(0,1) and p¯(n)=pn(1,1) are the unrestricted (or ordinary) partition function, distinct partition function, and overpartition function, respectively. (Overpartitions were first explicitly considered by Brenti in [6, Section 3] who called them “dotted partitions.” A thorough independent study of these objects, involving bijections, generating functions and connections to Bailey chains, was initiated by Corteel and Lovejoy [8] who gave them the name “overpartitions,” which we follow.) We will focus on the residue-weighted biases partition functions which we define by

pn(a,b,m;x,y):=∑|λ|+|μ|=n(λ,μ)∈P×Dℓa,m(λ,μ)>ℓb,m(λ,μ)xℓ(λ)yℓ(μ). 1.2

From standard arguments of partition theory (cf. [2]), we have the following generating function for the statistics ℓ(λ) on P, ℓ(μ) on D, ℓa,m(λ,μ),ℓb,m(λ,μ) and |λ|+|μ| on P×D:

∑(λ,μ)∈P×Duℓa,m(λ,μ)vℓb,m(λ,μ)xℓ(λ)yℓ(μ)q|λ|+|μ|=(-yq;q)∞(-uyqa,-vyqb,xqa,xqb;qm)∞(xq;q)∞(-yqa,-yqb,uxqa,vxqb;qm)∞. 1.3

Special cases of (1.3) are of interest. The case (x,y)=(1,0), that is

∑λ∈Puℓa,m(λ)vℓb,m(λ)q|λ|=(qa,qb;qm)∞(q;q)∞(uqa,vqb;qm)∞,

was studied by Chern who in [7, Theorem 1.3] proved that

pn(a,b,m;1,0)≥pn(b,a,m;1,0)

holds for all n≥0 and 1≤a<b≤m. Already earlier, Kim–Kim–Lovejoy [17] proved a phenomenon of parity bias for integer partitions, namely: the number of partitions of n (n>0, n≠2) with more odd parts than even parts is greater than the number of partitions of n (n>0, n≠2) with more even parts than odd parts. In our notation, they proved

pn(1,2,2;1,0)≥pn(2,1,2;1,0) 1.4

for all n≥0, where the inequality is strict except for n∈{0,2}. Similar phenomena were shown by Kim–Kim [16] and include the following inequalities:

pn(1,m,m;1,0)≥pn(m,1,m;1,0)andpn(1,m-1,m;1,0)≥pn(m-1,1,m;1,0),

for all integers m≥2 and n≥0.

While the inequality (1.4) of partitions holds for all n≥0, the same inequality holds only from a certain integer on when restricting to the set of distinct partitions. In fact, Kim–Kim–Lovejoy [17] conjectured (in our notation) that

pn(1,2,2;0,1)>pn(2,1,2;0,1)

for all n>19 (only); this has been proved by Banerjee–Bhattacharjee–Dastidar–Mahanta–Saikia [4] by using a combinatorial approach.

In this paper, we are interested in the biases of pn(a,b,m;x,y) in terms of different residue classes a and b of a fixed modulus m. Our main results are the following three Theorems 1.1–1.3.

Theorem 1.1

Let a, b, m be any integers such that 1≤a<b≤m. For any x≥1, y≥0 and n≥0, we have

pn(a,b,m;x,y)≥pn(b,a,m;x,y).

We point out that the case (x,y)=(1,1) of Theorem 1.1, that is the case related to the generating function

∑(λ,μ)∈P×Duℓa,m(λ,μ)vℓb,m(λ,μ)q|λ|+|μ|=(-q;q)∞(-uqa,-vqb,qa,qb;qm)∞(q;q)∞(-qa,-qb,uqa,vqb;qm)∞,

is the overpartitions analogue of the aforementioned result by Chern [7]. We also establish some new results for the bias of distinct partitions, belonging to the case (x,y)=(0,1). In particular, for any x≥0 and y=1, we have the following theorem.

Theorem 1.2

Let x≥0 and a, b, m be integers such that 1≤a<b≤m. Assume that there exists a positive integer k with k∣(b-a) such that neither of the congruences

2hk≡a(modm)and2hk≡b(modm),

possesses a solution for any h∈N. Then for all integers n≥0, we have

pn(a,b,m;x,1)≥pn(b,a,m;x,1).

Remark 1.1

Let a, b, m be integers such that 1≤a<b≤m. It is not difficult to check that the following triples (a, b, m) meet the conditions in Theorem 1.2.

  1. Any even integer m and odd integers a, b. (In this case, k=2 guarantees the nonexistence of solutions for any of the two congruences.)

  2. Any integers m, a, b such that gcd(a,b,m) has an odd factor ≥3. (In this case, one can take k=1.)

We finally prove the following asymptotic formulas for weighted partitions with biases of symmetric residue classes (by which we mean that in the biases of pn(a,b,m;x,y) the two residue classes a and b satisfy the symmetry b=m-a where 1≤a<m/2). Below, when writing a/2m we mean a/(2m), and other fractions in one line notation (with denominators consisting of products) are to be similarly interpreted in the remainder of this paper.

Theorem 1.3

For any given 1≤a<m/2 and (x,y)∈{(1,0),(0,1),(1,1)}, we have

pn(a,m-a,m;x,y)∼ca,m(x)pn(x,y),

as n→+∞, where

ca,m(0),ca,m(1)=12,ψ1/2+a/2m-ψa/2m2πcsc(aπ/m),

and where ψ(x)=Γ′(x)/Γ(x) is the digamma function.

The proof of Theorem 1.3 employs a residue class analogue of Ingham’s Tauberian theorem [14, Theorem 1], which, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, has not appeared before in the literature. We state it as the following theorem and believe that it is of independent interest. We give its proof in Sect. 3.3.

Theorem 1.4

Let f(q)=∑n≥0cnqn be a power series whose coefficients cn are nonnegative. Suppose that for some positive integer m and any integer 1≤h<m, one has

  1. cn+m≥cn for all n≥0, and

  2. there exist constants γ∈R and α,β,ρ∈R+ such that
    f(e-z)∼αzγexpβz-ρ/ρandf(e-ze2πih/m)=of(e-z),
    when z→0 in every fixed Stolz angle |arg(z)|≤Δ (0<Δ<π/2).

Then, as n→∞,

cn∼αβ1+2γ2(1+ρ)2π(1+ρ)n-1+2γ2(1+ρ)-12exp(1+1/ρ)β1/(1+ρ)nρ/(1+ρ).

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we give the proof of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. This is achieved with the help of some q-series transformations and a new overpartitions analogue of a theorem of Andrews [1, Theorem 3]. In Sect. 3, we first provide the proof of our residue class analogue of Ingham’s Tauberian theorem, i.e., of Theorem 1.4. Then, we turn to partition functions with bias of symmetric residue classes and establish their generating functions and asymptotics. We close in Sect. 4 with some remarks on residue class biases in distinct partitions.

The proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2

In this section, we provide proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. To study pn(a,b,m;x,y), we first derive its generating function. Using Cauchy’s q-binomial theorem (cf. [12, Appendix (II.3)]):

(αt;q)∞(t;q)∞=∑n≥0(α;q)ntn(q;q)n,

valid for |t|<1, we have

(-uyqa,-vyqb;qm)∞(uxqa,vxqb;qm)∞=∑n1≥0(-y/x;qm)n1(xuqa)n1(qm;qm)n1∑n≥0(-y/x;qm)n(xvqb)n(qm;qm)n.

Therefore, by the definition (1.2) for pn(a,b,m;x,y) and (1.3), we obtain

∑n≥0pn(a,b,m;x,y)qn=(-yq;q)∞(xqa,xqb;qm)∞(xq;q)∞(-yqa,-yqb;qm)∞×∑n1,n≥0n1>nxn1(-y/x;qm)n1xn(-y/x;qm)nqan1+bn(qm;qm)n1(qm;qm)n. 2.1

Writing n1=k+1+n in (2.1), and using the simple identity (α;q)n+1+k=(1-α)(αq;q)n+k, we get

(1-qm)∑n≥0pn(a,b,m;x,y)qn=(-yq;q)∞(xqa,xqb;qm)∞(xq;q)∞(-yqa,-yqb;qm)∞(x+y)qa×∑n,k≥0(-qmy/x;qm)n+k(-y/x;qm)nx2n+kq(a+b)n+ka(q2m;qm)n+k(qm;qm)n. 2.2

Equation (2.2) immediately yields the following monotonicity result, which we will use for deriving asymptotic formulas for pn(a,m-a,m;x,y) in Sect. 3.

Lemma 2.1

For any x,y≥0 and n≥0, we have

pn+m(a,b,m;x,y)≥pn(a,b,m;x,y).

Equation (2.2) also implies that

∑n≥0pn(a,b,m;x,y)-pn(b,a,m;x,y)qn=11-qm(1-qb-a)(-yq;q)∞(xqa,xqb;qm)∞(xq;q)∞(-yqa,-yqb;qm)∞(x+y)qa×∑n,k≥0(1-q(k+1)(b-a))(-qmy/x;qm)n+k(-y/x;qm)nx2n+kq(a+b)n+ak(1-qb-a)(q2m;qm)n+k(qm;qm)n.

Note that the q-series expansion of the above infinite double sum has nonnegative coefficients, with constant term equal to 1, provided that 1≤a<b≤m and x,y≥0, because of

1-q(k+1)(b-a)1-qb-a=∑0≤j≤kqj(b-a).

This immediately implies the following lemma.

Lemma 2.2

Let 1≤a<b≤m and x,y≥0 with x+y>0. Define

fa,b,m,x,y(q)=(1-qb-a)(-yq;q)∞(xq;q)∞(xqa,xqb;qm)∞(-yqa,-yqb;qm)∞.

Then,

pn(a,b,m;x,y)≥pn(b,a,m;x,y)≥0

for all integers n≥0, provided that all the Taylor coefficients of fa,b,m,x,y(q) about q=0 are nonnegative.

Lemma 2.2 will be used to give the proof of Theorem 1.1 in the cases (a,b)≠(1,2), and the proof of Theorem 1.2. To achieve that we will need the following proposition.

Proposition 2.3

For x≥1,y≥0 and (a,b)≠(1,2), all the Taylor coefficients of fa,b,m,x,y(q) about q are nonnegative.

Proof

Note that for 1<a<b≤m, we have

fa,b,m,x,y(q)=1-qb-a1-xq(-yq;qm)∞(xqm+1;qm)∞∏1≤j≤mj∉{1,a,b}(-yqj;qm)∞(xqj;qm)∞

and

1-qb-a1-xq=1+∑j≥1(xj-xj-1)qj∑0≤h<b-aqh;

and for a=1 with b>2, we have

fa,b,m,x,y(q)=1-qb-11-xqb-1(-yqb-1;qm)∞(xqm+b-1;qm)∞∏1≤j≤mj∉{1,b-1,b}(-yqj;qm)∞(xqj;qm)∞

and

1-qb-11-xqb-1=1+∑j≥1(xj-xj-1)q(b-1)j.

Since x≥1, it follows that all the Taylor coefficients of fa,b,m,x,y(q) about q=0 are nonnegative. This completes the proof of the proposition. □

To prove Theorem 1.1 for the remaining case (a,b)=(1,2), we use another method. For any 1≤a<b≤m, by writing n1=k+1+n in (2.1) and using the elementary identity

(α;q)n+1+k=(α;q)n(αqn;q)k+1,

we find that

∑n≥0pn(a,b,m;x,y)qn=(-yq;q)∞(xqa,xqb;qm)∞(xq;q)∞(-yqa,-yqb;qm)∞×∑n≥0(-y/x;qm)n2(x+yqmn)x2nq(a+b)n(qm;qm)n2×∑k≥0(-qm(n+1)y/x;qm)kxkqa(k+1)(qm(n+1);qm)k+1.

Thus,

∑n≥0pn(a,b,m;x,y)-pn(b,a,m;x,y)qn=(-yq;q)∞(xqa,xqb;qm)∞(xq;q)∞(-yqa,-yqb;qm)∞∑n≥0(-y/x;qm)n2(x+yqmn)x2nq(a+b)n(qm;qm)n2×∑k≥0(-qm(n+1)y/x;qm)kxkqa(k+1)(qm(n+1);qm)k+1-∑k≥0(-qm(n+1)y/x;qm)kxkqb(k+1)(qm(n+1);qm)k+1. 2.3

From Equation (2.3), it is obvious that to prove pn(1,2,m;x,y)≥pn(2,1,m;x,y), it suffices to prove the following theorem, which restricts to such pairs (a, b) where b is a multiple of a (and thus can be replaced by ab), which is more than we need for the case (a,b)=(1,2).

Theorem 2.4

Let x≥1, y≥0 and a,b∈N. For all integers m,s≥1, the q-series expansion of

∑k≥0(-yqs/x;qm)kxkqa(k+1)(qs;qm)k+1-∑k≥0(-yqs/x;qm)kxkqab(k+1)(qs;qm)k+1

has nonnegative coefficients.

We note that the (x,y,a,b)=(1,0,1,2) special case of Theorem 2.4 was conjectured by Chern [7, Conjecture 4.2] and subsequently proved by Binner [5, Section 2], which we state as the following corollary:

Corollary 2.5

For all integers m,s≥1, the q-series expansion of

∑k≥0qk(1-qk)(qs;qm)k

has nonnegative coefficients.

Proof of Theorem 2.4

Using the Heine transformation [12, Appendix (III.2)] (valid for |z|<1 and |γ/β|<1)

∑n≥0(α,β;q)n(γ,q;q)nzn=(γ/β,βz;q)∞(γ,z;q)∞∑n≥0(αβz/γ,β;q)n(βz,q;q)n(γ/β)n,

and making the substitution β↦q,γ↦γq, one readily obtains

∑n≥0(α;q)n(γ;q)n+1zn=∑n≥0(αz/γ;q)n(z;q)n+1γn

(which can be referred to as Fine’s transformation [10, Equation (6.3)], as Fine thoroughly studied this type of series in his monograph on basic hypergeometric series), valid for |z|<1 and |γ|<1. Thus,

∑k≥0(-yqs/x;qm)k(qa(xqa)k-qab(xqab)k)(qs;qm)k+1=∑k≥0qa(-yqa;qm)k(xqa;qm)k+1-qab(-yqab;qm)k(xqab;qm)k+1qsk.

Note that, for any integer k≥0,

(-yqa;qm)kxqa(xqa;qm)k+1-(-yqab;qm)kxqab(xqab;qm)k+1=∑h≥1(-yqa;qm)k(xqa)h(xqa;qm)k-(-yqab;qm)k(xqab)h(xqab;qm)kq(h-1)km.

The proof of Theorem 2.4 now is an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.6, which we provide subsequently. □

The following result is an overpartition analogue of a result by Andrews [1, Theorem 3].

Theorem 2.6

Let (aj)j≥0,(bj)j≥0 be two increasing sequences of positive integers with b0≡0(moda0), b0>a0 and bj-aj≡0(moda0) for each j≥1. For any n∈N0, h∈N0 and x≥1,y≥0, the q-series expansion of

(xqa0)h∏0≤j≤n1+yqaj1-xqaj-(xqb0)h∏0≤j≤n1+yqbj1-xqbj

has nonnegative coefficients.

Proof

For n=0, the q-series expansion of

1+yqa01-xqa0(xqa0)h-1+yqb01-xqb0(xqb0)h=(xqa0)h-(xqb0)h+(1+y/x)∑k>h((xqa0)k-(xqb0)k)=xhqa0h+(1+y/x)∑h<k<b0h/a0xkqa0k+yxh-1qb0h+(1+y/x)∑k≥hb0∤a0kxkqa0k+(1+y/x)∑k≥h(xb0k/a0-xk)qb0k

has nonnegative coefficients (since x≥1). Note that

(xqa0)h∏0≤j≤n1+yqaj1-xqaj-(xqb0)h∏0≤j≤n1+yqbj1-xqbj=1+yqan1-xqan-1+yqbn1-xqbn(xqa0)h∏0≤j<n1+yqaj1-xqaj+1+yqbn1-xqbn(xqa0)h∏0≤j≤n-11+yqaj1-xqaj-(xqb0)h∏0≤j≤n-11+yqbj1-xqbj, 2.4

and

1+yqan1-xqan-1+yqbn1-xqbn∏0≤j<n1+yqaj1-xqaj=1-qbn-an1-xqa0qan(x+y)1-xqbn∏0≤j<n1+yqaj1-xqaj+1. 2.5

Now, since the q-series expansion of the factor

1-qbn-an1-xqa0=1+∑j≥1(xj-xj-1)qa0j∑0≤j<(bn-an)/a0qa0j

has nonnegative coefficients, we can conclude that the q-series expansion of (2.5) has nonnegative coefficients as well. Using (2.4), the proof is established by induction. □

We are now ready to give the proof of Theorem 1.2.

Proof of Theorem 1.2

Since both of the congruence equations

2h+1k≡a(modm)and2h+1k≡b(modm)

possess no solution for h∈N0, we have that both of the equations

2h1k=mℓ1+aand2h2k=mℓ2+b

possess no nonnegative integer solutions (h1,ℓ1) and (h2,ℓ2). This yields

{2hk:h∈N0}⊆{j∈N:j≢a,b(modm)}.

On the other hand, since b>a and k∣(b-a), it is clear that the q-series expansion of (1-qb-a)/(1-qk) has nonnegative coefficients. Thus,

fa,b,m,x,1(q)=(1-qk)(-q;q)∞(-qa,-qb;qm)∞·1-qb-a1-qk∏1≤j≤mj∉{a,b}1(xqj;qm)∞

has nonnegative coefficients in its q-expansion too, since x≥0 and the q-series expansion of

(1-qk)(-q;q)∞(-qa,-qb;qm)∞=(1-qk)∏h≥0(1+q2hk)∏j≥1j≢a,b(modm)j≠2hk,h∈N01+qj=∏j≥1j≢a,b(modm)j≠2hk,h∈N01+qj

has nonnegative coefficients. Therefore, by using Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.3 we get

pn(a,b,m;x,1)-pn(b,a,m;x,1)≥0,

which completes the proof of Theorem 1.2. □

Weighted partitions with bias of symmetric residue classes

Recall that pn(a,b,m;x,y) is defined by (1.2). Let (x,y)∈S where S={(0,1),(1,0),(1,1)}, and let a, m be positive integers such that 1≤a<m and m≠2a. We write

Gxy(a,m;q)=∑n≥0pn(a,m-a,m;x,y)qn

for the generating function of weighted partitions with bias of symmetric residue classes. The first objective of this section, rather than just using (2.1), is to derive forms for the generating functions Gxy(a,m;q), where (x,y)∈S, which will be convenient for establishing asymptotic formulas for pn(a,m-a,m;x,y), where (x,y)∈S.

Generating functions for weighted partitions with bias of symmetric residue classes

To obtain the generating functions for Gxy(a,m;q) with (x,y)∈S, we require the following identities:

(-ζ,-q/ζ,q;q)∞=∑n∈Zqn(n-1)2ζn, 3.1
(q;q)∞2(ζ,q/ζ;q)∞=∑n∈Z(-1)nqn(n+1)21-ζqn, 3.2

and

(-q/ζ,-ζ;q)∞(q/ζ,ζ;q)∞=(-q;q)∞2(q;q)∞21+2∑n≥1ζn+(q/ζ)n1+qn. 3.3

The identity (3.1) is the well-known Jacobi triple product identity (cf. [12, Appendix (II.28)]). The identity (3.2) is the reciprocal of a theta function, which is expanded in terms of partial fractions by the Mittag–Leffler theorem. (For details, see Ramanujan’s lost notebook [3, Entry 3.2.1] or Garvan [11, Equation (7.15)].) The identity (3.3) is a special case of an identity originally due to Kronecker (cf. [18, pp. 70–71]) and can be easily derived from Ramanujan’s 1ψ1 summation formula (cf. [12, Appendix (II.29)]).

Proof of identity (3.3)

Ramanujan’s 1ψ1 summation formula is

∑n≥0(a;q)n(b;q)nζn+∑n≥1(q/b;q)n(q/a;q)n(b/aζ)n=(b/a,q/aζ,aζ,q;q)∞(b,b/aζ,q/a,ζ;q)∞,

provided |ζ|<1 and |b/aζ|<1. Letting b↦aq, this reduces to Kronecker’s bilateral summation

∑n≥01-a1-aqnζn+∑n≥11-1/a1-qn/a(q/ζ)n=(q,q/aζ,aζ,q;q)∞(aq,q/ζ,q/a,ζ;q)∞.

Letting a→-1, we obtain after some rewriting (3.3). □

We now give the generating functions for Gxy(a,m;q) with (x,y)∈S.

Lemma 3.1

We have

G01(a,m;q)=(q2;q2)∞(-qa,-qm-a,qm;qm)∞(q;q)∞∑n≥1qmn(n-1)2+na,G10(a,m;q)=(qa,qm-a;qm)∞(q;q)∞(qm;qm)∞2∑n≥0(-1)nqmn(n+1)2+mn+a1-qmn+a,

and

G11(a,m;q)=2(q2;q2)∞(q2m;q2m)∞2(q;q)∞2(qm;qm)∞4(qa,qm-a;qm)∞(-qa,-qm-a;qm)∞∑n≥1qan1+qmn.

Proof

Recall that

Gxy(a,m;q)=∑(λ,μ)∈P×Dℓa,m(λ,μ)-ℓb,m(λ,μ)>0xℓ(λ)yℓ(μ)q|λ|+|μ|,

and, by the u=t, v=t-1 case of (1.3),

∑(λ,μ)∈P×Dtℓa,m(λ,μ)-ℓb,m(λ,μ)xℓ(λ)yℓ(μ)q|λ|+|μ|=(-yq;q)∞(xqa,xqb;qm)∞(-tyqa,-t-1yqb;qm)∞(xq;q)∞(-yqa,-yqb;qm)∞(txqa,t-1xqb;qm)∞.

Using identities (3.1)–(3.3), we have:

∑μ∈Dtℓa,m(μ)-ℓm-a,m(μ)q|μ|=(-q;q)∞(-qa,-qm-a,qm;qm)∞∑n∈Zqmn(n-1)2+natn, 3.4
∑μ∈Ptℓa,m(μ)-ℓm-a,m(μ)q|μ|=(qa,qm-a;qm)∞(q;q)∞(qm;qm)∞2∑n∈Z(-1)nqmn(n+1)21-qmn+at, 3.5

and

∑(λ,μ)∈P×Dtℓa,m(λ,μ)-ℓm-a,m(λ,μ)q|λ|+|μ|=(q2;q2)∞(q2m;q2m)∞2(qa,qm-a;qm)∞(q;q)∞2(qm;qm)∞4(-qa,-qm-a;qm)∞×1+2∑n≥1qantn+q(m-a)nt-n1+qmn. 3.6

Therefore, by collecting the coefficients of tn for n∈N (and omitting the other coefficients where n is negative) in the above equations (3.4)–(3.6), we readily obtain the proof of the lemma. □

Asymptotics of the generating functions

In this subsection, we study the asymptotics of the q-series Gxy(a,m;q), with (x,y)∈S, q nearing the m-th root of unity ζmh:=e2πih/m, where m∈N and h∈N0. In order to achieve this, we first need the following proposition which are special cases of results by Katsurada [15, Theorem 5, Corollary 1.1, Corollary 1.3].

Proposition 3.2

The following asymptotic formulas hold for z→0 in every fixed Stolz angle |arg(z)|≤Δ (0<Δ<π/2).

  1. For any h∈N0 and m∈N such that gcd(h,m)=1, we have
    (e-zζmh;e-zζmh)∞=A0(h,m)z-1/2exp-π26m2z(1+O(z)),
    where A0(h,m) is a constant. In particular, A0(1,1)=2π.
  2. For any α>0, we have
    (-e-αz;e-z)∞=21/2-αexpπ212z(1+O(z)).
  3. For any α,μ∈(0,1),
    (e-αz,e-(1-α)z;e-z)∞=2sin(πα)exp-π23z(1+O(z)),
    and
    (e2πiμe-αz,e2πi(1-μ)e-(1-α)z;e-z)∞=e-2πi(1/2-α)(1/2-μ)exp-2π2B2(μ)z(1+O(z)),
    where B2(μ)=μ2-μ+1/6,1

The asymptotics of the infinite products in Lemma 3.1 will follow from Proposition 3.2. It remains to establish the asymptotics for the infinite sums in Lemma 3.1. In the following, let 1event denote the indicator function, let h∈N0 and let q=e-z/mζmh. Let ψ(u)=Γ′(u)/Γ(u) be the digamma function given by

ψ(u)=-γ+∑n≥11n-1n+u.

We prove the following lemmas.

Lemma 3.3

As z→0 in every fixed Stolz angle |arg(z)|≤Δ (0<Δ<π/2), we have

∑n≥1qmn(n-1)2+na=1m∣ah22πz1/2+O(1), 3.7
∑n≥0(-1)nqmn(n+1)2+mn+a1-qmn+a=1m∣ah2zψm+a2m-ψa2m+O(|z|-1/2), 3.8

and

∑n≥1qan1+qmn=1m∣ah2zψm+a2m-ψa2m+O(1). 3.9

Proof

Let z=x+iy with x>0 and y∈R, then we have |y|≤x·tan(Δ). The proofs of (3.7) and (3.9) use similar arguments. In fact, note that

S(u):=∑1≤n≤uζmahn=u·1m∣ah+O(1),

uniformly for all u>0. Hence, Abel’s summation formula implies

∑n≥1e-zn(n-1)2-anmzζmahn=S(u)e-u(u-1)2z-amuz|u=0+∞-∫0∞S(u)e-u(u-1)2z-amuz′du=1m∣ah·∫0∞ue-u(u-1)2z-amuz′du+O∫0∞e-u(u-1)2z-amuz′du=1m∣ah·∫0∞e-u(u-1)2z-amuzdu+O|z|∫0∞u-12+ame-u(u-1)2x-amuxdx=1m∣ah·∫am-12∞e-u2z2+(a/m-1/2)22zdu+O|z|∫am-12∞|u|e-u2x2+(a/m-1/2)22xdu=1m∣ah22πz1/2+O(1).

Abel’s summation formula further implies

∑n≥1e-azn/m1+e-nze2πiahn/m=S(u)e-azu/m1+e-uz|u=0+∞-∫0∞S(u)e-azu/m1+e-uz′du=1m∣ah·∫0∞ue-azu/m1+e-uz′du+O∫0∞e-azu/m1+e-uz′du=1m∣ah·∫0∞e-azu/m1+e-uzdu+O|z|∫0∞eaux/m+e-(1-a/m)ux|eauz/m+e-(1-a/m)uz|2dx=1m∣ahz∫0∞∑k≥0(-1)ke-(k+a/m)udu+O1+∫1/|z|∞|z|e-aux/mdu(1-e-ux)2=1m∣ahz∑k≥0(-1)kk+a/m+O(1).

By using [9, Eq. 5.7.7], we have

∑k≥0(-1)kk+a/m=12ψm+a2m-ψa2m, 3.10

which completes the proof of (3.9).

It remains to give the proof of (3.8). Note that

∑n≥0(-1)nqmn(n+1)2+mn+a1-qmn+a=∑k≥0(1-qm)qmk(2k+1)-a(q-(2mk+a)-1)(q-(2km+m+a)-1)+(1-qm(2k+1))qmk(2k+1)q-(2mk+a)-1.

We have

∑k≥0(1-qm(2k+1))qmk(2k+1)q-(2mk+a)-1≪∑k≥0|1-e-(2k+1)z|e-k2xe(2k+a/m)x-1≪∑0≤k≤1/|z|(2k+1)|z|e-k2x(2k+a/m)x+∑k≥1/|z|e-k2x≪∑k≥0e-k2x≪x-1/2≪|z|-1/2,

and

∑k≥0(1-qm)qmk(2k+1)-a(q-(2mk+a)-1)(q-(2km+m+a)-1)=∑0≤k≤|z|-1/2(1-e-z)e-z(k(2k+1)-a/m)ζm-ah(e(2k+a/m)zζmah-1)(e(2k+1+a/m)zζmah-1)+O∑k≥|z|-1/2|z|e-k2x(2k+a/m)(2k+1+a/m)x2.

For the O-term, we estimate that

∑k≥|z|-1/2|z|e-k2x(2k+a/m)(2k+1+a/m)x2≪1|z|∑k≥|z|-1/21k2≪|z|-1+1/2≪|z|-1/2.

We now estimate the main term. Since 0≤k≤|z|-1/2, for m∤ah, we have

∑0≤k≤|z|-1/2(1-e-z)e-z(k(2k+1)-a/m)ζm-ah(e(2k+a/m)zζmah-1)(e(2k+1+a/m)zζmah-1)≪∑0≤k≤|z|-1/2|z||ζmah-1|+O(z1/2)2≪|z|1/2.

For m∣ah, we have

∑0≤k≤|z|-1/2(1-e-z)e-z(k(2k+1)-a/m)ζm-ah(e(2k+a/m)zζmah-1)(e(2k+1+a/m)zζmah-1)=∑0≤k≤|z|-1/2z(2k+a/m)(2k+1+a/m)z2(1+O((k+1)2z))(1+O((k+1)z))=1z∑0≤k≤|z|-1/21(2k+a/m)(2k+1+a/m)+O∑0≤k≤|z|-1/21=1z∑k≥0(-1)kk+a/m+O(|z|-1/2).

Combining the above estimates, we get

∑n≥0(-1)nqmn(n+1)2+mn+a1-qmn+a=1m∣ah2zψm+a2m-ψa2m+O(|z|-1/2),

which completes the proof of the lemma. □

Lemma 3.4

We have

G01a,m;e-z/m=1+O(|z|1/2)212expπ2m12z,G10a,m;e-z/m=(1+O(|z|1/2))ψm+a2m-ψa2m2πcsc(aπ/m)z2πm1/2expπ2m6z,

and

G11a,m;e-z/m=(1+O(|z|1/2))ψm+a2m-ψa2m2πcsc(aπ/m)z4πm1/2expπ2m4z

when z→0 in every fixed Stolz angle |arg(z)|≤Δ (0<Δ<π/2).

Proof

This proof of the lemma can be straightforwardly done using Proposition 3.2 and Lemma 3.3; we omit the details. □

Lemma 3.5

For (x,y)∈S, we have

Gxya,m;e-z/mζmh=1m∣h+O(|z|1/2)Gxya,m;e-z/m,

when z→0 in every fixed Stolz angle |arg(z)|≤Δ (0<Δ<π/2).

Proof

This proof of the lemma can be straightforwardly done using Proposition 3.2, Lemmas 3.3 and 3.4. We sketch some of the details. For q=e-z/mζmh with m∤h, we have

G01a,m;e-z/mζmh=(e-2z/mζm2h;e-2z/mζm2h)∞(e-z/mζmh;e-z/mζmh)∞∑n≥1qmn(n-1)2+an(e-az/mζ2mm+2ah,e-(1-a/m)zζ2m-m-2ah,e-z;e-z)∞≪|z|1/2+1m∣ahexpgcd(m,h)26mz/π2+π26z+B22ah+m2mz/(2π2)-gcd(m,2h)212mz/π2≪|z|1/2+1m∣ahG01a,m;e-z/mexp-2π2zA01(a,m;h),

where

A01(a,m;h)=m24+gcd(m,2h)224m-gcd(m,h)212m-112-B22ah+m2m.

Similarly, we have

G10a,m;e-z/mζmh=(ζmahe-az/m,ζm-ahe-(1-a/m)z;e-z)∞(e-z;e-z)∞2(e-z/mζmh;e-z/mζmh)∞∑k≥0(-1)kqmk(k+1)2+mk+a1-qmk+a≪1+|z|-1/21m∣ah|z|expπ23z+π2gcd(m,h)26mz-2π2zB2ahm≪|z|1/2+1m∣ahG10a,m;e-z/mexp-2π2zA10(a,m;h),

where

A10(a,m;h)=m12+B2ahm-16-gcd(m,h)212m;

and

G11a,m;e-z/mζmh=2(e-2z/mζm2h;e-2z/mζm2h)∞(e-2z;e-2z)∞2(e-z/mζmh;e-z/mζmh)∞2(e-z;e-z)∞4×(e-az/mζmah,e-(1-a/m)zζm-ah;e-z)∞(e-az/mζ2mm+2ah,e-(1-a/m)zζ2m-m-2ah;e-z)∞∑n≥1qan1+qmn≪|z|+1m∣ah|z|1/2expπ2gcd(m,h)23mz-π2gcd(m,2h)212mz+π22z×exp-2π2zB2ahm-B22ah+m2m≪|z|+1m∣ahG11a,m;e-z/mexp-2π2zA11(a,m;h),

where

A11(a,m;h)=m8+gcd(m,2h)224m+B2ahm-14-gcd(m,h)26m-B22ah+m2m.

It is clear that A11(a,m;h)=A01(a,m;h)+A10(a,m;h). Using elementary arguments, one can show that Axy(a,m;h) with (x,y)∈S, is nonnegative for all integers m∤h and m≥3. Moreover, for m∣ah but m∤h, we have

A01(a,m;h)=m24+gcd(m,2h)224m-gcd(m,h)212m≥m24-gcd(m,h)224m≥1-14m24>0,

and

A10(a,m;h)=m12-gcd(m,h)212m≥1-14m12>0,

because of gcd(m,2h)≥gcd(m,h) and gcd(m,h)≤m/2. The combination of all the above estimates proves the lemma. □

Proof of Theorems 1.3 and 1.4

In this subsection, we will provide the proof of Theorem 1.3. To accomplish this, we will first establish Theorem 1.4, the residue class analogue of Ingham’s Tauberian theorem. A special case of Ingham’s Tauberian theorem, as presented in [14, p.1082, Eqs.(21),(22)], is stated as the following theorem.

Theorem 3.6

Let A(u) be an increasing function on [0,∞) with A(0)=0 be defined as the following Laplace transform:

f(s)=∫0∞e-usdA(u). 3.11

If f(s)∼f0(s) when s→0 in every fixed Stolz angle |arg(s)|≤Δ (0<Δ<π/2), where

f0(s)=C(M/s)vβ-12eβ-1(M/s)β(β,M,C>0,v∈R).

Then with α=β/(1+β), we have:

A(ω)∼1-α2π12C(Mω)vα-12eα-1(Mω)α,asω→+∞.

Let F(q)=∑n≥0cnqn be a power series whose coefficients cn are nonnegative and increasing, and converge absolutely for |q|<1. Notice that (3.11) involves a Riemann–Stieltjes integral. Therefore, if we define

A(u)=c⌊u⌋-c0,

for any u≥0, then A(u) is nonnegative and increasing with A(0)=0. Integration by parts for a Riemann–Stieltjes integral yields

∫0∞e-usdA(u)=s∫0∞A(u)e-usdu=∑k≥0A(k)∫kk+1se-usdu=(1-e-s)F(e-s)-c0. 3.12

As a conclusion, if F(e-s) meets the conditions in Theorem 3.6, then we can use that theorem to derive an asymptotic formula for cn.

However, in our case it is not easy to prove that pn(a,m-a,m;x,y) is increasing for n≥0. We only have

pn+m(a,m-a,m;x,y)≥pn(a,m-a,m;x,y), 3.13

for all n≥0, due to Lemma 2.1. Luckily, we can prove Theorem 1.4, a residue class analogue of Ingham’s Tauberian theorem, which works in our case.

Proof of Theorem 1.4

Due to condition (1) of Theorem 1.4, cmn+j is increasing in n, for any 0≤j<m. Moreover, we have

∑n≥0cmn+jqn=1m∑0≤h<me-2πihjq-j/mfq1/me2πih/m,

by using the orthogonality of the m-th roots of unity. Using condition (2) of Theorem 1.4 and the above, with Aj(u)=cm⌊u⌋+j-cj, we have

cj+∫0∞e-uzdAj(u)=(1-e-z)∑n≥0cmn+je-nz∼αm1+γz1+γemρβz-ρ/ρ,

by using (3.12), when z→0 in every fixed Stolz angle |arg(z)|≤Δ, (0<Δ<π/2). Hence, Theorem 3.6 implies

cmn+j∼αβ1+2γ2(1+ρ)2π(1+ρ)(mn)-1+2γ2(1+ρ)-12e(1+1/ρ)β1/(1+ρ)(mn)ρ/(1+ρ),

as n→+∞. Therefore, by using the simple estimates

(n+r)κ1∼nκ1and(n+r)κ2=nκ2+O(nκ2-1)=nκ2+o(1),

as n→∞, for any given κ1∈R and κ2<1, we can replace mn by nm+j in above asymptotic formula of cf(mn+j). This completes the proof of Theorem 1.4. □

We now give the proof of Theorem 1.3. From inequality (3.13), Lemmas 3.4 and 3.5, we see that the generating function Gxy(a,m;q) with (x,y)∈S meets the conditions of Theorem 1.4. Thus, we have

pn(a,m-a,m;x,y)∼ca,m(x)p^n(x,y),

as n→+∞, with

ca,m(0),ca,m(1)=12,ψ1/2+a/2m-ψa/2m2πcsc(aπ/m).

Here,

p^n(0,1)=eπn/3434n3/4,p^n(1,0)=e2πn/643n,andp^n(1,1)=18neπn.

Recall the unrestricted partition function p(n) (see [13, Eq. (1.41)]), the distinct partition function q(n) (see [13, pages 109–110]), and the overpartition function p¯(n) (see [14, Eq. (1)]), which have the following asymptotic formulas:

q(n)∼eπn/3434n3/4,p(n)∼e2πn/643n,andp¯(n)∼18neπn,

as n→∞. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.3.

Remarks on residue class biases in distinct partitions

Theorem 1.1 provides results for biases in residue classes in partitions and overpartitions. For distinct partitions, we only have a partial result, given in Theorem 1.2. Beyond that partial result, we provide a conjecture, proposed in the end of this section.

In the following, we write dn(a,b;m):=pn(a,b,m;0,1) for brevity. Then,

∑n≥0dn(a,b;m)qn=∑λ∈Dℓa,m(λ)>ℓb,m(λ)q|λ|.

If b=m-a, then Lemma 3.1 implies

∑n≥0dn(a,m-a;m)qn=(-q;q)∞(-qa,-qm-a,qm;qm)∞∑n≥1qmn2+na. 4.1

From Equation (4.1), we have the following inequalities for dn(1,2;3) and dn(2,1;3).

Proposition 4.1

We have

d3n+2(1,2;3)≤d3n+2(2,1;3),d3n(1,2;3)≥d3n(2,1;3),andd3n+1(1,2;3)≥d3n+1(2,1;3),

for all n≥0.

Proof

The proof is straightforward and uses a dissection strategy. First, we observe

∑n≥0(dn(1,2;3)-dn(2,1;3))qn=(-q3;q3)∞(q3;q3)∞∑n≥1qn(3n-1)2(1-qn).

Dissection of the last sum gives

∑n≥0qn(3n-1)2(1-qn)=∑0≤j≤2∑n≥0q3(3n+j)-3n+j)2(1-q3n+j)=∑n≥0q3n(9n-1)2(1-q3n)+q∑n≥0q9n(3n+5)2(1-q12n+6)-q2∑n≥0q9n(3n+7)2(1-q6n+3).

This completes the proof. □

A similar argument can be applied to compare dn(1,3;4) and dn(3,1;4):

∑n≥0dn(1,3;4)-dn(3,1;4)qn=(-q;q)∞(-q,-q3,q4;q4)∞∑n≥1q2n2-n(1-qn)=1(q2;q2)∞∑n≥1q2n2-n(1-q2n)=1(q4;q2)∞∑n≥1q2n2∑0≤j<nq2j-n.

Therefore, dn(1,3;4)≥dn(3,1;4). This is also a special case of Theorem 1.2.

We turn to the general case. For any 1≤a<b≤m, by Equation (2.1) we have

∑n≥0dn(a,b;m)qn=(-q;q)∞(-qa,-qb;qm)∞∑j>kj,k≥0q12m(j(j-1)+k(k-1))+aj+bk(qm;qm)j(qm;qm)k.

Based on this generating function and extensive computer experiments, we propose the following conjecture.

Conjecture 4.1

For any positive integers a, b, m such that 1≤a<b≤m, m≥3 and (a,b,m)≠(1,2,3), there exists a constant Na,b,m>0 such that

dn(a,b;m)≥dn(b,a;m),for alln≥Na,b,m.

Moreover,

Na,m-a,m=0,for all1≤a<m/2,

except

N2,3,5=45,N2,4,6=5,N3,4,7=8,N4,5,9=9.

Remark 4.1

The constants Na,b,m appear to be all relatively small. In particular, there exists an m0>9 such that Na,b,m equals zero for all m≥m0.

Remark 4.2

We note that we confirmed Conjecture 4.1 for a class of special cases in Theorem 1.2.

Acknowledgements

The first author was partially supported by Austrian Science Fund FWF (grant 10.55776/P32305). The second author was partially supported by Austrian Science Fund FWF (grant 10.55776/P32305) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 12301423).

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Vienna.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Footnotes

1
Here, we used the fact that
12ζμ(2)+ζ1-μ(2)=∑n≥1e2πiμn+e2πi(1-μ)n2n2=∑n≥1cos(2πnμ)n2=π2B2(μ),
which can be found in [9, Eq. 25.12.8] where ζμ(s):=∑n≥1e2πiμnns is the periodic zeta function.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Michael J. Schlosser and Nian Hong Zhou have contributed equally to this work.

Contributor Information

Michael J. Schlosser, Email: michael.schlosser@univie.ac.at, Email: nianhongzhou@gxnu.edu.cn

Nian Hong Zhou, Email: nianhongzhou@gxnu.edu.cn.

References

  • 1.Andrews, G.E.: On a partition problem of H. L. Alder. Pac. J. Math. 36, 279–284 (1971) [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Andrews, G.E.: The theory of partitions. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 2. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass.-London-Amsterdam, (1976)
  • 3.Andrews, G.E., Berndt, B.C.: Ramanujan’s lost notebook. Part III. Springer, New York (2012) [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Banerjee, K., Bhattacharjee, S., Dastidar, M.G., Jyoti Mahanta, P., Saikia, Manjil P.: Parity biases in partitions and restricted partitions. European J. Combin., 103: Paper No. 103522, 19, (2022)
  • 5.Binner, D.S.: On conjectures of Chern concerning parity bias in partitions. arXiv:2209.05949
  • 6.Brenti, R.: Determinants of super-Schur functions, lattice paths, and dotted plane partitions. Adv. Math. 98(1), 27–64 (1993) [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chern, S.: Further results on biases in integer partitions. Bull. Korean Math. Soc. 59(1), 111–117 (2022) [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Corteel, S.: J. Lovejoy. Overpartitions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 356(4), pp. 1623–1635 (2004)
  • 9.NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions. http://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.1.8 of 2022-12-15. F. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds
  • 10.Fine, N.J.: Basic hypergeometric series and applications, volume 27 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, . With a foreword by George E. Andrews (1988)
  • 11.Garvan, F.G.: New combinatorial interpretations of Ramanujan’s partition congruences mod Inline graphic and Inline graphic. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 305(1), 47–77 (1988) [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gasper, G., Rahman, M.: Basic hypergeometric series, vol 96 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, With a foreword by Richard Askey (2004)
  • 13.Hardy, G.H., Ramanujan, S.: Asymptotic formulae in combinatory analysis. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 2(17), 75–115 (1918) [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ingham, A.E.: A Tauberian theorem for partitions. Ann. of Math. 2(42), 1075–1090 (1941) [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Katsurada, M.: Asymptotic expansions of certain Inline graphic-series and a formula of Ramanujan for specific values of the Riemann zeta function. Acta Arith. 107(3), 269–298 (2003) [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kim, B., Kim, E.: Biases in integer partitions. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 104(2), 177–186 (2021) [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kim, B., Kim, E., Lovejoy, J.: Parity bias in partitions. Eur. J. Combin. 89, 103159 (2020) [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Weil, A.: Elliptic Functions According to Eisenstein and Kronecker. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, vol. 88. Classics in Mathematics. Springer–Verlag, Berlin–New York (1998). 10.1007/978-3-642-66209-6 [DOI]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article.


Articles from Research in the Mathematical Sciences are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES