Ahlén, O. 2016. Global Iwasawa-decomposition of SL(n, A_Q). arXiv:1609.06621 [math.NT].Google Scholar

Ahlén, O., Gustafsson, H. P. A., Kleinschmidt, A., Liu, B., and Persson, D. 2017. Fourier coefficients attached to small automorphic representations of SLn (A). arXiv:1707.08937 [math.RT].Google Scholar

Alexandrov, S. 2009. D-instantons and twistors: Some exact results. J. Phys., A42, 335402.Google Scholar

Alexandrov, S. 2013. Twistor approach to string compactifications: A review. Phys. Rep., 522, 1–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexandrov, S., and Banerjee, S. 2013. Modularity, quaternion-Kähler spaces, and mirror symmetry. J. Math. Phys., 54, 102301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexandrov, S., and Banerjee, S. 2014a. Dualities and fivebrane instantons. JHEP, 11, 040.Google Scholar

Alexandrov, S., and Banerjee, S. 2014b. Fivebrane instantons in Calabi-Yau compactifications. Phys. Rev., D90(4), 041902.Google Scholar

Alexandrov, S., and Banerjee, S. 2015. Hypermultiplet metric and D-instantons. JHEP, 02, 176.Google Scholar

Alexandrov, S., Banerjee, S., Manschot, J., and Pioline, B. 2017. Multiple D3-instantons and mock modular forms I. Commun. Math. Phys., 353(1), 379–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexandrov, S., Manschot, J., Persson, D., and Pioline, B. 2015. Quantum hypermultiplet moduli spaces in N=2 string vacua: A review. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, 90, 181–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexandrov, S., Manschot, J., and Pioline, B. 2013. D3-instantons, mock theta series and twistors. JHEP, 04, 002.Google Scholar

Alexandrov, S., Persson, D., and Pioline, B. 2011a. Fivebrane instantons, topological wave functions and hypermultiplet moduli spaces. JHEP, 03, 111.Google Scholar

Alexandrov, S., Persson, D., and Pioline, B. 2011b. On the topology of the hypermultiplet moduli space in type II/CY string vacua. Phys. Rev., D83, 026001.Google Scholar

Alexandrov, S., and Pioline, B. 2012. S-duality in twistor space. JHEP, 08, 112.Google Scholar

Alexandrov, S., Pioline, B., Saueressig, F., and Vandoren, S. 2009. D-instantons and twistors. JHEP, 03, 044.Google Scholar

Alexandrov, S., Pioline, B., and Vandoren, S. 2010. Self-dual Einstein spaces, heavenly metrics and twistors. J. Math. Phys., 51, 073510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexandrov, S., and Saueressig, F. 2009. Quantum mirror symmetry and twistors. JHEP, 09, 108.Google Scholar

Alvarez-Gaumé, L., Moore, G. W., and Vafa, C. 1986. Theta functions, modular invariance and strings. Commun. Math. Phys., 106, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Angelantonj, C., Florakis, I., and Pioline, B. 2012a. A new look at one-loop integrals in string theory. Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 6, 159–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Angelantonj, C., Florakis, I., and Pioline, B. 2012b. One-loop BPS amplitudes as BPS-state sums. JHEP, 06, 070.Google Scholar

Angelantonj, C., Florakis, I., and Pioline, B. 2013. Rankin-Selberg methods for closed strings on orbifolds. JHEP, 07, 181.Google Scholar

Angelantonj, C., Florakis, I., and Pioline, B. 2015. Threshold corrections, generalised prepotentials and Eichler integrals. Nucl. Phys., B897, 781–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Apostol, T. M. 1976. Introduction to Analytic Number Theory. Springer, New York, London.Google Scholar

Apostol, T. M. 1997. Modular Functions and Dirichlet Series in Number Theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 41. Springer, London.Google Scholar

Arakawa, T., and Moreau, A. 2016. Joseph ideals and lisse minimal W-algebras. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu, 1–21.Google Scholar

Argurio, R. 1998. Brane Physics in M-Theory. Ph.D. thesis, Free University of Brussels. arXiv:hep-th/9807171 [hep-th].Google Scholar

Arthur, J. 1989. Orbites unipotentes et représentations, II (Unipotent automorphic representations: Conjectures). Astérisque, 171–172, 13–71.Google Scholar

Arthur, J. 2003. The principle of functoriality. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.), 40(1), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arthur, J. 2005. An introduction to the trace formula. Pages 1–263 of Arthur, J., Ellwood, D., and Kottwitz, R. (eds), Harmonic Analysis, the Trace Formula, and Shimura Varieties. Clay Mathematics Proceedings, vol. 4. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

Aspinwall, P. S. 1997. K3 surfaces and string duality. Pages 421–540 of Efthimiou, C., and Greene, B. (eds), Fields, Strings and Duality (Boulder, CO, 1996). World Scientific Publishing, River Edge, NJ.Google Scholar

Aspinwall, P. S. 2001. Compactification, geometry and duality: N = 2. Pages 723–805 of Harvey, J. A., Kachru, S., and Silverstein, E. (eds), Strings, Branes and Gravity, TASI 99 (Boulder, CO). World Scientific Publishing, River Edge, NJ.Google Scholar

Atiyah, M. 1987. The logarithm of the Dedekind η-function. Math. Ann., 278 (1–4), 335–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aurich, R., Lustig, S., Steiner, F., and Then, H. 2005. Can one hear the shape of the Universe? Phys. Rev. Lett., 94, 021301.Google Scholar

Bachas, C. 1996. D-brane dynamics. Phys. Lett., B374, 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bachas, C., and Porrati, M. 1992. Pair creation of open strings in an electric field. Phys. Lett., B296, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bala, P., and Carter, R. W. 1976a. Classes of unipotent elements in simple algebraic groups, I. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 79(3), 401–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bala, P., and Carter, R. W. 1976b. Classes of unipotent elements in simple algebraic groups, II. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 80(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Banerjee, S., and Sen, A. 2008. Duality orbits, dyon spectrum and gauge theory limit of heterotic string theory on T**6. JHEP, 03, 022.Google Scholar

Bao, L., Bielecki, J., Cederwall, M., Nilsson, B. E. W., and Persson, D. 2008a. U-duality and the compactified Gauss-Bonnet term. JHEP, 0807, 048.Google Scholar

Bao, L., and Carbone, L. 2013. Integral forms of Kac-Moody groups and Eisenstein series in low dimensional supergravity theories. arXiv:1308.6194 [hep-th].Google Scholar

Bao, L., Cederwall, M., and Nilsson, B. E. W. 2008b. Aspects of higher curvature terms and U-duality. Class. Quant. Grav., 25, 095001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bao, L., Kleinschmidt, A., Nilsson, B. E. W., Persson, D., and Pioline, B. 2010. Instanton corrections to the universal hypermultiplet and automorphic forms on SU(2,1). Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 4, 187–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bao, L., Kleinschmidt, A., Nilsson, B. E. W., Persson, D., and Pioline, B. 2013. Rigid Calabi-Yau threefolds, Picard Eisenstein series and instantons. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 462(1), 012026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Basu, A. 2007. The D**10 R**4 term in type IIB string theory. Phys. Lett., B648, 378–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Basu, A. 2008a. The D**4 R**4 term in type IIB string theory on T**2 and U-duality. Phys. Rev., D77, 106003.Google Scholar

Basu, A. 2008b. The D**6 R**4 term in type IIB string theory on T**2 and U-duality. Phys. Rev., D77, 106004.Google Scholar

Basu, A. 2011. Supersymmetry constraints on the R⁴ multiplet in type IIB on T². Class. Quant. Grav., 28, 225018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Basu, A. 2014. The D⁶R⁴ term from three loop maximal supergravity. Class. Quant. Grav., 31(24), 245002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Basu, A. 2016a. Poisson equation for the three loop ladder diagram in string theory at genus one. Int. J. Mod. Phys., A31(32), 1650169.Google Scholar

Basu, A. 2016b. Proving relations between modular graph functions. Class. Quant. Grav., 33(23), 235011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Becker, K., Becker, M., and Strominger, A. 1995. Five-branes, membranes and nonperturbative string theory. Nucl. Phys., B456, 130–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beilinson, A., and Drinfeld, V. 1991. Quantization of Hitchin’s integrable system and Hecke eigensheaves. www.math.uchicago.edu/∼mitya/langlands/hitchin/BD-hitchin.pdf.Google Scholar

Beineke, J., Brubaker, B., and Frechette, S. 2011. Weyl group multiple Dirichlet series of type C. Pacific J. Math., 254(1), 11–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beineke, J., Brubaker, B., and Frechette, S. 2012. A crystal definition for symplectic multiple Dirichlet series. Pages 37–63 of Bump, D., Friedberg, S., and Goldfeld, D. (eds), Multiple Dirichlet Series, L-functions and Automorphic Forms. Progress in Mathematics, vol. 300. Birkhäuser/Springer, New York.Google Scholar

Bekaert, X. 2011. Singletons and their maximal symmetry algebras. Pages 71–89 of Dragovich, B., and Rakic, Z. (eds), Modern Mathematical Physics: Proceedings, 6th Summer School, Belgrade Serbia, September 14–23, 2010. arXiv:1111.4554 [math-ph]Google Scholar

Belinsky, V. A., Khalatnikov, I. M., and Lifshitz, E. M. 1970. Oscillatory approach to a singular point in the relativistic cosmology. Adv. Phys., 19, 525–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Belinsky, V. A., Khalatnikov, I. M., and Lifshitz, E. M. 1982. A general solution of the Einstein equations with a time singularity. Adv. Phys., 31, 639–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berenstein, A., and Zelevinsky, A. 2001. Tensor product multiplicities, canonical bases and totally positive varieties. Invent. Math., 143(1), 77–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berkovits, N. 1998. Construction of R(4) terms in N=2 D = 8 superspace. Nucl. Phys., B514, 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bhargava, M. 2004. Higher composition laws. I: A new view on Gauss composition, and quadratic generalizations. Ann. of Math. (2), 159(1), 217–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Birch, B. J., and Swinnerton-Dyer, H. P. F. 1965. Notes on elliptic curves, II. J. Reine Angew. Math., 218, 79–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blasius, D. 1994. On multiplicities for SL(n). Israel J. Math., 88(1–3), 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blumenhagen, R., Lüst, D., and Theisen, S. 2013. Basic Concepts of String Theory. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics. Springer, Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bodner, M., and Cadavid, A. C. 1990. Dimensional reduction of type IIB supergravity and exceptional quaternionic manifolds. Class. Quant. Grav., 7, 829pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bogomolny, E. B., Georgeot, B., Giannoni, M. J., and Schmit, C. 1997. Arithmetical chaos. Phys. Rep., 291, 219–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borcea, C. 1992. Calabi-Yau threefolds and complex multiplication. Pages 489–502 of Yau, S. T. (ed.), Essays on Mirror Manifolds. International Press, Hong Kong.Google Scholar

Borcherds, R. E. 1992. Monstrous moonshine and monstrous Lie superalgebras. Invent. Math., 109(2), 405–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borcherds, R. E. 1998. Automorphic forms with singularities on Grassmannians. Invent. Math., 132(3), 491–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borel, A. 1966. Introduction to automorphic forms. Pages 199–210 of Borel, A., and Mostow, G. D. (eds), Algebraic Groups and Discontinuous Subgroups. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 9. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borel, A. 1972. Représentations de Groupes Localement Compacts. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 276. Springer, Berlin, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borel, A. 1979. Automorphic L-functions. Pages 27–61 of Borel, A., and Casselman, W. (eds), Automorphic Forms, Representations and L-functions. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 33. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

Borel, A. 1991. Linear Algebraic Groups. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 126. Springer, Berlin, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borel, A. 1997. Automorphic Forms on SL(2, R). Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 130. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borel, A., and Tits, J. 1972. Compléments à l’article: ‘Groupes réductifs’. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., 41, 253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borho, W. 1977. Berechnung der Gelfand-Kirillov-Dimension bei induzierten Darstellungen. Math. Ann., 225(2), 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borho, W., and Brylinski, J.-L. 1982. Differential operators on homogeneous spaces, I: Irreducibility of the associated variety for annihilators of induced modules. Invent. Math., 69(3), 437–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Born, M., and Infeld, L. 1934. Foundations of the new field theory. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., A144, 425–451.Google Scholar

Bossard, G., Cosnier-Horeau, C., and Pioline, B. 2017a. Four-derivative couplings and BPS dyons in heterotic CHL orbifolds. SciPost Phys., 3, 008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bossard, G., Cosnier-Horeau, C., and Pioline, B. 2017b. Protected couplings and BPS dyons in half-maximal supersymmetric string vacua. Phys. Lett., B765, 377–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bossard, G., and Kleinschmidt, A. 2015. Supergravity divergences, supersymmetry and automorphic forms. JHEP, 08, 102.Google Scholar

Bossard, G., and Kleinschmidt, A. 2016. Loops in exceptional field theory. JHEP, 01, 1.Google Scholar

Bossard, G., and Pioline, B. 2017. Exact ∇⁴R⁴ couplings and helicity supertraces. JHEP, 01, 050.Google Scholar

Bossard, G., and Verschinin, V. 2014. Minimal unitary representations from supersymmetry. JHEP, 1410, 008.Google Scholar

Bossard, G., and Verschinin, V. 2015a. E∇⁴R⁴ type invariants and their gradient expansion. JHEP, 03, 089.Google Scholar

Bossard, G., and Verschinin, V. 2015b. The two ∇⁶R⁴ type invariants and their higher order generalisation. JHEP, 07, 154.Google Scholar

Braverman, A., and Gaitsgory, D. 2002. Geometric Eisenstein series. Invent. Math., 150(2), 287–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Braverman, A., Garland, H., Kazhdan, D., and Patnaik, M. 2014. An affine Gindikin-Karpelevich formula. Pages 43–64 of Etingof, P., Khovanov, M., and Savage, A. (eds), Perspectives in Representation Theory. Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 610. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

Braverman, A., and Kazhdan, D. 2011. The spherical Hecke algebra for affine Kac-Moody groups I. Ann. of Math. (2), 174(3), 1603–1642.Google Scholar

Braverman, A., and Kazhdan, D. 2013. Representations of affine Kac-Moody groups over local and global fields: A survey of some recent results. Pages 91–117 of Latata, R., Ruciński, A., Strzelecki, P., Swiatkowski, J., Wrzosek, D., and Zakrzewski, P. (eds), European Congress of Mathematics: Proceedings of the 6th Congress (6 ECM), Held at the Jagiellonian University, Kraków, July 2–7, 2012. European Mathematical Society, Zürich.Google Scholar

Braverman, A., Kazhdan, D., and Patnaik, M. M. 2016. Iwahori-Hecke algebras for p-adic loop groups. Invent. Math., 204(2), 347–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Breckenridge, J. C., Michaud, G., and Myers, R. C. 1997. More D-brane bound states. Phys. Rev., D55, 6438–6446.Google Scholar

Brekke, L., and Freund, P. 1993. p-adic numbers in physics. Phys.Rept., 233, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Breuil, C., Conrad, B., Diamond, F., and Taylor, R. 2001. On the modularity of elliptic curves over Q: Wild 3-adic exercises. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 14(4), 843–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Broedel, J., Mafra, C. R., Matthes, N., and Schlotterer, O. 2015. Elliptic multiple zeta values and one-loop superstring amplitudes. JHEP, 07, 112.Google Scholar

Broedel, J., Matthes, N., and Schlotterer, O. 2016. Relations between elliptic multiple zeta values and a special derivation algebra. J. Phys., A49(15), 155203.Google Scholar

Broedel, J., Schlotterer, O., and Stieberger, S. 2013. Polylogarithms, multiple zeta values and superstring amplitudes. Fortsch. Phys., 61, 812–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Broedel, J., Schlotterer, O., Stieberger, S., and Terasoma, T. 2014. All order α′-expansion of superstring trees from the Drinfeld associator. Phys. Rev., D89(6), 066014.Google Scholar

Brown, F. 2014. Single-valued motivic periods and multiple zeta values. SIGMA, 2, e25.Google Scholar

Brown, F. C. S. 2006. Multiple zeta values and periods of moduli spaces M_0,n. arXiv:math/0606419 [math.AG].Google Scholar

Brubaker, B., Bump, D., Chinta, G., Friedberg, S., and Hoffstein, J. 2006a. Weyl group multiple Dirichlet series, I. Pages 91–114 of Friedberg, S., Bump, D., Goldfeld, D., and Hoffstein, J. (eds), Multiple Dirichlet Series, Automorphic Forms, and Analytic Number Theory. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 75. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

Brubaker, B., Bump, D., Chinta, G., and Gunnells, P. E. 2012. Metaplectic Whittaker functions and crystals of type B. Pages 93–118 of Bump, D., Friedberg, S., and Goldfeld, D. (eds), Multiple Dirichlet Series, L-functions and Automorphic Forms. Progress in Mathematics, vol. 300. Birkhäuser/Springer, New York.Google Scholar

Brubaker, B., Bump, D., and Friedberg, S. 2006b. Weyl group multiple Dirichlet series, II: The stable case. Invent. Math., 165(2), 325–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brubaker, B., Bump, D., and Friedberg, S. 2008. Twisted Weyl group multiple Dirichlet series: The stable case. Pages 1–26 of Gan, W. T., Kudla, S. S., and Tschinkel, Y. (eds), Eisenstein Series and Applications. Progress in Mathematics, vol. 258. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Brubaker, B., Bump, D., and Friedberg, S. 2009. Gauss sum combinatorics and metaplectic Eisenstein series. Pages 61–81 of Ginzburg, D., Lapid, E., and Soudry, D. (eds), Automorphic Forms and L-functions I: Global Aspects. Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 488. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

Brubaker, B., Bump, D., and Friedberg, S. 2011a. Eisenstein series, crystals, and ice. Notices Amer. Math. Soc., 58(11), 1563–1571.Google Scholar

Brubaker, B., Bump, D., and Friedberg, S. 2011b. Schur polynomials and the Yang-Baxter equation. Comm. Math. Phys., 308(2), 281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brubaker, B., Bump, D., and Friedberg, S. 2011c. Weyl group multiple Dirichlet series, Eisenstein series and crystal bases. Ann. of Math. (2), 173(2), 1081–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brubaker, B., Bump, D., and Friedberg, S. 2011d. Weyl Group Multiple Dirichlet Series: Type A Combinatorial Theory. Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 175. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Brubaker, B., Bump, D., Friedberg, S., and Hoffstein, J. 2007 . Weyl group multiple Dirichlet series, III: Eisenstein series and twisted unstable A_r. Ann. of Math. (2), 166(1), 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brubaker, B., and Friedberg, S. 2015. Whittaker coefficients of metaplectic Eisenstein series. Geom. Funct. Anal., 25(4), 1180–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bruhat, F., and Tits, J. 1967. Groupes algébriques simples sur un corps local. Pages 23–36 of Springer, T. A. (ed.), Proceedings of a Conference on Local Fields (Driebergen, 1966). Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar

Bruhat, F., and Tits, J. 1972. Groupes réductifs sur un corps local. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., 41, 5–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Geer, G. 2008. Siegel modular forms and their applications. Pages 181–245 of Ranestad, K. (ed.), The 1–2–3 of Modular Forms: Lectures from the Summer School on Modular Forms and their Applications, Held at Nordfjordeid, Norway, June 2004. Universitext. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar

Brylinski, R., and Kostant, B. 1994. Minimal representations, geometric quantization, and unitarity. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 91(13), 6026–6029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bump, D. Hecke algebras. http://sporadic.stanford.edu/bumpmath263/hecke.pdf.Google Scholar

Bump, D. 1998. Automorphic Forms and Representations. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 55. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Bump, D. 2005. The Rankin-Selberg method: An introduction and survey. Pages 41–73 of Cogdell, J. W., Jiang, D., Kudla, S. S., Soudry, D., and Stanton, R. J. (eds), Automorphic Representations, L-functions and Applications: Progress and Prospects. Ohio State University Mathematics Research Institute Publications, vol. 11. de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar

Bump, D., Friedberg, S., and Goldfeld, D. (eds) 2012. Multiple Dirichlet Series, L-functions and Automorphic Forms. Progress in Mathematics, vol. 300. Birkhäuser/Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bump, D., and Nakasuji, M. 2010. Integration on p-adic groups and crystal bases. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 138(5), 1595–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bump, D. W. 1982. Automorphic Forms on GL(3,R). Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1083. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Candelas, P., Horowitz, G. T., Strominger, A., and Witten, E. 1985. Vacuum configurations for superstrings. Nucl. Phys., B258, 46–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carbone, L., Lee, K.-H., and Liu, D. 2017. Eisenstein series on rank 2 hyperbolic Kac-Moody groups. Math. Ann., 367(3–4), 1173–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cardy, J. L. 1989. Boundary conditions, fusion rules and the Verlinde formula. Nucl. Phys., B324, 581–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cardy, J. L. 2004. Boundary conformal field theory. arXiv:hep-th/0411189 [hep-th].Google Scholar

Carnahan, S. 2010. Generalized moonshine, I: Genus-zero functions. Algebra Number Theory, 4(6), 649–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnahan, S. 2012. Generalized moonshine, II: Borcherds products. Duke Math. J., 161(5), 893–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnahan, S. 2012. Generalized moonshine, IV: Monstrous Lie algebras. arXiv:1208.6254 [math.RT].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carter, R. W. 1993. Finite Groups of Lie Type: Conjugacy Classes and Complex Characters. Wiley Classics Library. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Reprint of the 1985 original.Google Scholar

Casselman, B. The L-group. www.math.ubc.ca/∼cass/research/pdf/miyake.pdf.Google Scholar

Casselman, W., and Shalika, J. 1980. The unramified principal series of p-adic groups, II. The Whittaker function. Compos. Math., 41(2), 207–231.Google Scholar

Cheng, M. C. N. 2010. K3 surfaces, N=4 dyons, and the Mathieu group M24. Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 4, 623–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheng, M. C. N., Duncan, J. F. R., Harrison, S. M., and Kachru, S. 2017. Equivariant K3 Invariants. Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 11, 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheng, M. C. N., Duncan, J. F. R., and Harvey, J. A. 2014a. Umbral moonshine. Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 08, 101–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheng, M. C. N., Duncan, J. F. R., and Harvey, J. A. 2014b. Umbral moonshine and the Niemeier lattices. Res. Math. Sci., 1, Art. 3, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheng, M. C. N., and Verlinde, E. 2007. Dying dyons don’t count. JHEP, 09, 070.Google Scholar

Cheng, M. C. N., and Verlinde, E. P. 2008. Wall crossing, discrete attractor flow, and Borcherds algebra. SIGMA, 4, 068.Google Scholar

Chinta, G., and Gunnells, P. E. 2007. Weyl group multiple Dirichlet series constructed from quadratic characters. Invent. Math., 167(2), 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chinta, G., and Gunnells, P. E. 2010. Constructing Weyl group multiple Dirichlet series. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 23(1), 189–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chinta, G., and Gunnells, P. E. 2012. Littelmann patterns and Weyl group multiple Dirichlet series of type D. Pages 119–130 of Bump, D., Friedberg, S., and Goldfeld, D. (eds), Multiple Dirichlet Series, L-Functions and Automorphic Forms. Progress in Mathematics, vol. 300. Birkhäuser/Springer, New York.Google Scholar

Cogdell, J. W. 2004. Lectures on L-functions, converse theorems, and functoriality for GL_n. Pages 1–96 of Cogdell, J. W., Kim, H. H., and Ram Murty, M. (eds), Lectures on Automorphic L-Functions. Fields Institute Monographs, vol. 20. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

Cogdell, J. W. 2005. Converse theorems, functoriality, and applications. Pure Appl. Math. Q., 1(2, Special Issue: In memory of Armand Borel. Part 1), 341–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cogdell, J. W., Kim, H. H., Piatetski-Shapiro, I. I., and Shahidi, F. 2001. On lifting from classical groups to GL_N . Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., 93, 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cogdell, J. W., and Piatetski-Shapiro, I. I. 1994. Converse theorems for GL_n. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., 79, 157–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cogdell, J. W., and Piatetski-Shapiro, I. I. 1999. Converse theorems for GL_n, II. J. Reine Angew. Math., 507, 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, H. 1992. Elliptic curves. Pages 212–237 of Waldschmidt, M., Moussa, P., Luck, J. M., and Itzykson, C. (eds), From Number Theory to Physics. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar

Collingwood, D. H., and McGovern, W. M. 1993. Nilpotent Orbits in Semisimple Lie Algebras. Van Nostrand Reinhold Mathematics Series. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar

Conrad, B., Diamond, F., and Taylor, R. 1999. Modularity of certain potentially Barsotti-Tate Galois representations. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 12(2), 521–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conway, J. H., and Norton, S. P. 1979. Monstrous moonshine. Bull. London Math. Soc., 11(3), 308–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conway, J. H., and Sloane, N. J. A. 1999. Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cremmer, E., and Julia, B. 1978. The N=8 supergravity theory, 1: The Lagrangian. Phys. Lett., B80, 48.Google Scholar

Cremmer, E., and Julia, B. 1979. The SO(8) supergravity. Nucl. Phys., B159, 141–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cremmer, E., Julia, B., Lu, H., and Pope, C. 1998. Dualization of dualities, 1. Nucl. Phys., B523, 73–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dabholkar, A. 2005. Exact counting of black hole microstates. Phys. Rev. Lett., 94, 241301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dabholkar, A., Denef, F., Moore, G. W., and Pioline, B. 2005. Precision counting of small black holes. JHEP, 0510, 096.Google Scholar

Dabholkar, A., Gomes, J., Murthy, S., and Sen, A. 2011. Supersymmetric index from black hole entropy. JHEP, 04, 034.Google Scholar

Dabholkar, A., and Harvey, J. A. 1989. Nonrenormalization of the superstring tension. Phys. Rev. Lett., 63, 478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dabholkar, A., Murthy, S., and Zagier, D. 2012. Quantum black holes, wall crossing, and mock modular forms. arXiv:1208.4074 [hep-th].Google Scholar

Damour, T., and Henneaux, M. 2000. Chaos in superstring cosmology. Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 920–923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Damour, T., and Henneaux, M. 2001. E(10), BE(10) and arithmetical chaos in superstring cosmology. Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, 4749–4752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Damour, T., Henneaux, M., and Nicolai, H. 2002. E(10) and a ‘small tension expansion’ of M theory. Phys. Rev. Lett., 89, 221601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Damour, T., Henneaux, M., and Nicolai, H. 2003. Cosmological billiards. Class. Quant. Grav., 20, R145–R200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Graaf, W. A. 2011. Computing representatives of nilpotent orbits of θ-groups. J. Symbolic Comput., 46(4), 438–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Medts, T., Gramlich, R., and Horn, M. 2009. Iwasawa decompositions of split Kac-Moody groups. J. Lie Theory, 19(2), 311–337.Google Scholar

Deitmar, A. 2012. Automorphic Forms. Universitext. Springer, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Deligne, P. 1974. La conjecture de Weil, I: Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., 43, 273–307.Google Scholar

Denef, F., and Moore, G. W. 2011. Split states, entropy enigmas, holes and halos. JHEP, 1111, 129.Google Scholar

D’Hoker, E. 1999. Perturbative string theory. Pages 807–1011 of Deligne, P., Kazhdan, D., Etingof, P., Morgan, J. W., Free, D. S., Morrison, D. R., and Witten, E. (eds), Quantum Fields and Strings : A Course for Mathematicians. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

D’Hoker, E., and Duke, W. 2017. Fourier series of modular graph functions. arXiv:1708.07998 [math.NT].Google Scholar

D’Hoker, E., and Green, M. B. 2014. Zhang-Kawazumi invariants and superstring amplitudes. Journal of Number Theory, 144, 111–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’Hoker, E., Green, M. B., Gurdogan, O., and Vanhove, P. 2017. Modular graph functions. Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 11, 165–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’Hoker, E., Green, M. B., Pioline, B., and Russo, R. 2015a. Matching the D⁶R⁴ interaction at two-loops. JHEP, 01, 031.Google Scholar

D’Hoker, E., Green, M. B., and Vanhove, P. 2015b. On the modular structure of the genus-one type II superstring low energy expansion. JHEP, 08, 041.Google Scholar

D’Hoker, E., Gutperle, M., and Phong, D. H. 2005. Two-loop superstrings and S-duality. Nucl. Phys., B722, 81–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’Hoker, E., and Phong, D. H. 2002. Lectures on two loop superstrings. Conf. Proc., C0208124, 85–123. (Proceedings of International Conference on Superstring Theory, Hangzhou, China, August 12–15, 2002.)Google Scholar

D’Hoker, E., and Phong, D. H. 1986. Multiloop amplitudes for the bosonic Polyakov string. Nucl. Phys., B269, 205–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’Hoker, E., and Phong, D. H. 2005. Two-loop superstrings, VI: Nonrenormalization theorems and the 4-point function. Nucl. Phys., B715, 3–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Di Francesco, P., Mathieu, P., and Senechal, D. 1997. Conformal Field Theory. Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics. Springer, New York.Google Scholar

Diamond, F. 1996. On deformation rings and Hecke rings. Ann. of Math. (2), 144(1), 137–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diamond, F., and Shurman, J. 2005. A First Course in Modular Forms. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 228. Springer, New York.Google Scholar

Dijkgraaf, R., Verlinde, E. P., and Verlinde, H. L. 1997. Counting dyons in N=4 string theory. Nucl. Phys., B484, 543–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. 1931. Quantized singularities in the electromagnetic field. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., A133, 60–72.Google Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. 1962. An extensible model of the electron. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., A268, 57–67.Google Scholar

Dixon, L. J., Ginsparg, P. H., and Harvey, J. A. 1988. Beauty and the beast: Superconformal symmetry in a monster module. Commun. Math. Phys., 119, 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, L. J., Kaplunovsky, V., and Louis, J. 1991. Moduli dependence of string loop corrections to gauge coupling constants. Nucl. Phys., B355, 649–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ðoković, D. Ž. 2001. The closure diagram for nilpotent orbits of the split real form of E₇. Represent. Theory, 5, 284–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ðoković, D. Ž. 2003. The closure diagram for nilpotent orbits of the split real form of E₈. Cent. Eur. J. Math., 1(4), 573–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donagi, R., and Witten, E. 2013. Supermoduli space is not projected. Pages 19–72 of Donagi, R., Katz. S., Klemm, A., and Morrison, D. R. (eds), String-Math 2012. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 90. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

Douglas, M. R. 1995. Branes within branes. Pages 267–275 of Baulieu, L., Kazakov, V., Picco, M., Windey, P., Di Francesco, P., and Douglas, M. R. (eds), Strings, Branes and Dualities: Proceedings, NATO Advanced Study Institute, Cargèse, France, May 26-June 14, 1997. NATO ASI Series C, vol. 520. Springer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Drinfeld, V. G. 1980. Langlands’ conjecture for GL(2) over functional fields. Pages 565–574 of Lehto, O. (ed.), Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (Helsinki, 1978). Academia Scientiarum Fennica, Helsinki.Google Scholar

Drinfeld, V. G. 1983. Two-dimensional l-adic representations of the fundamental group of a curve over a finite field and automorphic forms on GL(2). Amer. J. Math., 105(1), 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duff, M. J., Lu, H., and Pope, C. N. 1996. The black branes of M theory. Phys. Lett., B382, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duncan, J. F. R., Griffin, M. J., and Ono, K. 2015. Proof of the umbral moonshine conjecture. Res. Math. Sci., 2, Art. 26, 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duncan, J. F. R., Mertens, M. H., and Ono, K. 2017a. O’Nan moonshine and arithmetic. arXiv:1702:03516 [math. NT].Google Scholar

Duncan, J. F. R., Mertens, M. H., and Ono, K. 2017b. Pariah moonshine. Nat. Commun. 8(1). arXiv:1709.08867 [math.RT].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dvorsky, A., and Sahi, S. 1999. Explicit Hilbert spaces for certain unipotent representations, II. Invent. Math., 138(1), 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dynkin, E. B. 1952. Semisimple subalgebras of semisimple Lie algebras. Mat. Sbornik N.S., 30(72), 349–462.Google Scholar

Eguchi, T., and Hikami, K. 2009. Superconformal algebras and mock theta functions 2: Rademacher expansion for K3 surface. Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 3, 531–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eguchi, T., and Hikami, K. 2011. Note on twisted elliptic genus of K3 surface. Phys. Lett., B694, 446–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eguchi, T., and Hikami, K. 2012. Twisted elliptic genus for K3 and Borcherds product. Lett. Math. Phys., 102, 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eguchi, T., Ooguri, H., and Tachikawa, Y. 2011. Notes on the K3 surface and the Mathieu group M₂₄. Exper. Math., 20, 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eichler, M. 1954. Quaternäre quadratische Formen und die Riemannsche Vermutung für die Kongruenzzetafunktion. Arch. Math. (Basel), 5, 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eichler, M., and Zagier, D. 1985. The theory of Jacobi forms. Progress in Mathematics, vol. 55. Birkhäuser, Basel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Englert, F., Houart, L., Kleinschmidt, A., Nicolai, H., and Tabti, N. 2007. An E(9) multiplet of BPS states. JHEP, 0705, 065.Google Scholar

Enriquez, B. 2014. Elliptic associators. Selecta Math. (N.S.), 20(2), 491–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Falbel, E., Francsics, G., Lax, P. D., and Parker, J. R. 2011. Generators of a Picard modular group in two complex dimensions. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 139(7), 2439–2447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fernando, S., and Günaydin, M. 2016. Massless conformal fields, AdS_d+1/CFT_d higher spin algebras and their deformations. Nucl. Phys., B904, 494–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferrara, S., and Günaydin, M. 1998. Orbits of exceptional groups, duality and BPS states in string theory. Int. J. Mod. Phys., A13, 2075–2088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferrara, S., and Maldacena, J. M. 1998. Branes, central charges and U duality invariant BPS conditions. Class. Quant. Grav., 15, 749–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Figueroa-O’Farrill, J. M., and Papadopoulos, G. 2003. Maximally supersymmetric solutions of ten-dimensional and eleven-dimensional supergravities. JHEP, 03, 048.Google Scholar

Figueroa-O’Farrill, J. M., and Simon, J. 2004. Supersymmetric Kaluza-Klein reductions of AdS backgrounds. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 8(2), 217–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flath, D. 1979. Decomposition of representations into tensor products. Pages 179–183 of Borel, A., and Casselman, W. (eds), Automorphic Forms, Representations and L-functions: Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 33. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

Fleig, P., and Kleinschmidt, A. 2012a. Eisenstein series for infinite-dimensional U-duality groups. JHEP, 1206, 054.Google Scholar

Fleig, P., and Kleinschmidt, A. 2012b. Perturbative terms of Kac-Moody-Eisenstein series. Pages 265–275 of Donagi, R., Katz, S., Klemm, A., and Morrison, D. R. (eds), Proceedings, String-Math 2012, Bonn, Germany, July 16–21, 2012. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 90. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

Fleig, P., Kleinschmidt, A., and Persson, D. 2014. Fourier expansions of Kac-Moody Eisenstein series and degenerate Whittaker vectors. Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 08, 41–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Florakis, I., and Pioline, B. 2017. On the Rankin-Selberg method for higher genus string amplitudes. Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 11, 337–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Forte, L. A. 2009. Arithmetical chaos and quantum cosmology. Class. Quant. Grav., 26, 045001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freed, D. S. 1986. Determinants, torsion, and strings. Commun. Math. Phys., 107, 483–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freedman, D. Z., and Van Proeyen, A. 2012. Supergravity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frenkel, E. 2007. Lectures on the Langlands program and conformal field theory. Pages 387–533 of Cartier, P., Moussa, P., Julia, B., and Vanhove, P. (eds), Frontiers in Number Theory, Physics and Geometry, II: On Conformal Field Theories, Discrete Groups and Renormalization. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Frenkel, E. 2009. Gauge theory and Langlands duality. arXiv:0906.2747 [math.RT].Google Scholar

Frenkel, E., Gaitsgory, D., Kazhdan, D., and Vilonen, K. 1998. Geometric realization of Whittaker functions and the Langlands conjecture. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 11(2), 451–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frenkel, E., Gaitsgory, D., and Vilonen, K. 2001. Whittaker patterns in the geometry of moduli spaces of bundles on curves. Ann. of Math. (2), 153(3), 699–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frenkel, E., Gaitsgory, D., and Vilonen, K. 2002. On the geometric Langlands conjecture. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 15(2), 367–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frenkel, E., and Witten, E. 2008. Geometric endoscopy and mirror symmetry. Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 2, 113–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frenkel, I., Lepowsky, J., and Meurman, A. 1988. Vertex Operator Algebras and the Monster. Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 134. Academic Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Frey, G. 1986. Links between stable elliptic curves and certain Diophantine equations. Ann. Univ. Sarav. Ser. Math., 1(1), iv+40.Google Scholar

Friedan, D., Martinec, E. J., and Shenker, S. H. 1986. Conformal invariance, supersymmetry and string theory. Nucl. Phys., B271, 93.Google Scholar

Friedberg, S., and Zhang, L. 2015. Eisenstein series on covers of odd orthogonal groups. Amer. J. Math., 137(4), 953–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Friedberg, S., and Zhang, L. 2016. Tokuyama-type formulas for characters of type B. Israel J. Math., 216(2), 617–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Friedlander, H., Gaudet, L., and Gunnells, P. E. 2015. Crystal graphs, Tokuyama’s theorem, and the Gindikin-Karpelevič formula for G₂. J. Algebraic Combin., 41(4), 1089–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fulton, W. 1997. Young Tableaux. London Mathematical Society Student Texts, vol. 35. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Fulton, W., and Harris, J. 2008. Representation Theory: A First Course. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 129. Springer, London.Google Scholar

Gaberdiel, M. R., Hohenegger, S., and Volpato, R. 2010a. Mathieu moonshine in the elliptic genus of K3. JHEP, 10, 062.Google Scholar

Gaberdiel, M. R., Hohenegger, S., and Volpato, R. 2010b. Mathieu twining characters for K3. JHEP, 09, 058.Google Scholar

Gaberdiel, M. R., Hohenegger, S., and Volpato, R. 2012. Symmetries of K3 sigma models. Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 6, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gaberdiel, M. R., Persson, D., Ronellenfitsch, H., and Volpato, R. 2013. Generalized Mathieu moonshine. Commun. Num. Theor Phys., 07, 145–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gaiotto, D., Moore, G. W., and Neitzke, A. 2010. Four-dimensional wall-crossing via three-dimensional field theory. Commun. Math. Phys., 299, 163–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gaitsgory, D. 2004. On a vanishing conjecture appearing in the geometric Langlands correspondence. Ann. of Math. (2), 160(2), 617–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gaitsgory, D. 2010. Notes on geometric Langlands: The extended Whittaker category. www.math.harvard.edu/∼gaitsgde/GL/extWhit.pdf.Google Scholar

Gaitsgory, D. 2016. Recent progress in geometric Langlands theory. arXiv:1606.09462 [math.AG].Google Scholar

Gan, W. T. Lecture slides on automorphic forms and representations. www.math.nus.edu.sg/∼matgwt/.Google Scholar

Gan, W. T. 2000a. An automorphic theta module for quaternionic exceptional groups. Canad. J. Math., 52(4), 737–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gan, W. T. 2000b. A Siegel-Weil formula for exceptional groups. J. Reine Angew. Math., 528, 149–181.Google Scholar

Gan, W. T., Gross, B., and Savin, G. 2002. Fourier coefficients of modular forms on G₂. Duke Math. J., 115(1), 105–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gan, W. T., Qiu, Y., and Takeda, S. 2014. The regularized Siegel-Weil formula (the second term identity) and the Rallis inner product formula. Invent. Math., 198(3), 739–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gan, W. T., and Savin, G. 2005. On minimal representations: Definitions and properties. Represent. Theory, 9, 46–93 (electronic).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gannon, T. 2002. Boundary conformal field theory and fusion ring representations. Nucl. Phys., B627, 506–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gannon, T. 2016. Much ado about Mathieu. Adv. Math., 301, 322–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gannon, T., and Lam, C. S. 1992. Lattices and theta function identities, 2: Theta series. J. Math. Phys., 33, 871–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garland, H. 2001. Certain Eisenstein series on loop groups: Convergence and the constant term. Pages 275–319 of Dani, S. G., and Prasad, G. (eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Algebraic Groups and Arithmetic, Mumbai, 2001. Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, for Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai.Google Scholar

Garland, H. 2006. Absolute convergence of Eisenstein series on loop groups. Duke Math. J., 135, 203–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garland, H. 2011. On extending the Langlands-Shahidi method to arithmetic quotients of loop groups. Pages 151–167 of Adams, J., Lian, B., and Sahi, S. (eds), Representation Theory and Mathematical Physics. Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 557. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

Garland, H., Miller, S. D., and Patnaik, M. M. 2017. Entirety of cuspidal Eisenstein series on loop groups. Amer. J. Math., 139(2), 461–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garrett, P. 1999. Satake parameters versus unramified principal series. www.math.umn.edu/∼garrett/m/v/satake_urps.pdf.Google Scholar

Garrett, P. 2014. Transition: Eisenstein series on adele groups. www.math.umn.edu/∼garrett/m/mfms/notes_2013–14/12_2_transition_ Eis.pdf.Google Scholar

Gatti, V., and Viniberghi, E. 1978. Spinors of 13-dimensional space. Adv. Math., 30(2), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gauntlett, J. P., Gutowski, J. B., Hull, C. M., Pakis, S., and Reall, H. S. 2003. All supersymmetric solutions of minimal supergravity in five dimensions. Class. Quant. Grav., 20, 4587–4634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gaussent, S., and Rousseau, G. 2014. Spherical Hecke algebras for Kac-Moody groups over local fields. Ann. of Math. (2), 180(3), 1051–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gelbart, S. 1984. An elementary introduction to the Langlands program. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 10(2), 177–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gelbart, S., Jacquet, H., and Rogawski, J. 2001. Generic representations for the unitary group in three variables. Israel J. Math., 126, 173–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gelbart, S., and Piatetski-Shapiro, I. 1984. Automorphic forms and L-functions for the unitary group. Pages 141–184 of Herb, R., Kudla, S., Lipsman, R., and Rosenberg, J. (eds), Lie Group Representations, II (College Park, MD, 1982/1983). Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1041. Springer, Berlin, New York.Google Scholar

Gelbart, S., and Shahidi, F. 1988. Analytic Properties of Automorphic L-functions. Perspectives in Mathematics, vol. 6. Academic Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Gelbart, S. S. 1975. Automorphic Forms on Adele Groups. Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 83. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gelbart, S. S. 1976. Weil’s Representation and the Spectrum of the Metaplectic Group. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 530. Springer, Berlin, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gelbart, S. S., and Miller, S. D. 2003. Riemann’s zeta function and beyond. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 41(1), 59–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gelbart, S. S., and Rogawski, J. D. 1991. L-functions and Fourier-Jacobi coefficients for the unitary group U(3). Invent. Math., 105(3), 445–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gelfand, I., Graev, M., and Piatetski-Shapiro, I. 1968. Representation Theory and Automorphic Functions. Saunders Mathematics Books. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Gelfand, I. M., and Cetlin, M. L. 1950. Finite-dimensional representations of the group of unimodular matrices. Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR (N.S.), 71, 825–828.Google Scholar

Gerasimov, A., Lebedev, D., and Oblezin, S. 2006. Givental integral representation for classical groups. arXiv:math/0608152.Google Scholar

Gerasimov, A., Lebedev, D., and Oblezin, S. 2009. On Baxter Q-operators and their arithmetic implications. Lett. Math. Phys., 88(1–3), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gerasimov, A., Lebedev, D., and Oblezin, S. 2010a. On q-deformed gl_l+1-Whittaker function, I. Comm. Math. Phys., 294(1), 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gerasimov, A., Lebedev, D., and Oblezin, S. 2010b. On q-deformed gl_l+1-Whittaker function, II. Comm. Math. Phys., 294(1), 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gerasimov, A., Lebedev, D., and Oblezin, S. 2011a. On q-deformed gl_ℓ+1-Whittaker function, III. Lett. Math. Phys., 97(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gerasimov, A., Lebedev, D., and Oblezin, S. 2011b. Parabolic Whittaker functions and topological field theories, I. Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 5, 135–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gerasimov, A., Lebedev, D., and Oblezin, S. 2014. Baxter Operator Formalism for Macdonald Polynomials. Lett. Math. Phys., 104, 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gerasimov, A. A., Lebedev, D. R., and Oblezin, S. V. 2012. New integral representations of Whittaker functions for classical Lie groups. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 67(1(403)), 3–96.Google Scholar

Gibbons, G. W., Green, M. B., and Perry, M. J. 1996. Instantons and seven-branes in type IIB superstring theory. Phys. Lett., B370, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ginzburg, D. 2006. Certain conjectures relating unipotent orbits to automorphic representations. Israel J. Math., 151, 323–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ginzburg, D. 2014. Towards a classification of global integral constructions and functorial liftings using the small representations method. Adv. Math., 254, 157–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ginzburg, D., and Hundley, J. 2013. Constructions of global integrals in the exceptional group F₄. Kyushu J. Math., 67(2), 389–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ginzburg, D., Rallis, S., and Soudry, D. 1997a. On the automorphic theta representation for simply laced groups. Israel J. Math., 100, 61–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ginzburg, D., Rallis, S., and Soudry, D. 1997b. A tower of theta correspondences for G₂. Duke Math. J., 88(3), 537–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ginzburg, D., Rallis, S., and Soudry, D. 2003. On Fourier coefficients of automorphic forms of symplectic groups. Manuscripta Math., 111(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givental, A. 1997. Stationary phase integrals, quantum Toda lattices, flag manifolds and the mirror conjecture. Pages 103–115 of Khovanski, A., Varclienko, A., and Vassiliev, V. (eds), Topics in Singularity Theory. American Mathematical Society Translations, Series 2, vol. 180. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

Goddard, P., Nuyts, J., and Olive, D. I. 1977. Gauge theories and magnetic charge. Nucl. Phys., B125, 1.Google Scholar

Goddard, P., and Olive, D. 1986. Kac-Moody and Virasoro algebras in relation to quantum physics. Internat. J. Modern Phys. A, 1(2), 303–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goddard, P., and Thorn, C. B. 1972. Compatibility of the dual pomeron with unitarity and the absence of ghosts in the dual resonance model. Phys. Lett., B40, 235–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Godement, R. 1962. Domaines fondamentaux des groupes arithmétiques. Pages 201–225 of Séminaire Bourbaki, Vol. 8, Exp. No. 257. Société Mathématique de France, Paris.Google Scholar

Godement, R. 1995. Introduction à la théorie de Langlands. Pages 115–144 of Séminaire Bourbaki, Vol. 10, Exp. No. 321. Société Mathématique de France, Paris.Google Scholar

Goldfeld, D. 2006. Automorphic Forms and L-functions for the Group GL(n, R). Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 99. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Goldfeld, D., and Hundley, J. 2011a. Automorphic Representations and L-Functions for the General Linear Group. Volume I. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 129. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Goldfeld, D., and Hundley, J. 2011b. Automorphic Representations and L-Functions for the General Linear Group. Volume II. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 130. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Gomes, J. 2017. U-duality invariant quantum entropy from sums of Kloosterman sums. arXiv:1709.06579 [hep-th].Google Scholar

Gomez, H., and Mafra, C. R. 2013. The closed-string 3-loop amplitude and S-duality. JHEP, 1310, 217.Google Scholar

Gomez, R., Gourevitch, D., and Sahi, S. 2016. Whittaker supports for representations of reductive groups. arXiv:1610.00284 [math.RT].Google Scholar

Gomez, R., Gourevitch, D., and Sahi, S. 2017. Generalized and degenerate Whittaker models. Compos. Math., 153(2), 223–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goncharov, A., and Shen, L. 2015. Geometry of canonical bases and mirror symmetry. Invent. Math., 202(2), 487–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gourevitch, D., and Sahi, S. 2013. Annihilator varieties, adduced representations, Whittaker functionals, and rank for unitary representations of GL(n). Selecta Math. (N.S.), 19(1), 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gourevitch, D., and Sahi, S. 2015. Degenerate Whittaker functionals for real reductive groups. Amer. J. Math., 137(2), 439–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graham, R., and Szepfalusy, P. 1990. Quantum creation of a generic universe. Phys. Rev., D42, 2483–2490.Google Scholar

Gran, U., Gutowski, J., and Papadopoulos, G. 2010a. Classification of IIB backgrounds with 28 supersymmetries. JHEP, 01, 044.Google Scholar

Gran, U., Gutowski, J., and Papadopoulos, G. 2010b. M-theory backgrounds with 30 Killing spinors are maximally supersymmetric. JHEP, 03, 112.Google Scholar

Gran, U., Papadopoulos, G., and von Schultz, C. 2014. Supersymmetric geometries of IIA supergravity, I. JHEP, 05, 024.Google Scholar

Gran, U., Papadopoulos, G., and von Schultz, C. 2015. Supersymmetric geometries of IIA supergravity, II. JHEP, 12, 113.Google Scholar

Gran, U., Papadopoulos, G., and von Schultz, C. 2016. Supersymmetric geometries of IIA supergravity, III. JHEP, 06, 045.Google Scholar

Green, M. B. 1995. A gas of D instantons. Phys. Lett., B354, 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M. B. 1999. Interconnections between type II superstrings, M theory and N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills. Pages 22–96 of Cevesole, A., Kounnas, C., Lüst, D., and Theisen, S. (eds), Quantum Aspects of Gauge Theories, Supersymmetry and Unification: Proceedings, 2nd International Conference, Corfu, Greece, September 20–26, 1998. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 525. Springer, Berlin, New York.Google Scholar

Green, M. B., and Gutperle, M. 1997. Effects of D instantons. Nucl. Phys., B498, 195–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M. B., and Gutperle, M. 1998. D particle bound states and the D instanton measure. JHEP, 01, 005.Google Scholar

Green, M. B., Gutperle, M., and Kwon, H.-H. 1998. Sixteen fermion and related terms in M theory on T**2. Phys. Lett., B421, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M. B., Gutperle, M., and Vanhove, P. 1997. One loop in eleven-dimensions. Phys. Lett., B409, 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M. B., Kwon, H.-H., and Vanhove, P. 2000. Two loops in eleven-dimensions. Phys. Rev., D61, 104010.Google Scholar

Green, M. B., Miller, S. D., Russo, J. G., and Vanhove, P. 2010. Eisenstein series for higher-rank groups and string theory amplitudes. Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 4, 551–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M. B., Miller, S. D., and Vanhove, P. 2015a. SL(2, Z)-invariance and D-instanton contributions to the D⁶R⁴ interaction. Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 09, 307–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M. B., Miller, S. D., and Vanhove, P. 2015b. Small representations, string instantons, and Fourier modes of Eisenstein series. J. Number Theory, 146, 187–309. With an appendix by D. Ciubotaru and P. Trapa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M. B., Russo, J. G., and Vanhove, P. 2008a. Low energy expansion of the four-particle genus-one amplitude in type II superstring theory. JHEP, 02, 020.Google Scholar

Green, M. B., Russo, J. G., and Vanhove, P. 2008b. Modular properties of two-loop maximal supergravity and connections with string theory. JHEP, 07, 126.Google Scholar

Green, M. B., Russo, J. G., and Vanhove, P. 2010a. Automorphic properties of low energy string amplitudes in various dimensions. Phys. Rev., 81(8), 086008.Google Scholar

Green, M. B., Russo, J. G., and Vanhove, P. 2010b. String theory dualities and supergravity divergences. JHEP, 1006, 075.Google Scholar

Green, M. B., Schwarz, J., and Witten, E. 1987. Superstring Theory. Vols I & II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Green, M. B., and Sethi, S. 1999. Supersymmetry constraints on type IIB supergravity. Phys. Rev. D, 59(4), 046006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M. B., and Vanhove, P. 1997. D instantons, strings and M theory. Phys. Lett., B408, 122–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M. B., and Vanhove, P. 2006. Duality and higher derivative terms in M theory. JHEP, 0601, 093.Google Scholar

Gritsenko, V. A., and Nikulin, V. V. 1997. Siegel automorphic form corrections of some Lorentzian Kac–Moody Lie algebras. Amer. J. Math., 119(1), 181–224.Google Scholar

Gross, B. H. On the Satake isomorphism. www.math.harvard.edu/ ∼gross/preprints/sat.pdf.Google Scholar

Gross, B. H., and Kudla, S. S. 1992. Heights and the central critical values of triple product L-functions. Compos. Math., 81(2), 143–209.Google Scholar

Gross, B. H., and Wallach, N. R. 1994. A distinguished family of unitary representations for the exceptional groups of real rank = 4. Pages 289–304 of Kostant, B., and Brylinski, J.-L. (eds), Lie Theory and Geometry. Progress in Mathematics, vol. 123. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Gross, B. H., and Wallach, N. R. 1996. On quaternionic discrete series representations, and their continuations. J. Reine Angew. Math., 481, 73–123.Google Scholar

Gross, B. H., and Zagier, D. B. 1986. Heegner points and derivatives of L-series. Invent. Math., 84(2), 225–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gross, D. J., and Witten, E. 1986. Superstring modifications of Einstein’s equations. Nucl. Phys., B277, 1.Google Scholar

Gubay, F., Lambert, N., and West, P. 2010. Constraints on automorphic forms of higher derivative terms from compactification. JHEP, 1008, 028.Google Scholar

Gukov, S., and Witten, E. 2006. Gauge theory, ramification, and the geometric Langlands program. arXiv:hep-th/0612073 [hep-th].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Günaydin, M., Koepsell, K., and Nicolai, H. 2001a. Conformal and quasiconformal realizations of exceptional Lie groups. Comm. Math. Phys., 221(1), 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Günaydin, M., Koepsell, K., and Nicolai, H. 2001b. The minimal unitary representation of E₈₍₈₎ . Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 5(5), 923–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Günaydin, M., Neitzke, A., Pavlyk, O., and Pioline, B. 2008. Quasi-conformal actions, quaternionic discrete series and twistors: SU(2, 1) and G₂₍₂₎ . Commun. Math. Phys., 283, 169–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Günaydin, M., Neitzke, A., Pioline, B., and Waldron, A. 2006. BPS black holes, quantum attractor flows, and automorphic forms. Phys. Rev. D, 73(8), 084019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Günaydin, M., and Pavlyk, O. 2005. Minimal unitary realizations of exceptional U-duality groups and their subgroups as quasiconformal groups. JHEP, 01, 019.Google Scholar

Günaydin, M., and Pavlyk, O. 2006. A unified approach to the minimal unitary realizations of noncompact groups and supergroups. JHEP, 09, 050.Google Scholar

Gurevich, N. 2013. The twisted Satake isomorphism and Casselman-Shalika formula. arXiv:1307.7510 [math.RT].Google Scholar

Gustafsson, H. P. A., Kleinschmidt, A., and Persson, D. 2016. Small automorphic representations and degenerate Whittaker vectors. J. Number Theory, 166, 344–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hamel, A. M., and King, R. C. 2002. Symplectic shifted tableaux and deformations of Weyl’s denominator formula for sp(2n). J. Algebraic Combin., 16(3), 269–300 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harish-Chandra, . 1968. Automorphic Forms on Semisimple Lie Groups. Notes by Mars, J. G. M.. Lecture Notes inMathematics, vol. 62. Springer, Berlin, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harish-Chandra, . 1978. Admissible Invariant Distributions on Reductive p-adic Groups. Pages 281–347 of Rossmann, W. (ed.), Lie Theories and Their Applications: Proceedings of the 1977 Annual Seminar of the Canadian Mathematical Congress, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, 1977. Queen’s Papers in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 48. Queen’s University, Kingston, ON.Google Scholar

Harris, M. 2002. On the local Langlands correspondence. Pages 583–597 of Tatsien, L. (ed.), Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Beijing, 2002, vol. II. Higher Education Press, Beijing.Google Scholar

Harris, M., and Kudla, S. S. 1991. The central critical value of a triple product L-function. Ann. of Math. (2), 133(3), 605–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, M., and Taylor, R. 2001. The Geometry and Cohomology of Some Simple Shimura Varieties. Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 151. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. With an appendix by V. G. Berkovich.Google Scholar

Harvey, J. A., and Moore, G. W. 1996. Algebras, BPS states, and strings. Nucl. Phys., B463, 315–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harvey, J. A., and Moore, G. W. 1998. On the algebras of BPS states. Commun. Math. Phys., 197, 489–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hashizume, M. 1982. Whittaker functions on semisimple Lie groups. Hiroshima Math. J., 12(2), 259–293.Google Scholar

Hasse, H. 1933. Beweis des Analogons der Riemannschen Vermutung für die Artinschen und F. K. Schmidtschen Kongruenzzetafunktionen in gewissen elliptischen Fällen. Nachr. Gesell. Wissen. Göttingen, 42, 253–262.Google Scholar

Hecke, E. 1937a. Über Modulfunktionen und die Dirichletschen Reihen mit Eulerscher Produktentwicklung, I. Math. Ann., 114(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hecke, E. 1937b. Über Modulfunktionen und die Dirichletschen Reihen mit Eulerscher Produktentwicklung, II. Math. Ann., 114(1), 316–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Helgason, S. 2001. Differential Geometry, Lie Groups and Symmetric Spaces. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 34. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henneaux, M., Persson, D., and Spindel, P. 2008. Spacelike singularities and hidden symmetries of gravity. Living Rev. Rel., 11, 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Henniart, G. 2000. Une preuve simple des conjectures de Langlands pour GL(n) sur un corps p-adique. Invent. Math., 139(2), 439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hickey, T. J. 1986. On the Fourier-Jacobi Coefficients of Certain Eisenstein Series on a Unitary Group. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Hori, K., Katz, S., Klemm, A., Pandharipande, R., Thomas, R., Vafa, C., Vakil, R., and Zaslow, E. 2003. Mirror Symmetry. Clay Mathematics Monographs, vol. 1. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

Horowitz, G. T., and Strominger, A. 1991. Black strings and P-branes. Nucl. Phys., B360, 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howe, P. S., and West, P. C. 1984. The complete N=2, D=10 supergravity. Nucl. Phys., B238, 181–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howe, R. 1974. The Fourier transform and germs of characters (case of Gl_n over a p-adic field). Math. Ann., 208, 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howe, R. 1979. θ-series and invariant theory. Pages 275–285 of Borel, A., and Casselman, W. (eds), Automorphic Forms, Representations and L-Functions. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 33. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

Howe, R. 1985. Dual pairs in physics: Harmonic oscillators, photons, electrons, and singletons. Pages 179–207 of Flato, M., Sally, P., and Zukerman, G. (eds), Applications of Group Theory in Physics and Mathematical Physics (Chicago, 1982). Lectures in Applied Mathematics, vol. 21. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar

Howe, R. 1990. Another look at the local θ-correspondence for an unramified dual pair. Pages 93–124 of Gelbart, S., Howe, R., and Sarnak, P. (eds), Festschrift in Honor of I. I. Piatetski-Shapiro on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, Part I (Ramat Aviv, 1989). Israel Mathematical Conference Proceedings, vol. 2. Weizmann Science Press, Jerusalem.Google Scholar

Huang, J.-S., Pandžić, P., and Savin, G. 1996. New dual pair correspondences. Duke Math. J., 82(2), 447–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hull, C., and Townsend, P. 1995. Unity of superstring dualities. Nucl. Phys., B438, 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Humphreys, J. E. 1975. Linear Algebraic Groups. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 21. Springer, Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Humphreys, J. E. 1980. Arithmetic Groups. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 789. Springer, Berlin, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Humphreys, J. E. 1997. Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 9. Springer, London.Google Scholar

Ion, B., and Sahi, S. 2015. Double affine Hecke algebras and congruence groups. arXiv:1506.06417 [math.QA].Google Scholar

Ishii, T., and Stade, E. 2007. New formulas for Whittaker functions on GL(n, R). J. Funct. Anal., 244(1), 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ishikawa, Y.-H. 1999. The generalized Whittaker functions for SU(2, 1) and the Fourier expansion of automorphic forms. J. Math. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, 6, 477–526.Google Scholar

Ivashchuk, V. D., and Melnikov, V. N. 1995. Billiard representation for multidimensional cosmology with multicomponent perfect fluid near the singularity. Class. Quant. Grav., 12, 809–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Iwaniec, H. 2002. Spectral Methods of Automorphic Forms. Second edn. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 53. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacquet, H. 1967. Fonctions de Whittaker associées aux groupes de Chevalley. Bull. Soc. Math. France, 95, 243–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacquet, H. 1984. On the residual spectrum of GL(n). Pages 185–208 of Herb, R., Kudla, S., Lipsman, R., and Rosenberg, J. (eds), Lie Group Representations, II (College Park, MD, 1982/1983). Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1041. Springer, Berlin, New York.Google Scholar

Jacquet, H., and Langlands, R. P. 1970. Automorphic Forms on GL(2). Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 114. Springer, Berlin, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jiang, D., Liu, B., and Savin, G. 2016. Raising nilpotent orbits in wave-front sets. Represent. Theory, 20, 419–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jiang, D., and Rallis, S. 1997. Fourier coefficients of Eisenstein series of the exceptional group of type G₂. Pacific J. Math., 181(2), 281–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jiang, D., and Soudry, D. 2004. Generic representations and local Langlands reciprocity law for p-adic SO2n+1. Pages 457–519 of Hida, H., Ramakrishnan, D., and Shahidi, F. (eds), Contributions to Automorphic Forms, Geometry, and Number Theory. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar

Jones, G., and Jones, J. 1998. Elementary Number Theory. Springer Undergraduate Mathematics Series. Springer, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, A. 1974. Minimal realizations and spectrum generating algebras. Comm. Math. Phys., 36, 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, A. 1976. The minimal orbit in a simple Lie algebra and its associated maximal ideal. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4), 9(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, A. 1985. On the associated variety of a primitive ideal. J. Algebra, 93(2), 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joyce, D., and Song, Y. 2012. A theory of generalized Donaldson-Thomas invariants. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 217(1020), iv+199.Google Scholar

Julia, B. 1981. Group disintegrations. Pages 331–350 of Hawking, S. W., and Roček, M. (eds), Superspace and Supergravity (Proceedings of Nuffield Workshop, Cambridge, June 16 to July 12, 1980). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Kac, V. G. 1990. Infinite Dimensional Lie Algebras. Third edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kapranov, M. 1998. Double affine Hecke algebras and 2-dimensional local fields. arXiv:math/9812021.Google Scholar

Kapustin, A., and Witten, E. 2007. Electric-magnetic duality and the geometric Langlands program. Commun. Num. Theor. Phys., 1, 1–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kashiwara, M. 1990. Crystalizing the q-analogue of universal enveloping algebras. Comm. Math. Phys., 133(2), 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Katz, S., Klemm, A., Pandharipande, R., and Thomas, R. P. 2016. On the motivic stable pairs invariants of K3 surfaces. Pages 111–146 of Faber, C., Farkas, G., and van der Geer, G. (eds), K3 Surfaces and Their Moduli. Progress in Mathematics, vol. 315. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Kawai, T. 1996. N=2 heterotic string threshold correction, K3 surface and generalized Kac-Moody superalgebra. Phys. Lett., B372, 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kawazumi, N. 2008. Johnson’s homomorphisms and the Arakelov-Green function. arXiv:0801.4218 [math.GT].Google Scholar

Kazhdan, D., Pioline, B., and Waldron, A. 2002. Minimal representations, spherical vectors, and exceptional theta series. Commun. Math. Phys., 226, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kazhdan, D., and Polishchuk, A. 2004. Minimal representations: Spherical vectors and automorphic functionals. Pages 127–198 of Dani, S. G., and Prasad, G. (eds), Algebraic Groups and Arithmetic. Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, for Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai.Google Scholar

Kazhdan, D., and Savin, G. 1990. The smallest representation of simply laced groups. Pages 209–223 of Gelbart, S., Howe, R., and Sarnak, P. (eds), Festschrift in honor of II Piatetski-Shapiro on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, Part I (Ramat Aviv, 1989). Israel Mathematical Conference Proceedings, vol. 2. Weizmann Science Press, Jerusalem.Google Scholar

Kim, H. H. 1996. The residual spectrum of G₂. Canad. J. Math., 48(6), 1245–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, H. H., and Lee, K.-H. 2012. Quantum affine algebras, canonical bases, and q-deformation of arithmetical functions. Pacific J. Math., 255(2), 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, H. H., and Shahidi, F. 1999. Symmetric cube L-functions for GL₂ are entire. Ann. of Math. (2), 150(2), 645–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, H. H., and Shahidi, F. 2000. Holomorphy of Rankin triple L-functions: Special values and root numbers for symmetric cube L-functions. Israel J. Math., 120, 449–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, H. H., and Shahidi, F. 2002. Functorial products for GL2 × GL3 and the symmetric cube for GL₂. Ann. of Math. (2), 155(3), 837–893. With an appendix by C. J. Bushnell and G. Henniart.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, H. H., and Shahidi, F. 2004. On simplicity of poles of automorphic L-functions. J. Ramanujan Math. Soc., 19(4), 267–280.Google Scholar

Kim, M. 2015. Arithmetic Chern-Simons theory I. arXiv:1510.05818 [math.NT].Google Scholar

Kirillov, A. A. 1995. Reduction of additional dimensions in nonuniform quantum Kaluza-Klein cosmological models. JETP Lett., 62, 89–94. [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.62,81(1995)].Google Scholar