# Quantum mock modular forms arising from eta–theta functions

- Amanda Folsom
^{1}, - Sharon Garthwaite
^{2}, - Soon-Yi Kang
^{3}, - Holly Swisher
^{4}and - Stephanie Treneer
^{5}Email authorView ORCID ID profile

**2**:14

**DOI: **10.1007/s40993-016-0045-7

© The Author(s) 2016

**Received: **7 April 2016

**Accepted: **13 June 2016

**Published: **8 August 2016

## Abstract

In 2013, Lemke Oliver classified all eta-quotients which are theta functions. In this paper, we unify the eta–theta functions by constructing mock modular forms from the eta–theta functions with even characters, such that the shadows of these mock modular forms are given by the eta–theta functions with odd characters. In addition, we prove that our mock modular forms are quantum modular forms. As corollaries, we establish simple finite hypergeometric expressions which may be used to evaluate Eichler integrals of the odd eta–theta functions, as well as some curious algebraic identities.

### Keywords

Theta functions Mock modular forms Quantum modular forms## 1 Introduction and statement of results

*eta-products*, functions of the form

*c*are positive integers, have been of interest not only within the classical theory of modular forms, but also in connection to the representation theory of finite groups. Conway and Norton [8] showed that many character generating functions for the “Monster” group \({\mathbb {M}}\), the largest of the finite sporadic simple groups, could be realized as

*eta-quotients*, which are of the same form as the functions in (2), but allow negative integer exponents \(b_j\). Mason [23] similarly exhibited many character generating functions for the Mathieu group \({\mathbb {M}}_{24}\) as

*multiplicative*eta-products, meaning their

*q*-series have multiplicative coefficients, as seen in (1) for example. This relationship to character generating functions in part motivated Dummit, Kisilevsky and McKay [9] to classify all multiplicative eta-products. Later, Martin [22] classified all multiplicative integer weight eta-quotients.

*q*-series, the right-most function in (1) is also an example of a

*theta function*, which is of the form

*eta–theta functions*\(E_m\), and eighteen even eta–theta functions \(e_n\) (some of which are twists by certain principal characters). By “odd (resp. even) eta–theta function”, we mean an eta-quotient which is also a theta function with odd (resp. even) character. See Sect. 2.1 for more on these functions.

*M*is the

*holomorphic part*of \(\widehat{M}\), and \(M^-\) is the

*non-holomorphic part*of \(\widehat{M}\). For example, when viewed as a function of \(\tau \), we now know that the function

*q*-hypergeometric series in (4), is one of Ramanujan’s original

*mock theta functions*, certain curious

*q*-series whose exact modular properties were unknown for almost a century. Beautifully, all of Ramanujan’s original mock theta functions turn out to be examples of holomorphic parts of harmonic Maass forms [31], and we now define after Zagier [28] a

*mock modular form*to be any holomorphic part of a harmonic Maass form. Mock modular forms come naturally equipped with a

*shadow*, a certain modular cusp form related via a differential operator, which we formally define in Sect. 2.3. In the example given above in (4), it turns out that the shadow of Ramanujan’s

*q*-hypergeometric mock theta function is essentially the modular theta function given in the numerator of the integral appearing there (up to a simple multiplicative factor).

As mentioned above, character generating functions for \({\mathbb {M}}_{24}\) appear as multiplicative eta-products. We now also know that there is a rich Moonshine phenomenon surrounding mock modular forms. Eguchi, Ooguri and Tachikawa [11], in analogy to the original Moonshine conjectures, observed that certain characters for the Mathieu group \({\mathbb {M}}_{24}\) appeared to be related to mock modular forms. Their work was later generalized and greatly extended by Cheng, Duncan, and Harvey [7], who developed an “umbral Moonshine” theory. Their umbral Moonshine conjectures were recently proved by Duncan, Griffin, and Ono [10].

These connections serve as motivation for the first set of results in this paper. In Sect. 3, we unify the eta–theta functions by constructing mock modular forms which encode them in the following ways. We define functions \(V_{mn}\) using the even eta–theta functions \(e_n\), and in Theorem 1.1, we prove that these functions \(V_{mn}\) are mock modular forms, with the additional property that their shadows are given by the odd eta–theta functions \(E_m\).

To describe these results, we introduce some notation. The functions \(V_{mn}\) are indexed by pairs (*m*, *n*) where \(m \in T':=\{1,2,3,4,4',4'',5,6\}\) and \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\), and the admissible values for *n* are dependent on *m*. Throughout, we will call a pair (*m*, *n*) *admissible* if it is used to index one of our functions \(V_{mn}\). In total, there are 59 admissible pairs (*m*, *n*) where \(m\in T'\). When we restrict \(m\in T:=\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}\), a particular subset which we also consider, there are a total of 43 admissible pairs (*m*, *n*). We provide a complete list of these functions in the Appendix. The groups \(A_{mn}\), integers \(k^{(mn)}_{\gamma _{mn}}, \ell ^{(mn)}_{\gamma _{mn}}, r^{(mn)}_{\gamma _{mn}},\) and \(s^{(mn)}_{\gamma _{mn}}\), and roots of unity \(\varepsilon _{\gamma _{mn}}^{(m)}\) appearing in Theorem 1.1 below and throughout are defined in Sect. 3; the root of unity \(\psi \) is defined in Lemma 2.1, and the constants \(c_m\) are defined in Sect. 5.

### Theorem 1.1

*m*,

*n*) with \(m \in T'\), the functions \(V_{mn}\) are mock modular forms of weight 1 / 2 with respect to the congruence subgroups \(A_{mn}\). Moreover, for \(m\in T\), the shadow of \(V_{mn}\) is given by a constant multiple of the odd eta–theta function \(E_m\big (\frac{2\tau }{c_m^2}\big )\). In particular, the functions \(V_{mn}, m\in T'\), may be completed to form harmonic Maass forms \(\widehat{V}_{mn}\) of weight 1 / 2 on \(A_{mn}\), which satisfy for all \(\gamma _{mn} = \left( {\begin{matrix} a_{mn} &{} b_{mn} \\ c_{mn} &{} d_{mn}\end{matrix}}\right) \in A_{mn}\), and \(\tau \in {\mathbb {H}}\),

Because there are infinitely many mock modular forms with a given shadow, we are additionally motivated to construct our functions \(V_{mn}\) so that they are in some sense canonical. One way of doing this is by utilizing the even eta–theta functions \(e_n\) in the construction of these functions, as we have already mentioned. Further, we show in Theorem 1.2 that our mock modular forms \(V_{mn}\) are also *quantum* modular forms, a property that is not necessarily true of all mock modular forms. A quantum modular form, as defined by Zagier [30] in 2010, is a complex function defined on an appropriate subset of the rational numbers, as opposed to the upper half-plane, which transforms like a modular form, up to the addition of an error function that is suitably continuous or analytic in \({\mathbb {R}}\). (See Sect. 5 for more details.) The theory of quantum modular forms is in its beginning stages; constructing explicit examples of these functions remains of interest, as does answering the question of how quantum modular forms may arise from mock modular forms (see the recent articles [3, 6, 13], for example).

The appropriate sets \(S_{mn}\) of rational numbers pertaining to the quantum modularity of the forms \(V_{mn}\) are defined in Sect. 4. The groups \(G_{mn}\) and constants \(\ell _m, a_m, b_m, c_m\) and \(\kappa _{mn}\) appearing below are defined in Sect. 5. Here and throughout, the numbers \(\ell _{mn}\) are defined to equal \(\ell _m\) or 2, depending on whether or not \(n=1\). For \(N\in {\mathbb {N}}\), we define \(\zeta _N := e(1/N)\), and for \(r\in {\mathbb {Z}}\), we let \(M_r:=\left( {\begin{matrix} 1 &{} 0 \\ r &{} 1\end{matrix}}\right) \).

### Theorem 1.2

*m*,

*n*) with \(m \in T\), the functions \(V_{mn}\) are quantum modular forms of weight 1 / 2 on the sets \(S_{mn}\backslash \big \{\frac{-1}{\ell _{mn}}\big \}\) for the groups \(G_{mn}\). In particular, the following are true.

- (i)For all \(x\in \mathbb {H}\cup S_{mn}\backslash \left\{ \frac{-1}{2}\right\} \), we have that$$\begin{aligned} V_{mn}(x)+\zeta _{4}^{\ell _m}(2 x+1)^{-\frac{1}{2}}V_{mn}\left( M_{2} x\right) =-\frac{i}{c_m}\int _{\frac{1}{2}}^{i\infty } \frac{E_m \big (\tfrac{2u}{c_m^2}\big )}{\sqrt{-i(u+x)}}\,du. \end{aligned}$$
- (ii)For \(n=1\) and \(m\in \{2,4,6\}\), for all \(x\in \mathbb {H}\cup S_{mn}\backslash \left\{ -1\right\} \), we also have that$$\begin{aligned} V_{m1}(x)-\zeta _{8}^{ -1 } ( x+1)^{-\frac{1}{2}}V_{m1}\left( M_{1} x\right) =-\frac{i}{c_m}\int _{1}^{i\infty } \frac{E_m \big (\tfrac{2u}{c_m^2}\big )}{\sqrt{-i(u+x)}}\,du. \end{aligned}$$(5)
- (iii)For all \(x\in \mathbb {H}\cup S_{mn}\), we have that$$\begin{aligned} V_{mn}(x) - \zeta _{a_m}^{\kappa _{mn}} V_{mn}(x+ \kappa _{mn} b_m)&= 0. \end{aligned}$$(6)

*q*-hypergeometric series for integers \(h \in {\mathbb {Z}}, k \in {\mathbb {N}}\) \((\gcd (h,k)=1)\) by

### Corollary 1.3

- (i)Let \(m\in \{1,2,3,5,6\}\), and \(\frac{h}{k} \in S_{m1} {\setminus } \{\frac{-1}{\ell _m}\}\). Then we have thatMoreover, we have for \(m\in \{1,2,5\}\) that$$\begin{aligned}&\frac{-i}{c_m} \int _{\frac{1}{\ell _m}}^{i\infty } \frac{E_m(\frac{2z}{c_m^2})}{\sqrt{-i\left( z+\tfrac{h}{k}\right) }}dz = i^{1+\ell _m} \zeta _{a_m c_m k}^{2 d_m h} F_{h,k}\left( -i^{\ell _m-3} \zeta _{c_m k}^h,-i^{3-\ell _m} \zeta _{a_m k}^{d_m h}\right) \nonumber \\ {}&\quad - \zeta _{8}^{-5\ell _m} \zeta _{a_m c_m K_{\ell _m}}^{2 d_m H_{\ell _m}} \left( \tfrac{\ell _m h}{k}+1\right) ^{-\frac{1}{2}}F_{H_{\ell _m},K_{\ell _m}}\left( -i^{\ell _m - 3 } \zeta _{c_m K_{\ell _m}}^{H_{\ell _m}}, -i^{3-\ell _m} \zeta _{a_m K_{\ell _m}}^{d_m H_{\ell _m}}\right) .\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$(8)$$\begin{aligned} F_{h,k}(-i^{ \ell _m - 3} \zeta _{c_m k}^h,-i^{3-\ell _m} \zeta _{a_m k}^{d_m h}) + F_{h,k}(i^{\ell _m-3} \zeta _{c_m k}^{h},i^{3-\ell _m} \zeta _{a_m k}^{d_m h}) = 0. \end{aligned}$$(9)
- (ii)Let \(\frac{h}{k} \in S_{41}\backslash \{-1\}\). Then we have thatMoreover, we have that$$\begin{aligned}&\frac{-i}{24} \int _1^{i\infty } \frac{E_4(z/288)}{\sqrt{-i\left( z+\tfrac{h}{k}\right) }}dz = -\zeta _{288 k}^{11h} F_{h,k}\left( \zeta _{24k}^h,\zeta _{24k}^{11h}\right) -\zeta _{288 k}^{35h} F_{h,k}\left( \zeta _{24k}^{5h},\zeta _{24k}^{7h}\right) \nonumber \\&\quad + \zeta _8^{-1} \left( \tfrac{h}{k} \!+\!1\right) ^{-\frac{1}{2}} \left( \zeta _{288 K_1}^{11H_1} F_{H_1,K_1}\left( \zeta _{24K_1}^{H_1},\zeta _{24K_1}^{11H_1}\right) +\zeta _{288 K_1}^{35H_1} F_{H_1,K_1}\left( \zeta _{24K_1}^{5H_1},\zeta _{24K_1}^{7H_1}\right) \right) . \end{aligned}$$(10)$$\begin{aligned}&F_{h,k}(\zeta _{24k}^h,\zeta _{24k}^{11h}) + F_{h,k}(\zeta _{24k}^{5h},\zeta _{24k}^{7h}) +F_{h,k}(-\zeta _{24k}^h,-\zeta _{24k}^{11h}) \nonumber \\&\qquad +F_{h,k}(-\zeta _{24k}^{5h},-\zeta _{24k}^{7h}) = 0. \end{aligned}$$(11)

### Remark

The analogous result to (9) also holds for \(m\in \{3,6\},\) however, the identity for these *m* is trivial.

We illustrate Corollary 1.3 in the following example.

### Example

\(\varvec{n}\) | \(\varvec{a(n)}\) | \(\varvec{b(n)}\) |
---|---|---|

0 | \(\approx 0.713123\) \(-0.411722 i\) | \(\approx 0.384953-0.222253i\) |

1 | \(\approx -2.38616\) \(+1.37765 i\) | \(\approx 1.28808 -0.743673 i\) |

2 | \(\approx 1.22474 \) | \(\approx -1.22474\) |

We point out that it is of interest to compare both the statement and proof of Corollary 1.3 to work of Rolen and Schneider [26], who established finite evaluations of a particular Eichler integral using different methods than those used here.

Given that our quantum modular forms \(V_{mn}\) satisfy the stronger property that their appropriate transformation properties hold on both a subset of \({\mathbb {Q}}\) and the upper half-plane \({\mathbb {H}}\), it is natural to ask if the functions \(V_{mn}\) also extend into the lower half-plane \({\mathbb {H}}^-:=\{z\in {\mathbb {C}} \ | \ \text {Im}(z)<0\}\). Indeed, in Sect. 2.1, we define for \(m\in T\) the functions \(\widetilde{E}_m(z)\) for \(z\in {\mathbb {H}}^-\). Upon making the change of variable \(z=-2\tau /c_m^2\), where \(\tau \in {\mathbb {H}}\) (and hence \(z\in {\mathbb {H}}^-\)), we show in Proposition 1.4 that as \( \tau \rightarrow x \in S_{mn}\subseteq {\mathbb {Q}}\) from the upper half-plane, and hence as \(z\rightarrow -2x/c_m^2\in {\mathbb {Q}}\) from the lower half-plane, the functions \(\widetilde{E}_m\left( -{2x}/{c_m^2}\right) \) are quantum modular forms which transform exactly as our functions \(V_{mn}(x)\) do in Theorem 1.2, up to multiplication by a constant which can be explicitly determined.

### Proposition 1.4

For \(m\in T\), the functions \(\widetilde{E}_m\) are quantum modular forms of weight 1 / 2. In particular, for any \(x\in S_{mn}\), up to multiplication by a constant, the functions \(\widetilde{E}_m\left( -{2x}/{c_m^2}\right) \) satisfy the transformation laws given in Theorem 1.2 for the functions \(V_{mn}(x)\).

Series similar to the functions \(\widetilde{E}_m\) defined in (16) which instead arise from ordinary integer weight cusp forms were studied originally by Eichler (and are also often referred to as “Eichler integrals”), and were shown to play fundamental roles within the theory of integer weight modular forms. In the present setting, the modular objects \(E_m\) related to the series \(\widetilde{E}_m\) are not of integral weight, and many aspects of Eichler’s theory become complicated. Nevertheless, in their fundamental work [21], Lawrence and Zagier successfully consider Eichler’s theory in the half integer weight setting; moreover, their work led to some of the first examples of quantum modular forms. The functions \(\widetilde{E}_m\) may also be viewed as *partial theta functions*, which as series are similar to ordinary modular theta functions, but which are not modular in general [1]. Related results on quantum modular forms similar to those given in Proposition 1.4 may be found in [4, 12, 30] among other places; we follow their methods to prove Proposition 1.4.

## 2 Preliminaries for Theorems 1.1 and 1.2

In this section we review previous work of Lemke Oliver [24], Zwegers [32], and the third author [20], and make some preparations for our proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2.

### 2.1 Work of Lemke Oliver on eta–theta functions

We begin with the Dedkind eta-function (1), whose well-known weight 1 / 2 modular transformation properties are summarized in the following lemma.

### Lemma 2.1

^{1}

### 2.2 Work of Zwegers on mock theta functions related to unary theta functions

### Lemma 2.2

*h*by

### Lemma 2.3

- (1)
\(\mu (u+1,v)=-\mu (u,v)\),

- (2)
\(\mu (u,v+1)=-\mu (u,v)\),

- (3)
\(\mu (-u,-v)=\mu (u,v)\),

- (4)
\(\mu (u+z,v+z)-\mu (u,v)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{\vartheta '(0)\vartheta (u+v+z)\vartheta (z)}{\vartheta (u)\vartheta (v)\vartheta (u+z)\vartheta (v+z)}\), for \(u,v,u+z,v+z\notin \mathbb {Z}\tau +\mathbb {Z}\), and the modular transformation properties,

- (5)
\(\mu (u,v;\tau +1)=e^{-\frac{\pi i}{4}}\mu (u,v;\tau )\),

- (6)
\(\frac{1}{\sqrt{-i\tau }}e^{\pi i(u-v)^2/\tau }\mu \left( \frac{u}{\tau },\frac{v}{\tau };-\frac{1}{\tau }\right) +\mu (u,v;\tau )=\frac{1}{2i}h(u-v;\tau )\).

Additionally, we will use the following theorem of the third author^{2} [20], relating a certain specialization of \(\mu (u,v;\tau )\) to a universal mock theta function.

### Theorem 2.4

### Remark

We note that \(g_2\) is called a universal mock theta function because it has been observed by Hickerson [16, 17], and Gordon and McIntosh [15] that all of Ramanujan’s original mock theta functions can be written in terms of \(g_2\) and another universal mock theta function, \(g_3\).

### Lemma 2.5

- (1)
\(\widehat{\mu }(u+k\tau +l,v+m\tau +n;\tau )=(-1)^{k+l+m+n}e^{\pi i(k-m)^2\tau +2\pi i(k-m)(u-v)}\widehat{\mu }(u,v;\tau )\), for \(k,l,m,n\in \mathbb {Z}\), and

- (2)
\(\widehat{\mu }\left( \frac{u}{c\tau +d},\frac{v}{c\tau +d};\frac{a\tau +b}{c\tau +d}\right) =v(\gamma )^{-3}(c\tau +d)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\pi ic(u-v)^2/(c\tau +d)}\widehat{\mu }(u,v;\tau )\), for \(\gamma =\left( {\begin{matrix} a &{} b \\ c &{} d\end{matrix}}\right) \in SL _2({\mathbb {Z}})\), with \(v(\gamma )\) defined as in (13).

*a*and

*b*are rational.

### Lemma 2.6

- (1)
\(g_{a+1,b}(\tau )=g_{a,b}(\tau )\),

- (2)
\(g_{a,b+1}(\tau )=e^{2\pi ia}g_{a,b}(\tau )\),

- (3)
\(g_{-a,-b}(\tau )=-g_{a,b}(\tau )\),

- (4)
\(g_{a,b}(\tau +1)=e^{-\pi ia(a+1)}g_{a,a+b+\frac{1}{2}}(\tau )\),

- (5)
\(g_{a,b}(-\frac{1}{\tau })=ie^{2\pi iab}(-i\tau )^{3/2}g_{b,-a}(\tau )\).

The unary theta function \(g_{a,b}\) is related to both *R* and *h* by the following theorem.

### Theorem 2.7

(Zwegers, Thm. 1.16 of [32]) For \(\tau \in \mathbb {H}\), we have the following two results.

We extend Theorem 2.7 in the following result, which we will use in our proof of Theorem 1.2.

### Lemma 2.8

- (i)For \(b\in {\mathbb {R}}\backslash \frac{1}{2}{\mathbb {Z}}\),$$\begin{aligned} \int _{-\overline{\tau }}^{i\infty } \frac{g_{1,b+\frac{1}{2}}(z)}{\sqrt{-i(z+\tau )}} dz = -ie\left( -\frac{\tau }{8} + \frac{b}{2} \right) R\left( \frac{\tau }{2}-b;\tau \right) + i. \end{aligned}$$
- (ii)For \(b\in (-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\setminus \{0\}\),$$\begin{aligned} \int _{0}^{i\infty } \frac{g_{1,b+\frac{1}{2}}(z)}{\sqrt{-i(z+\tau )}}dz = -ie\left( -\frac{\tau }{8} + \frac{b}{2} \right) h\left( \frac{\tau }{2}-b;\tau \right) + i. \end{aligned}$$
- (iii)For \(a\in (-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\setminus \{0\}\),$$\begin{aligned} \int _{0}^{i\infty } \frac{g_{a+1/2,1}(z)}{\sqrt{-i(z+\tau )}}dz = -e\left( -\frac{a^2}{2}\tau + a \right) h\left( a\tau -\frac{1}{2};\tau \right) + \frac{e(a)}{\sqrt{-i\tau }}. \end{aligned}$$

### Proof of Lemma 2.8

If \(b\in {\mathbb {R}} \backslash \frac{1}{2} {\mathbb {Z}}\), we have that \(g_{1,b+\frac{1}{2}}(z) = O\left( e^{-\pi Im (z)}\right) .\) If \(a\in (-1/2,1/2)\setminus \{0\}\), we have that \(g_{a+\frac{1}{2},1}(z) = O\left( e^{-\pi v_0^2 Im (z)}\right) \) for some \(v_0>0\) as \( Im (z) \rightarrow \infty \). These facts justify the convergence of the integrals in Lemma 2.8.

Part (ii) and part (iii) of Lemma 2.8 now follow as argued in Remark 1.20 in [32] by using part (i) of Lemma 2.8 above (rather than (2.7)) where necessary. \(\square \)

In the following section, we review the theory of harmonic Maass forms, and its connection to \(\widehat{\mu }\).

### 2.3 Harmonic Maass forms of weight 1 / 2, and period and Mordell integrals

*harmonic Maass form*\(\widehat{f}:\mathbb {H}\rightarrow \mathbb {C}\) is a non-holomorphic extension of a classical modular form. It is a smooth function such that for a weight \(\kappa \in \frac{1}{2}\mathbb {Z}\), if \(\Gamma \subseteq \mathrm{{SL}}_2(\mathbb {Z})\) and \(\chi \) is a Dirichlet character modulo

*N*, then for all \(\gamma =\left( {\begin{matrix}a &{} b\\ c &{} d\end{matrix}}\right) \in \Gamma \) and \(\tau \in \mathbb {H}\) we have \(\widehat{f}(\gamma \tau ) = \chi (d)(c\tau +d)^{\kappa }\widehat{f}(\tau )\). Moreover, \(\widehat{f}\) must vanish under the weight \(\kappa \) Laplacian operator defined, for \(\tau = x+iy\), by

*f*as a

*mock modular form*of weight \(\kappa \) after Zagier [28]. Moreover, a harmonic Maass form \(\widehat{f}\) of weight \(\kappa \) is mapped to a classical modular form of weight \(2-\kappa \) by the differential operator

*shadow*of

*f*. In the special case where \(\kappa \in \{1/2,3/2\}\) and the shadow of

*f*is a unary theta function, we refer to

*f*as a

*mock theta function*.

*complement*

### Proposition 2.9

- (i)
\(\xi _{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \widehat{M}_{a,b}(\tau )\right) = g^c_{a+\frac{1}{2},b+\frac{1}{2}}(\tau ), \)

- (ii)
\(\Delta _{\frac{1}{2}} (\widehat{M}_{a,b}(\tau )) = 0.\)

### Remark

Part (ii) of Proposition 2.9 together with the transformation laws established in Lemma 2.5 show that \(\widehat{M}_{a,b}\) is essentially a harmonic Maass form of weight 1 / 2 for suitable *v*, *a*, and *b*; we illustrate this more precisely in the proof of Theorem 1.1.

### Proof

To prove part (ii), we use the fact that the weight 1 / 2 Laplacian operator factors as \(\Delta _{\frac{1}{2}} = - \xi _{\frac{3}{2}} {\xi _{\frac{1}{2}}}\). The result follows by applying \(-\xi _{\frac{3}{2}}\) to the expression given in part (i) of the Proposition, using (30). \(\square \)

### 2.4 Converting the setting of Lemke Oliver to the notation of Zwegers

### Lemma 2.10

From Proposition 2.9 and Lemma 2.10, we see that to construct forms \(\widehat{M}_{a,b}\) whose images under the \(\xi _{\frac{1}{2}}\)-operator are equal to a constant multiple of \(E_m(\tau /k_m)\) for some suitable constants \(k_m\) we are only restricted by \(u-v\) for \(u,v\in \mathbb {C}\backslash (\mathbb {Z}\tau + \mathbb {Z})\), not by *u* and *v* individually. Since the theta function \(\vartheta (v;\tau )\) appears as a prominent factor in the definition of \(\widehat{\mu }\) from (22), we again use the classification in [24] to restrict to those \(\vartheta (v;\tau )\) which are eta-quotients of weight 1 / 2 appearing in the list in (14).

### Lemma 2.11

### Proof

Note that \(\vartheta \left( \frac{\tau }{3} ; \tau - \frac{1}{2}\right) = e(-\frac{3}{8})q^{-\frac{1}{18}}e_{10}\left( \frac{\tau }{72}\right) \) and \(\vartheta \left( \frac{\tau }{3} -1/2; \tau \!-\!\frac{1}{2}\right) = e(\frac{1}{8})q^{-\frac{1}{18}}e_{11}\left( \frac{\tau }{72}\right) \), which are not of the form \(\vartheta (v; \tau )\). Similarly, \(e_{11}, e_{12}\), and \(e_{13}\) cannot be written in the form \(\vartheta (v;\tau )\). Hence, we restrict our constructions to the first eight \(e_n\) functions.

## 3 Eta–theta functions and mock modular forms

We are now ready to construct our families of mock theta functions. For each weight 3 / 2 theta function \(E_m\) we construct eight corresponding functions \(V_{mn}\), one for each weight 1 / 2 theta function \(e_{n}\). However, in some cases the \(V_{mn}\) are degenerate due the presence of poles. Here, we will focus on the construction of \(V_{11}\) as the other constructions follow similarly. Our goal for \(V_{11}\) is to construct a function that has shadow associated to \(E_1\), and the factor \(e_1\) in its series representation.

*v*so that the theta function \(\vartheta (v;32\tau )\) appearing in (20) is in terms of \(e_1\). By Lemma 2.11 we see that we should choose \(v= 16\tau \) so that \(\vartheta \left( 16\tau ; 32\tau \right) = -iq^{-4}e_1\left( 16\tau \right) \). By Proposition 2.9 the corresponding function \(M_{-\frac{1}{4},-\frac{1}{2}}(32\tau )\) has shadow related to \(g_{\frac{1}{4}, 0}(32\tau )\), so long as

### Remark

### Remark

*A*(

*q*) is Ramanujan’s second order mock theta, and \(U_1(q)\) and \(U_0(q)\) are Gordon and McIntosh’s eighth order mock thetas. These series are defined in [2] and [14]. All of these identities indeed hold, as the following discussion illustrates.

The latter three equalities follow from the definitions in [14] and Lemma 2.3. The third equality follows from identity (5.10) in [18].

*m*(

*a*,

*b*,

*c*) notation from [18], it is not difficult to show by definition of \(V_{41}\) and [18, (3.2a), (3.2b), Corollary 3.4] that \(-q^{\frac{1}{24}} V_{41}(12\tau ) = -m(q^5,q^{12},q^6) - q^{-1}m(q,q^{12},q^6).\) We also have from [18, (5.6)] that \(\psi (q) = -q^{-1}m(q,q^{12},q^2)-m(q^5,q^{12},q^2)\). Thus, the first identity above relating \(V_{41}\) and \(\psi \) is equivalent to

The second identity follows similarly, first by rewriting

\(q^{\frac{1}{24}}V_{58}(3\tau ) = -q^{-1}m(-q^{-1},q^3,-q^{\frac{1}{2}})\), using the second equality in [18, (5.7)] as well as [18, (3.2b)], and then by using [18, Theorem3.3] with \((x,q,z_0,z_1) = (-q^{-1},q^3,q^{-1},-q^{\frac{1}{2}})\) to reduce the claimed identity relating \(V_{58}\) and \(\chi (q)\) to an identity between modular forms. The claimed identity between modular forms follows after applying [18, (2.2a), (2.2b), (2.2c)], and simplifying.

### 3.1 Proof of Theorem 1.1

*m*,

*n*) when \(m\in T' \setminus \{4\}\). We will make use of Proposition 2.9, but must also determine the modular transformation properties of these functions. For such pairs (

*m*,

*n*), the functions \(V_{mn}\), as summarized in the Appendix, may be expressed in terms of the \(\mu \)-function, and parameters \(w_m, t_m, u^{(mn)}_\tau , v^{(mn)}_\tau \) as

*n*, we consider

### Lemma 3.1

We next provide two technical lemmas, Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3, which will allow us to efficiently establish the mock modularity of our functions \(V_{mn}\), when combined with Lemma 3.1 and Proposition 2.9 above.

### Lemma 3.2

### Proof of Lemma 3.2

The first assertion follows from the fact that \(d_\tau ^{(1)} = d_\tau ^{(2)},\) that \(c\tau + d \ne 0\), and the definitions of \(\widetilde{u}_{\gamma ,\tau }^{(j)}\) and \(\widetilde{v}_{\gamma ,\tau }^{(j)}\). To prove the second and third assertions, we have that \(\widetilde{u}_{\gamma ,\tau }^{(j)} = u_\tau ^{(j)} + k_\gamma ^{(j)}\cdot \tau + \ell _\gamma ^{(j)}\) and \(\widetilde{v}_{\gamma ,\tau }^{(j)} = v_\tau ^{(j)} + r_\gamma ^{(j)}\cdot \tau + s_\gamma ^{(j)}\). Subtracting the second of these equalities from the first, we have that \(\widetilde{d}_{\gamma ,\tau }^{(j)} = d^{(j)}_\tau + \delta ^{(j)}_\gamma \cdot \tau +\rho ^{(j)}_\gamma \). But \(d_\tau ^{(1)} = d_\tau ^{(2)} \) and \( \widetilde{d}_{\gamma ,\tau }^{(1)} = \widetilde{d}_{\gamma ,\tau }^{(2)},\) which implies that \( \delta ^{(1)}_\gamma \cdot \tau +\rho ^{(1)}_\gamma = \delta ^{(2)}_\gamma \cdot \tau +\rho ^{(2)}_\gamma \). The second and third assertions now follow, using the fact that \(\delta ^{(j)}_\gamma \) and \(\rho ^{(j)}_\gamma \) are constants in \({\mathbb {R}}\), and \(\tau \in {\mathbb {H}}\). \(\square \)

In order to utilize Lemma 3.1 to determine the modular transformation properties for the functions \(V_{mn}\), we need to know for which \(\gamma = \left( {\begin{matrix} a &{} b \\ c &{} d\end{matrix}}\right) \in SL _2({\mathbb {Z}})\) we have that \(\widetilde{u}^{(mn)}_{\gamma ,\tau } - u^{(mn)}_{\tau }\in {\mathbb {Z}} \tau + {\mathbb {Z}}\), and \(\widetilde{v}^{(mn)}_{\gamma ,\tau } - v^{(mn)}_{\tau } \in {\mathbb {Z}} \tau + {\mathbb {Z}}\). We note the following lemma, which follows directly by using the definition of \(\widetilde{x}_{\gamma ,\tau }.\)

### Lemma 3.3

The following corollary follows directly from Lemma 3.3. We note that in addition to the commonly used “upper triangular” congruence subgroups \(\Gamma _0(N), \Gamma _1(N)\), we also use the standard notation \(\Gamma ^0(N), \Gamma ^1(N)\) to represent the corresponding “lower triangular” versions.

### Corollary 3.4

In the context of the above lemma, when \(\alpha =0\), and \(\beta \) is relatively prime to *N*, then \(\widetilde{x}_{\gamma , \tau } - x_{\tau } \in {\mathbb {Z}} \tau + {\mathbb {Z}}\) if and only if \(\gamma \in \Gamma _1(N)\). Similarly, if \(\beta =0\), and \(\alpha \) is relatively prime to *N*, then \(\widetilde{x}_{\gamma , \tau } - x_{\tau } \in {\mathbb {Z}} \tau + {\mathbb {Z}}\) if and only if \(\gamma \in \Gamma ^1(N)\).

Congruence subgroups \(A_{mn}\) for each mock modular form \(V_{mn}\)

\(\varvec{n\backslash m}\) | \(\varvec{1}\) | \(\varvec{2}\) | \(\varvec{3}\) | \(\varvec{4,4',4''}\) | \(\varvec{5}\) | \(\varvec{6}\) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | \(\Gamma ^1\)(4) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(4) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(6) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(6) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(6) |

2 | \(\Gamma ^1\)(4) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(4) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(6) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(6) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(6) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) |

3 | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(6) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(3) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(6) |

4 | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(6) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | – | \(\Gamma ^1\)(6) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) |

5 | \(\Gamma ^1\)(4) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | – | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) |

6 | – | \(\Gamma ^1\)(4) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) |

7 | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(6) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(6) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | – |

8 | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | – | \(\Gamma ^1\)(12) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(6) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) | \(\Gamma ^1\)(6) \(\cap \) \(\Gamma _0\)(2) |

### Proof of Theorem 1.1

*n*. Thus, by Lemma 3.2, we have for any

*n*such that (

*m*,

*n*) is an admissible pair that \( \widetilde{d}^{(mn)}_{\gamma ,\tau } = \widetilde{D}^{(m)}_{\gamma ,\tau }\) and \(\delta ^{(mn)}_\gamma = \Delta ^{(m)}_\gamma \), for some functions \(\widetilde{D}^{(m)}_{\gamma ,\tau }\) and \(\Delta ^{(m)}_\gamma \) which are independent of

*n*. For example, when \(m=2\), we have that

*n*; that is, \(\phi ^{(m)}_{n,\gamma ,\tau } = \Phi ^{(m)}_{\gamma ,\tau }\), where

*m*,

*n*) that the function \(\widehat{V}_{mn}(\tau )\) may be expressed, up to multiplication by an easily determined constant \(\alpha _{mn}\), as follows:

Finally, we prove that for \(m\in T\), the functions \(V_{mn}\) have, up to a constant multiple, shadows given by the weight 3 / 2 eta–theta functions \(E_m(\frac{2\tau }{c_m^2})\). To show this, we use (38), Proposition 2.9, and Lemma 2.10. In the case of \(m=1\), combining (38) with Proposition 2.9 part (i) shows that up to a constant, the mock modular forms \(V_{1n}\) have shadows given by \(g^c_{\frac{1}{4},0}(\tau ).\) It is not difficult to show by definition that \(g^c_{\frac{1}{4},0}(\tau ) = g_{\frac{1}{4},0}(\tau ).\) We previously established in Lemma 2.10 that \(E_1(\tau /32) = 4 g_{\frac{1}{4},0}(\tau ),\) hence, we have proved that the functions \(V_{1n}(\tau )\) have shadows given by a (computable) constant multiple of the eta–theta function \(E_1(\tau /32)\), as claimed. The analogous results for the functions \(V_{mn}\) for the other values of *m* follow by a similar argument. \(\square \)

## 4 Quantum sets

In order to establish quantum modularity of the functions \(V_{mn}\), we must first determine viable sets of rationals. We call a subset \(S\subseteq \mathbb {Q}\) a *quantum set* for a function *F* with respect to the group \(G\subseteq \mathrm{{SL}}_2(\mathbb {Z})\) if both *F*(*x*) and *F*(*Mx*) exist (are non-singular) for all \(x\in S\) and \(M\in G\).

### 4.1 Utilizing Theorem 2.4

By examining our catalogue of \(V_{mn}\) in the Appendix, we see that precisely when \(n=1\) we have a \(\mu \)-function in the form given in Theorem 2.4 of the third author. Using Theorem 2.4 in these cases, and the notation from the Appendix, we directly obtain the following lemma.

### Lemma 4.1

*n*admissible. Then by Lemma 2.3(4), and using the fact that \(\vartheta '(0;\tau ) = -2\pi \eta (\tau )^3\), we see that

### 4.2 Determining quantum sets for \(V_{m1}\)

*q*. The first term is of the form

*m*is even, \(a_m=i\) when

*m*is odd, and \((b_1,b_2, b_3, b_{4'}, b_{4''}, b_5, b_6) =(4,4,3,12,12/5, 6,3)\). The second term is

*q*-power multiples of these terms will not affect whether \(V_{m1}(\tau )\) and \(V_{m1}(M\tau )\) exist. Thus, we may determine quantum sets for each \(V_{m1}(\tau )\) by examining the sum and product appearing in Eqs. (42) and (43). We seek rational numbers \(h/k \in {\mathbb {Q}}\) such that for sufficiently large

*n*,

*jh*/

*k*is an odd integer for some \(1\le j\le n\). This can never happen when

*h*is even, and when

*h*is odd, then \(j=k\) causes the series to terminate at \(n=k\). Thus, the largest possible set for which (44) can hold is

### Theorem 4.2

Before proving Theorem 4.2 we prove two lemmas which analyze the behavior of \(V_{m1}\) on \(S_{m1}\).

### Lemma 4.3

For each \(m\in T'\backslash \{4\}\) we have that \(g_2(a_mq^\frac{1}{2b_m};q^\frac{1}{2})\) is well-defined for \(\tau \in S_{m1}\).

### Proof

*m*is even, we have \(a_m=a_m^{-1}=1\), and when

*m*is odd, we have \(a_m = i\) and \(a_m^{-1}=-i\). Thus for

*m*even we need to avoid the existence of an \(r\in \mathbb {Z}\) and \(0\le j \le n\) such at least one of the following hold,

*h*is odd. When \(m=4''\), multiplying the equations through by 5 gives a similar contradiction since \(5b_{4''}=12\) is even while 5,

*h*are odd. Thus when \(m=2,4',4''\),

*S*is the largest set of rationals over which the sum defining \(g_2(a_mq^\frac{1}{2b_m};q^\frac{1}{2})\) terminates.

For \(m=6\), we have \(b_6=3\), so we see that one of \(h(3j+1) = 6kr\) or \(h(3j+2) = 6kr\) can occur when \(h\equiv 3\pmod {6}\). This is because we must have that \(k\equiv \pm 1\pmod {3}\), so if \(k\equiv 2\pmod 3\), let \(j=\frac{2k-1}{3}\), then we have that \(0<j<k\) is an integer and so is \(r = \frac{h(3j+1)}{6k}\). Similarly, if \(k\equiv 1\pmod 3\), let \(j=\frac{2k-2}{3}\), then we have that \(0<j<k\) is an integer and so is \(r = \frac{h(3(j+1)-1)}{6k}\). However, when \(h\equiv \pm 1 \pmod {6}\) we see that neither (47) nor (48) can be satisfied by reducing the equalities modulo 3. Thus when \(m=6\), \(S_{61}\) is the largest set of rationals over which the sum defining \(g_2(a_mq^\frac{1}{2b_m};q^\frac{1}{2})\) terminates.

*m*is odd we wish to avoid the existence of an \(r\in \mathbb {Z}\) and \(0\le j \le n\) such that at least one of the following hold,

*h*is odd, meaning the left hand side of neither equation is divisible by 4. Thus when \(m=1\),

*S*is the largest set of rationals over which the sum defining \(g_2(a_mq^\frac{1}{2b_m};q^\frac{1}{2})\) terminates.

*k*is odd, we see that neither (49) nor (50) can be satisfied. However if \(h\equiv 3 \pmod {6}\) and

*k*is even, then one of \(2h(3j+1) = 3k(4r-1)\) or \(2h(3j -2) = 3k(4r+1)\) can occur for some \(0\le j<k\). This is because then \(k\equiv \pm 2\pmod {6}\), so we may consider the following four possible cases.

- (1)
Let \(h\equiv 3 \pmod {12}\) and \(k\equiv 2 \pmod 6\). Then \(j=\frac{5k-4}{6}\in \mathbb {N}\), and \(r=\frac{1}{4}\left( \frac{2h(3j+2)}{3k} -1\right) \in \mathbb {Z}\).

- (2)
Let \(h\equiv 3 \pmod {12}\) and \(k\equiv 4 \pmod 6\). Then \(j=\frac{k-4}{6}\in \mathbb {N}\), and \(r=\frac{1}{4}\left( \frac{2h(3j+2)}{3k} -1\right) \in \mathbb {Z}\).

- (3)
Let \(h\equiv 9 \pmod {12}\) and \(k\equiv 2 \pmod 6\). Then \(j=\frac{k-2}{6}\in \mathbb {N}\), and \(r=\frac{1}{4}\left( \frac{2h(3j+1)}{3k} +1\right) \in \mathbb {Z}\).

- (4)
Let \(h\equiv 9 \pmod {12}\) and \(k\equiv 4 \pmod 6\). Then \(j=\frac{5k-2}{6}\in \mathbb {N}\), and \(r=\frac{1}{4}\left( \frac{2h(3j+1)}{3k} +1\right) \in \mathbb {Z}\).

*k*is even, we see that neither (49) nor (50) can be satisfied. However if \(h\equiv 3 \pmod {6}\) and

*k*is odd, then one of \(h(6j+1) = 3k(4r-1)\) or \(h(6j+5) = 3k(4r+1)\) can occur for some \(0\le j<k\). This is because then \(k\equiv \pm 1\pmod {6}\), so we may consider the following four possible cases.

- (1)
Let \(h\equiv 3 \pmod {12}\) and \(k\equiv 1 \pmod 6\). Then \(j=\frac{5k-5}{6}\in \mathbb {N}\), and \(r=\frac{1}{4}(\frac{h(6j+5)}{3k} -1)\in \mathbb {Z}\).

- (2)
Let \(h\equiv 3 \pmod {12}\) and \(k\equiv 5 \pmod 6\). Then \(j=\frac{k-5}{6}\in \mathbb {N}\), and \(r=\frac{1}{4}(\frac{h(6j+5)}{3k} -1)\in \mathbb {Z}\).

- (3)
Let \(h\equiv 9 \pmod {12}\) and \(k\equiv 1 \pmod 6\). Then \(j=\frac{k-1}{6}\in \mathbb {N}\), and \(r=\frac{1}{4}(\frac{h(6j+1)}{3k} +1)\in \mathbb {Z}\).

- (4)
Let \(h\equiv 9 \pmod {12}\) and \(k\equiv 5 \pmod 6\). Then \(j=\frac{5k-1}{6}\in \mathbb {N}\), and \(r=\frac{1}{4}(\frac{h(6j+1)}{3k} +1)\in \mathbb {Z}\).

We next analyze the second term from Lemma 4.1, \(f_m(\tau )\), when \(\tau \in S_{m1}\). The following result is used to prove the transformation formulas in the next section.

### Lemma 4.4

For each \(m\in T'\backslash \{4\}\), \(f_m(\tau )\) vanishes for each \(\tau \in S_{m1}\).

### Proof

*n*). We see that the terms appearing in \((a_m^2q^\frac{1}{b_m};q)_\infty \) and \((a_m^{-2}q^{\frac{b_m-1}{b_m}};q)_\infty \), are the squares of terms appearing in the denominators of \(g_2(a_mq^\frac{1}{2b_m};q^\frac{1}{2})\). We analyze them similarly as in Lemma 4.3. For \(\tau =\frac{h}{k}\), we have

*m*even we wish to avoid the existence of an \(r\in \mathbb {Z}\) and \(0\le n \le k\) such at least one of the following hold,

*h*is odd so this cannot occur. When \(m=4''\), multiplying the equations through by 5 gives a similar contradiction since \(5b_{4''}=12\) is even while 5,

*h*are odd. When \(m=6\), we have \(b_6=3\). But for \(\frac{h}{k}\in S_{61}\), we have \(h\equiv \pm 1 \pmod {6}\) and so this can never occur.

*m*is odd, we must show there is no \(r \in \mathbb {Z}\) such that

*h*is odd so this cannot occur. When \(m=3\), we have \(b_3=3\). But for \(\frac{h}{k}\in S_{31}\), we have that \(h\equiv \pm 1 \pmod {6}\), so this can never occur due to different residues modulo 3. Notice it is here that we must restrict to \(S_{31}\) from \(S_{31}'\). If \(h\equiv 3\pmod {6}\) and

*k*is odd, then either \(k\equiv 1 \pmod 3\), in which case we can let \(n=\frac{k-1}{3}\) and \(r=\frac{h-3}{6}\) in the first equation, or \(k\equiv 2 \pmod 3\), in which case we can let \(n=\frac{k-2}{3}\) and \(r=\frac{h-3}{6}\) in the second equation. Both instances result in a zero in the denominator before termination. \(\square \)

### Remark

Lemmas 4.3 and 4.4 imply that for each \(m\in T\), \(S_{m1}\) is our largest possible quantum set for \(V_{m1}\).

We now prove Theorem 4.2.

### Proof

*m*, so when

*h*is odd we have that \(h+B_mk\) is odd, and thus \(T_m(h/k), T_m'(h/k) \in S\) for all \(\tau \in S\). Thus for \(m=1, 2, 4', 4'', 4\) we have that \(T_m(h/k), T_m'(h/k) \in S_{m1}\) for all \(\tau \in S_{m1}\). When \(m=3,5,6\) we have \(B_m=6\) so that \(h+B_mk\equiv h \pmod {6}\). Thus for \(m=3,5,6\), we see that \(T_m'(h/k) \in S_{m1}\) for all \(\tau \in S_{m1}\). To see also that \(T_m(h/k) \in S_{m1}\) for all \(\tau \in S_{m1}\), we only need to observe that in the case \(m=5\), when

*k*is even, then \(k+2h\) is also even.

### 4.3 Determining quantum sets for general \(V_{mn}\)

In Sect. 4.2, we determined the quantum sets \(S_{m1}\) for the function \(V_{m1}\). In this section, we will use (40) and (41) to determine the more general quantum sets \(S_{mn}\) for the functions \(V_{mn}\) with \(n\ne 1\). Observe that our previous discussion shows that we must require \(S_{mn}\subseteq S_{m1}\) for each \(m \in T\). We define the sets \(S_{mn}\) for any \(m\in T\) and admissible *n* below; for completeness, we also include the sets \(S_{m1}\) previously determined. In Lemma 4.5, we establish that these sets are indeed appropriate, by showing that the auxiliary functions \(\mathcal F_{mn}\) appearing in (40) and (41) vanish at any rational point in \(S_{mn}\).

### Lemma 4.5

### Proof of Lemma 4.5

*q*multiplied by

*k*th term when expanded, and \((q^{\frac{1}{2}};q)_\infty ^2\) never vanishes. Moreover, we have already demonstrated in the proof of Lemma 4.4 that \((e(u_{\tau }^{(m1)}); q)_\infty (e(-u_{\tau }^{(m1)})q ; q)_\infty \) does not vanish for \(\tau = h/k\in S_{m1}\), as this term appears in the denominator of \(f_{m}\). Thus, it suffices to show that when \(\tau = h/k \in S_{mn}\) each of the products in

*s*. Next, we observe that \(v_{\tau }^{(mn)}\) depends only on

*n*. In particular, \(v_{\tau }^{(mn)} = \frac{\tau }{c_n}\) when

*n*is odd, and \(v_{\tau }^{(mn)} = \frac{\tau }{c_n} - \frac{1}{2}\) when

*n*is even, where \((c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5, c_6, c_7, c_8) = (2,2,3,3,4,4,6,6)\). Thus, for admissible pairs (

*m*,

*n*),

*n*is odd, we have that for \(\tau = h/k\),

*n*odd we wish to avoid the existence of an \(r\in \mathbb {Z}\) and \(0\le j \le k\) such that at least one of the following hold:

*h*is odd so this cannot occur. When \(n=3\), we have \(c_3=3\). But for \(\frac{h}{k}\in S_{31}\), we have \(h\equiv \pm 1 \pmod {6}\) and so we again have that this cannot occur.

*n*is even, we have that for \(\tau = h/k\),

*h*is odd so this cannot occur for any element in

*S*. When \(n=2\), both equations reduce to the equation \(h(2j+1)=k(2j+1)\). In the definitions of the sets \(S_{m2}\), we see that in each case

*k*is even, and so this equation can never be satisfied for an element of \(S_{m2}\). When \(n=4\), we have the equations \(2h(3j+1) = 3k(2r+1)\), and \(2h(3j +2) = 3k(2r+1)\). We see that these can not be satisfied when \(h\not \equiv 0 \pmod 3\), or when \(h\equiv 3 \pmod {6}\) and

*k*odd. Thus, for elements of \(S_{m4}\) they cannot be satisfied. Similarly, when \(n=8\), we have the equations \(2h(6j+1) = 6k(2r+1)\), and \(2h(6j +5) = 3k(6r+1)\), which also can’t be satisfied when \(h\not \equiv 0 \pmod 3\). In this case, they also can’t be satisfied when \(h\equiv 3 \pmod {6}\) and

*k*even. The definitions of \(S_{m8}\) shows that we are always in one of these cases.

*k*terms when expanded. Although at first glance it would seem that we have many cases to consider, in fact we have already done most of the work, we just need to compare each case to the defined set \(S_{mn}\). Comparing the values of \(u_{\tau }^{(mn)}\) when \(m>1\) to the values of \(v_{\tau }^{(mn)}\) that we have already considered, and using that \(e(\frac{1}{2})=e(-\frac{1}{2})\), we see that there are only about a dozen left to consider. Moreover, the cases that are merely a negative multiple can be reduced fairly easily to the original case. Thus the only \(u_{\tau }^{(mn)}\) we will consider here are \(u_{\tau }^{(13)}=\tau /12 +1/2\), \(u_{\tau }^{(14)}=\tau /12\), \(u_{\tau }^{(15)}=1/2\), and \(u_{\tau }^{(4''2)}=5\tau /12 -1/2\).

*h*is odd this can never occur.

*h*is odd.

*k*is odd.

*h*is odd. \(\square \)

## 5 Quantum modularity of the \(V_{mn}\)

*quantum modular form of weight k on the set S for the group G*is a complex-valued function

*f*such that

*S*is a quantum set for

*f*with respect to the group \(G\subseteq SL _2({\mathbb {Z}})\). Further, for all \(\gamma = \left( {\begin{matrix} a &{} b \\ c &{} d\end{matrix}}\right) \in G\), and for all \(x\in S\) (\(x\ne -\frac{d}{c}\)), the functions

*n*when

*m*equals 4. We also define the constants

*m*, 1), (4,

*n*), \((4',n)\) or \((4'',n)\). We recall that for \(r\in {\mathbb {Z}}\), we let \(M_r:=\left( {\begin{matrix} 1 &{} 0 \\ r &{} 1\end{matrix}}\right) \).

In Sect. 5.1, we first sketch the general proof of Theorem 1.2 when \(m\in T\) and \(n=1\), and then provide details for the case when \((m,n)=(1,1)\). After establishing the result for these pairs (*m*, *n*), in Sect. 5.2, we deduce the result for all remaining pairs (*m*, *n*). In Sect. 5.3, we prove Proposition 1.4.

### 5.1 Proof of Theorem 1.2 for \((m,n) = (m,1)\)

### General Proof of Theorem 1.2

*when*\(m\in T, n=1\) For \( r \in {\mathbb {N}}\) we have \(M_{ r}= S T^{-{r }}S^{-1}\), where \(S=\left( {\begin{matrix} 0 &{} -1 \\ 1 &{} 0\end{matrix}}\right) \) and \(T=\left( {\begin{matrix} 1 &{} 1 \\ 0 &{} 1\end{matrix}}\right) \), and we define \(\tau _{ r } := T^{-{ r }}S^{-1}\tau = -1/\tau - r \). Using the fact that \(M_{r }\tau = S\tau _{r }\), we find by straightforward but lengthy calculations using the expressions for \(V_{m1}\) given in (34) (and the Appendix) combined with Lemma 2.3 that

Mordell and Eichler integrals \(\mathcal I_m\) and \(\mathcal J_m\)

\(\mathcal I_1(\tau ) :=\displaystyle -\frac{\zeta _8}{2i} e\left( \tfrac{1}{8\tau }\right) \sqrt{-i\tau _2} \ h\left( \tfrac{\tau _2}{2}+\tfrac{1}{4};\tau _2\right) \) | \(=\displaystyle \frac{i}{2} \sqrt{ 2\tau +1 }\displaystyle \int _{\frac{1}{2}}^{0} \frac{g_{\frac{1}{4},0}\left( u\right) }{\sqrt{-i(u+\tau )}}du + \frac{i}{2} \sqrt{ -i\tau _2}\), |

\(\mathcal J_1(\tau ) := \displaystyle \frac{1}{2i} q^{-\frac{1}{32}}\sqrt{2\tau +1} \ h\left( \tfrac{\tau }{4}-\tfrac{1}{2};\tau \right) \) | \(= \displaystyle \frac{i}{2 } \sqrt{2\tau +1} \displaystyle \int _{0}^{i\infty } \frac{ g_{\frac{1}{4},0}\left( u\right) }{\sqrt{-i( u+\tau )}}du -\frac{i}{2} \sqrt{-i\tau _2},\) |

\(\mathcal I_2(\tau ) := \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-i\tau _1}\ h\left( \tfrac{1}{4} ;\tau _1\right) \) | \(= \displaystyle \frac{i}{2} \sqrt{\tau +1 } \int _{1}^0 \frac{ g_{\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2}}(u) }{\sqrt{-i(u+\tau )}}du ,\) |

\(\mathcal J_2(\tau ) := \displaystyle \frac{-\zeta _8}{2}q^{-\frac{1}{32}}\sqrt{\tau +1 } \ h\left( \tfrac{ \tau }{4};\tau \right) \) | \(= \displaystyle \frac{i}{2}\sqrt{\tau +1} \int _{0}^{i\infty } \frac{ g_{\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2}}(u) }{\sqrt{-i(u+\tau )}}du,\) |

\(\mathcal I_3(\tau ){:=}\displaystyle -\frac{\zeta _6}{2i} e\left( \tfrac{1}{8\tau }\right) \sqrt{-i\tau _2} \ h\left( \tfrac{\tau _2}{2}+\tfrac{1}{6};\tau _2\right) \) | \(=\displaystyle \frac{i}{2} \sqrt{ 2\tau +1 }\displaystyle \int _{\frac{1}{2}}^{0} \frac{ g_{\frac{1}{3},0}\left( u\right) }{\sqrt{-i(u+\tau )}}du + \frac{i}{2} \sqrt{ -i\tau _2},\) |

\(\mathcal J_3(\tau ) :=\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i} q^{-\frac{1}{72}}\sqrt{2\tau +1} \ h\left( \tfrac{\tau }{6}-\tfrac{1}{2};\tau \right) \) | \(= \displaystyle \frac{i}{2 } \sqrt{2\tau +1} \displaystyle \int _{0}^{i\infty } \frac{ g_{\frac{1}{3},0}\left( u\right) }{\sqrt{-i( u+\tau )}}du -\frac{i}{2} \sqrt{-i\tau _2},\) |

\(\mathcal I_4(\tau ):= \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-i\tau _1}\left( h\left( \tfrac{5}{12} ;\tau _1\right) +h\left( \tfrac{1}{12};\tau _1\right) \right) \) | \(=\displaystyle \frac{i\zeta _8}{2}\sqrt{\tau +1} \int _{1}^0 \frac{ \zeta _{24}^{-1}g_{\frac{1}{12},\frac{1}{2}}(u) + \zeta _{24}^{-5} g_{\frac{5}{12},\frac{1}{2}}(u)}{\sqrt{-i(u+\tau )}}du,\) |

\(\mathcal J_4(\tau ) :=\displaystyle \frac{-\zeta _8}{2}\sqrt{\tau +1}\left( q^{\frac{-25}{288}} h\left( \tfrac{5\tau }{12};\tau \right) + q^{\frac{-1}{288}}h\left( \tfrac{\tau }{12};\tau \right) \right) \) | \(=\displaystyle \frac{i\zeta _8}{2}\sqrt{\tau +1} \int _{0}^{i\infty } \frac{ \zeta _{24}^{-1}g_{\frac{1}{12},\frac{1}{2}}(u) + \zeta _{24}^{-5} g_{\frac{5}{12},\frac{1}{2}}(u)}{\sqrt{-i(u+\tau )}}du,\) |

\(\mathcal I_5(\tau ) := \displaystyle -\frac{\zeta _6^{-1}}{2}e\left( \tfrac{1}{8\tau }\right) \sqrt{-i\tau _2} \ h\left( \tfrac{\tau _2}{2}+\tfrac{1}{3};\tau _2\right) \) | \(= \displaystyle \frac{i}{2}\sqrt{ 2\tau +1 }\int _{\frac{1}{2}}^0 \frac{ g_{\frac{1}{6},0}(u)}{\sqrt{-i(u+\tau )}}du +\frac{i}{2} \sqrt{-i\tau _2},\) |

\(\mathcal J_5(\tau ) := \displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}q^{\frac{-1}{18}}\sqrt{2\tau +1 } \ h\left( \tfrac{\tau }{3}-\tfrac{1}{2};\tau \right) \) | \(= \displaystyle \frac{i}{2}\sqrt{2\tau +1 } \int _{0}^{i\infty } \frac{ g_{\frac{1}{6},0}(u)}{\sqrt{-i(u+\tau )}}du - \frac{i}{2} \sqrt{-i\tau _2},\) |

\(\mathcal I_6(\tau ) :=\displaystyle \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-i\tau _1}\ h\left( \tfrac{1}{6} ;\tau _1\right) \) | \( =\displaystyle \frac{i\zeta _{24}^{-1}}{2} \sqrt{\tau +1 } \int _{1}^0 \frac{ g_{\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}}(u) }{\sqrt{-i(u+\tau )}}du , \) |

\(\mathcal J_6(\tau ) :=\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}\zeta _{8}^{-1}q^{-\frac{1}{72}}\sqrt{\tau +1 } \ h\left( \tfrac{ \tau }{6};\tau \right) \) | \(=\displaystyle \frac{i\zeta _{24}^{-1}}{2}\sqrt{\tau +1} \int _{0}^{i\infty } \frac{ g_{\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}}(u) }{\sqrt{-i(u+\tau )}}du,\) |

For \(\tau \in {\mathbb {H}}\), the transformation law in part (i) of Theorem 1.2 when \(m\in \{1,3,5\}\) and \(n=1\), and the transformation law in part (ii) of Theorem 1.2 when \(m \in \{2,4,6\}\) and \(n=1\) (both of which pertain to \(V_{m1}(M_{\ell _m}\tau ),\) \(m\in T\)) now follow from (55), Table 2, and Lemma 2.10. The transformation law in part (i) of Theorem 1.2 for \(\tau \in {\mathbb {H}}\) when \(m\in \{2,4,6\}\) and \(n=1\) follows after a short calculation by iterating the transformation law given in part (ii), applying Lemma 2.6, and simplifying.

The transformation law (under \(\tau \rightarrow \tau + b_m\)) in part (iii) of Theorem 1.2 follows for \(\tau \in {\mathbb {H}}\) by a direct calculation using Lemma 2.3.

Having established parts (i), (ii), and (iii) of Theorem 1.2 for \(\tau \in {\mathbb {H}}\) for \(n=1\), we have continuation to \(\tau =x \in S_{m1}\backslash \{-\frac{1}{2}\}\) in part (i), to \(\tau =x \in S_{m1}\backslash \{-1\}\) in part (ii), and to \(x\in S_{m1}\) in part (iii), by Theorem 4.2 and the argument given in Sect. 4. As argued in [4, 6, 13, 29, 30], for example, the integrals appearing in parts (i) and (ii) of Theorem 1.2 are real analytic functions, except at \(-1/2\) and \(-1\) (respectively). \(\square \)

### Detailed Proof of Theorem 1.2

*for*\((m,n)=(1,1)\) As summarized in the Appendix or (34), we may write

### 5.2 Proof of Theorem 1.2 for \(n\ne 1\)

To prove the theorem in the remaining cases, we establish Lemma 5.1 below, which shows that the auxiliary functions \(\mathcal F_{mn},\) defined in (39), are weakly holomorphic modular forms, and provides explicit transformation properties.

### Lemma 5.1

- (i)For \(m\in T' \setminus \{4\}\), for each admissible
*n*, we have that$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal F_{mn}(\tau ) +i^{\ell _m} (2\tau +1)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \mathcal F_{mn}\left( \frac{\tau }{2\tau +1}\right) = 0. \end{aligned}$$ - (ii)For \(m \in T' \setminus \{4\}\), for each admissible
*n*, we have that$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal F_{mn}(\tau ) - \zeta _{a_m}^{\kappa _{mn}}\mathcal F_{mn}(\tau + \kappa _{mn} b_m) = 0. \end{aligned}$$

We postpone the proof of Lemma 5.1 until the end of this section, and first prove Theorem 1.2 for the remaining functions \(V_{mn}\) (i.e. \(n\ne 1\)).

### Proof of Theorem 1.2

*for*
\(n\ne 1\) We begin by re-writing the functions \(V_{mn}\) using (4.1) and (4.1), which we previously established. Note that \(\mathcal F_{m1}(\tau ) \) is identically equal to zero for each \(m\in T'\setminus \{4\}\). We next use the fact that for fixed *m* and each admissible *n*, we have that \(S_{mn} \subseteq S_{m1}\) and \(G_{mn} \subseteq G_{m1}\). Previously, in Sect. 4, we showed that if \(x\in S_{m1}\), then \(Mx \in S_{m1}\) for any \(M\in G_{m1}\). A nearly identical argument shows that for fixed *m* and each admissible *n*, that if \(x\in S_{mn}\), then \(Mx \in S_{mn}\) for any \(M\in G_{mn}\). Thus, for fixed *m* and each admissible *n* (\(n\ne 1\)), the quantum modular transformation properties given in parts (i) and (iii) of Theorem 1.2 for the functions \(V_{mn}\) with \(n\ne 1\) now follow from the transformation properties established in Sect. 5.1 for the functions \(V_{m1}\) in Theorem 1.2 restricted to the subsets \(S_{mn}\subseteq S_{m1}\) and the subgroups \(G_{mn}\subseteq G_{m1}\), combined with Lemmas 5.1 and 4.5. This concludes the proof of Theorem 1.2 in the remaining cases \((n\ne 1)\). \(\square \)

### Proof of Lemma 5.1

*Proof of part (i)*The proof of part (i) of Lemma 5.1 makes use of Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2. We divide our proof into six cases, corresponding to six possible values of

*m*. For \(m=1\), we give an explicit proof for each admissible

*n*. For the remaining cases (\(m\in \{2,3,4',4'',5,6\}\)), we provide a sketch of proof for brevity’s sake, as the proofs in these cases are nearly identical to the case \(m=1\). To begin, we list some transformation properties of certain specialized Jacobi \(\vartheta \)-functions under \( M_2:= \left( {\begin{matrix} 1 &{} 0 \\ 2 &{} 1\end{matrix}}\right) \) which we will make use of:

**Case**\(m=1\). We have by definition that

*n*. Using this fact, Lemma 5.1 follows from (63) for each \(\mathcal F_{1n}\).

**Case**\(\varvec{m} \in \{2,\,3,\,4',\,4'',\,5,\,6\}\). We proceed as above in the case \(m=1\). Using transformation properties from (61), (62), and (18), we find after some straightforward calculations that

*n*,

*Proof of part (ii)*The proof in this case also follows by direct calculations using the definition of the functions \(\mathcal F_{mn}\), as well the transformations

**Case**\(m \in \{1,2\}\). In this case, \(b_m=4, a_m=8\), and \(t_m=-1/32\). Using (65) and a direct calculation, we find that the portion of \(\mathcal F_{mn}\) independent of \(\vartheta \)-functions satisfies

**Case**\(m\in \{3, 6\}\). In this case, \(b_m=6, a_m=3,\) and \(t_m=-1/72\). In this case, analogous to (66), we obtain

### 5.3 Proof of Proposition 1.4

On the other hand, we also have that the asymptotic expansions of \(E_m^*(-\tau )\) and \(\widetilde{E}_m(-\tau )\) agree at rational numbers *r* / *s*, that is, with \(\tau =r/s + iy \in {\mathbb {H}}\), as \(y\rightarrow 0^+\); this fact is established more generally in [4, Proposition2.1]. Thus, the functions \(\widetilde{E}_m\) inherit the transformation properties satisfied by the functions \(E_m^*\) at appropriate rationals, and hence, transform (up to the aforementioned change of variable, up to a constant multiple) like the functions \(V_{mn}\) in Theorem 1.2, as claimed.

## 6 Corollaries

*q*-hypergeometric sums, and establish related curious algebraic identities. We define for \(m\in \{1,2,3,5,6\}\) the numbers \(d_m\) by

*m*the numbers

### Proof of Corollary 1.3

We first establish (8) and (10). To do so, we begin with parts (i) and (ii) of Theorem 1.2 in the case \(n=1\). We then use Lemma 4.1 to re-write the functions \(V_{m1}\) in terms of the functions \(f_m\) and \(g_2\). By Lemma 4.4, we have that the functions \(f_m\) vanish at rationals in \(S_{m1}\). From Lemma 4.3, we also have that the remaining functions in Lemma 4.1, defined using the function \(g_2\), are defined at rationals in \(S_{m1}\). Moreover, the proof of Lemma 4.3 more specifically reveals that the functions defined using the infinite sums \(g_2\) in Lemma 4.1 in fact truncate, and become finite sums. Identities (8) and (10) of Corollary 1.3 then follow by a direct calculation using the definition of the functions \(F_{h,k}\) given in (7), and the numbers \(H_m\) and \(K_m\) in (69). The claimed identities in (9) and (11) follow similarly. We begin with part (iii) of Theorem 1.2 in the case \(n=1\), then apply Lemmas 4.1, 4.4, and 4.3. \(\square \)

## Declarations

### Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

### Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the American Institute of Mathematics through their SQuaREs (Structured Quartet Research Ensembles) program. The authors are deeply grateful to AIM, and in particular to Brian Conrey and Estelle Basor, for the generous support and consistent encouragement throughout this project. The first author is additionally grateful for the support of NSF CAREER Grant DMS-1449679, and for the hospitality provided by the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, under NSF Grant DMS-128155. The authors also thank the referee for their helpful comments.

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Andrews, G.E.: Ramanujan’s “lost” notebook. I. Partial \(\theta \)-functions. Adv. Math.
**41**(2), 137–172 (1981)View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Andrews, G.E., Berndt, B.C.: Ramanujan’s lost notebook. Part I. Springer, New York (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
- Bringmann, K., Folsom, A., Rhoades, R.C.: Unimodal sequences and “strange” functions: a family of quantum modular forms. Pac. J. Math.
**274**(1), 1–25 (2015)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Bringmann, K., Rolen, L.: Half-integral weight Eichler integrals and quantum modular forms. J. Num. Theory.
**161**, 240–254 (2016)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Bruinier, J.H., Funke, J.: On two geometric theta lifts. Duke. Math. J.
**125**(1), 45–90 (2004)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Bryson, J., Ono, K., Pitman, S., Rhoades, R.C.: Unimodal sequences and quantum and mock modular forms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.
**109**(40), 16063–16067 (2012)MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Cheng, M.C.N., Duncan, J.F.R., Harvey, J.A.: Umbral moonshine. Commun. Num. Theory. Phys.
**8**(2), 101–242 (2014)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Conway, J.H., Norton, S.P.: Monstrous moonshine. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.
**11**(3), 308–339 (1979)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Dummit, D., Kisilevsky, H., McKay, J.: Multiplicative products of \(\eta \)-functions. Finite groups—coming of age (Montreal, Que.,: Contemp. Math), pp. 89–98. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1985)Google Scholar
- Duncan, F.R.J., Griffin, M.J., Ono, K.: Moonshine. Res. Math. Sci.
**2**(11), 57 (2015)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Eguchi, T., Ooguri, H., Tachikawa, Y.: Notes on the \(K3\) surface and the Mathieu group \(M_{24}\). Exp. Math.
**20**(1), 91–96 (2011)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Folsom, A., Caleb Ki, Truong Vu, Y.N., Yang, B.: Strange combinatorial quantum modular forms. (submitted)
- Folsom A., Ono K., Rhoades R.C.: Mock theta functions and quantum modular forms. In: Forum of mathematics, Pi, vol. 1, p. e2 . (2013)
- Gordon, B., McIntosh, R.J.: Some eighth order mock theta functions. J. Lond. Math. Soc.
**62**(2), 321–335 (2000)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Gordon, B., McIntosh, J.R.: A survey of classical mock theta functions, partitions, q-series, and modular forms, pp. 95–144. Springer, Berlin (2012)View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Hickerson, D.: On the seventh order mock theta functions. Invent. Math.
**94**(3), 661–677 (1988)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Hickerson, D.: A proof of the mock theta conjectures. Invent. Math.
**94**(3), 639–660 (1988)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Hickerson, D.R., Mortenson, E.T.: Hecke-type double sums, Appell-Lerch sums, and mock theta functions, I. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.
**109**(2), 382–422 (2014)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Hikami, K.: Quantum invariant for torus link and modular forms. Comm. Math. Phys.
**246**(2), 403–426 (2004)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Kang, S.Y.: Mock jacobi forms in basic hypergeometric series. Comp. Math.
**145**(03), 553–565 (2009)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Lawrence, R., Zagier, D.: Modular forms and quantum invariants of \(3\)-manifolds. Sir Michael Atiyah: a great mathematician of the twentieth century. Asian. J. Math.
**3**(1), 93–107 (1999)MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Martin, Y.: Multiplicative \(\eta \)-quotients. Trans. Am. Math. Soc.
**348**(12), 4825–4856 (1996)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Mason, G.: \(M_{24}\) and certain automorphic forms. Finite groups—coming of age (Montreal, Que.,: Contemp. Math), pp. 223–244. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1985)Google Scholar
- Lemke Oliver, R.J.: Eta-quotients and theta functions. Adv. Math.
**241**, 1–17 (2013) - Rademacher, H.: Topics in analytic number theory. In: Grosswald E., Lehner J., Newman M. (eds.) Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 169, Springer-Verlag, New York (1973)
- Rolen, L., Schneider, R.P.: A “strange” vector-valued quantum modular form. Arch. Math.
**101**(1), 43–52 (2013). (Basel)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Watson, G.N.: The final problem: an account of the mock theta functions. Ramanujan: essays and surveys, history mathematics, pp. 325–347. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2001)Google Scholar
- Zagier, D.: Ramanujan’s mock theta functions and their applications (after Zwegers and Ono-Bringmann), Astérisque, no. 326, Exp. No. 986, vii–viii, 143–164 (2010), Séminaire Bourbaki. Vol. 2007/2008, (2009)
- Zagier, D.: Vassiliev invariants and a strange identity related to the Dedekind eta-function. Topology.
**40**(5), 945–960 (2001)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Zagier, D.: Quantum modular forms, quanta of maths, clay mathematics procedings, pp. 659–675. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2010)Google Scholar
- Zwegers, S.P.: Mock \(\theta \)-functions and real analytic modular forms, \(q\)-series with applications to combinatorics, number theory, and physics (Urbana, IL, : Contemp. Math, pp. 269–277. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2001)Google Scholar
- Zwegers, S.P.: Mock theta functions. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht (2002)