Most (if not all) references I read about the Gauss Circle Problem that proves a bound below $O(R^{2/3})$ reduces the GCP to the Dirichlet Divisor Problem by the well known expression of $r\_2(n)$, the number of ways of writing a natural number $n$ as the sum of two squares. My question is then, what happens if the circle is not centered at the origin (or any lattice point)? In this case it seems that there is no number theoretical exact formula to reduce one problem to the other, and we have to tackle the GCP directly. What are the recent results in this direction?


**Addendum**: I vaguely recall reading somewhere about the same problem with the circle replaced by a uniformly convex planar domain, in which case the exponent is not as good, but still better than $O(R^{2/3})$. But now I'm unable to find any reference to it, though, so I added a "reference request" tag.



On (a generalization of) the Gauss Circle Problem
You can write a similar expression to the usual formula for the remainder term in the circle problem by using the Poisson summation formula. The shift of the center of the circle simply means that one gets a variant of the usual formula for the remainder term modified by suitable exponential terms. 


Indeed Huxley has considered a more general problem and obtained analogs of what was known for the usual divisor problem. Huxley considers a closed convex curve $C$ enclosing an area $A$, and the dilate $MC$ of $C$ by a factor $M$. Place this dilate in any way you like (translation or rotation) on the coordinate plane, and count the lattice points inside it. Then under suitable regularity assumptions on the boundary curve $C$, Huxley obtains estimates for the difference between the number of lattice points and the expected number $AM^2$ where $A$ is the area enclosed by $C$. His bounds depend on the original shape $C$, but not on the embedding of $MC$ in the plane. The results are in three papers by him [Exponential Sums and Lattice points, I](http://plms.oxfordjournals.org/content/s3-60/3/471.full.pdf+html), [2](http://plms.oxfordjournals.org/content/s3-66/2/279.full.pdf), and [3](http://plms.oxfordjournals.org/content/87/3/591.full.pdf+html) (developing a method of Bombieri, Iwaniec and Mozzochi) and also mentioned in a recent survey, see [Huxley](https://books.google.com/books?id=G0sFCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=huxley+is+the+hlawka+zeta+function+a+respectable+object&source=bl&ots=-nYBZE41Tn&sig=e0NtWY8JisyHqlf9WivZGSDRm7g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7kam2lYLKAhVR8GMKHZvxCq0Q6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=huxley%20is%20the%20hlawka%20zeta%20function%20a%20respectable%20object&f=false), which has further references. The strongest result for the translated circle of radius $R$ has an error term of $R^{0.6298\ldots}$ (see page 593 of the third paper). 


