Improved concentration of Laguerre and Jacobi ensembles
Abstract
We consider the asymptotic limits where certain parameters in the definitions of the Laguerre and Jacobi ensembles diverge. In these limits, Dette, Imhof, and Nagel proved that up to a linear transformation, the joint probability distributions of the ensembles become more and more concentrated around the zeros of the Laguerre and Jacobi polynomials, respectively. In this paper, we improve the concentration bounds. Our proofs are similar to those in the original references, but the error analysis is improved and arguably simpler. For the first and second moments of the Jacobi ensemble, we further improve the concentration bounds implied by our aforementioned results.
Preprint number: MIT-CTP/5469
1 Introduction
The Gaussian, Wishart, and Jacobi ensembles are three classical ensembles in random matrix theory. They find numerous applications in physics, statistics, and other branches of applied science. The Gaussian (Wishart) ensemble is also known as the Hermite (Laguerre) ensemble due to its relationship with the Hermite (Laguerre) polynomial.
Of particular interest are the asymptotic limits where certain parameters in the definitions of the ensembles diverge. In these limits, Dette, Imhof, and Nagel [1, 2] proved that up to a linear transformation, the joint probability distributions of the Hermite, Laguerre, and Jacobi ensembles become more and more concentrated around the zeros of the Hermite, Laguerre, and Jacobi polynomials, respectively. These results allow us to transfer knowledge on the zeros of orthogonal polynomials to the corresponding ensembles.
In this paper, we improve the concentration bounds for the Laguerre and Jacobi probability distributions around the zeros of the Laguerre and Jacobi polynomials, respectively. Our proofs are similar to those in the original references [1, 2], but the error analysis is improved and arguably simpler. We also prove the concentration of the first and second moments of the Jacobi ensemble. The last result has found applications in quantum statistical mechanics [3].
2 Results
In the literature, there is more than one definition of the Laguerre probability distribution. These definitions differ only by a linear transformation and are thus essentially equivalent. In this paper, we stick to one definition. When citing a result from the literature, we perform a linear transformation such that the result is presented for the definition we stick to. The same applies to the Jacobi case.
Let be the number of random variables in an ensemble. Let be the Dyson index, which can be an arbitrary positive number.
2.1 Laguerre ensemble
We draw from the Laguerre ensemble.
Definition 1 (Laguerre ensemble).
The probability density function of the -Laguerre ensemble with parameters
(1) |
is
(2) |
For certain values of , the Laguerre ensemble arises as the probability density function of the eigenvalues of a Wishart matrix , where is an matrix with real (), complex (), or quaternionic () entries. In each case the entries of are independent standard Gaussian random variables and denotes the conjugate transpose of .
Let
(3) |
be the Laguerre polynomial, whose zeros are all in the interval with endpoints [4]
(4) |
Let be the zeros of the Laguerre polynomial .
We are interested in the limit but do not assume that . Note that if is a constant, then implies that ; see (1).
Theorem 1 (Theorem 2.1 in Ref. [1]).
For any ,
(5) |
This theorem can be restated as
Corollary 1.
There exist positive constants such that for any ,
(6) |
Theorem 2 (Theorem 2.4 in Ref. [1]).
Let be a parameter. If
(7) |
then there exist positive constants such that
(8) |
The original upper bound on in Theorem 2.4 of Ref. [1] is a complicated expression without implicit constants. The right-hand side of (8) is its simplification using implicit constants.
If condition (7) is satisfied, (8) may be an improvement of (6). In particular, for a constant , the right-hand side of (8) becomes ( are positive constants) if and only if is upper bounded by a constant.
Theorem 3.
There exist positive constants such that for any ,
(9) |
Let be two positive integers and be an matrix whose elements are independent standard real Gaussian random variables. Then, is a real Wishart matrix, whose joint eigenvalue distribution is given by (2) with and . Theorem 3 implies that
Corollary 2.
Let be the eigenvalues of and be the zeros of the Laguerre polynomial . There exist positive constants such that for any ,
(10) |
Analogues of Corollary 2 for complex () and quaternionic () Wishart matrices also follow directly from Theorem 3.
Let
(11) |
be the first moment of the Laguerre ensemble. The distribution of has a particularly simple form.
Fact 1.
is distributed as , where denotes the chi-square distribution with degrees of freedom.
Thus, the concentration of follows directly from the tail bound [5, 6] for the chi-square distribution.
The distribution of the second moment of the Laguerre ensemble does not have a simple form. Furthermore, it is complicated to obtain concentration bounds for the distribution, so we omit this analysis here.
2.2 Jacobi ensemble
We draw from the Jacobi ensemble.
Definition 2 (Jacobi ensemble).
The probability density function of the -Jacobi ensemble with parameters is
(12) |
The Jacobi ensemble can be interpreted as the probability density function of the eigenvalues of a random matrix ensemble. In the complex () case, let and be uniformly random projectors in with ranks and , respectively. Then, are the non-zero eigenvalues of [7]. Equivalently, they are the squared singular values of an rectangular block within a Haar-random unitary matrix of dimension . A random matrix interpretation for general is given in Ref. [8], but it has less of a natural connection to applications.
The Jacobi polynomial is defined as
(13) |
where is the gamma function. It is well known that all zeros of the Jacobi polynomial are in the interval . Let be the zeros of the Jacobi polynomial .
2.2.1 Pointwise approximation
In this subsubsection, we are interested in the limit but do not assume that .
Theorem 4 (Theorem 2.1 in Ref. [2]).
For any ,
(14) |
This theorem can be restated as
Corollary 3.
There exist positive constants such that for any ,
(15) |
Theorem 5.
There exist positive constants such that for any ,
(16) |
Section 3 of Ref. [2] presents several applications of Theorem 4. Most of them can be improved by using Theorem 5. We discuss one of them in detail.
Let be a positive constant. Consider the limit with
(17) |
Let be the Dirac delta. The semicircle law with radius is a probability distribution on the interval with density function
(18) |
Corollary 4.
The empirical distribution
(19) |
of linearly transformed converges weakly to the semicircle law with radius almost surely.
2.2.2 Moments
Theorem 5 implies the concentration of any smooth multivariate function of . The main result of this subsubsection is tighter concentration bounds (than those implied by Theorem 5) for the first and second moments of the Jacobi ensemble.
Let
(20) |
Suppose that is a positive constant and that . In this subsubsection, we are interested in the limit . This means that or or both.
Let
(21) |
be the first and shifted second moments of the Jacobi ensemble. Equation (B.7) of Ref. [10] implies that
(22) |
Indeed, can be calculated exactly in closed form. The expression is lengthy and simplifies to the above using the Big-O notation.
Theorem 6 (concentration of moments).
For any ,
(23) |
Let
(24) |
be the mean and variance of the zeros of the Jacobi polynomial. From direct calculation (Appendix A) we find that
(25) |
Hence,
(26) |
Corollary 5.
For any ,
(27) |
3 Proofs
The proofs of Theorems 3 and 5 are similar to those of Theorems 1 and 4 in Refs. [1, 2], respectively, but the error analysis is improved and arguably simpler.
The following lemma will be used multiple times.
Lemma 1.
Let be an integer and be numbers such that for . Then,
(28) |
Proof.
(29) |
∎
Let be a positive constant. For notational simplicity, we will reuse in that its value may be different in different expressions or equations.
3.1 Laguerre ensemble: Proofs of Theorem 3 and Fact 1
For Theorem 3, it suffices to prove
Theorem 7.
For any ,
(30) |
Proof of Theorem 7.
Let be independent non-negative random variables with and . Note that
(31) |
Lemma A.1 in Ref. [1] gives the tail bound ( here and in all probability bounds below is positive)
(32) |
Let be the element in the th row and th column of a real symmetric tridiagonal random matrix . “Tridiagonal” means that if . The diagonal and subdiagonal matrix elements are, respectively,
(33) | |||
(34) | |||
(35) |
The joint eigenvalue distribution of is given by [11] the Laguerre ensemble (Definition 1).
3.2 Jacobi ensemble
For , let denote a beta-distributed random variable on the interval with probability density function
(45) |
so that
(46) |
Assume without loss of generality that . Theorem 8 in Ref. [12] gives the tail bound
(47) |
Note that for . In this case, the first inequality above holds trivially. The tail bound (47) implies that
(48) | |||
(49) |
Furthermore, for ,
(50) |
(51) |
Similarly,
(52) |
3.2.1 Pointwise approximation: Proof of Theorem 5
Let be independent random variables with distribution
(53) |
so that
(54) |
Let .
Let be the element in the th row and th column of a real symmetric tridiagonal random matrix . The diagonal and subdiagonal matrix elements are, respectively,
(55) |
The joint eigenvalue distribution of is given by [8] the Jacobi ensemble (Definition 2).
3.2.2 Moments: Proof of Theorem 6
Since , it suffices to prove that
(63) | |||
(64) | |||
(65) | |||
(66) |
We follow the proof of Theorem 5 and use the same notation. We have proved that
(67) | |||
(68) |
Let be the identity matrix of order . A straightforward calculation using (55) yields
(69) | ||||
(70) | ||||
(71) |
where
(72) |
We will use the Chernoff bound multiple times.
Lemma 2.
Let be independent real-valued random variables such that
(73) |
for some . Then,
(74) |
Each is a subexponential random variable in that its probability distribution satisfies (73). Thus, Lemma 2 is the Chernoff bound for subexponential random variables. For , becomes a sub-Gaussian random variable, and Lemma 2 reduces to the Chernoff bound for sub-Gaussian random variables.
Proof of Lemma 2.
The tail bound (73) implies that for any ,
(75) |
Let be such that . Since ,
(76) |
Using for odd ,
(77) |
where is a constant. Recall the standard Chernoff argument:
(78) |
If , we choose so that
(79) |
If , we choose so that
(80) |
We complete the proof by combining these two cases. ∎
Lemma 3.
Let be independent random variables on the interval such that
(81) |
for some . Then,
(82) |
Proof.
Proof of Eq. (63).
Proof of Eq. (64).
Proof of Eq. (65).
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, National Quantum Information Science Research Centers, Quantum Systems Accelerator. AWH was also supported by NSF grants CCF-1729369 and PHY-1818914 and NTT (Grant AGMT DTD 9/24/20).
Appendix A Proof of Eq. (25)
We write the Jacobi polynomial (13) as
(104) |
Let and . From direct calculation we find that
(105) | ||||
(106) |
Hence,
(107) | ||||
(108) |
Appendix B Moments of the Hermite ensemble
Fact 1 and Theorem 6 concern the moments of the Laguerre and Jacobi ensembles, respectively. For the Hermite ensemble, it is simple to calculate the distributions of the first and second moments exactly. The results are presented here for completeness.
Definition 3 (Hermite ensemble).
The probability density function of the -Hermite ensemble is
(109) |
For , the Hermite ensemble gives the probability density function of the eigenvalues of an self-adjoint matrix whose entries are real, complex, or quaternionic Gaussian random variables.
Let
(110) |
be the first and second moments of the Hermite ensemble, where we used the fact that .
Fact 2.
is distributed as , where denotes the normal distribution with mean and variance . is distributed as .
Proof.
Let be independent random variables with
(111) |
The eigenvalues of the real symmetric tridiagonal random matrix
(112) |
are distributed according to [11] so that
(113) | |||
(114) |
∎
References
- [1] Holger Dette and Lorens A. Imhof “Uniform approximation of eigenvalues in Laguerre and Hermite -ensembles by roots of orthogonal polynomials” In Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 359.10, 2007, pp. 4999–5018
- [2] Holger Dette and Jan Nagel “Some Asymptotic Properties of the Spectrum of the Jacobi Ensemble” In SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis 41.4, 2009, pp. 1491–1507
- [3] Aram W. Harrow and Yichen Huang “Thermalization without eigenstate thermalization” arXiv:2209.09826
- [4] Mourand E.. Ismail and Xin Li “Bound on the Extreme Zeros of Orthogonal Polynomials” In Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 115.1 American Mathematical Society, 1992, pp. 131–140
- [5] B. Laurent and P. Massart “Adaptive estimation of a quadratic functional by model selection” In The Annals of Statistics 28.5 Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2000, pp. 1302–1338
- [6] Tadeusz Inglot and Teresa Ledwina “Asymptotic optimality of new adaptive test in regression model” In Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probability and Statistics 42.5, 2006, pp. 579–590
- [7] Benoît Collins “Product of random projections, Jacobi ensembles and universality problems arising from free probability” In Probability Theory and Related Fields 133.3, 2005, pp. 313–344
- [8] Rowan Killip and Irina Nenciu “Matrix models for circular ensembles” In International Mathematics Research Notices 2004.50, 2004, pp. 2665–2701
- [9] Jan Nagel “Nonstandard limit theorems and large deviations for the Jacobi beta ensemble” In Random Matrices: Theory and Applications 3.3, 2014, pp. 1450012
- [10] Francesco Mezzadri, Alexi K Reynolds and Brian Winn “Moments of the eigenvalue densities and of the secular coefficients of -ensembles” In Nonlinearity 30.3 IOP Publishing, 2017, pp. 1034–1057
- [11] Ioana Dumitriu and Alan Edelman “Matrix models for beta ensembles” In Journal of Mathematical Physics 43.11, 2002, pp. 5830–5847
- [12] Anru R. Zhang and Yuchen Zhou “On the non-asymptotic and sharp lower tail bounds of random variables” In Stat 9.1, 2020, pp. e314