Optimal local laws and CLT for the circular
Riesz gas
Abstract.
We study the long-range one-dimensional Riesz gas on the circle, a continuous system of particles interacting through a Riesz kernel. We establish near-optimal rigidity estimates on gaps valid at any scale. Leveraging on these local laws together with Stein’s method, we prove a quantitative Central Limit Theorem for linear statistics. The proof is based on a mean-field transport and a fine analysis of the fluctuations of local error terms using various convexity and monotonicity arguments. By using a comparison principle for the Helffer-Sjöstrand equation, the method can handle very singular test-functions, including characteristic functions of intervals.
1. Introduction
1.1. Setting of the problem
In this paper, we study the one-dimensional Riesz gas on the circle. We denote . For a parameter , let us consider the Riesz -kernel on , defined by
(1.1) |
where stands for the Hurwitz zeta function [Ber72]. Note that is the fundamental solution of the fractional Laplace equation on the circle
(1.2) |
with given by
(1.3) |
We endow with the natural order if , with , and and work on the set of ordered configurations
On let us consider the energy
(1.4) |
where is given by (1.2). The circular Riesz gas, at the inverse temperature , is defined by the Gibbs measure
where is the normalizing constant, called the partition function, given by
Throughout the paper, is a fixed parameter in .
The choice of the normalization in the definition of the energy (1.4) appears to be a natural choice, making the effective inverse temperature governing the microscopic scale behavior.
The model described above belongs to a family of interacting particle systems named Riesz gases. On , these are associated to a kernel of the form with . The Riesz family also contains in dimensions and the so-called log-gases with kernel . For and , is the fundamental solution of the Laplace equation on and therefore corresponds to the Coulombian interaction. The parameter determines the singularity as well as the range of the interaction. When , the interaction is short-range and the system, referred to as hypersingular Riesz gas, resembles a nearest-neighbour model. For or and , Riesz gases are long-range particle systems, which have, as such, attracted much attention in both mathematical and physical contexts.
The 1D log-gas, also called the -ensemble has been extensively studied in the last few decades, partly for its connection to random matrix theory. Indeed, it corresponds, in the cases , to the distribution of the eigenvalues of symmetric/Hermitian/symplectic random matrices with independent Gaussian entries (see the original paper of Dyson [Dys62]). The 1D log-gas also appears in many other contexts such as zeros of random polynomials, zeros of the Riemann function and is conjectured to be related to the eigenvalues of random Schrödinger operators [Lew22]. The 2D Coulomb gas is another fundamental model. Among many other examples, it is connected to non-unitary random matrices, Ginzburg-Landau vertices, Fekete points, complex geometry, the XY model and the KT transition [Ser18]. For other values of , let us mention that the case in dimension is an integrable system, called the classical Calogero-Sutherland model. The study of minimizers of Riesz interactions is also a dynamic topic [HS05, CSW21] and is the object of long-standing conjectures related to sphere packing problems [BL15]. From a statistical physics perspective, even in dimension , the Riesz gas is not fully elucidated since the classical theory of the 60-70s [Rue74] cannot be applied due the long-range nature of the interaction. The reader may refer to the nice review [Lew22], where an account of the literature and many open problems on Riesz gases are given.
As the number of particles tends to infinity, the empirical measure
converges almost surely under (in a suitable topology) to the uniform measure on the circle. This result can be obtained through standard large deviations techniques (see for instance [Ser14, Ch. 2] for the case of Riesz gases on the real line, which adapts readily to the periodic setting). In the large limit, particles tend to spread uniformly on the circle, which suggests that particles spacing (or gaps) concentrate around the value . The first goal of this paper is to quantify the fluctuations of the gaps around their mean. We establish the optimal size of the fluctuations of , which turns out to be in , as conjectured in the recent physics paper [SKA+21]. This type of result is referred to in the literature as a rigidity estimate. It was intensively investigated for -ensembles (see for instance [BEY12, BEY+14b, BEY14a, BMP22]), but the correct observable in that case is , where is the -th particle and the classical location of the -th particle, that is the corresponding quantile of the equilibrium measure arising in the mean-field limit.
A complementary way to study the rigidity of the system is to investigate the fluctuations of linear statistics of the form
(1.5) |
where is a given measurable test-function and a sequence of numbers in . For smooth test-functions, many central limit theorem (CLT) results are available in the literature on 1D-log gases, including [J+98, Shc13, BG13, BEY12, BEY+14b, BLS+18, BMP22, HL21]. For 1D Riesz gases with , to our knowledge, no prior results on CLT for linear statistics are known. In this paper we obtain a quantitative CLT for (1.5), which is valid at all scales down to microscopic scales . A major direction in random matrix theory is to establish CLTs for (1.5) allowing test-functions which are as singular as possible. Indeed it is a natural question to capture the fluctuations of the number of points and of the logarithmic potential, which are key observables for the log-gas. The question of the optimal regularity of the test-function has also drawn a lot of interest because it encapsulates non-universality features in the context of Wigner matrices. One of the goals of this paper is to provide a robust method which allows singular test-functions to be treated in a systematic way. The main question we investigate is therefore a regularity issue. Using new concentration inequalities we are able to treat singular test-functions, including characteristic functions of intervals and inverse power functions up to the critical power . In particular we obtain a CLT for the number of points, thus extending to a Riesz (periodic and fully convex) setting some of the recent results of [BMP22].
Let us now introduce the main tools and objects used in the proofs. For any reasonable Gibbs measure on (or ), the fluctuations of any (smooth) statistic are related to the properties of a partial differential equation called the Helffer-Sjöstrand (H.-S.) equation, which is sometimes referred to as a Witten Laplacian (on -forms). This equation appears in [Sjo93a, Sjo93b, HS94]. It is more substantially studied in [Hel98b, Hel98a, NS97], where it is used to establish correlation decay, uniqueness of the limiting measure and log-Sobolev inequalities for models with convex interactions. The purpose of the present paper is to show how the analysis of Helffer-Sjöstrand equations provides powerful tools to study the fluctuations of linear statistics with singular test-functions.
The proof of the near-optimal rigidity is essentially similar to [BEY12]. It exploits the convexity of the interaction and is thus very specific to 1D systems. The method is mainly based on a concentration inequality for divergence-free functions and on a key convexity result due to Brascamp [BL02].
The method of proof of the CLT for linear statistics starts by performing the mean-field transport argument usually attributed to Johansson [J+98]. When studying the Laplace transform of linear statistics , this consists in applying a well-chosen change of variables on each point, depending only on its position, to transport the uniform measure on the circle to the perturbed equilibrium measure (perturbed by the effect of adding to the energy). In this paper, one computes variances instead of Laplace transforms and the implementation of the transport of [J+98] takes the form of an integration by parts. This argument is a variation of the so-called loop equations (see [BEY12] for various comments on this topic). It is the starting point of many CLTs on -ensembles and Coulomb gases but it received a more systematic analysis in the series of works [LS18, BLS+18, Leb18, LZ20, Ser20]. One can also interpret this transport as a mean-field approximation of the H.-S. equation associated to (the gradient of) linear statistics.
Since the transport is an approximate solution (a mean-field approximation) of the H.-S. equation, it creates an error term, sometimes called loop equation term, which is essentially a local weighted energy and the heart of the problem is to estimate its fluctuations. In contrast, in [LS18, BLS+18, Leb18, Ser20] the typical size in a large deviation sense of this error term is evaluated, rather than the size of its fluctuations. Let us point out however that the latter seems intractable in dimension because of the lack of convexity. The core of this paper is about the control on the fluctuations of this loop equation term through the analysis of the related H.-S. equation. Our proof is based on the Brascamp-Lieb inequality, the near-optimal rigidity estimates on gaps and nearest-neighbour distances and a comparison principle for the Helffer-Sjöstrand equation.
The use of the comparison principle mentioned above (also known in [Car74, HS94]) is one of the main novelties of the paper. This is the key technical tool to be able to treat linear statistics with singular test-functions. Indeed, after performing loop equations techniques, we will study singular local quantities, for which standard concentration inequalities, such as the Brascamp-Lieb or log-Sobolev inequalities, do not give the right order of fluctuations.
The central limit theorem is then obtained from a rather straightforward application of Stein’s method. We show how the mean-field transport naturally leads to an approximate Gaussian integration by parts formula. As a result, quantifying normality boils down to controlling the variance of the loop equation term. The CLT then follows from the variance bound discussed in the above comments.
1.2. Main results
The following results are valid for , thus covering the entire long-range regime.
Our first result concerns the fluctuations of gaps and discrepancies. We establish the following near-optimal decay estimate:
Theorem 1 (Near-optimal rigidity).
There exists such that for all , letting , there exist and such that for each and ,
(1.6) |
In addition for all , letting , there exist and such that for all and ,
(1.7) |
Theorem 1 is the natural extension of the rigidity result of [BEY12, Th. 3.1] to the Riesz setting. Since the probability of deviations are exponentially small, the estimates of Theorem 1 allow one to reduce the phase space to an event where all gaps are close to their standard value. Theorem 1 is proved in Section 4.
We next prove that is the exact fluctuation scale of . This is equivalent to proving that fluctuates at scale . For any map , consider the linear statistic
We prove sharp variance estimates valid at any scale for possibly singular test-functions satisfying the following assumptions:
Assumptions 1.1.
Let .
-
(1)
(Piecewise regularity) is piecewise : there exists and such that, letting , for each , is on .
-
(2)
(Global regularity) for some .
-
(3)
(Singularity) Let . There exists such that for all ,
(1.8) -
(4)
(Support) Let be a sequence in . Assume that or that for each . In the case where , we will assume that is supported on .
Let us first comment upon the above assumptions.
Remark 1.2.
-
•
Assumption (3) compares the singularities of with the singularity of at : the derivative of order of near a singular point is bounded by the derivative of order of . Note that the function is the critical inverse power function which does not lie in .
-
•
When the scale tends to , Assumption (4) ensures that is at most of order .
-
•
The characteristic function satisfies Assumptions 1.1. Indeed the map is piecewise with singularities at and . Moreover, letting , we have and for some .
Before stating the theorem, recall the definition of the fractional Sobolev seminorm on the circle , for . Let in with Fourier coefficients , . Whenever it is finite, we call the quantity
Similarly, the fractional Sobolev seminorm of a function , also denoted , is defined by
(1.9) |
where stands for the Fourier transform of .
Let be a sequence taking values in . For any function , define
(1.10) |
If is supported on , let given for all by
(1.11) |
For all , we then let
(1.12) |
The variance of under may be expanded as follows:
Theorem 2 (Variance of singular linear statistics).
For all , there holds
(1.13) |
Since , note that and that the remaining term in (1.13) is .
Remark 1.3 (On the adaptation to -ensembles).
We expect that our method can also give a (log-correlated) CLT for the test-functions and for 1D log-gases on the circle or on the real line when the external potential is convex.
By Remark 1.2, the number-variance (i.e variance of the number of points) of the Riesz gas grows in , like the variance of smooth linear statistics. In comparison, for the 1D log-gas, smooth linear statistics fluctuate in with an asymptotic variance proportional to the squared Sobolev norm (see [BLS+18] for instance) whereas the number of points in an interval fluctuates in since . Theorem 2 shows that the Riesz gas with interpolates between the 1D log-gas case and the Poisson-type case . Moreover Theorem 2 makes the 1D long-range Riesz gas a hyperuniform particle system in the sense of [Tor16] (meaning that the number-variance is much smaller than for i.i.d variables).
As mentioned in the beginning of the introduction, the next-order term in the expansion (1.13) corresponds to the variance of a local energy arising from the mean-field transport of [J+98], sometimes referred in the literature as the loop equation term. One could extract the leading-order of this variance and relate it to the second derivative of the free energy of the infinite Riesz gas.
The next question we address concerns the asymptotic behavior of rescaled linear statistics. We show that if satisfies Assumptions 1.1 and provided , converges after suitable rescaling to a Gaussian random variable. For any probability measures and on let us denote the distance
We establish the following result:
Theorem 3 (CLT for singular linear statistics).
Theorem 3 can be interpreted as the convergence of the field
to a fractional Gaussian field. Observe that if and are smooth test-functions with disjoint support, then the asymptotic covariance is, in general, not equal to , meaning that the corresponding fractional field does not exhibit spatial independence. This reflects the non-local nature of the fractional Laplacian for .
Corollary 1.1 (CLT for the number of points).
Let and be a sequence taking values on such that . The sequence of random variables
converges in distribution to a centered Gaussian random variables with variance
Moreover
Let be a sequence taking values in such that as . The sequence of random variables
converges in distribution to a centered Gaussian random variables with variance .
Corollary 1.1 is an extension of the results on the fluctuations of single particles in the bulk for -ensembles, see [Gus05, CFLW21] for the GUE case and [BMP22]. Theorem 3 can also be applied to singular function having singularity around in for .
Corollary 1.2 (CLT for power-type functions).
Let . The sequence of random variables
converges in distribution to a centered Gaussian random variables with variance
where , are as in (1.3).
The test-function is the critical inverse power which does not lie in . This should be compared in the case to the test-functions and , for which the associated linear statistics satisfy a log-correlated central limit theorem as shown for instance in [BMP22].
1.3. Context, related results, open questions
1.3.1. Rigidity of -ensembles
As mentioned in the introduction, Theorems 1 and 3 are the natural extensions to the circular Riesz gas of some known results on the fluctuations of -ensembles. We refer again to [BEY12, BEY+14b, BEY14a, BMP22] for rigidity estimates, to [J+98, Shc13, BG13, BLS+18, LLW+19, HL20, Pei22] for CLTs for linear statistics with smooth test-functions and to [HL20, Lam21] for the case of the circular -ensemble. In the case of the GUE, that is for with a quadratic potential, a CLT for test-functions in is obtained in [SW13] using a Littlewood-Paley type decomposition argument. However as observed in [Lam21, Rem. 1.3], the minimal regularity of the test-function depends on . Indeed for , leveraging on variances expansions of [JM15], [Lam21] exhibits a test-function in such that the associated linear statistics does not have a finite limit. Since the characteristic function of a given interval is not is , the asymptotic scaling of discrepancies in intervals is not of order . It is proved in [Gus05] that for the GUE, eigenvalues in the bulk fluctuate in and that discrepancies are of order . A general CLT for the characteristic functions of intervals and for the logarithm function is given in the recent paper [BMP22]. Concerning the method of proof, let us point out a very similar variation on Stein’s method developed in [LLW+19], see also [HL20] for a high-temperature regime.
1.3.2. Local laws and fluctuations for the Langevin dynamics
A related and much studied question concerns the rigidity of the Dyson Brownian motion, an evolving gas of particles whose invariant distribution is given by -ensemble. The time to equilibrium at the microscopic scale of Dyson Brownian motion was studied in many papers including [ESY11, EY12], see also [Bou21] for optimal relaxation estimates. A central limit theorem at mesoscopic scale for linear statistics of the Dyson Brownian Motion is established in [HL16], thus exhibiting a time dependent covariance structure.
1.3.3. Decay of the correlations and Helffer-Sjöstrand representation
The decay of the gaps correlations of -ensembles have been extensively studied in [EY15], where a power-law decay in the inverse squared distance is established. The starting point of [EY15] is based on a a representation of the correlation function by a random walk in a dynamic random environment or in other words on a dynamic interpretation of the Helffer-Sjöstrand operator. The paper [EY15] then develops a sophisticated homogenization theory for a system of discrete parabolic equations. In a different context, a more direct analysis of the Helffer-Sjöstrand operator has been developed in the groundwork [NS97] to characterize the scaling limit of the gradient interface model in arbitrary dimension . Combining ideas from [NS97] and from quantitative stochastic homogenization, the paper [AW19] then shows that the free energy associated to this model is at least for some . We also refer to the recent paper [Tho21] which studies in a similar framework the scaling limit of the non-Gaussian membrane model. In non-convex settings, much fewer results are available in the literature. One can mention the work [DW20] which establishes the optimal decay for the two-point correlation function of the Villain rotator model in , for at low temperature. It could be interesting to develop a direct method to analyze the large scale decay of the Helffer-Sjöstrand equation in the context of one-dimensional Riesz gases. We plan to address this question in future work.
1.3.4. Uniqueness of the limiting point process
The question of the decay of the correlations mentioned above is related to a property of uniqueness of the limiting measure. One expects that after rescaling, chosen so that the typical distance between consecutive points is of order , the point process converges, in a suitable topology, to a certain point process . For , the limiting point process called , is unique and universal as proved in [BEY12, BEY+14b]. The existence of a limit was first established in [VV09] for -ensembles with quadratic exterior potential, together with a sophisticated description and in [KS09] for the circular -ensemble. The process has also been characterized as the unique minimizer of the free energy functional governing the microscopic behavior in [EHL18] using a displacement convexity argument. In [Bou22], we prove the existence of a limiting point process for the circular Riesz ensemble.
1.3.5. 1D hypersingular Riesz gases
Athough the 1D hypersingular Riesz gas (i.e ) is not hyperuniform, its fluctuations are also of interest. In such a system, the macroscopic and microscopic behaviors are coupled, a fact which translates into the linear response associated to linear statistics (in contrast with long-range particle systems, the linear response is a combination of a mean-field change of variables, moving each point according to its position only, and of local perturbations). Simple heuristic computations shows that the limiting variance is then proportional to a norm (after subtraction of the mean) with a factor depending on the second order derivative of the free energy.
1.3.6. Fluctuations of Riesz gases in higher dimension
For and smaller than , the existence of a thermodynamic limit for the Riesz gas (after extraction of a subsequence) is delicate as the energy is long-range. It was obtained in [LS17] for , leveraging among many other ingredients on an electric formulation of the Riesz energy, see [PS17], and on a screening procedure introduced in [SS12] and then improved in [RS13, PS17]. The first task to study the fluctuations of higher dimensional long-range Riesz gases is to establish local laws, that is to control the number of points and the energy in cubes of small scales. This was done for the Coulomb gas in arbitrary dimension down to the microscopic scale in the paper [AS19] using subadditive and supperadditive approximate energies. Due to the lack of convexity, establishing a CLT or even a Poissonian rigidity estimate for linear statistics of Riesz gases in arbitrary dimension is a very delicate task. In dimension 2, since long-range interactions are overwhelmingly dominant, a CLT for linear statistics with smooth test-functions can be proved, see [LS18, BBNY16, Leb17], without proving any “probabilistic cancellation” on local quantities, but only a “quenched cancellation” on some angle term. Let us finally mention the work [Leb21] where the 2D Coulomb gas is shown to be hyperuniform, meaning that the variance of the number of points in a ball scales much smaller than the volume. The paper [Leb21] establishes an important quantitative translation invariance property based on refinements of Mermin-Wagner type arguments, see also [Tho22]. In higher dimension much fewer results are available. One can mention the result of [Ser20] which treats the 3D Coulomb gas at high temperature “under a no phase transition assumption”. A simpler variation of the 3D Colomb gas, named hierarchical Coulomb gas, has also been investigated in the work [Cha19], followed by [GS20].
1.4. Outline of the main proofs
Rigidity
First, we establish a local law on gaps saying that for all , there exist , such that for each and each ,
(1.14) |
This estimate is obtained through a bootstrap procedure and some concentration estimates that we do not detail here.
Let us explain how to prove Theorem 1 from (1.14). For each and , define
and the block average
Fix , and let be a large number. Let . The idea of [BEY12] is to decompose into
For each , denote
One may note that for small , gets larger but is more local since it depends only on the variables in . We therefore need to exploit the convexity of interactions in . To gain uniform convexity, we let be a smooth non-negative convex function such that on and for and define for some fixed , the forcing
and the locally constrained measure
Let be the law of when . Using the so-called Brascamp-Lieb inequality, one can show that
with and defined by
For all , by construction, we have
The point is that when ,
Besides, one can observe that
Since , , and are independent of , one can argue with the Bakry-Emery criterion that for all ,
Using the log-Sobolev inequality and the local law (1.14), one can easily show by taking small enough, that for all , with high probability (under ), which shows that
with high probability. By similar augments, it is easy to prove that with high probability, which will conclude the proof of Theorem 1.
Mollification
Let be a smooth kernel supported on . Let . Define . Let us recall that for all ,
(1.15) |
Using this, one may replace by up to an error
(1.16) |
It is therefore sufficient to study the fluctuations of the function .
The Helffer-Sjöstrand equation
Let be smooth enough. The fluctuations of are related to a partial differential equation through the representation
(1.17) |
where solves the Poisson equation
(1.18) |
where stands for the generator
Note that (1.17) directly follows by integration by parts once it is known that (1.18) has a solution. Differentiating (1.18), one obtains the so-called Helffer-Sjöstrand equation which reads
(1.19) |
with formally given by
When is a function of the gaps or when is replaced by a bounded kernel, the existence and uniqueness of a solution of (1.18) roughly follow from Lax-Milgram’s lemma. Indeed, under such assumptions, a Poincaré inequality holds, which ensures the coerciveness of the appropriate bilinear form. To analyze the solution of (1.19), we will use various tools based on mean-field approximations, convexity and monotonicity.
Since for each , it is standard that satisfies the FKG inequality, meaning that the covariance between two increasing functions is non-negative. This can be formulated by saying that preserves the cone of increasing functions: if (coordinate wise), then . A nice consequence is the following: if are such that , then
(1.20) |
This comparison principle can be extended to non-gradient vector-fields, which will be used as a key argument to handle the fluctuations of some complicated singular functions.
Mean-field transport
It turns out that when is a linear statistic, i.e for some smooth enough test-function , then the solution of (1.19) can be approximated by a transport in the form for some well-chosen map . Letting , one may write
where . Let us expand around the Lebesgue measure on and denote . Noting that the constant term vanishes, one can check that
(1.21) |
with
(1.22) |
The leading-order of (1.21) being a linear statistic, one can choose such that
by letting such that
and . We will apply this to . Denoting the above transport, the central task of the paper is to show that
(1.23) |
for all .
Splitting the variance of the next-order term
Denote
so that
(1.24) |
where . Note that for each index
We have thus split into a macroscopic force and a microscopic force (the splitting is in fact slightly different). By subadditivity, it follows that
Control on with Poincaré inequality in gap coordinates
In gap coordinates the microscopic force behaves well: there exists such that for all ,
satisfying typically (i.e with overwhelming probability) the estimate
(1.25) |
for all . By penalizing configurations with large nearest-neighbor distances, one can modify the Gibbs measure into a new one being uniformly log-concave with respect to the variables . By Brascamp-Lieb inequality, we get using (1.25),
(1.26) |
for all .
Control on with the comparison principle
In substance, one should think of as satisfying for each
(1.27) |
Note that for instance if , blows like near and . Therefore for such singular , the Poincaré inequality does not provide satisfactory estimates for . If was exactly given by for each , one could bound by by (1.15).
The idea is to use the comparison principle (1.20) to compare to the variance of a linear statistic, which are easier to handle using for instance (1.15). Let such that . Equation (1.27) can be put in the form
It then follows from (1.20) that
and the variance of is then roughly bounded by
which yields
(1.28) |
Let us emphasize that is in fact slightly more complicated staring a term in . We thus need to bound the fluctuations of the critical inverse-power , which is done using the rigidity estimates of Theorem 1 as well as a bootstrap argument, by rerunning the previous steps for a singular test-function.
Central limit theorem
The starting point of the proof of the CLT of Theorem 3 is very similar to [LLW+19] and proceeds by Stein’s method. Let . We shall prove that for all such that , up to a small error term,
(1.29) |
with as in (1.12). The fundamental observation of Stein is that this approximate integration by parts formula quantifies a distance to normality. Indeed letting be a centered random variable with variance and smooth, one can solve the ODE
(1.30) |
and (1.29) can be written in the form
showing that is approximately Gaussian. Let us explain how to obtain (1.29). Let . By integration by parts we have
(1.31) |
The goal is then to prove that concentrates around . As explained in the second paragraph, may be approximated by the transport with . Performing this approximate transport allows one to replace (1.31) by
(1.32) |
The error term is handled with the local laws, the error term by inserting (1.23) which concludes the proof of the CLT together with (1.16).
1.5. Structure of the paper
1.6. Notation
-
•
We denote the symmetric distance defined for each by
We let
-
•
For any vector-field where is an open set of , we let be the matrix of partial derivatives of . We also write for the Hessian of a real-valued function .
-
•
For all we let be the space of -Hölder continuous functions from to and the dual of .
Throughout the paper, and will denote positive constants depending on and that may change from line to line.
1.7. Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Sylvia Serfaty, Thomas Leblé, Djalil Chafaï, Gaultier Lambert and David Garcia-Zelada for many helpful comments. I would also like to thank the anonymous referee for their invaluable feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript.
J.B. was supported by a grant from the “Fondation CFM pour la Recherche” and by the ERC Project LDRAM, ERC-2019-ADG Project 884584.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. The fundamental solution of the fractional Laplacian on the circle
We begin by justifying that the fundamental solution of the fractional Laplace equation on the circle is given by (1.1). Roughly, (1.1) corresponds to the periodic summation of , which is the fundamental solution of on the real line.
For all complex variables and such that and , set
(2.1) |
Given , one can uniquely extend into a meromorphic function on the full complex plane with a unique pole at , which is simple with a residue equal to . This function is called the Hurwitz zeta function [Ber72].
Lemma 2.1 (Fundamental solution).
Let be the solution of the fractional Laplace equation on the circle,
(2.2) |
with as in (1.3). Let be the Hurwitz zeta function. Then for all ,
(2.3) |
The above lemma is standard but for completeness we add a proof following roughly [RS16].
Proof.
Let be the unique solution of (2.2). We first derive the semi-group representation for . Let . Recall
(2.4) |
For an integrable function on the torus on the torus and , we let be -th component of the Fourier series of , namely
The fractional Laplacian is defined by the following Fourier multiplier: for all such that , letting , we have
Let . Let such that and let . Applying (2.4) to gives
(2.5) |
Let be the heat kernel of the Laplacian on . Recall that the Fourier coefficients of are given by
The heat kernel can be expressed as
(2.6) |
One may rewrite (2.5) as
It follows that
(2.7) |
Taking , we deduce with a regularization argument that
(2.8) |
where we have used the second equality in (2.6) to compute the average of on .
Define the sequence of functions
First observe that when ,
It follows that
(2.9) |
To treat the other part of the integral, we can write
As a consequence, there exists a constant such that for each and all ,
When , by comparison to a Gaussian integral, one may check that
which leads to
(2.10) |
Combining (2.9) and (2.10), we deduce by Fubini’s theorem that the order of integration and summation in (2.8) can be inverted and we find
where we have used the change of variables and (2.4) in the third equality.
Let us provide an alternative expression of . Using the Euler-Maclaurin formula, one gets that for all ,
(2.11) |
If is complex-valued with , then the left-hand side of (2.11) is given (2.1). It is argued in [Ber72, Eq. (5.2)] via an analytic continuation argument that, that coincides with the right-hand side of (2.11) when and . As a consequence we find that for all and
∎
2.2. Inverse Riesz transform
In Section 5, we will need to compute the fractional Laplacian of order of test-functions with poor regularity. In the next lemma, we provide some useful identities.
Lemma 2.2 (Inversion of the Riesz transform).
Proof.
Let for some . Let solving (2.12). If , it is well-known, see for instance [Sti19, Th. 2], that for all ,
(2.17) |
where
The above formula amounts to computing the fundamental solution of . This can be done by proceeding as in the proof of Lemma 2.1, starting from the identity
valid for .
Using Euler’s reflection lemma, we next compute
Thus for any
Integrating the last display with the condition that yields
(2.18) |
showing (2.13) when for some . Note that (2.18) is a principle value sum, i.e should be understood as the limit
By density, we conclude that (2.13) in fact holds as soon as for some .
Let satisfy Assumptions 1.1. Recall that is piecewise and around a singularity of , grows at most in and in , proving that is in and that is well defined.
Assume that is supported on . Let such that
We have
∎
Next, we apply the pointwise formula (2.13) to indicator and inverse power functions.
Lemma 2.3 (Explicit formulas).
Let be the Hurwitz zeta function. Let for some and be given by (2.13). We have
(2.19) |
Moreover
(2.20) |
Let and . We have
Proof.
Let and . Recall that for each ,
Thus
∎
Lemma 2.4 (Decay).
Let . Assume that is supported on . Then is on and for each , there exists a constant such that for all ,
(2.21) |
2.3. Regularization estimates
Let be a non-negative function supported on . For all define
(2.22) |
Lemma 2.5 (Regularization).
Let satisfy Assumption 1.1. Let be the integral of mean of . Let be the singularities of . Assume that there exists such that and such that for all ,
Let and be as in (2.22).
We have
(2.23) | ||||
(2.24) | ||||
(2.25) | ||||
(2.26) |
Proof.
We decompose into smooth and non-smooth parts as
where the function is smooth and for each , the non-smooth function satisfies
where is the integral of mean of . Also denote the integral of mean if .
Let . For all such that ,
(2.27) |
If then we write
(2.28) |
Since , we deduce from (2.27) and (2.28) that
Moreover since , and
as claimed in (2.23).
3. The Helffer-Sjöstrand equation
In this section we review some basic properties of the Helffer-Sjöstrand equation. We first state some existence and uniqueness results, then derive a known comparison principle that we adapt to the circular setting and finally record various concentration estimate.
3.1. Basic properties
In this subsection we introduce the H.-S. equation and state some standard existence and uniqueness results following partly [AW19]. Let be a probability measure on in the form
with measurable. We make the following assumptions on :
Assumptions 3.1.
Assume that is in the form
(3.1) |
for a family of functions satisfying
Let be a smooth enough function. We seek to rewrite the variance of under in a tractable way. Let us recall the integration by parts formula for . Define on the Langevin operator
with and the gradient and Laplace operators of . By integration by parts, for any functions such that a.e on , we have
(3.2) |
Note that when , the condition is not necessary. Let us now assume that the Poisson equation
(3.3) |
admits a solution in an appropriate sense. Then, by (3.2), one may rewrite the variance of as
The above formula is called the Helffer-Sjöstrand representation formula. Formally differentiating (3.3) yields
where is the so-called Helffer-Sjöstrand operator defined by
The solution of (3.3) therefore formally satisfies
(3.4) |
The above is called the Helffer-Sjöstrand equation [AW19].
Let us now study the well-posedness of (3.4). Define the norm
Let be the completion of with respect to the norm . Also define the norm
and let be the dual of , defined as the completion of with respect to the norm .
Since the density of with respect to the Lebesgue measure on is not bounded from below, the existence of a solution of (3.4) is not straightforward. However one can easily prove existence and uniqueness when is a function of the gaps. Define the map
(3.5) |
and the push-forward of by the map
(3.6) |
Proposition 3.1 (Existence and representation).
Let satisfy Assumptions 3.1. Assume that is in the form , or that is bounded. Then there exists a unique such that
(3.7) |
with the first equality being, for each coordinate, an equality of elements of .
Moreover the solution of (3.7) is the unique minimizer of the functional
(3.8) |
on maps such that on . The variance of may be represented as
(3.9) |
and the covariance between and any function as
The identity (3.9) is called the Helffer-Sjöstrand formula. The proof of Proposition 3.1 is postponed to Appendix A.
Remark 3.2 (Remark on the boundary condition).
In the case where
for each , the boundary terms in the integration by parts vanish, making the analysis much simpler. In the rest of the paper, we will only consider the case where the are bounded from above in the proof of Lemma 3.9.
Note that for a map , a.e on if and only if a.e whenever , for each .
When is replaced by a non-gradient vector-field , the solution is in general non unique. In order to have uniqueness, we need to also assume that and that each coordinate is a function of the gaps.
Proposition 3.2 (Well-posedness for non-gradient vector-fields).
The proof of Proposition 3.2 is postponed to Appendix A. When satisfies the assumptions of Proposition 3.2, we unambiguously denote as the solution of (3.10).
Lemma 3.3.
3.2. Monotonicity and consequences
We now state some monotonicity results related to the FKG inequality. Recall that a measure on is said to satisfy the FKG inequality if for any functions , in which are increasing in each variable, we have
A standard condition for to satisfy the FKG inequality [BÉ85] is that can be written as
with smooth enough satisfying
(3.12) |
In fact, the FKG property can be reformulated as a maximum principle for (3.7).
We prove a stronger maximum principle allowing to compare the solutions of (3.10) for general source vector-fields. This requires, in addition to (3.12), some strict convexity property on . Note that if satisfies Assumptions 3.1, then is not strictly log-concave. To make our argument work, we thus need to fix a point.
Fix and let
(3.13) |
On define
Proposition 3.4 (Existence with a fixed point).
There exists a unique solution of
(3.14) |
If , then the solution of (3.14) is in the form . Moreover the variance of under may be represented as
In the sequel given , we denote the solution of (3.14).
Remark 3.3.
The coefficient in (3.14) is a Lagrange multiplier associated to the constraint .
Lemma 3.5 (Monotonicity).
Proof.
Let be the solution of (3.14). Let us prove that for each , a.e on . Let and be the positive and negative parts of . Taking the scalar product of the equation with gives
By integration by parts under , since for each , one can observe that
since the boundary term in the above integration by parts vanishes. Note that and
(3.15) |
since . One deduces that
Therefore
By Assumptions 3.1, there exists such that
This shows that for each . Since we get which concludes the proof. ∎
In view of Lemma 3.5, we compare the variances of two functions by comparison of their gradients. We derive the following new observation:
Lemma 3.6 (Energy comparison).
Proof.
For , we use the notation when for each , .
Now, if and are gradients, then much less is required on the measure , as shown in the following lemma:
Lemma 3.7.
Let be a probability measure on in the form with in such that
Assume that
Let such that for each ,
(3.17) |
Then
(3.18) |
Proof.
It is standard that satisfies the FKG inequality meaning that for all measurable non-decreasing functions and , the covariance between and under is non-negative. We refer to [BM92, Th. 1.3] in the case.
3.3. Variances upper bounds
We review some well-known variance upper bounds.
Lemma 3.8 (Brascamp-Lieb inequality [BL02]).
Let satisfy Assumptions 3.1. Let be a convex domain with a piecewise smooth boundary. Let in the form with . There holds
(3.19) |
Elements of proof.
Let us illustrate the proof in the case . By Proposition 3.1, the variance of may be expressed as
Since , one gets
∎
The Brascamp-Lieb inequality requires some regularity on . We now give a simple upper bound on when is a linear statistic, which depends only on the norm of the test-function.
Lemma 3.9 (Poissonian variance estimate).
Let satisfy Assumptions 3.1. Let . We have
(3.20) |
Proof.
Let satisfy Assumptions 3.1. Let . Let be a sequence of elements of such that converge to in . Let us prove that (3.20) holds for . For and , let be such that is bounded by , and . Define
Denote the operator acting on ,
Since the density of is bounded from below and from above with respect to the Lebesgue measure on , one may apply Proposition 3.1, which allows to express the variance of under as
where the minimum is taken over maps such that and . Since is non-negative, one may bound this by
(3.21) |
where the minimum is taken over maps . By integration by parts under , the minimizer of (3.21) is the unique solution of
(3.22) |
Let such that and let
which satisfies a.e on by Remark 3.2.
3.4. Log-Sobolev inequalities and Gaussian concentration
We now review some standard results on log-Sobolev inequalities and Gaussian concentration for log-concave measures on and derive some stronger estimates valid for measures satisfying Assumptions 3.1 following [BEY12].
Let us first recall a crucial convexity result proved in [BL02].
Lemma 3.10.
Let satisfy Assumptions 3.1. Assume that for each ,
Let of cardinal . Denote and the projections on the coordinates and . Split into with
Let . The density of may be written
(3.23) |
with
(3.24) |
Moreover
Proof.
Let of cardinal . The fact that is as in (3.23) is straightforward. Let us prove that the Hessian of (3.24) is non-negative. On , introduce the coordinates
For smooth functions , denote and the matrices of second partial derivatives. Fix , and let
Since for each ,
one can check that for all ,
(3.25) |
where for any , is the probability measure
Since is convex, the Brascamp-Lieb inequality implies
Furthermore since is non-negative, its Schur complement is non-negative, which gives
Inserting this into , this shows that . ∎
Let us recall the standard log-Sobolev inequality for uniformly log-concave measures on , which is a special case of the Bakry-Emery criterion [BÉ85]. Let and be two probability measures on . Recall that the relative entropy of with respect to is defined by
if is absolutely continuous with respect to and otherwise. Let also recall the Fisher information of with respect to ,
if is absolutely continuous with respect to and otherwise.
Lemma 3.11 (Bakry-Emery [BÉ85]).
Let be a convex domain of . Let and be a centered Gaussian distribution on with covariance matrix . Let defined by conditioning into . Assume that is a measure on in the form with Borel and log-concave. Then satisfies a log-Sobolev inequality with constant , meaning for all probability measure ,
Moreover satisfies Gaussian concentration: for all , we have
(3.26) |
We now state a key concentration result due to [BEY12]. Recall that if satisfies Assumptions 1.1, then tere exists such that
The crucial observation is that when , the Hessian of the energy controls times the Euclidean norm of :
(3.27) |
Furthermore one can observe that satisfies when since is a function of the gaps. Combining this with (3.27) gives the following Gaussian estimate:
Lemma 3.12.
Let and the projection on the coordinates . Let satisfy Assumptions 3.1. Assume that for each ,
Assume that for each , and ,
(3.28) |
Let . Assume that is independent of , i.e . For all we have
The proof of Lemma 3.12 can be found in [BEY12, Le. 3.9]. It can be adapted readily to our circular setting. For completeness we sketch the main arguments below and follow line by line the proof of [BEY12].
Proof.
Let of cardinal . To simplify the notation assume that .
On introduce the coordinates with and . The energy can be split into with uniformly convex, convex and independent of , i.e . Now we introduce on the coordinates with and . Observe that this change of variables can be written , with . Since is independent of , one can write it in the form . Similarly can be written .
Let be the push-forward of by . The density of is given by where
(3.29) |
Fix and . Consider . As in the proof of Lemma 3.10, we have
where for any , stands for the probability measure
Using the Brascamp-Lieb inequality this entails
Thus
(3.30) |
Since is independent of , one has
Hence, by positivity of , its Schur complement is positive and
Inserting this into (3.30) we deduce that for all ,
where denotes the first columns of . Moreover we can observe that
Since is uniformly log-concave for the constant , one can apply the Bakry-Emery criterion stated in Lemma 3.11, which gives that for all ,
We can now observe that, since is orthogonal, and this concludes the proof. ∎
4. Near-optimal rigidity
This section is devoted to the proof of the rigidity result of Theorem 1. The method uses various techniques introduced in the seminal paper [BEY12, Th. 3.1]. Since we are working on the circle, it is straightforward to compute the expectation of gaps and one does not need to estimate the accuracy of standard positions, which was one of the main issues of [BEY12]. The first task is to obtain a local law on gaps saying that for each and , is typically of order . To this end we perform a mutliscale analysis similar to [BEY12] allowing one to bootstrap the local law down to microscale. The argument is based on a convexifying procedure that we first detail.
4.1. Comparison to a constrained Gibbs measures
Since the Hessian of the energy degenerates when particles are far away from each other, one cannot directly derive Gaussian concentration estimates for . Following [BEY12], one may add to the Hamiltonian a convexifying term, which penalizes configurations with large gaps. Let be a smooth function such that for , on and on . Let , and . Let
Define
(4.1) |
and the locally constrained Gibbs measure
(4.2) |
In the sequel we will often take for some . Recall the total variation distance between two measures and on :
The Pinsker inequality, see [ABC+00, Ch. 5] for a proof, asserts that
(4.3) |
where is the relative entropy with respect to . Using (4.3) and the log-concavity of the constrained measure (4.2), one may derive the following control:
Lemma 4.1.
Let be the measure (4.2). Denote the projection . There exists a constant depending only on and such that
Proof.
For each let
Applying Pinsker’s inequality (4.3) to and gives
(4.4) |
Note that
The law of under and is uniform on the circle and independent of . By Lemma 3.10, the measure has density with and defined by
By definition of ,
for some constant independent of , and . Therefore by Lemma 3.11, satisfies a log-Sobolev inequality with constant where . Writing for some , this gives
(4.5) |
We can next bound the Fisher information by
Inserting this into (4.5) and using (4.4) concludes the proof of Lemma 4.1. ∎
4.2. First local law
We now prove that each gap is typically of order with an exponentially small probability of deviation.
Lemma 4.2.
Let . There exist and such that for each and ,
(4.6) |
The proof of Lemma 4.2 is inspired by the multiscale analysis of [BEY12]. We proceed by a bootstrap on scales: if the local law (4.6) is assumed to hold for some , then in view of Lemma 4.1, one may convexify the measure in a window of size without changing much the measure. Moreover, the convexified measure satisfies better concentration estimates, allowing one to prove through Lemma 3.12 that (4.6) holds at a slightly smaller scale.
Proof of Lemma 4.2.
Step 1: setting the bootstrap
Define
We wish to prove that there exist and independent of such that for each , and all ,
(4.7) |
Observe that (4.7) trivially holds for since .
Let . Assume that (4.7) holds for each . Fix and let
(4.8) |
Note that since , we have . Let us prove that (4.7) holds for each .
Let , and
(4.9) |
Define
Let be a smooth cutoff function such that for , on and on . Define
(4.10) |
Let be the constrained Gibbs measure
Since is a function of , one can write
(4.11) |
Step 2: upper bound on the total variation distance
Step 3: accuracy under
Since is not bounded from above independently of , one cannot directly apply (4.14) to approximate the expectation of under and one needs to first prove a tightness result. Let . We have
(4.15) |
by Jensen’s inequality. In view of (4.13), we have
(4.16) |
for some constant independent of and . Moreover
Using (4.13), one finds that for small enough,
(4.17) |
for some constant independent of and . Using Markov’s inequality one gets
(4.18) |
for some uniform in and . Besides, using (4.13), we get that
(4.19) |
for some uniform in and .
Step 4: fluctuations under
We now study the fluctuations of under . Denote
Observe that , for each and . Moreover satisfies Assumptions 3.1 with
Moreover, for each and ,
If , then one can write
If , then
Combining the two last displays we deduce that for each ,
Therefore, by applying Lemma 3.12, we obtain that for all ,
for some constant independent of and . By Markov’s inequality, recalling that , it implies that
for some constants independent of and . Using (4.20), this gives
(4.21) |
for some constants independent of and .
Step 5: conclusion
We have
(4.22) |
Observe that the conditions (4.9) and (4.22) can be satisfied if and only if
(4.23) |
Therefore by (4.8) we can choose satisfying (4.22). Therefore by (4.20) and (4.21), there exists and , independent of and such that
In combination with (4.14), we deduce that there exists independent of and such that for each ,
(4.24) |
In combination with (4.14) this implies the existence of independent of such that for each ,
Let and . We have
if for some independent of . We conclude that there exists independent of such that (4.7) holds for each . At the cost of changing , we find that (4.7) also holds for each . ∎
From the proof of Lemma 4.2 we deduce the following estimate on the expectation of gaps under the locally constrained measure:
Lemma 4.3.
Let and . Let
Let and such that . Let . Let be the locally constrained measure (4.2) with . There exists depending on and independent of , and such that
4.3. Reduction to a block average
In this subsection we implement a method developed in [BEY12] to study the fluctuations of particles positions. The strategy consists in replacing a single point by the average of the over a certain block centered around .
For each and , let stand for the interval of indices
Define the block average
(4.25) |
Lemma 4.4 (Comparison to a block average).
Let be small enough. There exist and independent of such that for each and ,
Proof.
Let and . Fix such that . Let be a large number and . Since , one can break into
For each , denote
The function only depends on the variables and . Let . Let be the constrained Gibbs measure (4.2) with and . The measure satisfies the assumptions of Lemma 3.12 with . Moreover . Thus, by Lemma 3.12, for all , we have
since . Let us now choose and so that
We get
(4.26) |
Inserting the result of Lemma 4.3 and (4.13), we get
(4.27) |
for some depending on and . Consequently by (4.26) and (4.27), one has
Meanwhile by Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.2, one obtains that for small enough,
Since , one finds
We conclude that there exist constants depending on such that
This concludes the proof of Lemma 4.4. ∎
4.4. Proof of Theorem 1
Theorem 1 quickly follows from Lemma 4.4. We study the fluctuations of . By Lemma 4.4, one can replace and by their block average at scale , up to a well-controlled error. Moreover, the difference of these block averages can be easily bounded using Lemma 3.12.
Proof of Theorem 1.
Let , and . Let us split the gap into
(4.28) |
By Lemma 4.4, letting , we have
(4.29) |
(4.30) |
Let us define
Let be the constrained Gibbs measure (4.1) with and for some to fix later. We have . Moreover satisfies the assumptions of Lemma 3.12 with . Consequently one gets from 3.12 that for all ,
(4.31) |
Inserting the accuracy estimate of Lemma 4.3 we find
(4.32) |
Fix . By (4.31) and (4.32) one finds
(4.33) |
Again, by Lemmas 4.1, 4.2 and (4.13), one has
(4.34) |
Combining (4.33) and (4.34) one deduces that
Together with (4.29) and (4.30), this proves (1.6). Since for each , is uniformly distributed on , one easily concludes the proof of (1.7). ∎
4.5. Control of the probability of near collisions
Let us control the probability of having two particles very close to each other.
Lemma 4.5.
Let . There exist independent of such that for each and ,
Proof.
Let be a smooth cutoff function independent of such that
Let . Let smooth such that for , supported on and such that . Define
Step 1: starting point
Let be the law of under , which can be written
where
Let us define
By rotational invariance, . Consider the solution of
(4.35) |
Since and depend only on , is also a function of and one may write it as for some . Let , which solves
(4.36) |
Step 2: estimates on
One may split into
where
where
Since , for all ,
where is the probability measure with density
We then expand
(4.37) |
Using that for each ,
we deduce that
(4.38) |
Recall that on and on . It follows that on .
Following the proof of the convexity result of Lemma 3.10, we have . Indeed, for all ,
Let us denote . Using the Brascamp-Lieb inequality,
Therefore for all ,
Since is non-negative the Schur-complement
is also non-negative and therefore .
Step 3: study of the one-point transport
One can solve (4.36) explicitly: for all , we have
In view of (4.38), for all , . Therefore for all ,
From this we get that there exists independent of such that for all
(4.39) |
Let us now derive an estimate for . Recall that is strictly decreasing. Consider its inverse . Using the change of variables , we obtain that for all ,
We then get by integration by parts that for all ,
Inserting this into (4.36) we deduce that for all
We have
Note that since and , we have , , on . Thus there exists independent of such that for all ,
and for all ,
Thus for all ,
(4.40) |
For , since is supported on , we have
It follows that . Moreover
Since , we get combining the last display and (4.40) that there exists independent of such that
(4.41) |
Step 5: Gaussian estimate
Let us prove a Gaussian concentration estimate for . Let . Let be as in (4.35). Consider the map
By (4.39), we have
Moreover since , we deduce that . Using the fact that , one gets that defines a valid change of variables on .
Therefore one may rewrite the Laplace transform of under as
Since , we have
Define
One can check that for all ,
since . It follows that
Then, since is supported on , one can notice that there exists independent of such that for all ,
Now, inserting the estimate (4.39), there exists independent of such that
Combining the above gives
since solves (4.35). Thus there exists such that for all ,
(4.42) |
Step 5: conclusion
5. Optimal rigidity for singular linear statistics
In this section, we prove the optimal variance estimate stated in Theorem 2. This will give the optimal scaling of the fluctuations of gaps and discrepancies.
5.1. Mean-field transport
We first introduce the transportation argument of [J+98, Shc13] which is the starting point of many CLTs on -ensembles and Coulomb gases including [LS18, BLS+18, Leb18, Ser20]. The method consists in identifying a mean-field approximation of the solution of the equation
when is a linear statistic and then using this to give an expansion for the variance of . This mean-field transport creates a non-local error term, sometimes called the “loop equation term”, defined for all measurable maps by
(5.1) |
where
and is the Lebesgue measure on .
Remark 5.1.
For 2D Coulomb gases, the loop equation term is replaced by an angle term, as seen in [LS18] and [BBNY16]. In the case of -ensembles, (5.1) is smooth and so can be controlled directly by bounding the measure using local laws. In our case, (5.1) is as singular as the energy, which makes the treatment more delicate.
Proposition 5.1.
Let and . Assume either that is supported on or that . Let given by
(5.2) |
and given by
We have
(5.3) |
Remark 5.2 (Mean-field approximation).
Proposition 5.1 can be interpreted as a mean-field approximation of the solution of
(5.4) |
where . Due to the scaling of the energy and to the long-range nature of the interaction, one can find an approximate solution in the class of “diagonal transports”, with .
For the hypersingular Riesz gas, i.e the Riesz gas with for , one cannot approximate the solution of (5.4) by a diagonal transport. Let indeed smooth enough and . Since the energy is dominated by local interactions, the term is not at first order a linear statistic.
Remark 5.3 (Scaling relation).
Proof of Proposition 5.1.
Let be the operator
acting on . Let and
Let and . Define
We wish to find such that . Let us expand . Letting , we have
a.e, where . By decomposing into , one can break into
(5.5) |
with as in (5.1) for . For the crossed term we can write
where is well-defined since . Thus
where is the constant term in (5.5).
Let be the solution of the convolution equation
Since is the fundamental solution of the fractional Laplace equation (1.2), is the unique solution of
(5.6) |
For this map, one can observe that the constant term in the splitting (5.5) vanishes:
Let us choose so that by (5.7),
(5.7) |
One has
Since a.e on (see Remark 3.2) we get by integration by parts under that
and
Assembling the above gives
(5.8) |
where
5.2. Splitting of the loop equation term
In view of Proposition 5.1, expanding the variance of a linear statistic reduces to controlling the loop equation term (5.1). Let us first discard a strategy based on local laws only. Recall that for all smooth enough,
By using local laws on gaps, one may control the above integral away from the diagonal. Nevertheless contains local terms such as
which is with overwhelming probability. Therefore applying a local law estimate will give in the best case, the bound
Inserting this into Proposition 5.1 gives an error term of order , which is larger than the expected order of fluctuations of linear statistics. One should instead exploit the convexity of the interaction and bound the fluctuations of using various concentration inequalities. As emphasized in Section 3, the variance of a smooth function under a log-concave probability measure is related to the norm of its gradient and one should therefore first differentiate (5.1).
Before entering into the main computations, we first define a localized version of . We will assume that is in the support of and let be the index (defined almost surely) such that is the closest point to :
(5.10) |
Fix and let
(5.11) |
Then define
(5.12) |
For smooth enough, we define a localized version of by letting
(5.13) |
For , define the good event
(5.14) |
Let . Consider defined for all by
(5.15) |
and
(5.16) |
Lemma 5.2.
5.3. Quantitative variance expansion
We proceed to the proof of Theorem 2.
Starting from Proposition 5.1, we first prove that Theorem 2 holds up to the control of the variance of the loop equation term (5.1).
Proposition 5.3.
Proof.
From the Poissonian estimate of Lemma 3.9 we get the crude bound
Inserting (2.23) into the above display yields
(5.23) |
Note that since , the above term is .
Let us now study the fluctuations of . Let be as in (5.20). Define
Applying Proposition 5.1 one gets
(5.24) |
Using the Poissonian estimate of Lemma 3.9 again and the estimate (2.24), we obtain
(5.25) |
Splitting into , one can write
where
(5.26) |
Therefore
(5.27) |
where
where we have applied (2.14) in the second equality. We will prove in Lemma B.3 that for all , there exists such that
(5.28) |
By the estimate (2.26) of Lemma 2.5, one has
(5.29) |
Therefore combining (5.27), (5.29) and inserting (2.24) to control , we get
Using this and (5.23), (5.24) and (5.25), we conclude that
In the case where , as proved in (2.16),
which gives (5.22). ∎
We turn to the control on the variance of (5.1). When , we first localize the term into a smaller window by discarding long-range interactions using the concentration estimate of Theorem 1. We then split the gradient of the main term into two vector-fields and as in Lemma 5.2. The vector-field is easy to deal with, using the bound (5.19) and the log-concavity of . Using the comparison principle of Lemma 3.6 we are able control the Dirichlet energy of by the variance of an auxiliary (singular) linear statistic.
Let be as in (5.11). Let and . Define
(5.30) |
Let us consider of mean such that for all ,
(5.31) |
Define
(5.32) |
Note that in the case where for each , and is on and discontinuous at . The function satisfies Assumptions 1.1 with .
Proposition 5.4.
Let satisfy Assumptions 1.1 and as in (1.8). Let be a sequence of positive numbers in . Assume that is supported on or that for each . Let and with as in (2.22). Let be as in (5.20). Let . Let be as in (5.31).
For all , there exists depending on and such that
(5.33) |
Proof.
Step 1: reduction to a finite-range quantity
Let . Let and be as in (5.10) and (5.12). Let us split into with as defined in (5.13):
where is as in (5.11). We will prove in Appendix B (see Lemma B.4) that there exist and depending on such that
(5.34) |
In the rest of the proof, we denote for shortcut .
Step 2: fixing a point
As explained in Subsection 3.2, applying our FKG-type inequalities requires to fix a point. Recall
We claim that
(5.35) |
The proof of (5.35) uses the fact that the law of under is the law of under as well as the rigidity estimate of Theorem 1. We postpone the details to Appendix B, see Lemma B.5.
It therefore remains to study the variance of conditionally on .
Step 3: convexification and conditioning
Fix . We first convexify the measure by penalizing large nearest-neighbor gaps in the window as in Section 4.
Let be a smooth cutoff function such that for , on and on . Fix and let
Let be the locally constrained measure
(5.36) |
In view of Lemma 4.1 and Theorem 1, the total variation distance between the measures and satisfies
(5.37) |
for some constant depending on . Using the rigidity estimates of Theorem 1 and (5.37), one can easily show that there exists , such that
In view of (5.37), this implies that there exists depending on such that
Together with (5.35) we get
(5.38) |
Step 4: reduction to a good event
Recall the good event (5.14),
Let piecewise linear such that for , for and for . Define the cutoff function
(5.39) |
Using the rigidity estimate of Theorem 1 and (5.37), one can show that there exists depending on and such that
Denote for shortcut
Since positive on , we get by subadditivity that
Let us split into
with , as in Lemma 5.2. By subadditivity again
(5.40) |
Step 5: using Poincaré in gap coordinates for and
To estimate the second term of the right-hand side of (5.40), one can take advantage of the fact that is uniformly log-concave in gap coordinates. Indeed, using the Brascamp-Lieb inequality, one can write
(5.41) |
By definition of , for all ,
and besides
with satisfying (5.19). Inserting these into (5.41) we deduce that there exist constants and such that
Inserting the estimate (5.19) of Lemma 5.2 we obtain
(5.42) |
Besides, recall that is a function of the gaps: , with . Thus reasoning as for we get
Note that on and that is uniformly bounded on by for some . Thus there exist such that
(5.43) |
where we have used Theorem 1 and Lemma 4.5 in the last inequality.
Step 6: using the comparison principle for
Let be integrals of defined in (5.15), (5.16) of mean . Since is supported on , one gets by Lemma 5.2 that
Therefore, applying Lemma 3.6, one gets
(5.44) |
Since for some we deduce from (5.37) that there exists such that
It follows that
(5.45) |
Using the Poissonian control of Lemma 3.9 one can write
(5.46) |
A more involved argument is needed to deal with . Using (5.37) and the fact that , one gets
Thus, integrating the last display with respect to , we obtain
(5.47) |
By rotational invariance,
(5.48) |
where is as in (5.30).
Step 7: bound on the fluctuations of
Let be as in (5.31) and let .
Let us now assume that for each . In this case, the support of is . One may write
(5.50) |
One can summarize (5.48), (5.49) and (5.50) into
Combining this with (5.44), (5.45), (5.46) and (5.47) we find
(5.51) |
which concludes the proof of the proposition together with (5.34), (5.35), (5.40), (5.42), (5.43). ∎
In view of Propositions 5.3 and 5.4, there remains to bound the variance of and for the singular linear statistics defined in (5.31) and (5.32). Let us emphasize that is not in .
Proposition 5.5.
Let be as in (5.31). For all , there exists depending on and such that
(5.52) |
Proof.
Step 1: conditioning on a point near the singularity
Since is very singular at , we need to condition on a point near . Let . Let us define
By Theorem 1, there exists depending on such that
Moreover
Thus
Since is invariant by permutation of indices, one can observe that for each ,
Moreover since is uniformly distributed on the circle, one has
Since , it follows that
As proved in Lemma B.6,
Inserting this into the last display, we get that for all ,
(5.53) |
Fix . In the sequel, we will control the variance of conditionally on .
Step 2: convexification and reduction to a good event
Step 3: control on the main term
Define
There exists such that for each , we have
Recall that on the event , there exists and such that for each such that ,
Therefore if , then on ,
Moreover, on the event , there exists such that implies . Moreover, since there are at most points in . We conclude that there exists such that
Applying the comparison principle of Lemma 3.6, we thus obtain
(5.57) |
One can write
(5.58) |
Then, using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, one can bound the last display by
Moreover,
Inserting the concentration estimate of Theorem 1 in the last display we get
Combined with (5.57) and (5.58) this yields
(5.59) |
Step 4: conclusion
Putting (5.59) and (5.56) into (5.55) and using (5.54), we get that there exists and such that for all ,
Therefore using (5.53), one concludes that
(5.60) |
∎
In the case where for each , one should bound the fluctuations of the discontinuous function defined in (5.32). To this end, we use a bootstrap argument and apply Propositions 5.3, 5.4, 5.5. After a finite number of steps, we obtain a sharp variance bound, allowing one to conclude the proof of the theorem.
Proof of Theorem 2.
Let be as in (5.32). Recall that satisfies Assumptions 1.1 with . Therefore by applying Propositions 5.3 and 5.4, we find that
with as in (5.31) for and satisfying Assumptions 1.1 with . Inserting (5.52) we deduce that for all there exists such that
(5.61) |
One may bootstrap through (5.61) the optimal fluctuation estimate on , since and satisfy the same assumptions. Inserting a crude Poissonian estimate, we get
Substituting this into (5.61), one obtains that there exists such that
(5.62) |
Since and satisfy the same assumptions, one can insert the estimate (5.62) into (5.61) and we find that for all there exists such that
We conclude after a finite number of steps that
Combining this with the estimate (5.33) of Proposition 5.4 and the estimate (5.52) of Proposition 5.5, one gets that for all , there exists such that
(5.63) |
Finally using (5.21) we conclude that
which finishes the proof of Theorem 2. ∎
6. Central Limit Theorem
6.1. Proof of the CLT
We prove the CLT stated in Theorem 3 using Stein’s method, leveraging on the variance estimates of Section 5.
Proof of Theorem 3.
Let satisfy Assumptions 1.1. Let such that . Assume either that is supported on or that for each . Let
The principle of Stein method is to prove that for all smooth enough,
(6.1) |
where is as in (1.10). Let indeed and smooth enough. Denote . Consider the unique bounded solution of the ODE
which is explicitly given by
One can observe that there exists a constant depending only on such that
Therefore, since is bounded, there exists a constant independent of such that
(6.2) |
where is the set of differentiable functions such that , , . Let us now prove (6.1).
Step 1: regularization
Step 2: main computation
Step 3: the error term
Step 4: the error term
Step 5: conclusion
6.2. Proof of Corollary 1.1
Proof of Corollary 1.1.
By Lemma 2.3, the function satisfies Assumptions 1.1 and one may apply Theorem 3. Let be a sequence in . Let . Define
(6.8) |
By formula (2.20), if for each ,
(6.9) |
Now in the case where , by expanding (6.9) as tends to , we find
One can synthesize the convergence result as
(6.10) |
where
(6.11) |
Appendix A Well-posedness of the H.-S. equation
A.1. Well-posedness for gradients
Let satisfy Assumptions 3.1. The formal adjoint with respect to of the derivation , is given by
meaning that for all such that on ,
(A.1) |
The above can be shown by integration by parts under the Lebesgue measure on . Recall the map
and
Lemma A.1.
Lemma A.1 is a variation on Lax-Milgram’s lemma. When the interaction kernel is bounded, a uniform Poincaré inequality holds. If is not assumed to be bounded, then the Poincaré inequality holds for all functions of the gaps.
Lemma A.2 (Poincaré inéquality).
Proof.
Let with . The measure is uniformly log-concave: it can be written
where is the Lebesgue measure on and with satisfying for some constant . Therefore by the Brascamp-Lieb inequality of Lemma 3.8,
If is bounded, there exist such that
Since the Lebesgue measure on satisfies a Poincaré inequality, so does . ∎
Proof of Lemma A.1.
Assume that with . Let
and
(A.4) |
Let us prove that admits a unique minimizer. First for all ,
By Lemma A.2, there exists a constant such that for all ,
Therefore there exists such that for all ,
(A.5) |
It follows that is coercive with respect to the norm and that is bounded from below. Let be a sequence of elements of such that converges to . Since is bounded in , there exists a sub-sequence converging weakly to a certain . It follows from (A.5) that is l.s.c on . Since is convex, is l.s.c for the weak topology on . Therefore is a minimizer of on . The first-order minimality condition for reads
for all . By integration by parts, for all , we have
Thus if the ’s are bounded from below, we deduce that a.e on . Moreover for all ,
Since
we deduce that for all with ,
Since is a function of the gaps, we deduce that for all ,
since is a function of the gaps. We deduce that
as elements of and that a.e on . The uniqueness is straightforward.
One can now complete the proof of Proposition 3.1.
Proof of Proposition 3.1.
Let with . Recall that if , . Indeed
By Lemma A.1, there exists such that as elements of and such that a.e on . Let such that a.e on . For each , we have
For the first term in the sum above, we have
For the second term, using the identity one can write
We conclude by density that, in the sense of , for each ,
This concludes the proof of existence of a solution to (3.7). Uniqueness is straightforward.
The formula (3.9) then easily follows from an integration by parts: letting be the solution of (3.7), we can write
The variational representation (3.8) is straightforward using that is the unique minimizer of the function (A.4).
In the case where is not a function of the gaps and where is assumed to be bounded from below, we conclude likewise. ∎
Proof of Proposition 3.2.
Let . Let
(A.6) |
and
Let us show that admits a unique minimizer. First
Now we use the fact that there exists such that
since . It follows that is coercive with respect to
. Arguing as in the proof of Lemma A.1, one can show that admits a unique minimizer which satisfies
for all . By integration by parts for all and each
since for each , . Therefore for all
(A.7) |
Since , (A.7) holds for all such that for each , is a function of the gaps. Finally, since is a function of the gaps, (A.7) holds for any . We conclude that satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equation
(A.8) |
where the first equality is an equality between elements of .
Let us show uniqueness of the solution. Let satisfy
(A.9) |
Taking the scalar product of the first equation with , integrating by parts gives
Since , we have . This proves uniqueness. ∎
Appendix B Auxiliary estimates
B.1. Discrete convolution products
Lemma B.1.
Let , be such that . Let .
-
(i)
If and ,
-
(ii)
If and ,
-
(iii)
If and ,
The above estimates follow from straightforward computations, see for instance [MO+16, DW20]. Let us now adapt Lemma B.1 to truncated convolution products.
Lemma B.2.
Let be such that . Let .
-
(i)
If and ,
(B.1) -
(ii)
If and ,
-
(iii)
If and ,
Proof of Lemma B.2.
Let us prove the three statements together. Let . We split the sum over along the condition . If , and therefore
If , the remaining part is empty and therefore
Assume now that . We split the remaining term into two parts according to whether or not. For the first contribution one has
For the second contribution we may write
One can bound the sum in the right-hand side by
Combining the above estimates concludes the proof of Lemma B.2. ∎
B.2. Proof of Lemma 5.2
Proof of Lemma 5.2.
Step 1: splitting
Let
and
so that
One can express as
Therefore with for each and for each ,
and
Let us then isolate from the fluctuations from the discretization error. For each , write with
and
Step 2: control on
For each , one may write
(B.4) |
Denote , and the three terms in (B.4). There exists such that for all ,
(B.5) |
Therefore, on the good event defined in (B.3), one can bound uniformly in by
(B.6) |
We turn to the second term of (B.4). There exists such that for all ,
Applying this to , , , we find that there exist constants and such that uniformly on and for each ,
Thus, uniformly on ,
(B.7) |
Similarly,
(B.8) |
Let us bound the right-hand side of the last display. For each let
(B.9) |
There exists such on the event , for each such that ,
Moreover we can write
It follows that
and
(B.10) |
One can first check that
Then, since and we may apply Lemma B.2 to get
(B.11) |
There exist and such that on the event ,
Besides we can check that
Combining these we obtain
(B.12) |
Using this and (B.6), (B.7), (B.8), we conclude that
(B.13) |
Step 3: control on
Fix and define
For each , one may write using the Euler-Maclaurin formula
We compute
By Taylor expansion,
and therefore
(B.14) |
Let us control . First, as in (B.5), for all ,
It follows that
We recognize an expression similar to the right-hand side of (B.6). After some computations one gets
(B.15) |
Using that for all , ,
one gets
which is bounded by the right-hand side of (B.15). Finally, noting that for all , ,
we have
Combining these estimates with (B.15) and (B.14) we deduce that
(B.16) |
Let . One has
On the event we have
Let such that . One has
since and . Let such that . One has
Define . One can notice that on ,
and therefore
It follows that on the event ,
(B.17) |
Using that for all ,
one may bound (B.17) by
Inserting this into (B.16) and using (B.13), we have that
Step 4: control on in gap coordinates
Let be the vector-field given for each by
and for . For all , we have
There exist constants such that uniformly on , for each
(B.18) |
One may thus bound uniformly on by
Reindexing this sum gives
(B.19) |
Recalling (B.9), for each and we have that uniformly on ,
Furthermore there exists a constant such that for each and uniformly on
Inserting this into (B.19) we find that
(B.20) |
Let . Since , one can observe that
Summing the squares of these over therefore gives
(B.21) |
Besides we can check that
Summing the squares gives
(B.22) |
Inserting (B.21) and (B.22) into (B.20) we concludes that there exist constants and such
(B.23) |
∎
B.3. Additional useful estimates
Proof.
Define
so that Let us recall that
Denote
so that
Let be the regular grid on ,
One may write
(B.25) |
Note that for all ,
It follows that for each
which gives
By applying Theorem 1 to control the fluctuations of gaps, we get
for some constant . After some computations similar to the proof of Lemma 5.2, we find
(B.26) |
For the discretization error, proceeding as in the proof of Lemma 5.2, one can write
Summing the above estimate yields
(B.27) |
Lemma B.4.
Proof.
Let be a small number. Define the good event
Let us bound on . By assumption, where
It follows that can be bounded on by
(B.29) |
The second sum of the last display is bounded by
(B.30) |
Recall with as in (5.11). One may split the first sum into
Since the singularities of are in , one can check that uniformly on ,
(B.31) |
Moreover arguing as in (B.30), we find that on ,
Combining this with (B.29), (B.30) and (B.31), one finally gets that on ,
Choosing , we thus get that for small enough, satisfies
for some . Moreover, one can easily prove using Theorem 1 and Lemma 4.5 that there exists and depending on and such that
which concludes the proof. ∎
We finish with two conditioning lemmas.
Proof.
Let . First recall that for any smooth enough such that ,
(B.32) |
Let indeed such that and
As shown in the proof of Proposition 5.1,
Using the fact that the first marginal of is the Lebesgue measure on the circle, we obtain (B.32). Let . The point is that
(B.33) |
Fix and let us denote . In view of (B.33), we have
Recall that typically . Using Theorem 1 to control and the fact that is in , we obtain by Taylor expansion that
where we have used (B.32) for in the last equality. Thus
(B.34) |
Let us extend this control to the localized quantity . Recall
One can write
Therefore inserting (B.34) and (B.28), we get
∎
Lemma B.6.
Let and be as in (5.31). For all , there exists depending on such that for all ,
B.4. Energy estimate
Lemma B.7.
We have
References
- [ABC+00] Cécile Ané, Sébastien Blachère, Djalil Chafaï, Pierre Fougères, Ivan Gentil, Florent Malrieu, Cyril Roberto, and Grégory Scheffer. Sur les inégalités de Sobolev logarithmiques, volume 10. Paris: Société Mathématique de France, 2000.
- [AS19] Scott Armstrong and Sylvia Serfaty. Local laws and rigidity for coulomb gases at any temperature. arXiv: Mathematical Physics, 2019.
- [AW19] Scott Armstrong and Wei Wu. regularity of the surface tension for the interface model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.13325, 2019.
- [BBNY16] Roland Bauerschmidt, Paul Bourgade, Miika Nikula, and Horng-Tzer Yau. The two-dimensional coulomb plasma: quasi-free approximation and central limit theorem. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08582, 2016.
- [BÉ85] Dominique Bakry and Michel Émery. Diffusions hypercontractives. In Jacques Azéma and Marc Yor, editors, Séminaire de Probabilités XIX 1983/84, pages 177–206, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1985. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
- [Ber72] Bruce C. Berndt. On the Hurwitz zeta-function. Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics, 2(1):151 – 158, 1972.
- [BEY12] Paul Bourgade, László Erdős, and Horng-Tzer Yau. Bulk universality of general -ensembles with non-convex potential. Journal of mathematical physics, 53(9):095221, 2012.
- [BEY14a] Paul Bourgade, László Erdös, and Horng-Tzer Yau. Edge universality of ensembles. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 332(1):261–353, 2014.
- [BEY+14b] Paul Bourgade, László Erdős, Horng-Tzer Yau, et al. Universality of general -ensembles. Duke Mathematical Journal, 163(6):1127–1190, 2014.
- [BG13] Gaëtan Borot and Alice Guionnet. Asymptotic expansion of matrix models in the one-cut regime. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 317(2):447–483, 2013.
- [BL02] Herm Jan Brascamp and Elliott H. Lieb. On Extensions of the Brunn-Minkowski and Prékopa-Leindler Theorems, Including Inequalities for Log Concave Functions, and with an Application to the Diffusion Equation, pages 441–464. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2002.
- [BL15] Xavier Blanc and Mathieu Lewin. The Crystallization Conjecture: A Review. EMS Surveys in Mathematical Sciences, 2(2):255–306, 2015. Final version to appear in EMS Surv. Math. Sci.
- [BLS+18] Florent Bekerman, Thomas Leblé, Sylvia Serfaty, et al. CLT for fluctuations of -ensembles with general potential. Electronic Journal of Probability, 23, 2018.
- [BM92] Dominique Bakry and Dominique Michel. Sur les inégalités FKG. Séminaire de probabilités de Strasbourg, 26:170–188, 1992.
- [BMP22] Paul Bourgade, Krishnan Mody, and Michel Pain. Optimal local law and central limit theorem for -ensembles. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 390(3):1017–1079, 2022.
- [Bou21] Paul Bourgade. Extreme gaps between eigenvalues of wigner matrices. Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 2021.
- [Bou22] Jeanne Boursier. Decay of correlations and thermodynamic limit for the circular Riesz gas. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00396, 2022.
- [Car74] Pierre Cartier. Inégalités de corrélation en mécanique statistique. In Séminaire Bourbaki vol. 1972/73 Exposés 418–435, pages 242–264. Springer, 1974.
- [CFLW21] Tom Claeys, Benjamin Fahs, Gaultier Lambert, and Christian Webb. How much can the eigenvalues of a random hermitian matrix fluctuate? Duke Mathematical Journal, 170(9):2085–2235, 2021.
- [Cha19] Sourav Chatterjee. Rigidity of the three-dimensional hierarchical coulomb gas. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 175(3):1123–1176, 2019.
- [CSW21] Djalil Chafaï, Edward B. Saff, and Robert S. Womersley. On the solution of a riesz equilibrium problem and integral identities for special functions, 2021.
- [DW20] Paul Dario and Wei Wu. Massless phases for the villain model in d3. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.02946, 2020.
- [Dys62] Freeman J. Dyson. A Brownian-motion model for the eigenvalues of a random matrix. J. Mathematical Phys., 3:1191–1198, 1962.
- [EHL18] Matthias Erbar, Martin Huesmann, and Thomas Leblé. The one-dimensional log-gas free energy has a unique minimiser. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.06929, 2018.
- [ESY11] László Erdős, Benjamin Schlein, and Horng-Tzer Yau. Universality of random matrices and local relaxation flow. Inventiones mathematicae, 185(1):75–119, 2011.
- [EY12] László Erdős and Horng-Tzer Yau. Gap universality of generalized wigner and -ensembles. preprint. arXiv preprint arXiv:1211.3786, 2012.
- [EY15] László Erdős and Horng-Tzer Yau. Gap universality of generalized wigner and -ensembles. Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 17(8):1927–2036, 2015.
- [GS20] Shirshendu Ganguly and Sourav Sarkar. Ground states and hyperuniformity of the hierarchical coulomb gas in all dimensions. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 177(3):621–675, 2020.
- [Gus05] Jonas Gustavsson. Gaussian fluctuations of eigenvalues in the gue. In Annales de l’IHP Probabilités et statistiques, volume 41, pages 151–178, 2005.
- [Hel98a] Bernard Helffer. Remarks on decay of correlations and witten laplacians brascamp–lieb inequalities and semiclassical limit. journal of functional analysis, 155(2):571–586, 1998.
- [Hel98b] Bernard Helffer. Remarks on decay of correlations and witten laplacians brascamp–lieb inequalities and semiclassical limit. Journal of Functional Analysis, 155(2):571–586, 1998.
- [HL16] Jiaoyang Huang and Benjamin Landon. Local law and mesoscopic fluctuations of dyson brownian motion for general and potential. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.06306, 2016.
- [HL20] Adrien Hardy and Gaultier Lambert. CLT for circular -ensembles at high temperature. Journal of Functional Analysis, page 108869, 2020.
- [HL21] Adrien Hardy and Gaultier Lambert. CLT for circular -ensembles at high temperature. Journal of Functional Analysis, 280(7):108869, 2021.
- [HS94] Bernard Helffer and Johannes Sjöstrand. On the correlation for kac-like models in the convex case. Journal of statistical physics, 74(1-2):349–409, 1994.
- [HS05] DP Hardin and EB Saff. Minimal riesz energy point configurations for rectifiable d-dimensional manifolds. Advances in Mathematics, 193(1):174–204, 2005.
- [J+98] Kurt Johansson et al. On fluctuations of eigenvalues of random hermitian matrices. Duke mathematical journal, 91(1):151–204, 1998.
- [JM15] Tiefeng Jiang and Sho Matsumoto. Moments of traces of circular beta-ensembles. The Annals of Probability, 43(6):3279–3336, 2015.
- [KS09] Rowan Killip and Mihai Stoiciu. Eigenvalue statistics for cmv matrices: from poisson to clock via random matrix ensembles. Duke Mathematical Journal, 146(3):361–399, 2009.
- [Lam21] Gaultier Lambert. Mesoscopic central limit theorem for the circular -ensembles and applications. Electronic Journal of Probability, 26:1–33, 2021.
- [Leb17] Thomas Leblé. Local microscopic behavior for 2d coulomb gases. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 169(3):931–976, 2017.
- [Leb18] Thomas Leblé. CLT for fluctuations of linear statistics in the sine- process. International Mathematics Research Notices, 2018.
- [Leb21] Thomas Leblé. The two-dimensional one-component plasma is hyperuniform. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05109, 2021.
- [Lew22] Mathieu Lewin. Coulomb and riesz gases: The known and the unknown. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 63(6):061101, 2022.
- [LLW+19] Gaultier Lambert, Michel Ledoux, Christian Webb, et al. Quantitative normal approximation of linear statistics of -ensembles. Annals of Probability, 47(5):2619–2685, 2019.
- [LS17] Thomas Leblé and Sylvia Serfaty. Large deviation principle for empirical fields of log and riesz gases. Inventiones mathematicae, 210(3):645–757, 2017.
- [LS18] Thomas Leblé and Sylvia Serfaty. Fluctuations of two dimensional coulomb gases. Geometric and Functional Analysis, 28(2):443–508, 2018.
- [LZ20] Thomas Leblé and Ofer Zeitouni. A local CLT for linear statistics of 2d coulomb gases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.12163, 2020.
- [MO+16] Jean-Christophe Mourrat, Felix Otto, et al. Correlation structure of the corrector in stochastic homogenization. Annals of Probability, 44(5):3207–3233, 2016.
- [NS97] Ali Naddaf and Thomas Spencer. On homogenization and scaling limit of some gradient perturbations of a massless free field. Communications in mathematical physics, 183(1):55–84, 1997.
- [Pei22] Luke Peilen. Local laws and a mesoscopic clt for -ensembles. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.14940, 2022.
- [PS17] Mircea Petrache and Sylvia Serfaty. Next order asymptotics and renormalized energy for riesz interactions. Journal of the Institute of Mathematics of Jussieu, 16(3):501–569, 2017.
- [RS13] Nicolas Rougerie and Sylvia Serfaty. Higher dimensional coulomb gases and renormalized energy functionals. arXiv: Mathematical Physics, 2013.
- [RS16] Luz Roncal and Pablo Raúl Stinga. Fractional laplacian on the torus. Communications in Contemporary Mathematics, 18(03):1550033, 2016.
- [Rue74] David Ruelle. Statistical Mechanics: Rigorous Results. Mathematical physics monograph series. W. A. Benjamin, 1974.
- [Ser14] Sylvia Serfaty. Coulomb Gases and Ginzburg-Landau Vortices. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1403.6860, March 2014.
- [Ser18] Sylvia Serfaty. Systems of points with coulomb interactions. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians: Rio de Janeiro 2018, pages 935–977. World Scientific, 2018.
- [Ser20] Sylvia Serfaty. Gaussian fluctuations and free energy expansion for 2d and 3d coulomb gases at any temperature. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.11704, 2020.
- [Ser24] Sylvia Serfaty. Lectures on coulomb and riesz gases. 2024.
- [Shc13] Mariya Shcherbina. Fluctuations of linear eigenvalue statistics of matrix models in the multi-cut regime. Journal of Statistical Physics, 151(6):1004–1034, 2013.
- [Sjo93a] Johannes Sjostrand. Potential wells in high dimensions i. Annales de l’I.H.P. Physique théorique, 58(1):1–41, 1993.
- [Sjo93b] Johannes Sjostrand. Potentials wells in high dimensions ii, more about the one well case. Annales de l’I.H.P. Physique théorique, 58, 1993.
- [SKA+21] Saikat Santra, Jitendra Kethepalli, Sanaa Agarwal, Abhishek Dhar, Manas Kulkarni, and Anupam Kundu. Gap statistics for confined particles with power-law interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.15026, 2021.
- [SS12] Etienne Sandier and Sylvia Serfaty. From the Ginzburg-Landau model to vortex lattice problems. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 313(3):635–743, 2012.
- [Sti19] Pablo Raúl Stinga. User’s guide to the fractional laplacian and the method of semigroups. In Fractional Differential Equations, pages 235–266. De Gruyter, 2019.
- [SW13] Philippe Sosoe and Percy Wong. Regularity conditions in the CLT for linear eigenvalue statistics of wigner matrices. Advances in Mathematics, 249:37–87, 2013.
- [Tho21] Eric Thoma. Thermodynamic and scaling limits of the non-gaussian membrane model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.07584, 2021.
- [Tho22] Eric Thoma. Overcrowding and separation estimates for the coulomb gas. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.05902, 2022.
- [Tor16] Salvatore Torquato. Hyperuniformity and its generalizations. Physical Review E, 94(2), Aug 2016.
- [VV09] Benedek Valkó and Bálint Virág. Continuum limits of random matrices and the brownian carousel. Inventiones mathematicae, 177(3):463–508, 2009.