arXiv reader

Asymptotics of bordered Toeplitz determinants and next-to-diagonal Ising correlations

Estelle Basor, Torsten Ehrhardt, Roozbeh Gharakhloo, Alexander Its and Yuqi Li

arXiv
2011.14561v2 · PDF · 17 September 2021
Categories
math-ph, math.MP
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

We prove the analogue of the strong Szegő limit theorem for a large class of bordered Toeplitz determinants. In particular, by applying our results to the formula of Au-Yang and Perk [YP] for the next-to-diagonal correlations \langle \sigma_{0,0}\sigma_{N-1,N} \rangle in the anisotropic square lattice Ising model, we rigorously justify that the next-to-diagonal long-range order is the same as the diagonal and horizontal ones in the low temperature regime. The anisotropy-dependence of the subleading term in the asymptotics of the next-to-diagonal correlations is also established. We use Riemann-Hilbert and operator theory techniques, independently and in parallel, to prove these results.

Items 49

Theorem

Theorem 1.1

2N19

Let D^{B}_{N}[\phi; \psi] be the bordered Toeplitz determinant with \psi=q_1 \phi + q_2 given by (?) and (?), and \phi of Szegő type. Then, the following asymptotic behavior of D^{B}_{N}[\phi; \psi] as N \to \infty takes place

D^B_{N}\left[\phi ; \psi \right] = G[\phi]^{N} E[\phi]\left(F[\phi;\psi] + O(e^{-\mathfrak{c}N})\right),

where G[\phi] and E[\phi] are given by (?),

F[\phi;\psi] = a_0+ b_0 [\log \phi]_{1} + \hspace{-0.15cm}\sum^m_{j=1 \atop 0<|c_j|<1} \hspace{-0.15cm} b_j \frac{\alpha(c_j)}{\alpha(0)} + \frac{1}{\alpha(0)}\left( \hat{a}_0-\hat{a}_1[\log \phi]_{-1} - \hspace{-0.15cm}\sum^{m}_{j=1 \atop |c_j|>1 }\hspace{-0.15cm}\frac{\hat{b}_j}{c_j} \alpha(c_j) \right),
\alpha(z):= \exp \left[ \frac{1}{2 \pi i } \int_{\mathbb{T}} \frac{\ln(\phi(\tau))}{\tau-z}d\tau \right],

and \mathfrak{c} is some positive constant.

Used by Remark 2.9
Theorem

Theorem 1.2

PU5T

Let \psi(z) be a function which admits an analytic continuation in a neighborhood of the unit circle, and let \phi be of Szegő type. Denote by \phi_{\pm}(z) the factors of a canonical Wiener-Hopf factorization of the symbol \phi(z), i.e., \phi=\phi_-\phi_+. Then

D^B_{N}\left[\phi ; \psi \right] = G[\phi]^{N} E[\phi]\left( F[\phi;\psi] + O(e^{-\mathfrak{c}N})\right),

where G[\phi] and E[\phi] are given by (?),

F[\phi;\psi]=\frac{[\phi_-^{-1}\psi]_0}{[\phi_+]_0},

and \mathfrak{c} is some positive constant.

Remark

Remark 1.3

ZJOS

As it is shown in Section 3, with the change to o(1) in the error term, the asymptotics (1.1) and (1.2) are valid for all \psi\in L^2(\mathbb{T}) and \phi satisfying the assumptions of the strong Szegő theorem, i.e., \phi(z) belongs to a Hölder class C^{1 + \epsilon}, is nonzero on the unit circle, and has zero winding number.

Theorem

Theorem 1.4

7VXS

Let \langle \sigma_{0,0}\sigma_{N-1,N} \rangle be the next-to-diagonal two point correlation function in the square lattice Ising model. Then, in the low-temperature regime, the long-range order in the next-to-diagonal direction

is the same as of the diagonal and horizontal ones, i.e.,

\lim_{N \to \infty} \langle \sigma_{0,0}\sigma_{N-1,N} \rangle= (1-k^{-2})^{1/4}.
Theorem

Theorem 1.5

4YCJ

The next-to-diagonal two point correlation function has, in the low-temperature regime k>1, the N\to\infty asymptotics

\begin{aligned} \langle \sigma_{0,0}\sigma_{N-1,N} \rangle &= (1-k^{-2})^{1/4}\left(1+\frac{1}{2\pi(1-k^{-2})}\Big(\frac{1}{C_v^2}+\frac{1}{k^2-1}\Big)N^{-2}k^{-2N}\Big(1+O(N^{-1}) \Big) \right). \end{aligned}
Lemma

Lemma 2.1

5WEL

The following identity holds for the Bordered Toeplitz determinants

D^B_{n+1}[\phi; z^{k}] = 0, \qquad k \in \mathbb{Z} \setminus \{ 0,1, \cdots, n \}.
Proof of Lemma 2.1

It suffices to note that all Fourier coefficients (z^k)_j=0 for 0\leq j \leq n, k \in \mathbb{Z} \setminus \{ 0,1, \cdots n \}.

Lemma

Lemma 2.2

TFUR

Let \phi be of Szegő type. Then, as n \to \infty we have

D^B_{n+1}[\phi;z] = D_n[\phi] \left(-\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}} \int_{\mathbb{T}} \ln(\phi(\tau)) \mathrm{d} \tau + O(e^{-\mathfrak{c}n})\right),

for some positive constant \mathfrak{c}.

Proof of Lemma 2.2

Expanding \alpha(z), given by (?), as z \to \infty we get

\alpha(z) = 1 - \frac{a_0}{2\pi \mathrm{i} z} - \left( \frac{a_1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}} + \frac{a^2_0}{8 \pi^2} \right) \frac{1}{z^2} + \cdots , \qquad z \to \infty,

where

a_k := \int_{\mathbb{T}} \tau^k \ln \left(\phi(\tau)\right) \mathrm{d} \tau.

Also from (?), and (?) we have

X_{11}(z;n) = \alpha(z)z^n\left(1 + \frac{ O(e^{-2\mathfrak{c}n})}{ 1+|z| } \right), \qquad z \in \Omega_{\infty}, \qquad n \to \infty.

Combining (?), (Proof) and (?) gives (?), (?).

Lemma

Lemma 2.3

N8J4

The bordered Toeplitz determinant D^B_{n+1}[\phi,\displaystyle \frac{1}{z-c}], is encoded into X-RHP data described by

D^B_{n+1}[\phi;\frac{1}{z-c}] = \begin{cases} 0, & |c|<1, \\ -c^{-n-1}D_{n}[\phi]X_{11}(c;n), & |c|>1, \end{cases}

where D_{n}[\phi] is given by (?) and X_{11} is the 11 entry of the solution to RH-X1 through RH-X3.

Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 2.3

The case of |c|<1 is obvious due to (?). Consider |c|>1. Recalling that X_{11}(z;n)=\kappa^{-1}_nQ_n(z), from (?) and (?) we have

X_{11}(z;n) = \frac{1}{D_n[\phi]} \mathrm{det} \begin{pmatrix} \phi_0 & \phi_{-1} & \cdots & \phi_{-n} \\ \phi_1 & \phi_{0} & \cdots & \phi_{-n+1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\ \phi_{n-1} & \phi_{n-2} & \cdots & \phi_{-1} \\ 1 & z & \cdots & z^{n} \end{pmatrix}.

Therefore from (?)

\begin{split} -c^{-n-1}D_{n}[\phi]X_{11}(c;n) & = \mathrm{det} \begin{pmatrix} \phi_0 & \phi_{-1} & \cdots & \phi_{-n} \\ \phi_1 & \phi_{0} & \cdots & \phi_{-n+1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\ \phi_{n-1} & \phi_{n-2} & \cdots & \phi_{-1} \\ -c^{-n-1} & -c^{-n} & \cdots & -c \end{pmatrix} \\ & = \mathrm{det} \begin{pmatrix} \phi_0 & \phi_{-1} & \cdots & \phi_{-n} \\ \phi_1 & \phi_{0} & \cdots & \phi_{-n+1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\ \phi_{n-1} & \phi_{n-2} & \cdots & \phi_{-1} \\ q_{0,n} & q_{0,n-1} & \cdots & q_{0,0} \end{pmatrix} \equiv D^B_{n+1}[\phi,q_0]. \end{split}
Corollary

Corollary 2.4

1G56

We have

D^B_{n+1}\left[\phi;\displaystyle a+\frac{b_0}{z}+\sum^{m}_{j=1}\frac{b_j }{z-c_j}\right] = D_n[\phi] \left(a -\sum^{m}_{j=1 \atop |c_j|>1 }b_j c^{-n-1}_jX_{11}(c_j;n)\right),

and for a Szegő type \phi

D^B_{n+1}\left[\phi;\displaystyle a+\frac{b_0}{z}+\sum^{m}_{j=1}\frac{b_j }{z-c_j}\right] = G[\phi]^{n} E[\phi] \left(a -\sum^{m}_{j=1 \atop |c_j|>1 }\frac{b_j}{c_j} \alpha(c_j)\right)\left( 1 + O(e^{-\mathfrak{c}n})\right),

as n \to \infty, where

\alpha(z):= \exp \left[ \frac{1}{2 \pi i } \int_{\mathbb{T}} \frac{\ln(\phi(\tau))}{\tau-z}d\tau \right],

G[\phi] and E[\phi] are given by (?) and \mathfrak{c} is some positive constant.

Proof of Corollary 2.4

Note that (2.4) immediately follows from (2.3), (?), (?), (?) and (?); and then we get (2.4) as a direct consequence of (?), (?), (?) and (?).

Lemma

Lemma 2.5

P64Y

Let \psi_0:=q_0\phi, where q_0 is defined in (?), with c \neq 0. Then the bordered Toeplitz determinant D^{B}_n[\phi;\psi_0] can be written in terms of the following data from the solution of the X-RHP:

D^{B}_{n+1}[\phi;\psi_0] = - \frac{1}{c}D_{n+1}[\phi]+ \frac{1}{c} D_{n}[\phi] X_{12}(c,n),

where D_{n}[\phi] is given by (?) and X_{12} is the 12 entry of the solution to RH-X1 through RH-X3.

Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 2.5

Note that

\psi_{0,j} = \int_{\mathbb{T}} z^{-j} \psi_0(z) \frac{\mathrm{d} z}{2 \pi \mathrm{i} z} = \int_{\mathbb{T}} z^{-j} \frac{1}{z(z-c)} \phi(z) \frac{\mathrm{d} z}{2 \pi \mathrm{i}},

thus

\psi_{0,j} = -\frac{1}{c} \int_{\mathbb{T}} z^{-j} \phi(z) \frac{\mathrm{d} z}{2 \pi \mathrm{i} z} + \frac{1}{c} \int_{\mathbb{T}} \frac{z^{-j}\phi(z)}{(z-c)} \frac{\mathrm{d} z}{2 \pi \mathrm{i}} = -\frac{1}{c}\phi_j + \frac{1}{c} \int_{\mathbb{T}} \frac{z^{-j}\phi(z)}{(z-c)} \frac{\mathrm{d} z}{2 \pi \mathrm{i}}.

Now, observe that

D^{B}_{n+1}[\phi,\psi_0] = \mathrm{det} \begin{pmatrix} \phi_0 & \phi_{-1} & \cdots & \phi_{-n} \\ \phi_1 & \phi_{0} & \cdots & \phi_{-n+1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\ \phi_{n-1} & \phi_{n-2} & \cdots & \phi_{-1} \\ \psi_{0,n} & \psi_{0,n-1} & \cdots & \psi_{0,0} \end{pmatrix}
= \frac{1}{c} \mathrm{det} \begin{pmatrix} \phi_0 & \phi_{-1} & \cdots & \phi_{-n} \\ \phi_1 & \phi_{0} & \cdots & \phi_{-n+1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\ \phi_{n-1} & \phi_{n-2} & \cdots & \phi_{-1} \\ -\phi_n + \int_{\mathbb{T}} \frac{z^{-n}\phi(z)}{(z-c)} \frac{\mathrm{d} z}{2 \pi \mathrm{i}} & -\phi_{n-1} + \int_{\mathbb{T}} \frac{z^{-n+1}\phi(z)}{(z-c)} \frac{\mathrm{d} z}{2 \pi \mathrm{i}} & \cdots & -\phi_0 + \int_{\mathbb{T}} \frac{\phi(z)}{(z-c)} \frac{\mathrm{d} z}{2 \pi \mathrm{i}} \end{pmatrix} =
-\frac{1}{c} \mathrm{det} \begin{pmatrix} \phi_0 & \phi_{-1} & \cdots & \phi_{-n} \\ \phi_1 & \phi_{0} & \cdots & \phi_{-n+1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\ \phi_{n-1} & \phi_{n-2} & \cdots & \phi_{-1} \\ \phi_n & \phi_{n-1} & \cdots & \phi_0 \end{pmatrix} + \frac{1}{c}\mathrm{det} \begin{pmatrix} \phi_0 & \phi_{-1} & \cdots & \phi_{-n} \\ \phi_1 & \phi_{0} & \cdots & \phi_{-n+1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\ \phi_{n-1} & \phi_{n-2} & \cdots & \phi_{-1} \\ \int_{\mathbb{T}} \frac{z^{-n}\phi(z)}{(z-c)} \frac{\mathrm{d} z}{2 \pi \mathrm{i}} & \int_{\mathbb{T}} \frac{z^{-n+1}\phi(z)}{(z-c)} \frac{\mathrm{d} z}{2 \pi \mathrm{i}} & \cdots & \int_{\mathbb{T}} \frac{\phi(z)}{(z-c)} \frac{\mathrm{d} z}{2 \pi \mathrm{i}} \end{pmatrix}.

Now note that, using (?) and (?) we have

\kappa_n^{-1} \zeta^{-n}Q_n(\zeta) = \frac{1}{D_n[\phi]} \mathrm{det} \begin{pmatrix} \phi_0 & \phi_{-1} & \cdots & \phi_{-n} \\ \phi_1 & \phi_{0} & \cdots & \phi_{-n+1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\ \phi_{n-1} & \phi_{n-2} & \cdots & \phi_{-1} \\ \zeta^{-n} & \zeta^{-n+1} & \cdots & 1 \end{pmatrix}.

Combining this equation with (?) yields

X_{12}(z;n) = \frac{1}{D_n[\phi]} \mathrm{det} \begin{pmatrix} \phi_0 & \phi_{-1} & \cdots & \phi_{-n} \\ \phi_1 & \phi_{0} & \cdots & \phi_{-n+1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\ \phi_{n-1} & \phi_{n-2} & \cdots & \phi_{-1} \\ \int_{\mathbb{T}} \frac{\zeta^{-n} \phi(\zeta)}{\zeta-z} \frac{\mathrm{d} \zeta}{2\pi \mathrm{i}} & \int_{\mathbb{T}} \frac{\zeta^{-n+1} \phi(\zeta)}{\zeta-z} \frac{\mathrm{d} \zeta}{2\pi \mathrm{i}} & \cdots & \int_{\mathbb{T}} \frac{\phi(\zeta)}{\zeta-z} \frac{\mathrm{d} \zeta}{2\pi \mathrm{i}} \end{pmatrix}.

Thus, using (Proof) and (?) we arrive at (2.5).

Corollary

Corollary 2.6

PZNO

We have

D^B_{n+1}\left[\phi;\displaystyle\left( a+\sum^{m}_{j=1}\frac{b_j z}{z-c_j}\right)\phi \right] =aD_{n+1}[\phi]+ D_n[\phi] \sum^{m}_{j=1}b_j X_{12}(c_j;n),

and for a Szegő type \phi

D^B_{n+1}\left[\phi;\displaystyle\left( a+\sum^{m}_{j=1}\frac{b_j z}{z-c_j}\right)\phi \right] = G[\phi]^{n+1} E[\phi] \left(a+\frac{1}{G[\phi]}\sum^{m}_{j=1 \atop |c_j|<1 }b_j \alpha(c_j)\right)\left( 1 + O(e^{-\mathfrak{c}n})\right),

as n \to \infty, where \alpha is defined in (2.4), G[\phi] and E[\phi] are given by (?), and \mathfrak{c} is some positive constant.

Proof of Corollary 2.6

(2.6) directly follows from (2.5), (?), (?), (?), and (?). For the asymptotic statement, notice that from (?), (?) and (?) we have

X_{12}(c;n) = \begin{cases} \alpha(c) (1+O(e^{-\mathfrak{c}n})), & |c|<1, \\ R_{1,12}(c;n)\alpha^{-1}(c)c^{-n}(1+O(e^{-\mathfrak{c}n})), & |c|>1, \end{cases}

as n \to \infty, where R_{1,12} is given by (?). Now (2.6) follows from (?), (?), (2.6), (Proof), and (?).

Lemma

Lemma 2.7

B9MV

We have the following identity(Throughout the paper we occasionally use \tilde{f}(z), to denote \displaystyle f(z^{-1}).)

D^B_{n}[\phi;\frac{1}{z}\phi] = - D^B_{n+1}[\Tilde{\phi};z],

and hence for a Szegő type \phi

D^B_{n}[\phi;\frac{1}{z}\phi] = \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}} G[\phi]^{n} E[\phi]\left( \int_{\mathbb{T}} \ln(\Tilde{\phi}(\tau)) \mathrm{d} \tau + O(e^{-\mathfrak{c}n}) \right),

as n \to \infty, where G[\phi] and E[\phi] are given by (?), and \mathfrak{c} is some positive constant.

Proof of Lemma 2.7

Note that

\begin{aligned} D^B_{n+1}[\Tilde{\phi};z] & = \mathrm{det} \begin{pmatrix} \Tilde{\phi}_0 & \Tilde{\phi}_{-1} & \cdots & \Tilde{\phi}_{-n+2} & \Tilde{\phi}_{-n+1} & \Tilde{\phi}_{-n} \\ \Tilde{\phi}_1 & \Tilde{\phi}_{0} & \cdots & \Tilde{\phi}_{-n+3} & \Tilde{\phi}_{-n+2} & \Tilde{\phi}_{-n+1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ \Tilde{\phi}_{n-1} & \Tilde{\phi}_{n-2} & \cdots & \Tilde{\phi}_{1} & \Tilde{\phi}_{0} & \Tilde{\phi}_{-1} \\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \\ & = \mathrm{det} \begin{pmatrix} \phi_0 & \phi_{1} & \cdots & \phi_{n-2} & \phi_{n-1} & \phi_{n} \\ \phi_{-1} & \phi_{0} & \cdots & \phi_{n-3} & \phi_{n-2} & \phi_{n-1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ \phi_{-n+1} & \phi_{-n+2} & \cdots & \phi_{-1} & \phi_{0} & \phi_{1} \\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \\ & = - \mathrm{det} \begin{pmatrix} \phi_0 & \phi_{1} & \cdots & \phi_{n-2} & \phi_{n} \\ \phi_{-1} & \phi_{0} & \cdots & \phi_{n-3} & \phi_{n-1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ \phi_{-n+1} & \phi_{-n+2} & \cdots & \phi_{-1} & \phi_{1} \end{pmatrix} \\ & = - \mathrm{det} \begin{pmatrix} \phi_0 & \phi_{-1} & \cdots & \phi_{-n+1} \\ \phi_1 & \phi_{0} & \cdots & \phi_{-n+2} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\ \phi_{n-2} & \phi_{n-3} & \cdots & \phi_{-1} \\ \phi_{n} & \phi_{n-1} & \cdots & \phi_{1} \end{pmatrix} = -D^B_{n}[\phi;\frac{1}{z}\phi], \end{aligned}

because the j-th Fourier coefficient of z^{-1}\phi(z) is \phi_{j+1}. Now (?), (?) immediately follows from (?), (?) and the fact that D_n[\phi]=D_n[\Tilde{\phi}].

Lemma

Lemma 2.8

7O8G

For \psi = z^k \phi, k=0,1,\cdots, n, we have

D^B_n[\phi,z^k\phi] = \begin{cases} D_n[\phi], & k=0, \\ 0, & k=1,\cdots,n-1,\\ (-1)^{n-1}D_n[z\phi], & k=n. \end{cases}
Proof of Lemma 2.8

Note that [z^k\phi]_j = \phi_{j-k} and thus, D^B_n[\phi,z^k\phi] has two identical columns for k=1,\cdots,n-1, and (2.8) is obvious for k=0. For k=n, (2.8) follows immediately if one moves the border column to the first column by making n-1 swaps of adjacent columns.

Remark

Remark 2.9

MXHX

Notice that the next-to-diagonal long range order in the isotropic case J_h=J_v deserves special attention as |c_*|=1. It is important to notice that while it seems that the function \widehat{\psi}(z) has a pole at z=c_* it actually has a removable singularity there. In other words, \widehat{\psi}(z) (as well as \widehat{\phi}(z)) are analytic in a neighborhood of the unit circle \mathbb{T} irrespective of the value of c_*. To be precise both functions are analytic in z for k^{-1}<|z|<k. However, the splitting of \widehat{\psi}(z) done in the proof of Theorem 1.1 would re-introduce this pole at z=c_* in both terms and render the proof invalid when |c_*|=1. To circumvent this problem we resort to a “deformation trick”. For a fixed 0<\varepsilon<\displaystyle \frac{k-k^{-1}}{k+k^{-1}}, let \displaystyle \frac{k^{-1}}{1-\varepsilon} < \rho < \displaystyle \frac{k}{1+\varepsilon} and introduce the functions

\widehat{\phi}_{\rho}(z):=\widehat{\phi}(\rho z),\qquad \widehat{\psi}_{\rho}(z):=\widehat{\psi}(\rho z),\qquad

where the condition on \rho ensures that both functions are analytic in the \varepsilon-neighborhood of \mathbb{T}: \{z: 1-\varepsilon<|z|<1+\varepsilon\}. The n-th Fourier coefficient of these new functions differs from n-the Fourier coefficient of the original functions by a factor \rho^n. For this reason, we have that

D_N[\widehat{\phi}]=D_N[\widehat{\phi}_\rho],\qquad D_N^B[\widehat{\phi};\widehat{\psi}]=D_N^B[\widehat{\phi}_\rho;\widehat{\psi}_\rho].

Indeed, the underlying matrices are related to each other by appropriate multiplication of diagonal matrices. Thus the derivation of the determinant asymptotics can be based on the pair (\widehat{\phi}_\rho;\widehat{\psi}_\rho) rather than the pair (\widehat{\phi};\widehat{\psi}). These functions are clearly of a similar form as the original ones. The crucial point however is that when we consider \widehat{\psi}_\rho and split it into two parts, each part has a pole at z=c_*/\rho rather than at z=c_*. Thus Theorem 1.1 is applicable to (\widehat{\phi}_\rho;\widehat{\psi}_\rho) whenever |c_*|\neq \rho. As we can choose this \rho within at least a small range, k^{-1}<\rho<k, the asymptotic results concerning these functions remains true also when |c_*|=1. Notice that since the determinant D_N^B[\widehat{\phi}_\rho;\widehat{\psi}_\rho] is \rho-independent, in particular, its leading order asymptotics given by Theorem 1.1 is also \rho-independent. This can also be checked directly by looking at the terms on the right hand side of (1.1). To this end, we obviously have from (?) that G[\widehat{\phi}_\rho] = G[\widehat{\phi}] and E[\widehat{\phi}_\rho] = E[\widehat{\phi}]. Also the role of \alpha on the right hand side of (?) is now played by \alpha_{\rho} which satisfies \alpha_{\rho,+}(z)=\alpha_{\rho,-}(z)\widehat{\phi}_\rho(z) and is explicitly given by

\alpha_{\rho}(z) = \begin{cases} \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-k^{-1}\rho z}}, & |z|<1, \\[11pt] \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-k^{-1} \rho^{-1} z^{-1}}}, & |z|>1. \end{cases}

Therefore from (?) it can be directly checked that F[\widehat{\phi}_\rho;\widehat{\psi}_\rho]=1.

Proposition

Proposition 2.10

NDXY

The following estimates take place,

\begin{split} \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\Gamma_0}a(\tau;n) \frac{d\tau}{\tau-z} = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\alpha^{2}(k^{-1})\frac{\sqrt{k-k^{-1}}}{k} \frac{1}{k^{-1} -z}k^{-n -1/2}n^{-1/2} \left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right), \quad n \to \infty, \end{split}

for all |z| > \rho^{-1}, and

\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{\Gamma_1}b(\mu;n)\left[\int_{\Gamma_0}a(\tau;n) \frac{d\tau}{\tau-\mu}\right]\frac{d\mu}{\mu-z} = -\frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{1}{k^{-1} - k}\frac{1}{k-z} k^{-2n}n^{-2}\left( 1+ O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right), \quad n \to \infty,

for all |z| < \rho.

Proof of Proposition 2.10

Consider first the single, a - integral. It can be deformed to the integral over the segment [0, k^{-1}] so that we would have,

\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\Gamma_0}a(\tau;n) \frac{d\tau}{\tau-z} = -\frac{1}{\pi } \int_{0}^{k^{-1}}\tau^n(k^{-1} - \tau)^{-1/2}\Phi(\tau)d\tau,

where

\Phi(\tau) = \sqrt{\tau k^{-1}}\sqrt{k-\tau}\frac{\alpha^{2}(\tau)}{\tau - z}

is holomorphic at \tau = k^{-1}. Let

\Phi(\tau) = \sum_{l=0}^{\infty}d_l(\tau-k^{-1})^l, \quad d_0 = \Phi(k^{-1}) = \frac{1}{k}\sqrt{k-k^{-1}}\frac{\alpha^{2}(k^{-1})}{k^{-1} - z},

be the Taylor series of \Phi(\tau) at \tau = k^{-1}. Then, according to the standard Watson Lemma type arguments, we arrive at the asymptotic formula,

\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\Gamma_0}a(\tau;n) \frac{d\tau}{\tau-z} \sim -\frac{1}{\pi} \sum_{l=0}^{\infty}d_l\int_{0}^{k^{-1}}\tau^n(k^{-1}-\tau)^{l-1/2}d\tau,

and this asymptotic is uniform in any compact subset of \{z: |z| > \rho^{-1}\} and, in particular, for z \in \Gamma_1. For the integrals in the right hand side of (Proof), we have,

\begin{split} \int_{0}^{k^{-1}}\tau^n(k^{-1}-\tau)^{l-1/2}d\tau & = k^{-n-l-1/2}\int_{0}^{1}t^n(1-t)^{l-1/2}dt = k^{-n-l-1/2}B(n+1, l+1/2) \\ & = k^{-n-l-1/2}\frac{\Gamma(n+1)\Gamma(l+1/2)}{\Gamma(n+l+3/2)} = k^{-n-l-1/2}\Gamma(l+1/2)n^{-l-1/2}\left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right), \end{split}

as n \to \infty, and hence

\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\Gamma_0}a(\tau;n) \frac{d\tau}{\tau-z} = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\alpha^{2}(k^{-1})\frac{\sqrt{k-k^{-1}}}{k} \frac{1}{k^{-1} -z}k^{-n -1/2}n^{-1/2}\left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right),

as n \to \infty, uniformly in any compact subset of \{z: |z| > \rho^{-1}\}. This is the estimate (2.10).

Consider now the double integral (2.10). In view of (Proof) we have at once that( We are also taking into account that \int_{\Gamma_1}b(\mu)f(\mu) d\mu = O(k^{-n}) for any bounded f(\mu) analytic in the annulus, \rho -\epsilon <|\mu| < k+\epsilon.)

\begin{split} \displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{\Gamma_1}b(\mu;n)\left[\int_{\Gamma_0}a(\tau;n) \frac{d\tau}{\tau-\mu}\right]\frac{d\mu}{\mu-z} & = -\frac{i}{2\pi^{3/2}}\alpha^{2}(k^{-1})\frac{\sqrt{k-k^{-1}}}{k}k^{-n -1/2}n^{-1/2} \\ & \times \left[\int_{\Gamma_1}b(\mu;n)\frac{d\mu}{(k^{-1} - \mu)(\mu - z)} + O\left(\frac{k^{-n}}{n}\right)\right], \quad n \to \infty. \end{split}

Applying to the b -integral in the right hand side of the last equation the same arguments as we used for derivation of the estimate (Proof), we obtain that

\int_{\Gamma_1}b(\mu;n)\frac{d\mu}{(k^{-1} - \mu)(\mu - z)} = -i\sqrt{\pi}\alpha^{-2}(k)\frac{1}{(k-z)\sqrt{k-k^{-1}}} \frac{1}{k^{-1} -k}k^{-n +3/2}n^{-3/2}\left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right),

as n \to \infty, uniformly in any compact subset of \{z: |z| < \rho\}. This in turns yields the estimate,

\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{\Gamma_1}b(\mu;n)\left[\int_{\Gamma_0}a(\tau;n) \frac{d\tau}{\tau-\mu}\right]\frac{d\mu}{\mu-z} = -\frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{\alpha^2(k^{-1})\alpha^{-2}(k)}{k^{-1} - k}\frac{1}{k-z} k^{-2n}n^{-2}\left( 1+ O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right), \quad n \to \infty,

which, taking into account that

\alpha^{-1} (z)\alpha(z^{-1}) =1,

implies (2.10)

Proposition

Proposition 3.1

QYD2

Let \phi,\psi\in L^1(\mathbb{T}), and assume that T_N(\phi) is invertible. Then

D_N^B[\phi;\psi]= D_N[\phi]\cdot e_0^T T_N^{-1}(\phi) T_N(\psi) e_0.
Proof of Proposition 3.1

Via a rearrangement of rows and columns in (?) (or, more formally, by multiplying with a “flip matrix” from both sides) we see that

D^{B}_{N}[\phi; \psi] = \mathrm{det} \begin{pmatrix} \psi_0& \phi_{-1} & \cdots & \phi_{-N-1} \\ \psi_{1}& \phi_0 & \ddots & \vdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \phi_{-1} \\ \psi_{N-1} & \phi_{N-2} & \cdots &\phi_{0} \end{pmatrix}.

By observing that T_N(\psi)e_0 is the column vector (\psi_0,\dots,\psi_{N-1})^T, the statement follows from Cramer’s rule.

Proposition

Proposition 3.2

9X23

Let \psi\in L^2(\mathbb{T}), and assume that \phi\in C(\mathbb{T}) does not vanish on \mathbb{T} and has winding number zero. Then

F_N[\phi;\psi] \to F[\phi;\psi]\qquad \mbox{as}\quad N\to\infty,

where the constant

F[\phi;\psi]:= e_0^T T^{-1}(\phi)T(\psi)e_0.

If, in addition, \phi has a continuous canonical Wiener-Hopf factorization \phi=\phi_-\phi_+, then

F[\phi;\psi]=\frac{[\phi_-^{-1}\psi]_0}{[\phi_+]_0}.
Proof of Proposition 3.2

Under above the assumptions on \phi, it is well-known (see, e.g., [BS1, Sect. 1.5 and 2.3]) that the Toeplitz operator T(\phi) is invertible, that the matrix T_N(\phi) is invertible for sufficiently large N, and that T_N^{-1}(\phi) converges to T^{-1}(\phi) strongly on \ell^2(\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}) as N\to\infty. Here we use the afore-mentioned identification of \mathbb{C}^N with a subspace of \ell^2(\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}) and the corresponding identification of an N\times N matrix with an operator on \ell^2(\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}). Obviously, T_N(\psi)e_0 \to T(\psi)e_0 in the norm of \ell^2(\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}). Therefore, again in the norm

T_N^{-1}(\phi) T_N(\psi)e_0 \to T^{-1}(\phi) T(\psi) e_0\qquad \mbox{as} \quad N\to\infty.

This proves the first assertion. As to the evaluation of the constant we use (?) and (?) to see that

T^{-1}(\phi) T(\psi)=T(\phi_+^{-1})T(\phi_-^{-1})T(\psi)=T(\phi_+^{-1})T(\phi_-^{-1}\psi)

and

F[\phi;\psi] = e_0^T T^{-1}(\phi)T(\psi)e_0 = e_0^T T(\phi_+^{-1})T(\phi_-^{-1}\psi)e_0,

where in the last expression we interpret the operators on \ell^2(\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}) as infinite matrices. Since T(\phi_+^{-1}) is lower triangular it follows that F[\phi;\psi] =[\phi_+^{-1}]_0\cdot [\phi_-^{-1}\psi]_0. Observe that [\phi_+^{-1}]_0=\phi_+^{-1}(0)=1/[\phi_+]_0.

Theorem

Theorem 3.3

GJXP

Let \phi\in C(\mathbb{T}) have a continuous canonical Wiener-Hopf factorization \phi=\phi_-\phi_+. Assume that \psi=\phi p_++p_- with p_+\in H^2(\mathbb{T}) and p_-\in H^2_-(\mathbb{T}). Then

F[\phi;\psi]=[p_+]_0.

In particular,

\begin{aligned} F[\phi; \left( a_{0} + a_1z + \frac{b_0}{z}+\sum_{j=1}^m \frac{b_j z}{z-c_j}\right)\phi] &= a_{0}+ b_0[\log \phi]_{1} + \sum_{|c_j|<1} b_j\frac{\phi_+(c_j)}{\phi_+(0)}, \\ F[\phi; \left(a_0+a_1z+ \frac{b_0}{z} + \sum_{j=1}^m \frac{b_j }{z-c_j}\right)] &= \frac{a_0}{\phi_+(0)\phi_-(\infty)} - a_1\frac{[\log \phi]_{-1}}{\phi_{+}(0)\phi_-(\infty)} -\sum_{|c_j|>1} \frac{b_j}{c_j\phi_+(0)\phi_-(c_j)}. \end{aligned}
Proof of Theorem 3.3

To prove (3.3) we note that identity (?) implies that

[ \phi_-^{-1}\psi]_0 = [\phi_+ p_+]_0=[\phi_+]_0[ p_+]_0,

and thus F[\phi;\psi]=[p_+]_0. We remark that this can also be obtained from (?).

For the evaluations of F[\phi;\psi] for concrete \psi we compute the corresponding function p_+(z) and then obtain [p_+]_0=p_+(0). This function can be obtained most conveniently by writing down the decomposition (?), \phi_-^{-1}\psi=\phi_+p_++\phi_-^{-1}p_-, explicitly.

We start with considering the cases related to (3.3). For \psi=\frac{z}{z-c}\phi with |c|>1, we have p_-=0, i.e.,

\phi_-^{-1}\psi= \frac{\phi_+(z)z}{z-c} = \phi_+ p_+,\quad p_+(z)=\frac{z}{z-c},\quad [p_+]_0=p_+(0)=0.

The same conclusion is obtained in the case \psi=z\phi. Hence the corresponding terms a_1 and b_j (whenever |c_j|>1) do not occur on the right hand side of (3.3).

For \psi=\frac{z}{z-c}\phi with |c|<1, the decomposition is

\phi_-^{-1}\psi= \frac{\phi_+(z)z}{z-c} = \frac{\phi_+(z)z-\phi_+(c)c}{z-c}+\frac{\phi_+(c)c}{z-c}.

Hence

p_+(z)=\frac{z-\phi_+^{-1}(z)\phi_+(c)c}{z-c},\qquad p_+(0)=\frac{\phi_+(c)}{\phi_+(0)}.

The case c=0 covers the case \psi=\phi (related with the coefficient a_0) as well.

Lastly, if \psi=\phi/z we observe that

\phi_-^{-1} \psi =\frac{\phi_+(z)}{z}=\frac{\phi_+(z)-\phi_+(0)}{z}+\frac{\phi_+(0)}{z},

whence

p_+(z)=\phi_+^{-1}(z)\frac{\phi_+(z)-\phi_+(0)}{z},\qquad [p_+]_0=p_+(0)=\frac{\phi_+'(0)}{\phi_+(0)}=(\log \phi_+(z))'|_{z=0} =[\log \phi]_1.

Here recall the definition the Wiener-Hopf factor in (?).

Now let us turn to the cases related to (3.3). For \psi=\frac{1}{z-c} with |c|<1 or \psi=\frac{1}{z}, we will have p_+=0 and p_-=\psi. Hence the terms b_0 and b_j (whenever |c_j|<1) do not occur on the right hand side of (3.3).

For \psi=\frac{1}{z-c} with |c|>1, the decomposition is

\phi_-^{-1}\psi=\frac{\phi_-^{-1}(z)}{z-c}=\frac{\phi_-^{-1}(c)}{z-c}+\frac{\phi_-^{-1}(z)-\phi_-^{-1}(c)}{z-c}.

Thus

p_+(z)=\frac{\phi_+^{-1}(z)\phi_-^{-1}(c)}{z-c},\quad\mbox{ and }\quad p_+(0)=-\frac{1}{c\phi_+(0)\phi_-(c)}.

The case \psi=1 is treated in the same way. Finally, for \psi=z we decompose

\phi_-^{-1}\psi=\eta_+'(0) +(\phi_-^{-1}(z)-\eta_+'(0)\frac{1}{z})z, \quad \mbox{ with }\quad \eta_+(z)=\phi_-^{-1}(z^{-1}).

Hence p_+(z)=\phi_+^{-1}(z) \eta_+'(0) and p_+(0)=\phi_+^{-1}(0)\eta_+'(0), where

\frac{\eta_+'(0)}{\eta_+(0)}=(\log \eta_+(z))'|_{z=0}=-[\log \phi]_{-1}, \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \eta_+(0)=\phi_-^{-1}(\infty),

using (?). This complete the proof.

Proposition

Proposition 3.4

E1XY

Let \phi\in C^{1/2+{\varepsilon}}(\mathbb{T}) be a nonvanishing function on the unit circle with winding number zero. Assume that \phi= \phi_-\phi_+ is its Wiener-Hopf factorization. Let

\lambda_N(z)=z^{-N}\lambda(z),\qquad \lambda(z) =\frac{\phi_-(z)}{\phi_+(z)} ,

and put K_N=H(\lambda_N)H(\tilde{\lambda}_N^{-1}). Then

  • (i) D_N[\phi]=G[\phi]^NE[\phi]\mathrm{det}(I-K_N).

  • (ii) T_N(\phi) is invertible if and only if I-K_N is invertible.

  • (iii) In this case,

    T_N^{-1}(\phi) = T_N(\phi_+^{-1})P_N\left(I- T(\lambda_N^{-1})(I-K_N)^{-1}T(\lambda_N)\right)P_N T_N(\phi_-^{-1}).
Used by Proof, Proof, Proof
Proof of Proposition 3.4

We note that (i) is the Borodin-Okounkov-Case-Geronimo (BOCG) identity (see, e.g., [BS, Sect. 10.40]), and (ii) is an obvious consequence of it. Formula (3.4) is basically formula (10.27) or (10.47) in [BS].

Theorem

Theorem 3.5

6XRD

Let \phi have a continuous canonical Wiener-Hopf factorization \phi=\phi_-\phi_+, and assume that \psi=\phi p_++p_- with p_+\in H^2(\mathbb{T}) and p_-\in H^2_-(\mathbb{T}). Then

F_N[\phi;\psi]= F[\phi;\psi]-\frac{1}{[\phi_+]_0}\cdot e_0^T T(\lambda^{-1}_N)(I-K_N)^{-1} T(\phi_- z^{-N} p_+)e_0.
Proof of Theorem 3.5

Note that T_N(p_-)e_0=0. Using (3.4) we consider

\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{e_0^T T_N^{-1}(\phi)T_N(\phi p_+)e_0}\qquad\\ &= e_0^T T_N(\phi_+^{-1})P_N\left(I- T(\lambda_N^{-1})(I-K_N)^{-1}T(\lambda_N)\right)P_N T_N(\phi_-^{-1}) T_N(\phi p_+)e_0 \\ &= [\phi_+^{-1}]_0\cdot e_0^T \left(I- T(\lambda_N^{-1})(I-K_N)^{-1}T(\lambda_N)\right) T(\phi_-^{-1})P_N T(\phi p_+)e_0. \end{aligned}

Apart from the factor [\phi_+^{-1}]_0=[\phi_+]_0^{-1}, this decomposes into

\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{e_0^T T(\phi_-^{-1})P_N T(\phi p_+)e_0 +e_0^T T(\lambda_N^{-1})(I-K_N)^{-1}T(\lambda_N) T(\phi_-^{-1})Q_N T(\phi p_+)e_0 }\hspace{2cm}&\\ &-e_0^T T(\lambda_N^{-1})(I-K_N)^{-1}T(\lambda_N)T(\phi_-^{-1}) T(\phi p_+)e_0. \end{aligned}

The first two terms equal

\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{e_0^T T(\phi_-^{-1})P_N T(\phi p_+)e_0 +e_0^T T(\lambda_N^{-1})(I-K_N)^{-1}T(\lambda_N) T(\phi_-^{-1})Q_N T(\phi p_+)e_0}\qquad \\ &= e_0^T T(\phi_-^{-1})P_N T(\phi p_+)e_0 +e_0^T T(\lambda_N^{-1})(I-K_N)^{-1}T(\lambda_N) T(\lambda_N^{-1}) T(\phi_+^{-1})V_{-N}T(\phi p_+)e_0 \\ &= e_0^T T(\phi_-^{-1})P_N T(\phi p_+)e_0 +e_0^T T(\lambda_N^{-1}) T(\phi_+^{-1})V_{-N}T(\phi p_+)e_0 \\ &= e_0^T T(\phi_-^{-1})P_N T(\phi p_+)e_0 +e_0^T T(\phi_-^{-1}) V_N V_{-N}T(\phi p_+)e_0 \\ &= e_0^T T(\phi_-^{-1}) T(\phi p_+)e_0= e_0^T T(\phi_+ p_+)e_0 = [\phi_+]_0\cdot [p_+]_0, \end{aligned}

which give the first (constant) term in (3.5). The third term from above equals

\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{-e_0^T T(\lambda_N^{-1})(I-K_N)^{-1}T(\lambda_N)T(\phi_-^{-1}) T(\phi p_+)e_0} \qquad \\ &= -e_0^T T(\lambda_N^{-1})(I-K_N)^{-1}T(\lambda_N)T(\phi_+ p_+)e_0 \\&= -e_0^T T(\lambda_N^{-1})(I-K_N)^{-1}T(\phi_- z^{-N} p_+)e_0, \end{aligned}

which provides the second term in (3.5).

Corollary

Corollary 3.6

HXNZ

Under the same assumptions as in the previous theorem,

\begin{aligned} F_N[\psi;\phi] &= [p_+]_0 -\frac{1}{[\phi_+]_0}\cdot e_0^T T(\lambda^{-1}_N)T(\phi_- z^{-N} p_+)e_0 \\ &\qquad +O\left( \|K_N\|_{L(\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}))}\|P[\tilde{\lambda}^{-1}_N]\|_{H^2} \|P[\phi_-z^{-N}p_+]\|_{H^2} \right) \quad\mbox{ as }N\to\infty. \end{aligned}
Used by Proof, Proof
Corollary

Corollary 3.7

9C0H

Let \phi(z) be analytic an nonvanishing function on the annulus a_1<|z|<b_1 with winding number zero, and let \psi(z) be analytic on the annulus a_2<|z|<b_2, where a_i<1<b_i. Then, for each \kappa with \kappa>a_1\max\{b_1^{-1},b_2^{-1}\}, we have

\begin{aligned} F_N[\phi;\psi] &= F[\phi;\psi]+O(\kappa^N),\qquad N\to \infty, \end{aligned}

and

\begin{aligned} D_N^B[\phi;\psi] &= G[\phi]^NE[\phi]\Big(F[\phi;\psi]+O(\kappa^N)\Big),\qquad N\to \infty. \end{aligned}
Proof of Corollary 3.7

The function \lambda(z)^{-1}=\phi_+(z)/\phi_-(z) is analytic on a_1<|z|<b_1 as well, and hence the Fourier coefficients [\lambda^{-1}]_{-n}=O(\kappa_1^n) as n\to+\infty for each \kappa_1>a_1. As \phi_-p_+=\phi_-\phi_+^{-1}P[\phi_-^{-1}\psi], the function P[\phi_-^{-1}\psi] is analytic on the disc |z|<b_2 and \phi_-p_+ is analytic on the annulus a_1<|z|<\min\{b_1,b_2\}. Thus, for every \kappa_2>\max\{b_1^{-1},b_2^{-1}\}, the Fourier coefficients [\phi_-p_+]_{n}=O(\kappa_2^n) as n\to+\infty. Using this information about the Fourier coeffcients, it is easily seen that the second and third term on the right hand side of (3.6) decays as O(\kappa_1^N\kappa_2^N) as N\to \infty. This implies (3.7). For (3.7), we notice that this follows from (3.7) combined with Proposition3.4(ii) since a similar estimate can be made for the \mathrm{det}( I - K_{N}) term.

Theorem

Theorem 3.8

RTHI

For \phi given by (?) with k>1, we have that

D_N[\phi]=(1-k^{-2})^{1/4}\left(1+\frac{1}{2\pi(1-k^{-2})^2}N^{-2}k^{-2N-2}(1+O(N^{-1}))\right),\qquad N\to\infty.
Proof of Theorem 3.8

We are going to use the BOCG identity stated in Proposition 3.4(i). A straightforward evaluation of the constants gives G[\phi]=1 and E[\phi]=(1-k^{-2})^{1/4}. Thus we are left with analyzing

\mathrm{det}(I-K_N)=1-\mathrm{trace}\, K_N +O(\|K_N\|_1^2), \qquad N\to\infty.

Let us first estimate the trace norm of the operator K_N=V_{-N}H(\lambda)H(\tilde{\lambda}^{-1})V_N. Since \lambda(z) is analytic on the annulus k^{-1}<|z|<k, the Fourier coefficients decay as [\lambda]_n=O(\kappa^{|n|}) as |n|\to\infty for each fixed \kappa>k^{-1}. A straightforward computation of the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of the Hankel operators appearing in K_N implies that the trace norm of K_N decays exponentially as

\|K_N\|_1=O(\kappa^{2N}),\qquad N\to\infty.

As a consequence the term O(\|K_N\|_1^2) is negligible in comparison to the other expected terms.

Let us finally compute the asymptotics of the trace of K_N. Obviously,

\begin{aligned} \mathrm{trace}\, K_N &=\sum_{n=N}^\infty\sum_{j=0}^\infty [\lambda]_{n+j+1} [\lambda^{-1}]_{-n-j-1} =\sum_{n,j=0}^\infty [\lambda]_{n+j+1+N} [\lambda^{-1}]_{-n-j-1-N} \\ &=\sum_{n=0}^\infty (n+1) [\lambda]_{n+1+N} [\lambda^{-1}]_{-n-1-N}. \end{aligned}

In view of (?), the asymptotics of the Fourier coefficients of \lambda and \lambda^{-1} is given by

\begin{aligned} [\lambda]_n &= \frac{\sqrt{1-k^{-2}}}{\Gamma(-1/2)}n^{-3/2}k^{-n}\Big(1+O(n^{-1})\Big), \\ [\lambda^{-1}]_{-n}=[\lambda^{-1}]_{n} &= \frac{1}{\Gamma(1/2)\sqrt{1-k^{-2}}} n^{-1/2}k^{-n}\Big(1+O(n^{-1})\Big), \end{aligned}

as n\to\infty. Here we used Lemma 5.3 with b=k, \zeta_0(z)=0 and \omega=1/2, \xi(z)=k^{-1/2}(1-k^{-1}z^{-1})^{1/2} in the first case and \omega=-1/2, \xi(z)=k^{1/2}(1-k^{-1}z^{-1})^{-1/2} in the second case. Hence

\begin{aligned} \mathrm{trace}\, K_N &= \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(n+1)}{\Gamma(-1/2)\Gamma(1/2)}(n+N+1)^{-2}k^{-2(N+n+1)} \Big(1+O((n+N)^{-1})\Big) \\ &=-\frac{1}{2\pi(1-k^{-2})^2}N^{-2}k^{-2N-2}\Big(1+O(N^{-1})\Big),\qquad N\to\infty, \end{aligned}

by Lemma 5.2. Combining all this we arrive at

\mathrm{det}(I-K_N)=1+\frac{1}{2\pi(1-k^{-2})^2}N^{-2}k^{-2N-2}\Big(1+O(N^{-1})\Big),\qquad N\to\infty,

and this proves the assertion.

Theorem

Theorem 3.9

M547

For \phi given by (?) with k>1, c\in\mathbb{C}\setminus[k,+\infty), let

\psi(z)=\frac{\phi(z)z-d}{z-c}

where

d=\begin{cases} \phi(c)c & \mbox{ if } |c|\ge 1 \\ \mbox{arbitrary} & \mbox{ if } |c|<1.\end{cases}

Then, as N\to\infty,

\begin{aligned} F_N[\phi;\psi] &= \frac{k^{1/2}}{(k-c)^{1/2}}- \frac{ck^{1/2}}{2\pi (k-c)^{3/2}(1-k^{-2})} N^{-2} k^{-2N}\Big(1+O(N^{-1})\Big). \end{aligned}
Proof of Theorem 3.9

We are going to use Corollary 3.6 and start with identifying the functions therein. To compute p_+ recall (?) and (?) to see that the latter decomposition, \phi_-^{-1}\psi=\phi_+p_++\phi_-^{-1}p_- is given by

\frac{\phi_+(z)z-\phi_-^{-1}(z)d}{z-c}=\frac{\phi_+(z)z-\phi_+(c)c}{z-c}+\frac{\phi_+(c)c-\phi_-^{-1}(z)d}{z-c}.

The first term is analytic for |z|<k, while second term is analytic for |z|>1-{\varepsilon} and vanishes at z=\infty. Hence

p_+(z)=\frac{z-\phi_+^{-1}(z)\phi_+(c)c}{z-c},

and

[p_+]_0=p_+(0)=\frac{\phi_+(c)}{\phi_+(0)}=\frac{k^{1/2}}{(k-c)^{1/2}}.

Furthermore,

\phi_-(z)p_+(z)=\phi_-(z)\frac{z-\phi_+^{-1}(z)\phi_+(c)c}{z-c} =(1-k^{-1}z^{-1})^{1/2}\frac{z-(1-k^{-1}z)^{1/2}(1-k^{-1}c)^{-1/2}c}{z-c}.

Lemma 5.3 with \omega=1/2, b=k,

\xi(z)=-\frac{(1-k^{-1}z^{-1})^{1/2}(k-c)^{-1/2}c}{z-c},\qquad \xi(k)=-\frac{(1-k^{-2})^{1/2} c}{(k-c)^{3/2}},

gives

[\phi_-p_+]_n=-\frac{(1-k^{-2})^{1/2} c}{\Gamma(-1/2)(k-c)^{3/2}} n^{-3/2}k^{-n+1/2} \Big(1+O(n^{-1})\Big),\quad n\to\infty.

Hence, together with (?),

[\lambda^{-1}]_{-n}[\phi_-p_+]_n =\frac{c}{2\pi (k-c)^{3/2}} n^{-2} k^{-2n+1/2}\Big(1+O(n^{-1})\Big) ,\quad n\to\infty.

Therefore, we get

\begin{aligned} e_0^T T(\lambda^{-1}_N)T(\phi_- z^{-N} p_+)e_0 &= \sum_{n=0}^\infty [\lambda^{-1}]_{-n-N}\Big[ \phi_-p_+\Big]_{n+N} \\ &= \frac{ck^{1/2}}{2\pi (k-c)^{3/2}(1-k^{-2})} N^{-2} k^{-2N}(1+O(N^{-1})) \end{aligned}

using Lemma 5.1. Noting that [\phi_+]_0=\phi_+(0)=1 and that the error term in Corollary 3.6 decays even as O(\kappa^{4N}) (for any fixed k^{-1}<\kappa<1), proves the asymptotics.

Corollary

Corollary 3.10

JEUF

Let \phi=\widehat{\phi} be given by (?) with k=S_hS_v>1 and

\widehat{\psi}(z)=r\frac{\phi(z)z-\phi(c_*)c_*}{z-c_*}

with r=C_v/S_v and c_*=-S_h/S_v. Then, as N\to\infty,

\begin{aligned} \frac{D_N^B[\widehat{\phi};\widehat{\psi}]}{D_N[\widehat{\phi}]} &=1+\frac{1}{2\pi C_v^2 (1-k^{-2})}N^{-2} k^{-2N}\Big(1+O(N^{-1})\Big), \\ D_N^B[\widehat{\phi};\widehat{\psi}] &= (1-k^{-2})^{1/4}\left(1+\frac{1}{2\pi(1-k^{-2})}\Big(\frac{1}{C_v^2}+\frac{1}{k^2-1}\Big)N^{-2}k^{-2N}\Big(1+O(N^{-1})\Big) \right). \end{aligned}
Proof of Corollary 3.10

We notice that

\frac{k^{1/2}}{(k-c_*)^{1/2}}= \frac{S_v}{C_v}=\frac{1}{r}, \qquad \frac{-c_*}{k-c_*}=\frac{1}{C_v^2}.

The rest is straightforward computation.

Lemma

Lemma 5.1

WMFL

Let |a|<1 and \omega be complex parameters. Then

\sum_{n=N}^\infty a^n n^\omega(1+O(n^{-1}))=\frac{a^N N^\omega}{1-a}(1+O(N^{-1})),\qquad N\to\infty.
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 5.1

We basically can apply summation by parts,

\begin{aligned} (1-a)\sum_{n=N}^\infty a^n n^\omega(1+O(n^{-1})) &= \sum_{n=N}^\infty a^n n^\omega(1+O(n^{-1})) - \sum_{n=N}^\infty a^{n+1} n^\omega(1+O(n^{-1})) \\ &=a^NN^\omega(1+O(N^{-1}))+ \\ &\qquad \sum_{n=N}^\infty a^{n+1}\Big((n+1)^\omega(1+O(n^{-1}))-n^\omega(1+O(n^{-1}))\Big) \\ &=a^NN^\omega(1+O(N^{-1}))+ \sum_{n=N}^\infty a^{n+1}O(n^{\omega-1}). \end{aligned}

The last term we can split into

\sum_{n=N}^{2N-1} a^{n}O(n^{\omega-1})= O(a^NN^{\omega-1}),\qquad \sum_{n=2N}^{\infty} a^{n}O(n^{\omega-1})= \sum_{n=2N}^\infty O(a^nq^n)=O((aq)^{2N}).

In the latter we choose 1 < q< |a|^{-1}, which guarantees that n^{\omega-1}=O(q^n) and (aq)^{2N}=O(N^{\omega-1}).

Lemma

Lemma 5.2

UP8X

Let |a|<1 and \omega be complex parameters. Then

\sum_{n=0}^\infty (n+1)(n+N)^\omega a^{n+N}=\frac{a^N N^\omega}{(1-a)^2}(1+O(N^{-1})),\qquad N\to\infty.
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 5.2

After dividing by a^N, the difference between the series and the leading term is

\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{ \sum_{n=0}^\infty (n+1)(n+N)^\omega a^{n}-\frac{N^\omega}{(1-a)^2} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty (n+1) a^{n}\Big((n+N)^\omega -N^\omega\Big) }\hspace{.5cm} \\ &= \sum_{n=0}^\infty (n+1)^2 a^{n}O(\max\{(n+N)^{\mathrm{Re}(\omega)-1},N^{\mathrm{Re}(\omega)-1}\}) =O(N^{\mathrm{Re}(\omega)-1}). \end{aligned}

This implies the estimate.

Lemma

Lemma 5.3

3GZ2

Let \zeta(z) be a function holomorphic on \{z\in \mathbb{C}\,:\,1-{\varepsilon}<|z|<b+{\varepsilon}\}\setminus[b,b+{\varepsilon}) with b>1, {\varepsilon}>0. Further assume that in some neighborhood of [b,b+{\varepsilon}) this function is of the form

\zeta(z)=(b-z)^{\omega}\xi(z)+\zeta_0(z)

with \xi(z) and \zeta_0(z) being holomorphic, and \mathrm{Re}(\omega)>-1. Then the Fourier coefficients of \zeta have the asymptotics

\zeta_n = \Big(\frac{\xi(b)}{\Gamma(-\omega)}+O(n^{-1})\Big)n^{-\omega-1}b^{-n+\omega} \qquad n\to +\infty.
Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Lemma 5.3

In the formula for the Fourier coefficients we deform the contour into a slightly bigger circle with radius b(1+\delta_n) (where \delta_n=\delta n^{-1/2} and 0<\delta<{\varepsilon}/b is fixed) and a line segments along the branch cut [b,b+b\delta_n] on both sides,

\begin{aligned} \zeta_n &= \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{|z|=1}\zeta(z)z^{-n-1}\,dz \\ &=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{|z|=b(1+\delta_n)}\zeta(z)z^{-n-1}\,dz + \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{b}^{b(1+\delta_n)} \left((b-t-i0)^\omega-(b-t+i0)^\omega\right)\xi(t)t^{-n-1}\, dt. \end{aligned}

The first integral being O(\delta_n^{-|\mathrm{Re}(\omega)|}b^{-n}(1+\delta_n)^{-n})=O(n^{|\mathrm{Re}(\omega)|/2}b^{-n}e^{-n^{1/2} \delta}) is negligible. The second one becomes

-\frac{\sin(\omega\pi)}{\pi }\int_{b}^{b(1+\delta_n)} (t-b)^\omega \xi(t)t^{-n-1}\, dt = -\frac{\sin(\omega\pi)}{\pi } b^{\omega-n} \int_0^{\delta_n} \xi(b+bs)s^\omega (1+s)^{-n-1}\,ds.

Therein, the integral (without the factors in front of it) equals

\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{ \int_0^{\delta_n} (\xi(b)+O(s))s^\omega e^{-(n+1)(s+O(s^2))}\,ds } \qquad\qquad\\ & = n^{-\omega-1}\int_0^{n^{1/2}\delta} \Big(\xi(b)+O({\textstyle \frac{u}{n}})\Big) u^\omega e^{-u+O(\frac{u+u^2}{n})}\, du \\ &= \xi(b) n^{-\omega-1} \int_0^{n^{1/2}\delta} u^\omega e^{-u}\, du + n^{-\omega-2}\int_0^{n^{1/2}\delta}u^\omega O(u+u^2)e^{-u}\, du \\ &= n^{-\omega-1}\Big(\xi(b)\Gamma(1+\omega) + O(n^{-1})\Big). \end{aligned}

Combining all this give the asymptotic formula.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2011.14561v2 by Estelle Basor, Torsten Ehrhardt, Roozbeh Gharakhloo, Alexander Its and Yuqi Li, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2011/2011.14561.jsonl.