Asymptotic Scattering Relation for the Toda Lattice

This will follow from using Lemma 4.5 to compare the open Toda lattice (\bm{a}^{[-N,-N]}(t), \bm{b}^{[-N,-N]}(t)) to one on the torus \mathbb{T}_{2N+1} with the same initial data, and then applying Corollary 4.8 (and its proof) to confirm the large N limit of the latter. So let (\breve{\bm{a}}(t), \breve{\bm{b}}(t)), where \breve{\bm{a}}(t) = (\breve{a}_{-N}(t), \breve{a}_{1-N}(t), \ldots , \breve{a}_N (t)) and \breve{\bm{b}}(t) = (\breve{b}_{-N}(t), \breve{b}_{1-N}(t), \ldots , \breve{b}_N(t)), denote the periodic Toda lattice (?) on \mathbb{T}_{2N+1}, with initial data obtained by setting \breve{a}_j (0) = a_j and \breve{b}_j (0) = b_j for each j \in \llbracket -N, N \rrbracket. Denoting for each integer k \ge 2 the event

we have from the explicit densities of a_j and b_j that \mathbb{P} [\mathsf{E}_k^{\complement}] \le c_1^{-1} e^{-c_1 (R+\log k)^2}, for some constant c_1>0. Hence, a union bound yields \mathbb{P}[\mathsf{E}^{\complement}] \le c_2^{-1} e^{-c_2 R^2} for some constant c_2>0 (as R \ge \log N).

Restricting to \mathsf{E}, we then apply Lemma 4.5, with the (N_1, N_2, A, K); (\bm{a}(t); \bm{b}(t)); and (\tilde{\bm{a}}(t);\tilde{\bm{b}}(t)) there equal to (-N,N, R/200, K); (\breve{\bm{a}}(t); \breve{\bm{b}}(t)); and (\bm{a}(t); \bm{b}(t)) here, respectively. This yields

Letting N (and then K) tend to \infty, the first two statements of the proposition therefore follow from Corollary 4.8 (with the (\bm{a}(t);\bm{b}(t)) there equal to (\breve{\bm{a}}(t);\breve{\bm{b}}(t)) here).

To confirm the third, we assume that N_2 \ge -N_1, as the case when -N_1 > N_2 is entirely analogous. We will first use (?) to estimate the difference between (\bm{a}^{[-N_2,N_2]}(t); \bm{b}^{[-N_2,N_2]}(t)) and (\bm{a}(t);\bm{b}(t)), and then use Lemma 4.5 to estimate the difference between (\bm{a}^{[N_1, N_2]} (t); \bm{b}^{[N_1,N_2]}(t)) and (\bm{a}^{[-N_2,N_2]}(t); \bm{b}^{[-N_2,N_2]}(t)). To implement the former, first observe that the assumption (?) holds in Proposition 4.7 (with the R there uniformly bounded for fixed \mathfrak{p} \in (0, 1)), since on \mathsf{E} we have |a_j| \le (R+\log j)/800 \le (j^{\mathfrak{p}} + \log j)/800 \le (|j|+1)^{\mathfrak{p}} for sufficiently large j. Therefore, (?) applies, with the (N, N_m) there equal to (\mathfrak{N}, N_2) here for some \mathfrak{N} \ge 4^m N_2 \ge 4^{m-1} N. This yields for some constant(By our assumption RT \le K \le N^{\mathfrak{p}}, it is quickly verified using (?) that this constant is independent of T.) C_1 = C_1 (\mathfrak{p}) > 0 that

Letting m, and thus \mathfrak{N}, tend to \infty (and using the fact that N_2 \ge N/3, as N_2 \ge -N_1), we deduce

We next apply Lemma 4.5, with the (N_1,N_2; \tilde{N}_1,\tilde{N}_2;A,K); (\bm{a}(t);\bm{b}(t)); and (\tilde{\bm{a}}(t);\tilde{\bm{b}}(t)) there equal to (N_1,N_2;-N_2,N_2; R/200, K); (\bm{a}^{[-N_2,N_2]}(t);\bm{b}^{[-N_2,N_2]}(t)); and (\bm{a}^{[N_1,N_2]}(t);\bm{b}^{[N_1,N_2]}(t)) here, respectively (using our restriction to \mathsf{E}, and the fact that R \ge \log N, to verify its hypotheses). As in the derivation of (?), this yields

Together with (?) (and the fact that K \le N), this yields the third part of the corollary.

Let (\bm{u}_1, \bm{u}_2, \ldots , \bm{u}_N) denote an orthonormal eigenbasis for \bm{M}; assume that the rows and columns of \bm{M} are indexed by \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket. For each index j \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket, denote \bm{u}_j = ( u_j (N_1), u_j (N_1+1), \ldots , u_j (N_2) ) and define the set

We must show that there exists a bijection \varphi : \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket \rightarrow \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket such that \varphi (j) \in \mathcal{I}_j for each j \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket. To do this, it suffices by Hall’s theorem to show for any set \mathcal{J} \subseteq \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket that |\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{J}}| \ge |\mathcal{J}|, where \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{J}} = \bigcup_{j \in \mathcal{J}} \mathcal{I}_j. If this statement were false for some subset \mathcal{J} \subseteq \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket, then we would have

where the first bound follows from the assumption; the second from the orthonormality of the eigenbasis (\bm{u}_1, \bm{u}_2, \ldots , \bm{u}_N); the third from restricting to j \in \mathcal{J}; the fourth from using that | u_j (i) | < (2N)^{-1} for i \notin \mathcal{I}_j; and the fifth from the fact that each \bm{u}_j is a unit vector. This is a contradiction, so a (2N)^{-1}-localization center bijection for \bm{M} exists.

This follows from the \tilde{t}=t case of Proposition 7.1.

We assume that \alpha > 0 in what follows, as the proof when \alpha < 0 is entirely analogous. The proofs of (?) and (?) are very similar, so we only focus on the former. Recalling Definition 3.13, define the event \mathsf{E}_1 = \bigcap_{s \in [0, t]} \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{L}(s)} (\log N). By Lemma 3.15, \mathsf{E}_1 holds with overwhelming probability, so we restrict to \mathsf{E}_1 in what follows. We further restrict to the event \mathsf{E}_2 on which Lemma 7.2 holds, with the T there both equal to 0 and T here (we may take the T there to be 0 by the R = (\log N)^2 |i-j|^{1/2} case of Lemma 3.12).

Fix t \in [0, T], and let N_1' = \min \{ i : q_i (t) \in \mathcal{J} \} and N_2' = \max \{ i : q_i (t) \in \mathcal{J} \}. We claim that (N_1', N_2') satisfy (?). To verify this, assume to the contrary, so that either N_1' < N_1 + T (\log N)^5 + N^{1/100} or N_2' > N_2 - T(\log N)^5 - N^{1/100} holds. The analysis of these two cases is entirely analogous, so we assume the former. Then,

where the first statement holds since q_0 (0) = 0 and |q_i'(t)| = |p_i(t)| \le \log N (by (?), (?), Definition 2.1, and our restriction to \mathsf{E}_1); the second holds by (?) and the inclusion q_{N_1'} (t) \in \mathcal{J}; and the third holds for N sufficiently large, by (?). This contradicts (?) (at s=T=0), confirming (?).

Therefore, Proposition 7.3 applies and implies that (?) holds with overwhelming probability. Then, since q_i (t) \in \mathcal{J} implies that i \in \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket, it suffices (by (?)) to show that

Changing variables in the second sum from i to \varphi_t^{-1} (i), this is equivalent to

Using the facts that each entry of \bm{L}(t)^m is bounded by (3 \log N)^m (as \bm{L}(t) is tridiagonal and each of its entries is bounded by \log N) and that |\lambda| \le \log N for each \lambda \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{L}(t), it remains to verify

To show this, observe that if i \in \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket satisfies q_i (t) \notin \mathcal{J}, then either q_i (t) < q_{N_1'} (t) or q_i (t) > q_{N_2'} (t). In the former case, we have

where the last inequality holds by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2. Hence i < N_1' + (\log N)^{9/2}, and there are at most (\log N)^{9/2} such indices in \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket. By similar reasoning, there are at most (\log N)^{9/2} indices i \in \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket such that q_i (t) > q_{N_2'} (t). Summing these bounds yields (?) and thus (?).

As mentioned previously, the proof of (?) is entirely analogous (using (?) in place of (?)).

Throughout this proof, we assume that \alpha > 0, as the proof when \alpha < 0 is entirely analogous; we also fix k \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket satisfying (?). We begin by restricting to several events. Recalling Definition 3.13, first restrict to the event \mathsf{E}_1 = \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{L}(0)} (\log N) \cap \mathsf{SEP}_{\bm{L}(0)} (e^{-(\log N)^2}), which we may by Lemma 3.15, Lemma 3.18, and a union bound. Further restrict to the event \mathsf{E}_2 on which Theorem 8.1 holds; to the event \mathsf{E}_3 on which Lemma 7.2 holds; and to the event \mathsf{E}_4 on which Lemma 5.2 holds.

In view of (?) (and our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2), we must show that

Since by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_1 we that |\log |\lambda_k - \lambda_i|| \le (\log N)^2 for each i \ne k, it therefore suffices to show that

We first claim that the summand on the left side of (?) is equal to 0 if i satisfies |\varphi_0 (i) - \varphi_0 (k)| > 2 T (\log N)^5. Indeed, fix such an index i, and assume \varphi_0 (i) < \varphi_0 (k) - 2T (\log N)^5, as the verification in the alternative case is entirely analogous. Then, (?) (with our restriction to \mathsf{E}_4) gives |\varphi_t (i) - \varphi_0 (i)| \le T (\log N)^2 and |\varphi_t (k) - \varphi_0 (k)| \le T (\log N)^2, so for sufficiently large N we have \varphi_t (i) < \varphi_t (k) - T (\log N)^5. As such, \mathbbm{1}_{\varphi_t (i) < \varphi_t (k)} = 1 = \mathbbm{1}_{\varphi_0 (i) < \varphi_0 (k)}. By (?) (and our restriction to \mathsf{E}_3) whose assumption holds by the above bounds, we have for each s \in \{ 0, t \} that

So, it follows that \mathbbm{1}_{Q_i (t) < Q_k (t)} = 1 = \mathbbm{1}_{Q_i (0) < Q_k (0)}, meaning that the summand on the left side of (?) associated with i is equal to 0.

Therefore, we may restrict the sum on the left side of (?) to indices i satisfying |\varphi_0 (i) - \varphi_0 (k)| \le 2T (\log N)^5. Fix such an index i; we claim for each s \in \{ 0, t \} that

which would imply (?) and thus the theorem. To confirm (?), fix s \in \{ 0, t \}, and assume that |\varphi_s (i) - \varphi_s (k)| > (\log N)^5; we will further suppose that \varphi_s (i) < \varphi_s (k) - (\log N)^5, as the proof in the alternative case is entirely analogous. By our assumptions (?) and |\varphi_0 (i) - \varphi_0 (k)| \le 2T (\log N)^5, observe (by (?), using our restriction to \mathsf{E}_4) that \varphi_s (i), \varphi_s (k) \in \llbracket N_1 + T(\log N)^5, N_2 - T(\log N)^5 \rrbracket, so (?) holds (by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_4) with the (i, j) there equal to (\varphi_s (i), \varphi_s (k)) here. Hence,

where the last bound holds since \varphi_k (s) - \varphi_i (s) \ge (\log N)^5. Therefore, \mathbbm{1}_{Q_i (s) < Q_k (s)} = 1 = \mathbbm{1}_{\varphi_s (i) < \varphi_s (k)}, proving (?) and thus the theorem.

Let \lambda \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{L} (t) denote the eigenvalue of \bm{L}(t) with maximal absolute value; if more than one exists, we select one arbitrarily. Then,

where the first inequality holds since \lambda \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{L}(t') (by Lemma 2.2), and the second inequality holds by Definition 2.1. Moreover,

where, in both statements, the first inequality follows from applying the min-max principle (to \bm{L}(t) if |\lambda| \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{L}(t), and to -\bm{L}(t) if -|\lambda| \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{L}(t)), and the second inequality follows from Definition 2.1. Combining (Proof) and (?) yields A(t) + B(t) \le 3 |\lambda| \le 6 ( A(t') + B(t') ), confirming the lemma.

Set \operatorname{eig} \bm{A} = (\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \ldots , \lambda_n) and \operatorname{eig} \bm{B} = (\mu_1, \mu_2, \ldots , \mu_n). Further let (\bm{u}_j) and (\bm{v}_j), for j \in \llbracket 1, n \rrbracket, denote orthonormal eigenbases for \bm{A} and \bm{B}, respectively. In this way, \bm{u}_j = ( u_j (i))_{i \in \mathscr{I}} is an eigenvector of \bm{A} with eigenvalue \lambda_j, and \bm{v}_j = ( v_j (i) )_{i \in \mathscr{I}} is an eigenvector of \bm{B} with eigenvalue \mu_j, for each j \in \llbracket 1, n \rrbracket. Let k \in \llbracket 1, n \rrbracket be such that \lambda_k = \lambda; we may assume that the eigenbasis (\bm{u}_j) includes \bm{u}, in particular, that \bm{u}_k = \bm{u}. Then,

where in the first statement we used (?); in the second we used the bound \operatorname{Im} (\lambda_j - z)^{-1} \ge 0; and in the third we used the fact that z = \lambda + \mathrm{i} \eta and the second estimate in (?). It follows that

where the first statement follows from (?); the second from the third bound in (?); the third from (?); and the fourth from the first bound in (?).

Therefore, there exists m \in \llbracket 1, n \rrbracket such that |\mu_m - \lambda| \le 3n \zeta^{-2} \eta and | v_m (\varphi)| \ge (6n)^{-1/2} \zeta. Indeed, assuming otherwise, we would have

where the first bound follows from (?) and the second from our assumption (with the fact that z = \lambda + \mathrm{i} \eta). This is a contradiction, which establishes the lemma.

For any E \in \mathbb{R} \setminus \operatorname{eig} \bm{M}, denote the resolvent \bm{G} (E) = [ G_{ij} (E) ] = (\bm{M} - E)^{-1}. By (?) (with the fact by [PRM, Proposition 2.40(a)] that all eigenvalues of \bm{M} are mutually disjoint), we have

To evaluate the right side of (Proof), we let \bm{C}(E) = [ C_{ij} (E) ] denote the cofactor matrix of \bm{M} - E \cdot \operatorname{Id} and use the fact that G_{N_1 N_2} (E) = (-1)^{N+1} \cdot C_{N_1 N_2} (E) \cdot (\det \bm{M} - E \cdot \operatorname{Id})^{-1}. Since removing the row of index N_1 and column of index N_2 from \bm{M} yields an upper triangular (N-1) \times (N-1) matrix with diagonal entries (M_{i,i+1})_{N_1 \le i < N_2}, we deduce that C_{N_1 N_2} (E) = \prod_{i=N_1}^{N_2 - 1} M_{i,i+1}. Hence,

Combining (?) with (Proof) yields the lemma.

Since \bm{M} \cdot \bm{u} = \mu \cdot \bm{u} and \bm{M} is tridiagonal, we have for any index k \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 - 1\rrbracket that M_{k,k+1} \cdot u_{k+1} = (\mu - M_{k,k}) \cdot u_k - M_{k,k-1} \cdot u_{k-1}. Since M_{k,k-1} = M_{k-1,k}, this is equivalent to \bm{S}_k (\mu) \cdot \bm{w}_k = \bm{w}_{k+1}, so the lemma follows by induction on j-i.

It quickly follows from the explicit forms (?) of \bm{S}_k and (?) of \bm{S}_{\mathcal{K}} that there exist monic polynomials P_{\ell-1}, P_{\ell}, Q_{\ell-2}, and Q_{\ell-1} satisfying the following two properties. First, we have

Second, we have that \deg Q_{\ell-2} = \ell-2; that \deg P_{\ell - 1} = \deg Q_{\ell-1} = \ell - 1; and that \deg P_{\ell} = \ell. Thus, it suffices to show that

To that end, we locate the zeroes of P_{\ell}. Fix any \mu \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{M}^{[i,j]}, and let \bm{v} = (v_i, v_{i+1}, \ldots , v_j) \in \mathbb{R}^{\ell} denote an eigenvector of \bm{M}^{[i,j]} with eigenvalue \mu. Then setting \bm{w}_k = (v_{k-1}, v_k) for each k \in \llbracket i, j \rrbracket, with v_{i-1} = 0, we have from Lemma 3.9 that \bm{S}_{\llbracket i, j-1 \rrbracket} (\mu) \cdot \bm{w}_i = \bm{w}_j. Furthermore, the second coordinate of S_j (\mu) \cdot \bm{w}_j \in \mathbb{R}^2 is equal

where the first statement follows from the fact that \bm{M} is symmetric and the second from the fact that \bm{v} is an eigenvector of \bm{M}^{[i,j]} with eigenvalue \mu. Therefore, the second coordinate of \bm{S}_{\llbracket i, j \rrbracket} (\mu) \cdot \bm{w}_i is equal to 0. Since the first coordinate of \bm{w}_i is equal to v_{i-1} = 0 (and its second coordinate is nonzero), this implies that the (2, 2)-entry of \bm{S}_{\llbracket i, j \rrbracket} (\mu) is equal to 0. Hence, P_{\ell} (\mu) = 0 for each \mu \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{M}^{[i,j]}. Since \deg P_{\ell} = \ell and P_{\ell} is monic, this confirms the first statement in (?).

We can now quickly deduce the remaining equalities in (?). Indeed, the second statement in (?) follows from the first, together with the fact that the (1,2)-entry of \bm{S}_{\llbracket i, j \rrbracket} (E) is equal to the (2,2)-entry of \bm{S}_{\llbracket i,j-1 \rrbracket} (E) (by (?) and (?)). The third statement in (?) follows from the first, together with the fact that the (2,1)-entry of \bm{S}_{\llbracket i, j \rrbracket} (E) is equal to the (2, 2)-entry of \bm{S}_{\llbracket i+1, j \rrbracket} (E) multiplied by -M_{i,i+1}^{-1} M_{i-1,i} (again by (?) and (?)). The fourth statement in (?) follows from the third, again together with the fact that the (1,1)-entry of \bm{S}_{\llbracket i, j \rrbracket} (E) is equal to the (2,1)-entry of \bm{S}_{\llbracket i,j-1 \rrbracket} (E). This establishes the lemma.

Observe that the random variable \mathfrak{r} \in \mathbb{R} has density \mathbb{P} [\mathfrak{r} \in (r,r+dr)] = \beta^{\theta} \cdot \Gamma(\theta)^{-1} \cdot e^{-\theta r - e^{-\beta e^{-r}}} dr. Thus, denoting

we have

Changing variables u = \beta e^{-r} in (Proof) yields

so the lemma follows from (?), together with the fact (recall (?)) that \alpha = -F'(\theta) \cdot F(\theta)^{-1}.

We may assume that i < j; in what follows, we abbreviate q_k = q_k (0) and a_k = a_k (0) for each k. By (?), we have q_{m+1} - q_m = -2 \log a_m for any m \in \llbracket i+1, j \rrbracket. Since (\bm{a}; \bm{b}) is sampled from the measure \mu_{\beta,\theta;N-1,N} from Definition 2.4, all such a_m are mutually independent with the same law \mathfrak{a} of density \mathbb{P} [\mathfrak{a} \in (a,a+da)] = 2\beta^{\theta} \cdot \Gamma(\theta)^{-1} \cdot a^{2\theta-1} e^{-\beta a^2} da. Hence, denoting \mathfrak{r} = -2 \log \mathfrak{a}, each q_{m+1} - q_m has law \mathfrak{r}. By Lemma 3.11, we have \alpha = \mathbb{E} [\mathfrak{r}], so we find for any u \in (0, 1 / 2) that

where the first statement follows from a Markov bound, and the second from the mutual independence of the (q_{m+1}-q_m) with the finiteness of the moment generating function \mathbb{E} [e^{u\mathfrak{r}}] = \mathbb{E} [\mathfrak{a}^{-2u}] < \infty for u \in (0, 1 / 2). Setting u = \min \{ cR / (j-i), c \} for some sufficiently small constant c > 0, and using the (quickly verified) fact that e^{-uR/(j-i)} \cdot \mathbb{E}[e^{u(\mathfrak{r}-\alpha)}] \le e^{-c u^2} for this u, yields from (?) that

By similar reasoning, we have \mathbb{P} [ q_j - q_i \le \alpha(j-i) - R ] \le e^{-c^3 R^2/|i-j|}+e^{-c^3|i-j|}, and so the lemma follows by a union bound.

By Lemma 3.5 and Lemma 2.2, it suffices to verify the lemma at t=0, that is, to show \mathbb{P} [ \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{L}(0)} (A) ] \ge 1 - c^{-1} N e^{-cA^2}. To that end, observe by Definition 2.4 (or Definition 3.3) and a union bound, there is a constant C > 1 such that

By the deterministic bound (Proof), this yields \mathbb{P} [ \max_{\lambda \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{L}(0)} |\lambda| \ge A ] \le CN A^{2 \theta} e^{-\beta A^2/2}. Together, these two estimates imply \mathbb{P} [ \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{L}(0)} (A) ] \ge 1 - 2CN A^{2\theta} e^{-\beta A^2/2}, which (as mentioned above) implies the lemma.

Denote \operatorname{eig} \bm{L} = (\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \ldots , \lambda_N), and define the events

Let \mathcal{J} = \llbracket -4 \delta^{-1} N, 4 \delta^{-1} N \rrbracket. For each j \in \mathcal{I}, set z_j = j \delta + \delta \mathrm{i}, and let

Observe on \mathsf{E}^{\complement} \cap \mathsf{F} that there exists some j \in \mathcal{J} and i \in \llbracket 1, N-1 \rrbracket such that \operatorname{Im} (\lambda_i - z_j)^{-1} \ge (2\delta)^{-1} and \operatorname{Im} (\lambda_{i+1} - z_j)^{-1} \ge (2 \delta)^{-1}. Hence, on \mathsf{E}^{\complement} \cap \mathsf{F} we have S \ge (2\delta)^{-2}, so taking expectations yields

Now, set \bm{G} (z_j) = [ G_{ik} (z_j) ] = (\bm{L} - z_j)^{-1} for each j \in \mathcal{J}. By [LFSM, Equations (2.64) and (2.65)],(The results there are stated for a different random matrix, but it is quickly verified that its proofs apply for the one \bm{L} we study.) there exists a constant C_0 > 1 such that

Together with (?) and the fact that |\mathcal{J}| \le 9 \delta^{-1} N, this yields

Since Lemma 3.15 yields constants C_1 > 1 > c_1 > 0 such that \mathbb{P} [\mathsf{F}^{\complement} ] \le C_1 e^{-c_1 N^2}, this with a union bound yields the lemma.

Observe from (?) that, for any (i, s) \in \llbracket \tilde{N}_1, \tilde{N}_2 \rrbracket \times \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}, we have

where we have abbreviated (\tilde{a}_i, a_i; \tilde{b}_i, b_i) = ( \tilde{a}_i (s), a_i (s); \tilde{b}_i (s), b_i (s) ). Using (?), it follows that

and

Summing these two bounds, fixing t_0 \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}, integrating over s \in [0, t_0], and using (?) yields

for any i \in \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket, where we have also used that a_i (0) = \tilde{a}_i (0) and b_i (0) = \tilde{b}_i (0) for such i. Taking the supremum over t_0 \in [0, t], we deduce that (?) holds for any (k, t) \in \llbracket 0, K-1 \rrbracket \times \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}, if we set

The lemma then follows from the (j,t) = (0, T) case of Lemma 4.2.

We verify (?) by induction on K-j. Since (?) holds at K-j=0, let us fix j_0 \in \llbracket 0, K-1 \rrbracket and prove that (?) holds for K-j = K-j_0, assuming it holds whenever K-j \le K-j_0-1. This follows from the estimates

where the first bound holds by the k=j_0 case of (?); the second by the inductive hypothesis; the third by the fact that the g_i and h_i are nondecreasing; and the fourth by performing the integration.

We will compare the open Lax matrix \bm{L}(t) to a periodic one \bm{R}(t). To prescribe initial data for the latter (through its Flaschka variables), define ( \bm{\mathfrak{a}} (0), \bm{\mathfrak{b}} (0) ), where \bm{\mathfrak{a}} (0) = ( \mathfrak{a}_j (0) ) and \bm{\mathfrak{b}} (0) = ( \mathfrak{b}_j (0) ) for j \in \mathbb{Z}, as follows. First, for each i \in \llbracket N_1, N_2-1 \rrbracket, set

Letting \mathfrak{r} \in \mathbb{R}_{>0} denote a Gamma random variable, independent from \bm{L}(0), with density \mathbb{P} [\mathfrak{r} \in (r,r+dr)] = 2 \beta^{\theta} \cdot \Gamma(\theta)^{-1} \cdot r^{2\theta-1} e^{-\beta r^2} dr, further set \mathfrak{a}_{N_2} = \mathfrak{r} and \mathfrak{b}_{N_2} = L_{N_2,N_2} (0) = b_{N_2} (0). We then extend these Flaschka variables periodically, by imposing ( \mathfrak{a}_{j+N} (0); \mathfrak{b}_{j+N} (0) ) = ( \mathfrak{a}_j (0); \mathfrak{b}_j (0) ) for each j \in \mathbb{Z}. In this way, ( \mathfrak{a}_j (0); \mathfrak{b}_j (0) ) over j \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket is sampled under \mu_{\beta,\theta;N} from Definition 3.3.

Next, let (\bm{\mathfrak{a}} (t); \bm{\mathfrak{b}}(t) ), where \bm{\mathfrak{a}}(t) = ( \mathfrak{a}_j (t) ) and \bm{\mathfrak{b}}(t) = ( \mathfrak{b}_j (t) ), denote the solution to the periodic Toda lattice (?) on the torus \mathbb{T}_N, with initial data ( \bm{\mathfrak{a}} (0); \bm{\mathfrak{b}}(0) ). Here, (j, t) ranges over \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{R}, imposing the periodicity constraint ( \mathfrak{a}_{j+N} (t); \mathfrak{b}_{j+N} (t) ) = ( \mathfrak{a}_j (t); \mathfrak{b}_j (t) ). It follows from Lemma 3.4 that, for each t \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0},

Define the associated Lax matrix(This convention is slightly different from the one in Definition 3.1 (where the rows and columns are indexed by \llbracket 0, N-1 \rrbracket instead of \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket); we use it for notational convenience.) \bm{R}(t) = [ R_{ij} (t) ] \in \operatorname{SymMat}_{\llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket}, by setting R_{jj} (t) = \mathfrak{b}_j (t) and R_{j,j+1} (t) = R_{j+1,j} (t) = \mathfrak{a}_j (t) for each j \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket, where we have denoted R_{N_2+1,N_2} (t) = R_{N_1, N_2} (t) and R_{N_2, N_2+1} (t) = R_{N_2, N_1} (t). If (i, j) is not of the above form, then we set R_{ij} (t)= 0.

Now define \bm{M} = [M_{ij}] \in \operatorname{SymMat}_{\llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket} by setting the (N_1, N_2)-entry and (N_2, N_1)-entry of \bm{R}(T) to 0, namely M_{ij} = \mathbbm{1}_{(i,j) \ne (N_1, N_2)} \cdot \mathbbm{1}_{(i,j) \ne (N_2,N_1)} \cdot R_{ij} (T). By (?), the fact that ( \bm{\mathfrak{a}}(0); \bm{\mathfrak{b}}(0) ) is sampled under \mu_{\beta,\theta;N}; and Assumption 2.8, \bm{M} has the same law as \bm{L}(0).

It therefore remains to confirm that (?) holds with high probability. To that end, recalling Definition 3.13, define the event \mathsf{E}_1 = \bigcap_{s \ge 0} \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{R}(s)} (\log N / 800 ). By Lemma 3.15, \mathsf{E}_1 is overwhelmingly probable, so we will restrict to \mathsf{E}_1 in what follows.

Now we apply Proposition 4.3 and Lemma 4.5. More specifically, since L_{ij}(0) = R_{ij} (0) for i, j \in \llbracket N_1 + 1, N_2 - 1 \rrbracket, applying Lemma 4.5 (with the (A; I, J; K) there equal to (\log N / 200; N_1+1, N_2-1; K-1) here, using the fact that (K-1) / 4 \le K / 5 for sufficiently large N, and our restriction to \mathsf{E}_1), yields (?), since M_{ij} = R_{ij} (t) for i, j \in \llbracket N_1 + K, N_2 - K \rrbracket.

By Lemma 3.5, we have

Thus,

where in the first inequality we used Proposition 4.1 with (Proof); in the second we used the fact that K! \ge (e^{-1} K)^K; in the third we used the fact that 36eATK^{-1} \le 100AT K^{-1} \le 1 / 2; in the fourth we used the fact that 2^{-K/2} \le 2^{-100AT} \le (36A)^{-1} (as A, T \ge 1); and in the fifth we used the fact that e \le 4. This establishes the lemma.

Observe by (?) and Lemma 3.5 that, for any integers n \ge 1 \ge m and real number t \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0},

Now let K \ge 1 be an integer, and let N \ge 1 be an integer. By Proposition 4.3, with the last statement in Assumption 4.6 (and the fact that 72R(n+1)^{\mathfrak{p}} \le 144 Rn^{\mathfrak{p}} for n \ge 1), we have

for any (j, t) \in \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{R} with |j| + K \le N. Thus, applying (?) at (N, K) = \big( n, \lfloor n / 2 \rfloor), we find

where in the last equality we used the fact that \mathfrak{p} < 1. Hence, it suffices to show that the first limits in both of the pairs of equalities in (?) hold.

To that end, fix an integer J \ge 1 and a real number T \ge 0. For (j, t) \in \llbracket -J, J \rrbracket \times [0, T], we first bound ( a_j^{[-n,n]} (t), b_j^{[-n,n]} (t) ) independently of n. To do this, observe (as used to obtain (?)) by Proposition 4.1 with the last statement in Assumption 4.6 that, for any integers N \ge N' \ge 1,

for any (j,t) \in \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{R} with |j| + K \le N'. Now let N_0 > N_1 > \cdots > N_r be integers such that N_0 = N, such that N_i / 16 \le N_{i+1} \le N_i / 4 for each i \in \llbracket 0, r-1 \rrbracket, and such that N_r \in [4J, 16J]. Applying (?) with the (N, N'; K) there equal to (N_i, N_{i+1}; N_{i+1} / 2) here, we find that there exists a constant C_1 = C_1 (\mathfrak{p}, R, T) > 1 such that

where in the last bound we used the facts that K = N_{i+1} / 2 \ge N_i / 32 and \mathfrak{p} < 1. Hence, for any integer m \in \llbracket 1, r \rrbracket, we have

Taking m=r and using (Proof) (with the n there equal to N_r \in [4J, 16J] here), it follows that

By (?) and (?), ( a_j^{[-N,N]} (t) ) and ( b_j^{[-N,N]} (t) ) are Cauchy sequences over N \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}. Hence, these sequences admit unique limits a_j (t) and b_j (t), respectively, as N tends to \infty. This establishes the first part of the proposition.

To establish the second, observe by (?) that there exists a constant C_2 = C_2 (\mathfrak{p}, R, J, T) > 1 such that | a_j (t) | + | b_j (t) | \le C_2 and | a_j^{[-N,N]} (t) | + | b_j^{[-N,N]} (t) | \le C_2, for all (j, t) \in \llbracket -J, J \rrbracket \times [0, T] and N \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 1}. Since ( \bm{a}^{[-N,N]} (t); \bm{b}^{[-N,N]} (t) ) satisfies (?), these estimates imply that the first two t-derivatives of a_j^{[-N,N]} (t) and b_j^{[-N,N]} (t) are uniformly bounded, for all (j, t) \in \llbracket -J, J \rrbracket \times [0, T]. Thus, the t-derivatives of a_j (t) and b_j (t) are also uniformly bounded for all (j, t) \in \llbracket -J, J \rrbracket \times [0, T]. Together with the fact that ( \bm{a}^{[-N,N]} (t); \bm{b}^{[-N,N]} (t) ) satisfy (?), this implies that (\bm{a}; \bm{b}) satisfy (?), thereby confirming the second statement of the proposition.

The second statement of the corollary follows from the first, together with Lemma 3.4. It therefore remains to show the first, to which end it suffices by Proposition 4.7 to verify Assumption 4.6, that is, to show that there almost surely exists a constant R > 1 such that |a_j| + |b_j| \le R(|j|+1 )^{1/2} for all j \in \mathbb{Z}. To that end, observe that there exists a constant C > 1 such that, for each j \in \mathbb{Z}, we have

where in the last inequality we used the fact that (a_j, b_j) has law \mu_{\beta, \theta; 1} given by Definition 3.3. Since the sum of the right side of (?) over j \in \mathbb{Z} is finite, the Borel–Cantelli lemma implies the almost sure existence of a constant R > 1 such that |a_j| + |b_j| \le R ( |j|+1 )^{1/2} for all j \in \mathbb{Z}.

The first statement of the lemma implies the second (as c^{-1} e^{-c(\log N)^2 / 2} < \zeta for sufficiently large N), so it suffices to verify the former. To that end, observe for some c>0 that

Here, the first inequality holds by the definition of \varphi_j; the second by summing Corollary 3.17 over j \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket (and examining its (k,j) term equal to ( j, \varphi_j) here). This, with a Markov estimate, a union bound, and the facts that \zeta \ge e^{-200(\log N)^{3/2}} and |i-\varphi_j| \ge (\log N)^2/2, yields the first statement of the lemma.

The first statement (?) of the lemma implies the second, as e^{-c|m - \varphi_j|} < \zeta for | m - \varphi_j| \ge T (\log N)^2 if N is sufficiently large; it therefore suffices to establish (?). Recalling Definition 3.13 and letting \mathfrak{c} \in (0, 1) denote the constant c from Lemma 5.1, and define the event

By Lemma 3.15 and Lemma 5.1, \mathsf{E} is overwhelmingly probable, so we restrict to \mathsf{E} for the remainder of this proof.

We next recall a fact concerning the evolution of the Lax matrix \bm{L}(s). For each s \in \mathbb{R}, define the tridiagonal skew-symmetric matrix \bm{P} (s) = [ P_{ij} (s) ] \in \operatorname{Mat}_{\llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket} as follows. For each i \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 - 1 \rrbracket, set P_{i,i+1} (s) = a_i (s)/2 and P_{i+1,i} (s) = -a_i (s)/2; for all (i, j) \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket^2 not of the above form, set P_{i,j} (s) = 0. For each s \in \mathbb{R}, further let \bm{V}(s) = [ V_{ij} (s) ] \in \operatorname{Mat}_{\llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket}, satisfying the ordinary differential equation \partial_s \bm{V}(s) = \bm{P}(s) \cdot \bm{V}(s), with initial data \bm{V}(0) = \operatorname{Id}; the existence of such a matrix \bm{V}(s) follows from the Picard–Lindelöf theorem. For any (i, j) \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket^2, its (i,j)-entry is more explicitly given by

where we have denoted (i_0, i_k) = (i, j). Then, by [FMPL, Section 2], we have \bm{V} (s)^{-1} \cdot \bm{L}(s) \cdot \bm{V}(s) = \bm{L}(0).

This implies that \bm{L}(s) = \bm{V}(s) \cdot \bm{L}(0) \cdot \bm{V}(s)^{\mathsf{T}}, as \bm{V}(s) is orthogonal (since \bm{V}(0) = \operatorname{Id}, \partial_s \bm{V}(s) = \bm{P}(s) \cdot \bm{V}(s), and \bm{P}(s) is skew-symmetric). Hence, letting \bm{U}(s) = [ U_{ij} (s) ] \in \operatorname{Mat}_{N \times N} denote matrix of eigenvectors of \bm{L}(s), whose (i,j)-entry is given by U_{ij}(s) = u_j (i; s) for each (i, j) \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket \times \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket, we have \bm{U}(s) = \bm{V}(s) \cdot \bm{U}(0). In particular,

Now observe whenever |i-j| \ge 20 T \log N that

Here, in the first inequality we used (?), with the facts that each | P_{ij} (s_h) | \le \log N (as we have restricted to the event \mathsf{E} from (Proof)) and that P_{ij} = 0 whenever |i-j| \ne 1 (meaning that there are at most two choices for each i_h that gives rise to a nonzero summand in (?)); in the second we used the bound k! \ge (e^{-1} k)^k for each k \ge 0; in the third we used the bound 2k^{-1} es \log N \le e^{-1} for k \ge |i-j| \ge 20 T \log N; and in the fourth we performed the sum. Hence, for | m - \varphi_j| > T (\log N)^2,

which verifies (?). Here, the first inequality follows from (?), together with the facts that | u_j (k; 0) | \le 1 (as \bm{u}_j is a unit vector) and | V_{mk} (s) | \le 1 (as \bm{V}(s) is orthogonal); the second follows from (?) (with the fact that T (\log N)^2 \ge 40T \log N for sufficiently large N) and the fact that we have restricted to the event \mathsf{E} from (Proof) (with the fact that, if | m - \varphi_j | \ge T (\log N)^2 and |k-m| \le | \varphi_j - m | / 2, then | k - \varphi_j | \ge | m - \varphi_j | / 2 \ge (\log N)^2/2); and the third follows from performing the sums.

Throughout, we suppose \operatorname{dist} (i, \mathcal{D}) \ge \operatorname{dist} (j, \mathcal{D}), as the proof in the alternative case is entirely analogous. We may assume that \operatorname{dist} (i, \mathcal{D}) \ge 1, as otherwise (?) holds deterministically, by (?).

We first show a variant of (?) for a fixed point z \in \Omega. So, fix z_0 \in \Omega; abbreviate G_{km} = G_{km} (z_0) and \tilde{G}_{km} = \tilde{G}_{km} (z_0), for any k, m \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket. Recalling Definition 3.13, also denote

for some constant \mathfrak{c} > 0, by Lemma 3.15. Further let \mathcal{D}_0 = \{ k \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket : \operatorname{dist} (k, \mathcal{D}) \le 1 \}. Then, for any real number s \in (0, 1), there exist constants c_1 = c_1 (s) > 0 and C_1 = C_1 (s) > 1 such that

where in the first inequality we applied (?); in the second we applied (?); in the third we used (?), with the definition (?) of \mathsf{E} (which implies that \mathbbm{1}_{\mathsf{E}} \cdot |L_{km} - \tilde{L}_{km}| \le 3 \log N) and the fact that \bm{L} - \tilde{\bm{L}} is tridiagonal; in the fourth we used (?); and in the fifth we performed the sums. Taking s = 2 / 3 and using the fact that \operatorname{Im} z_0 \ge \eta (as z_0 \in \Omega), we therefore deduce by a Markov estimate that there exist constants c_2 > 0 and C_2 > 1 such that

Now, let us extend the estimate (?) to simultaneously apply for all z \in \Omega. To do this, set \delta_0 = (\delta + e^{-c_1 \operatorname{dist} (i, \mathcal{D})})^{1/4}. Observe for any z, z' \in \Omega with |z-z'| \le \delta_0 that

where in the first inequality we used (?) and in the second we used (?) (with the fact that \min \{ \operatorname{Im} z, \operatorname{Im} z' \} \ge \eta for z, z' \in \Omega). Let \Omega_0 \subset \Omega denote a \delta_0-mesh of \Omega, so that |\Omega_0| \le 8 N \delta_0^{-2}. Denote the event

Applying (?) and (?) for all z_0 \in \Omega, yields constants c_3 > 0 and C_3 > 1 such that

Observe for sufficiently large N that | G_{ij} (z) - \tilde{G}_{ij} (z) | \le e^{(\log N)^2} \eta^{-2} \delta_0 holds for all z \in \Omega on the event \mathsf{F}, due to (?) and the estimate e^{(\log N)^2/2} \eta^{-1} \delta_0 + 2 \eta^{-2} N \delta_0 \le e^{(\log N)^2} \eta^{-2} \delta_0. Since \operatorname{dist} (i, \mathcal{D}) \ge \operatorname{dist} (j, \mathcal{D}), this yields (?).

Let \mathfrak{c} \in (0, 1) denote the constant c from Lemma 5.4, and set

Recalling the event \mathsf{E} from (?), also define event

By (?) and the min-max principle, on \mathsf{F}, we have \operatorname{eig} \bm{L} \cup \operatorname{eig} \tilde{\bm{L}} \subseteq [-N, N] for sufficiently large N.

By (?) and Lemma 5.4, we may restrict to the e vent \mathsf{F}. We then apply Lemma 3.7, with the parameters (\varphi; \eta, \zeta, \delta; \bm{A}, \bm{B}) there equal to (\varphi; \eta, \zeta, e^{(\log N)^2} \eta^{-2} \delta_0; \bm{L}, \tilde{\bm{L}}) here. To verify (?), observe that the first estimate there follows for sufficiently large N from the fact that

where in the first bound we used (Proof); in the second we used the facts that \delta \le e^{-10(\log N)^2}, that \operatorname{dist} (\varphi, \mathcal{D}) \ge (\log N)^3, and that N is sufficiently large; and in the third we used the fact that \zeta \ge e^{-200 (\log N)^{3/2}}. The second estimate in (?) follows from the fact that \varphi is a \zeta-localization center for \lambda with respect to \bm{L}, and the third follows from our restriction to \mathsf{F}.

Thus, Lemma 3.7 yields some \tilde{\lambda} \in \operatorname{eig} \tilde{\bm{L}} such that |\lambda - \tilde{\lambda}| \le 3N \zeta^{-2} \eta, which by (Proof) (and again the fact that \zeta \ge e^{-200 (\log N)^{3/2}}) confirms (?). Since (6N)^{-1/2} \zeta \ge N^{-1} \zeta, Lemma 3.7 also indicates that \varphi is an N^{-1} \zeta-localization center \tilde{\lambda} with respect to \tilde{\bm{L}}, establishing the corollary.

Let \mathfrak{c} \in (0, 1) denote the constant c from Lemma 5.4, and set \delta_0 and \eta as in (Proof). Recalling Definition 3.13 and the event \mathsf{F} from (?), define the event \mathsf{G} = \mathsf{F} \cap \mathsf{SEP}_{\bm{L}} (e^{-(\log N)^2/2}). By (?), Lemma 3.18, and Lemma 5.4, \mathsf{G} is overwhelmingly probable. By (?) and the min-max principle we have on \mathsf{G} that \operatorname{eig} \bm{L} \cup \operatorname{eig} \tilde{\bm{L}} \subseteq [-N, N] for sufficiently large N.

Restricting to the event \mathsf{G}, we then apply Lemma 3.7, with the parameters (\varphi; \eta, \zeta, \delta; \bm{A}, \bm{B}) there equal to (\tilde{\varphi}; \eta, \zeta, e^{(\log N)^2} \eta^{-2} \delta_0; \tilde{\bm{L}}, \bm{L}) here. As in the proof of Corollary 5.5, the first bound in (?) is verified by (?); the second by the fact that \tilde{\varphi} is a \zeta-localization center for \tilde{\lambda} with respect to \tilde{\bm{L}}; and the third by our restriction to \mathsf{G}. Thus, Lemma 3.7 gives some \lambda \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{L} such that |\lambda - \tilde{\lambda}| \le 3N \zeta^{-2} \eta, which by (Proof) (and again the bound \zeta \ge e^{-200 (\log N)^{3/2}}) yields some \lambda satisfying the first statement of the corollary. As any two distinct eigenvalues of \bm{L} differ by at least e^{-(\log N)^2/2} by our restriction to \mathsf{G}, and 6 N \zeta^{-2} \eta \le e^{-(\log N)^2} (by (Proof), (?), and the facts that \zeta \ge e^{-200(\log N)^{3/2}} and \delta \le e^{-10 (\log N)^2}), such an eigenvalue \lambda \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{L} satisfying these hypotheses is unique.

Since (6N)^{-1/2} \zeta \ge N^{-1} \zeta, Lemma 3.7 also indicates that \varphi is an N^{-1} \zeta-localization center \tilde{\lambda} with respect to \tilde{\bm{L}}. Thus, the second part of Lemma 5.1 yields that, with overwhelming probability, any N^{-1} \zeta-localization center \varphi \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket of \lambda with respect to \bm{L} satisfies |\varphi - \tilde{\varphi}| \le (\log N)^2/2. This confirms the second statement of the corollary.

Let \mathsf{F} denote the event on which (?) holds. By Lemma 6.2, \mathsf{F} is overwhelmingly probable, so it suffices to show that (?) holds for sufficiently large N on the event \mathsf{F}; assume to the contrary that this is false. Since the first bound in (?) holds but (?) does not hold, we must have

Together with the second bound in (?), this yields

which contradicts Lemma 3.8. This verifies the proposition.

We only establish the first bound in (?), as the second would then follow from symmetry. Throughout, we set \bm{P} = [P_{ij}] = \bm{L}(t) and v_j = u_k (j; t) for each j \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket.

Recall from ? the notation on the transfer matrices \bm{S}_{\mathcal{K}}, defined by (?) and (?); abbreviate \bm{S} = [S_{ij}] = \bm{S}_{\llbracket N_1, \varphi_t(k) \rrbracket} ( \lambda_k; \bm{P}) \in \operatorname{Mat}_{2 \times 2}, whose entries are indexed by i, j \in \{ 1, 2 \}. Also denote \bm{Q} = \bm{P}^{[N_1, \varphi_t (k)-1]}, where we recall from above Lemma 3.10 that this is the matrix obtained by restricting \bm{P} to rows and columns indexed by \llbracket N_1, \varphi_t (k) - 1 \rrbracket. Then Lemma 3.9 yields \bm{S} \cdot (0, v_{N_1}) = (v_{\varphi_t(k)}, v_{\varphi_t(k)+1}), so S_{12} \cdot v_{N_1} = v_{\varphi_t(k)}. We thus deduce for sufficiently large N that

where in the second statement we used the fact that \varphi_t is a \zeta-localization center bijection for \bm{P}, and in the third we used Lemma 3.10 and the fact that \zeta \ge e^{-100 (\log N)^{3/2}} \ge e^{-(\log N)^2}. To verify the first bound in (?), it therefore suffices to show that with overwhelming probability we have

To that end, recalling Definition 3.13, define the event \mathsf{E}_1 = \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{P}} (\log N) \cap \mathsf{SEP}_{\bm{P}} (e^{-(\log N)^2}). Then \mathsf{E}_1 is overwhelmingly probable, due to Lemma 3.15 and Lemma 3.18.

We next apply Proposition 6.3, with the \ell there equal to \varphi_t(k) here; observe that the estimate (?) assumed in that proposition holds by (?). Thus, Proposition 6.3 yields an overwhelmingly probable event \mathsf{E}_2, on which the following holds. Let \mu \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{Q} be any eigenvalue that admits a \zeta-localization center \Phi \in \llbracket N_1, \varphi_t(k) - 1 \rrbracket with respect to \bm{Q} satisfying \Phi \le \varphi_t (k) - (\log N)^4.

1. There exists a unique eigenvalue \lambda = \lambda(\mu) \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{P} such that |\lambda - \mu| \le e^{-(\log N)^3}.

2. Letting \lambda = \lambda_{\psi} for some \psi \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket, we have | \varphi_t(\psi) - \Phi | \le T (\log N)^3.

3. If \Phi \ge N_1 + T (\log N)^3 + N^{1/100} / 2, then we further have | \varphi_t(\psi) - \Phi | \le (\log N)^2.

In what follows, we restrict to \mathsf{E}_1 \cap \mathsf{E}_2 and show (?) holds.

To that end, denote \operatorname{eig} \bm{Q} = (\mu_1, \mu_2, \ldots , \mu_{\varphi_t(k) - N_1}), and let \Phi : \llbracket 1, \varphi_t (k) - N_1 \rrbracket \rightarrow \llbracket N_1, \varphi_t (k) - 1 \rrbracket denote a (2N)^{-1}-localization center bijection for \bm{Q}, which is guaranteed to exist by Lemma 2.7. Let \mathcal{J} denote the set of indices j \in \llbracket 1, \varphi_t (k) - N_1 \rrbracket such that \Phi (j) \le \varphi_t (k) - (\log N)^4. For each j \in \mathcal{J}, let \psi_j \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket denote the unique index such that

Such an index \psi_j satisfying the first bound in (?) exists and is unique by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2. To verify that \psi_j satisfies the second observe that, if \Phi(j) \ge N_1 + T (\log N)^3 + N^{1/100} / 2, then

the first bound since we restricted to \mathsf{E}_2, the second since j \in \mathcal{J}, and the third since N > 1. If instead \Phi (j) < N_1 + T (\log N)^3 + N^{1/100} / 2, then

the first bound by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2, the second by our assumption on \Phi(j), and the third by (?). This confirms (?). We also have that

Here, the first bound holds since |\mu_i - \lambda_i| \le 2 \log N (by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_1 and the fact that \mathsf{E}_1 \subseteq \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{Q}} (\log N), by Remark 3.14); the second holds since |\lambda_{\psi_j} - \mu_j| \le e^{-(\log N)^3}, with the bound |\lambda_{\psi_j} - \lambda_k| \ge e^{-(\log N)^2} (by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_1 and the fact from (?) that \psi_j \ne k). Therefore,

Here, in the first estimate, we used the fact that at most (\log N)^4 indices h \notin \mathcal{J} exist, with the first bound in (?) for each such h. In the second, we used the second bound in (?). In the third we used the fact that \varphi_t(\psi_j) < \varphi_t(k) for each j \in \mathcal{J} (by (?)); the bound \log |\lambda_i - \lambda_k| \le \log (2 \log N) \le \log N for all indices i with \varphi_t (i) \in \llbracket N_1, \varphi_t (k) - 1 \rrbracket but that are not of the form \psi_j for some j \in \mathcal{J}; and the fact that at most (\log N)^4 such indices i exist (as is quickly verified from the injectivity of \varphi_t and \psi, the second statement in (?), and the fact that there are at most (\log N)^4 indices not in \mathcal{J}). This establishes the second bound in (?) and thus the lemma.

In what follows, we assume that (?) does not hold, as Proposition 6.4 establishes the proposition when it does. Letting \mathfrak{c} > 0 denote the constant c / 10 from Lemma 6.6, set \eta = e^{-2\mathfrak{c} N^{1/100}} and define the event (recalling Definition 3.13)

By Lemma 3.15, Lemma 3.18 (with Lemma 2.2), and Lemma 6.6, \mathsf{G} is overwhelmingly probable.

Restricting to \mathsf{G}_1, we next apply Lemma 3.7 with the parameters (\lambda, \varphi; \eta, \zeta, \delta; \bm{A}, \bm{B}) there equal to (\mu, \Phi; \eta, \zeta, e^{-10\mathfrak{c} N^{1/100}}; \bm{M}, \bm{P}) here. The first bound in (?) holds for sufficiently large N by the facts that \zeta \ge e^{-100 (\log N)^{3/2}} and \eta = e^{-2\mathfrak{c} N^{1/100}}; the second holds since \Phi is a \zeta-localization center of \mu with respect to \bm{M}; and the third holds by our restriction to \mathsf{G}_1. Hence, Lemma 3.7 yields an eigenvalue \lambda \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{P} such that |\lambda-\mu| \le 3N \zeta^{-2} \eta \le e^{-\mathfrak{c} N^{1/100}} (again as \zeta \ge e^{-100 (\log N)^{3/2}} and \eta = e^{-2\mathfrak{c} N^{1/100}}). This shows the first statement of the proposition; it remains to verify the second.

To that end, observe that Lemma 3.7 further indicates that \Phi is an N^{-1}\zeta-localization center for \lambda with respect to \bm{P}. Letting \Psi \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket denote an N^{-1} \zeta-localization center of \lambda with respect to \bm{L}, Lemma 5.2 implies that the following holds with overwhelming probability. We have |m - \Psi| \le T (\log N)^2 for any N^{-1} \zeta-localization center m \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket of \lambda with respect to \bm{P}. Applying this for m \in \{ \Phi, \varphi \} then yields |\varphi - \Phi| \le 2T (\log N)^2 \le T (\log N)^3 for sufficiently large N; this confirms the second statement of the proposition.

Throughout this proof, we adopt the notation and assumptions from Lemma 6.5 and its proof. In particular, we recall the quantities K, \delta > 0 and the event \mathsf{E}_1 from (?). Recalling Definition 3.13, we further define the event

By Lemma 2.2, Lemma 3.18, and a union bound, \mathsf{F}_1 is overwhelmingly probable. We restrict to \mathsf{E}_1 \cap \mathsf{F}_1, and further to the event that Lemma 6.5 holds, in what follows.

We will use Corollary 5.5 to show that \kappa is close to some \lambda \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{P}. To that end, first observe from (?) and our restriction to \mathsf{E} \cap \mathsf{E}_1 (with the fact that \bm{Q} has the same law as \bm{L}(0)) that Assumption 5.3 holds, with the (\bm{L}, \tilde{\bm{L}}; \mathcal{D}) there equal to ( \bm{Q}, \bm{P}; \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket \setminus \llbracket N_1 + K, N_2 + K \rrbracket) here. Also, by (?), \min \{ \Phi - N_1 - K, N_2 - \Phi - K \} \ge N^{1/100} / 2 \ge (\log N)^3, which verifies (?). Therefore, Corollary 5.5 applies and yields a constant c_1 > 0 and an overwhelmingly probable event \mathsf{F}_2, on which the following holds. There exists \lambda \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{P} such that \Phi is a N^{-3} \zeta-localization center of \lambda with respect to \bm{P}, and

where in the last inequality we used the facts that \min \{ \Phi - N_1, N_2 - \Phi \} \ge T(\log N)^3 + N^{1/100} / 2 \ge 2K + (\log N)^3 and |\Phi - \ell| \ge (\log N)^4. Together with the first statement in Lemma 6.5, this implies the existence of \lambda satisfying the conditions in the first statement of Proposition 6.3, upon additionally restricting to \mathsf{F}_2. The uniqueness of such a \lambda \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{P} follows follows from our restriction to the event \mathsf{F}_1 from (Proof) (with the fact that |\Phi - \ell| \ge (\log N)^4).

It remains to establish the third part of the proposition (which implies the second, as we have assumed that (?) holds), to which we must use Corollary 5.6 (instead of Corollary 5.5). Fix any \zeta-localization center \varphi \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket for \lambda with respect to \bm{P}. Let a \bm{u}(t) = ( u(N_1; t), u(N_1+1; t), \ldots , u(N_2; t) ) \in \mathbb{R}^N be a unit eigenvector of \bm{P} with eigenvalue \lambda. Then, by the definition of \varphi and Corollary 5.5, we have

We must show (?), to which end we claim that, with high probability,

To do so, observe that Lemma 5.2 yields an overwhelmingly probable event \mathsf{F}_3, on which the following holds. An index m \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket can only be a N^{-3} \zeta-localization center for \lambda with respect to \bm{P} if |m-\varphi| \le T (\log N)^2. Restricting to \mathsf{F}_3, the second bound in (?) then implies that we must have |\Phi - \varphi| < T (\log N)^2 for sufficiently large N. Together with the estimate (by (?) and (?))

this confirms (?).

The bound (?) (with (?)) verifies (?), with the parameters (\bm{L}, \tilde{\bm{L}}; \tilde{\lambda}, \tilde{\varphi}; \delta; \mathcal{D}) there equal to ( \bm{Q}, \bm{P}; \lambda, \varphi; \delta; \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket \setminus \llbracket N_1+K, N_2-K \rrbracket ) here. Thus, Corollary 5.6 applies and yields a constant c_2 > 0 such that, with overwhelming probability, there exists \kappa' \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{Q} with

where in the last inequality we used the definition (?) of \delta (with the fact that |\Phi-\ell| \ge (\log N)^4) with (?). Together with (?), the fact that |\Phi-\ell| \ge (\log N)^4, and our restriction to the event \mathsf{F}_1 from (Proof), this implies that \kappa = \kappa'. Hence, the second part of Corollary 5.6 implies that \varphi is a N^{-1} \zeta-localization center for \kappa with respect to \bm{Q}. Since \Phi is an N^{-2} \zeta-localization center for \kappa with respect to \bm{Q} (by Lemma 6.5), it also implies that |\varphi - \Phi| \le (\log N)^2, verifying the third (and thus also the second) statement of the proposition.

Define \bm{R} = [R_{ij}] \in \operatorname{SymMat}_{\llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket} by setting \bm{R} = \bm{Q}^{(\ell)}. Throughout this proof, we assume that \Phi \le \ell, as the proof when \Phi \ge \ell is entirely analogous. Then denote by \bm{P}' = [P_{ij}'] and \bm{Q}' = [Q_{ij}'] the top (\ell-N_1) \times (\ell-N_1) corners of \bm{P} and \bm{Q}, respectively. In this way, their rows and columns are indexed by i, j \in \llbracket N_1, \ell-1 \rrbracket, and we have P_{ij}' = P_{ij} = M_{ij} and Q_{ij}' = Q_{ij} = R_{ij} for each such (i, j); observe that \operatorname{eig} \bm{P}' \subseteq \operatorname{eig} \bm{M} and \operatorname{eig} \bm{Q}' \subseteq \operatorname{eig} \bm{R}. Since \Phi \le \ell, we also have \mu \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{P}'.

To establish the lemma, we will first use Corollary 5.6 to show \mu is close to some \nu \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{R}. To that end, recalling Definition 3.13, define the quantities K, \delta > 0 and event \mathsf{E}_1 by

By Lemma 3.15, \mathsf{E}_1 holds with overwhelming probability, so we restrict to \mathsf{E}_1 in what follows.

Applying Corollary 5.6 requires (through Assumption 5.3) a bound on |P_{ij}' - Q_{ij}'| for i,j sufficiently far from N_1. This will follow from (?); indeed, observe that N_2 - \ell \ge T(\log N)^4 + N^{1/100} \ge K, where the first bound holds by (?) and the second holds by (?). Thus N_2 - K \ge \ell, so since (P_{ij}', Q_{ij}') = (P_{ij}, Q_{ij}) for i,j \le \ell, it follows from (?) that

Using this, we next verify Assumption 5.3 with the (\bm{L}, \tilde{\bm{L}}) there given by (\bm{Q}', \bm{P}') here. To that end, observe that |P_{ij}| \le (\log N) / 50 \le 2 \log (\ell - N_1), where the first bound follows from Lemma 3.5 and our restriction to \mathsf{E}_1, and the second follows from (?). This, together with (?) and the fact that \bm{Q} has the same law as \bm{L}(0), implies that Assumption 5.3 holds, with the (\bm{L}, \tilde{\bm{L}}; \mathcal{D}; N) there equal to (\bm{Q}', \bm{P}'; \llbracket N_1, N_1 + K-1 \rrbracket; \ell-N_1 ) here. Since (?) and (?) together yield

we deduce that \Phi \ge N_1 + K + (\log N)^3, verifying (?). Since \mu \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{P}', the first statement of Corollary 5.6 yields a constant c_1 > 0 such that, with overwhelming probability, there exists an eigenvalue \nu \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{Q}' \subseteq \operatorname{eig} \bm{R} satisfying

where in the last inequality we used (?) and the bound K \ge (\log N)^4 / 10 (as |\Phi - \ell| \ge (\log N)^4). The second statement of Corollary 5.6 further impies that \Phi is an N^{-1} \zeta-localization center of \nu with respect to \bm{Q}', and thus with respect to \bm{R}. We further restrict to \mathsf{E}_2 in what follows.

We now use Corollary 5.6 again to show that \nu is close to some \kappa \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{Q}; this will proceed similarly to above. Since R_{ij} = Q_{ij} unless \ell \in \{ i, j \} (and \bm{Q} has the same law as \bm{L}(0)), we have by our restriction to \mathsf{E} \cap \mathsf{E}_1 that Assumption 5.3 holds with the (\bm{L}, \tilde{\bm{L}}; \delta; \mathcal{D}) there equal to ( \bm{Q}, \bm{R}; 0; \{ \ell \} ) here. Since |\Phi - \ell| \ge (\log N)^4, the first statement of Corollary 5.6 yields a constant c_2 > 0 such that, with overwhelming probability, there exists an eigenvalue \kappa \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{Q} such that

where in the last inequality we used the fact that |\Phi - \ell| \ge (\log N)^4. Thus, (?) and (?) imply the first statement of the lemma. The second statement of Corollary 5.6 further implies that \Phi is an N^{-2}\zeta-localization center for \kappa with respect to \bm{Q}, verifying the second statement of the lemma.

Throughout this proof, recalling Definition 3.13, we set

for some constant c_1 \in (0, 1), by Lemma 3.15. We begin by using Lemma 5.2 to estimate the eigenvectors of \bm{P}. To that end, first observe, by Lemma 2.2 and the fact that \bm{P} = \bm{L}(t), that \operatorname{eig} \bm{P} = (\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \ldots , \lambda_N). For each j \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket, recall that \bm{u}_j (t) = (u_j (N_1; t), u_j (N_1+1;t), \ldots , u_j (N_2;t)) \in \mathbb{R}^N denotes the nonnegatively normalized, unit eigenvector of \bm{P} with eigenvalue \lambda_j. For each j \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket, also let \psi_j \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket denote a N^{-1/2}-localization center for the eigenvector \bm{u}_j of \bm{L} of eigenvalue \lambda_j (which is guaranteed to exist, as \bm{u} is a unit vector). Since (?) does not hold, (?) implies for sufficiently large N that

Thus, for any i \in \{ \ell-1, \ell, \ell+1\} and k \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket, we either have |\Phi - \psi_j| \ge K_0 / 2 \ge T (\log N)^2 or |i - \psi_j| \ge K_0 / 2 \ge T (\log N)^2. Therefore, Lemma 5.2 yields a constant \mathfrak{c} \in (0, c_1 / 25) and an event \mathsf{E}_0 with \mathbb{P} [ \mathsf{E}_0^{\complement} ] \le \mathfrak{c}^{-1} e^{-25\mathfrak{c} (\log N)^2}, such that

Set \mathsf{E} = \mathsf{E}_0 \cap \mathsf{F}, which satisfies \mathbb{P} [ \mathsf{E}^{\complement} ] \le \mathfrak{c}^{-1} e^{-20 \mathfrak{c} (\log N)^2}, by (Proof) and a union bound.

Now, let us show that (?) holds with high probability for a fixed point z \in \Omega. Fix z_0 \in \Omega; abbreviate \check{G}_{ij} = \check{G}_{ij} (z_0) and \breve{G}_{ij} = \breve{G}_{ij} (z_0) for each i, j \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket. For \eta \ge e^{-\mathfrak{c} N^{1/100}}, we have

where the first inequality follows from (?), together with the fact that P_{ij} - M_{ij} \in \{ P_{ij}, 0 \} with P_{ij} - M_{ij} = 0 unless i, j \in \{ \ell - 1, \ell, \ell + 1 \}; the second from (?) (with the fact that \operatorname{Im} z_0 \ge \eta, as z_0 \in \Omega) and the definition (Proof) of \mathsf{F}; the third from (?), together with the bound |\lambda_k - z_0| \ge \operatorname{Im} z_0 \ge \eta for any k \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket; the fourth from (?); and the fifth from the fact that \eta \ge e^{-\mathfrak{c} N^{1/100}}. The estimate (?), together with a Markov bound, verifies (?) at z = z_0.

To extend it to all z \in \Omega, we first use a union bound to apply (?) on an e^{-3 \mathfrak{c} N^{1/100}}-mesh \Omega_0 \subset \Omega. Then, using (?) and (?), we approximate the resolvents of \bm{M} and \bm{P} at an arbitrary points z \in \Omega by those at the nearest point z_0 \in \Omega_0. This is very similar to what was done at the end of the proof of Lemma 5.4, so we omit further details.

We may assume in what follows that T \ge 3 and that \mathfrak{d} is sufficiently small, in a way to be determined later. We first restrict to several events.

Let \mathcal{T} \subseteq [0, T] denote an e^{-\mathfrak{d}(\log N)^2}-mesh of [0,T], and fix s \in \mathcal{T}. By Proposition 4.4, there exists a constant c_1>0; an event \mathsf{E}_1(s) with \mathbb{P}[\mathsf{E}_1 (s)^{\complement}] \le c_1^{-1} e^{-c_1 (\log N)^2}; and a random matrix \bm{M} (s) = [M_{ij} (s)] \in \operatorname{SymMat}_{\llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket} with the same law as \bm{L}(0), such that the following holds on \mathsf{E}_1 (s). Denoting N_1' = N_1 + T (\log N)^{5/2} and N_2' = N_2 - T(\log N)^{5/2}, we have

Corollary 5.6 (with the (\bm{L}, \tilde{\bm{L}}; \mathcal{D}; \delta; \tilde{\lambda}) there equal to (\bm{M}, \bm{L}(s); \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket \setminus \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket; e^{-(\log N)^{5/2}/5}; \lambda) here) therefore yields a constant c_2 > 0 and an event \mathsf{E}_2 (s) for each s \in \mathcal{T}, with \mathbb{P}[\mathsf{E}_2 (s)^{\complement}] \le c_2^{-1} e^{-c_2(\log N)^2}, such that the following holds on \mathsf{E}_2 (s). There exists a unique eigenvalue \mu = \mu(s) \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{M}(s) so that, for any N^{-2} \zeta-localization center \varphi_s \in \llbracket N_1' + (\log N)^3, N_2' - (\log N)^3 \rrbracket for \lambda with respect to \bm{L}(s) and any N^{-3} \zeta-localization center \psi_s \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket for \mu(s) with respect to \bm{M}(s), we have |\varphi_s - \psi_s| \le (\log N)^2.

Set \mathfrak{d}' = \mathfrak{d} / 8. Recalling Definition 3.13, let \mathsf{E}_3 = \bigcap_{r \ge 0} \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{L}(r)} (\log N) \cap \mathsf{SEP}_{\bm{L}(0)} (e^{-\mathfrak{d}'(\log N)^2}), so Lemma 3.15 and Lemma 3.18 give a constant c_3 = c_3 (\mathfrak{d}) >0 with \mathbb{P}[\mathsf{E}_3^{\complement}] \le c_3^{-1} e^{-c_3 (\log N)^2}. Further let \mathsf{E}_4 denote the event on which Lemma 5.2 holds, which satisfies \mathbb{P}[\mathsf{E}_4^{\complement}] \le c_4^{-1} e^{-c_4 (\log N)^2} for some c_4 > 0. We restrict to the event \mathsf{E} = \bigcap_{s \in \mathcal{T}} (\mathsf{E}_1 (s) \cap \mathsf{E}_2 (s)) \cap \mathsf{E}_3 \cap \mathsf{E}_4 in what follows, which for \mathfrak{d} < \min \{ c_1/2, c_2/2 \} satisfies \mathbb{P} [\mathsf{E}^{\complement}] \le c_5^{-1} e^{-c_5 (\log N)^2} for some c_5 >0, by a union bound.

By Lemma 5.2 (and our restriction to \mathsf{E}_4), we have for any N^{-1} \zeta-localization center \varphi_0 for \lambda with respect to \bm{L}(0) that |\varphi - \varphi_0| \le T(\log N)^2 and |\tilde{\varphi} - \varphi_0| \le T(\log N)^2. Therefore, |\varphi-\tilde{\varphi}| \le 2T(\log N)^2, so (?) implies that

Now, fix t \in [0, T], and let s \in \mathcal{T} satisfy |s-t| \le e^{-\mathfrak{d} (\log N)^2}, so |s-t'| \le 2 e^{-\mathfrak{d} (\log N)^2}. We will first apply Lemma 3.7, with the (\bm{A}; \bm{B}) there equal to (\bm{L}(t); \bm{L}(s)) here, to show that \varphi and \tilde{\varphi} are localization centers for \lambda with respect to \bm{L}(s). Then, we will apply our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2 (s) to deduce that \varphi and \tilde{\varphi} are close to a localization center of \mu(s) with respect to \bm{M}(s), and thus are close to each other.

To implement this, we require the third estimate in (?). So, for any r \in [0, T] and z \in \mathbb{C}, denote the resolvent G(z;r) = [G_{ij} (z;r)] = (\bm{L}(r)-z)^{-1} \in \operatorname{Mat}_{\llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket}. Observe that

where in the second inequality we used (?), (?), Definition 2.1, and our restriction to \mathsf{E}_3 (which together imply that |L_{ij}' (t)| \le 2 (\log N)^2). With (?) and (?), this implies that

where we have denoted \Omega = \{ z \in \mathbb{C} : e^{-2\mathfrak{d}' (\log N)^2} \le \operatorname{Im} z \le 1 \}.

Now we apply Lemma 3.7, with the parameters (\bm{A},\bm{B}; \lambda; \varphi; \eta, \delta) there equal to the parameters (\bm{L}(t),\bm{L}(s); \lambda; \varphi; e^{-2\mathfrak{d}' (\log N)^2}, e^{-2\mathfrak{d}'(\log N)^2}) here. This yields an eigenvalue \lambda' \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{L}(s) = \operatorname{eig} \bm{L}(t) such that |\lambda - \lambda'| \le 3N^2 \zeta^{-1} e^{-2\mathfrak{d}' (\log N)^2} < e^{-\mathfrak{d}' (\log N)^2} and \varphi is a N^{-2} \zeta-localization center for \lambda' with respect to \bm{L}(s). Due to our restriction to \mathsf{E}_3 \subseteq \mathsf{SEP}_{\bm{L}(s)} (e^{-\mathfrak{d}' (\log N)^2}), we have that \lambda = \lambda', meaning that \varphi is an N^{-2} \zeta-localization center for \lambda with respect to \bm{L}(s). By similar reasoning, \tilde{\varphi} is an N^{-2}\zeta-localization center for \lambda with respect to \bm{L}(s).

By our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2 (s), and the fact from (?) and (?) that \varphi, \tilde{\varphi} \in \llbracket N_1' + (\log N)^3, N_2' - (\log N)^3 \rrbracket, it follows that for any N^{-3} \zeta-localization center \psi_s \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket of \mu(s) with respect to \bm{M}(s) we have |\varphi - \psi_s| \le (\log N)^2 and |\tilde{\varphi} - \psi_s| \le (\log N)^2. Hence, |\varphi - \tilde{\varphi}| \le 2(\log N)^2, confirming the proposition.

Observe that it suffices to show for any fixed s \in [-T, T] that the below two statements hold with overwhelming probability. First, for any i, j \in \llbracket N_1 + T (\log N)^3, N_2 - T(\log N)^3 \rrbracket,

Second, for any i \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket with |i-j| \ge T (\log N)^5,

Indeed, if this were true then applying a union bound, we may restrict to the event \mathsf{E}_1 on which (Proof) and (?) hold for all s \in \mathcal{T}, where \mathcal{T} \subset [-T,T] is an N^{-20}-mesh of [-T,T]. Recalling Definition 3.13, we may further by Lemma 3.15 restrict to the event \mathsf{E}_2 = \bigcap_{s \ge 0} \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{L}(s)} (\log N). In view of (?), (?), Definition 2.1, and our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2, we have |q_k'(s)| \le \log N for all s \ge 0 and k \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket. Then, the two statements of the lemma hold for any s \in [-T, T]. Indeed, letting s' \in \mathcal{T} be such that |s-s'| \le N^{-20}, we have from (Proof) and the above bound on |q_k'(s)| that

which confirms (?). The verification of (?) from (?) is entirely analogous and thus omitted.

Hence, it remains to show (Proof) and (?). Throughout the remainder of this proof, we set K = T (\log N)^3. By Proposition 4.4, there is a family of random variables \tilde{\bm{a}} = (\tilde{a}_{N_1}, \tilde{a}_{N_1+1}, \ldots , \tilde{a}_{N_2-1}) \in \mathbb{R}^{N-1} and \tilde{\bm{b}} = (\tilde{b}_{N_1}, \tilde{b}_{N_1+1}, \ldots , \tilde{b}_{N_2}) \in \mathbb{R}^N, such that (\tilde{\bm{a}}; \tilde{\bm{b}}) has the same law as (\bm{a}; \bm{b}) and the following holds. There exists an overwhelmingly probable event \mathsf{E}_1, on which

We restrict to \mathsf{E}_1 in what follows and let (\tilde{\bm{p}}; \tilde{\bm{q}}) \in \mathbb{R}^N \times \mathbb{R}^N denote the Toda state space initial data associated with (\tilde{\bm{a}}; \tilde{\bm{b}}), as described in ?. Further define event

observing that \mathsf{E}_2 is overwhelmingly probable, by Lemma 3.12. Recalling Definition 3.13, we also define the event

which is overwhelmingly probable, by Lemma 3.15 and the explicit form of the density \mu_{\beta,\theta;N-1,N} for \bm{a}(0) (from Definition 2.4). Denoting the event \mathsf{E} = \mathsf{E}_1 \cap \mathsf{E}_2 \cap \mathsf{E}_3, we restrict to \mathsf{E} in what follows; it then suffices to show that (Proof) and (?) hold.

To that end, first observe that, for any i, i' \in \llbracket N_1+K, N_2-K \rrbracket, we have

where in the first bound we used (?), and in the second and third we used (?) and our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2 \cap \mathsf{E}_3. This, together with our restriction to the event \mathsf{E}_2, establishes (Proof) and thus the first statement of the lemma. To show the second, we suppose that \alpha > 0 and i \ge j + T (\log N)^5, as the proof when \alpha < 0 or i \le j - T (\log N)^5 is entirely analogous. Then, observe

where in the first and second statements we used our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2 \cap \mathsf{E}_3, the first equality in (?), and the fact that p_i (t) = b_i (t) by (?); in the third we used the fact that i-j \ge T (\log N)^5 and our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2; and in the fourth we again used the fact that i-j \ge T (\log N)^5. This confirms (?) and thus the second statement of the lemma when i \ge j + T (\log N)^5; since (as mentioned above) the proof when i \le j - T (\log N)^5 is entirely analogous, this establishes the lemma.

The proofs of (?) and (?) are very similar, so we only focus on the former. We may assume in what follows that (N_1', N_2') is fixed, by a union bound. Let us first establish (?) for any deterministic t \in [0, T], and then we will show it holds for all t \in [0, T].

So, fix t \in [0, T]. We first apply Proposition 4.4 to deduce the existence of a random matrix \bm{P} = [P_{ij}] \in \operatorname{SymMat}_{\llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket} with the same law as \bm{L}(0), and an overwhelmingly probable event \mathsf{E}_1, on which we have

where we used the fact that \llbracket N_1' - m, N_2' + m \rrbracket \subseteq \llbracket N_1 + T(\log N)^4, N_2 - T (\log N)^4 \rrbracket. Further set N' = N_2' - N_1' + 1 and define the N' \times N' symmetric matrix \bm{Q} = [Q_{ij}] \in \operatorname{SymMat}_{\llbracket N_1, N_2' \rrbracket} by setting Q_{ij} = P_{ij} whenever i, j \in \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket. Set \operatorname{eig} \bm{Q} = (\mu_1, \mu_2, \ldots , \mu_{N'}), and let \psi : \llbracket 1, N' \rrbracket \rightarrow \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket denote a \zeta-localization center bijection for \bm{Q}. Recalling Definition 3.13, we define the event \mathsf{E}_2 = \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{L}(t)} (\log N) \cap \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{P}} (\log N) \cap \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{Q}} (\log N) \cap \mathsf{SEP}_{\bm{L}(0)} (e^{-(\log N)^2}), which by Lemma 3.15 and Lemma 3.18 is overwhelmingly probable. We restrict to \mathsf{E}_1 \cap \mathsf{E}_2 in the below.

We will proceed by comparing the first sum on the left side of (?) to \operatorname{Tr} \bm{Q} = \sum_{\mu \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{Q}} \mu^m; use Corollary 5.6 to approximate the eigenvalues of \bm{Q} by those of \bm{L}(t); and compare the resulting expression to the second sum on the left side of (?). To implement the first task, observe that

where we have denoted the (i, j) entry of any matrix \bm{M} by [\bm{M}]_{ij}; here, the first statement holds by Definition 2.3 and the second by (?) and our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2. Next, since \bm{P} and \bm{Q} are tridiagonal and satisfy P_{ij} = Q_{ij} whenever i, j \in \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket, observe that [\bm{P}^m]_{ii} = [\bm{Q}^m]_{ii} for each i \in \llbracket N_1' +m, N_2' - m \rrbracket. We further have by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2 that each entry of \bm{P} and \bm{Q} is bounded by \log N, meaning (again since \bm{P} and \bm{Q} are tridiagonal) that each entry of \bm{P}^m and \bm{Q}^m is bounded by (3 \log N)^m. It follows that

Next, denote N_1'' = N_1' + (\log N)^3 and N_2'' = N_2' - (\log N)^3. Then,

where in the first bound we used that \operatorname{Tr} \bm{Q}^m = \sum_{\mu \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{Q}} \mu^m and |\llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket \setminus \llbracket N_1'', N_2'' \rrbracket| \le 2(\log N)^3, and in the second we used the fact that |\mu| \le \log N for any \mu \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{Q} (by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2).

Now, we apply Proposition 7.1 and Corollary 5.5, the latter with the (\bm{L}; \tilde{\bm{L}}; \delta; \mathcal{D}) there equal to (\bm{Q}; \bm{L}(t); e^{-(\log N)^3}; \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket \setminus \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket) here. This by (?) yields a constant c > 0, such that the following holds with overwhelming probability. There exists a function \kappa : \llbracket 1, N' \rrbracket \rightarrow \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket such that, for each j \in \llbracket 1, N' \rrbracket with \psi(j) \in \llbracket N_1'', N_2'' \rrbracket,

The second statement in (?) holds since Corollary 5.5 implies that \psi(j) is an N^{-1} \zeta-localization center of \lambda_{\kappa(j)} with respect to \bm{L}(t); therefore, since \varphi_t (\kappa(j)) is as well, Proposition 7.1 implies (as \psi(j) \in \llbracket N_1'', N_2'' \rrbracket) that |\psi(j) - \varphi_t (\kappa(j))| \le (\log N)^3. Further observe that, due our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2, we have |\lambda_i - \lambda_{i'}| \ge e^{-(\log N)^2} \ge 2e^{-c_1 (\log N)^3} for any distinct i, i' \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket; thus, \kappa(j) \ne \kappa (j') for any distinct j, j' \in \llbracket 1, N' \rrbracket with \psi (j), \psi(j') \in \llbracket N_1'', N_2'' \rrbracket. Therefore,

where the first statement holds by changing variables from j to \kappa(j) in the second sum there whenever \psi (j) \in \llbracket N_1'', N_2'' \rrbracket, and using (?) with the facts that \llbracket N_1'' - (\log N)^3, N_2 + (\log N)^3 \rrbracket = \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket and that |\llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket \setminus \llbracket N_1'', N_2'' \rrbracket| \le 2 (\log N)^3; the second follows from (?) with the fact that |\lambda| \le \log N for each \lambda \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{L}(t) (as we restricted to \mathsf{E}_2). Summing (?), (?), (?), and (?), we deduce that

This verifies that (?) holds with overwhelming probability for a fixed t \in [0, T]; it remains to show it holds with high probability for all t \in [0, T] simultaneously. To that end, for any t \in [0, T], let \mathsf{E}(t) denote the event on which (?) holds. We then have that \mathbb{P}[\mathsf{E}(t)^{\complement}] \le c_2^{-1} e^{-c_2 (\log N)^2} for some constant c_2 > 0. Denoting \mathfrak{c} = c_2/2, it follows from Proposition 7.1 that there exists a constant c_3>0 and an event \mathsf{E}_4 with \mathbb{P}[\mathsf{E}_4^{\complement}] \le c_3^{-1} e^{-c_3 (\log N)^2} such that the following holds on \mathsf{E}_4. For any s, s' \in [0, T] with |s-s'| \le e^{-\mathfrak{c}(\log N)^2}, we have |\varphi_s (i) - \varphi_{s'} (i)| \le (\log N)^3, whenenever \varphi = \varphi_s (i) satisfies (?). Letting \mathcal{T} denote an e^{-\mathfrak{c}(\log N)^2}-mesh of [0,T], we restrict to the event \bigcap_{s \in \mathcal{T}} \mathsf{E}(s) \cap \mathsf{E}_4 \cap \bigcap_{r \ge 0} \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{L}(r)} (\log N), which we may by a union bound (and Lemma 3.15).

Now let t \in [0, T] be arbitrary, and let s \in \mathcal{T} satisfy |t-s| \le e^{-\mathfrak{c} (\log N)^2}. Then, we claim that

which together with (?) (with the t there equal to s here) would imply the proposition.

To verify the first bound in (?), observe for any i, j \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket that

where in the second inequality we used Definition 2.1, (?), (?), and our restriction to the event \bigcap_{r \ge 0} \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{L}(r)} (\log N). Since the same event implies that each entry of \bm{L}(s) and \bm{L}(t) is bounded by \log N, and both of these matrices are tridiagonal, it follows for any i \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket that

Summing over i \in \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket confirms the first bound in (?). The second bound in (?) follows from the fact that |\lambda| \le \log N for any \lambda \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{L}(t) (by our restriction to \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{L}(t)} (\log N)), with the fact that there are at most 4 (\log N)^3 indices i for which \varphi_s (i) \in \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket and \varphi_t (i) \notin \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket or for which \varphi_s (i) \notin \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket and \varphi_t (i) \in \llbracket N_1', N_2' \rrbracket (as |\varphi_t (i) - \varphi_s (i)| \le (\log N)^3, by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_4). This proves (?) and thus (?).

As mentioned previously, the proof of (?) is entirely analogous, and is obtained by replacing the application of Proposition 4.4 and Corollary 5.6 above with Proposition 6.3 (with the \ell there equal to k here); we omit further details.

This theorem will follow from applying Theorem 8.5 on a mesh of times \mathcal{T} \subset [0, T], and using continuity bounds to show that it continues to hold on all of [0, T]. Since the proof is similar to the discussions at the end of the proofs of Theorem 2.11 and Theorem 8.5, we only outline it.

Let \mathfrak{c} denote the constant c from Theorem 8.5 and, for any t \in [0, T], let \mathsf{E}(t) denote the event on which (?) holds for all k \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket satisfying (?). Denoting \mathfrak{c}' = \mathfrak{c}/2, let \mathcal{T} \subset [0, T] denote a e^{-\mathfrak{c}'(\log N)^2}-mesh of [0, T]; by a union bound, we may restrict to the event \mathsf{F}_1 = \bigcap_{s \in \mathcal{T}} \mathsf{E}(s). We further restrict to the event \mathsf{F}_2 on which Proposition 7.1 holds, with the \mathfrak{d} there equal to \mathfrak{c}' here; we additionally restrict to the intersection \mathsf{F}_3 of all of the events from the proof of Theorem 8.5.

Now fix t \in [0, T], and let s \in \mathcal{S} be such that |s-t| \le e^{-\mathfrak{c}' (\log N)^2}. By our restriction to \mathsf{F}_1, we have from (?) that

Since |\lambda_k| \cdot |s-t| \le \log N \cdot e^{-\mathfrak{c}' (\log N)^2} \le 1 and |\log |\lambda_k-\lambda_i|| \le (\log N)^2 for i \ne k (both by our restriction to \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{L}(0)} (\log N) \cap \mathsf{SEP}_{\bm{L}(0)} (e^{-(\log N)^2}), from the event \mathsf{E}_2 in the proof of Theorem 8.5), it suffices to show that

The first bound in (?) follows from the fact that

where the first statement follows from the definition (?) of Q_k; the second follows from (?), (?), and (?); and the third follows from the fact that |\varphi_t (k) - \varphi_s (k)| \le (\log N)^3 (by Proposition 7.1, as we restricted to \mathsf{F}_2), Definition 2.1, and our restriction to \mathsf{F}_3 \subseteq \bigcap_{r \ge 0} \mathsf{BND}_{\bm{L}(r)} (\log N). The proof of the second bound in (?) is entirely analogous to that of (?) (using the fact that |\varphi_t (j) - \varphi_s (j)| \le (\log N)^3 for \varphi_s (j) \in \llbracket N_1 + T(\log N)^3, N_2 - T (\log N)^3 \rrbracket, by Proposition 7.1 and our restriction to \mathsf{F}_2). This establishes the theorem.

This follows from Lemma 8.3 and Lemma 8.4.

Fix k \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket satisfying (?), and observe by Lemma 3.6 that

By Lemma 5.2, there is an overwhelmingly probable event \mathsf{E}_1, on which we have | \varphi_t (k) - \varphi_0 (k) | \le T (\log N)^2. Observe on \mathsf{E}_1 that N_1 + T (\log N)^5 + N^{1/100} \le \varphi_s (k) \le N_2 - T (\log N)^5 - N^{1/100} for each s \in \{ 0, t \}, by (?). We restrict to \mathsf{E}_1 in what follows.

By Proposition 6.1, there exists an overwhelmingly probable event \mathsf{E}_2, on which the following holds. For any real number s \in \{ 0, t \}, we have

where we used that N_1 + T(\log N)^5 + N^{1/100} \le \varphi_s (k) \le N_2 - T(\log N)^5 - N^{1/100}. We further restrict to \mathsf{E}_2 below. Since Definition 2.1, (?), and Assumption 2.8 together imply that

we obtain by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_1 \cap \mathsf{E}_2 that, for each s \in \{ 0 ,t \},

Subtracting this bound at s = 0 from it at s = t, and applying (Proof), then yields the lemma.

We will establish this proposition by averaging an estimate on the left side of (?) over all k \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket. To that end, let \mathsf{E}_1 denote the event on which (?) holds for each k \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket satisfying (?). By Lemma 8.3, \mathsf{E}_1 is overwhelmingly probable. We will define additional events on which we can bound the left side of (?) for k \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket not necessarily satisfying (?). Specifically, recalling Definition 3.13, set

Then \mathsf{E}_2 is overwhelmingly probable, by Lemma 3.15 and Lemma 3.18, and \mathsf{E}_3 is overwhelmingly probable, by Lemma 5.2. We further define the event

which by Lemma 3.12 and a union bound is overwhelmingly probable. Defining the event \mathsf{E} = \mathsf{E}_1 \cap \mathsf{E}_2 \cap \mathsf{E}_3 \cap \mathsf{E}_4, we may by a union bound restrict to \mathsf{E} in what follows.

Then, for any k \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket, we have

where we used the definition Q_k (s) = q_{\varphi_s (k)} (s) (from (?)) and the facts that |\lambda_k| \le \log N and that | \log |\lambda_i - \lambda_k || \le (\log N)^2 (both by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2). We next bound the terms on the right side of (?). Observe by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_4 that

since | \varphi_t (k) - \varphi_0 (k) | \le T(\log N)^2, by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_3. Additionally,

where in the first inequality we used (?) and (?); in the second we used the fact that t \in [0, T] and our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2. Moreover,

where the first and fourth inequalities follow from our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2; the second from the definition (?) of \mathfrak{C}(t), with the fact that there exists at least one index j \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket for which u_j (N_1; 0)^2 \ge N^{-1}; and the third from the definition (?) of \mathfrak{C}(t), with the fact that u_j (N_1;0)^2 \le 1 for each j \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket. We further have that

Indeed, to verify the first bound in (?), observe (by our restriction to the event \mathsf{E}_3) that if \varphi_t (i) < \varphi_t (k) - 2T (\log N)^2 then \varphi_0 (i) \le \varphi_t (i) + T (\log N)^2 < \varphi_t (k) - T(\log N)^2 \le \varphi_0 (k). In particular, we can only have \varphi_t (i) < \varphi_t (k) and \varphi_0 (i) > \varphi_0 (k) if \varphi_t (i) \in \llbracket \varphi_t (k) - 2T (\log N)^2, \varphi_t (k) - 1 \rrbracket, meaning that there are at most 2T(\log N)^2 such indices i. This shows the first statement in (?); the second is confirmed entirely analogously.

Inserting (?), (?), (?), and (?) into (?), we obtain for any k \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket that

Summing this inequality over k \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket with \varphi_0 (k) \notin \llbracket N_1 + T (\log N)^6 + N^{1/100}, N_2 - T (\log N)^6 - N^{1/100} \rrbracket with (?) over k \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket with \varphi_0 \in \llbracket N_1 + T(\log N)^6 + N^{1/100}, N_2 - T (\log N)^6 - N^{1/100} \rrbracket, we obtain

The difference between of the third and fourth terms on the left side of (?) is equal to 0, since both are equal to \sum_{i \ne j} \log |\lambda_i - \lambda_j|. The difference between the first and the second is also equal to 0, as

where the first statement follows from (?); the second from (?) and Definition 2.1; and the third and fourth from Lemma 2.2. It follows from (?) that

where we used the fact that T^2 \le N. This establishes the lemma.

By Proposition 8.2, (?) holds with overwhelming probability, if T^2 \le N. It suffices to show such a bound continues to hold for larger values of T \le N (\log N)^{-7} (and to weaken the constraint (?) on k to (?)).

To that end, we first apply (?) on a Toda lattice on a larger interval (at thermal equilibrium), and then use comparison estimates (such as Corollary 5.6 and Lemma 4.5) to approximate the original Toda lattice by the enlarged one. To implement this, first let \tilde{N}_1 \le \tilde{N}_2 be integers satisfying

where \tilde{N} = \tilde{N}_2 - \tilde{N}_1 + 1. Let (\tilde{\bm{a}} (s); \tilde{\bm{b}} (s)) \in \mathbb{R}^{\tilde{N}} \times \mathbb{R}^{\tilde{N}} denote the Flaschka variables for a Toda lattice on \llbracket \tilde{N}_1, \tilde{N}_2 \rrbracket; letting \tilde{\bm{a}} (s) = (\tilde{a}_{\tilde{N}_1} (s), \tilde{a}_{\tilde{N}_1+1} (s), \ldots , \tilde{a}_{\tilde{N}_2} (s)) and \tilde{\bm{b}} (s) = (\tilde{b}_{\tilde{N}_1} (s), \tilde{b}_{\tilde{N}_1+1} (s), \ldots , \tilde{b}_{\tilde{N}_2}(s)), they satisfy \tilde{a}_{\tilde{N}_2} (s) = 0, and (?) holds for each (j, t) \in \llbracket \tilde{N}_1, \tilde{N}_2 \rrbracket \times \mathbb{R}. We sample the initial data (\tilde{\bm{a}}(0);\tilde{\bm{b}}(0)) according to the thermal equilibrium \mu_{\beta,\theta;\tilde{N}-1,\tilde{N}} of Definition 2.4; we couple (\tilde{\bm{a}}(0);\tilde{\bm{b}}(0)) with (\bm{a}(0);\bm{b}(0)) so that (\tilde{a}_i(0),\tilde{b}_i(0)) = (a_i(0), b_i(0)) for all i \in \llbracket N_1, N_2 - 1 \rrbracket.

For any s \in \mathbb{R}, denote the Lax matrix associated with (\tilde{\bm{a}}(s);\tilde{\bm{b}}(s)) (as in Definition 2.1) by \tilde{\bm{L}}(s) = [\tilde{L}_{ij}(s)] \in \operatorname{SymMat}_{\tilde{N}\times\tilde{N}}. Set \operatorname{eig} \tilde{\bm{L}}(s) = (\tilde{\lambda}_1, \tilde{\lambda}_2, \ldots , \tilde{\lambda}_{\tilde{N}}), which does not depend on s (by Lemma 2.2). For each s \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}, let \tilde{\varphi}_s : \llbracket 1, \tilde{N} \rrbracket \rightarrow \llbracket \tilde{N}_1, \tilde{N}_2 \rrbracket denote a \zeta-localization center bijection for \tilde{\bm{L}}(s). Further let (\tilde{\bm{p}} (s); \tilde{\bm{q}}(s)) \in \mathbb{R}^{\tilde{N}} \times \mathbb{R}^{\tilde{N}} denote the Toda state space variables associated with (\tilde{\bm{a}}(s); \tilde{\bm{b}}(s)), as in ?, where we have indexed \tilde{\bm{p}} (s) = (\tilde{p}_{\tilde{N}_1} (s), \tilde{p}_{\tilde{N}_1+1} (s), \ldots , \tilde{p}_{\tilde{N}_2} (s)) and \tilde{\bm{q}} (s) = (\tilde{q}_{\tilde{N}_1} (s), \tilde{q}_{\tilde{N}_1+1} (s), \ldots , \tilde{q}_{\tilde{N}_2} (s)). For each s \in \mathbb{R} and i \in \llbracket 1, \tilde{N} \rrbracket, denote \tilde{Q}_i (s) = \tilde{q}_{\tilde{\varphi}_s (i)} (s).

By (?) and the fact that T^2 \le \tilde{N} \le N^5, there exists an overwhelmingly probable event \mathsf{E}_1, on which we have

for any m \in \llbracket 1, \tilde{N} \rrbracket satisfying

In what follows, we restrict to \mathsf{E}_1. We must therefore approximate the parameters (\tilde{Q}_j (s), \tilde{\lambda}_j, \tilde{\varphi}_s (j)) by (Q_j (s), \lambda_j, \varphi_s (j)), which we will do using Lemma 4.5 and Corollary 5.6 (with the fact that \bm{q}(0) and \tilde{\bm{q}}(0) coincide near the origin).

To do so, we restrict to several additional events. Recalling Definition 3.13, restrict to the event

which we may by Lemma 3.15 and Lemma 3.18. Further restrict to the event \mathsf{E}_3 on which Lemma 7.2 holds, with the \bm{q} there equal to both \bm{q} here and \tilde{\bm{q}} here. Additionally restrict to the event \mathsf{E}_4 on which Lemma 5.2 holds, with the (\bm{L};\varphi_j) there equal to both (\bm{L}(0); \varphi_0 (j)) and (\tilde{\bm{L}}(0); \tilde{\varphi}_0 (j)) here, and on which Proposition 2.9 holds, with the \bm{L}(t) there equal to both \bm{L}(t) and \tilde{\bm{L}}(t) here.

Now, setting K = T(\log N)^3/2, we have by (the A = \log N / 400 case of) Lemma 4.5 that

Next, by Proposition 4.4, there are random matrices \bm{M} = [M_{ij}] \in \operatorname{SymMat}_{\llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket} and \tilde{\bm{M}} = [\tilde{M}_{ij}] \in \operatorname{SymMat}_{\llbracket \tilde{N}_1, \tilde{N}_2 \rrbracket} with the same laws as \bm{L}(0) and \tilde{\bm{L}}(0), respectively, and an overwhelmingly probable event \mathsf{E}_5, on which we have

Restricting to \mathsf{E}_5, we may therefore (by (?) and (?)) further restrict to the event \mathsf{E}_6 on which Corollary 5.5 and Corollary 5.6 hold, with the (\delta; \mathcal{D}) there equal to (2e^{-(\log N)^3/10}; \llbracket \tilde{N}_1, \tilde{N}_2 \rrbracket \setminus \llbracket N_1+K, N_2-K \rrbracket) here, and the (\bm{L}, \tilde{\bm{L}}) equal to any of (\bm{L}(0), \tilde{\bm{L}}(0)), (\bm{M},\bm{L}(t)), (\tilde{\bm{M}},\tilde{\bm{L}}(t)), and (\tilde{\bm{M}}, \bm{M}) here (where we view \bm{M} and \bm{L}(0) as \tilde{N} \times \tilde{N} matrices by setting M_{ij} = L_{ij} (0) = 0 if (i,j) \in \llbracket \tilde{N}_1, \tilde{N}_2 \rrbracket \setminus \llbracket N_1, N_2 \rrbracket).

Now, let i \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket be any index satisfying

Our restriction to \mathsf{E}_4 implies from (?) that N_1 + 2 T(\log \tilde{N})^3 \le \varphi_t (i) \le N_2 - 2 T(\log \tilde{N})^3. Recalling that T \ge N^{1/2} \ge 250 (as otherwise the theorem follows from Proposition 8.2), this will enable us to use our restriction to \mathsf{E}_6 to apply Corollary 5.6 twice, first with the (\bm{L}, \tilde{\bm{L}}) there equal to (\bm{M}; \bm{L}(t)) here and then with them equal to (\tilde{\bm{M}}; \bm{M}), and also to apply Corollary 5.5 with the (\bm{L}; \tilde{\bm{L}}) there equal to (\tilde{\bm{M}}; \tilde{\bm{L}}(t)). The first yields a constant c_2>0 and an eigenvalue \mu \in \operatorname{eig} \bm{M} such that |\mu - \lambda_i| \le c_2^{-1} e^{-c_2 (\log N)^3} and \varphi_t (i) is an N^{-1} \zeta-localization center for \mu with respect to \bm{M}. The second yields an eigenvalue \tilde{\mu} \in \operatorname{eig} \tilde{\bm{M}} such that |\mu - \tilde{\mu}| \le c_2^{-1} e^{-c_2 (\log N)^3} and \varphi_t (i) is an N^{-2} \zeta-localization center for \tilde{\mu} with respect to \tilde{\bm{M}}. The third yields an index \sigma(i) \in \llbracket 1, \tilde{N} \rrbracket such that |\tilde{\mu} - \tilde{\lambda}_{\sigma(i)}| \le c_2^{-1} e^{-c_2 (\log N)^3} and \varphi_t (i) is an N^{-3} \zeta-localization center of \tilde{\lambda}_{\sigma(i)} with respect to \tilde{\bm{L}}(t). By Proposition 2.9 (and our restriction to \mathsf{E}_4), we have |\varphi_t (i) - \tilde{\varphi}_t (\sigma(i))| \le (\log \tilde{N})^3, and hence

where the last bound follows again from similar reasoning to the second (taken at t=0). Observe by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_2 \subseteq \mathsf{SEP}_{\tilde{\bm{L}}(t)} (e^{-(\log N)^2}) and the first inequality in (?) that the map from i to \sigma(i) is injective.

Then, by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_1 on which (?) holds (taking the m there to be \sigma(k), which satisfies (?) by (?) and (?)), and the fact that \llbracket N_1 + (\log N)^6, N_2 - (\log N)^6 \rrbracket \subseteq \llbracket N_1 + 3 (\log \tilde{N})^3, N_2 - 3 (\log \tilde{N})^3 \rrbracket \subseteq \llbracket \tilde{N}_1 + T (\log \tilde{N})^6 + \tilde{N}^{1/100}, \tilde{N}_2 - T(\log \tilde{N})^6 - \tilde{N}^{1/100} \rrbracket (by (?)), it suffices to show that

and

Taking i = k in the first statement of (?) (using (?) to verify (?)) yields the first bound in (?). The proofs of the second and third are entirely analogous to each other, so we only verify the third. To do so, observe by (?), (?), and (?) that, for any i \in \llbracket N_1+K,N_2-K \rrbracket,

as q_i (0) = \tilde{q}_i (0). Additionally, (?) implies for i, j \in \llbracket N_1 + T(\log N)^3, N_2 - T (\log N)^3 \rrbracket that

by our restriction to \mathsf{E}_3. Combining this with (?), (?), and the definition (?) of Q_k yields

which confirms the third bound in (?).

It therefore remains to verify (?). To that end, let

and \sigma (\mathcal{S}) = \{ \sigma(i): i \in \mathcal{S} \}. First suppose that i \in \llbracket 1, N \rrbracket \setminus \mathcal{S}. Then, since (?) (and our restriction to \mathsf{E}_4) implies that |\varphi_t (i) - \varphi_0 (i)| \le T (\log N)^2, we have from (?) that \mathbbm{1}_{\varphi_t (i) < \varphi_t (k)} = \mathbbm{1}_{\varphi_0 (i) < \varphi_0 (k)}. Hence, we may restrict the second sum in (?) to i \in \mathcal{S}. Similarly, we may restrict the first sum in (?) to i \in \tilde{\mathcal{S}}. Therefore, we have

where

By our restriction to the event \mathsf{E}_2, we have

Together with the first bound in (?), this implies that |\log |\tilde{\lambda}_{\sigma(k)} - \tilde{\lambda}_{\sigma(i)}| - \log |\lambda_k-\lambda_i|| \le e^{-(\log N)^2} for each i \in \mathcal{S}, and so

By the second and third bounds in (?), that are at most 500 (\log N)^3 indices i \in \mathcal{S} for which

Since this quantity is always bounded above by 2, (?) implies that

By the last inequality in (?) and the injectivity of \sigma, it is quickly verified that \# ( (\tilde{\mathcal{S}} \cup \sigma(\mathcal{S})) \setminus (\tilde{\mathcal{S}} \cap \sigma(\mathcal{S})) ) \le 500 (\log N)^3, from which we deduce again by (?) that C \le 500 (\log N)^5. This, with (?), (?), and (?), yields (?) and thus the theorem.