Invertibility for non-Hermitian and symmetric random band matrices with sublinear bandwidth and discrete entries

By the discussion at the beginning of Section ?, we have

where the last inequality follows from conditioning on the random variables of v^\mathbf{I} indexed by [n]\setminus I_{n_\mathbf{I}} and partitioning the event into two cases: either the conclusion of Theorem 2.4 holds for all v_{I_{n_\mathbf{I}}} and all \mathbf{I}, or the conclusion of the theorem does not hold for one choice of \mathbf{I}, and the latter probability is at most n\exp(-\Omega(n)). This concludes the proof.

This follows from combining Lemma 3.16, 3.17, 3.19 and Corollary 3.24.

Let \mu\in(0,\frac{1}{4}] be a constant to be determined later, and v\in\mathbb{F}_p^n\setminus\{0\}. For each interval I_k, we need to study the arithmetic properties of v_{I_k}.

Classification of vectors. We will classify the vector v_{I_k} into three possible cases, either (1) that v_{I_k} has a very small support; or (2) v_{I_k} has large support and very nice anti-concentration property, in the sense that \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\in(0,\frac{2}{p}]; or (3) v_{I_k} has a large support but not good enough anti-concentration property, in the sense that \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\in[\frac{2}{p},1]. For the last case, we will consider a dyadic decomposition of the range \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\in[\frac{2}{p},1]. To summarize, we will classify the vectors v_{I_k} into the following three possible categories, for each k with 1\leq k\leq \lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1:

1. If 0<|v_{I_k}|\leq K where K is given in Lemma 2.3, then we only need at most K coordinates to define v_{I_k} .

2. If |v_{I_k}|\geq K and \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\leq\frac{2}{p}, then we can enumerate all vectors v_{I_k} as they can take all the p^{|I_k|} possible vectors.

3. In the remaining case where |v_{I_k}|\geq K and \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\in[\frac{2}{p},1], we consider a dyadic decomposition for the interval [\frac{2}{p},1]\subset\cup_{i=1}^{\log_2 p}[2^{-i},2^{-i+1}] for the range of \rho_\mu(v_{I_k}).

The total number of intervals needed for the dyadic decomposition is

under the assumption that e_n\geq n^\alpha and \alpha>\frac{2}{3}.

Classification of the arithmetic condition of each vector. The proof of this theorem follows from exhausting all the possible values for \rho_\mu(v_{I_k}),1\leq k\leq \lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1 and using the inverse Littlewood-Offord counting theorem, Theorem 2.2, for vectors in case (3). We will consider two special scenarios (A), (B) and one general scenario (C).

For scenario (A) we assume that all the components v_{I_k} belong to case (3) above except the label k=n_\mathbf{I}. For scenario (B) we roughly assume that each v_{I_k} is in either case (1) or case (2) above, and finally the general scenario (C) roughly covers the case where each v_{I_k} can be of category either (1) or (2) or (3). For technical reasons we will consider a slightly more general scenario (B'), so that (A)\cup (B)\cup (B')\cup (C) covers all possibilities.

We analyze each scenario in more details below. We also condition on the value c_{ij} in the decomposition a_{ij}=c_{ij}+u_{ij} for all |i-j|\leq d_n.

(A) Assume that \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\leq\frac{2}{p} for all 1\leq k\leq \lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1:k\neq n_\mathbf{I}. That is, all components v_{I_k} of v, except the k=n_\mathbf{I}-th component that we ask about, have very good anti-concentration properties. Then we can upper bound \mathbb{P}(A_n^\mathbf{I}v=0) as follows: for each row of A_n^\mathbf{I} whose index lies in I_k, k\neq n_\mathbf{I}, we use the randomness in the D_k component in (?) and condition on all other random variables in the same row. For the rows with index lying in I_{n_\mathbf{I}}, we either use the randomness in U_{k+1} or the randomness in T_{k-1} (we can choose either of U_{k+1} or T_{k-1} if k\neq 1 and k\neq \lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1, but we can only choose U_2 for k=1 and we can only choose T_{\lfloor n/e_n\rfloor} for k=\lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1). Then

where we use \rho(v_{I_k})\leq\rho_\mu(v_{I_k}). Let \tau>0 be another constant to be fixed later, and we upper bound the cardinality of all vectors v_{I_{n_\mathbf{I}}}\in \mathbb{F}_p^{|I_{n_\mathbf{I}}|} with \rho_\mu(v_{I_{n_\mathbf{I}}})\geq\exp(-\tau n^{\alpha/2}) by

where we apply Theorem 2.2 to get the above upper bound. More precisely, by Theorem 2.2, we can set up a mapping f from v_{I_{n_\mathbf{I}}} to a subset T\subset I_{n_\mathbf{I}} . The 2^{|I_{n_\mathbf{I}}|} factor upper bounds the choice for T, the first p^{\frac{2\tau}{\mu} n^{\alpha/2}} term upper bounds the number of vectors v_T, the second term of p^{\frac{2\tau}{\mu} n^{\alpha/2}} upper bounds the number of choice of v in at most D:=\frac{2\tau}{\mu}n^{\alpha/2} coordinates not included in N_\mu(w) with w:=v_T, and the last term bounds the number of choices of coordinates of v_i\in N_\mu(w). (The case where |v|\leq D, which is excluded by Theorem 2.2, is also upper bounded by the above expression.)

Then combining the previous two expressions and applying a union bound, we get

where a=O_{\mu,\tau}(b) means a\leq Cb for C a constant depending only on \mu, \tau and \alpha.

Recall that we take p=\exp(\rho n^{\alpha/2}) and |I_{n_\mathbf{I}}|\geq n^\alpha with \alpha>\frac{2}{3}, we see that as long as \tau<\rho/2, the above expression is super-exponentially small, which is actually at most \exp(-\Omega(n^{1.5\alpha})). Thus with probability at least 1-\exp(-\Omega(n^{1.5\alpha})), no such vector as described in the first line of (?) lies in \ker A_n^\mathbf{I}. Formally, we have proven that

To summarize, we have proven the following claim:

(B) Then we consider the second case where none of the v_{I_k}, 1\leq k\leq \lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1 satisfies \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\leq\frac{e_n}{p}. We first assume that |v_{I_k}|\geq K for each 1\leq k\leq \lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1 (where K>0 is a fixed constant specified in Lemma 2.3), and treat the other case (that is, where |v_{I_k}|\leq K for some k), at the end of scenario (B) by a simple modification. Let t_1,\cdots,t_{\lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1} be integers such that \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\in[2^{-t_k},2^{-t_k+1}] for each k. Then we upper bound the probability \mathbb{P}(A_n^\mathbf{I}v=0) by conditioning on all the random variables away from the diagonal blocks D_1,D_2,\cdots,D_{\lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1} and using randomness only from these diagonal blocks:

where in the second line we take any value of c\in(0,1) to be fixed at the end of proof and use Lemma 2.3 to get a value \mu\in(0,\frac{1}{4}] such that Lemma 2.3 holds with this value c. The indicator function 1_{k=n_\mathbf{I}} comes from removal of the \mathbf{I}-th row from A_n^\mathbf{I}.

Then we compute the cardinality of vectors v_{I_1},\cdots,v_{I_k},\cdots,v_{I_{\lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1}} satisfying the stated constraint on anticoncentration. Set D_k=\frac{2}{\mu}(t_k+1) for each k, as we apply Theorem 2.2, for each v_{I_k} we have at most 2^{|I_k|} choices for T, p^{D_k} choices for w, and 2^{(t_k+9)} choices for every other coordinate of v_{I_k}. By Theorem 2.2, the total cardinality for these vectors of v_{I_k} is at most

where the first term 2^{|{I_k}|} comes from the choice of T\subset I_k, the two powers p^{D_k} come from the choice of v_{ T} and the coordinates of v_{I_k} not in T, and the last term is the cardinality of N_\mu(v_T). Finally, note that t_k+1\leq\log_2 p\leq 2\log p, which leads to the \frac{8}{\mu}(\log p)^2 exponent.

Taking the product for all k=1,2,\cdots,\lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1, we have via a direct union bound,

By our assumption, (\log p)^2\frac{n}{e_n}\leq \rho^2n^\alpha\frac{n}{n^\alpha/s}\leq\rho^2 sn for s fixed (where e_n=\lfloor d_n/s\rfloor), so that by setting c>0 small [this fixes \mu] and then setting \rho>0 sufficiently small relative to \mu, we can guarantee that the second line of (?) is at most \exp(-\Omega(n)). Since the number of dyadic decompositions is at most 2^{o(n)} by (?), the eventual probability for a vector v in case (B) to be in \ker A_n^\mathbf{I} (such that |v_{I_k}|\geq K for each k) is \exp(-\Omega(n)). That is,

We now treat the leftover case where for some k, we have v_{I_k}=0 or 0<|v_{I_k}|<K for the constant K>0 in Lemma 2.3. Denote by \mathcal{R} the subset of indices k such that |v_{I_k}|\leq K. Then whenever 0<|v_{I_k}|\leq K we use the trivial fact that \rho(v_{I_k})\leq\frac{1}{2} combined with the following upper bound on the number of such v_{I_k}: the cardinality is bounded by

If v_{I_k}=0, then we proceed trivially. The similarly as in estimate (?), we deduce that for any possible choice of the set \mathcal{R}, we have

Enumerating all the possible subsets \mathcal{R}\subset[\lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1], we have considered all vectors in our type (B), and thus we have verified that

(B’) We also need to consider the case where for exactly one k we have \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\leq \frac{e_n}{p} holds. For this case we use the same estimate as in case (B) for v_{I_l},l\neq k, but for component v_{I_k} we use all the p^{|I_k|} possible values of v_{I_k}. Then the probability estimate in (?) would now have the form pc^{n-1-|I_k|}2^{20n}e^{\frac{8}{\mu}(\log p)^2\frac{n}{e_n}}\cdot (e_n)^{e_n}. But we have (e_n)^{e_n}=2^{o(n)} (this follows from our assumption e_n\leq n^{1-\beta}), so the above quantity is again \exp(-\Omega(n)). That is, we can verify that

To summarize, we have proven the following claim:

(C) Finally, we consider the general case where \rho_\mu(v_{I_{n_\mathbf{I}}})\geq\exp(-\tau n^{\alpha/2}), with \tau=\rho/2, and there exists some k\neq n_{\mathbf{I}},k\neq \lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1 such that \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\leq\frac{e_n}{p}. That is,

Note that \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\leq\frac{e_n}{p} immediately implies |v_{I_k}|\geq K for any fixed K when n is large enough. Observe that the complement of case (C) is studied in case (B) and (B’). Fix one such value k_* such that \rho_\mu(v_{I_{k_*}})\leq\frac{e_n}{p}. We assume without loss of generality that k_*<n_\mathbf{I}.

Then we can find a sequence of integers n_\mathbf{I}=k_0>k_1>k_2\geq\cdots>k_\Delta:=k_* (\Delta\in\mathbb{N} is an integer) such that k_i is the largest index in [1,k_{i-1}] such that \rho_\mu(v_{I_{k_i}})\leq\rho_\mu(v_{I_{k_{i-1}}}) for each i, where we denote by k_0=n_\mathbf{I}. That is, we find the maximal chain of indices k_0,k_1,\cdots,k_\Delta where \rho_\mu(v_{I_{k_i}}) is decreasing as i increases from 0 to \Delta. We clearly have by definition of n_\mathbf{I}=k_0 and k_*=k_\Delta that

We upper bound \mathbb{P}(A_n^\mathbf{I}v=0) via the following approach: for rows indexed in I_{k_i+1} we use randomness from T_{I_{k_i}} (see (?)), and for all other rows indexed by I_l we use randomness from the diagonal component D_l. This helps us to make the best use of anticoncentration properties for each component of v. More formally, for this vector v,

Then we have, using Fact 2.1(To clarify, in contrast to case (B), in case (C) we only use the trivial monotonicity inequality \rho(v_{I_k})\leq\rho_\mu(v_{I_k}) instead of the more refined one \rho(v_{I_k})\leq c\rho_\mu(v_{I_k}), and the former always holds for any v_{I_k}.) which states \rho(v_{I_k})\leq\rho_\mu(v_{I_k}) for any k and \mu\in(0,\frac{1}{4}],

We now count the number of possible vectors v that contribute to A_n^\mathbf{I}v=0. Let \Omega_1,\Omega_2 be a partition of \lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1 such that k\in\Omega_1 if \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\geq\frac{2}{p}, and k\in\Omega_2 if \rho_\mu(v_{I_{k}})\leq\frac{2}{p}. Then for each k\in\Omega_1 we can find t_k\in\mathbb{N} such that \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\in [2^{-t_k},2^{-t_k+1}]. Then applying Theorem 2.2, we get similarly as in (?) that

If k\in\Omega_2 then we simply bound the cardinality of possible vectors v_{I_k} by p^{|I_k|}.

Then by a direct union bound, we have for each choice of \{t_i\} and \Omega_1,\Omega_2,

where we have applied (?) to the last term on the right hand side of (?). Simplifying the above expression and noting that n^{\alpha/2}|I_{n_\mathbf{I}}|\geq n^{1.5\alpha} and \alpha>\frac{2}{3}, the last display is at most \exp(-\Omega(n^{1.5\alpha})). Summing over all possible choices of \Omega_1,\Omega_2 and \{t_i\}, which has cardinality 2^{o(n)}, we conclude that

To summarize, we have proven the following claim:

Summarizing cases (A), (B), (B’) and (C), which result in Claim ?, ? and ?, we conclude that there exists a suitable choice of \rho,\tau>0 and \mu\in(0,\frac{1}{4}] such that

This completes the entire proof of Theorem 2.4.

We combine Lemma 3.4, 3.8, 3.10 and 3.13 to deduce that, we can find a choice of c_0\in(0,1) such that, for any c\in(0,c_0) we can find \mu=\mu(c_0) [This is the same function in all four lemmas] such that we can find a \rho(\mu)>0 [\rho(\mu) is a function of \mu] satisfying that, for any 0<\rho<\rho(\mu) and \tau=\rho/32, the following holds with probability 1-\exp(-\Omega(n)): there exists no vector v\in\mathbb{F}_p^n\setminus\{0\} of either type I(\mu) or II(\mu) or III(\mu) or IV(\mu) such that S_n\cdot v=0.

By Fact 3.12, these four types of vectors cover all vectors v such that for some k, \min(\rho_\mu(v_{I_k}),\rho_\mu(v_{I_{k+1}}))\geq\exp(-\tau n^{\alpha/2})). This is precisely the claim of Theorem 3.1.

Step 1: Global reduction. We first assume that |v_{I_k}|\geq K for each 1\leq k\leq \lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1 (where K>0 is a fixed constant specified in Lemma 2.3). The other case where |v_{I_k}|\leq K for some k is treated via a straightforward modification at the end of proof.

Since the variance profile of \mathcal{D} is translation invariant, we can assume without loss of generality that \rho_\mu(v_{I_1})\geq\rho_\mu(v_{I_k}) for each k. Otherwise, we simply permute the rows and columns of \mathcal{D}.

Let t_1,\cdots,t_{\lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1} be integers such that \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\in[2^{-t_k},2^{-t_k+1}] for each k. Then we upper bound the probability \mathbb{P}(S_n\cdot v=0) as in the previous proof:

where in the fourth line, we take any value of c\in(0,1) to be fixed at the end of proof and use Lemma 2.3 to get a value \mu\in(0,\frac{1}{4}] such that Lemma 2.3 holds with this value c. The inequality in the fifth line follows from the assumption that \rho_\mu(v_{I_1})\geq\rho_\mu(v_{I_k}) for each k, and that |I_k| is a constant for all 1\leq k\leq \lfloor n/e_n\rfloor.

Step 2: Analyzing one symmetric matrix block. The proof in this step is an adaptation of the journal version of [campos2022singularity]. To simplify the notation, we denote n_*=\lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1 and I_*=I_{n_*}. We now upper bound \sup_w\mathbb{P}(D_{I_*}\cdot v_{I_*}=w). For each vector \hat{v}:=v_{I_*}, by Theorem 2.2 we can find a subset T\subset I_* such that \hat{v}_i\in N_\nu(\hat{v}_T) for all i\notin T. That is, let \mathcal{V}=\{\hat{v}\in\mathbb{F}_p^n\setminus\{0\}:\rho(\hat{v})\geq\beta\} where \beta=\Theta(e_n/p), we let f(\hat{v}):=(T,\hat{v}_T) where T is the set obtained by Theorem 2.2. Let \mathcal{S}:=f(\mathcal{V}). Then we can bound

For each s=(T,u)\in\mathcal{S}, we have that for each \hat{v}\in f^{-1}(s) we must have that \hat{v}_i\in N_\mu(u) for all i\notin T, and thus by (?),

Then for each \hat{v}\in f^{-1}(s), let T\subset S where |S|=\min\{|T|+K,|\hat{v}|\} and that \hat{v}_i\neq 0 for all i\in S. Then we can bound

Suppose that |T|+K\leq|\hat{v}|, then we have \rho(\hat{v}_S)\leq c\rho_\mu(\hat{v}_S)\leq c\rho_\mu(u). Then applying the above two estimates to each s=(T,u) we have

where we assume that c<\frac{1}{32} and for the final inequality we use \rho_\mu(u)\geq 1/p and thus \rho_\mu(u)^K\geq 2^{-|I_*|}. That is, we have

On the other hand, when |T|=t and |\hat{v}|\leq t+K, we use \rho(\hat{v}_S)\leq \rho_\mu(\hat{v}_S)\leq\rho_\mu(u)\leq (1-\mu/2)^t, where the last inequality follows from Lemma 3.7. Then we have at most p^{t+K}\binom{|I_*|}{\leq t+K} choices for \hat{v}. Then we have

Step 3: Combining the estimates. We have enumerated all candidates for the vector v_{I_*}, and we now find the cardinality for the possible vectors v_{I_1},v_{I_2},\cdots,v_{I_{n_*-1}}.

Recall that we have assumed \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\in[2^{-t_k},2^{-t_k+1}] for each k. Set D_k=\frac{2}{\mu}(t_k+1) for each k, applying Theorem 2.2, we get as in (?) that the total cardinality for these vectors v_{I_k} is at most:

Combining (?), (?), (?) and the cardinality bound (?), we deduce that

By our assumption, (\log p)^2\frac{n}{e_n}\leq \rho^2n^\alpha\frac{n}{n^\alpha/s}\leq\rho^2 sn for s fixed (where e_n=\lfloor d_n/s\rfloor), so that by setting c>0 sufficiently small (which fixes a value of \mu=\mu(c)) and then setting \rho>0 sufficiently small relative to \mu=\mu(c)[more formally, we can find a function \rho(\mu) such that wheenver \rho\leq\rho(\mu) the following holds], we can guarantee that the second line of (?) is at most \exp(-\Omega(n)). Since the number of dyadic decompositions is at most 2^{o(n)} by (?), we conclude that

We now treat the leftover case where for some k, we have v_{I_k}=0 or 0<|v_{I_k}|<K for the constant K>0 in Lemma 2.3. Denote by \mathcal{R} the subset of indices k such that |v_{I_k}|\leq K. Then whenever 0<|v_{I_k}|\leq K we use the trivial fact that \rho(v_{I_k})\leq\frac{1}{2} combined with the following upper bound on the number of such v_{I_k}: the cardinality is bounded by

If v_{I_k}=0, then we proceed trivially. The similarly as in estimate (?), we deduce that for any possible choice of the set \mathcal{R}, we have

Enumerating all the possible subsets \mathcal{R}\subset[\lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1], we have considered all vectors of type II, and thus we complete the proof of the lemma.

Since the variance profile of \mathcal{D} is translation invariant, we can assume without loss of generality that \rho_\mu(v_{I_*})\geq\frac{e_n}{p}, \rho_\mu(v_{I_1})\geq\frac{e_n}{p} and \rho_\mu(v_{I_1})\geq \rho_\mu(v_{I_*}), where I_*=I_{\lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1} is the last block.

Let \Omega_1,\Omega_2,\Omega_3 be a partition of \lfloor n/e_n\rfloor such that k\in \Omega_1 if \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\geq\frac{e_n}{p}, k\in\Omega_2 if \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})<\frac{2}{p} and k\in\Omega_3 if \frac{2}{p}\leq\rho_\mu(v_{I_k})<\frac{e_n}{p}. Then |\Omega_1|\geq\frac{1}{4}\frac{n}{e_n} since v is of type III.

Then we can deduce as in (?) that

where for any given c>0, if k\in \Omega_1 we apply Lemma 2.3 to find \mu\in(0,\frac{1}{4}] such that \rho(v_{I_k})\leq c\rho_\mu(v_{I_k}), and if k\in\Omega_2 or k\in\Omega_3 we use the trivial bound \rho(v_{I_k})\leq \rho_\mu(v_{I_k}). The c^{\frac{1}{4}n} term comes from |\Omega_1||I_1|\geq\frac{1}{4}n. In the last line we used \rho_\mu(v_{I_1})\geq\rho_\mu(v_{I_*}).

Meanwhile, as in (?) and (?), we can deduce that

which enumerates all the possible choices of v_{I_*}.

For each k\in\Omega_1\cup\Omega_3, we find an integer t_k such that \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\in[2^{-t_k},2^{-t_k+1}] for each k. Set D_k=\frac{2}{\mu}(t_k+1) for each k. The cardinality of candidates of v_{I_k} can be bounded as in (?). If k\in\Omega_2, then v_{I_k} can range over all p^{|I_k|} possible vectors. Then, for this choice of \Omega_1,\Omega_2 and \{t_k\}_{k\in\Omega_1}, we can combine this cardinality bound for v_{I_k} with (?) and (?) to deduce that, similar to (?),

Now we set c>0 sufficiently small (which fixes a value of \mu=\mu(c)) and then set \rho>0 sufficiently small relative to \mu=\mu(c)[more formally, we can find a function \rho(\mu) such that whenever \rho\leq\rho(\mu) the following holds], we can guarantee that the second line of (?) is at most \exp(-\Omega(n)). Since the number of possible choices of t_i and the choice of \Omega_1,\Omega_2,\Omega_3 is at most 2^{o(n)} by (?), we take a union bound over all t_i,\Omega_1,\Omega_2,\Omega_3 and conclude that

This completes the proof.

If v is not of type III(\mu) but satisfies the stated property, then v satisfies the second condition in type III(\mu) in Notation 3.9. Then v violates the first condition in Notation 3.9, which means

Since there are \lfloor \frac{n}{e_n}\rfloor +1 total intervals, we must be able to find two consecutive intervals v_{I_{k_1}}, v_{I_{k_1+1}} satisfying the first condition \rho_\mu(v_{I_{k_1}})\leq\frac{e_n}{p},\rho_\mu(v_{I_{k_1+1}})\leq \frac{e_n}{p} of Type IV(\mu). The second condition in Type IV(\mu) is already assumed.

Since the variance profile of \mathcal{D} is translation invariant, we can assume without loss of generality that

(the first and last block) and that for some \Delta\in[\lfloor n/e_n\rfloor] we have

For any two integers x\leq y, denote by (D)_x^y:=\{D_x,D_{x+1},\cdots,D_y\} and (U)_x^y:=\{U_x,U_{x+1},\cdots U_y\}, then we apply an iterative conditioning argument as below to deduce that

Then we proceed with

Informally, after the above conditioning procedure, the vectors v_{I_1},v_{I_{\lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1}} appear twice but v_{I_\Delta} and v_{I_{\Delta+1}} does not appear in the product: the former two vectors are well anti-concentrated but the latter two vectors are poorly anti-concentrated.

As proven in (?), we have

As proven in (?), we have

We now enumerate the cardinality of the other components of v_{I_k}. Just as in the previous proofs, we need to find the cardinality of candidate vectors v_{I_k} granted a knowledge of \rho_\mu(v_{I_k}). Let \Omega_1,\Omega_2 be a partition of [\lfloor n/e_n\rfloor+1] such that k\in\Omega_1 if \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\geq\frac{2}{p} and k\in\Omega_2 if otherwise. For each k\in\Omega_1, we find an integer t_k such that \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\in[2^{-t_k},2^{-t_k+1}] for each k. Set D_k=\frac{2}{\mu}(t_k+1) for each k. The cardinality of candidates of v_{I_k} can be bounded as in (?). If k\in\Omega_2, then v_{I_k} can range over all p^{|I_k|} possible vectors. Then, for any choice of \Omega_1,\Omega_2 and \{t_k\}_{k\in\Omega_1}, we can combine this cardinality bound for v_{I_k} with (?) and (?) to deduce that, similar to (?),

[Note: in this lemma we only use the basic inequality \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\leq \rho(v_{I_k}) rather than the more refined version \rho_\mu(v_{I_k})\leq c\rho(v_{I_k})]. Here a=O_{\mu,\tau}(b) means a\leq Cb for C a constant depending only on \mu, \tau and \alpha. Recall that we take p=\exp(\rho n^{\alpha/2}) and |I_{1}|\geq n^\alpha with \alpha=\frac{2}{3}. Then we see that as long as \tau=\rho/32, the above expression is super-exponentially small, which is actually at most \exp(-\Omega(n^{1.5\alpha})). Finally, taking a union bound over all possible candidates of t_i and \Omega_1,\Omega_2 completes the proof.

This follows from the inclusion stated in Fact 3.14.

we reduce to the finite field \mathbb{F}_p. If \operatorname{rk}(S_n)\leq n-2, then \operatorname{rk}(S_n^{(i)})\leq n-2 for each i\in[n] and S_n^{(i)} is not invertible. Let v\in\mathbb{F}_p^n\setminus\{0\} be such that S_n\cdot v=0, then v must have a coordinate i\in[n] such that v_i\neq 0. Without loss of generality we can assume i=1 and write v=(v_1,w). Let X be the first column of S_n with the first entry removed, then we have Xv_1+S_{n}^{(1)}\cdot w=0. Let u\in\mathbb{F}_p^n\setminus\{0\} be such that S_n^{(1)}\cdot u=0, then u^T\cdot Xv_1+u^{T}S_n^{(1)}\cdot w=0, so that u^T\cdot X=0 since v_1\neq 0. Then we can write

where X^i is the i-th row/ column of S_n with the i-th entry removed. Consider the event

Then for a suitable choice of \tau, we have \mathbb{P}(\Omega_\tau^c)\leq\exp(-\Omega(n)) by Theorem 3.1. On the event \Omega_\tau, we have

by definition of the random vector X^i. That is,

By Fact ?, ?, to bound the probability that \operatorname{rk}(S_n)=n-1 and \operatorname{rk}(S_n^{(i)})=n-2, we only need to bound the probability that there is a vector a\in\mathbb{F}_p^{n-1}\setminus\{0\} such that S_{n}^{(i)}\cdot a=0 and a\cdot X=0, where X is the i-th row of S_n with the i-th entry removed and is thus independent of S_n^{(i)}.

Recall the event \Omega_\tau defined in (Proof). Then on \Omega_\tau, for this fixed vector a we have \mathbb{P}_X(a\cdot X=0)\leq \exp(-\tau n^{\alpha/2}). The vector a is unique up to scalars since \operatorname{rk}(S_n^{(i)})=n-2, so summing the above probability with \mathbb{P}(\Omega_\tau^c)\leq \exp(-\tau n^{\alpha/2}) completes the proof.

Without loss of generality, we will take i=1 when writing out the proof. Recall that in the symmetric matrix S_n, we assumed s_{ij}=u_{ij}+c_{ij} when |i-j|\leq d_n or |n-i+j|\leq d_n ,where u_{ij} is uniform on \{-1,1\} and c_{ij} is independent of u_{ij}. Throughout the proof we first condition on the values of c_{ij} and the values of (s_{ij})_{d_n<|i-j|<n-d_n} and thus assume they are fixed throughout. That is, the (1,1)-th entry of S_n is c_{11}+u_{11} where now c_{11} is a fixed constant. The entries of first row of S_n are all conditioned to be fixed except the random variables (u_{1j})_{1\leq j\leq d_n+1\text{ or } j\geq n-d_n+1} which are still random and uniform on \{-1,1\}.

Take X=(q_i)_{i\in I} and Y=(q_i)_{i\in J} be two families of random variables so that q\in\mathbb{F}_p^{n-1} is determined by X and Y. Then for each choice of S_{n-1}^{(1)}, we define the following event

which is determined by X and Y. We claim that if \operatorname{rk}(S_n^{(1)})=n-1 and the first row of S_n is (x_1+c_{11},q_1\cdots,q_{n-1}) for some x_1\in\{-1,1\} and some fixed c_1, then

Actually, since \det(S_n)=0\neq\det(S_n^{(1)}), we can find a vector v\in\mathbb{F}_p^n with S_n\cdot v=0 and v_1=-1. Denote by v'=(v_2,\cdots,v_n), then S_n^{(1)}\cdot v'=q and q\cdot v'\in\{-1+c_{11},1+c_{11}\}.

Now let X',Y' be independent copies of X and Y, we define the event

Applying Lemma 3.21, we deduce that

and thus

Therefore, it suffices to prove that

for any S_n^{(1)} with \operatorname{rk}(S_n^{(1)})=n-1. To prove this, we take any such S_n^{(1)} and denote by Q:=(S_n^{(1)})^{-1} and D:=\{-1+c_{11},1+c_{11}\}. We show that if q\in\mathcal{E}(X,Y) then q^TQq\in D. Indeed, we check that

As we used the notation q=q(X,Y), we define f(X,Y):=q^TQq, then when the event \mathcal{E}_1 holds, we have

Let \hat{w}:=q-q' where q' is an independent copy of q, by a standard computation we verify that

where z:=(S_n^{(i)})^{-1}\cdot \hat{w}_J^* so that z_i=\sum_{j\in J}Q_{ij}\hat{w}_j=\sum_{j\in J} Q_{ij}(q_j-q_j').

Since |D|=2, this verifies (?). Recall that we assume the first row of S_n is (x_1,q_1,\cdots,q_{n-1}) and we have conditioned on the entries of S_n except the u_{ij} variables such that |i-j|\leq d_n or |n-i+j|\leq d_n, we deduce that \hat{w}:=q-q' has the same law as the random vector w in (3.20). This completes the proof.

In the setting of Lemma 3.20, recall that 1\leq k\leq n-2 and J\subset[n-1] with |J|=k. Recall that S_n^{(i)}\cdot z=w_J^*\in W(J), where

We consider the following event, with \beta=\exp(-\tau n^{\alpha/2}),

Since W(J)\leq 3^{|J\setminus[d_n+1,n-d_n-1]|}, we use Theorem 3.1 to deduce that

We also check that

this is because if z=0 then w_J^*=0, which happens with probability 2^{-|J\setminus[d_n+1,n-d_n-1]|} because we have w_i=0 with probability 1/2 for each i\in J\setminus[d_n+1,n-d_n-1].

Recall that w_J and S_n^{(i)} together determine the vector z and the entries of w_I are independent of w_J. Recall that we consider the intervals I_k in the decomposition [n-1]=\cup_{k=1}^{\lfloor (n-1)/e_{n-1}\rfloor+1}I_k, we have by definition that \rho_{1/2}(z_{I\cap I_k})=\max_{a\in\mathbb{F}_p}\mathbb{P}(z_{I\cap I_k}\cdot w_{I\cap I_k}=a). Therefore, applying Fact 3.22, we have for each k that

Since S_n^{(i)}\in\mathcal{U}^{(J)} and S_n^{(i)}\cdot z\in W(J), if z\neq 0 then we have \min(\rho(z_{I_k}),\rho(z_{I_{k+1}}))\leq\beta for each k. Then we can upper bound the quantity below, using randomness of w_I at only w_{I\cap I_1},w_{I\cap I_2} (since |I_1|+|I_2|\leq d_n): whenever S_n^{(i)}\in\mathcal{U}^\beta, the following estimate holds:

Finally, the inequality (3.23) follows from combining (Proof), (Proof) and (?).

By Lemma 3.20, we only need to show the right hand side of (3.23) is \exp(-\Omega(n^{\alpha/2})) for some choice of partitions I\cup J=[n-1]. We can achieve this by taking I\subset I_1\cup I_2 (so that I_*=0) and take |J_*| =\exp(-\tau'n^{\alpha/2}) for some \tau'>0. We can verify that as long as \tau'>0 is sufficiently small, the right hand side of (3.23) is \exp(-\Omega(n^{\alpha/2})).