Probabilistic representation and limit theorems for particle numbers of quasi-free states

Recall the definitions

Then, using the results obtained earlier, we obtain

Since the characteristic functions coincide, we conclude that the distribution of \mathsf{N}_\Lambda in the vector \Uppsi_\nu coincides with the distribution of 2G_\Lambda, as asserted.

Since \nu\in\ell^2(\Lambda) and \nu\not\equiv 0, the supremum defining \overline{\mu} is attained at some \overline{p}\in\Lambda, and \overline{\mu}>0.

Lower bound. Keeping only the site \overline{p} and using Theorem 2.4, we deduce

where \lfloor r \rfloor denotes the largest integer smaller than r\in\mathbb{R}_+. Taking logarithms and dividing by \lambda therefore gives

Upper bound. Chernoff bound yields for any \lambda > 0

for every t \in [0,-\ln \overline{\tau}^2) = \mathcal{T}, hence

with \mu_p=\sinh^2(\nu_p) the mean of G_p. Since r\mapsto -\ln(1-r) is convex and vanishes at r=0, and since \mu_p/\overline{\mu}\in[0,1], we have

and therefore, summing over p\in\Lambda,

The right-hand side is minimized over t\in\mathbb{R} at

For this value we have 1-(e^{t_\lambda}-1)\overline{\mu} = (1+\overline{\mu})/(1+\lambda\overline{\mu}). Substituting gives the explicit bound

valid for every \lambda>0. Dividing by \lambda and letting \lambda\to+\infty, the first term converges to -\mu\ln(1+1/\overline{\mu}) and the second vanishes, so that

Together, the two bounds yield the assertion.

(i) Let t\in\mathbb{R} be arbitrary, but fixed. Further, let \varepsilon>0. By condition (?), we find some large \kappa_\varepsilon>0 such that for every \kappa>\kappa_\varepsilon, the following estimate holds:

In particular,

Now let \kappa> \kappa_\varepsilon be sufficiently large such that m^\kappa|e^{2t}-1|<1. Using the elementary estimates for every r < 1, and the fact that |\mu_p^\kappa(e^{2t}-1)| \le m^\kappa|e^{2t}-1| (which implies that \mu_p^\kappa(e^{2t}-1) < 1) uniformly in p\in\mathbb{Z}^d_0, we obtain, for c_t = 1 if t \geq 0, and -1 else:

(the appearance of c_t comes from treating the two cases e^{2t}-1 \geq 0 or \leq 0). Summing up over p\in\mathbb{Z}^d\backslash\{0\}, multiplying by \kappa^\gamma, and using (Proof) then gives

Passing first \kappa\to+\infty and then \varepsilon\to 0, we then obtain the limit

which is \mathfrak{m}_\nu(e^{2t}-1), as asserted.

(ii) and (iii) Consider a sequence \kappa_N \to +\infty, and let X_N have the law of \mathsf{N}^{\kappa_N} in the quasi-free vector \Uppsi_{\nu}^{\kappa_N}. Then X_N is a non-negative integer-valued random variable, and part (i) gives

The assertions then follow immediately from Proposition 5.1 applied with \mathfrak{c} = \mathfrak{m}_\nu, K = 2 and r_N = \kappa_N^{-\gamma}.

(i) Since \mathbb{P}(G^\kappa=k)\le\mathbb{P}(G^\kappa\ge k), Lemmas 5.4 and 5.5 sandwich the probability: for \kappa\ge\max\{\kappa_0,\kappa_1\}, we have that

where both error terms vanish as \kappa\to+\infty.

(ii) By point (i), we can apply Proposition 5.2 to deduce that (G^\kappa)_\kappa satisfies a LDP as \kappa \to +\infty with speed \ln \kappa and good rate function \mathscr{J}_\gamma.

(iii) By Theorem 2.4, \mathbb{P}_{\Uppsi_\nu^\kappa}(\mathsf{N}^\kappa\in E)=\mathbb{P}(2G^\kappa\in E) for every E\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}). Since x\mapsto 2x is a homeomorphism of \mathbb{R}, the contraction principle transfers the LDP of (ii) to \mathsf{N}_\Lambda^\kappa with rate function \mathscr{J}_{\mathsf{N}}(x)=\mathscr{J}_\gamma\!(x/2), which is again good. The local asymptotics follow from (i), and the concentration estimate from Lemma 5.4 with k=1:

From Theorem 2.4, we know that \mathbb{G} is a family of independent geometric random variables. Moreover, Lemma 5.6 implies that 0<\sigma_n^2<+\infty for every n\in\mathbb{N}_0. We are left to show the Lyapunov condition (5.8) for the sequence S_{n,p} := \sigma_n^{-1}(G_p^{\kappa_n}-\mu_p^n).

For this, we use the power-deviation estimate derived in Proposition B.2, which gives

Choosing 0<\delta<\delta_0 according to Lemma 5.6, we then deduce

Since \sigma_n^2 \asymp \kappa_n^{-d}, we have that \sigma_n^{2+\delta} \asymp \kappa_n^{-d(2+\delta)/2}, and hence,

which implies the Lyapunov condition for the sequence (S_{n,p}). We can then conclude the proof by applying Theorem 5.8.

Splitting the one-particle space according to the zero mode and the pairs \{p,-p\}, and identifying each such pair with the spin space \mathbb{S} by \ket{\pm}\leftrightarrow \pm\tfrac{2\pi}{\kappa}p, gives the orthogonal decomposition

Second quantization turns this direct sum into a tensor product, so that \mathcal{F}_{\operatorname{sym}}(\ell^2(2 \pi \mathbb{Z}^3)) \cong \mathcal{F}_{\operatorname{sym}}(\mathbb{C}) \otimes \mathfrak{h}_{\Lambda}^\kappa, under an isometry determined by

Under this isometry, \mathsf{K}_{\mathfrak{a}} is mapped to the operator \mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{F}_{\operatorname{sym}}(\mathbb{C})} {\otimes} \mathsf{K}_\nu^\kappa with

since \nu^\mathfrak{a}_{(2\pi/\kappa)p} = \nu(p) by construction, and consequently \Uppsi_\mathfrak{a} \cong \Upomega_0 {\otimes} \Uppsi_\nu^\kappa. The number operator decomposes in the same way, \mathsf{N}_+ being mapped to \mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{F}_{\operatorname{sym}}(\mathbb{C})} {\otimes} \mathsf{N}_\Lambda^\kappa. Since the vacuum factor \Upomega_0 carries no particles, both assertions follow.

Since \nu satisfies condition (?) on \kappa\mathbb{Z}^3_0 with exponent \gamma = 4 > 3 and constant \mathfrak{c}_\nu = \tfrac{1}{16}, Theorem 2.6(i), applied to G^\kappa_\mathrm{sum}, gives

On the other hand, G^\kappa_\mathrm{sum} has the same law as G^\kappa_+ + G^\kappa_-, where G^\kappa_\pm are independent copies of G^\kappa, so that \mathbb{E}[e^{2 t G^\kappa_\mathrm{sum}}] = \bigl(\mathbb{E}[e^{2 t G^\kappa}]\bigr)^2 and therefore

By Proposition 3.2 together with Theorem 2.4, the observable \mathsf{N}_+ in the state \Uppsi_\mathfrak{a} has the law of 2G^\kappa, hence, \ln \mathbb{E}[e^{2 t G^\kappa}] = \ln \mathbb{E}_{\Uppsi_\mathfrak{a}}[e^{t \mathsf{N}_+}]. Substituting \kappa = \sqrt{\pi / 4 \mathfrak{a}}, that is \kappa^{-4} = 16\mathfrak{a}^2/\pi^2, we conclude that

which is (?).

Parts (ii) and (iii) then follow from Proposition 5.1 in Appendix ?, applied along an arbitrary sequence \mathfrak{a}_N \to 0 with X_N having the law of \mathsf{N}_+ in \Uppsi_{\mathfrak{a}_N}, and with r_N = \mathfrak{a}_N^2, \mathfrak{c} = \mathfrak{c}_\mathsf{QD} and K = 2.

Local lower bound. A careful inspection of the proof of Lemma 5.5 shows that one can use \Lambda^\kappa instead of \kappa \mathbb{Z}^d_0. Indeed, the site bound of Lemma 5.3 extends to the quotient lattice, and hence the proof of the local bound follows. Therefore, for \gamma = 4, we get

uniformly in k when \kappa \to +\infty. Substituting Substituting the expression for \kappa we obtain

uniformly in k as \mathfrak{a} \to 0.

Local upper bound. We have

By Theorem 2.7(i) the latter is -4 (2k) \ln \kappa + k O(1). Therefore, substituting again the expression for \kappa, we get

Log-LDP. Combining the local lower and upper bounds we get as \mathfrak{a} \to 0, uniformly in k,

By Proposition 5.2 with \gamma = 2, after replacing the parameter \kappa in the statement by \mathfrak{a}^{-1}, (G^\kappa)_\kappa satisfies a LDP as \mathfrak{a} \to 0 with speed \ln \mathfrak{a}^{-1} and good rate function \mathscr{J}_2. By transfer, the law of \mathsf{N}_+ in \Psi_\mathfrak{a} satisfies a LDP with speed \ln \mathfrak{a}^{-1} and good rate function x \to \mathscr{J}_2(x/2).

We recall that \mathsf{N}_+ has the law of 2 G_\kappa in the condensate \Uppsi_\mathfrak{a}, where \kappa = \sqrt{\pi / 4 \mathfrak{a}}. We also recall the notation G^\kappa_\mathrm{sum} = G^\kappa_+ + G^\kappa_- = \sum_{p \in \kappa \mathbb{Z}^3_0} G_p^{sum}, where G_\pm^\kappa are independent copies of G^\kappa.

(i) As \mu^\mathsf{QD} satisfies assumption (?) with \gamma = 4 and \beta = 1, the variable G_\mathrm{sum}^\kappa = G^\kappa_+ + G^\kappa_- satisfies a central limit theorem. More precisely, the law of the scaled random variable

together with all its moments of order \theta \in [1,3). But we can write X^\kappa_\mathrm{sum} = X^\kappa_+ + X^\kappa_-, where X_\pm^\kappa are independent copies having the law of \frac{G^\kappa - \mathbb{E}[G^\kappa]}{\sqrt{2\mathbb{V}[G^\kappa]}}. By Lemma C.5, we deduce that \frac{G^\kappa - \mathbb{E}[G^\kappa]}{\sqrt{\mathbb{V}[G^\kappa]}} also converges weakly to \mathcal{N}(0,1), together with all its moments of order \theta \in [1,3), which is precisely the assertion since \mathbb{E}[G^\kappa] = \mu_\mathfrak{a}^\mathsf{QD} and \mathbb{V}[G^\kappa] = (\sigma_\mathfrak{a}^\mathsf{QD})^2.

(ii) We have

Similarly

As \mu_x^\mathsf{QD} \asymp |x|^{-1} as |x| \to 0, and \mu_x^\mathsf{QD} \asymp |x|^{-4} when |x| \to +\infty, we have \mu_x^\mathsf{QD}(\mu_x^\mathsf{QD} + 1) \asymp |x|^{-2} as |x| \to 0, and \asymp |x|^{-4} as |x| \to +\infty. Therefore we can apply Lemma D.1 to deduce that

By Lemma 3.8 below, we have \int_{\mathbb{R}^3_0} \mu_x^\mathsf{QD}(1+\mu_x^\mathsf{QD})\dd{x} = \pi^2/8. Replacing \kappa = \sqrt{\pi/4 \mathfrak{a}}, we deduce that

For the mean, we prove that \mu_x^\mathsf{QD} satisfies the assumptions of Lemma D.2. We recall that if f(x) = h(|x|^2) for some function h of class C^2(\mathbb{R}_+^*), then

In particular |D^2 f(x)| \leq C (|h'(|x|^2)| + |x|^2 |h''(|x|^2)|). In our case, we have \mu_x^\mathsf{QD} = m_\mathsf{QD}(|x|^2) with

This gives

For r \gg 1 we get m'_\mathsf{QD}(r) \leq C/r^3 and m''_\mathsf{QD}(r) \leq C/r^4. This gives |D^2 \mu_x^\mathsf{QD}| \leq C/|x|^6. Therefore, the asymptotic behavior for large |x| of the Hessian holds with \beta = 6 > 3. It remains to check the behavior as |x| \to 0. To do so, we let g_x^\mathsf{QD} = \mu_x^\mathsf{QD} - \frac{1}{4 |x|}.

But for small |x|, we have

and

Thus,

Since we also have \mu_x^\mathsf{QD} = \frac{1}{4 |x|} + O(1), we deduce that the asymptotic assumption at |x| \to 0 holds with \alpha = 1 < 3. This shows that we can apply Lemma D.2. Since \int_{\mathbb{R}^3_0} \mu_x^\mathsf{QD} \dd{x} = \pi/3 by Lemma 3.8, we deduce that

(iii) It remains to prove the last statement. By part (ii), we have

and therefore

By part (i), the first term on the right-hand side equals

where the first factor converges to (2\sqrt{\pi})^{1/2} and the second converges weakly, together with its moments of order \theta\in[1,3), to \mathcal{N}(0,1). Since convergence in law and of moments is preserved under the addition of a sequence converging to zero, we conclude that

weakly in the condensate \Uppsi_\mathfrak{a}, together with its moments of order \theta \in [1,3).

Writing \mu_x^\mathsf{QD} = g(|x|) and passing to polar coordinates, we have

To handle the factors 1+r^2 in (?), we substitute r=\sinh(t) with t\ge 0, so that \dd{r} = \cosh(t)\dd{t} and \sqrt{r^2/(1+r^2)} = \tanh(t). Using that (\tanh(t)-1)^2 = (\sinh(t)-\cosh(t))^2/\cosh^2(t) = e^{-2t}/\cosh^2(t), we obtain

The first integral. By (Proof) we have \sinh^2(t)\cosh(t) f(t) = \tfrac{1}{4}\sinh(t)e^{-2t}, and hence

which equals \tfrac{\pi}{2}\bigl(1-\tfrac{1}{3}\bigr) = \tfrac{\pi}{3}, as asserted.

The second integral. Splitting off the linear part and using the first integral, we have

By (Proof) once more, \sinh^2(t)\cosh(t)f(t)^2 = \tfrac{1}{4}\sinh(t)e^{-2t}f(t) = \tfrac{1}{16}e^{-4t}/\cosh(t), so that the remaining term equals

Substituting z = e^{-t}, for which \dd{t} = -\dd{z}/z and \cosh(t) = (z+z^{-1})/2, this last integral becomes

Combining the last three displays, we conclude that

which completes the proof.

Using the commutation relations, we obtain the following on a common stable core

Let f,h be two C^1-functions, satisfying f(0) = h(0) = 0. Consider the unitary operator

Our goal is to choose appropriate functions f and h such that \dot{U} = (\mathsf{K}_+ - \mathsf{K}_-) U, which will imply that U(\nu) = e^{\nu(\mathsf{K}_+-\mathsf{K}_-)}, since U(0) = I. To do so, we compute

Using the relations (Proof), we have that

and therefore,

We obtain the system of ordinary differential equations

Combining the second and third equations gives h' = -2 f, together with the first equation, this yields f' + f^2 = 1, hence f = \tanh(\nu), and h = -2 \ln \cosh(\nu). One can then check that this is a genuine solution.

Consider the operators \mathsf{K}_+ = \mathsf{a}_+^* \mathsf{a}_-^*, \mathsf{K}_- = \mathsf{a}_+ \mathsf{a}_- and \mathsf{K}_0 = \frac{1}{2}(\mathsf{N}_\mathrm{loc} + 1). Since these operators satisfy the \mathfrak{su}(1,1) commutation relations, we can use Proposition 4.1, which gives that

Since \mathsf{K}_- only annihilates particles, \mathsf{K}_- \Upomega = 0, and we get that \exp(-\tanh(\nu) \mathsf{K}_-) \Upomega = \Upomega. Similarly, we have \mathsf{K}_0 \Upomega = \frac{1}{2} \Upomega since \mathsf{N} \Upomega = 0, as there are no particles in the vacuum state. Hence, we have \exp(-2 \ln(\cosh(\nu)) \mathsf{K}_0) \Upomega = e^{-\ln(\cosh(\nu))} \Upomega = \sech(\nu) \Upomega. Consequently, we arrive at

We now expand the exponential. We have, for \tau := \tanh(\nu),

where we used the fact that for all n,m \in \mathbb{N}_0 \mathsf{a}_+^* \ket{n,m} = \sqrt{n+1} \ket{n+1,m} and \mathsf{a}_-^* \ket{n,m} = \sqrt{m+1} \ket{n,m+1}. Hence, we conclude that \Uppsi_\nu takes the asserted form.

We start by deriving the distribution of \mathsf{N}_p in \varrho_\nu for any fixed p\in\Lambda. Recall from (?) that

Using the disentanglement formula (4.2) and expressing \mathsf{N}_\mathrm{loc} in its eigenbasis (\ket{j,l})_{j,l\ge 0}, we then obtain for any k\in\mathbb{N}_0,

Since G_p\sim \text{Geo}(\sech^2(\nu_p)) satisfies \mathbb{P}(G_p=k) = \sech^2(\nu_p)\tanh^{2k}(\nu_p) for every k\in\mathbb{N}_0, we then conclude that \mathbb{P}_{\Uppsi_\nu}( \mathsf{N}_p = k ) = \mathbb{P}(2G_p=k) as asserted. This single-site law is the one obtained, in the language of coherent states for the discrete series of \mathfrak{su}(1,1), in [Perelomov, §5].

Next, we prove that the random variables (\mathsf{N}_p)_{p \in \Lambda} are mutually independent. To do so, it suffices to show that any finite family is independent. For the clarity, we only do it for two sites, but the argument extends immediately to a finite number of sites. Let us show that \mathsf{N}_p and \mathsf{N}_q are independent for p \not= q. For this, we write

With similar arguments as before, we obtain

In particular, we find that

i.e., the random variables \mathsf{N}_p and \mathsf{N}_q are independent.

Throughout the proof, we write

for the normalized point masses of X_N away from the origin. We begin by recording the form of the assumption (5.1) that is actually used below, namely that

Indeed, fix t\in\mathbb{R}. Since r_N>0 and the limit in (5.1) is finite, the assumption gives in particular that \mathbb{E}[e^{t X_N}]<+\infty for all N\gg 1. For such N, the quantity L_N(t) := \ln \mathbb{E}[e^{t X_N}] is well defined and finite, and (5.1) reads

Since r_N \to 0, this forces L_N(t)\to 0. Setting

we obtain a continuous function on \mathbb{R} satisfying e^u-1 = \upphi(u)\,u for every u\in\mathbb{R}, the degenerate case u=0 included. Applying this identity with u=L_N(t) gives

where \upphi(L_N(t)) \to \upphi(0) = 1 by continuity. Hence, letting N\to+\infty yields (Proof).

The proof proceeds in three steps: we first dominate \uppi_k^N uniformly in N, then identify their limits, and finally transfer this convergence to the quantities of interest.

Step 1: Uniform exponential domination. We claim that for every \lambda \ge \ln 2, there exist a constant C_\lambda>0 and an index N_\lambda\in\mathbb{N}, both independent of k, such that

Proof of claim. Fix \lambda\ge\ln 2 and k\ge 1. Recall the elementary inequality e^s \le 2(e^s-1), which holds when e^s\ge 2, i.e., when s \ge \ln 2. Since \lambda k \ge \lambda \ge \ln 2, it applies with s = \lambda k and yields e^{\lambda k}\le 2(e^{\lambda k}-1). Moreover, expanding the expectation over the values of X_N gives

because every summand is non-negative, \lambda being positive and X_N being \mathbb{N}_0-valued. Combining the two inequalities and dividing by r_N, we obtain

The right-hand side no longer involves k, and by (Proof) it converges to 2\mathfrak{c}(e^{K\lambda}-1) as N\to+\infty. Consequently there is an index N_\lambda, depending on \lambda but not on k, such that

Since k\ge 1 was arbitrary and neither C_\lambda nor N_\lambda depends on it, this proves (?).

Step 2: Identification of the limits. We claim that

By (?) with \lambda=\ln 2, the sequence \{\uppi_k^N\}_N is bounded for every fixed k\ge1. By a diagonal argument, it therefore suffices to prove that whenever \uppi_k^{N_j}\to\uppi_k for every k\ge1 along a subsequence, the limit is \uppi_k = \mathfrak{c}\,\updelta_{k,K}.

So let (\uppi_k)_{k\ge1} be such a limit, and fix t\in\mathbb{R}. Expanding the expectation over the values of X_N and dividing by r_N, we first record the exact identity

valid for every N\gg 1, where the term k=0 was dropped because e^{t\cdot 0}-1 = 0.

We now pass to the limit along the subsequence (N_j)_j on the right-hand side of (?). Choosing \lambda\ge\ln 2 \vee (t+1), the bound (?) together with |e^{tk}-1|\le e^{tk}+1 gives

where the right-hand side is summable in k and independent of N. Since moreover \uppi_k^{N_j}\to\uppi_k as j\to\infty for each fixed k\ge 1, dominated convergence with respect to the counting measure on \{1,2,\dots\} applies to the series in (?) and yields

Combining this with (?) and (Proof), we conclude that

We now turn the last display into an identity between power series. Passing to the limit along the subsequence in (?) gives

Thus, for each fixed z>0, choosing \lambda\ge\ln 2 \vee (\ln z + 1) yields \uppi_k z^k \le C_\lambda (z e^{-\lambda})^k with z e^{-\lambda}<1. Therefore,

Moreover, since (?) holds for arbitrarily large \lambda, the radius of convergence of this power series is in fact infinite, and F extends to an entire function. In particular, F(1) = \sum_{k\ge1}\uppi_k<+\infty, so writing z=e^t and letting t range over \mathbb{R} yields

The entire functions z\mapsto F(z) and z\mapsto \mathfrak{c}\,z^K + \bigl(F(1)-\mathfrak{c}\bigr) therefore agree on the half-line (0,+\infty), hence on all of \mathbb{C} by the identity theorem, and so do their Taylor coefficients at the origin. Since K\ge 1, comparing the coefficient of z^0 gives F(1) = \mathfrak{c}, while comparing the coefficient of z^K gives \uppi_K = \mathfrak{c}, and comparing the coefficient of z^k for k\ge1 with k\ne K gives \uppi_k = 0.

This identifies the limit of every subsequence extracted as above. Since \{\uppi_k^N\}_N is bounded for each fixed k\ge1, and all such subsequential limits coincide, the full sequence converges to the same value, which proves (?).

Step 3: Transfer. We claim that for every sequence (u_k)_{k\ge1}\subset\mathbb{C} satisfying |u_k| \le A e^{t k} for some A>0 and some t\in\mathbb{R}, one has

Indeed, choosing \lambda\ge\ln 2\vee(t+1) in (?) gives |u_k|\,\uppi_k^N \le A\, C_\lambda\, e^{-k} for every N\ge N_\lambda, which is again summable in k and independent of N. The claim then follows from (?) by dominated convergence.

It remains to choose appropriate u_k in (?). Taking u_k \equiv 1 yields

i.e., \mathbb{P}(X_N=0) = 1 - \mathfrak{c}\,r_N + o(r_N), which together with (?) is precisely (5.1). Taking instead u_k = k^{\theta} e^{\lambda k} with \theta>0 and \lambda\in\mathbb{C}, which satisfies |u_k|\le A\,e^{(\mathrm{Re}\lambda+1)k} for a suitable A>0, and noting that X_N^\theta e^{\lambda X_N} vanishes on the event \{X_N=0\} because \theta>0, we obtain

which is (5.1), thereby concluding the proof.

Passing to the exponential and summing up the estimates over k \geq n, we easily see that, uniformly in k \geq 0, as \kappa \to +\infty

The function \mathscr{J}_\gamma is a good rate function: it is lower semicontinuous, and its sublevel sets \{ \mathscr{J}_\gamma \leq M \} = \mathbb{N}_0 \cap [0,M/\gamma] are finite, hence compact. We let E \in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}).

Upper bound. If \overline{E} \cap \mathbb{N}_0 = \emptyset, then \mathbb{P}(X^\kappa \in E) = 0 for all \kappa (as X^\kappa \in \mathbb{N}_0 almost surely) and the bound holds trivially. Otherwise, let k_E := \min \{ \overline{E} \cap \mathbb{N}_0 \}, so that \inf_{\overline{E}} \mathscr{J}_\gamma = \gamma k_E and \overline{E} \cap \mathbb{N}_0 \subset [k_E,+\infty). Then for \kappa \gg 1

This proves the upper bound.

Lower bound. If \overset{\circ}{E} \cap \mathbb{N}_0 = \emptyset then the bound is trivial. Otherwise, for all k \in \overset{\circ}{E} \cap \mathbb{N}_0 we have for \kappa \gg 1

Hence

Optimizing over k yields the lower bound -\inf_{\overset{\circ}{E}} \mathscr{J}_\gamma.

By condition (?) there exists R_\varepsilon\ge 1 such that

Set R_\varepsilon:=\kappa_\varepsilon. Since every q\in\mathbb{Z}^d_0 satisfies |q|\ge 1, every p=\kappa q\in \kappa \mathbb{Z}^d_0 with \kappa\ge\kappa_\varepsilon satisfies |p|=\kappa|q|\ge R_\varepsilon, which then implies (5.3). Taking the supremum over q\in\mathbb{Z}^d_0 yields the bound on \overline\mu_\kappa. Similarly, summing over q\in\mathbb{Z}^d_0 and recalling that \zeta_d(\gamma)<+\infty for \gamma>d yields the estimate on m_\kappa. Finally, since \tau_p^2 = \mu_p^\kappa/(1+\mu_p^\kappa), the upper bound \tau_p^2\le\mu_p^\kappa holds trivially. As for the lower bound, we use the assumption \mu_p^\kappa\le\overline{\mu}^\kappa\le\varepsilon to deduce

We begin by noting that for \theta\ge 1 with \theta\sup_{p\in \kappa \mathbb{Z}^d_0}\tau_p^2\le \frac{1}{2}, monotone convergence along finite sublattices and independence give

where we used the fact that -\ln(1-x)\le x/(1-x)\le 2x for x\in[0,\frac{1}{2}].

We now apply Lemma 5.3 with \varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} and set \kappa_0 := \max\{\kappa_\varepsilon,(3\mathfrak{c}_\nu)^{1/\gamma}\}, such that for \kappa\ge\kappa_0,

Setting \theta_\kappa := \kappa^{\gamma}/(3\mathfrak{c}_\nu)\ge 1, we find that \theta_\kappa\tau_p^2 \le \theta_\kappa\,\overline{\mu}^\kappa \le \frac{1}{2} for all p\in\kappa \mathbb{Z}^d_0. Hence, with \theta=\theta_\kappa and \sum_{p\in\kappa \mathbb{Z}^d_0} \tau_p^2 \le m_\kappa, we obtain

Consequently, we obtain \mathbb{E}[\theta_\kappa^{\,G^\kappa}]\le e^{\zeta_d(\gamma)}. Finally, Markov’s inequality yields

for every k\in\mathbb{N}_0 as asserted.

As before, we apply Lemma 5.3 with \varepsilon=1/2. We then choose \kappa_1\ge\kappa_\varepsilon so large such that \overline{\mu}^\kappa\le \frac{1}{2} and m_\kappa\le \frac{1}{2} for all \kappa\ge\kappa_1. Now fix some q_*\in\mathbb{Z}^d_0 with |q_*|=1 and set p_*:=\kappa q_*\in\kappa \mathbb{Z}^d_0. By independence, we obtain

For the first factor, (5.3) and (5.3) give

For the product, since \tau_p^2\le\overline{\mu}^\kappa\le \frac{1}{2} we may use 1-x\ge e^{-2x} for x\in[0,\frac{1}{2}] to estimate

Let f_\mu:\mathbb{R}^d\backslash\{0\}\to \mathbb{R} be a continuous function satisfying assumption (?) and let \theta\in[1,d/\beta). Then, \theta\gamma \ge \gamma>d and

Moreover, since \theta\beta < d, we also have that

Therefore, f_\mu^\theta satisfies the assumptions in Lemma D.1 for every \theta\in[1,d/\beta). Applying Lemma D.1 then concludes the proof.

This follows directly from Theorem C.4.

A simple computation shows that, for \lceil t \rceil the smallest integer greater than t,

Consequently, using the estimate \log(1-x) \leq -x, we obtain

thereby concluding the proof.

We separate the estimate into the regimes \mu \geq 1 and \mu \leq 1, where in the first case, the term \mu^{1+\alpha} dominates, while in the second, the \mu-term dominates.(The cut at \mu=1 is a matter of convenience: since the estimate includes a constant, only the regimes of large and small \mu matter.)

(1) The \mu \geq 1 case. Using the layer-cake formula, we obtain the decomposition

The first integral is estimated from above by \mu^{1+\alpha} using \mathbb{P}(|G-\mu| \geq t) \leq 1.

As for the second term, we notice that since G \geq 0, one has \mathbb{P}(|G-\mu| \geq t) = \mathbb{P}(G \geq t + \mu) whenever t > \mu. Therefore, using the tail estimate (B.1), we can bound the last integral by

where we used the bound \frac{\mu}{\mu+1} \geq \frac{1}{2} for \mu \geq 1. Putting the inequalities together, we deduce

(2) The \mu \le 1 case. For \mu \leq 1, we have |k-\mu|^\alpha = (k-\mu)^\alpha for every k \geq 1, and hence,

To bound the last term, notice that \frac{\mu}{\mu+1} \leq \frac{1}{2} for \mu \leq 1, and \frac{1}{\mu+1} \leq 1. Therefore, we obtain

Hence, since \mu^{1+\alpha} \leq \mu, we deduce

Putting the estimates together yields the assertion with \mathsf{c}_\alpha := \max\{\mathsf{c}_\alpha^1,\mathsf{c}_\alpha^2\}.

Up to a renormalization of the triangular array, we can assume that \sigma_n = 1 and that all the random variables X_{n,p} are centered, i.e., S_{n,p}=X_{n,p} in this case.

Let (K_j)_{j \geq 0} be a compact exhaustion of \mathcal{X}. By construction, we find for each n \geq 0 an index j(n)\in\mathbb{N} such that \sum_{p \in \Lambda_n \backslash K_{j(n)}} \mathbb{E}[|X_{n,p}|^2] < 1/n. Let us consider an enumeration p_1,\ldots,p_{m(n)} of the points of \Lambda_n {\cap} K_{j(n)}. Set

We then introduce the new finite triangular array \mathbb{Y} = \{Y_{n,k} : k=0,\ldots,m(n),\, n\in\mathbb{N}_0\}.

Since (X_{n,p})_{p\in\Lambda_n} is independent, so is (Y_{n,k})_{k=0,\ldots,m(n)}, with \mathbb{E}[Y_{n,k}] = 0, and

Furthermore, for any \epsilon > 0,

Hence, the finite triangular array \mathbb{Y} satisfies the classical Lindeberg condition (C.1), which implies the convergence of the distribution of S_n=\sum_{q=0}^{m(n)} Y_{n,k} = \sum_{p \in \Lambda_n} X_{n,p} to the standard normal distribution \mathcal{N}(0,1), thereby concluding the first part of the statement.

Now let the Lyapunov’s condition (C.3) be satisfied with parameter \delta>0. Then, by Rosenthal’s inequality, for any J \subset \Lambda_n finite, we have that

Taking the limit along a sequence of finite sets (J_N)_N whose union is \Lambda_n (for instance, intersecting with the compact exhaustion), and using the Lyapunov condition, we obtain

This provides a uniform (2+\delta)-moment bound, and standard compactness in the Wasserstein space of order \theta for \theta\in[1, 2+\delta) provides the asserted moment convergence. (Here we recall that the Wasserstein space of order \theta is the space of all probability measures with finite \theta-th moment, endowed with the Wasserstein distance of order \theta, denoted by \mathbb{W}_\theta).

We divide into two steps:

Step 1: Tightness. Let \theta < p and choose \eta with \theta < \eta < p. Let X_N^3 be a third independent copy of X_N, then, as 2 X_N^1 = Y_N^{12} + Y_N^{13} - Y_N^{23} with Y_N^{ij} = X_N^i + X_N^j, and using that |a+b+c|^\eta \leq 3^\eta(|a|^\eta + |b|^\eta + |c|^\eta) (which follows by convexity). We have

Hence \sup_N \mathbb{E}[|X_N|^\eta] < +\infty, which shows that (\mathrm{Law}(X_N))_N is relatively compact in \mathbb{W}_\theta.

Step 2: Identification of limit. Let X be a \mathbb{W}_\theta limit point of (X_N)_N along a subsequence, the Lemma follows once we show that X \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1/2).

Let X^1,X^2 be independent copies of X, then (X_N^1,X_N^2) converges in law (up to subsequence) to (X^1,X^2). By the continuous mapping theorem, this implies that Y_N = X_N^1 + X_N^2 converges in law (up to subsequence) to X^1 + X^2, thereby, X^1 + X^2 \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1). As a consequence, for all real \lambda, we have \mathbb{E}[e^{\lambda X}]^2 = \mathbb{E}[e^{\lambda(X^1 + X^2)}] = e^{\lambda^2/2}, which shows that \mathbb{E}[e^{\lambda X}] = e^{\lambda^2/4}, i.e. X \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1/2), concluding the proof.

Consider the family of rescaled counting measures

It is known that \mu_\kappa converges vaguely (i.e., in duality with C_c(\mathbb{R}^d_0)) to the Lebesgue measure \uplambda^d as \kappa \to 0.

Define the measures \eta^\kappa := f \mu^\kappa and \eta = f \uplambda^d. By continuity of f, we have that \eta^\kappa \rightharpoonup \eta vaguely. Since \kappa^d \sum_{p \in \kappa \mathbb{Z}^d_0} f(p) = \eta^\kappa(\mathbb{R}^d_0) and \int_{\mathbb{R}^d_0} f(x) \dd{x} = \eta(\mathbb{R}^d_0), it suffices to show that the family (\eta^\kappa)_{\kappa \leq \kappa_0} is tight for some \kappa_0 > 0. We recall that a sufficient condition is the existence of a measurable function \psi : \mathbb{R}^d_0 \to [0,+\infty] with relatively compact sublevel sets such that \sup_{\kappa \leq \kappa_0} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d_0} \psi \dd{\eta^\kappa} < +\infty. We prove the existence of such a function.

By the assumptions on f, there exists 0 < r < R and C > 0 such that

Choosing \delta > 0 such that \alpha+\delta < d < \gamma-\delta and defining

which, by construction, has relatively compact level sets on \mathbb{R}^d_0, we deduce

Let \kappa_0 = \min(r,R/2). Then for all \kappa \leq \kappa_0, we can apply Lemma D.4 (using \alpha+\delta < d < \gamma-\delta) to obtain, after possibly modifying the constant C (independently of \kappa \leq \kappa_0),

This bound is uniform in \kappa\le \kappa_0, which shows that the family (\eta^\kappa)_{\kappa \leq \kappa_0} is tight. This completes the proof, since tightness, together with vague convergence, upgrades \eta^\kappa \rightharpoonup \eta to narrow convergence and, in particular, implies convergence of the total mass.

We will write C for a constant depending only on the parameters but not on \kappa, which may change from line to line. We assume throughout the proof that \kappa < 1. By the assumptions, we can find R > 1 such that

We set N_\kappa := \lceil R/\kappa \rceil. Let Q_\kappa := [-\kappa/2,\kappa/2]^3, and for all p \in \kappa \mathbb{Z}^3, set Q_\kappa(p) := p + Q_\kappa. Using that |Q_\kappa(p)| = \kappa^3, we bound

We show that each term is O(\kappa^2).

(I): Near 0 integral. As \kappa < 1 \leq R, we have |f(x)| \leq |a| \, |x|^{-1} + C, thereby

Let c_d > 0 such that Q_\kappa \subset B_{c_d \kappa} for all \kappa > 0. Since \int_{B_{c \kappa}} |x|^{-1} \dd{x} = 2 \pi c^2_d \kappa^2. We obtain

(II): Near 0 g-sum. We first bound D^2 g on each Q_\kappa(p) for |p|_\infty \leq \kappa N_\kappa, p \in \kappa \mathbb{Z}^3_0. If x \in Q_\kappa(p), then |x|_\infty \leq |p|_\infty + |x-p|_\infty \leq \kappa (N_\kappa +1/2) \leq R + 2. Therefore |D^2 g(x)| \leq C |x|_\infty^{-\alpha}. On the other hand, we have |x|_\infty \geq |p|_\infty - |x-p|_\infty \geq |p|_\infty - \kappa/2. Since |p|_\infty \geq \kappa (as p \neq 0), we can bound this by |p|_\infty / 2. Similarly, we have |x|_\infty \leq 2 |p|_\infty. Therefore |x|_\infty^{-\alpha} \leq c |p|_\infty^{-\alpha} and we deduce that |D^2 g(x)| \leq C |p|_\infty^{-\alpha}.

As a consequence, using second-order Taylor estimates, we have on Q_\kappa(p)

Using that \int_{Q_\kappa(p)} \nabla g(p) \cdot (x-p) \dd{x} = 0 (since the cube is centered), we obtain

Using Lemma D.4 we have that

as N_\kappa \sim R \kappa^{-1}. We conclude that \textit{(II)} = O(\kappa^2).

(III): Near zero inverse sum. Let \chi(x) := |x|^{-1}. By scaling we have

This time, a first-order Taylor expansion is not enough. Instead we perform a second-order Taylor expansion and write

A rough estimate shows that |D^3 \chi(x)| \leq |x|^{-4}, hence, comparing the |\cdot|-norm to the |\cdot|_\infty-norm, and arguing as in the \textit{(II)} term, we have R_3(\chi,p,x-p) \leq C |p|^{-4}_\infty on p + Q_1. Integrating we obtain that

But \int_{Q_1} x \otimes x \dd{x} = \frac{1}{12} \mathrm{I}_3. Hence

where we used that \chi is harmonic in \mathbb{R}^3_0 in dimension 3. We obtain

which shows \textit{(III)} = O(\kappa^2).

(IV): Far from 0 sum. If |p|_\infty \geq \kappa(N_\kappa+1) and x \in Q_\kappa(p), then |x|_\infty \geq |p|_\infty - |x-p|_\infty \geq \kappa (N_\kappa+1/2) \geq R. Hence we have |D^2 f(x)| \leq C |x|^{-\beta}_\infty on Q_\kappa(p). Since we also have |x|_\infty \geq |p|_\infty / 2, we get that |D^2 f(x)| \leq C |p|^{-\beta}_\infty.

Using the same Taylor expansion argument as for \textit{(II)}, we have

Summing up, and using that \beta > 3 and Lemma D.4,

for \kappa sufficiently small. Here, we used that N_\kappa \to +\infty, so that eventually N_\kappa^{-1} \leq 1/2. This concludes the proof.

Let A_d \geq 0 be such that

A simple combinatorial argument shows that A_d is well-defined. Writing p = \kappa q, and using integral comparison, for \alpha + 1 \geq d, since t \to t^{d-1-\alpha} is non-increasing the near-origin sum satisfies

While for \alpha+1 < d t \to t^{d-1-\alpha} is non-decreasing, therefore

and since ( 1 + \kappa / \epsilon)^{d-\alpha}-1 \leq 2^{d-\alpha}-1 provided that \kappa \leq \epsilon, we conclude. Similarly, the far-field sum satisfies

This concludes the proof since (1-\kappa \epsilon)^{\gamma-d} \geq 2^{d-\gamma} if \kappa \epsilon \leq 1/2.