Sums of von Mangoldt convolutions via trace-sum averages over U(N)

Let k \geq 1 be a fixed integer, and fix a non-empty compact set \mathcal K\subset(0,\infty) for which we set c^+ := \max \mathcal{K}. For an integer N \geq 1 and c\in \mathcal K, put n=\lfloor cN\rfloor; all estimates below are uniform for such c. We begin by identifying the leading polynomial term from the character weight and then use Lemma 3.2 to replace the weighted lattice sum by a volume, before removing the ordering constraints by symmetry.

The leading character weight Using the Cauchy identity, we will first obtain an expression that sums over partitions of all sizes and then extract its degree-n part, which we then compare with the expansion (Proof). For each u\in\mathbb C, we define the specialisation \mathcal A_u by

As noted in Subsection ?, these values determine f(\mathcal A_u) for every symmetric function f. Moreover, since f is a polynomial in finitely many power sums, f(\mathcal A_u) is a polynomial in the parameter u. For two sets of variables X and Y, the Cauchy identity in power-sum form is

We interpret (?), and the specialised identities derived from it, one homogeneous degree in Y at a time. In each fixed degree only finitely many terms occur; after applying \mathcal A_u, both sides are polynomials in u, so taking the coefficient of u^k is legitimate.

Applying \mathcal A_u to the symmetric functions in X and using (?), we obtain

We suppress the variables Y from now on, writing p_j=p_j(Y) and s_\lambda=s_\lambda(Y). For a non-empty partition \lambda, we can write

As s_{\varnothing}(\mathcal A_u)=1 and s_\lambda(\mathcal A_0)=0 for \lambda\neq\varnothing, the positive powers of u arise only from non-empty partitions. Taking the coefficient of u^k, with k\geq1, in the specialised Cauchy identity above gives

Here p_j has degree j, so p_{\nu_1}\cdots p_{\nu_k} has degree \nu_1+\cdots+\nu_k. Similarly, s_\lambda has degree |\lambda|. It follows that the terms of degree n are

where the second equality follows from (?) and the definition (3.3) of A_k(\lambda). As the Schur functions are linearly independent, their coefficients on the two sides are equal. Therefore

We first evaluate c_k(\lambda) when \lambda is a hook. This is not a restriction to a special class of partitions in the final argument; hooks are considered first as they serve as building blocks for Schur functions of arbitrary partitions. Namely, if a partition \lambda = (a_1, \ldots, a_r | b_1, \ldots,b_r) has Frobenius rank r, then Giambelli’s formula [kn:macdonald1995, Ex. 9, p. 47] states

where (a\mid b) is the Frobenius notation for a hook as introduced in (?). Thus, after computing the specialised hook functions s_{(a\mid b)}(\mathcal A_u), we will return to a general partition, apply the specialisation entrywise to this determinant, and then extract the coefficient of u^k.

Let h_q and e_q denote the complete and elementary symmetric functions, and define their generating series by

These two identities follow from equations 2.10 and 2.10’ in [kn:macdonald1995]. For a hook (a\mid b), the Jacobi–Trudi formula gives

The Schur functions indexed by hooks therefore satisfy

As H(-y)E(y)=1, this becomes

Next, we apply the specialisation (?) to the generating series H(x) and E(y). Define H_{\mathcal A_u}(x) := \sum_{q\geq 0}h_q(\mathcal A_u)x^q and E_{\mathcal A_u}(y) := \sum_{q\geq 0}e_q(\mathcal A_u)y^q. We can write both as

Substituting these expressions into (?), we obtain

We also arrive at a separate expression for the series in (?) by comparing with the coefficients in (?). For each hook (a\mid b), define \theta_m(a,b) by

and thus \theta_m(a,b)=c_m((a\mid b)). In particular, for a hook of size a+b+1=n, (?) gives

Using (?), we can write

The coefficients of u^m in these two expressions must agree. Therefore

We now set d=m-1 and expand the factors on the right-hand side of (?),

and (1+y)^{-m} similarly. For a fixed j, the term x^ay^b is obtained by taking r=a-d+j and s=b-j. Hence

Here, as usual, a binomial coefficient is zero when its upper entry is a non-negative integer smaller than its lower entry. Denote the polynomial on the right-hand side of (?) by Q_m(a,b), so that

We now establish the bound \deg Q_m\leq m-1 and identify all terms of Q_m of total degree m-1 in the variables a and b. We use the fact that

whenever f is a polynomial in j of degree less than d. Consider the coefficient of a^pb^q in (?). The coefficient of a^p in \binom{a+j}{d} has degree at most d-p as a polynomial in j, while the coefficient of b^q in \binom{b+d-j}{d} has degree at most d-q. Their product therefore has degree at most 2d-p-q in j. If p+q>d, this degree is less than d, and the alternating sum vanishes. Thus

Focusing on the terms of Q_m with total degree d, the case d=0 is immediate, so assume d\geq1 and fix p,q\geq0 with p+q=d. When viewed as a polynomial in j, the coefficient of a^p in \binom{a+j}{d} has highest-power term

while the coefficient of b^q in \binom{b+d-j}{d} has highest-power term

Since p+q=d, their product has highest power j^d. Using the alternating binomial identity

together with \binom{d}{p}=\binom{d}{q}, and collecting the resulting monomials over all p+q=d, we obtain the entire highest-degree part of Q_m. Recalling that d=m-1, we denote it by

Thus \Theta_m consists precisely of the terms of Q_m having total degree m-1. By substituting n=m-1, x=a and y=b into the polynomial identity (Proof), we may express \Theta_m in terms of a Legendre polynomial, as stated in (?).

This separation is useful because the terms in \Theta_m determine the leading order when the Frobenius coordinates are scaled by N. The remainder Q_m-\Theta_m has degree at most m-2 since \Theta_m is precisely the degree-(m-1) part of Q_m. For (\mathbf a,\mathbf b)\in\mathcal F_r(n,N), the Frobenius coordinates satisfy

Thus the scaled arguments (a_i/N,b_j/N) remain in a fixed compact region. It follows uniformly in i and j that

with no error term when m=1. We now use the previous hook calculations to recover the character weight for (\mathbf a,\mathbf b)\in\mathcal F_r(n,N), with \lambda=(a_1,\ldots,a_r\mid b_1,\ldots,b_r) denoting the corresponding partition. Using (?), and applying the specialisation \mathcal A_u entrywise, gives

By multilinearity of the determinant in its rows, the coefficient of u^k is therefore

Using (?), each entry in column j contributes the factor (-1)^{b_j}. Factoring these signs from the columns gives

From (?), we have A_k(\lambda)=k!\,c_k(\lambda) and, using A_k(\mathbf a,\mathbf b):=A_k(\lambda) for (\mathbf a,\mathbf b)\in\mathcal F_r(n,N), we obtain

In particular, the sum is empty when k<r, so A_k(\mathbf a,\mathbf b)=0 in that case. We rename the sum above with the k! prefactor as \mathcal Q_{k,r}(\mathbf a,\mathbf b), which then gives

A polynomial is alternating in a set of variables if interchanging two of them changes its sign. Swapping two b-variables swaps two determinant columns. Swapping a_i and a_j, and then relabelling m_i and m_j in the composition sum, swaps the corresponding rows. Thus \mathcal Q_{k,r} is alternating separately in the a-variables and the b-variables. Every alternating polynomial is divisible by the corresponding Vandermonde polynomial, so

The product \Delta(\mathbf a)\Delta(\mathbf b) has total degree r(r-1). On the other hand, each term in (?) has degree at most

If r^2>k, then k-r<r(r-1), so the divisibility forces

Thus only ranks r\leq R:=\lfloor\sqrt{k}\rfloor contribute. Because \mathcal K is a non-empty compact subset of (0,\infty), it has a positive minimum. As R depends only on k, we may henceforth assume that N is sufficiently large that n=\lfloor cN\rfloor\geq R+1 uniformly for c\in\mathcal K. Therefore, n-r\geq1 for every 1\leq r\leq R.

Replacing each Q_{m_i} in (?) by its leading part (?) gives

where

By squaring (?), we have

Recall from (3.3) that

Thus, to sum the pointwise error in (?), we need an upper bound for the number of points in \mathcal F_r(n,N) for each fixed r. Dropping both the ordering conditions and the upper bound b_1<N leaves non-negative integers a_1,\ldots,a_r,b_1,\ldots,b_r satisfying only \sum_{i=1}^r(a_i+b_i)=n-r. The number of such 2r-tuples is

since this counts the ways of distributing n-r identical units among 2r non-negative coordinates. Hence

where we used n=\lfloor cN\rfloor with c\in\mathcal K.

For fixed r, the error in (?) is therefore summed over at most O_{r,\mathcal K}(N^{2r-1}) points, giving a total contribution

The rank cutoff restricts the outer sum to r\leq R, so only finitely many values of r occur. Substituting (?) into (3.3) therefore yields

Replacing the lattice sum by a volume We now aim to represent the count in (?) by an integral at leading order. For fixed r, the Frobenius coordinates satisfy

After scaling a_i=Nx_i and b_i=Ny_i, this becomes

Thus the 2r scaled coordinates satisfy one linear constraint, leaving 2r-1 independent variables. By our restriction to sufficiently large N, the parameter d_{r,N}(c) is positive for every 1\leq r\leq R. Since n=\lfloor cN\rfloor,

so d_{r,N}(c)\to c as N\to\infty.

It is convenient to introduce a general parameter d>0 to describe both the finite-N region, where d=d_{r,N}(c), and its limiting form, where d=c. To apply Lemma 3.2 in these independent coordinates, we eliminate y_r. For d>0, let V_{r,d}\subset\mathbb R^{2r-1} have coordinates (x_1,\ldots,x_r,y_1,\ldots,y_{r-1}), set

and impose

When r=1, the above sets of inequalities become 1\geq d-x_1\geq0 and x_1\geq0. These are linear inequalities, so V_{r,d} is a convex polytope. It is bounded because all coordinates are non-negative and their total sum is d.

For d=d_{r,N}(c), the same elimination reduces the original lattice count to 2r-1 integer coordinates; the size condition determines the omitted coordinate uniquely as

The right-hand side is an integer, so y_r also lies on the scaled lattice N^{-1}\mathbb Z. Thus every choice of the remaining 2r-1 scaled lattice coordinates satisfying the inequalities of V_{r,d_{r,N}(c)} determines a valid value of the omitted Frobenius coordinate b_r=Ny_r. Equivalently, multiplying the independent scaled coordinates by N sends such points to integer points of NV_{r,d_{r,N}(c)}\subset\mathbb R^{2r-1}. After removing the lattice points on the boundary hyperplanes corresponding to the strict inequalities in (3.3), the points of \mathcal F_r(n,N) are in one-to-one correspondence with the remaining lattice points of NV_{r,d_{r,N}(c)}\cap\mathbb Z^{2r-1}.

Next, we define the weight

where \tilde{\mathbf y}=(y_1,\ldots,y_{r-1}), and set

We verify the hypotheses of Lemma 3.2 with D=2r-1 and with d as the family parameter. As \mathcal K is a compact subset of (0,\infty), we may choose a compact interval \mathcal I\subset(0,\infty) whose interior contains \mathcal K. Let d^+:=\max\mathcal I. Since 1\leq r\leq R and

we have d_{r,N}(c)\in\mathcal I for all sufficiently large N, uniformly for c\in\mathcal K and 1\leq r\leq R. The linear inequalities in (?) make V_{r,d} convex. For each d\in \mathcal I, choose coordinates satisfying

Every inequality in (?) is then strict. This produces an interior point of V_{r,d}, proving that the polytope is (2r-1)-dimensional. On V_{r,d}, one has 0\leq y_i\leq1 and 0\leq x_i\leq d\leq d^+, so every polytope lies in the common compact box \mathcal C_{\mathcal I}:=[0,d^+]^r\times[0,1]^{r-1}. As the inequalities form a fixed finite list, the number of facets is bounded by the length of this list, and this bound is independent of d.

Choose a fixed bounded open neighbourhood U of \mathcal C_{\mathcal I}. After inserting the expression for y_r from (?), \mathcal P_{k,r,d} is polynomial jointly in the displayed 2r-1 variables and in d. The polynomial and its first derivatives are continuous on the compact set \overline U\times \mathcal I, so they admit a common finite bound. The strict inequalities in (3.3) omit only boundary lattice points satisfying x_i=x_{i+1} or y_i=y_{i+1} for 1\leq i<r, or y_1=1. The hyperplane-counting estimate in the final part of the proof of Lemma 3.2 shows that omitting these points changes the sum by at most O_{k,r,\mathcal K}(N^{2r-2}). Applying the lemma with d=d_{r,N}(c) gives

The parameter in (?) is d_{r,N}(c) rather than c, so we next replace it by its limiting value. Since n=\lfloor cN\rfloor,

The main term in (?) contains J_{k,r}(d_{r,N}(c)), while the limiting coefficient involves J_{k,r}(c). By (?), the two parameters differ by O_r(N^{-1}). It is enough to prove that J_{k,r}(d) is uniformly Lipschitz in d: after multiplication by N^{2r-1}, an O(N^{-1}) change in J_{k,r} contributes O(N^{2r-2}), matching the error in (?).

For the Lipschitz estimate, we continue to use the compact interval \mathcal I chosen above. In the independent coordinates \mathbf z=(x_1,\ldots,x_r,y_1,\ldots,y_{r-1}), put S_r(\mathbf z):=\sum_{i=1}^r x_i+\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}y_i, so that the eliminated coordinate is y_r=d-S_r(\mathbf z). For r=1, we have \mathbf z=x_1. We refer separately to rank one only where the symbol y_{r-1} occurs; the estimates are otherwise identical.

Every V_{r,d} with d\in\mathcal I lies in the fixed box \mathcal B_{r,\mathcal I}:=[0,d^+]^r\times[0,1]^{r-1}, with the second factor omitted for r=1. This holds because all the original coordinates are non-negative, each y_i is at most 1, and \sum_{i=1}^r(x_i+y_i)=d\leq d^+. We first estimate the change in the region. For r\geq2, substituting y_r=d-S_r(\mathbf z) into y_{r-1}\geq y_r\geq0 gives S_r(\mathbf z)\leq d and S_r(\mathbf z)+y_{r-1}\geq d. All other inequalities defining V_{r,d} are independent of d. For r=1, the corresponding conditions are x_1\leq d and x_1+1\geq d. For d,d'\in\mathcal I, write \underline d:=\min\{d,d'\} and \overline d:=\max\{d,d'\}. A point belonging to exactly one of V_{r,d} and V_{r,d'} must lie in one of the regions swept out by the two parameter-dependent boundaries as the parameter varies between d and d'. For r\geq2, this gives

For r=1, replace the two displayed functions by x_1 and x_1+1.

Fixing every coordinate except x_1, either set on the right of (?) restricts x_1 to an interval of length at most \overline d-\underline d=|d-d'|. The projection of \mathcal B_{r,\mathcal I} onto the other coordinates has bounded volume, so Fubini’s theorem gives

For r=1, the sets in question are intervals of length at most |d-d'|, and the same estimate applies. We next estimate the change in the weight. Formula (?) expresses \mathcal P_{k,r,d}(\mathbf z) as a polynomial in (\mathbf z,d). On the compact set \mathcal B_{r,\mathcal I}\times\mathcal I, there are constants M_0,M_1\ll_{k,r,\mathcal K}1 for which

The mean value theorem gives |\mathcal P_{k,r,d}(\mathbf z)-\mathcal P_{k,r,d'}(\mathbf z)| \leq M_1|d-d'|. Splitting the two integrals over their common part and their disjoint parts, we obtain

We have proved

Taking d=d_{r,N}(c) and d'=c, and applying (?), gives

uniformly for c\in\mathcal K.

Substituting (?) into (?), we obtain

The error from (?) has the same order as the lattice-to-volume error. Inserting (?) into (?) gives

For each r, the main term has order N^{2k-1} and the error has order N^{2k-2}. The number R=\lfloor\sqrt{k}\rfloor depends only on k, so the sum over r preserves this error order. We arrive at

The symmetric integral

We now rewrite J_{k,r}(c) in a symmetric form. By (?), y_r is determined by (?); equivalently, this constraint may be imposed using the Dirac delta distribution. Integrating first with respect to y_r gives

Indeed, the y_r-integration sets

which is exactly (?) with d=c. No additional factor appears because the derivative of the delta argument with respect to y_r is 1. Replacing the strict inequalities by weak ones does not change the integral, since the corresponding boundary hyperplanes have measure zero within the constrained region.

It remains to remove the ordering conditions. The determinant defining \Phi_{k,r} is alternating separately in the \mathbf x- and \mathbf y-variables: permuting the y_j permutes determinant columns, while permuting the x_i permutes rows after relabelling the summation variables (m_1,\ldots,m_r). Hence, for \sigma,\tau\in S_r,

It follows that \Phi_{k,r}^2 is invariant under separate permutations of the x- and y-coordinates, as is the delta factor. Up to boundary sets of measure zero, the domain \mathbb R_{\geq0}^r\times[0,1]^r is the disjoint union of the (r!)^2 regions obtained by fixing one ordering of the x_i and one ordering of the y_i. Coordinate permutations preserve both the measure and the integrand, so each region contributes equally. Therefore

Combining (?) with (?) proves the asserted asymptotic and the integral formula for \delta_k(c), uniformly for c\in\mathcal K.

Fix k\in\mathbb Z_{\geq1} and \mathcal K=[c^-,c^+]\subset(0,\infty). It is enough to prove the asymptotic estimate uniformly on compact intervals, because every compact subset of (0,\infty) is contained in such an interval. For c\in\mathcal K, set

The value c_N is the scaled composition total, while M_N is the upper endpoint for the scaled block positions. To place c and c_N in one fixed interval, define

The lower bound c\geq c^->0 ensures that n\geq1 uniformly for c\in\mathcal K once N is sufficiently large. For such N, we also have c,c_N\in\mathcal K_* and M_N,1\in[1/2,3/2]. We work with such N throughout. Constants depending on \mathcal K_* may therefore be included in the notation O_{k,\mathcal K}.

Fix an admissible pair (\pi,\sigma)\in\mathfrak B_k. Let \tilde{\mathcal C}_N(\pi,\sigma;n) denote the relaxed configurations obtained from \mathcal C_N(\pi,\sigma;n) by omitting condition (ii) in Lemma 3.6. The 2k-1 integer coordinates chosen above identify this set with the points of \mathbb Z^{2k-1} in a convex polytope \mathcal P_N. Each cycle total and each composition coordinate is bounded by n, while each reference position lies in [0,N-1]. Thus \mathcal P_N is contained in a closed ball of radius

Applying Theorem 3.1 with D=2k-1 gives

This remains valid when \mathcal P_N is empty or lower-dimensional, in which case \operatorname{vol}_{2k-1}(\mathcal P_N)=0. The term 1 in (3.1) is absorbed into the error term, including when k=1. The relaxed count in (?) includes configurations in which two distinct blocks occupy the same position. Lemma 3.7 bounds their number by O_{k,\mathcal K}(N^{2k-2}). Removing these configurations gives

We next scale the polytope so that its variables remain bounded as N\to\infty. Define

The variable \tau_a is the scaled cycle total. Dividing each of the 2k-1 free coordinates by N defines a scaled polytope \hat{\mathcal P}_N. Each coordinate contributes one factor of N when the original volume is recovered, so

The scaled composition entries and block positions satisfy

We use Dirac delta factors to impose the composition total and the cycle balance conditions. For each cycle \mathcal C_a, eliminate v_{j_a} using its balance equation, and eliminate u_{i_s} using \sum_i u_i=c_N. With the cycle equations listed first, the coefficient matrix for these variables is triangular with diagonal entries -1,\ldots,-1,1. Its determinant has absolute value 1, so integration against the Dirac delta factors leaves ordinary Lebesgue measure in the remaining composition coordinates.

The free coordinates used to define \hat{\mathcal P}_N contain \tau_1,\ldots,\tau_{s-1} rather than u_{i_1},\ldots,u_{i_{s-1}}. For a<s, the definition of the cycle total gives

Replacing u_{i_a} by \tau_a for every a<s is a triangular change of coordinates with determinant 1. The measure obtained after applying the Dirac delta factors therefore agrees with the measure in the scaled free coordinates used in (?).

Next, we integrate over the block positions. For a cycle \mathcal C_a=(B_1,\ldots,B_\ell), choose the ordering with B_1=B_a^0, the reference block selected above. Iterating the scaled block equations in (?) and using the partial displacements from (?) gives

Returning to the reference block imposes the balance condition

Under this condition, all positions in the cycle lie in [0,M_N] exactly when

By the definition of the cycle width in (?), the interval in (?) has length

Using the first \ell-1 block equations in cycle order to eliminate y_{B_2},\ldots,y_{B_\ell} gives a triangular coefficient matrix with diagonal entries -1. Its determinant has absolute value 1, so no further factor appears. Integrating the reference position in each cycle and multiplying the interval lengths gives

Equation (?) contains three quantities that depend on N: the lower bound 1/N, the composition total c_N, and the position interval length M_N. Lemma 3.8 compares them with 0, c, and 1. Apply the lemma on \mathcal K_* with

The estimate for the lower bound gives

while the parameter estimate gives

Thus

Substituting (?) into (?) gives

Equation (?) identifies the volume in (?). The approximation in (?) changes the resulting leading term by O_{k,\mathcal K}(N^{2k-2}). We obtain

uniformly for c\in\mathcal K. Insert (?) into (3.6) and divide by N^{2k-1}. The set \mathfrak B_k is finite, with size depending only on k, so summing the error terms gives, uniformly for c\in\mathcal K,

Therefore, by (?), we have

It remains to express (?) in the form stated in (2.2). By (?), each summand is the integral associated with (\pi,\sigma). We may add the pairs in \mathfrak J_k\setminus\mathfrak B_k without changing the value. For any such pair, the union of the blocks in some cycle \mathcal C contains labels of only one sign. Its total displacement D_{\mathcal C,|\mathcal C|}(\mathbf u,\mathbf v) is either a non-empty sum of positive u_i or the negative of a non-empty sum of positive v_j. The balance condition has no solution in \mathbb R_{>0}^{2k}, so the integral associated with the pair is zero. Adding these pairs extends the sum to \mathfrak J_k and gives (2.2). As the interval \mathcal K was arbitrary, the identity holds for every c>0 and all error estimates are uniform on compact subsets of (0,\infty).

We begin by substituting the expansion (?) into (2.1). As this expansion is finite, we may integrate term by term, so the evaluation of \delta_k(c) reduces to computing the contribution from each term \mathbf x^\alpha\mathbf y^\beta. For (\alpha,\beta)\in\mathcal A_{k,r}, set

Using Theorem 2.1, we obtain

We use the convention t_+^0:=\mathds{1}_{\{t>0\}}. For t\neq0, the Dirichlet simplex identity gives

The value at t=0 does not affect the subsequent integrals. With d=d_{\alpha,r}=|\alpha|+r-1 and t=c-\sum_i y_i, the above gives

We first evaluate I_{\beta,d}(c) for arbitrary c>0. The integral is over the cube [0,1]^r, so in addition to y_i\geq0 we must impose the upper bounds y_i\leq1. We do this by an inclusion–exclusion mechanism. Let [r] := \{1,2,\ldots, r\} and

On the region \mathbf y\in\mathbb R_{\geq0}^r, the condition 0\leq y_i<1 has indicator 1-\mathds{1}_{\{y_i\geq1\}}. Hence the indicator of the cube [0,1)^r is

Expanding this product amounts to choosing, for each subset S\subseteq[r], the factor -\mathds{1}_{\{y_i\geq1\}} for every i\in S and the factor 1 for every i\notin S. Therefore

Multiplying by f(\mathbf y) and integrating over \mathbb R_{\geq0}^r gives

Replacing [0,1)^r by [0,1]^r does not change the integral, because their difference lies on the boundary y_i=1, which has measure zero.

We now evaluate the integral corresponding to each subset S\subseteq[r]. For i\in S, the condition y_i\geq1 gives a lower bound of 1, while the simplex formula is most naturally applied when all variables start at 0. We therefore set y_i=1+z_i for i\in S and y_i=z_i for i\notin S. This change of variables maps the region of integration onto \mathbb R_{\geq0}^r and has Jacobian 1. It also gives

To reduce the shifted factors to ordinary powers of the z_i, we expand

For each fixed choice of q_i, define

Then |\gamma|=|\beta|-\sum_{i\in S}q_i and the corresponding integral has the form

We evaluate these integrals using the following consequence of the simplex integral formula: for \gamma\in\mathbb Z_{\geq0}^r, d\in\mathbb Z_{\geq0}, and \rho\in\mathbb R,

To verify this identity, introduce one additional variable w=\rho-\sum_{i=1}^r z_i. The integral may then be written as

and (?) follows from (Proof) in dimension r+1.

Applying (?) with \rho=c-|S| to each term in the binomial expansion gives

The factorials simplify using

Setting M:=d+|\beta|+r and using d+|\gamma|+r = M-\sum_{i\in S}q_i, we obtain

For (\alpha,\beta)\in\mathcal A_{k,r}, the support relation |\alpha|+|\beta|=2(k-r) gives

Substituting (?) into (Proof), and then using (Proof), gives the finite-spline expansion stated in the theorem.

We now suppose that c\geq\lfloor\sqrt{k}\rfloor. Every rank in (Proof) satisfies r\leq\lfloor\sqrt{k}\rfloor, and therefore c\geq r. Moreover, for \mathbf y\in[0,1]^r, we have \sum_{i=1}^r y_i\leq r\leq c. Hence c-\sum_i y_i\geq0 throughout the cube, so the positive-part truncation in (Proof) may be omitted (the possible equality at the boundary does not affect the integral). As d is a non-negative integer, the multinomial theorem gives the finite expansion

The sum is finite, so it may be integrated term by term. For every i,

Combining these last two results, and comparing the resulting finite series with the definition in (?), we obtain

Substituting (?) into (Proof), and then into (Proof), proves (2.3). Since (-d)_{|m|}=0 for |m|>d, every Lauricella series here terminates. Thus the argument requires neither a convergence condition nor analytic continuation, and it remains valid at c=\lfloor\sqrt{k}\rfloor.

For completeness, the same formulas justify the two structural observations following the theorem. Each term in (2.3) is a polynomial in c of degree at most d_{\alpha,r}, and

At a candidate breakpoint j, only the terms with |S|=j in (?) change from zero to non-zero. Their truncated powers have exponent

Consequently each such term is C^{2j-2} at c=j, and so is \delta_k(c).

Fix an integer k\geq1, and let \alpha>0 be real. We differentiate the 2k-contour formula in Theorem 5.1, and then organise the result in terms of a two-weight multiple Hankel determinant. The key observation is that the r-th contour sector, i.e. the r-th term in (5.1), contributes only for \alpha>r. The only point requiring care in differentiating (5.1) is that the summation range changes when \alpha crosses an integer. Since P_{r,k}=0 for r>k, we may replace this varying range by the fixed sum

where the indicator retains the original condition r<\alpha. For r\geq1, Theorem 5.1 gives P_{r,k}(r)=P'_{r,k}(r)=0, so the function \alpha\mapsto\mathds{1}_{\{\alpha>r\}}P_{r,k}(\alpha) is continuously differentiable at \alpha=r. For r=0, the indicator is identically one on \alpha>0. Evaluating at \alpha=c and using M_k'(c)=\delta_k(c), we obtain

We may simplify P_{r,k}(c) by using (-1)^{k-a}\bigl(T(\mathbf x)-c\bigr)^{k+a} = \bigl(c -T(\mathbf x)\bigr)^{k+a}. Thus, on the range c>r, differentiating the ordinary polynomial P_{r,k}(c) gives the same contour integral as (5.1), with

in place of the original power.

It remains to encode the factor \mathds{1}_{\{c>r\}}. Because the variables x_j lie on complex contours, the notation (c-T(\mathbf x))_+^m will not mean the pointwise positive part of a complex number. Instead, for the rational contour factors occurring here, we use it as shorthand for the residue-first inverse Laplace expression

The contour residues inside the square brackets are evaluated before the inverse Laplace transform is taken. To see how this expression encodes the threshold c=r, write in the r-th contour sector

Then

The contour poles have finite order, so evaluating the residues uses only finitely many terms in the Taylor series of the final exponential. The result is therefore e^{-rs} multiplied by a finite Laurent polynomial in s. Its negative powers are inverted using

Every such term is zero for c<r and becomes an ordinary polynomial in c-r for c>r. Consequently, away from c=r, the residue-first expression in (?) is precisely the ordinary contour polynomial multiplied by \mathds{1}_{\{c>r\}}. At c=r, the complete r-th sector is assigned its continuous value; this is well-defined because P_{r,k}(r)=P'_{r,k}(r)=0.

We now shift the y-variables by setting w_\ell=y_\ell+1 for 1\leq\ell\leq k. In the sector indexed by r, the contours become

Denote these iterated contour systems by \mathcal C_x(r) and \mathcal C_w(r), and write d\mathbf w=\prod_{\ell=1}^k dw_\ell. Combining (Proof) with the residue-first convention (?), after this change of variables, gives

where

and

The inverse Laplace transform is understood in the residue-first sense of (?); in particular, it already encodes the restriction c>r. The powers of A(\mathbf x,\mathbf w) and B(\mathbf x,\mathbf w) above are generated by

Consider the exponential generating integral

We will relate this expression to D_k(0;s,u,v) after applying \partial_u^a\partial_v^k and evaluating at u=v=0, for 0\leq a\leq k. The reason the moments X_n and W_n arise is visible directly from the integrand in (?). Its one-variable weight factors are

The Laplace variable s appears only in the x-weight because the cutoff depends only on T(\mathbf x)=\sum_jx_j. To connect these weights with the moments defined in (?) and (?), introduce

Then

Suppressing the common arguments, so that

we have

Therefore the first k columns are generated by the X-moments and the last k columns by the W-moments. The above also makes the block Hankel description transparent; reorder the scalar rows in pairs as (0,k),(1,k+1),\ldots,(k-1,2k-1) and reorder the columns so that each X-column is placed next to the corresponding W-column:

The row and column reorderings leave the determinant unchanged. Hence

In particular, the block in position (p,q) depends only on p+q, i.e. the same 2 \times 2 block appears along each block anti-diagonal. We now use a grouped form of Andréief’s identity; see Kuijlaars [kuijlaarsMOP, Lemma 2.1]. Let f_0,\ldots,f_{2k-1}, g_0,\ldots,g_{k-1}, and h_0,\ldots,h_{k-1} be functions whose products f_mg_q and f_mh_q are absolutely integrable with respect to \mu_X and \mu_W, respectively. Writing \mathbf z=(x_1,\ldots,x_k,w_1,\ldots,w_k), we have

Splitting the combined Vandermonde gives

and therefore

In the above, replacing each of the k^2 factors w_\ell-x_j by -(x_j-w_\ell) contributes (-1)^{k^2}=(-1)^k. Next, we aim to recover the integrals in (?) from D_k(0;s,u,v). Apply (?) at \theta=0, then differentiate by \partial_u^a\partial_v^k and evaluate at u=v=0, where 0\leq a\leq k. The contours are compact and the integrands are entire in u,v, so differentiation may be taken under the contour integrals. By (?), this produces the factor A(\mathbf x,\mathbf w)^aB(\mathbf x,\mathbf w)^k. In the expansion of the product measures, suppose that p of the x-variables are integrated over C_1 and q of the w-variables over C_0. We show that only the balanced choices p=q contribute.

After setting y_\ell=w_\ell-1, the integrand and contours are those defining J_{-s,p,q}^{(a)}(1) in [kn:bcis26, proof of Lemma 2.6], with \Phi_L(\mathbf x)=e^{LT(\mathbf x)}. This function is entire and symmetric in the x-variables, so the shifted pole-count argument there applies and gives J_{-s,p,q}^{(a)}(1)=0 whenever p\ne q, for every 0\leq a\leq k. Hence only the balanced choices p=q=r survive.

There are \binom{k}{r}^2 balanced contour choices. Since the integrand is symmetric separately in the x-variables and in the w-variables, these choices may be relabelled into \mathcal C_x(r) and \mathcal C_w(r) from (?). Using (?), we obtain

Write the contour integral in the r-th term as e^{-rs}Q_{r,a}(s), where Q_{r,a} is a polynomial because the contour poles have finite order. If we put h=k-r, the total vanishing order of the Vandermonde and cross factors at the contour centres is

and the total pole order is at most 2kh+a+k. Taking a residue in 2k variables therefore gives

For r=0, counting only the x-variables gives the stronger bound

A negative degree bound means that the residue vanishes. After multiplication by s^{-(k+a)}, only negative powers of s occur, with exponents at most -k for r=0 and -2r^2 for r\geq1. Thus (?) applies, and the contributions with r\geq1 vanish continuously at c=r. Combining (?) with (?) gives

Here the derivatives in u,v are evaluated at u=v=0 before Laplace inversion. Finally, the binomial identity gives

Substituting the above into (?) proves (2.4).

To relate the discrete sum to an integral, we associate a unit cube to each lattice point. Let \mathcal C denote the common compact set containing all the polytopes V_t. As \mathcal{C} is bounded, we may choose a fixed bounded box

containing every V_t. For each \mathbf m\in\mathbb Z^D, define the half-open unit cube

The cubes Q_{\mathbf m}, as \mathbf m ranges over \mathbb Z^D, tile \mathbb R^D, and each has volume 1. The half-open convention makes the cubes pairwise disjoint and ensures that every point of \mathbb R^D belongs to exactly one of them. We now replace each lattice point \mathbf m\in NV_t\cap\mathbb Z^D by its corresponding unit cube and set

Thus W_{N,t} is a cubical approximation to NV_t. This construction is useful because the summand \mathcal P_t(\mathbf m/N) in (3.2) can be compared with the integral of \mathcal P_t(\mathbf u/N) over the unit cube Q_{\mathbf m}. Summing these cube integrals will then produce an integral over W_{N,t}.

It will also be important to have a uniform bound for the number of cubes involved. Since V_t\subset B, we have NV_t\subset NB for every t. In each coordinate direction, the box NB has length O(N) and hence contains O(N) possible integer coordinates. It follows that

so W_{N,t} is the union of O(N^D) unit cubes. All the implied constants depend only on the fixed box B and on D, and are therefore uniform in t. Put M:=\sup_{t\in T}\|\mathcal P_t\|_{C^1(U)}. For \mathbf m\in NV_t\cap\mathbb Z^D and \mathbf u\in Q_{\mathbf m}, we have \|\mathbf u-\mathbf m\|\leq\sqrt D. Since \mathcal C is compact and U is an open neighbourhood of \mathcal C, the segment joining \mathbf m/N to \mathbf u/N lies in U for all sufficiently large N, uniformly in t,\mathbf m,\mathbf u. The mean value theorem therefore gives

As Q_{\mathbf m} has volume 1, it follows that

There are O(N^D) such lattice points; summing the preceding identity over \mathbf m\in NV_t\cap\mathbb Z^D gives a total error

The half-open cubes Q_{\mathbf m} are pairwise disjoint and their union is W_{N,t}, so

And this gives

It remains to compare W_{N,t} with NV_t; the two regions agree except near the boundary. Denoted by \partial(NV_t), the boundary of NV_t is the union of the facets of NV_t. Recall that a facet is a flat face of dimension D-1, and is therefore one dimension lower than the D-dimensional polytope itself. For two sets A and B, their symmetric difference is

it is the set of points belonging to exactly one of A and B.

Let \mathbf x\in W_{N,t}\mathbin{\triangle}NV_t, and let Q_{\mathbf m} be the unique half-open unit cube containing \mathbf x. By the definition of W_{N,t} in (Proof), the cube Q_{\mathbf m} was selected if and only if \mathbf m\in NV_t. Because the cubes are pairwise disjoint and \mathbf x\in Q_{\mathbf m}, it follows that

Therefore, as \mathbf x belongs to the symmetric difference, exactly one of \mathbf x and \mathbf m belongs to NV_t. Since the line segment joining them lies in Q_{\mathbf m}, it must pass through the boundary of NV_t and we have

We now choose \mathbf y in this intersection; the points \mathbf x and \mathbf y lie in the same unit cube, whose diameter is \sqrt D, so \|\mathbf x-\mathbf y\|\leq\sqrt D. This means that every point where W_{N,t} and NV_t differ lies in a fixed-width neighbourhood of \partial(NV_t). Equivalently,

As every V_t lies in the fixed bounded box B, each facet of V_t has diameter O(1), uniformly in t. The dilation from V_t to NV_t multiplies every distance by N, so each facet of NV_t has diameter O(N).

Let \mathcal F be a facet of NV_t, and let H be the hyperplane containing it. Each line perpendicular to H is determined by its unique point of intersection \mathbf p with H. Such a line can meet the \sqrt D-neighbourhood of \mathcal F only if \mathbf p lies within distance \sqrt D of \mathcal F. Fixing any point of \mathcal F as a centre, all these points \mathbf p lie in a ball of radius O(N) in H. This ball has (D-1)-dimensional volume O(N^{D-1}) within H, while the part of the neighbourhood on each perpendicular line has length at most 2\sqrt D. Tonelli’s theorem [vanDoorn2021, Theorem 2] calculates the volume of the neighbourhood by adding these lengths over the corresponding points \mathbf p\in H, giving

By hypothesis, V_t, and therefore NV_t, has at most J facets, where J is independent of t. This also means that the boundary \partial(NV_t) is the union of at most J facets. Every point lying within distance \sqrt D of the boundary lies within distance \sqrt D of at least one of these facets, so the \sqrt D-neighbourhood of the boundary is the union of at most J facet neighbourhoods. Each of these has volume O(N^{D-1}) by the estimate above, which gives an O(N^{D-1}) volume for the \sqrt D-neighbourhood of \partial(NV_t) as it is the volume of their union. Equation (?) states that W_{N,t}\mathbin{\triangle}NV_t is contained in this neighbourhood. Overall, we obtain

For all sufficiently large N, we have \mathbf u/N\in U throughout W_{N,t}\cup NV_t: this follows from the preceding segment argument on W_{N,t}, while on NV_t it is immediate from \mathbf u/N\in V_t\subset U. Hence the uniform C^1 bound gives |\mathcal P_t(\mathbf u/N)|\leq M on both regions. Their common part contributes equally to the two integrals, while the remaining points belong to their symmetric difference. Therefore,

where the final equality follows from (?). Thus

Combining this with (?) gives

Under the change of variables \mathbf u=N\mathbf z, we have d\mathbf u=N^D\,d\mathbf z, and hence

This proves (3.2). To conclude, consider the effect of omitting lattice points on facets. A facet of NV_t lies on a hyperplane

where at least one coefficient, say \alpha_j, is non-zero. Inside NB, there are O(N^{D-1}) integer choices for the other D-1 coordinates. Once these coordinates are fixed, the equation determines x_j uniquely, so there is at most one possible integer value of x_j. Thus each facet contains O(N^{D-1}) lattice points. Note that each NV_t has at most J facets and, as |\mathcal P_t(\mathbf m/N)|\leq M, omitting the lattice points lying on any chosen subset of these facets changes the sum by at most

The implied constant is independent of t and of the chosen subset.

By definition,

Using (?), F_{k,n}(U) can be written as a sum of products of power-sum symmetric functions at the eigenvalues of U. By (?), we express each power-sum product p_\mu = p_{\mu_1} \cdots p_{\mu_k} in the Schur basis. Applying it to every ordered composition \nu=(\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_k) of n gives

By definition, I_k(n;N) is the Haar integral of |F_{k,n}(U)|^2. Substituting (Proof) and applying (?) eliminates all cross terms. Since the characters of S_n are real-valued, |A_k(\lambda)|^2=A_k(\lambda)^2, and therefore

If \lambda has Frobenius rank r, the identities (?) show that the conditions in (Proof) are precisely those defining \mathcal F_r(n,N). Every partition has a unique Frobenius rank and unique Frobenius coordinates, so grouping (Proof) by rank proves (3.3). The sum is finite: the strict inequalities in the Frobenius coordinates give a_i,b_i\geq r-i, and hence |\lambda|\geq r^2.

Expanding the absolute square in (?) gives

In particular, \mathbf p=(p_1,\ldots,p_k) and \mathbf q=(q_1,\ldots,q_k) range over the ordered compositions of n into k positive parts. For fixed \mathbf p and \mathbf q, Theorem 3.4 evaluates the integral by introducing \mathbf r,\mathbf s\in[N]_0^k and gives

where

For each choice of \mathbf p, \mathbf q, \mathbf r and \mathbf s in these sums, define x\in\mathbb Z^{4k} by

The bounds on \mathbf r and \mathbf s, together with the composition conditions on \mathbf p and \mathbf q, are precisely conditions (i) and (ii). Conversely, the four rows of any x satisfying (i) and (ii) recover a unique choice of \mathbf p, \mathbf q, \mathbf r and \mathbf s. This construction is therefore a bijection.

For a lattice point obtained in this way, (?) and the formula for h_a(\mathbf r,\mathbf s) give

Write

The summand indexed by \mathbf p, \mathbf q, \mathbf r and \mathbf s is \det M_x. If \phi_x(a)\notin[N]_0 for some a, then row a of M_x is zero. If every value of \phi_x lies in [N]_0 but \phi_x is not injective, two rows of M_x are the same standard basis vector. In both cases, \det M_x=0. Thus \det M_x can be non-zero only if \phi_x takes values in [N]_0 and is injective. As [N]_0 has N elements, every injective map from [N]_0 to itself is bijective. Therefore, \det M_x can be non-zero only when \phi_x is a permutation of [N]_0. When \phi_x is a permutation, the Leibniz expansion is

The product is non-zero only for \tau=\phi_x, so \det M_x=\operatorname{sgn}(\phi_x). Under the bijection above, the points in A_{k,n,N}^+ contribute +1, the points in A_{k,n,N}^- contribute -1, and all other points contribute 0. Summing these contributions gives (?).

We prove (3.6) by constructing a bijection that preserves the permutation sign between A_{k,n,N}^+\cup A_{k,n,N}^- and the disjoint union of the sets \mathcal C_N(\pi,\sigma;n) over (\pi,\sigma)\in\mathfrak B_k.

Fix X\in A_{k,n,N}^+\cup A_{k,n,N}^- and define T,\pi,\mathbf x,\sigma by the construction preceding the lemma. That discussion shows that (\pi,\sigma)\in\mathfrak B_k and \operatorname{sgn}(\phi_X)=\operatorname{sgn}(\sigma). The block positions are pairwise distinct, and \sum_i p_i=n together with (?) gives (\mathbf p,\mathbf q,\mathbf x)\in \mathcal C_N(\pi,\sigma;n). For any triple in \mathcal C_N(\pi,\sigma;n), summing the block equations over B\in\pi gives \sum_j q_j=\sum_i p_i=n, so both \mathbf p and \mathbf q are compositions of n into k positive parts.

To construct the inverse map, take (\pi,\sigma)\in\mathfrak B_k and (\mathbf p,\mathbf q,\mathbf x)\in \mathcal C_N(\pi,\sigma;n). Each signed label belongs to a unique block of \pi, so the assignments

are well defined and give \mathbf r,\mathbf s\in[N]_0^k. Let X\in\mathbb Z^{4k} be the point corresponding to (\mathbf r,\mathbf s,\mathbf p,\mathbf q) under the identification (Proof).

Every coordinate r_i or s_j equals x_B for some B\in\pi. Conversely, every block is non-empty, so each x_B is equal to at least one coordinate r_i or s_j. The occupied set of X, defined by the same formula as (?), is therefore

Condition (ii) ensures that distinct blocks have distinct positions, so the blocks determined by X are exactly the blocks of \pi. At the position x_B, (3.4) and (?) give

The block equation (?) and (?) now give

For m\in[N]_0\setminus T, no index is assigned to m, so \phi_X(m)=m. Thus \phi_X fixes the unoccupied positions and permutes the occupied positions according to \sigma. In particular, \phi_X is a permutation of [N]_0 and

We also have r_i,s_j\in[N]_0, p_i,q_j>0, and \sum_i p_i=\sum_jq_j=n. The lattice point X therefore belongs to A_{k,n,N}^+ when \sigma is even and to A_{k,n,N}^- when \sigma is odd.

The two constructions are inverse and give a bijection

Under this bijection, a point X contributes \operatorname{sgn}(\phi_X) to the signed count in (?), while the corresponding triple contributes \operatorname{sgn}(\sigma) to the sum in (3.6). These signs are equal, so summing over the bijection proves (3.6).

Use the 2k-1 integer variables chosen above. Fix distinct blocks B and C. We shall show that the condition x_B=x_C is either impossible or is given by one affine equation with at least one non-zero coefficient in the chosen variables.

Suppose first that B and C lie in different cycles. Iterating the block equations in (?) expresses each block position as the reference position for its cycle minus a partial displacement. The equation x_B=x_C has coefficient 1 in the first reference position and coefficient -1 in the second. It is therefore an affine equation with a non-zero coefficient in the chosen variables.

Now suppose that B and C lie in the same directed cycle \mathcal C_a. Let \mathcal R be the set of blocks encountered when moving from B in the direction of \sigma, up to but not including C. This is a non-empty proper subset of \mathcal C_a. To distinguish the labels in this segment from all labels in the cycle, define

Adding (?) over the blocks in \mathcal R gives

Thus x_B=x_C is equivalent to H_{\mathcal R}(\mathbf p,\mathbf q)=0.

Assume that there are positive labels i^+\in\Omega_{\mathcal R} and (i')^+\in\Omega_a\setminus\Omega_{\mathcal R}. For z\in\mathbb R, replace p_i by p_i+z and p_{i'} by p_{i'}-z. The cycle total t_a is unchanged, while H_{\mathcal R} changes by z. The same argument applies if there are negative labels j^-\in\Omega_{\mathcal R} and (j')^-\in\Omega_a\setminus\Omega_{\mathcal R}. Replacing q_j by q_j+z and q_{j'} by q_{j'}-z preserves t_a and changes H_{\mathcal R} by -z. These replacements are used only to test whether the expression in (?) is constant on the affine space defined by the equality constraints for the relaxed configurations. The replaced values need not satisfy the positivity and position inequalities. In either case, H_{\mathcal R}=0 is an affine equation with a non-zero coefficient in the chosen variables.

It remains to consider the case in which neither sign occurs in both \Omega_{\mathcal R} and \Omega_a\setminus\Omega_{\mathcal R}. Both sets contain a signed label because every block is non-empty. Admissibility ensures that \Omega_a contains labels of both signs. The two sets must therefore contain opposite signs. If \Omega_{\mathcal R} contains the positive labels, then H_{\mathcal R}=t_a. If it contains the negative labels, then H_{\mathcal R}=-t_a. Every composition entry is positive, so t_a>0 and the equation H_{\mathcal R}=0 has no solutions in either case.

For each pair of distinct blocks, the coincidence condition is now either impossible or one affine equation with a non-zero coefficient in the 2k-1 free integer variables. Choose a variable with a non-zero coefficient in this equation. Each of the other 2k-2 variables has O_{k,\mathcal K}(N) possible integer values. Once these variables are fixed, the equation determines at most one value of the chosen variable. There are at most \binom{2k}{2} pairs of distinct blocks, which gives the stated bound.

Write \operatorname{Cyc}(\sigma)=\{\mathcal C_1,\ldots,\mathcal C_s\}, and retain the sets P_a,Q_a and the indices i_a,j_a chosen above. To separate the scale t from the proportions assigned to the composition entries, define the normalised balance polytope

Thus \mathcal S_{\pi,\sigma} consists of non-negative composition proportions for which \sum_i\alpha_i=1 and every cycle is balanced. Adding the cycle balance equations gives

The first equation in (Proof) then gives \sum_j\beta_j=1. Both coordinate sums are fixed, so \mathcal S_{\pi,\sigma} is bounded. We shall also need a point of this polytope at which every coordinate is positive. Choose \rho_1,\ldots,\rho_s>0 with \rho_1+\cdots+\rho_s=1. For each a, distribute \rho_a among the coordinates \alpha_i with i\in P_a, using positive values, and distribute the same amount among the coordinates \beta_j with j\in Q_a. The sets P_a and Q_a are non-empty by admissibility, so this defines a point of \mathcal S_{\pi,\sigma} with every coordinate positive.

To describe the measure on the polytope in (Proof), first write its balance equation for \mathcal C_a explicitly. By (?), this equation is

Use this equation to eliminate \beta_{j_a} for each 1\leq a\leq s, and use \sum_i\alpha_i=1 to eliminate \alpha_{i_s}. Order the equations by the s cycle balance equations and then the total equation, and order the eliminated variables as

Each \beta_{j_a} occurs in its own cycle balance equation with coefficient -1 and in no other equation. The variable \alpha_{i_s} occurs with coefficient 1 in the balance equation for \mathcal C_s and in the total equation. The resulting coefficient matrix is therefore triangular, with diagonal entries -1,\ldots,-1,1. Its determinant is (-1)^s, whose absolute value is 1. Thus the equations are independent, and eliminating them introduces no additional factor into the measure. They leave 2k-s-1 free coordinates, and we denote ordinary Lebesgue measure in these coordinates by d\mu_{\pi,\sigma}. When 2k-s-1=0, this measure assigns mass 1 to the single point.

The integral in (?) uses strictly positive composition variables, whereas (Proof) includes points with zero coordinates. The positive point constructed above shows that no coordinate function \alpha_i or \beta_j vanishes identically on the polytope. If one of these coordinate functions is not constant, its zero set is given by one affine equation with a non-zero coefficient in the free coordinates. Such a set has measure zero with respect to d\mu_{\pi,\sigma}. If the coordinate function is constant, it is positive and its zero set is empty. We may therefore integrate over the closed polytope without changing the value. The same observation will estimate the parts near the boundary that are removed by a positive lower bound.

Set \mathbf u=t\boldsymbol\alpha and \mathbf v=t\boldsymbol\beta. The 2k differentials contribute t^{2k}. The constraint on the composition total contributes t^{-1}, because

Each of the s cycle balance constraints contributes another factor t^{-1}. The linearity of the block displacements in (?) and the definition of the cycle width in (?) give

After the s+1 constraints are taken into account, the remaining power of t is t^{2k-s-1}. Therefore

We first compare the parameters (t,M) and (t',M'). Set

The cycle widths are bounded on the fixed polytope \mathcal S_{\pi,\sigma}. The parameter ranges are compact, so the factors A_a and A'_a are bounded uniformly. The inequality |x_+-y_+|\leq|x-y|, where x_+:=\max\{x,0\}, gives

The identity

then gives

The mean value theorem also gives

Applying these estimates to (?) proves the first claim of the lemma.

We now estimate the effect of the positive lower bound. The same change of variables gives

Put m_{\mathcal K}:=\min\mathcal K>0. The lower bound in \mathcal J_{\pi,\sigma}^{(\varepsilon)}(t;M) restricts the integral over \mathcal S_{\pi,\sigma} to points satisfying

A point omitted by this restriction therefore has at least one coordinate \alpha_i or \beta_j in the interval

As t\geq m_{\mathcal K}, the selected coordinate is at most \varepsilon/m_{\mathcal K}.

By a coordinate function, we mean one of the maps

Denote any one of these functions by L. Write d:=2k-s-1 and let \boldsymbol\xi=(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_d) be the free coordinates used to define d\mu_{\pi,\sigma}. Eliminating the remaining coordinates expresses L as an affine function

The positive point constructed above shows that L is not identically zero. If c_1=\cdots=c_d=0, then L=b>0, so 0\leq L\leq\varepsilon/m_{\mathcal K} has no solutions for sufficiently small \varepsilon.

Now suppose that L is not constant. Choose r with c_r\neq0, and set

Then

For each fixed \mathbf w, the inequalities

restrict z to an interval of length at most

The set of possible values of \mathbf w has bounded volume. Fubini’s theorem therefore gives

There are 2k coordinate functions, so the removed part has volume O_{k,\mathcal K}(\varepsilon). The factor outside the integral and the integrand in (?) are bounded uniformly for the stated parameter ranges. The removed part therefore contributes O_{k,\mathcal K}(\varepsilon), which proves the second claim.

We begin with the binomial form of the Legendre polynomial,

Substituting z=(x-y)/(x+y) into the above and multiplying by (x+y)^n gives the polynomial identity

Here the latter is not a double sum over independent indices: the constraint a+b=n uniquely determines b, so this remains a single sum with n+1 terms. Using (?), we obtain

In particular, \Theta_m is a homogeneous polynomial of degree m-1, i.e. every monomial x^ay^b appearing in it has total degree m-1. For every choice of positive integers m_1,\ldots,m_r with m_1+\cdots+m_r=k, each term in \det[\Theta_{m_i}(x_i,y_j)] selects exactly one entry from each row. The entry selected from row i has total degree m_i-1, so every term in the determinant has total degree

Therefore \Phi_{k,r} is homogeneous of degree k-r, and \Phi_{k,r}^2 is homogeneous of degree 2(k-r).

We now expand the determinant in (?) using Leibniz’s formula and insert (Proof). For a fixed permutation \sigma\in S_r, the associated product in the expansion is

We reindex the exponents by writing u_i=a_i and b_i=v_{\sigma(i)}. Thus, for fixed u,v\in\mathbb Z_{\geq0}^r, the ith factor \Theta_{m_i}(x_i,y_{\sigma(i)}) must contribute the monomial x_i^{u_i}y_{\sigma(i)}^{v_{\sigma(i)}}. By (Proof), its coefficient is

and the same expansion requires the exponents in this factor to satisfy u_i+v_{\sigma(i)}=m_i-1, and hence m_i=u_i+v_{\sigma(i)}+1. Summing over i gives

and multiplying the row coefficients gives

because \sum_i v_{\sigma(i)}=|v| and \prod_i v_{\sigma(i)}!=v!. Summing these contributions over \sigma\in S_r, with the \operatorname{sgn}(\sigma) from Leibniz’s formula, yields

The inner sum in the first line is exactly the determinant in (?).

It remains to square (?). Suppose that (\alpha,\beta)\in\mathcal A_{k,r}. If one factor contributes the exponents (u,v), the other must contribute (\alpha-u,\beta-v). The first factor has total degree k-r exactly when |u|+|v|=k-r; because |\alpha|+|\beta|=2(k-r), the complementary pair then has the same total degree. Hence

The sign becomes (-1)^{|\beta|}, and the componentwise factorial identities give

Substitution gives (4.1). If (\alpha,\beta)\notin\mathcal A_{k,r}, the coefficient is zero by the homogeneity proved above.

Equations (?) and (?) show that \delta_k is locally Lipschitz, and hence continuous, on (0,\infty). Haar invariance under U\mapsto e^{i\varphi}U gives

Fix 0<\eta<\min(1,\alpha) and split the sum at m=\lfloor\eta N\rfloor. On the range \lfloor\eta N\rfloor<m\leq\lfloor \alpha N\rfloor, the ratio m/N lies in the compact interval [\eta,\alpha]. Theorem 2.1 therefore applies uniformly to these summands. After the normalisation in (Proof), the accumulated error is O(N^{-1}), while the main terms form a Riemann sum converging to \int_\eta^\alpha \delta_k(c) \, dc.

The remaining range

is not uniformly bounded away from m/N=0 and hence is not covered by the compact-uniform estimate in Theorem 2.1. Since \eta<1, however, this range satisfies m\leq N for all sufficiently large N and therefore lies in the stable range. By (?) and (?),

Combining the two ranges and using the definition of M_k(\alpha) gives

Equation (5.2) now follows from the continuity of \delta_k and the fundamental theorem of calculus.