This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Index Distribution of Cauchy Random Matrices

Ricardo Marino, Satya N. Majumdar, Grégory Schehr and Pierpaolo Vivo Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Modèles Statistiques, UMR 8626, Université Paris Sud 11 and CNRS, Bât. 100, Orsay F-91405, France
(August 17, 2025)
Abstract

Using a Coulomb gas technique, we compute analytically the probability 𝒫β(C)(N+,N)\mathcal{P}_{\beta}^{(C)}(N_{+},N) that a large N×NN\times N Cauchy random matrix has N+N_{+} positive eigenvalues, where N+N_{+} is called the index of the ensemble. We show that this probability scales for large NN as 𝒫β(C)(N+,N)exp[βN2ψC(N+/N)]\mathcal{P}_{\beta}^{(C)}(N_{+},N)\approx\exp\left[-\beta N^{2}\psi_{C}(N_{+}/N)\right], where β\beta is the Dyson index of the ensemble. The rate function ψC(κ)\psi_{C}(\kappa) is computed in terms of single integrals that are easily evaluated numerically and amenable to an asymptotic analysis. We find that the rate function, around its minimum at κ=1/2\kappa=1/2, has a quadratic behavior modulated by a logarithmic singularity. As a consequence, the variance of the index scales for large NN as Var(N+)σClnN\mathrm{Var}(N_{+})\sim\sigma_{C}\ln N, where σC=2/(βπ2)\sigma_{C}=2/(\beta\pi^{2}) is twice as large as the corresponding prefactor in the Gaussian and Wishart cases. The analytical results are checked by numerical simulations and against an exact finite NN formula which, for β=2\beta=2, can be derived using orthogonal polynomials.

1 Introduction

Ensembles of matrices with random entries have been extensively studied since the seminal works of Wigner [1], Dyson [2] and Mehta [3]. However, many years before the official birth of Random Matrix Theory (RMT) in nuclear physics in the 1950s, statisticians had already introduced some of the RMT machinery in their studies on multivariate analysis [4, 5, 6]. Restricting our scope to matrices with real spectra, two main classes of ensembles are typically considered, ι)\iota) matrices with independent entries, and ιι)\iota\iota) matrices with rotational invariance. While limited analytical insight is generally available for the former, rotationally invariant ensembles of N×NN\times N matrices are generally characterized by a joint probability density function (jpdf) of the NN real eigenvalues of the form

Pβ(𝝀)=1ZN,βj<k|λjλk|βj=1NeβV(λj),P_{\beta}({\bm{\lambda}})=\frac{1}{Z_{N,\beta}}\prod_{j<k}|\lambda_{j}-\lambda_{k}|^{\beta}\prod_{j=1}^{N}e^{-\beta V(\lambda_{j})}\;, (1)

where ZN,βZ_{N,\beta} is a normalization constant, and β=1,2,4\beta=1,2,4 is the Dyson index of the ensemble, identifying real symmetric, complex Hermitian and quaternion self-dual matrices, respectively. V(x)V(x), the potential, is a function suitably growing at infinity that defines the model. For instance, V(x)=x2/2V(x)=x^{2}/2 for the Gaussian ensemble, or V(x)=xαlnxV(x)=x-\alpha\ln x for the Wishart-Laguerre ensemble.

Armed with (1), a wealth of statistical questions about eigenvalue distributions can be efficiently tackled for both finite and large NN, such as the average density of states, gap distributions and statistics of extreme eigenvalues. While usually the focus is on typical fluctuations of such random variables, several interesting cases have been lately considered, where the interest lies instead on atypical (rare) fluctuations, far away from the average (see Ref. [7] for a review). To mention just a few, the large deviation probability of extreme eigenvalues of Gaussian [8, 9, 10, 11, 12] and Wishart random matrices [9, 13, 14], the number of stationary points of random Gaussian landscapes [15, 16, 17], the distribution of free energies in mean-field spin glass models [18, 19], conductance and shot noise distributions in chaotic mesoscopic cavities [13, 20], entanglement entropies of a pure random state of a bipartite quantum system [21, 22, 23, 24] and the mutual information in multiple input multiple output (MIMO) channels [25]. In addition, RMT has also proven an invaluable tool in understanding large deviation properties of various observables in the so called vicious walker (or nonintersecting Brownian motion) problem [26, 27, 28, 29, 30]. A powerful tool to deal with such instances is the Coulomb gas technique, originally popularized111E.P. Wigner had however used it already in 1957 [31] to compute the density of states of the Gaussian ensemble. by Dyson [2], which will be reviewed in Section 2.

Perhaps the simplest and most natural of such questions concerns the random variable NN_{\mathcal{I}}, defined as the number of eigenvalues contained in an interval \mathcal{I} on the real line. The average value N\langle N_{\mathcal{I}}\rangle can be clearly computed as N=N𝑑xρ(x)\langle N_{\mathcal{I}}\rangle=N\int_{\mathcal{I}}dx\rho(x), where ρ(x)\rho(x) is the average density of eigenvalues of the ensemble. What about its fluctuations? Dyson  [2] studied the variance of the number of eigenvalues in the “bulk limit”, i.e. when =[δNL/2,δNL/2]\mathcal{I}=[-\delta_{N}L/2,\delta_{N}L/2], where δN=π/2N\delta_{N}=\pi/\sqrt{2N} is the mean spacing in the bulk and LL is kept fixed as NN\to\infty. Clearly N=L\langle N_{\mathcal{I}}\rangle=L and the variance grows logarithmically with LL,

(NL)22βπ2ln(L)+Bβ,\langle(N_{\mathcal{I}}-L)^{2}\rangle\sim\frac{2}{\beta\pi^{2}}\ln(L)+B_{\beta}\;, (2)

where the constant BβB_{\beta} was computed by Dyson and Mehta [3]. Therefore the typical scale of fluctuations around the mean is ln(L)\sqrt{\ln(L)}, and the computation of higher moments [32, 33] reveals that on this scale, the random variable NN_{\mathcal{I}} has a Gaussian distribution.

Another related observable, which on the contrary has surprisingly escaped a thorough investigation until very recently, is the index N+(ζ)=i=1Nθ(λiζ)N_{+}(\zeta)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\theta(\lambda_{i}-\zeta), defined as the number of eigenvalues exceeding a threshold ζ\zeta. In particular, we will focus on the number N+:=N+(0)N_{+}:=N_{+}(0) of positive eigenvalues. Note that in this case, where \mathcal{I} is the full unbounded interval [0,)[0,\infty) the previous result (2), valid on a small symmetric interval around the origin, is no longer applicable.

This random variable N+N_{+} naturally arises in the study of the stability of a multidimensional potential landscape V(x1,x2,,xN)V(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{N}) [34]. For instance, in string theory VV may represent the potential associated with a moduli space [35]. As far as glassy systems are concerned, the point {xi}\{x_{i}\} may instead represent a configuration of the system and V({xi})V(\{x_{i}\}) the energy of that configuration [36]. Generally, for disordered systems V({xi})V(\{x_{i}\}) may represent the free energy landscape. Typically this NN-dimensional landscape displays a complex pattern of stationary points that play a relevant role both in statics and dynamics of such systems [34]. The stability of a stationary point of this NN-dimensional landscape depends on the NN real eigenvalues of the (N×N)(N\times N) Hessian matrix Mi,j=[2V/xixj]M_{i,j}=\left[\partial^{2}V/{\partial x_{i}\partial x_{j}}\right] which is symmetric. If all the eigenvalues are positive (negative), the stationary point is a local minimum (local maximum). If some, but not all, are positive then the stationary point is a saddle. The number of positive eigenvalues (the index), 0N+N0\leq N_{+}\leq N, is therefore a crucial indicator of how many directions departing from the stationary point are stable. Given a random potential VV, the entries of the Hessian matrix at a stationary point are usually correlated. However, often important insights can be obtained by discarding these correlations. In the simplest case, one may assume that the entries of the Hessian matrix are independent Gaussian variables. This then leads to the index problem for a real symmetric Gaussian matrix. This toy model, called the random Hessian model (RHM), has been studied extensively in the context of disordered systems [36], landscape based string theory [37], quantum cosmology [38], random supergravity theories [39] and multifield inflation theories [40].

For Gaussian matrices with β=1\beta=1, the statistics of N+N_{+} was considered by Cavagna et al. [36]. Using replica methods with Grassmann variables, they found that around its mean value N/2N/2, the random variable N+N_{+} has typical fluctuations of 𝒪(lnN)\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{\ln N}) for large NN. Moreover, the distribution of these typical fluctuations is Gaussian, i.e.

𝒫β(G)(N+,N)exp[π22ln(N)(N+N/2)2],\mathcal{P}^{(G)}_{\beta}(N_{+},N)\approx\exp\left[-\frac{\pi^{2}}{2\ln(N)}(N_{+}-N/2)^{2}\right]\;, (3)

where this form of the distribution is valid over a region of 𝒪(lnN)\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{\ln N}) around the mean N+=N/2\langle N_{+}\rangle=N/2 for large NN. This implies that variance grows logarithmically with NN, Var(N+)σGlnN\mathrm{Var}(N_{+})\sim\sigma_{G}\ln N, with σG=1/π2\sigma_{G}=1/\pi^{2}, for large NN. For atypically large fluctuations (N+N/2N_{+}\gg N/2), the Gaussian distribution (3) is no longer valid, and the large deviation tails were computed in [41, 42], this time for all β\beta using a Coulomb gas method. Setting κ=N+/N\kappa=N_{+}/N, the probability density of the random variable N+N_{+} was found to scale for large NN as222Hereafter, \approx stands for a logarithmic equivalence, limNln𝒫β(G)(N+=κN,N)βN2=ψG(κ)\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{-\ln\mathcal{P}^{(G)}_{\beta}(N_{+}=\kappa N,N)}{\beta N^{2}}=\psi_{G}(\kappa).

𝒫β(G)(N+=κN,N)exp[βN2ψG(κ)],\mathcal{P}^{(G)}_{\beta}(N_{+}=\kappa N,N)\approx\exp\left[-\beta N^{2}\psi_{G}(\kappa)\right]\;, (4)

where the rate function ψG(κ)\psi_{G}(\kappa) was computed exactly [41, 42] over the full range 0κ10\leq\kappa\leq 1. It is independent of β\beta and has a minimum at κ=1/2\kappa=1/2 (corresponding to the typical situation, where N+=N/2\langle N_{+}\rangle=N/2 i.e. half of the eigenvalues are positive on average). The case κ=1\kappa=1 (and similarly κ=0\kappa=0) corresponds to the extreme situation where all eigenvalues are positive (negative). Therefore 𝒫β(G)(N+=N,N)=Prob[λ1>0,,λN>0]=Prob[λmin>0]\mathcal{P}^{(G)}_{\beta}(N_{+}=N,N)=\mathrm{Prob}[\lambda_{1}>0,\ldots,\lambda_{N}>0]=\mathrm{Prob}[\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}>0], i.e. the probability that the smallest eigenvalue λmin\lambda_{\mathrm{min}} is positive. Hence there is a natural connection between the index problem and the distribution of extreme eigenvalues, tackled in [8, 9, 13, 43, 44]. Note that the index problem in the complex plane (i.e. the statistics of the number of complex eigenvalues with modulus greater than a threshold) has also been recently considered [45, 46].

Expanding the rate function ψG(κ)\psi_{G}(\kappa) around the minimum, it was found that it does not display a simple quadratic behavior as one could have naively expected. Instead, the quadratic behavior is modulated by a logarithmic singularity, implying that in the close vicinity of N+=N/2N_{+}=N/2 over a scale of lnN\sqrt{\ln N} one recovers a Gaussian distribution,

𝒫β(G)(N+,N)exp[(N+N/2)22(Var(N+))] for N+N/2,\mathcal{P}^{(G)}_{\beta}\left(N_{+},N\right)\approx\exp\left[-\frac{\left(N_{+}-N/2\right)^{2}}{2\left(\mathrm{Var}(N_{+})\right)}\right]\mbox{ for }N_{+}\to N/2\;, (5)

with

Var(N+)σGlnN+Cβ+𝒪(1/N),σG=1βπ2.\mathrm{Var}(N_{+})\sim\sigma_{G}\ln N+C_{\beta}+\mathcal{O}(1/N)\;,\;\sigma_{G}=\frac{1}{\beta\pi^{2}}\;. (6)

Note that for β=1\beta=1 one recovers the result in [36]. The constant term C2C_{2} was found [42] via the asymptotic expansion of a finite-NN variance formula conjectured by Prellberg and later rigorously established [47]. Interestingly, the same analysis performed on positive definite Wishart matrices [48] for a threshold at ζ\zeta within the support of the spectral density leads to

Var(N+(ζ))σGlnN+𝒪(1),\mathrm{Var}(N_{+}(\zeta))\sim\sigma_{G}\ln N+\mathcal{O}(1)\;, (7)

where the leading term is independent of ζ\zeta and exactly identical to the Gaussian case. Note that an explicit formula for the full probability of the index for finite NN is not available to date in either case.

Given the rather robust large NN behavior of the variance which holds both for Gaussian matrices (6) and Wishart matrices (7), we investigate here the index probability distribution of yet another ensemble of random matrices for which we expect a different behavior. We consider indeed the Cauchy ensemble of N×NN\times N matrices 𝐇\mathbf{H} which are real symmetric (β=1\beta=1), complex Hermitian (β=2\beta=2) or quaternion self-dual (β=4\beta=4). The Cauchy ensemble is characterized by the following probability measure

P(𝐇)[det(𝟏N+𝐇2)]β(N1)/21,P(\mathbf{H})\propto\left[\det\left({\bm{1}}_{N}+{\mathbf{H}}^{2}\right)\right]^{-\beta(N-1)/2-1}\;, (8)

where 𝟏N{\bm{1}}_{N} is the identity matrix N×NN\times N. The definition (8) is evidently invariant under the similarity transformation 𝐇𝐔𝐇𝐔1\mathbf{H}\to\mathbf{UHU}^{-1}, where 𝐔\mathbf{U} is an orthogonal (β=1)(\beta=1), unitary (β=2)(\beta=2) or symplectic (β=4)(\beta=4) matrix. The jpdf of the NN real eigenvalues can be then immediately written as

Pβ(𝝀)j=1N1(1+λj2)β(N1)/2+1i<k|λiλk|β.P_{\beta}({\bm{\lambda}})\propto\prod_{j=1}^{N}\frac{1}{(1+\lambda_{j}^{2})^{\beta(N-1)/2+1}}\prod_{i<k}|\lambda_{i}-\lambda_{k}|^{\beta}\;. (9)

As in the Gaussian and Wishart cases, we can give an electrostatic interpretation of the jpdf (9), where the λi\lambda_{i}s are positions of charged particles (with say positive unit charge) on the real line and repelling each other via the 2d-Coulomb (logarithmic) interaction. Here they feel an additional interaction with a single particle, with charge (N1+2/β)-(N-1+2/\beta) placed at the point of coordinate (0,1)(0,1) in the 2d plane. A closely related ensemble occurs in the context of mesoscopic transport where it represents the scattering matrix of a quantum dot coupled to the outside world by non ideal leads containing NN scattering channels [49, 50]. It is also one of the typical examples where free probability theory efficiently applies in the context of random matrices models [51, 52]. Interestingly, the Cauchy ensemble (9) is related to the circular ensemble of RMT via the stereographic projection [53]. Indeed, if one defines the angles θk\theta_{k} via the relation

eiθk=1iλk1+iλk,e^{\mathrm{i}\theta_{k}}=\frac{1-\mathrm{i}\lambda_{k}}{1+\mathrm{i}\lambda_{k}}\;, (10)

then the jpdf of the θk\theta_{k}’s is precisely the one of the eigenvalues in the β\beta-circular ensemble. This implies in particular that local fluctuations of the eigenvalues in the Cauchy ensemble are described, for large NN, by the sine-kernel [54]. This connection with the circular ensembles implies also that, in contrast to most other random matrix models, the finite-NN spectral density ρN(λ)\rho_{N}(\lambda) is independent of NN, i.e. it coincides for all NN with its asymptotic expression ρC(λ)\rho^{\star}_{C}(\lambda). This density has fat tails extending over the full real axis, and its expression is given for all β\beta by [53, 55]

ρC(λ)=1π11+λ2.\rho^{\star}_{C}(\lambda)=\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{1}{1+\lambda^{2}}\;. (11)

We will also see below that the Cauchy ensemble, for β=2\beta=2, possesses the remarkable property of being exactly solvable for finite NN and β=2\beta=2, as the suitable orthogonal polynomials can be determined in terms of Jacobi polynomials (see Section 5 for details). Hence, a major difference with Gaussian or Wishart matrices for which the mean spectral density has a finite support is that in the case of Cauchy matrices, the density ρC(λ)\rho^{\star}_{C}(\lambda) has no edge (11). It was recently shown in [56] that, for large NN, the absence of an edge has indeed important consequences on the right large deviations of the top eigenvalue, λmax=max1iNλi\lambda_{\max}=\max_{1\leq i\leq N}\lambda_{i}, in this ensemble (see also Refs. [57, 58] for the study of λmax\lambda_{\max} for β=2\beta=2, though the large deviations were not studied there).

The purpose of this paper is to study the full probability distribution of the index for the Cauchy ensemble, using a Coulomb gas technique. As a bonus, we also obtain the constrained spectral density of a Cauchy ensemble with a prescribed fraction of positive eigenvalues. In the limit κ0\kappa\to 0 (where all eigenvalues are negative), we recover the large deviation law for the largest Cauchy eigenvalue derived in [56]. We show that the probability distribution that a Cauchy matrix has a fraction κ=N+/N\kappa=N_{+}/N of positive eigenvalues decays for large NN as

𝒫β(C)(N+=κN,N)exp[βN2ψC(κ)],\mathcal{P}^{(C)}_{\beta}(N_{+}=\kappa N,N)\approx\exp\left[-\beta N^{2}\psi_{C}(\kappa)\right]\;, (12)

where the rate function ψC(κ)\psi_{C}(\kappa), defined for 0κ10\leq\kappa\leq 1, is independent of β\beta and is calculated exactly (in terms of single integrals that cannot be further simplified) in (53) and (59). The rate function has the following behavior close to the minimum at κ=1/2\kappa=1/2,

ψC(κ=1/2+δ)π22δ2ln|δ| for δ0,\psi_{C}(\kappa=1/2+\delta)\sim-\frac{\pi^{2}}{2}\frac{\delta^{2}}{\ln|\delta|}\mbox{ for }\delta\to 0, (13)

resulting in a Gaussian distribution of the index around the typical value N+=N/2\langle N_{+}\rangle=N/2, albeit with a variance growing with lnN\ln N, i.e.

𝒫β(C)(N+,N)exp[(N+N/2)22(Var(N+))] for N+N/2,\mathcal{P}^{(C)}_{\beta}\left(N_{+},N\right)\approx\exp\left[-\frac{\left(N_{+}-N/2\right)^{2}}{2\left(\mathrm{Var}(N_{+})\right)}\right]\mbox{ for }N_{+}\to N/2\;, (14)

where

Var(N+)σClnN+𝒪(1),σC=2βπ2=2σG.\mathrm{Var}(N_{+})\sim\sigma_{C}\ln N+\mathcal{O}(1)\;,\;\sigma_{C}=\frac{2}{\beta\pi^{2}}=2\sigma_{G}\;. (15)

This result (15) obtained via a Coulomb gas approach, valid for any β\beta, is confirmed by an exact finite-NN formula, using orthogonal polynomials, for β=2\beta=2. An interesting feature of this result (15) is that the prefactor of the leading behavior lnN\propto\ln N of the variance is twice as large here as in the Gaussian (6) and Wishart (7) cases: σC=2σG\sigma_{C}=2\sigma_{G}. Given that the local bulk statistics in all these cases is described by the sine-kernel, one may argue that this factor of 22 is due to the presence of an edge in the density of eigenvalues for Gaussian and Wishart matrices, which is absent for Cauchy matrices. A thorough investigation of this issue is deferred to a separate publication [59].

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2, we introduce the Coulomb gas formulation of the index problem, in terms of the minimization of an action which leads to a singular integral equation for the constrained density of eigenvalues. This integral equation is solved, in section 2, using the resolvent method. In section 3 we present the evaluation of the action at the constrained density, from which we compute the rate function ψC(κ)\psi_{C}(\kappa) (12) in terms of single integrals. Next, in section 4, we evaluate the asymptotic behavior of 𝒫β(C)(N+,N)\mathcal{P}^{(C)}_{\beta}\left(N_{+},N\right) when N+N_{+} is close to its average value N/2{N}/{2}, extracting the leading behavior of the variance of N+N_{+} as a function of NN. Finally, in section 5, we derive an exact finite NN formula for the variance of N+N_{+} in the case β=2\beta=2, showing a perfect agreement with the leading trend for large NN, before concluding in section 6. Some technical details have been confined to A and B.

2 Coulomb gas formulation and integral equation for the constrained density

Let N+(ζ)N_{+}(\zeta) the number of eigenvalues of a Cauchy random matrix larger than ζ\zeta. The probability density of N+(ζ)N_{+}(\zeta) is by definition

𝒫β(C)(N+(ζ),N)=dNλPβ(𝝀)δ(N+(ζ)j=1Nθ(λjζ)),\mathcal{P}_{\beta}^{(C)}(N_{+}(\zeta),N)=\int d^{N}\lambda P_{\beta}({\bm{\lambda}})\delta\left(N_{+}(\zeta)-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\theta(\lambda_{j}-\zeta)\right), (16)

where θ\theta is the Heaviside step function and Pβ(𝝀)P_{\beta}({\bm{\lambda}}) is defined in (9).

We start by writing the jpdf Pβ(𝝀)P_{\beta}({\bm{\lambda}}) in exponential form,

Pβ(𝝀)eβH[𝝀],P_{\beta}({\bm{\lambda}})\propto e^{-\beta H[{\bm{\lambda}}]}, (17)

where:

H[𝝀]=(N12+1β)j=1Nln(1+λj2)i>jln|λiλj|.H[{\bm{\lambda}}]=\left(\frac{N-1}{2}+\frac{1}{\beta}\right)\sum_{j=1}^{N}\ln(1+\lambda^{2}_{j})-\sum_{i>j}\ln|\lambda_{i}-\lambda_{j}|. (18)

In this form, the jpdf (17) mimics the Gibbs-Boltzmann weight of a system of charged particles in equilibrium under competing interactions. Following Dyson [2] we can treat this system for large NN as a continuous fluid, described by a normalized density ρ(λ)=(1/N)i=1Nδ(λλi)\rho(\lambda)=(1/N)\sum_{i=1}^{N}\delta(\lambda-\lambda_{i}). Consequently, the multiple integral in (16) can be converted into a functional integral in the space of normalizable densities. This procedure was first successfully employed to compute the large deviation of maximal eigenvalue of Gaussian matrices [43] and afterwards applied in several different contexts [7, 8, 9, 13, 42].

In the continuum limit, the multiple integral (16) becomes

𝒫β(C)(N+(ζ),N)𝒟[ρ]𝑑A1𝑑A2eβ2N2S[ρ],\mathcal{P}_{\beta}^{(C)}(N_{+}(\zeta),N)\propto\int\mathcal{D}[\rho]\int dA_{1}\int dA_{2}\ e^{-\frac{\beta}{2}N^{2}S[\rho]}, (19)

where the action SS is given by

S[ρ]=\displaystyle S[\rho]= +dxρ(x)ln(1+x2)+dxdxρ(x)ρ(x)ln|xx|\displaystyle\operatorname*{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!\!}dx\rho(x)\ln(1+x^{2})-\int\operatorname*{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!\!}dxdx^{\prime}\rho(x)\rho(x^{\prime})\ln|x-x^{\prime}| (20)
+A1(+dxρ(x)1)+A2(ζ+𝑑xρ(x)κ),\displaystyle+A_{1}\left(\operatorname*{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!\!}dx\rho(x)-1\right)+A_{2}\left(\int_{\zeta}^{+\infty}dx\rho(x)-\kappa\right)\;, (21)

and A1,A2A_{1},A_{2} are Lagrange multipliers, introduced to enforce the overall normalization of the density, and a fraction κ\kappa of eigenvalues exceeding ζ\zeta. The action SS has an evident physical meaning: it represents the free energy of the Coulomb fluid, whose particles are constrained to split over two regions of the real line, a fraction κ\kappa to the right of ζ\zeta and a fraction 1κ1-\kappa to the left of ζ\zeta. This free energy scales as N2N^{2} (and not just NN) because of the strong all-to-all interactions among the particles. The energetic component 𝒪(N2)\sim\mathcal{O}(N^{2}) of this free energy dominates over the entropic part 𝒪(N)\sim\mathcal{O}(N), making it possible to use a saddle point method (see below). Note that the entropic term has been thoroughly studied and employed to define interpolating ensembles in [60, 61].

As mentioned earlier, the integral (19), where we neglected terms of 𝒪(N)\mathcal{O}(N), can be evaluated using a saddle point method for large NN. The constrained density of eigenvalues ρ(x)\rho^{\star}(x) (depending parametrically on κ\kappa and ζ\zeta) is determined by the following variational condition

δSδρ=ln(1+x2)2+𝑑xρ(x)ln|xx|+A1+A2θ(xζ)=0.\frac{\delta S}{\delta\rho}=\ln(1+x^{2})-2\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dx^{\prime}\rho^{\star}(x^{\prime})\ln|x-x^{\prime}|+A_{1}+A_{2}\theta(x-\zeta)=0\;. (22)

This Eq. (22), valid for xx inside the support of ρ(x)\rho^{\star}(x), can be differentiated once with respect to xx to give the following singular integral equation

x1+x2+A2δ(xζ)=𝒫ρ(y)xy𝑑y,\frac{x}{1+x^{2}}+A_{2}\delta(x-\zeta)=\mathcal{P}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\rho^{\star}(y)}{x-y}dy\;, (23)

where 𝒫\mathcal{P} stands for Cauchy principal part. Solving (23) with the constraint ζ𝑑xρ(x)=κ\int_{\zeta}^{\infty}dx\rho^{\star}(x)=\kappa is the main technical challenge. The physical intuition, supported by numerical simulations, points towards a density supported on two disconnected intervals (see Fig. 1): for κ>1/2\kappa>1/2, a compact blob with two edges to the left of ζ\zeta, and a non-compact blob to the right of ζ\zeta, extending all the way to infinity and with a singularity for xζ+x\to\zeta^{+} (for κ<1/2\kappa<1/2 the situation is reversed, while only for κ=1/2\kappa=1/2 the two blobs merge into the unconstrained single-support density ρC(λ)\rho^{\star}_{C}(\lambda) (11)). In such a situation, the standard inversion formula [62] for singular integral equation of the type in (23) cannot be applied, as it holds only for single support (“one-cut”) solutions. However, a more general method, which we now present, allows to compute the resolvent (or Green’s function) for this two-cuts problem333See [63] for a more sophisticated approach based on loop equation techniques., and from it to deduce ρ\rho^{\star}.

We introduce the resolvent

G(z)=ρ(x)zx𝑑x,G(z)=\int\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx\;, (24)

for the Cauchy case. It is an analytic function in the complex plane outside the support of the density. From the resolvent, the density can be computed in the standard way as

1πlimε0Im G(x+iε)=ρ(x),\frac{1}{\pi}\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\text{Im }G(x+\mathrm{i}\varepsilon)=\rho^{\star}(x)\;, (25)

where Im stands for the imaginary part.

Unconstrained case. As a warm-up exercise, we first derive the resolvent equation (using purely algebraic manipulations) for the unconstrained case (corresponding to (23) when A2=0A_{2}=0), where we expect to recover the density ρC(x)\rho^{\star}_{C}(x) in Eq. (11). First, we multiply both sides in (23) (dropping the principal value) by ρ(x)/(zx){\rho^{\star}(x)}/{(z-x)} and we integrate it over xx, obtaining

x1+x2ρ(x)zx𝑑x=ρ(x)ρ(y)(xy)(zx)𝑑x𝑑y.\int\frac{x}{1+x^{2}}\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx=\iint\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)\rho^{\star}(y)}{(x-y)(z-x)}dxdy\;. (26)

Our goal is to express both sides in terms of G(z)G(z) and, by doing so, obtain an algebraic equation for G(z)G(z). We start by the right hand side (RHS) where we use the simple identity

1(zx)(xy)=(1zx+1xy)1zy.\frac{1}{(z-x)(x-y)}=\left(\frac{1}{z-x}+\frac{1}{x-y}\right)\frac{1}{z-y}\;. (27)

Hence the RHS of (26) can be written as

ρ(x)ρ(y)(xy)(zx)𝑑x𝑑y=\displaystyle\iint\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)\rho^{\star}(y)}{(x-y)(z-x)}dxdy= (1zx+1xy)ρ(x)ρ(y)zy𝑑x𝑑y\displaystyle\iint\left(\frac{1}{z-x}+\frac{1}{x-y}\right)\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)\rho^{\star}(y)}{z-y}dxdy
=\displaystyle= ρ(x)ρ(y)(zx)(zy)𝑑x𝑑y+ρ(x)ρ(y)(xy)(zy)𝑑x𝑑y.\displaystyle\iint\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)\rho^{\star}(y)}{(z-x)(z-y)}dxdy+\iint\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)\rho^{\star}(y)}{(x-y)(z-y)}dxdy. (28)

The second term of the sum in (28) (under the replacement xyx\leftrightarrow y) is the original RHS of (26) with the sign changed. The first term of the sum is just G(z)2G(z)^{2}. Hence, we have that the RHS of (26) is just equal to (1/2)G(z)2(1/2)G(z)^{2}:

ρ(x)ρ(y)(xy)(zx)𝑑x𝑑y=12G(z)2.\iint\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)\rho^{\star}(y)}{(x-y)(z-x)}dxdy=\frac{1}{2}G(z)^{2}\;. (29)

The left hand side (LHS) of (26) requires a little more algebraic manipulation to be expressed in terms of G(z)G(z). We manipulate this expression in two different ways and exploit the equality between the results to get rid of one integral. First, using the identity x/(1+x2)=1/x1/(x(1+x2))x/(1+x^{2})=1/x-1/(x(1+x^{2})) one has

x1+x2ρ(x)zx𝑑x=1xρ(x)zx𝑑x1x(1+x2)ρ(x)zx𝑑x.\displaystyle\int\frac{x}{1+x^{2}}\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx=\int\frac{1}{x}\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx-\int\frac{1}{x(1+x^{2})}\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx\;. (30)

Note that in this splitting the two integrals in the RHS are individually divergent due to the pole at x=0x=0, but the divergence cancels out between the two. We may regularize each individually divergent integral by adding a small imaginary part in the denominator that is removed at the end of the calculation. Using the relation (27), we may express the first term of the sum in (30) as

1xρ(x)zx𝑑x=\displaystyle\int\frac{1}{x}\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx= (1x+1zx)ρ(x)z𝑑x=1zρ(x)x𝑑xa0+1zρ(x)zx𝑑xG(z)=a0z+G(z)z.\displaystyle\int\left(\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{z-x}\right)\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z}dx=\frac{1}{z}\underbrace{\int\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{x}dx}_{a_{0}}+\frac{1}{z}\underbrace{\int\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx}_{G(z)}=\frac{a_{0}}{z}+\frac{G(z)}{z}. (31)

The second term of the sum in (30) will not be calculated for now, and will be called α(z)-\alpha(z). Using this manipulation (31), we have:

x1+x2ρ(x)zx𝑑x=a0z+G(z)zα(z).\int\frac{x}{1+x^{2}}\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx=\frac{a_{0}}{z}+\frac{G(z)}{z}-\alpha(z). (32)

Now, we use a different strategy, using the identity x/(1+x2)=(xz)/(1+x2)+z/(1+x2)x/(1+x^{2})=(x-z)/(1+x^{2})+z/(1+x^{2}), to obtain

x1+x2ρ(x)zx𝑑x=\displaystyle\int\frac{x}{1+x^{2}}\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx= x+zz1+x2ρ(x)zx𝑑x\displaystyle\int\frac{x+z-z}{1+x^{2}}\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx
=\displaystyle= ρ(x)1+x2𝑑xa1+z11+x2ρ(x)zx𝑑x.\displaystyle-\underbrace{\int\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{1+x^{2}}dx}_{a_{1}}+z\int\frac{1}{1+x^{2}}\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx. (33)

The first term in the sum (33) is a constant, which we call a1a_{1}. Now we proceed to manipulate the second term in (33) to obtain

z11+x2ρ(x)zx𝑑x=\displaystyle z\int\frac{1}{1+x^{2}}\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx= zxz+zx(1+x2)ρ(x)zx𝑑x\displaystyle z\int\frac{x-z+z}{x(1+x^{2})}\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx (34)
=\displaystyle= zρ(x)x(1+x2)𝑑xa2+z21x(1+x2)ρ(x)zx𝑑xα(z).\displaystyle-z\underbrace{\int\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{x(1+x^{2})}dx}_{a_{2}}+z^{2}\underbrace{\int\frac{1}{x(1+x^{2})}\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx}_{\alpha(z)}. (35)

Therefore, the LHS of (26) can also be written as a1za2+z2α(z)-a_{1}-za_{2}+z^{2}\alpha(z). We have then two distinct ways of writing the LHS, and we can use them both to cancel α(z)\alpha(z):

a0z+G(z)zα(z)=(RHS)=a1za2+z2α(z).\frac{a_{0}}{z}+\frac{G(z)}{z}-\alpha(z)=\text{(RHS)}=-a_{1}-za_{2}+z^{2}\alpha(z)\;. (36)

Eliminating α(z)\alpha(z) and recalling that the RHS is equal to (1/2)G(z)2(1/2)G(z)^{2} (29), we find the algebraic equation for G(z)G(z)

a1+z(a0a2)+zG(z)=(1+z2)2G(z)2.-a_{1}+z(a_{0}-a_{2})+zG(z)=\frac{(1+z^{2})}{2}G(z)^{2}\;. (37)

We proceed to determine the constants a0a_{0}, a1a_{1} and a2a_{2} using the normalization condition of the density ρ(x)\rho^{\star}(x). From (24) (setting |z||z|\to\infty), it implies that G(z)G(z) should asymptotically go as G(z)1/zG(z)\sim 1/z. Taking the limit |z||z|\to\infty in equation (37), we find equations for the coefficients

a1+z(a0a2)+z(1z+𝒪(z2))=z22(1z+𝒪(z2))2,-a_{1}+z(a_{0}-a_{2})+z\left(\frac{1}{z}+\mathcal{O}(z^{-2})\right)=\frac{z^{2}}{2}\left(\frac{1}{z}+\mathcal{O}(z^{-2})\right)^{2}\;, (38)

which implies a0=a2a_{0}=a_{2} and a1=12a_{1}=\frac{1}{2}. Our algebraic equation, finally, becomes:

(1+z2)G(z)22zG(z)+1=0.(1+z^{2})G(z)^{2}-2zG(z)+1=0. (39)

The two solutions read

G(z)=2z±4z24(1+z2)2(1+z2)=z±i1+z2.G(z)=\frac{2z\pm\sqrt{4z^{2}-4(1+z^{2})}}{2(1+z^{2})}=\frac{z\pm\mathrm{i}}{1+z^{2}}. (40)

Using (25), the density comes out as expected

1πlimε0Im G(x+iε)=1π11+x2=ρC(x).\frac{1}{\pi}\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\text{Im }G(x+\mathrm{i}\varepsilon)=\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{1}{1+x^{2}}=\rho^{\star}_{C}(x)\;. (41)

Constrained case. Now, we consider the full index problem, i.e. with an extra term in the potential as in (23),

x1+x2+A2δ(xζ)=𝒫ρ(y)xy𝑑y,\frac{x}{1+x^{2}}+A_{2}\delta(x-\zeta)=\mathcal{P}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\rho^{\star}(y)}{x-y}dy, (42)

where the constant A2A_{2} will be determined by the new normalization condition of the rightmost blob ζρ(x)𝑑x=κ\int_{\zeta}^{\infty}\rho^{\star}(x)dx=\kappa. We repeat the same steps as for the unconstrained integral equation, multiplying (23) (without the principal value) by ρ(x)zx\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x} and integrating over xx. We get an extra term compared to Eq. (26), arising from the Lagrange multiplier

x1+x2ρ(x)zx𝑑x=ρ(x)ρ(y)(xy)(zy)𝑑x𝑑yA2zζ.\int\frac{x}{1+x^{2}}\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)}{z-x}dx=\iint\frac{\rho^{\star}(x)\rho^{\star}(y)}{(x-y)(z-y)}dxdy-\frac{A_{2}}{z-\zeta}. (43)

We absorb this new term into the RHS and proceed to express, as before, all integrals in terms of G(z)G(z). Our new algebraic equation will then be:

a1+z(a0a2)+zG(z)=(1+z2)(G(z)22A2zζ).-a_{1}+z(a_{0}-a_{2})+zG(z)=(1+z^{2})\left(\frac{G(z)^{2}}{2}-\frac{A_{2}}{z-\zeta}\right). (44)

Imposing the condition that G(z)1/zG(z)\sim 1/z for |z||z|\to\infty, we get the two conditions a1=1/2a_{1}=1/2 and a0a2+A2=0a_{0}-a_{2}+A_{2}=0. Calling A2=B/2A_{2}=B/2, for ζ=0\zeta=0 we get the equation

B2z+G(z)z12=(z2+1)(B/2z+G(z)22),\frac{B}{2}z+G(z)z-\frac{1}{2}=\left(z^{2}+1\right)\left(\frac{B/2}{z}+\frac{G(z)^{2}}{2}\right), (45)

whose solutions are

G(z)=z2±Bz3Bzz2z3+z.G(z)=\frac{z^{2}\pm\sqrt{-Bz^{3}-Bz-z^{2}}}{z^{3}+z}\;. (46)

Using (25), it is then easy to derive that the constrained density is:

ρ(x)=1πB(x3+x)+x2|x3+x|,\rho^{\star}(x)=\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{\sqrt{B(x^{3}+x)+x^{2}}}{|x^{3}+x|}, (47)

or equivalently

ρ(x)=1π(1+x2)B(x+1)(x+2)x,\rho^{\star}(x)=\frac{1}{\pi(1+x^{2})}\sqrt{\frac{B(x+\ell_{1})(x+\ell_{2})}{x}}\;, (48)

where the edge points of the leftmost blob (for κ>1/2\kappa>1/2) 1,2-\ell_{1},-\ell_{2} are determined as a function of BB

1\displaystyle\ell_{1} =12B(1+14B2),\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2B}(1+\sqrt{1-4B^{2}})\;, (49)
2\displaystyle\ell_{2} =12B(114B2).\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2B}(1-\sqrt{1-4B^{2}}). (50)

The functional form in Eq. (48) holds for xx belonging to any of the two supports. The constant BB is then determined as a function of κ\kappa by

0𝑑x1π(1+x2)B(x+1)(x+2)x=κ.\int_{0}^{\infty}dx\frac{1}{\pi(1+x^{2})}\sqrt{\frac{B(x+\ell_{1})(x+\ell_{2})}{x}}=\kappa\;. (51)

For κ1/2\kappa\to 1/2 (unconstrained case), the solution is B0B\to 0, and ρ(x)ρC(x)\rho^{\star}(x)\to\rho^{\star}_{C}(x) as expected. This means that we recover the unconstrained Cauchy case if we impose a number of positive eigenvalues exactly equal to N/2N/2, and this unconstrained case materializes when B0B\to 0. As κ\kappa approaches 1/21/2, the 2\ell_{2} edge moves towards the origin, while the other edge 1\ell_{1} approaches infinity, until exactly at the critical point κ=1/2\kappa=1/2 the two blobs merge back together. In Fig. 1, we show a plot of the density (48) for κ=0.9\kappa=0.9. We also show standard Monte Carlo simulations of N=300N=300 particles distributed according to the Boltzmann weight eβH[𝝀]\propto e^{-\beta H[{\bm{\lambda}}]} under the Hamiltonian H[𝝀]H[{\bm{\lambda}}] in (18), with the constraint that 90%90\% of them are forced to stay on the positive semi axis . We observe a nice agreement between our exact formula and the numerics.

Refer to caption

Figure 1: Constrained density of eigenvalues for a matrix of size N=300N=300 where 90% of the eigenvalues are forced to lie on the positive semi axis and the corresponding expected theoretical curve for κ=0.9\kappa=0.9 [B=0.36613B=0.36613... from (51)].

Finally, from (19), we obtain the decay of the probability of the index for large NN as

𝒫β(C)(N+,N)exp[βN2ψC(N+/N)],\mathcal{P}_{\beta}^{(C)}(N_{+},N)\approx\exp\left[-\beta N^{2}\psi_{C}(N_{+}/N)\right]\;, (52)

with

ψC(κ)=12(S[ρ]S[ρ]|κ=1/2),\psi_{C}(\kappa)=\frac{1}{2}\left(S[\rho^{\star}]-S[\rho^{\star}]\Big{|}_{\kappa=1/2}\right)\;, (53)

where the additional term S[ρ]|κ=1/2S[\rho^{\star}]\Big{|}_{\kappa=1/2} comes from normalization.

In the next section, we simplify the action (21) at the saddle point and express it in terms of two single integrals which are hard to evaluate in closed form. The resulting rate function (53) can anyway be efficiently evaluated numerically with arbitrary precision.

3 Computation of the rate function

The action (21) evaluated at the saddle point density (48) reads

S[ρ]=\displaystyle S[\rho^{\star}]= +dxρ(x)ln(1+x2)+dxdxρ(x)ρ(x)ln|xx|\displaystyle\operatorname*{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!\!}dx\rho^{\star}(x)\ln(1+x^{2})-\int\!\!\!\operatorname*{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!\!}dxdx^{\prime}\rho^{\star}(x)\rho^{\star}(x^{\prime})\ln|x-x^{\prime}|
+A1(+dxρ(x)1)+A2(0+𝑑xρ(x)κ).\displaystyle+A_{1}\left(\operatorname*{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!\!}dx\rho^{\star}(x)-1\right)+A_{2}\left(\int_{0}^{+\infty}dx\rho^{\star}(x)-\kappa\right). (54)

Since by construction ρ(x)\rho^{\star}(x) satisfies the normalization conditions, the terms in the second line are automatically zero. We can now replace the double integral with single integrals. We use equation (22) for ζ=0\zeta=0,

2+𝑑xρ(x)ln|xx|=ln(1+x2)+A1+A2θ(x).2\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dx^{\prime}\rho^{\star}(x^{\prime})\ln|x-x^{\prime}|=\ln(1+x^{2})+A_{1}+A_{2}\theta(x). (55)

Multiplying this expression by ρ(x)\rho^{\star}(x) and integrating over xx we obtain

+dxdxρ(x)ρ(x)ln|xx|=12(+dxρ(x)ln(1+x2)+A1+A2κ).\int\!\!\!\operatorname*{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!\!}dxdx^{\prime}\rho^{\star}(x)\rho^{\star}(x^{\prime})\ln|x-x^{\prime}|=\frac{1}{2}\left(\operatorname*{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!\!}dx\rho^{\star}(x)\ln(1+x^{2})+A_{1}+A_{2}\kappa\right). (56)

Inserting (56) in (54) we obtain

S[ρ]=12+dxρ(x)ln(1+x2)A12A22κ.S[\rho^{\star}]=\frac{1}{2}\operatorname*{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!\!}dx\rho^{\star}(x)\ln(1+x^{2})-\frac{A_{1}}{2}-\frac{A_{2}}{2}\kappa. (57)

We must now determine the constants A1A_{1} and A2A_{2}. To do so, we first consider, without loss of generality, the case κ>12\kappa>\frac{1}{2}, where the density has the shape as in Fig. 1. The left blob has a compact support [1,2][-\ell_{1},-\ell_{2}]. To determine the relation between A1A_{1} and A2A_{2}, we study the asymptotic behavior of equation (55) when x+x\to+\infty. Since both 2+𝑑xρ(x)ln|xx|2\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dx^{\prime}\rho^{\star}(x^{\prime})\ln|x-x^{\prime}| and ln(1+x2)\ln(1+x^{2}) behave like 2ln(x)2\ln(x) in the large xx limit, we deduce that A1=A2A_{1}=-A_{2}. Evaluating (55) at x=1x=-\ell_{1}, we find the value of A1A_{1}, and hence A2A_{2}, in terms of 1\ell_{1}:

A1=2+dxρ(x)ln|x+1|ln(1+12).A_{1}=2\operatorname*{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!\!}dx\rho^{\star}(x)\ln|x+\ell_{1}|-\ln(1+\ell_{1}^{2}). (58)

We may finally write the action at the saddle point as

S[ρ]=12+dxρ(x)ln(1+x2)I1(1κ)+dxρ(x)ln|x+1|I2+(1κ)2ln(1+12)I3.S[\rho^{\star}]=\underbrace{\frac{1}{2}\operatorname*{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!\!}dx\rho^{\star}(x)\ln(1+x^{2})}_{I_{1}}-(1-\kappa)\underbrace{\operatorname*{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!\!}dx\rho^{\star}(x)\ln|x+\ell_{1}|}_{I_{2}}+\frac{(1-\kappa)}{2}\underbrace{\ln(1+\ell_{1}^{2})}_{I_{3}}. (59)

where ρ(x)\rho^{\star}(x) (depending parametrically on κ\kappa) is given in Eq. (48). The single integrals I1I_{1} and I2I_{2} do not seem expressible in closed form. However the rate function (53) can be plotted without difficulty (see Fig. 2). One can see that the rate function is symmetric, has a minimum at κ=1/2\kappa=1/2, corresponding to the “typical” situation, where half of the eigenvalues are positive and half are negative. In the extreme limit κ=0\kappa=0 (which is the same as κ=1\kappa=1), we get

ψC(κ=0)=12(S[ρ]|κ=0S[ρ]|κ=1/2)=ln240.173287\psi_{C}(\kappa=0)=\frac{1}{2}\left(S[\rho^{\star}]\Big{|}_{\kappa=0}-S[\rho^{\star}]\Big{|}_{\kappa=1/2}\right)=\frac{\ln 2}{4}\approx 0.173287... (60)

in agreement with the large deviation law for the largest Cauchy eigenvalue [Eq. (13) in [56] for w=0w=0].

Refer to caption

Figure 2: Plot of the rate function ψC(κ)\psi_{C}(\kappa).

In the next section, we perform a careful asymptotic analysis of the rate function ψC(κ)\psi_{C}(\kappa) around the minimum κ=1/2\kappa=1/2, which brings a quadratic behavior modulated by a logarithmic singularity. This is in turn responsible for the logarithmic growth of the variance of the index with NN (to leading order), and provides the correct prefactor.

4 Asymptotic analysis of ψC(κ)\psi_{C}(\kappa) in the vicinity of κ=1/2\kappa=1/2

We have already remarked that the typical situation κ=1/2\kappa=1/2 is realized when the constant B0B\to 0. Therefore it is necessary to expand the terms I1,I2I_{1},I_{2} and I3I_{3} in the action (59), as well as the integral constraint (51), for B0B\to 0. It turns out that this calculation is highly nontrivial, as several cancellations occur in the leading and next-to-leading terms of each contribution (see A for details). Denoting κ=1/2+δ\kappa=1/2+\delta (with δ0\delta\to 0), the final result reads:

S[ρ]ln2+π2Bδ+o(δ).\displaystyle S[\rho^{\star}]\sim\ln 2+\frac{\pi}{2}B\delta+o(\delta)\;. (61)

In A, we show that the relation between δ\delta and BB is (to leading order for δ0\delta\to 0)

δBln|B|π.\delta\sim-\frac{B\ln|B|}{\pi}\;. (62)

Inverting this relation, we find to leading order

Bπδln|δ|,B\sim-\pi\frac{\delta}{\ln|\delta|}\;, (63)

implying from (61) that

S[ρ]ln2π22δ2ln|δ|+o(δ).\displaystyle S[\rho^{\star}]\sim\ln 2-\frac{\pi^{2}}{2}\frac{\delta^{2}}{\ln|\delta|}+o(\delta)\;. (64)

Therefore

ψ(κ=1/2+δ)=S[ρ]S[ρ]|κ=1/2π22δ2ln|δ| for δ0.\psi(\kappa=1/2+\delta)=S[\rho^{\star}]-S[\rho^{\star}]\Big{|}_{\kappa=1/2}\sim-\frac{\pi^{2}}{2}\frac{\delta^{2}}{\ln|\delta|}\mbox{ for }\delta\to 0\;. (65)

From (52), we then have (for N+N_{+} close to N/2N/2)

𝒫β(C)(N+=(12+δ)N,N)exp(βN22π2δ22ln|δ|).\mathcal{P}_{\beta}^{(C)}\left(N_{+}=\left(\frac{1}{2}+\delta\right)N,N\right)\approx\exp\left(\frac{\beta N^{2}}{2}\frac{\pi^{2}\delta^{2}}{2\ln|\delta|}\right)\;. (66)

Restoring δ=(N+N/2)/N\delta=(N_{+}-N/2)/N in the RHS of (66), we obtain the Gaussian behavior announced in the introduction [Eq. (14)]:

𝒫β(C)(N+,N)exp((N+N/2)22(Var(N+))) for N+N/2,\mathcal{P}^{(C)}_{\beta}\left(N_{+},N\right)\approx\exp\left(-\frac{\left(N_{+}-N/2\right)^{2}}{2\left(\mathrm{Var}(N_{+})\right)}\right)\mbox{ for }N_{+}\to N/2\;, (67)

with

Var(N+)2βπ2lnN+𝒪(1).\mathrm{Var}(N_{+})\sim\frac{2}{\beta\pi^{2}}\ln N+\mathcal{O}(1)\;. (68)

In the next section, we compare the asymptotic behavior of the variance with a closed expression valid for finite NN and β=2\beta=2, finding perfect agreement between the trends.

5 Exact derivation for the variance of N+N_{+} for finite NN and β=2\beta=2

In B, we derive a general formula for the variance of any linear statistics at finite NN and β=2\beta=2. Specializing it to the index case, we deduce that

Var(N+)=N20𝑑λ𝑑λ[KN(λ,λ)]2,\mathrm{Var}(N_{+})=\frac{N}{2}-\iint_{0}^{\infty}d\lambda d\lambda^{\prime}[K_{N}(\lambda,\lambda^{\prime})]^{2}\;, (69)

where KN(λ,λ)K_{N}(\lambda,\lambda^{\prime}) is the kernel of the ensemble, built upon suitable orthogonal polynomials. It turns out that in the Cauchy case, the orthogonal polynomials πn(x)\pi_{n}(x) satisfying

𝑑xπn(x)πm(x)(1+x2)N=δmn\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx\frac{\pi_{n}(x)\pi_{m}(x)}{(1+x^{2})^{N}}=\delta_{mn} (70)

are

πn(x)=in2N[n!(Nn12)Γ2(Nn)2πΓ(2Nn)]1/2Pn(N,N)(ix),\pi_{n}(x)=\mathrm{i}^{n}2^{N}\left[\frac{n!(N-n-\frac{1}{2})\Gamma^{2}(N-n)}{2\pi\Gamma(2N-n)}\right]^{1/2}P_{n}^{(-N,-N)}(\mathrm{i}x)\;, (71)

where Pn(N,N)(x)P_{n}^{(-N,-N)}(x) are Jacobi polynomials. The kernel then reads

KN(λ,λ)=1(1+λ2)N/21(1+λ2)N/2j=0N1πj(λ)πj(λ),K_{N}(\lambda,\lambda^{\prime})=\frac{1}{(1+\lambda^{2})^{N/2}}\frac{1}{(1+\lambda^{\prime 2})^{N/2}}\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}\pi_{j}(\lambda)\pi_{j}(\lambda^{\prime})\;, (72)

and inserting (72) into (69) we obtain after simple algebra

Var(N+)=N42n+m oddn<mN1(0𝑑xπn(x)πm(x)(1+x2)N)2,\mathrm{Var}(N_{+})=\frac{N}{4}-2\sum_{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle n<m}}{{n+m\mbox{\tiny{ odd}}}}}^{N-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\infty}dx\frac{\pi_{n}(x)\pi_{m}(x)}{(1+x^{2})^{N}}\right)^{2}\;, (73)

where we used some simple symmetry properties of those orthogonal polynomials. Unfortunately, extracting the asymptotic behavior of (73) as NN\to\infty is not an easy task. However, formula (73) can be evaluated exactly in closed form for any finite NN (see Eq. (78) and Table 1). The result is plotted in Fig. 3 together with the corresponding result for the Gaussian ensemble, and the large NN logarithmic behavior in both cases. One can indeed see that the slope of the Cauchy case is twice as steep as the Gaussian case, as predicted by the asymptotic expansion of the rate function around the minimum (see Section 4).

Refer to caption

Figure 3: Variance of the index as a function of NN for β=2\beta=2. Blue dots correspond to the finite NN exact formula (73) for the Cauchy ensemble, while red stars correspond to the finite NN exact formula [Eq. (145) in [42]] for the Gaussian ensemble. The solid blue line and the dashed red line correspond to the asymptotic behaviors (68) and (6) for the Cauchy and the Gaussian ensemble respectively (β=2\beta=2).

To simplify expression (73), we define:

Im,n,N=0𝑑xπn(x)πm(x)(1+x2)N.I_{m,n,N}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\!dx\frac{\pi_{n}(x)\pi_{m}(x)}{(1+x^{2})^{N}}\;. (74)

Using (71) and the definition of Jacobi polynomials

Pn(N,N)(ix)=k=0nck,n(N)(1ix)k,P_{n}^{(-N,-N)}(\mathrm{i}x)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}c_{k,n}^{(N)}(1-\mathrm{i}x)^{k}\;, (75)

where

cl,τ(N)=1τ!(τ)l(2N+τ+1)l(N+l+1)τll!2l,c_{l,\tau}^{(N)}=\frac{1}{\tau!}\frac{(-\tau)_{l}(-2N+\tau+1)_{l}(-N+l+1)_{\tau-l}}{l!2^{l}}, (76)

we can write

0𝑑xPn(N,N)(ix)Pm(N,N)(ix)(1+x2)N=\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\infty}dx\frac{P_{n}^{(-N,-N)}(\mathrm{i}x)P_{m}^{(-N,-N)}(\mathrm{i}x)}{(1+x^{2})^{N}}= k=0mr=0nck,m(N)cr,n(N)s=0k+r(k+rs)(i)s12B(1+s2,N1+s2),\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^{m}\sum_{r=0}^{n}c_{k,m}^{(N)}c_{r,n}^{(N)}\sum_{s=0}^{k+r}\binom{k+r}{s}(-\mathrm{i})^{s}\frac{1}{2}B\left(\frac{1+s}{2},N-\frac{1+s}{2}\right), (77)

Here, B(x,y)B(x,y) is Euler’s Beta function. Finally, we may write the variance of index for the Cauchy ensemble as:

Var(N+)=N42n+m oddn<mN1Im,n,N2,\mathrm{Var}(N_{+})=\frac{N}{4}-2\sum_{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle n<m}}{{n+m\mbox{\tiny{ odd}}}}}^{N-1}I_{m,n,N}^{2}, (78)

where

Im,n,N=\displaystyle I_{m,n,N}= im+n22N[n!(Nn12)Γ2(Nn)2πΓ(2Nn)]12[m!(Nm12)Γ2(Nm)2πΓ(2Nm)]12\displaystyle\mathrm{i}^{m+n}2^{2N}\left[\frac{n!(N-n-\frac{1}{2})\Gamma^{2}(N-n)}{2\pi\Gamma(2N-n)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\frac{m!(N-m-\frac{1}{2})\Gamma^{2}(N-m)}{2\pi\Gamma(2N-m)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}
×k=0mr=0ns=0k+rck,m(N)cr,n(N)(k+rs)(i)s12B(1+s2,N1+s2)\displaystyle\times\sum_{k=0}^{m}\sum_{r=0}^{n}\sum_{s=0}^{k+r}c_{k,m}^{(N)}c_{r,n}^{(N)}\binom{k+r}{s}(-\mathrm{i})^{s}\frac{1}{2}B\left(\frac{1+s}{2},N-\frac{1+s}{2}\right) (79)

We here include a table with exact values of the variance for few values of NN, together with their numerical value.

NN Var(N+N_{+}) exact
2 122π2=0.2973\frac{1}{2}-\frac{2}{\pi^{2}}=0.2973...
3 344π2=0.3447\frac{3}{4}-\frac{4}{\pi^{2}}=0.3447...
5 54769π2=0.3944\frac{5}{4}-\frac{76}{9\pi^{2}}=0.3944...
10 5239893819845π2=0.4632\frac{5}{2}-\frac{398938}{19845\pi^{2}}=0.4632...
15 1544332855248135270135π2=0.5046\frac{15}{4}-\frac{4332855248}{135270135\pi^{2}}=0.5046...
Table 1: Table of the variance of the Cauchy index for a few selected values of NN.

6 Conclusion

Using a Coulomb gas technique, originally devised by Dyson and recently employed to a variety of different situations, we compute analytically for large NN the probability that a N×NN\times N Cauchy matrix has a fraction κ\kappa of eigenvalues exceeding a threshold at ζ\zeta. We mainly focus on the case ζ=0\zeta=0 for simplicity, and we find that this probability satisfies a large deviation law whose rate function ψC(κ)\psi_{C}(\kappa) is explicitly computed (Eqs. (53) and (59)). Expanding the rate function around its minimum κ=1/2\kappa=1/2, we find a quadratic behavior modulated by a logarithmic singularity. As a consequence, the variance of the index grows logarithmically with the matrix size NN, with a prefactor that is twice as large as the Gaussian and Wishart ensembles (15). In the limit κ0\kappa\to 0 (all the eigenvalues are negative) we recover the large deviation tails of the largest Cauchy eigenvalue, recently computed in [56]. The logarithmic growth of the variance with NN is also checked against a finite NN formula [Eq. (78)] that we derived for β=2\beta=2 using orthogonal polynomials. For Cauchy random matrices, the local statistics is described by the sine-kernel [54], which also describes the bulk local statistics of Gaussian and Wishart random matrices. Hence the main characteristic of the Cauchy ensemble is the fact that the average spectral density extends over the full real line, as opposed to a finite support in the Gaussian and Wishart matrices. We thus expect that the absence of an edge in the case of Cauchy random matrices is indeed responsible for this larger variance (15). A more precise analysis of this effect goes beyond the scope of the present paper and is left for future investigations [59]. Other related directions of research include the determination of the subleading constant CβC_{\beta} in the large NN expansion of the variance, based on formula (78), as well as explicit formulae for the full probability distributions for finite NN and all β\betas in the three ensembles (Gaussian, Wishart and Cauchy).

Acknowledgments

PV and GS acknowledge support from Labex-PALM (Project Randmat). SNM and GS acknowledge support by ANR grant 2011-BS04-013-01 WALKMAT and in part by the Indo-French Centre for the Promotion of Advanced Research under Project 4604-3.

References

  • [1] E. P. Wigner, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 47, 790 (1951).
  • [2] F. J. Dyson, J. Math. Phys. 3, 140 (1962); 3, 157 (1962); 3, 166 (1962).
  • [3] F. J. Dyson and M. L. Mehta, J. Math. Phys. 3, 701 (1962).
  • [4] J. Wishart, Biometrika 20A, 32 (1928).
  • [5] R. A. Fisher, Annals of Eugenics 9, 238 (1939).
  • [6] P. L. Hsu, Annals of Eugenics 9, 250 (1939).
  • [7] S. N. Majumdar and G. Schehr, Preprint [arXiv:1311.0580] (2013).
  • [8] D. S. Dean and S. N. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. E 77, 041108 (2008).
  • [9] S. N. Majumdar and M. Vergassola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 060601 (2009).
  • [10] G. Borot, B. Eynard, S. N. Majumdar, and C. Nadal, J. Stat. Mech. P11024 (2011).
  • [11] N. Saito, Y. Iba, and K. Hukushima, Phys. Rev. E 82, 031142 (2010).
  • [12] G. Ben Arous, A. Dembo, and A. Guionnet, Prob. Theory Related Fields 2, 73 (2001).
  • [13] P. Vivo, S. N. Majumdar, and O. Bohigas, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 4317 (2007).
  • [14] E. Katzav and I. Pérez Castillo, Phys. Rev. E 82, 041004 (2010).
  • [15] A. J. Bray and D. S. Dean, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 150201 (2007).
  • [16] Y. V. Fyodorov and I. Williams, J. Stat. Phys. 129, 1081 (2007).
  • [17] Y. V. Fyodorov and C. Nadal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 167203 (2012).
  • [18] G. Parisi and T. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 117205 (2008); Phys. Rev. B 79, 134205 (2009).
  • [19] C. Monthus and T. Garel, J. Stat. Mech. P02023 (2010).
  • [20] P. Vivo, S. N. Majumdar, and O. Bohigas, Phys. Rev. B. 81, 104202 (2010).
  • [21] P. Facchi, U. Marzolino, G. Parisi, S. Pascazio, and A. Scardicchio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 050502 (2008).
  • [22] C. Nadal, S. N. Majumdar, and M. Vergassola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 110501 (2010); J. Stat. Phys. 142, 403 (2011).
  • [23] A. De Pasquale, P. Facchi, G. Parisi, S. Pascazio, and A. Scardicchio, Phys. Rev. A 81, 052324 (2009).
  • [24] P. Vivo, J. Stat. Mech. P01022 (2011).
  • [25] P. Kazakopoulos, P. Mertikopoulos, A. L. Moustakas, and G. Caire, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 57, 1984 (2011).
  • [26] G. Schehr, S. N. Majumdar, A. Comtet, and J. Randon-Furling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 150601 (2008).
  • [27] C. Nadal and S. N. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. E 79, 061117 (2009).
  • [28] J. Rambeau and G. Schehr, Europhys. Lett. 91, 60006 (2010).
  • [29] P. J. Forrester, S. N. Majumdar, and G. Schehr, Nucl. Phys. B844, 500 (2011).
  • [30] G. Schehr, S. N. Majumdar, A. Comtet, and P. J. Forrester, J. Stat. Phys. 149, 385 (2012).
  • [31] E. P. Wigner, Statistical properties of real symmetric matrices with many dimensions, in Canadian Mathematical Congress Proceedings (Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, pp. 174-184, 1957).
  • [32] O. Costin and J. L. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 69 (1995).
  • [33] M. M. Fogler and B. I. Shklovskii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3312 (1995).
  • [34] D. J. Wales, Energy Landscapes: Applications to Clusters, Biomolecules and Glasses (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
  • [35] M. R. Douglas, JHEP 05, 046 (2003).
  • [36] A. Cavagna, J. P. Garrahan, and I. Giardina, Phys. Rev. B 61, 3960 (2000).
  • [37] A. Aazami and R. Easther, JCAP 03, 013 (2006).
  • [38] L. Mersini-Houghton, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 3481 (2005).
  • [39] D. Marsh, L. McAllister, and T. Wrase, JHEP 1203, 102 (2012).
  • [40] D. Battefeld, T. Battefeld, and S. Schulz, JCAP 06, 034 (2012).
  • [41] S. N. Majumdar, C. Nadal, A. Scardicchio, and P. Vivo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 220603 (2009).
  • [42] S. N. Majumdar, C. Nadal, A. Scardicchio, and P. Vivo, Phys. Rev. E 83, 041105 (2011).
  • [43] D. S. Dean and S. N. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 160201 (2006).
  • [44] H. M. Ramli, E. Katzav, and I. Pérez Castillo, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 465005 (2012).
  • [45] R. Allez, J. Touboul, and G. Wainrib, Preprint [arXiv:1310.5039] (2013).
  • [46] S. N. Armstrong, S. Serfaty, and O. Zeitouni, Potential Anal. to appear, Preprint [arxiv:1304.1964] (2013).
  • [47] N. S. Witte and P. J. Forrester, Random Matrices: Theory Appl. 01, 1250010 (2012).
  • [48] S. N. Majumdar and P. Vivo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 200601 (2012).
  • [49] P. W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. B 51, 16878 (1995).
  • [50] Y. V. Fyodorov, B. A. Khoruzhenko, and A. Nock, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46, 262001 (2013).
  • [51] Z. Burda, R. A. Janik, J. Jurkiewicz, M. A. Nowak, G. Papp, and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. E 65, 021106 (2002).
  • [52] Z. Burda and J. Jurkiewicz, Heavy Tailed Random Matrices in The Oxford Handbook of Random Matrix Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
  • [53] P. J. Forrester, Log-Gases and Random Matrices (London Mathematical Society monographs, 2010).
  • [54] A. Borodin and G. Olshanski, Commun. Math. Phys. 223, 87 (2001).
  • [55] M. Tierz, Preprint [arXiv:cond-mat/0106485] (2001).
  • [56] S. N. Majumdar, G. Schehr, D. Villamaina, and P. Vivo, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46, 022001 (2013).
  • [57] N. S. Witte and P. J. Forrester, Nonlinearity 13, 1965 (2000).
  • [58] J. Najnudel, A. Nikeghbali, and F. Rubin, J. Stat. Phys. 137, 373 (2009).
  • [59] S. N. Majumdar, R. Marino, G. Schehr, and P. Vivo, in preparation.
  • [60] R. Allez, J.-P. Bouchaud, and A. Guionnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 094102 (2012).
  • [61] R. Allez, J.-P. Bouchaud, S. N. Majumdar, and P. Vivo, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46, 015001 (2013).
  • [62] F. G. Tricomi, Integral Equations (Pure Appl. Math V, Interscience, London, 1957).
  • [63] G. Akemann, Nucl. Phys. B 507, 475 (1997).
  • [64] M. L. Mehta, Random Matrices (Academic Press, Boston, 1991).

Appendix A Asymptotic analysis

In this Appendix, we perform a careful asymptotic analysis of the rate function ψC(κ)\psi_{C}(\kappa) around its minimum κ=1/2\kappa=1/2. To do so, we have to estimate the behavior of I1,I2I_{1},I_{2} and I3I_{3}, the three contributions to the action at the saddle point [Eq. (59)], for B0B\to 0.

First, note that the edge points 1\ell_{1} and 2\ell_{2} behave as 1BB\frac{1}{B}-B and BB, respectively, when B0B\to 0. Also, the support of the density (for κ>1/2\kappa>1/2) ρ(x)\rho^{\star}(x) is [1,2](0,+)[-\ell_{1},-\ell_{2}]\cup(0,+\infty), therefore we need to consider the two blobs of each term in the action separately.

  • I1=12𝑑xρ(x)ln(1+x2)I_{1}=\frac{1}{2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx\rho^{\star}(x)\ln(1+x^{2})  .

First, we separate the integral as

I1=I1L+I1R\displaystyle I_{1}=I_{1}^{L}+I_{1}^{R} I1L=1212𝑑xρ(x)ln(1+x2)\displaystyle I_{1}^{L}=\frac{1}{2}\int_{-\ell_{1}}^{-\ell_{2}}\!\!\!dx\rho^{\star}(x)\ln(1+x^{2}) ,\displaystyle\;, I1R=120+𝑑xρ(x)ln(1+x2).\displaystyle I_{1}^{R}=\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{+\infty}\!\!\!dx\rho^{\star}(x)\ln(1+x^{2}). (80)

Writing I1RI_{1}^{R} explicitly we obtain

I1R=12π0+𝑑xB(x3+x)+x2x(x2+1)ln(1+x2).I_{1}^{R}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{+\infty}\!\!\!dx\frac{\sqrt{B(x^{3}+x)+x^{2}}}{x(x^{2}+1)}\ln(1+x^{2}). (81)

To compute the asymptotic behavior when B0B\to 0, we split this integral into two parts, one integral from 0 to BB and one from BB to \infty:

I1R=12π(0B𝑑xB(x3+x)+x2x(x2+1)ln(1+x2)+B𝑑xB(x3+x)+x2x(x2+1)ln(1+x2)).I_{1}^{R}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\left(\int_{0}^{B}\!\!\!dx\frac{\sqrt{B(x^{3}+x)+x^{2}}}{x(x^{2}+1)}\ln(1+x^{2})+\int_{B}^{\infty}\!\!\!dx\frac{\sqrt{B(x^{3}+x)+x^{2}}}{x(x^{2}+1)}\ln(1+x^{2})\right). (82)

Now we can expand the integrands in series around B=0B=0 and integrate term by term to obtain [up to order 𝒪(B){\cal O}(B)]

I1RB0ln22+Bln2(B)4πBln(B)2π(1+ln4)+B4π(2+4ln2(1+ln2)+3π24)+o(B).I_{1}^{R}\xrightarrow[B\to 0]{}\frac{\ln 2}{2}+B\frac{\ln^{2}(B)}{4\pi}-\frac{B\ln(B)}{2\pi}(1+\ln 4)+\frac{B}{4\pi}\left(2+4\ln 2(1+\ln 2)+\frac{3\pi^{2}}{4}\right)+o(B). (83)

We now turn our attention to I1LI_{1}^{L}, calculating the asymptotic behavior when B0B\to 0 of the integral:

I1L=12π12𝑑xB(x3+x)+x2|x(x2+1)|ln(1+x2).I_{1}^{L}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\ell_{1}}^{-\ell_{2}}\!\!\!dx\frac{\sqrt{B(x^{3}+x)+x^{2}}}{|x(x^{2}+1)|}\ln(1+x^{2}). (84)

To proceed, it is more convenient to reexpress I1LI_{1}^{L} in terms of its edge points

I1L=B2π12𝑑x(x+1)(x+2)|x|(x2+1)ln(1+x2),I_{1}^{L}=\frac{\sqrt{B}}{2\pi}\int_{-\ell_{1}}^{-\ell_{2}}\!\!\!dx\frac{\sqrt{-(x+\ell_{1})(x+\ell_{2})}}{\sqrt{|x|}(x^{2}+1)}\ln(1+x^{2}), (85)

which is equivalent to (84). We proceed with the following change of variable y=x+112y=\frac{x+\ell_{1}}{\ell_{1}-\ell_{2}}, we have:

I1L=B2π01(12)dy1+[(12)y1]2(12)y(1y)|(12)y1|ln[1+[(12)y1]2].I_{1}^{L}=\frac{\sqrt{B}}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{1}\!\frac{(\ell_{1}-\ell_{2})dy}{1+[(\ell_{1}-\ell_{2})y-\ell_{1}]^{2}}\frac{(\ell_{1}-\ell_{2})\sqrt{y(1-y)}}{\sqrt{|(\ell_{1}-\ell_{2})y-\ell_{1}|}}\ln\left[1+[(\ell_{1}-\ell_{2})y-\ell_{1}]^{2}\right]. (86)

Since 1\ell_{1} behaves like 1BB\frac{1}{B}-B and 2\ell_{2} behaves like BB when BB is small, 12\ell_{1}-\ell_{2} goes as 1B2B\frac{1}{B}-2B. We replace these asymptotic behaviors in (86), keeping only the leading orders for small BB. The resulting integral can be computed explicitly and we can then extract its asymptotic behavior when B0B\to 0

I1LB0ln22Bln2B4π+(1+ln4)(BlnB)2π+B4π(π2424ln2(1+ln2))+o(B)I_{1}^{L}\xrightarrow[B\to 0]{}\frac{\ln 2}{2}-\frac{B\ln^{2}B}{4\pi}+\frac{(1+\ln 4)(B\ln B)}{2\pi}+\frac{B}{4\pi}\left(\frac{\pi^{2}}{4}-2-4\ln 2(1+\ln 2)\right)+o(B) (87)

Note an impressive series of cancellations in the sum I1L+I1RI_{1}^{L}+I_{1}^{R}, resulting in

I1B0ln2+π4B+o(B).I_{1}\xrightarrow[B\to 0]{}\ln 2+\frac{\pi}{4}B+o(B). (88)
  • I2=𝑑xρ(x)ln(1+x)I_{2}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx\rho^{\star}(x)\ln(\ell_{1}+x).

First, we again separate the integral over the two supports

I2=I2L+I2R\displaystyle I_{2}=I_{2}^{L}+I_{2}^{R} I2L=12𝑑xρ(x)ln(1+x)\displaystyle I_{2}^{L}=\int_{-\ell_{1}}^{-\ell_{2}}\!\!\!dx\rho^{\star}(x)\ln(\ell_{1}+x) I2R=0+𝑑xρ(x)ln(1+x).\displaystyle I_{2}^{R}=\int_{0}^{+\infty}\!\!\!dx\rho^{\star}(x)\ln(\ell_{1}+x). (89)

Both integrals are very similar to I1RI_{1}^{R} and IRLI_{R}^{L}, and we proceed to calculate them by the same methods. Expanding the integrals to leading orders of BB and adding both terms, we get to

I2B0lnB+π2B+o(B).I_{2}\xrightarrow[B\to 0]{}-\ln B+\frac{\pi}{2}B+o(B). (90)

The third term, I3I_{3}, has a straightforward expansion

I3B02lnB+o(B).I_{3}\xrightarrow[B\to 0]{}-2\ln B+o(B). (91)

The action S[ρ]S[\rho^{\star}] at the saddle point has therefore an expansion for B0B\to 0 equal to

S[ρ]ln2+π4B(1κ)(lnB+π2B)+(1κ)2(2lnB)+o(B).\displaystyle S[\rho^{\star}]\sim\ln 2+\frac{\pi}{4}B-(1-\kappa)\left(-\ln B+\frac{\pi}{2}B\right)+\frac{(1-\kappa)}{2}(-2\ln B)+o(B). (92)

Once we write κ=12+δ\kappa=\frac{1}{2}+\delta, we obtain Eq. (61).

Appendix B General formula for the variance of a linear statistics at finite NN for β=2\beta=2

We derive here a general fluctuation formula (valid for β=2\beta=2 and finite NN) for the variance of a linear statistics, i.e. a random variable ϕ\phi of the form

ϕ=i=1Nf(λi),\phi=\sum_{i=1}^{N}f(\lambda_{i})\;, (93)

for a general benign function f(x)f(x). The variance of ϕ\phi is given by Var(ϕ)=ϕ2ϕ2\mathrm{Var}(\phi)=\langle\phi^{2}\rangle-\langle\phi\rangle^{2}, where the average is taken with respect to the jpd of the NN eigenvalues P(λ1,,λN)P(\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{N}).

By definition

ϕ2=∫⋯∫𝑑λ1𝑑λNP(λ1,,λN)i=1Nf(λi)j=1Nf(λj).\langle\phi^{2}\rangle=\idotsint d\lambda_{1}\ldots d\lambda_{N}P(\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{N})\sum_{i=1}^{N}f(\lambda_{i})\sum_{j=1}^{N}f(\lambda_{j}). (94)

Let us first define the one-point and the two-point correlation function (marginals) of the jpdf P(λ1,,λN)P(\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{N})444The one-point function R1(λ)R_{1}(\lambda) is related to the finite-NN spectral density via R1(λ)=NρN(λ)R_{1}(\lambda)=N\rho_{N}(\lambda).

R1(λ)\displaystyle R_{1}(\lambda) =N∫⋯∫𝑑λ2𝑑λNP(λ,λ2,,λN),\displaystyle=N\idotsint d\lambda_{2}\ldots d\lambda_{N}P(\lambda,\lambda_{2},\ldots,\lambda_{N}), (95)
R2(λ,λ)=\displaystyle R_{2}(\lambda,\lambda^{\prime})= N(N1)∫⋯∫𝑑λ3𝑑λNP(λ,λ,λ3,,λN).\displaystyle N(N-1)\idotsint d\lambda_{3}\ldots d\lambda_{N}P(\lambda,\lambda^{\prime},\lambda_{3},\ldots,\lambda_{N})\;. (96)

Separating in the double sum in (94) the term i=ji=j from the terms iji\neq j we easily obtain

ϕ2=𝑑λR1(λ)[f(λ)]2+𝑑λ𝑑λf(λ)f(λ)R2(λ,λ),\langle\phi^{2}\rangle=\int d\lambda R_{1}(\lambda)\left[f(\lambda)\right]^{2}+\iint d\lambda d\lambda^{\prime}f(\lambda)f(\lambda^{\prime})R_{2}(\lambda,\lambda^{\prime})\;, (97)

while clearly

ϕ2=[𝑑λR1(λ)f(λ)]2.\langle\phi\rangle^{2}=\left[\int d\lambda R_{1}(\lambda)f(\lambda)\right]^{2}\;. (98)

The theory of orthogonal polynomials [64] gives a prescription to compute nn-point correlation functions for β=2\beta=2 in terms of a n×nn\times n determinant. More precisely, let

P(λ1,,λN)j<k|λjλk|2j=1NeV(λj).P(\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{N})\propto\prod_{j<k}|\lambda_{j}-\lambda_{k}|^{2}\prod_{j=1}^{N}e^{-V(\lambda_{j})}\;. (99)

Then the associated kernel is

KN(λ,λ)=e12(V(λ)+V(λ))j=0N1πj(λ)πj(λ),K_{N}(\lambda,\lambda^{\prime})=e^{-\frac{1}{2}(V(\lambda)+V(\lambda^{\prime}))}\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}\pi_{j}(\lambda)\pi_{j}(\lambda^{\prime})\;, (100)

where the πj\pi_{j} are orthogonal polynomials with respect to the weight eV(λ)e^{-V(\lambda)}, i.e.

𝑑λeV(λ)πm(λ)πn(λ)=δmn.\int d\lambda e^{-V(\lambda)}\pi_{m}(\lambda)\pi_{n}(\lambda)=\delta_{mn}\;. (101)

Then

R1(λ)\displaystyle R_{1}(\lambda) =KN(λ,λ),\displaystyle=K_{N}(\lambda,\lambda)\;, (102)
R2(λ,λ)\displaystyle R_{2}(\lambda,\lambda^{\prime}) =KN(λ,λ)KN(λ,λ)(KN(λ,λ))2.\displaystyle=K_{N}(\lambda,\lambda)K_{N}(\lambda^{\prime},\lambda^{\prime})-(K_{N}(\lambda,\lambda^{\prime}))^{2}\;. (103)

Inserting (102) and (103) into (97), and using R1(λ)=KN(λ,λ)=NρN(λ)R_{1}(\lambda)=K_{N}(\lambda,\lambda)=N\rho_{N}(\lambda) we eventually get

Var(ϕ)=N𝑑λρN(λ)[f(λ)]2𝑑λ𝑑λf(λ)f(λ)[KN(λ,λ)]2.\mathrm{Var}(\phi)=N\int d\lambda\rho_{N}(\lambda)[f(\lambda)]^{2}-\iint d\lambda d\lambda^{\prime}f(\lambda)f(\lambda^{\prime})[K_{N}(\lambda,\lambda^{\prime})]^{2}\;. (104)

Specializing this formula to the index case, where f(λ)=θ(λ)f(\lambda)=\theta(\lambda) we get

Var(N+)=N20𝑑λ𝑑λ[KN(λ,λ)]2.\mathrm{Var}(N_{+})=\frac{N}{2}-\iint_{0}^{\infty}d\lambda d\lambda^{\prime}[K_{N}(\lambda,\lambda^{\prime})]^{2}\;. (105)

as in Eq. (69).