Central Limit Theorem for linear eigenvalue statistics of the Wigner and sample covariance random matrices
Mariya Shcherbina
Introduction
The Wigner Ensembles for real symmetric matrices is a family of real symmetric matrices of the form
Here and below we denote the averaging with respect to all random parameters of the problem. Let – be eigenvalues of . Since the pioneer work of Wigner it is known that if we consider the linear eigenvalue statistic corresponding to any continuous test function :
then converges in probability to the limit
where is the famous semicircle density
The result of this type, which is the analog of the Law of Large Numbers of the classical probability theory, normally is the first step in studies of the eigenvalue distribution for any ensemble of random matrices. For the Wigner ensemble this result, obtained initially in for Gaussian W=\big{\{}w_{jk}^{(n)}\big{\}}_{j,k=1}^{n}, was improved in , where the convergence of to the semicircle law was shown under the minimal conditions on the distribution of W=\big{\{}w_{jk}^{(n)}\big{\}}_{j,k=1}^{n} (the Lindeberg type conditions).
The second classical ensemble which we consider in the paper is a sample covariance matrix of the form
where is a matrix whose entries \big{\{}X_{jk}^{(n)}\big{\}}_{j=1,.,n,k=1,.,m} are independent random variables, satisfying the conditions
Corresponding results on the convergence of normalized linear eigenvalue statistics to integrals with the Marchenko-Pastur distribution were obtained in .
Central Limit Theorem (CLT) for fluctuations of linear eigenvalue statistics is a natural second step in studies of the eigenvalue distribution of any ensemble of random matrices. That is why there are a lot of papers, devoted to the proofs of CLT for different ensembles of random matrices (see ). CLT for the traces of resolvents for the classical Wigner and sample covariance matrices was proved by Girko in 1975 (see and references therein), but the expression for the variance found by him was rather complicated. A simple expression for the covariance of the resolvent traces for the Wigner matrix in the case was found in . CLT for polynomial test functions for some generalizations of the Wigner and sample covariance matrices was proved in by using moment methods. CLT for real analytic test functions for the Wigner and sample covariance matrices was established in under additional assumptions that , (or for the model (1.5)). In the recent paper CLT for the linear eigenvalue statistics of the Wigner and sample covariance matrix ensemble was proved under assumptions that , the third and the forth moments of all entries are the same, but is not necessary 3. Moreover, the test functions, studied in , are not supposed to be real analytic. It was assumed that the Fourier transform of the test function satisfies the inequality
which means that has more than 5 bounded derivatives.
In the present paper we prove CLT for the Wigner ensemble (1.1) under the following assumptions on the matrix entries
We consider the test functions from the space , possessing the norm (cf (1.7))
Consider the Wigner model with entries satisfying condition (1.8). Let the real valued test function satisfy condition (). Then converges in distribution to the Gaussian random variable with zero mean and the variance
Let us note that similarly to the result of it is easy to check that Theorem 1 remains valid if the second condition of (1.8) is replaced by the Lindeberg type condition for the fourth moments of entries of
The proof will be the same as for Theorem 1, but everywhere below will be replaced by , with some positive .
The proof of Theorem 1 is based on some combination of the resolvent approach with martingal bounds for the variance of the resolvent traces, used before by many authors, in particularly, by Girko (see and references therein). An important advantage of our approach is that it is shown by the marginal difference method that (see Proposition 2 below)
The proposition allows one to transform the bounds for the variances of the resolvent traces into the bounds for the variances of linear eigenvalue statistics of , where the value of depends on the exponent of in the r.h.s. of (1.13). It is important, that Proposition 1 has a rather general form and therefore it is applicable to any ensemble of random matrices for which the bounds of the type (1.13) (may be with a different exponent of ) are found. This makes Proposition 1 an important tool of the proof of CLT for linear eigenvalue statistics for different random matrices. The idea of Proposition 1 was taken from the paper , where a similar argument was used to study the first order correction terms of for the matrix models. Having in mind Proposition 1, one can prove CLT for any dense in set of the test functions, and then extend this result to the whole by the standard procedure (see Proposition 3). In the present paper for this aim we use a set of convolutions of integrable functions with the Poisson kernel (see (2.32) and (2.3)). This choice simplifies considerably the argument in the proof of CLT and makes the proof more short than that in the previous papers .
The result for sample covariance matrices is very similar. We assume that the moments of the entries of from (1.5) satisfy the bounds
Consider a random matrix (1.5) – (1.6) with entries of , satisfying the condition (1.15). Let the real valued test function satisfy condition (). Then in the limit , converges in distribution to the Gaussian random variable with zero mean and the variance
where , is the fourth cumulant of entries of , , and .
Proofs
Proof of Proposition 1. Consider the operator
where is the projection on the vector
where means the norm (1.9) with . We can write
where the symbol means the convolution of functions, and is the Poisson kernel
This relation combined with (2.2) proves (1.14).
In what wallows we need to estimate \mathbf{E}\big{\{}|w_{jk}^{(n)}|^{8}\big{\}} (see the proof of Proposition 2). Hence, if , then it is convenient to consider the truncated matrix
Let be the linear eigenvalue statistic of the matrix , corresponding to the test function with bounded first derivative. Then
Proof. Consider the matrix . Let be eigenvalues of and be corresponding eigenvectors. Then
where , is the unitary matrix such that , where is a diagonal matrix and . Hence,
It follows from Lemma 1 that for our purposes it suffices to prove CLT for . Hence, starting from this point we will assume that is replaced by , but to simplify notations we will write instead of just assuming below that the matrix entries of satisfy conditions
Here and below we omit also the super index of matrix entries and .
If the conditions (2.6) are satisfied, then for any
If the conditions of (2.7) are also satisfied, then
Proof. Denote the averaging with respect to . Then, according to the standard martingal method (see ), we have
Denote the averaging with respect to . Then, using the Schwarz inequality, we obtain that
Let us estimate the first summand (with ) of the above sum. The other ones can be estimated similarly. Denote the matrix which is the main bottom minor of
The first identity of (2.13) yields that it suffices to estimate and . We will estimate the first expression. The second one can be estimated similarly. Denote for any random variable and note that for any independent of we have
Let us use also the identities that follow from the spectral theorem
where . The first relation yields, in particular, that . Moreover, using the second identity of (2.14), we have
we get by (2.15) and the second identity of (2.14):
Then, using the Jensen inequality , and the second identity of (2.13), we conclude that
To prove (2.9) we use the inequality similar to (2.11) (see )
Thus, in view of (2.13), it is enough to check that
The first relation here evidently follow from (2.16), if we take the forth degree of the r.h.s., average with respect to , and take into account (2.7). The second relation can be obtained similarly.
Proposition 2 gives the bound for the variance of the linear eigenvalue statistics for the functions . We are going to extend the bound for a wider class of test functions.
If , with any , then
Proof. In view of Proposition 1 we need to estimate
Take in (2.8) . Then we need to estimate
We do this for . For other the estimates are the same. The spectral representation
Taking in (1.14), we get
To simplify formulas we will assume below that are i.i.d. and are i.i.d. Note that this assumption does not change the proof seriously, it just allows us to write the bounds only for instead of all .
The next lemma collects relations which we need to prove CLT.
Using notations of (2.13) we have uniformly in with any :
Proof. Note that since , we can use the bound
Relations (2.21) follow from the representations
combined with (2.19), and (2.9), applied to . Relations (2.22) and (2.23) follow from (2.16) and (2.29), if we take the products of the r.h.s. of (2.16) with different and average with respect to . Relation (2.25) follows from (2.13), (2.21), and (2.28). The first relation of (2.26) is the analog of the relation
if in the latter we replace the matrix by . But since , (2.30) follows from (2.21) and (2.28). The second relation of (2.26) follows from (2.13).
The first relations of (2.27) follows from the above bound for and the well known estimate (see e.g. )
The second one of (2.27) is the corollary of the above estimate and of the relation
Finally we obtain the first bound of (2.24) from (2.22), (2.26), (2.25), and the identity
The second bound of (2.24) follows from the first one, (2.23), and the Cauchy theorem.
Proof of Theorem 1. We prove first Theorem 1 for the functions of the form
where is the Poisson kernel defined in (2.3). One can see easily that
On the other hand, using the symmetry of the problem and the notations of (2.13), we have
Since does not depend on , using that , we obtain in view of (2.37) and (2.21)
But the Schwarz inequality and (2.25) yield
Using the Schwartz inequality, (2.13), (2.25), and (2.22), we conclude that the term gives the contribution . Then, since does not depend on , we average first with respect to and obtain in view of (2.25)
Using (2.37) and (2.21), we conclude that only linear terms with respect to and give non vanishing contribution, hence in view of (2.23) and (2.24) we obtain
where we used also (2.27) to replace by and by . The identity (2.31) yields
In addition, similarly to (2.38), we have
we can transform to the form
Now, taking into account (2.35), (2.41), and (2.42), we obtain the equation
and since , we obtain uniformly in
Thus, we have proved CLT for the functions of the form (2.32). To extend CLT to a wider class of functions we use
be the variance of . Assume that
(a) there exists a vector space endowed with a norm and such that is defined on and admits the bound
Then admits a continuous extension to and CLT is valid for all , .
Proof. Let be a sequence of elements of converging to . We have then in view of the inequality , the linearity of in , the Schwarz inequality, and (2.45):
Now, passing first to the limit and then , we obtain the assertion.
The proposition and Lemma 2 allow us to complete the proof of Theorem 1.
Proof of Theorem 2 The proof of Theorem 2 can be performed by the same way as that for Theorem 1. We start from the proposition which is the analog of Proposition 2.
Taking into account Proposition 4, on the basis of Proposition 1 and Lemma 2 we obtain immediately the bound (2.20) for the variance of linear eigenvalue statistics of sample covariance matrices. Then one can use the same method as in the proof of Theorem 1 to prove CLT for of (2.32) or just use the result of for the functions, satisfying conditions (1.7). Then Proposition 3 implies immediately the assertion of Theorem 2.
Thus, to complete the proof of Theorem 2 we are left to prove Proposition 4.
Proof of Proposition 4. Similarly to the proof of Proposition 2 we use the identity (2.10) where this time means the averaging with respect to . Then we obtain (2.11) with meaning the averaging with respect to .
Denote , where the matrix is made from the lines , from the second to the last one. Then denote
and use (2.13) with these and .
To obtain the estimate for \mathbf{E}_{1}\Big{\{}|\gamma_{n}-\mathbf{E}_{1}\{\gamma_{n}\}|^{2}\Big{\}} we need (as in the proof of Proposition 2) to estimate and . Since does not depend on , averaging with respect to , using the Jensen inequality and (2.47), we get
But it is known (see and references therein) that for any fixed
Combining this bound with the above inequality and repeating the argument of Proposition 2, we obtain the bound (2.17). The bound for can be obtained similarly.