Hyperuniformity and non-hyperuniformity of zeros of Gaussian Weyl-Heisenberg Functions

Naomi Feldheim Department of Mathematics, Bar-Ilan University, Israel [email protected] Antti Haimi Faculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna, Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1, A-1090 Vienna, Austria [email protected] Günther Koliander Acoustics Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Dr. Ignaz Seipel-Platz 2, AT-1010 Vienna, Austria [email protected]  and  José Luis Romero Faculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna, Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1, A-1090 Vienna, Austria, and Acoustics Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Dr. Ignaz Seipel-Platz 2, AT-1010 Vienna, Austria [email protected]
Abstract.

We study zero sets of twisted stationary Gaussian random functions on the complex plane, i.e., Gaussian random functions that are stochastically invariant under the action of the Weyl-Heisenberg group. This model includes translation invariant Gaussian entire functions (GEFs), and also many other non-analytic examples, in which case winding numbers around zeros can be either positive or negative. We investigate zero statistics both when zeros are weighted with their winding numbers (charged zero set) and when they are not (uncharged zero set).

We show that the variance of the charged zero statistic always grows linearly with the radius of the observation disk (hyperuniformity). Importantly, this holds for functions with possibly non-zero means and without assuming additional symmetries such as radiality. With respect to uncharged zero statistics, we provide an example for which the variance grows with the area of the observation disk (non-hyperuniformity). This is used to show that, while the zeros of GEFs are hyperuniform, the set of their critical points fails to be so.

Our work contributes to recent developments in statistical signal processing, where the time-frequency profile of a non-stationary signal embedded into noise is revealed by performing a statistical test on the zeros of its spectrogram (“silent points”). We show that empirical spectrogram zero counts enjoy moderate deviation from their ensemble averages over large observation windows (something that was previously known only for pure noise). In contrast, we also show that spectogram maxima (“loud points”) fail to enjoy a similar property. This gives the first formal evidence for the statistical superiority of silent points over the competing feature of loud points, a fact that has been noted by practitioners.

Key words and phrases:
Gaussian Weyl-Heisenberg Function, zero set, spectrogram zero, twisted stationarity, short-time Fourier transform, hyperuniformity
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
60G15, 60G55, 94A12, 42A61
N. F. gratefully acknowledges the support of the Israel Science Foundation, grant 1327/19. This research was funded in whole or in part by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): 10.55776/Y1199. For open access purposes, the authors have applied a CC BY public copyright license to any author-accepted manuscript version arising from this submission.

1. Introduction and Results

1.1. Gaussian Weyl-Heisenberg functions

We study random functions on the complex plane F::𝐹F\colon\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}italic_F : blackboard_C → blackboard_C and their zeros. Specifically, we consider

(1.1) F=F0+F1,𝐹subscript𝐹0subscript𝐹1\displaystyle F=F_{0}+F_{1},italic_F = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

where F1::subscript𝐹1F_{1}\colon\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_C → blackboard_C is deterministic and F0subscript𝐹0F_{0}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a circularly symmetric complex Gaussian random field on \mathbb{C}blackboard_C with covariance kernel of the form

(1.2) 𝔼[F0(z)F0(w)¯]=H(zw)eiIm(zw¯)=H(zw)e12(zw¯wz¯),z,w.formulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹0𝑧¯subscript𝐹0𝑤𝐻𝑧𝑤superscript𝑒𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤𝐻𝑧𝑤superscript𝑒12𝑧¯𝑤𝑤¯𝑧𝑧𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}F_{0}(z)\cdot\overline{F_{0}(w)}\big{]}=H(z-w)% \cdot e^{i\mathrm{Im}(z\bar{w})}=H(z-w)\cdot e^{\frac{1}{2}(z\bar{w}-w\bar{z})% },\qquad z,w\in\mathbb{C}.blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ⋅ over¯ start_ARG italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] = italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) ⋅ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) ⋅ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG - italic_w over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_z , italic_w ∈ blackboard_C .

Here, H::𝐻H\colon\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}italic_H : blackboard_C → blackboard_C is a suitably smooth function called twisted kernel.

The covariance structure (1.2) means that F0subscript𝐹0F_{0}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is twisted stationary, that is, the distribution of F0subscript𝐹0F_{0}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is invariant under all twisted shifts

(1.3) 𝒯ξF0(z)=F0(zξ)eiIm(zξ¯),ξ,z.formulae-sequencesubscript𝒯𝜉subscript𝐹0𝑧subscript𝐹0𝑧𝜉superscript𝑒𝑖Im𝑧¯𝜉𝜉𝑧\displaystyle\mathcal{T}_{\xi}F_{0}(z)=F_{0}(z-\xi)e^{i\mathrm{Im}(z\bar{\xi})% },\qquad\xi,z\in\mathbb{C}.caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z - italic_ξ ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_ξ , italic_z ∈ blackboard_C .

The random functions F0subscript𝐹0F_{0}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT were introduced in [29] and named Gaussian Weyl-Heisenberg Functions (GWHF), as the operators (1.3) generate the (reduced) Weyl-Heisenberg group [24]. Here we extend that nomenclature to include the random functions (1.1), which have a possibly non-trivial mean F1subscript𝐹1F_{1}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

We mention en passant some first examples. For the special choice

H(z)=e12|z|2,𝐻𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2\displaystyle H(z)=e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}},italic_H ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

F0(z)subscript𝐹0𝑧F_{0}(z)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) can be identified with a translation invariant Gaussian entire function [46, 33] as follows:

F0(z)=e12|z|2G0(z),subscript𝐹0𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2subscript𝐺0𝑧\displaystyle F_{0}(z)=e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}G_{0}(z),italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ,

with

(1.4) G0(z)=k0ξkk!zk,subscript𝐺0𝑧subscript𝑘0subscript𝜉𝑘𝑘superscript𝑧𝑘\displaystyle G_{0}(z)=\sum_{k\geq 0}\frac{\xi_{k}}{\sqrt{k!}}z^{k},italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_k ! end_ARG end_ARG italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

and ξksubscript𝜉𝑘\xi_{k}italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT independent standard complex random variables. Other choices of H𝐻Hitalic_H may lead to non-analytic random functions. For example, if

H(z)=(1|z|2)e12|z|2,𝐻𝑧1superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2\displaystyle H(z)=(1-|z|^{2})e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}},italic_H ( italic_z ) = ( 1 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

then

(1.5) F0(z)=e12|z|2[z¯G0(z)G0(z)],subscript𝐹0𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2delimited-[]¯𝑧subscript𝐺0𝑧subscript𝐺0𝑧\displaystyle F_{0}(z)=e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}\big{[}\bar{z}\,G% _{0}(z)-\partial G_{0}(z)\big{]},italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) - ∂ italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ] ,

where G0subscript𝐺0G_{0}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the Gaussian entire function (1.4), see [29, Section 6.5]. The expression in brackets in (1.5) is the covariant derivative of G0subscript𝐺0G_{0}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and is instrumental to study critical points of the weighted magnitude e|z|2/2|G0(z)|superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22subscript𝐺0𝑧e^{-\absolutevalue{z}^{2}/2}|G_{0}(z)|italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | (see Section 1.5). Examples of GWHF relevant in signal processing are discussed in Section 1.6.

1.2. Assumptions

To describe smoothness, we will employ the differential operators

(1.6) 𝒟1F(z)=F(z)z¯2F(z),𝒟2F(z)=¯F(z)+z2F(z),formulae-sequencesubscript𝒟1𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧¯𝑧2𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟2𝐹𝑧¯𝐹𝑧𝑧2𝐹𝑧\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{1}F(z)=\partial F(z)-\tfrac{\bar{z}}{2}F(z),\quad% \mathcal{D}_{2}F(z)=\bar{\partial}F(z)+\tfrac{z}{2}F(z),caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) = ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) - divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) = over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) + divide start_ARG italic_z end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) ,

called twisted derivatives, which commute with the twisted shifts (1.3):

(1.7) 𝒟j𝒯ξ=𝒯ξ𝒟j,ξ,j=1,2.formulae-sequencesubscript𝒟𝑗subscript𝒯𝜉subscript𝒯𝜉subscript𝒟𝑗formulae-sequence𝜉𝑗12\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{j}\mathcal{T}_{\xi}=\mathcal{T}_{\xi}\mathcal{D}_{j}% ,\qquad\xi\in\mathbb{C},\quad j=1,2.caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ξ ∈ blackboard_C , italic_j = 1 , 2 .

Here, we use the Wirtinger differential operators

=12(xiy),¯=12(x+iy).formulae-sequence12subscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝑦¯12subscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝑦\displaystyle\partial=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{x}-i\partial_{y}),\quad\bar{% \partial}=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{x}+i\partial_{y}).∂ = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_i ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

Throughout, we make the following assumptions, which are similar to those made in [29]:

  • We assume that the deterministic function F1subscript𝐹1F_{1}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is C2superscript𝐶2C^{2}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and

    (1.8) supz|F1(z)|,supz|𝒟iF1(z)|<,i,j=1,2.formulae-sequencesubscriptsupremum𝑧subscript𝐹1𝑧subscriptsupremum𝑧subscript𝒟𝑖subscript𝐹1𝑧𝑖𝑗12\displaystyle\sup_{z\in\mathbb{C}}|F_{1}(z)|,\,\sup_{z\in\mathbb{C}}|\mathcal{% D}_{i}F_{1}(z)|<\infty,\qquad i,j=1,2.roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | , roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | < ∞ , italic_i , italic_j = 1 , 2 .
  • For the twisted kernel we assume the positive-definiteness condition

    (1.9) (H(zkzj)eiIm(zkzj¯))1j,kn0for all z1,,zn,formulae-sequencesubscript𝐻subscript𝑧𝑘subscript𝑧𝑗superscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑧𝑘¯subscript𝑧𝑗formulae-sequence1𝑗𝑘𝑛0for all subscript𝑧1subscript𝑧𝑛\displaystyle\Big{(}H(z_{k}-z_{j})\cdot e^{i\imaginary(z_{k}\overline{z_{j}})}% \Big{)}_{1\leq j,k\leq n}\geq 0\qquad\mbox{for all }z_{1},\ldots,z_{n}\in% \mathbb{C},( italic_H ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⋅ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_OPERATOR roman_Im end_OPERATOR ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j , italic_k ≤ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 for all italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_C ,

    which guarantees that (1.2) is indeed a covariance kernel. This implies that

    (1.10) H(z)𝐻𝑧\displaystyle H(-z)italic_H ( - italic_z ) =H(z)¯,z,formulae-sequenceabsent¯𝐻𝑧𝑧\displaystyle=\overline{H(z)},\qquad z\in\mathbb{C},= over¯ start_ARG italic_H ( italic_z ) end_ARG , italic_z ∈ blackboard_C ,

    and H(0)0𝐻00H(0)\geq 0italic_H ( 0 ) ≥ 0.

  • We further impose the normalization

    (1.11) H(0)𝐻0\displaystyle H(0)italic_H ( 0 ) =1,absent1\displaystyle=1,= 1 ,

    which means that F(z)𝐹𝑧F(z)italic_F ( italic_z ) has unit variance.

  • We assume the regularity condition

    (1.12) |H(z)|<1,z{0},formulae-sequence𝐻𝑧1𝑧0\displaystyle|H(z)|<1,\quad z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\},| italic_H ( italic_z ) | < 1 , italic_z ∈ blackboard_C ∖ { 0 } ,

    which implies that no two samples F(z)𝐹𝑧F(z)italic_F ( italic_z ), F(w)𝐹𝑤F(w)italic_F ( italic_w ) are deterministically correlated, as the determinant of their covariance matrix is

    (1.13) 1|H(zw)|20,zw.formulae-sequence1superscript𝐻𝑧𝑤20𝑧𝑤\displaystyle 1-|H(z-w)|^{2}\not=0,\qquad z\neq w.1 - | italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≠ 0 , italic_z ≠ italic_w .
  • We assume that111Separability is a technical condition, which is sometimes not even explicitly mentioned in the literature. Informally, it means that the process is determined by its values on a certain countable set. A process is separable as soon as it has continuous paths, and, on the other hand, a separable process with smooth covariance has smooth paths [1, Section 1.1] [5, Chapter 1].

    (1.14) F is a separable process and H is C6 smooth in the real sense,F is a separable process and H is C6 smooth in the real sense\displaystyle\text{$F$ is a separable process and $H$ is $C^{6}$ smooth in the% real sense},italic_F is a separable process and italic_H is italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT smooth in the real sense ,

    which guarantees that F𝐹Fitalic_F is almost surely a C2superscript𝐶2C^{2}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT function [5, Chapter 1].

  • We assume the decay condition

    (1.15) supz(1+|z|2)|H(z)|,supz(1+|z|2)|𝒟iH(z)|,supz(1+|z|2)|𝒟i𝒟j¯H(z)|<,i,j=1,2.formulae-sequencesubscriptsupremum𝑧1superscript𝑧2𝐻𝑧subscriptsupremum𝑧1superscript𝑧2subscript𝒟𝑖𝐻𝑧subscriptsupremum𝑧1superscript𝑧2subscript𝒟𝑖¯subscript𝒟𝑗𝐻𝑧𝑖𝑗12\displaystyle\sup_{z\in\mathbb{C}}(1+|z|^{2})|H(z)|,\,\sup_{z\in\mathbb{C}}(1+% |z|^{2})|\mathcal{D}_{i}H(z)|,\,\sup_{z\in\mathbb{C}}(1+|z|^{2})|\mathcal{D}_{% i}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{j}}H(z)|<\infty,\qquad i,j=1,2.roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | italic_H ( italic_z ) | , roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H ( italic_z ) | , roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( italic_z ) | < ∞ , italic_i , italic_j = 1 , 2 .

1.3. Charged zeros and hyperuniformity

We augment each zero z𝑧zitalic_z of F𝐹Fitalic_F with the attribute of charge ±1plus-or-minus1\pm 1± 1, according to whether F𝐹Fitalic_F preserves or reverses orientation around z𝑧zitalic_z. More precisely, we inspect the differential matrix DF𝐷𝐹DFitalic_D italic_F of F𝐹Fitalic_F considered as F:22:𝐹superscript2superscript2F\colon\mathbb{R}^{2}\to\mathbb{R}^{2}italic_F : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and define

(1.16) κz:={1if detDF(z)>00if detDF(z)=01if detDF(z)<0.assignsubscript𝜅𝑧cases1if 𝐷𝐹𝑧00if 𝐷𝐹𝑧01if 𝐷𝐹𝑧0\displaystyle\begin{aligned} \kappa_{z}:=\begin{cases}1&\mbox{if }\det DF(z)>0% \\ 0&\mbox{if }\det DF(z)=0\\ -1&\mbox{if }\det DF(z)<0\end{cases}.\end{aligned}start_ROW start_CELL italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := { start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL if roman_det italic_D italic_F ( italic_z ) > 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL if roman_det italic_D italic_F ( italic_z ) = 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - 1 end_CELL start_CELL if roman_det italic_D italic_F ( italic_z ) < 0 end_CELL end_ROW . end_CELL end_ROW

As we show in Lemma 3.1, almost surely, {κz:F(z)=0}{1,1}conditional-setsubscript𝜅𝑧𝐹𝑧011\{\kappa_{z}:F(z)=0\}\subset\{-1,1\}{ italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_F ( italic_z ) = 0 } ⊂ { - 1 , 1 }.

The following is our first main result.

Theorem 1.1.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be the GWHF (1.1) and assume (1.8), (1.9), (1.11), (1.12), (1.14), and (1.15). Then

supwsupR11RVar[|zw|Rκz]<.subscriptsupremum𝑤subscriptsupremum𝑅11𝑅Vardelimited-[]subscript𝑧𝑤𝑅subscript𝜅𝑧\displaystyle\sup_{w\in\mathbb{C}}\sup_{R\geq 1}\tfrac{1}{R}\mathrm{Var}\Big{[% }\sum_{|z-w|\leq R}\kappa_{z}\Big{]}<\infty.roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w ∈ blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_R end_ARG roman_Var [ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_w | ≤ italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] < ∞ .

To compare, under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, the expected charge to be found in a ball 𝔼[|zw|Rκz]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑧𝑤𝑅subscript𝜅𝑧\mathbb{E}[\sum_{|z-w|\leq R}\kappa_{z}]blackboard_E [ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_w | ≤ italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] can be as large as R2absentsuperscript𝑅2\approx R^{2}≈ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In fact, when F𝐹Fitalic_F has zero mean, [29, Theorem 1.12] gives the exact expression

(1.17) 𝔼[|zw|Rκz]=1πR2.𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑧𝑤𝑅subscript𝜅𝑧1𝜋superscript𝑅2\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\sum_{|z-w|\leq R}\kappa_{z}\Big{]}=\frac{1}{\pi% }R^{2}.blackboard_E [ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_w | ≤ italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π end_ARG italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Thus, Theorem 1.1 shows that the fluctuation of charge at large scales is anomalously small in comparison to Poissonian statistics, where expectation and variance grow at the same asymptotic rate as functions of the observation radius. In the jargon of statistical mechanics, we say that the point process of charged zeros is hyperuniform, or that it has non-extensive fluctuations [55, 56]. Stationary analogues of Theorem 1.1 go back to [58], albeit in a less mathematical formulation.

When F1=0subscript𝐹10F_{1}=0italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 and H𝐻Hitalic_H is radial, Theorem 1.1 follows from [29, Theorem 1.14], which also provides an asymptotic expression of the variance as R𝑅R\to\inftyitalic_R → ∞. In this article, the variance estimate is extended to possibly non-radial twisted kernels and non-zero means. The proof in [29] depends on lengthy explicit calculations and breaks completely in the presence of a mean or absence of radial symmetries. Thus, new methods are needed; see Section 1.7.

1.4. Non-hyperuniformity of uncharged zeros

When the GWHF F𝐹Fitalic_F is a (weighted) analytic function, all its zeros have non-negative charge due to conformality, and Theorem 1.1 expresses the well-known fact that zeros of a GEF are hyperuniform [31, 25]—albeit in the novel setting of non-zero means; see also Section 1.5. Our second main result concerns a non-analytic GWHF and, in a remarkable contrast to Theorem 1.1, disproves the hyperuniformity of the corresponding zero set when charges are neglected.

Theorem 1.2.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be the GWHF (1.1) with F10subscript𝐹10F_{1}\equiv 0italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ 0 and H(z)=(1|z|2)e|z|2/2𝐻𝑧1superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22H(z)=(1-|z|^{2})e^{-\absolutevalue{z}^{2}/2}italic_H ( italic_z ) = ( 1 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then there exist constants c,C>0𝑐𝐶0c,C>0italic_c , italic_C > 0 such that

(1.18) cR2Var[#{z:F(z)=0,|z|R}]=Var[|z|R|κz|]CR2,R1.formulae-sequence𝑐superscript𝑅2Vardelimited-[]#conditional-set𝑧formulae-sequence𝐹𝑧0𝑧𝑅Vardelimited-[]subscript𝑧𝑅subscript𝜅𝑧𝐶superscript𝑅2𝑅1\displaystyle cR^{2}\leq\mathrm{Var}\big{[}\#\{z\in\mathbb{C}:F(z)=0,|z|\leq R% \}\big{]}=\mathrm{Var}\Big{[}\sum_{|z|\leq R}\lvert\kappa_{z}\rvert\Big{]}\leq CR% ^{2},\qquad R\geq 1.italic_c italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ roman_Var [ # { italic_z ∈ blackboard_C : italic_F ( italic_z ) = 0 , | italic_z | ≤ italic_R } ] = roman_Var [ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z | ≤ italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ] ≤ italic_C italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R ≥ 1 .

The technique that we shall develop to prove Theorem 1.2 is very general and applies to many other twisted kernels. For example, for kernels of the form H(z)=P(|z|2)e|z|2/2𝐻𝑧𝑃superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22H(z)=P(|z|^{2})e^{-|z|^{2}/2}italic_H ( italic_z ) = italic_P ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, with P[z]𝑃delimited-[]𝑧P\in\mathbb{C}[z]italic_P ∈ blackboard_C [ italic_z ], our method gives a sufficient condition for (1.18) in terms of a finite computation with the coefficients of P𝑃Pitalic_P. We accompany the article with a symbolic software notebook [19] which performs these computations and delivers variations of Theorem 1.2. With it, we have verified the analog of Theorem 1.2 for H(z)=Lk(|z|2)e|z|2/2𝐻𝑧subscript𝐿𝑘superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22H(z)=L_{k}(|z|^{2})e^{-|z|^{2}/2}italic_H ( italic_z ) = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with k5𝑘5k\leq 5italic_k ≤ 5, where Lksubscript𝐿𝑘L_{k}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denotes the Laguerre polynomial of degree k𝑘kitalic_k – while Theorem 1.2 corresponds to the case k=1𝑘1k=1italic_k = 1, since L1(x)=1xsubscript𝐿1𝑥1𝑥L_{1}(x)=1-xitalic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = 1 - italic_x. The random functions that result from choosing H𝐻Hitalic_H to be one of the Laguerre polynomials are important in mathematical physics, as they are Gaussian eigenfunctions of the so-called planar Landau equation [2, 57], or, alternatively, random polyanalytic functions of pure type [28, 30, 29].

1.5. Applications to Gaussian entire functions

Let G0subscript𝐺0G_{0}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the zero-mean random analytic function given by (1.4). It is well-known that the zero set of G0subscript𝐺0G_{0}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is hyperuniform:

Var[#{z:G0(z)=0,|z|R}]=O(R),R,formulae-sequence𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]#conditional-set𝑧formulae-sequencesubscript𝐺0𝑧0𝑧𝑅𝑂𝑅𝑅\displaystyle\mathop{Var}\nolimits\big{[}\#\{z\in\mathbb{C}:G_{0}(z)=0,\,|z|% \leq R\}\big{]}=O(R),\qquad R\to\infty,start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ # { italic_z ∈ blackboard_C : italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = 0 , | italic_z | ≤ italic_R } ] = italic_O ( italic_R ) , italic_R → ∞ ,

as follows from an explicit computation of the two-point correlation function [31, 25] which also delivers the asymptotic limit of the renormalized variance; see also [47]. As a consequence of Theorem 1.1, we derive a similar conclusion when G0subscript𝐺0G_{0}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is supplemented with a non-trivial analytic mean G1subscript𝐺1G_{1}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the so-called Bargmann-Fock spaces of entire functions with quadratic exponential growth [59].

Theorem 1.3 (Hyperuniformity of GEF zeros with mean).

Let G=G0+G1𝐺subscript𝐺0subscript𝐺1G=G_{0}+G_{1}italic_G = italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where G0subscript𝐺0G_{0}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the translation invariant GEF (1.4) and G1::subscript𝐺1G_{1}\colon\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_C → blackboard_C is entire with

(1.19) supz|G1(z)|e12|z|2<.subscriptsupremum𝑧subscript𝐺1𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2\displaystyle\sup_{z\in\mathbb{C}}|G_{1}(z)|e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^% {2}}<\infty.roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < ∞ .

Then

(1.20) Var[#{z:G(z)=0,|z|R}]CR,R1,formulae-sequence𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]#conditional-set𝑧formulae-sequence𝐺𝑧0𝑧𝑅𝐶𝑅𝑅1\displaystyle\mathop{Var}\nolimits\big{[}\#\{z\in\mathbb{C}:G(z)=0,\,|z|\leq R% \}\big{]}\leq CR,\qquad R\geq 1,start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ # { italic_z ∈ blackboard_C : italic_G ( italic_z ) = 0 , | italic_z | ≤ italic_R } ] ≤ italic_C italic_R , italic_R ≥ 1 ,

for a constant C>0𝐶0C>0italic_C > 0, which can be chosen to depend only on an upper bound for the left-hand side of (1.19).

The strong version of the hyperuniformity of GEF zeros with mean that we present does not seem to follow easily from explicit computations as in [31, 25], which rely on special symmetries destroyed by the presence of a mean.

A second set of applications concerns the covariant derivative

¯G(z)=z¯G(z)G(z)superscript¯𝐺𝑧¯𝑧𝐺𝑧𝐺𝑧\displaystyle\bar{\partial}^{*}G(z)=\bar{z}G(z)-\partial G(z)over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G ( italic_z ) = over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG italic_G ( italic_z ) - ∂ italic_G ( italic_z )

of a zero mean translation invariant GEF G=G0𝐺subscript𝐺0G=G_{0}italic_G = italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The operator ¯superscript¯\bar{\partial}^{*}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the adjoint of the Wirtinger derivative ¯¯\bar{\partial}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG with respect to the L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-inner product with Gaussian weight e|z|2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧2e^{-|z|^{2}}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In the language of complex geometry, ¯Gsuperscript¯𝐺\bar{\partial}^{*}Gover¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G is the derivative of a holomorphic section G𝐺Gitalic_G to the standard line bundle on the plane with Gaussian metric (Hermitian Gaussian measure). The set of critical points {¯G=0}superscript¯𝐺0\{\bar{\partial}^{*}G=0\}{ over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G = 0 } corresponding to a random section G𝐺Gitalic_G is instrumental in the analysis of heuristic or approximate models in string theory [16]. First order statistics for the critical points of G𝐺Gitalic_G are computed (with respect to more general metrics) in [16]. We shall look into second order statistics.

A simple computation shows that F(z)=e|z|2/2¯G(z)𝐹𝑧superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22superscript¯𝐺𝑧F(z)=e^{-|z|^{2}/2}\,\bar{\partial}^{*}G(z)italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G ( italic_z ) is a GWHF with twisted kernel H(z)=(1|z|2)e|z|2/2𝐻𝑧1superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22H(z)=(1-|z|^{2})e^{-\absolutevalue{z}^{2}/2}italic_H ( italic_z ) = ( 1 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [29]. Thus Theorem 1.2 can be reformulated as follows:

Theorem 1.4 (Non-hyperuniformity of critical points of GEF).

The set of critical points of a zero-mean translation invariant Gaussian entire function G𝐺Gitalic_G satisfies

cR2Var[#{z:¯G(z)=0,|z|R}]CR2,R1,formulae-sequence𝑐superscript𝑅2𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]#conditional-set𝑧formulae-sequencesuperscript¯𝐺𝑧0𝑧𝑅𝐶superscript𝑅2𝑅1\displaystyle cR^{2}\leq\mathop{Var}\nolimits\big{[}\#\{z\in\mathbb{C}:\bar{% \partial}^{*}G(z)=0,\,|z|\leq R\}\big{]}\leq CR^{2},\qquad R\geq 1,italic_c italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ # { italic_z ∈ blackboard_C : over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G ( italic_z ) = 0 , | italic_z | ≤ italic_R } ] ≤ italic_C italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R ≥ 1 ,

for adequate constants c,C>0𝑐𝐶0c,C>0italic_c , italic_C > 0.

We emphasize that the covariant derivative ¯Gsuperscript¯𝐺\bar{\partial}^{*}Gover¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G is not analytic, and the study of the second order statistics of its zeros is different from the corresponding endeavor for G𝐺Gitalic_G [25, 50]. We illustrate the results of Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 in Figure 1 by simulations of the index of dispersion (variance of the number of points divided by the mean number of points).

Refer to caption
Figure 1. Index of dispersion of the zeros of the GEF G0subscript𝐺0G_{0}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the GEF with non-zero mean G0+1subscript𝐺01G_{0}+1italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1, and its critical points in a circle of radius R𝑅Ritalic_R. For zeros of the GEF (with or without mean), we see a decreasing index of dispersion, while for the critical points, we see that it stays approximately constant showing our proven asymptotic behavior already in a finite domain. The GEF with mean G0+1subscript𝐺01G_{0}+1italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 has an extremely low probability of zeros close to zero and thus no zeros were observed for that region in the simulations.

The critical points of G𝐺Gitalic_G (which are almost surely non-degenerate) can be classified according to their topological index (which is almost surely ±1plus-or-minus1\pm 1± 1):

𝒩R+:=#{z:¯G(z)=0,|z|R,Index(¯G,z)=1},assignsuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅#conditional-set𝑧formulae-sequencesuperscript¯𝐺𝑧0formulae-sequence𝑧𝑅Indexsuperscript¯𝐺𝑧1\displaystyle\mathcal{N}_{R}^{+}:=\#\{z\in\mathbb{C}:\bar{\partial}^{*}G(z)=0,% \,|z|\leq R,\mathrm{Index}\big{(}\bar{\partial}^{*}G,z\big{)}=1\},caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT := # { italic_z ∈ blackboard_C : over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G ( italic_z ) = 0 , | italic_z | ≤ italic_R , roman_Index ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G , italic_z ) = 1 } ,
𝒩R:=#{z:¯G(z)=0,|z|R,Index(¯G,z)=1}.assignsuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅#conditional-set𝑧formulae-sequencesuperscript¯𝐺𝑧0formulae-sequence𝑧𝑅Indexsuperscript¯𝐺𝑧1\displaystyle\mathcal{N}_{R}^{-}:=\#\{z\in\mathbb{C}:\bar{\partial}^{*}G(z)=0,% \,|z|\leq R,\mathrm{Index}\big{(}\bar{\partial}^{*}G,z\big{)}=-1\}.caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT := # { italic_z ∈ blackboard_C : over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G ( italic_z ) = 0 , | italic_z | ≤ italic_R , roman_Index ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G , italic_z ) = - 1 } .

The corresponding first order statistics are given in [16] in the context of general metrics (see also [29, Section 6.8]). As for second order statistics, we note that the topological index of a critical point of G𝐺Gitalic_G is exactly the charge of the GWHF F(z)=e|z|2/2¯G(z)𝐹𝑧superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22superscript¯𝐺𝑧F(z)=e^{-|z|^{2}/2}\,\bar{\partial}^{*}G(z)italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G ( italic_z ) (see Section 9.1). As a consequence, Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 can be leveraged to prove the following companion to Theorem 1.4.

Theorem 1.5 (Non-hyperuniformity of critical points of GEF with given index).

The set of critical points of a translation invariant Gaussian entire function G𝐺Gitalic_G satisfies

(1.21) cR2Var[𝒩R±]CR2,R1,formulae-sequence𝑐superscript𝑅2𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅plus-or-minus𝐶superscript𝑅2𝑅1\displaystyle cR^{2}\leq\mathop{Var}\nolimits\big{[}\mathcal{N}_{R}^{\pm}\big{% ]}\leq CR^{2},\qquad R\geq 1,italic_c italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≤ italic_C italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R ≥ 1 ,

for adequate constants c,C>0𝑐𝐶0c,C>0italic_c , italic_C > 0.

Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 can also be formulated in terms of the weighted magnitude

A(z)=e12|z|2|G(z)|𝐴𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2𝐺𝑧\displaystyle A(z)=e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}|G(z)|italic_A ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_G ( italic_z ) |

and the statistics of its local extrema (local maxima, local minima and saddle points); see Section 9.2.

1.6. Applications in statistical signal processing

Our main motivation comes from certain recent developments in the field of signal processing. The goal is to analyze a distribution f𝒮()𝑓superscript𝒮f\in\mathcal{S}^{\prime}(\mathbb{R})italic_f ∈ caligraphic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R )—called signal—by means of its spectrogram

(1.22) Sf(x,ξ):=|f(t)e2πitξeπ(tx)2𝑑t|2,(x,ξ)2.formulae-sequenceassign𝑆𝑓𝑥𝜉superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑡superscript𝑒2𝜋𝑖𝑡𝜉superscript𝑒𝜋superscript𝑡𝑥2differential-d𝑡2𝑥𝜉superscript2\displaystyle Sf(x,\xi):=\left|\int_{\mathbb{R}}f(t)e^{-2\pi it\xi}e^{-\pi(t-x% )^{2}}\,dt\right|^{2},\qquad(x,\xi)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}.italic_S italic_f ( italic_x , italic_ξ ) := | ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_t ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_π italic_i italic_t italic_ξ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_π ( italic_t - italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_t | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( italic_x , italic_ξ ) ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

The integral, which is to be interpreted distributionally, quantifies the influence of the frequency ξ𝜉\xiitalic_ξ in f(t)𝑓𝑡f(t)italic_f ( italic_t ) near t=x𝑡𝑥t=xitalic_t = italic_x.

In realistic applications, the signal is non-stationary, which means that all frequencies ξ𝜉\xiitalic_ξ can potentially contribute to the spectrogram, and therefore the shape of the essential support of Sf𝑆𝑓Sfitalic_S italic_f (that is, the region where most of the energy concentrates) is rather unpredictable. Nevertheless, in practice, Sf𝑆𝑓Sfitalic_S italic_f is expected to be concentrated on a thin or small measure set which carries most of the information (time-frequency sparsity), a fact that can be computationally exploited [49].

The estimation of the essential support of Sf𝑆𝑓Sfitalic_S italic_f is traditionally done by looking into large values of Sf𝑆𝑓Sfitalic_S italic_f, a task that can be challenging if f𝑓fitalic_f is contaminated with significant additive noise [23]. Remarkably, it has been recently discovered that in the additive noise regime the zeros of Sf𝑆𝑓Sfitalic_S italic_f provide a rich set of landmarks from which the essential support of Sf𝑆𝑓Sfitalic_S italic_f can be effectively inferred. The intuition is that the zeros of the spectrogram of (white) noise 𝒲𝒲\mathcal{W}caligraphic_W behave like charged particles, and thus form a rather rigid random pattern with predictable statistics [26], from which the presence of an underlying signal can be recognized as a salient local perturbation [21, 22]. In practice, the number of zeros of Sf𝑆𝑓Sfitalic_S italic_f is computed on reasonably sized test disks, which are classified as “meaningful” if the zero count deviates significantly from what is expected for the spectrogram of noise S𝒲𝑆𝒲S\mathcal{W}italic_S caligraphic_W. The union of all meaningful disks furnishes an approximation of the essential support of Sf𝑆𝑓Sfitalic_S italic_f.

The advantages of spectrogram zeros (“silent points”) over other filtering landmarks such as local maxima (“loud points”) has been the object of significant numerical investigations [45, 44]. The success of zero-based spectrogram filtering depends crucially on the reliability of empirical statistics, that is, on the desirable property that zero counts computed with a signal impacted by a concrete realization of noise reflect ensemble averages if calculated on sufficiently large observation disks. As it turns out, the short-time Fourier transform (STFT)

(1.23) Vf(x,ξ)=f(t)e2πitξeπ(tx)2𝑑t,(x,ξ)2,formulae-sequence𝑉𝑓𝑥𝜉subscript𝑓𝑡superscript𝑒2𝜋𝑖𝑡𝜉superscript𝑒𝜋superscript𝑡𝑥2differential-d𝑡𝑥𝜉superscript2\displaystyle Vf(x,\xi)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}f(t)e^{-2\pi it\xi}e^{-\pi(t-x)^{2}}% \,dt,\qquad(x,\xi)\in\mathbb{R}^{2},italic_V italic_f ( italic_x , italic_ξ ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_t ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_π italic_i italic_t italic_ξ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_π ( italic_t - italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_t , ( italic_x , italic_ξ ) ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

associated with standard complex white noise f=𝒲𝑓𝒲f=\mathcal{W}italic_f = caligraphic_W as input can be identified with the translation invariant Gaussian entire function G0subscript𝐺0G_{0}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (1.4):

e12|z|2G0(z)=21/4eixξV𝒲(x/π,y/π),z=x+iξ,formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2subscript𝐺0𝑧superscript214superscript𝑒𝑖𝑥𝜉𝑉𝒲𝑥𝜋𝑦𝜋𝑧𝑥𝑖𝜉\displaystyle e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}G_{0}(z)=2^{1/4}e^{-ix\xi}% \cdot V\,\mathcal{W}(x/\sqrt{\pi},-y/\sqrt{\pi}),\qquad z=x+i\xi,italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_x italic_ξ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V caligraphic_W ( italic_x / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG , - italic_y / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) , italic_z = italic_x + italic_i italic_ξ ,

see [32, 6, 7]. Hence, the zeros of the spectrogram of noise S𝒲𝑆𝒲S\mathcal{W}italic_S caligraphic_W are hyperuniform (moderate variance in comparison to its expectation at large scales). This gives partial support to the success of empirical zero statistics for S(f+𝒲)𝑆𝑓𝒲S(f+\mathcal{W})italic_S ( italic_f + caligraphic_W ): If the observed number of zeros deviates significantly from what is expected for the spectrogram of noise S(𝒲)𝑆𝒲S(\mathcal{W})italic_S ( caligraphic_W ), we can conclude with high probability that a signal is present. Furthermore, a formula for the expected number of zeros of S(f+𝒲)𝑆𝑓𝒲S(f+\mathcal{W})italic_S ( italic_f + caligraphic_W ) is known [17, Proposition 3.4], which suggests that in parts of the time-frequency plane where the deterministic signal f𝑓fitalic_f has low energy it does not significantly change the expected number of zeros. However, the effect of deterministic signals on the variance of the number of spectrogram zeros remained so far unknown. Thus, the hypothesis that the disks that pass the statistical zero counting test (meaningful disks) are likely to be descriptive of the underlying signal f𝑓fitalic_f has not been well founded.

As an application of our main results, we contribute to the analysis of non-stationary signal processing as follows.

Theorem 1.6 (Hyperuniformity of zeros of spectrograms, and lack thereof for local maxima).

Let f𝒮()𝑓superscript𝒮f\in\mathcal{S}^{\prime}(\mathbb{R})italic_f ∈ caligraphic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) be a distribution with bounded spectrogram Sf𝑆𝑓Sfitalic_S italic_f and let 𝒲𝒲\mathcal{W}caligraphic_W be standard complex white noise. Then

  • (i)

    The zero set Zf+𝒲subscript𝑍𝑓𝒲Z_{f+\mathcal{W}}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f + caligraphic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of S(f+𝒲)𝑆𝑓𝒲S(f+\mathcal{W})italic_S ( italic_f + caligraphic_W ) is hyperuniform. More precisely

    (1.24) sup(x,ξ)2Var[#Zf+𝒲BR(x,ξ)]R,R1.formulae-sequenceless-than-or-similar-tosubscriptsupremum𝑥𝜉superscript2𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]#subscript𝑍𝑓𝒲subscript𝐵𝑅𝑥𝜉𝑅𝑅1\displaystyle\sup_{(x,\xi)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}}\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\#Z_{f+% \mathcal{W}}\cap B_{R}(x,\xi)]\lesssim R,\qquad R\geq 1.roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_ξ ) ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ # italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f + caligraphic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_ξ ) ] ≲ italic_R , italic_R ≥ 1 .
  • (ii)

    The set M𝒲subscript𝑀𝒲M_{\mathcal{W}}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of local maxima of S𝒲𝑆𝒲S\,\mathcal{W}italic_S caligraphic_W is not hyperuniform. More precisely,

    (1.25) Var[#M𝒲BR(0,0)]R2,as R.formulae-sequenceasymptotically-equals𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]#subscript𝑀𝒲subscript𝐵𝑅00superscript𝑅2as 𝑅\displaystyle\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\#M_{\mathcal{W}}\cap B_{R}(0,0)]\asymp R^{% 2},\qquad\mbox{as }R\to\infty.start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ # italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 , 0 ) ] ≍ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , as italic_R → ∞ .

Part (i) of Theorem 1.6 concerns the success of empirically computed statistics for spectrogram zeros of an arbitrary signal impacted by additive white noise and completes the heuristic explanation of the success of zero-based filtering by showing that disks that are not significant for the underlying clean signal are likely to fail the zero-counting statistical test (non-meaningful disks). Furthermore, novel tests based on spectrogram zeros that aim at specifically distinguishing between signals within a given class can be expected to perform very well due to the hyperuniformity of the zero count for each signal contaminated with noise.

The boundedness assumption on the spectrogram of the clean signal f𝑓fitalic_f is standard—it means that f𝑓fitalic_f belongs to the modulation space M()superscript𝑀M^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) [8, 9], which includes all distributions commonly used in signal processing—and is fair from the point of view of modelling, whereas assuming decay of Sf𝑆𝑓Sfitalic_S italic_f could potentially simplify the proof of (1.24) by allowing one to ignore the influence of the mean at very large scales.

Part (ii) of Theorem 1.6 provides for the first time statistical support for the superiority of zeros over local maxima as filtering landmarks, as statistics computed with the latter suffer from much larger fluctuations in areas of the time-frequency plane dominated by noise. (Most likely, one can extend part (ii) to signals f+𝒲𝑓𝒲f+\mathcal{W}italic_f + caligraphic_W where Sf𝑆𝑓Sfitalic_S italic_f is assumed to decay at infinity, but in the end those details have not seemed interesting enough for this article.)

Finally, we comment on further applications to time-frequency analysis. The STFT of a signal f𝑓fitalic_f is defined more generally with respect to a window function g𝒮()𝑔𝒮g\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})italic_g ∈ caligraphic_S ( blackboard_R ):

(1.26) Vgf(x,y)=f(t)g(tx)¯e2πity𝑑t,(x,y)2.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑉𝑔𝑓𝑥𝑦subscript𝑓𝑡¯𝑔𝑡𝑥superscript𝑒2𝜋𝑖𝑡𝑦differential-d𝑡𝑥𝑦superscript2\displaystyle V_{g}f(x,y)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}f(t)\overline{g(t-x)}e^{-2\pi ity}% dt,\qquad(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}.italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x , italic_y ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_t ) over¯ start_ARG italic_g ( italic_t - italic_x ) end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_π italic_i italic_t italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_t , ( italic_x , italic_y ) ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

The most common choice for g𝑔gitalic_g is the Gaussian function, which corresponds to (1.23). In practice the same signal is often processed with multiple windows g𝑔gitalic_g so as to average out the bias that they introduce (multi-tapering) [23, Chapter 10]. Typical choices for g𝑔gitalic_g are Hermite functions {hn:n0}conditional-setsubscript𝑛𝑛0\{h_{n}:n\geq 0\}{ italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_n ≥ 0 } as these optimize several measures related to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

For the Gaussian window g=h0𝑔subscript0g=h_{0}italic_g = italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the STFT Vgfsubscript𝑉𝑔𝑓V_{g}fitalic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f of a general signal f𝑓fitalic_f is a weighted analytic function. While this is not the case for any other choice of g𝑔gitalic_g (up to symmetries) [3], the STFT of a signal f𝑓fitalic_f impacted by standard complex white noise 𝒲𝒲\mathcal{W}caligraphic_W can still be identified with a GWHF as follows:

F(x+iy):=eixyVg(f+𝒲)(x/π,y/π),assign𝐹𝑥𝑖𝑦superscript𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑦subscript𝑉𝑔𝑓𝒲𝑥𝜋𝑦𝜋\displaystyle F(x+iy):=e^{-ixy}\cdot V_{g}\,(f+\mathcal{W})\big{(}x/\sqrt{\pi}% ,-y/\sqrt{\pi}\big{)},italic_F ( italic_x + italic_i italic_y ) := italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_x italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f + caligraphic_W ) ( italic_x / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG , - italic_y / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) ,

see [29]. Our work shows that the zero counting statistics for the STFT with respect to a general window g𝑔gitalic_g may fail to share the statistical advantages found in the Gaussian window case, as they imply that the zeros of the STFT of complex white noise calculated with respect to the Hermite function h1subscript1h_{1}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are not hyperuniform.

Theorem 1.7.

Let h1(t):=teπt2assignsubscript1𝑡𝑡superscript𝑒𝜋superscript𝑡2h_{1}(t):=te^{-\pi t^{2}}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) := italic_t italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_π italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 𝒲𝒲\mathcal{W}caligraphic_W standard complex white noise. Then the zero set Zh1,𝒲subscript𝑍subscript1𝒲Z_{h_{1},\mathcal{W}}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , caligraphic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of Vh1𝒲subscript𝑉subscript1𝒲V_{h_{1}}\mathcal{W}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_W satisfies

Var[#Zh1,𝒲BR(0,0)]R2,as R.formulae-sequenceasymptotically-equals𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]#subscript𝑍subscript1𝒲subscript𝐵𝑅00superscript𝑅2as 𝑅\displaystyle\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\#Z_{h_{1},\mathcal{W}}\cap B_{R}(0,0)]% \asymp R^{2},\qquad\mbox{as }R\to\infty.start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ # italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , caligraphic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 , 0 ) ] ≍ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , as italic_R → ∞ .

On the bright side, we are able to show that, for a general window function g𝑔gitalic_g, charge statistics, corresponding to sums of winding numbers of the STFT:

(1.27) μzf=sgn{Im[xVgf(x,y)yVgf(x,y)¯]},z=x+iy,formulae-sequencesubscript𝜇𝑧𝑓sgnsubscript𝑥subscript𝑉𝑔𝑓𝑥𝑦¯subscript𝑦subscript𝑉𝑔𝑓𝑥𝑦𝑧𝑥𝑖𝑦\displaystyle\mu_{z}f=\operatorname{sgn}\Big{\{}\imaginary[\partial_{x}V_{g}f(% x,y)\cdot\overline{\partial_{y}V_{g}f(x,y)}\,\Big{]}\Big{\}},\qquad z=x+iy,italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f = roman_sgn { start_OPERATOR roman_Im end_OPERATOR [ ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x , italic_y ) ⋅ over¯ start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x , italic_y ) end_ARG ] } , italic_z = italic_x + italic_i italic_y ,

do exhibit moderate fluctuations at large scales in the presence of noise, and thus offer an attractive novel alternative to zero-based filtering.

Theorem 1.8.

Let g𝒮()𝑔𝒮g\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})italic_g ∈ caligraphic_S ( blackboard_R ) be non-zero, fM()𝑓superscript𝑀f\in M^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})italic_f ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) (i.e., VgfL()subscript𝑉𝑔𝑓superscript𝐿V_{g}f\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R )), and 𝒲𝒲\mathcal{W}caligraphic_W standard complex white noise. Then

Var[|z|R,Vg(f+𝒲)(z)=0μz(f+𝒲)]CgR,R1,formulae-sequence𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]subscriptformulae-sequence𝑧𝑅subscript𝑉𝑔𝑓𝒲𝑧0subscript𝜇𝑧𝑓𝒲subscript𝐶𝑔𝑅𝑅1\displaystyle\mathop{Var}\nolimits\Big{[}{\sum}_{|z|\leq R,\,V_{g}\,(f+% \mathcal{W})(z)=0}\,\,\mu_{z}(f+\mathcal{W})\Big{]}\leq C_{g}R,\qquad R\geq 1,start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z | ≤ italic_R , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f + caligraphic_W ) ( italic_z ) = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f + caligraphic_W ) ] ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R , italic_R ≥ 1 ,

for a constant Cgsubscript𝐶𝑔C_{g}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

1.7. Methods and related literature

The model of twisted stationary Gaussian fields was introduced in [29], where first and second order statistics for zero sets were derived by means of Kac-Rice formulae and laborious explicit computations, and under zero-mean and strong symmetry assumptions (such as radiality). The results that we present here seem to be out of the scope of such direct methods.

In order to prove Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, the main challenge is to adapt certain techniques that pertain to stationary random fields to now cover twisted stationary random functions. A main insight, that we systematically exploit, is that in the twisted setting the differential operators 𝒟1,𝒟2subscript𝒟1subscript𝒟2\mathcal{D}_{1},\mathcal{D}_{2}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT play a role that is analogous to the one of the Euclidean derivatives in the classical stationary context. Besides that basic common element, the proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 are based on rather independent techniques.

To prove Theorem 1.1, we draw inspiration from [13, 20, 11], which study, respectively, the argument change of Gaussian entire functions along curves, the variance of analytic stationary random fields, and the winding of complex valued stationary random fields. As a first step, we express the total charge of the zero set of a GWHF F using Poincaré’s index formula

zB,F(z)=0κz=12πiBdFF,subscriptformulae-sequence𝑧𝐵𝐹𝑧0subscript𝜅𝑧12𝜋𝑖subscript𝐵𝑑𝐹𝐹\sum_{z\in B,F(z)=0}\kappa_{z}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\partial B}\frac{dF}{F},∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ italic_B , italic_F ( italic_z ) = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_d italic_F end_ARG start_ARG italic_F end_ARG ,

which we suitably modify to make it covariant under twisted shifts (see Lemma 3.1). This leads us to the task of analyzing correlations among quotients of the form 𝒟jF/Fsubscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝐹\mathcal{D}_{j}F/Fcaligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F / italic_F. While in the stationary setting this can be done by means of rather explicit formulae that go back to Kahane [37], in the twisted setting we need to derive new estimates. These necessitate arguments that are subtler than those used for related purposes in [20], which, for example, break down in the presence of a non-zero mean. Another challenge is that there is no simple description of the positive-definiteness of the twisted kernel (1.2) – in contrast to the Euclidean stationary situation, where covariance kernels are characterized by the positivity of their Fourier transforms. This leads us to indirect arguments that exploit the positive-definiteness of (1.2) to analyze the Hessian of the squared twisted kernel |H|2superscript𝐻2|H|^{2}| italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Our second main result, Theorem 1.2 is proved by develo** a chaos expansion [36] of the zero counting statistic, a technique that goes back to [52, 51, 38] in the stationary setting, and has been successfully applied in several contexts, see, e.g., [39, 48, 15]. In the twisted stationary setting, we develop an expansion adapted to the twisted derivatives 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 𝒟2subscript𝒟2\mathcal{D}_{2}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In Theorem 7.3 below, we obtain a chaos expansion for the zero-statistic of a GWHF with general radial twisted kernel. With the chaos expansion at hand, we then deduce the non-hyperuniformity of the zero set in question by explicitly estimating the projection of the zero count statistic into the so-called second order chaotic subspace. The corresponding computations rely on the so-called Feynman diagram method [36], which has also been used for related purposes in, e.g.,  [13], [53], [12].

As a central technical step towards the chaos expansion, we prove a uniform upper bound for the two-point function at non-zero levels, {F=u}𝐹𝑢\{F=u\}{ italic_F = italic_u }, (Proposition 6.2) – a conclusion that in the stationary case follows by simply inspecting the spectral measure, see, e.g., [41]. As a consequence of the uniform bound on the two-point function, we conclude in Theorem 6.4 that the second and first moments of u𝑢uitalic_u-level counting statistics are continuous in the level u𝑢uitalic_u, just as is the case in the stationary setting [38]. We view this as a result of independent interest, and note that the proof technique is general enough to be applicable beyond the setting of Gaussian Weyl-Heisenberg functions. We expect that the chaos expansion will be useful in further applications, such as proving a CLT (see [4] in the stationary setting). Although we develop the chaos expansion for uncharged zeros, we expect the same to apply with charged zeros (and to be in fact technically easier).

1.8. Organization

Section 2 introduces the notation and relates properties of the covariance kernel (1.2) to pointwise properties of the twisted kernel H𝐻Hitalic_H. Section 3 briefly discusses Poincaré’s index formula and reformulates it in terms of twisted derivatives. Section 4 obtains several correlation estimates related to the terms in Poincaré’s formula, which are instrumental to study winding numbers. Section 5 contains a proof of Theorem 1.1, in fact in a slightly more quantitative form (Theorem 5.1).

Section 6 investigates non-zero level crossings {F=u}𝐹𝑢\{F=u\}{ italic_F = italic_u } and their dependence on u𝑢uitalic_u. This lays the technical foundation for Section 7, which derives the chaos expansion of the zero counting statistic (Theorem 7.3). This is done for general radial twisted kernels H𝐻Hitalic_H. The approach can be extended to non-radial H𝐻Hitalic_H at the cost of additional technicalities, which in the end did not seem to merit inclusion in this article. In Section 8, we prove Theorem 1.2 by means of explicit computations with the so-called Feynman diagrams corresponding to the chaos expansion of the zero-statistic and the particular twisted kernel H(z)=(1|z|2)e|z|2/2𝐻𝑧1superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22H(z)=(1-|z|^{2})e^{-|z|^{2}/2}italic_H ( italic_z ) = ( 1 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This requires certain algebraic computations with Laguerre polynomials, which are presented as an appendix (Section A), and can also be followed with a symbolic software notebook publicly available at [19]. The notebook also delivers the calculations that are relevant to establish analogues of Theorem 1.2 with respect to twisted kernels of the form H(z)=P(|z|2)e|z|2/2𝐻𝑧𝑃superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22H(z)=P(|z|^{2})e^{-|z|^{2}/2}italic_H ( italic_z ) = italic_P ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, P[z]𝑃delimited-[]𝑧P\in\mathbb{C}[z]italic_P ∈ blackboard_C [ italic_z ], which are also of interest, cf. Section 1.4.

Finally, Section 9 provides detailed arguments for the applications described in Section 1.5 (Gaussian entire functions) and Section 1.6 (time-frequency analysis). In particular, Theorems 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 are proved in Section 9.1, while Section 9.2 discusses a reformulation of these in terms of the classification of critical points of weighted entire functions; and Theorem 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8 are proved in Section 9.3. Section 10 contains auxiliary results.

2. Preliminaries on Twisted Stationarity

2.1. Notation

The indicator function of a set E𝐸Eitalic_E is denoted 1Esubscript1𝐸1_{E}1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We adopt the usual complex-variable notations dz=dx+idy𝑑𝑧𝑑𝑥𝑖𝑑𝑦dz=dx+idyitalic_d italic_z = italic_d italic_x + italic_i italic_d italic_y, dz¯=dxidy𝑑¯𝑧𝑑𝑥𝑖𝑑𝑦d\bar{z}=dx-idyitalic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG = italic_d italic_x - italic_i italic_d italic_y, |dz|=(dx)2+(dy)2𝑑𝑧superscript𝑑𝑥2superscript𝑑𝑦2|dz|=\sqrt{(dx)^{2}+(dy)^{2}}| italic_d italic_z | = square-root start_ARG ( italic_d italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( italic_d italic_y ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG, while the differential of the Lebesgue (area) measure on \mathbb{C}blackboard_C is denoted dA𝑑𝐴dAitalic_d italic_A. We will write Δ=¯Δ¯\Delta=\partial\bar{\partial}roman_Δ = ∂ over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG, which is one quarter times the standard Laplace operator.

The Jacobian of a function F::𝐹F\colon\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}italic_F : blackboard_C → blackboard_C at z𝑧z\in\mathbb{C}italic_z ∈ blackboard_C is the determinant of its differential matrix DF𝐷𝐹DFitalic_D italic_F considered as F:22:𝐹superscript2superscript2F\colon\mathbb{R}^{2}\to\mathbb{R}^{2}italic_F : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT:

JacF(z):=detDF(z).assignJac𝐹𝑧𝐷𝐹𝑧\displaystyle\operatorname{Jac}F(z):=\det DF(z).roman_Jac italic_F ( italic_z ) := roman_det italic_D italic_F ( italic_z ) .

Recall that the charge of F𝐹Fitalic_F at a zero z𝑧zitalic_z is given by (1.16). The total charge of F𝐹Fitalic_F on a domain ΩΩ\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}roman_Ω ⊂ blackboard_C is defined as

(2.1) κΩ:=zΩ,F(z)=0κz.assignsubscript𝜅Ωsubscriptformulae-sequence𝑧Ω𝐹𝑧0subscript𝜅𝑧\displaystyle\kappa_{\Omega}:=\sum_{z\in\Omega,F(z)=0}\kappa_{z}.italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ roman_Ω , italic_F ( italic_z ) = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

We will also make extensive use of the covariant differential operators (1.6). If the operators 𝒟jsubscript𝒟𝑗\mathcal{D}_{j}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are applied to a function of more than one variable, we specify the relevant variable in a second subindex, e.g., 𝒟j,zF(w,z)subscript𝒟𝑗𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑧\mathcal{D}_{j,z}F(w,z)caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w , italic_z ).

2.2. Covariances

In what follows, we will often need the covariance between F(z)𝐹𝑧F(z)italic_F ( italic_z ) and 𝒟jF(z)subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ), j=1,2𝑗12j=1,2italic_j = 1 , 2, at different points z𝑧zitalic_z. The following lemma expresses these in terms of twisted shifts.

Lemma 2.1.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be the GWHF (1.1) with twisted kernel H𝐻Hitalic_H and assume (1.9) and (1.14). Then the following hold.

(2.2) 𝔼[F0(z)F0(w)¯]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹0𝑧¯subscript𝐹0𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}F_{0}(z)\cdot\overline{F_{0}(w)}\big{]}blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ⋅ over¯ start_ARG italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] =𝒯wH(z),z,w.formulae-sequenceabsentsubscript𝒯𝑤𝐻𝑧𝑧𝑤\displaystyle=\mathcal{T}_{w}H(z),\qquad z,w\in\mathbb{C}.= caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H ( italic_z ) , italic_z , italic_w ∈ blackboard_C .
(2.3) 𝔼[𝒟jF0(z)F0(w)¯]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗subscript𝐹0𝑧¯subscript𝐹0𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\mathcal{D}_{j}F_{0}(z)\cdot\overline{F_{0}(w)}% \big{]}blackboard_E [ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ⋅ over¯ start_ARG italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] =𝒟j𝒯wH(z)=𝒯w𝒟jH(z),z,w,j{1,2},formulae-sequenceabsentsubscript𝒟𝑗subscript𝒯𝑤𝐻𝑧subscript𝒯𝑤subscript𝒟𝑗𝐻𝑧𝑧𝑤𝑗12\displaystyle=\mathcal{D}_{j}\mathcal{T}_{w}H(z)=\mathcal{T}_{w}\mathcal{D}_{j% }H(z),\qquad z,w\in\mathbb{C},\qquad j\in\{1,2\},= caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H ( italic_z ) = caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H ( italic_z ) , italic_z , italic_w ∈ blackboard_C , italic_j ∈ { 1 , 2 } ,
(2.4) 𝔼[𝒟jF0(z)𝒟kF0(w)¯]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗subscript𝐹0𝑧¯subscript𝒟𝑘subscript𝐹0𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\mathcal{D}_{j}F_{0}(z)\cdot\overline{\mathcal{D% }_{k}F_{0}(w)}\big{]}blackboard_E [ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ⋅ over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] =𝒯w𝒟j𝒟k¯H(z),z,w,j,k{1,2}.formulae-sequenceabsentsubscript𝒯𝑤subscript𝒟𝑗¯subscript𝒟𝑘𝐻𝑧𝑧formulae-sequence𝑤𝑗𝑘12\displaystyle=-\mathcal{T}_{w}\mathcal{D}_{j}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{k}}H(z),% \qquad z,w\in\mathbb{C},\qquad j,k\in\{1,2\}.= - caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( italic_z ) , italic_z , italic_w ∈ blackboard_C , italic_j , italic_k ∈ { 1 , 2 } .
Proof.

The expression (2.2) is clear from the definitions, while (2.3) follows from (2.2) and (1.7) after exchanging expectation with the operators 𝒟jsubscript𝒟𝑗\mathcal{D}_{j}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This is allowed because the covariance of F𝐹Fitalic_F is smooth and F𝐹Fitalic_F is separable [5, Chapter 1]. Similarly, to prove (2.4) we can further rewrite

𝔼[𝒟jF0(z)𝒟kF0(w)¯]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗subscript𝐹0𝑧¯subscript𝒟𝑘subscript𝐹0𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\mathcal{D}_{j}F_{0}(z)\cdot\overline{\mathcal{D% }_{k}F_{0}(w)}\big{]}blackboard_E [ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ⋅ over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] =𝒟j,z𝒟k,w¯𝒯wH(z)absentsubscript𝒟𝑗𝑧¯subscript𝒟𝑘𝑤subscript𝒯𝑤𝐻𝑧\displaystyle=\mathcal{D}_{j,z}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{k,w}}\mathcal{T}_{w}H(z)= caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H ( italic_z )
=𝒟j,z𝒯w𝒟k,z¯H(z)absentsubscript𝒟𝑗𝑧subscript𝒯𝑤¯subscript𝒟𝑘𝑧𝐻𝑧\displaystyle=-\mathcal{D}_{j,z}\mathcal{T}_{w}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{k,z}}H(z)= - caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( italic_z )
=𝒯w𝒟j,z𝒟k,z¯H(z)absentsubscript𝒯𝑤subscript𝒟𝑗𝑧¯subscript𝒟𝑘𝑧𝐻𝑧\displaystyle=-\mathcal{T}_{w}\mathcal{D}_{j,z}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{k,z}}H(z)= - caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( italic_z )
=𝒯w𝒟j𝒟k¯H(z),z,w,formulae-sequenceabsentsubscript𝒯𝑤subscript𝒟𝑗¯subscript𝒟𝑘𝐻𝑧𝑧𝑤\displaystyle=-\mathcal{T}_{w}\mathcal{D}_{j}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{k}}H(z),% \qquad z,w\in\mathbb{C},= - caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( italic_z ) , italic_z , italic_w ∈ blackboard_C ,

where we used that 𝒟k,w¯𝒯wH(z)=𝒯w𝒟k,z¯H(z)¯subscript𝒟𝑘𝑤subscript𝒯𝑤𝐻𝑧subscript𝒯𝑤¯subscript𝒟𝑘𝑧𝐻𝑧\overline{\mathcal{D}_{k,w}}\mathcal{T}_{w}H(z)=-\mathcal{T}_{w}\overline{% \mathcal{D}_{k,z}}H(z)over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H ( italic_z ) = - caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( italic_z ). ∎

2.3. Invertibility of the Hessian of the squared twisted kernel

We will show that our assumptions on H𝐻Hitalic_H imply that there exists a positive constant c𝑐citalic_c such that

1|H(z)|2c|z|21superscript𝐻𝑧2𝑐superscript𝑧21-|H(z)|^{2}\geq c|z|^{2}1 - | italic_H ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ italic_c | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

for z𝑧zitalic_z in a neighborhood of the origin. The proof requires the following two lemmas.

Lemma 2.2.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be the GWHF (1.1) and satisfy (1.8), …, (1.15) and z𝑧z\in\mathbb{C}italic_z ∈ blackboard_C. Then the covariance matrix of the Gaussian vector (F(z),𝒟1F(z),𝒟2F(z))𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟1𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟2𝐹𝑧\big{(}F(z),\mathcal{D}_{1}F(z),\mathcal{D}_{2}F(z)\big{)}( italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) ) is given by

(2.5) A=(1¯H(0)H(0)H(0)ΔH(0)+122H(0)¯H(0)¯2H(0)ΔH(0)12).𝐴matrix1¯𝐻0𝐻0𝐻0Δ𝐻012superscript2𝐻0¯𝐻0superscript¯2𝐻0Δ𝐻012A=\begin{pmatrix}1&-\bar{\partial}H(0)&-\partial H(0)\\ \partial H(0)&-\Delta H(0)+\frac{1}{2}&-\partial^{2}H(0)\\ \bar{\partial}H(0)&-\bar{\partial}^{2}H(0)&-\Delta H(0)-\frac{1}{2}\end{% pmatrix}.italic_A = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL - over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_H ( 0 ) end_CELL start_CELL - ∂ italic_H ( 0 ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ∂ italic_H ( 0 ) end_CELL start_CELL - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_CELL start_CELL - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H ( 0 ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_H ( 0 ) end_CELL start_CELL - over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H ( 0 ) end_CELL start_CELL - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) .
Proof.

By Lemma 2.1 and because 𝒯zG(z)=G(0)subscript𝒯𝑧𝐺𝑧𝐺0\mathcal{T}_{z}G(z)=G(0)caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G ( italic_z ) = italic_G ( 0 ) for G{F,𝒟jF,𝒟j𝒟k¯F}𝐺𝐹subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹subscript𝒟𝑗¯subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹G\in\{F,\mathcal{D}_{j}F,\mathcal{D}_{j}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{k}}F\}italic_G ∈ { italic_F , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_F }, we can assume that z=0𝑧0z=0italic_z = 0. We have by (1.10), (1.11), (2.2), (2.3), and (2.4) that

𝔼[F0(0)F0(0)¯]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹00¯subscript𝐹00\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}F_{0}(0)\overline{F_{0}(0)}\big{]}blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) over¯ start_ARG italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_ARG ] =1,absent1\displaystyle=1,= 1 ,
𝔼[𝒟1F0(0)F0(0)¯]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟1subscript𝐹00¯subscript𝐹00\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\mathcal{D}_{1}F_{0}(0)\overline{F_{0}(0)}\big{]}blackboard_E [ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) over¯ start_ARG italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_ARG ] =H(0),absent𝐻0\displaystyle=\partial H(0),= ∂ italic_H ( 0 ) ,
𝔼[𝒟2F0(0)F0(0)¯]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟2subscript𝐹00¯subscript𝐹00\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\mathcal{D}_{2}F_{0}(0)\overline{F_{0}(0)}\big{]}blackboard_E [ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) over¯ start_ARG italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_ARG ] =¯H(0),absent¯𝐻0\displaystyle=\bar{\partial}H(0),= over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_H ( 0 ) ,
𝔼[𝒟1F0(0)𝒟1F0(0)¯]=𝒟1𝒟1¯H(0)𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟1subscript𝐹00¯subscript𝒟1subscript𝐹00subscript𝒟1¯subscript𝒟1𝐻0\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\mathcal{D}_{1}F_{0}(0)\overline{\mathcal{D}_{1}% F_{0}(0)}\big{]}=-\mathcal{D}_{1}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{1}}H(0)blackboard_E [ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_ARG ] = - caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( 0 ) =(z¯/2)(¯z/2)H(z)|z=0=ΔH(0)+12,\displaystyle=-(\partial-\bar{z}/2)(\bar{\partial}-z/2)H(z)_{|z=0}=-\Delta H(0% )+\frac{1}{2},= - ( ∂ - over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / 2 ) ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG - italic_z / 2 ) italic_H ( italic_z ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ,
𝔼[𝒟2F0(0)𝒟2F0(0)¯]=𝒟2𝒟2¯H(0)𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟2subscript𝐹00¯subscript𝒟2subscript𝐹00subscript𝒟2¯subscript𝒟2𝐻0\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\mathcal{D}_{2}F_{0}(0)\overline{\mathcal{D}_{2}% F_{0}(0)}\big{]}=-\mathcal{D}_{2}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{2}}H(0)blackboard_E [ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_ARG ] = - caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( 0 ) =(¯+z/2)(+z¯/2)H(z)|z=0=ΔH(0)12,\displaystyle=-(\bar{\partial}+z/2)(\partial+\bar{z}/2)H(z)_{|z=0}=-\Delta H(0% )-\frac{1}{2},= - ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG + italic_z / 2 ) ( ∂ + over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / 2 ) italic_H ( italic_z ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ,
𝔼[𝒟1F0(0)𝒟2F0(0)¯]=𝒟1𝒟2¯H(0)𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟1subscript𝐹00¯subscript𝒟2subscript𝐹00subscript𝒟1¯subscript𝒟2𝐻0\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\mathcal{D}_{1}F_{0}(0)\overline{\mathcal{D}_{2}% F_{0}(0)}\big{]}=-\mathcal{D}_{1}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{2}}H(0)blackboard_E [ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_ARG ] = - caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( 0 ) =(z¯/2)(+z¯/2)H(z)|z=0=2H(0).\displaystyle=-(\partial-\bar{z}/2)(\partial+\bar{z}/2)H(z)_{|z=0}=-\partial^{% 2}H(0).= - ( ∂ - over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / 2 ) ( ∂ + over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / 2 ) italic_H ( italic_z ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H ( 0 ) .

The remaining entries of A𝐴Aitalic_A can be computed using Hermitian symmetry and (1.10). ∎

Lemma 2.3.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be the GWHF (1.1) and satisfy (1.8), …, (1.15) and let A𝐴Aitalic_A be given by (2.5). Then

detA=14det(2|H|2(0)Δ|H|2(0)Δ|H|2(0)¯2|H|2(0))14.𝐴14matrixsuperscript2superscript𝐻20Δsuperscript𝐻20Δsuperscript𝐻20superscript¯2superscript𝐻2014\det A=-\frac{1}{4}\det\begin{pmatrix}\partial^{2}|H|^{2}(0)&\Delta|H|^{2}(0)% \\ \Delta|H|^{2}(0)&\bar{\partial}^{2}|H|^{2}(0)\end{pmatrix}-\frac{1}{4}.roman_det italic_A = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG roman_det ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_CELL start_CELL roman_Δ | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL roman_Δ | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_CELL start_CELL over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG .

In addition, because A𝐴Aitalic_A is positive semi-definite, it follows that

det(2|H|2(0)Δ|H|2(0)Δ|H|2(0)¯2|H|2(0))1.matrixsuperscript2superscript𝐻20Δsuperscript𝐻20Δsuperscript𝐻20superscript¯2superscript𝐻201\det\begin{pmatrix}\partial^{2}|H|^{2}(0)&\Delta|H|^{2}(0)\\ \Delta|H|^{2}(0)&\bar{\partial}^{2}|H|^{2}(0)\end{pmatrix}\leq-1.roman_det ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_CELL start_CELL roman_Δ | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL roman_Δ | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_CELL start_CELL over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) ≤ - 1 .
Proof.

We will use repeatedly the relations H(0)=1𝐻01H(0)=1italic_H ( 0 ) = 1, H(z)=H(z)¯𝐻𝑧¯𝐻𝑧H(-z)=\overline{H(z)}italic_H ( - italic_z ) = over¯ start_ARG italic_H ( italic_z ) end_ARG in the process. The second identity implies for example

H(0)𝐻0\displaystyle\partial H(0)∂ italic_H ( 0 ) =H¯(0),absent¯𝐻0\displaystyle=-\partial\bar{H}(0),= - ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( 0 ) ,
2H(0)superscript2𝐻0\displaystyle\partial^{2}H(0)∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H ( 0 ) =2H¯(0).absentsuperscript2¯𝐻0\displaystyle=\partial^{2}\bar{H}(0).= ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( 0 ) .

Similar relations hold for other derivatives of first and second orders.

Gaussian elimination gives

detA𝐴\displaystyle\det Aroman_det italic_A =det(ΔH(0)+12+¯H(0)H(0)2H(0)+(H(0))2¯2H(0)+(¯H(0))2ΔH(0)12+H(0)¯H(0))absentmatrixΔ𝐻012¯𝐻0𝐻0superscript2𝐻0superscript𝐻02superscript¯2𝐻0superscript¯𝐻02Δ𝐻012𝐻0¯𝐻0\displaystyle=\det\begin{pmatrix}-\Delta H(0)+\frac{1}{2}+\bar{\partial}H(0)% \cdot\partial H(0)&-\partial^{2}H(0)+(\partial H(0))^{2}\\ -\bar{\partial}^{2}H(0)+(\bar{\partial}H(0))^{2}&-\Delta H(0)-\frac{1}{2}+% \partial H(0)\cdot\bar{\partial}H(0)\end{pmatrix}= roman_det ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG + over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_H ( 0 ) ⋅ ∂ italic_H ( 0 ) end_CELL start_CELL - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H ( 0 ) + ( ∂ italic_H ( 0 ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H ( 0 ) + ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_H ( 0 ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG + ∂ italic_H ( 0 ) ⋅ over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_H ( 0 ) end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG )
=(ΔH(0)+¯H(0)H(0))214|2H(0)+(H(0))2|2.absentsuperscriptΔ𝐻0¯𝐻0𝐻0214superscriptsuperscript2𝐻0superscript𝐻022\displaystyle=\big{(}-\Delta H(0)+\bar{\partial}H(0)\cdot\partial H(0)\big{)}^% {2}-\frac{1}{4}-\bigl{|}-\partial^{2}H(0)+(\partial H(0))^{2}\bigr{|}^{2}.= ( - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) + over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_H ( 0 ) ⋅ ∂ italic_H ( 0 ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG - | - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H ( 0 ) + ( ∂ italic_H ( 0 ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Next, we will compute the determinant of the 2×2222\times 22 × 2 matrix in the statement of the lemma. We have

2|H|2(0)superscript2superscript𝐻20\displaystyle\partial^{2}|H|^{2}(0)∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) =(H(z)H¯(z)+H(z)H¯(z))z=0absentsubscript𝐻𝑧¯𝐻𝑧𝐻𝑧¯𝐻𝑧𝑧0\displaystyle=\partial(\partial H(z)\cdot\bar{H}(z)+H(z)\cdot\partial\bar{H}(z% ))_{z=0}= ∂ ( ∂ italic_H ( italic_z ) ⋅ over¯ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( italic_z ) + italic_H ( italic_z ) ⋅ ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( italic_z ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
=2H(0)(H(0))2(H(0))2+2H(0)=2(2H(0)(H(0))2),absentsuperscript2𝐻0superscript𝐻02superscript𝐻02superscript2𝐻02superscript2𝐻0superscript𝐻02\displaystyle=\partial^{2}H(0)-(\partial H(0))^{2}-(\partial H(0))^{2}+% \partial^{2}H(0)=2(\partial^{2}H(0)-(\partial H(0))^{2}),= ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H ( 0 ) - ( ∂ italic_H ( 0 ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( ∂ italic_H ( 0 ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H ( 0 ) = 2 ( ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H ( 0 ) - ( ∂ italic_H ( 0 ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,
¯2|H|2(0)superscript¯2superscript𝐻20\displaystyle\bar{\partial}^{2}|H|^{2}(0)over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) =2(¯2H(0)(¯H(0))2),absent2superscript¯2𝐻0superscript¯𝐻02\displaystyle=2(\bar{\partial}^{2}H(0)-(\bar{\partial}H(0))^{2}),= 2 ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H ( 0 ) - ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_H ( 0 ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,
Δ|H|2(0)Δsuperscript𝐻20\displaystyle\Delta|H|^{2}(0)roman_Δ | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) =¯(H(z)H¯(z)+H(z)H¯(z))z=0=2(ΔH(0)+|H(0)|2),absent¯subscript𝐻𝑧¯𝐻𝑧𝐻𝑧¯𝐻𝑧𝑧02Δ𝐻0superscript𝐻02\displaystyle=\bar{\partial}(\partial H(z)\cdot\bar{H}(z)+H(z)\cdot\partial% \bar{H}(z))_{z=0}=2(\Delta H(0)+|\partial H(0)|^{2}),= over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG ( ∂ italic_H ( italic_z ) ⋅ over¯ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( italic_z ) + italic_H ( italic_z ) ⋅ ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( italic_z ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2 ( roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) + | ∂ italic_H ( 0 ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

so

2|H|2(0)¯2|H|2(0)(Δ|H|2(0))2superscript2superscript𝐻20superscript¯2superscript𝐻20superscriptΔsuperscript𝐻202\displaystyle\partial^{2}|H|^{2}(0)\cdot\bar{\partial}^{2}|H|^{2}(0)-(\Delta|H% |^{2}(0))^{2}∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) ⋅ over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) - ( roman_Δ | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =4|2H(0)(H(0))2|24(ΔH(0)+|H(0)|2)2.absent4superscriptsuperscript2𝐻0superscript𝐻0224superscriptΔ𝐻0superscript𝐻022\displaystyle=4|\partial^{2}H(0)-(\partial H(0))^{2}|^{2}-4(\Delta H(0)+|% \partial H(0)|^{2})^{2}.= 4 | ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H ( 0 ) - ( ∂ italic_H ( 0 ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 ( roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) + | ∂ italic_H ( 0 ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

We obtain the claim by comparing this expression with the expression for detA𝐴\det Aroman_det italic_A. ∎

Proposition 2.4.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be the GWHF (1.1) and satisfy (1.8), …, (1.15). There exists c>0𝑐0c>0italic_c > 0 such that

1|H(z)|2c|z|2,1superscript𝐻𝑧2𝑐superscript𝑧2\displaystyle 1-|H(z)|^{2}\geq c|z|^{2},1 - | italic_H ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ italic_c | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

for z𝑧zitalic_z in an adequate neighborhood of the origin.

Proof.

By (1.12), |H|2superscript𝐻2|H|^{2}| italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT attains a maximum at 00, and thus can be Taylor expanded near the origin as

|H(z)|2=1+12(2Re[2|H|2(0)z2]+2Δ|H|2(0)|z|2)+O(|z|3),superscript𝐻𝑧21122Redelimited-[]superscript2superscript𝐻20superscript𝑧22Δsuperscript𝐻20superscript𝑧2𝑂superscript𝑧3|H(z)|^{2}=1+\frac{1}{2}\Big{(}2\mathrm{Re}\big{[}\partial^{2}|H|^{2}(0)z^{2}% \big{]}+2\Delta|H|^{2}(0)|z|^{2}\Big{)}+O(|z|^{3}),| italic_H ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 1 + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( 2 roman_R roman_e [ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] + 2 roman_Δ | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_O ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

with the quadratic form being necessarily negative semi-definite. It is enough to show that the form is in fact strictly negative definite. Suppose on the contrary that there exists z0𝑧0z\neq 0italic_z ≠ 0 such that

2Re(2|H|2(0)z2+Δ|H|2(0)|z|2)=0.2Resuperscript2superscript𝐻20superscript𝑧2Δsuperscript𝐻20superscript𝑧202\mathrm{Re}\left(\partial^{2}|H|^{2}(0)z^{2}+\Delta|H|^{2}(0)|z|^{2}\right)=0.2 roman_R roman_e ( ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + roman_Δ | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0 .

This implies that there is a real number r𝑟ritalic_r such that

2|H|2(0)z2+Δ|H|2(0)|z|2=ir.superscript2superscript𝐻20superscript𝑧2Δsuperscript𝐻20superscript𝑧2𝑖𝑟\partial^{2}|H|^{2}(0)z^{2}+\Delta|H|^{2}(0)|z|^{2}=ir.∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + roman_Δ | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_i italic_r .

This means

|2|H|2(0)|2|z|4=r2+|Δ|H|2(0)|2|z|4,superscriptsuperscript2superscript𝐻202superscript𝑧4superscript𝑟2superscriptΔsuperscript𝐻202superscript𝑧4\big{\lvert}\partial^{2}|H|^{2}(0)\big{\rvert}^{2}\lvert z\rvert^{4}=r^{2}+% \big{\lvert}\Delta|H|^{2}(0)\big{\rvert}^{2}|z|^{4},| ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | roman_Δ | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

which implies that

|2|H|2(0)|2|Δ|H|2(0)|2r2|z|4=0.superscriptsuperscript2superscript𝐻202superscriptΔsuperscript𝐻202superscript𝑟2superscript𝑧40\big{\lvert}\partial^{2}|H|^{2}(0)\big{\rvert}^{2}-\big{\lvert}\Delta|H|^{2}(0% )\big{\rvert}^{2}-\frac{r^{2}}{|z|^{4}}=0\,.| ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | roman_Δ | italic_H | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = 0 .

However, the left-hand side is <0absent0<0< 0 by Lemma 2.3, a contradiction. ∎

Proposition 2.4 and Assumptions (1.12) and (1.15) imply that

(2.6) infz1|H(z)|2min{1,|z|2}>0.subscriptinfimum𝑧1superscript𝐻𝑧21superscript𝑧20\displaystyle\inf_{z\in\mathbb{C}}\frac{1-|H(z)|^{2}}{\min\{1,|z|^{2}\}}>0.roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 - | italic_H ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_min { 1 , | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } end_ARG > 0 .

2.4. Model-dependent constants

We say that F𝐹Fitalic_F is a GWHF satisfying the general assumptions if F𝐹Fitalic_F is given by (1.1) and satisfies (1.8), …, (1.15). Many of the results below contain constants that depend on these assumptions. To be more quantitative, we say that a constant depends on the model if it can be specified as a function of the following:

  • An upper bound for the left-hand side of (1.8).

  • A lower bound for the left-hand side of (2.6).

  • An upper bound for the left-hand side of (1.15).

  • A lower bound for the smallest positive eigenvalue of the covariance matrices of

    (F(0),𝒟jF(0)),j=1,2.formulae-sequence𝐹0subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹0𝑗12(F(0),\mathcal{D}_{j}F(0)),\quad j=1,2.( italic_F ( 0 ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( 0 ) ) , italic_j = 1 , 2 .

Importantly, estimates for GWHF formulated in terms of model-dependant constants remain valid if F𝐹Fitalic_F is replaced with the twisted shift 𝒯ξF(z)=F(zξ)eiIm(zξ¯)subscript𝒯𝜉𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝜉superscript𝑒𝑖Im𝑧¯𝜉\mathcal{T}_{\xi}F(z)=F(z-\xi)e^{i\mathrm{Im}(z\bar{\xi})}caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_F ( italic_z - italic_ξ ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The corresponding zero sets are related as follows.

Remark 2.5.

If F::𝐹F:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}italic_F : blackboard_C → blackboard_C vanishes at z𝑧z\in\mathbb{C}italic_z ∈ blackboard_C then a direct computation shows that 𝒯ξFsubscript𝒯𝜉𝐹\mathcal{T}_{\xi}Fcaligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F vanishes at z+ξ𝑧𝜉z+\xiitalic_z + italic_ξ and

κz+ξ(𝒯ξF)=κz(F).subscript𝜅𝑧𝜉subscript𝒯𝜉𝐹subscript𝜅𝑧𝐹\kappa_{z+\xi}(\mathcal{T}_{\xi}F)=\kappa_{z}(F).italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z + italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ) = italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ) .

3. Poincare Index

We consider a GWHF F𝐹Fitalic_F and the total charge κΩsubscript𝜅Ω\kappa_{\Omega}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (2.1) of F𝐹Fitalic_F on a domain ΩΩ\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}roman_Ω ⊂ blackboard_C. As a first step towards the proof of the hyperuniformity of the charge statistics, we derive a variant of Poincare’s index formula adapted to the twisted derivatives.

Lemma 3.1.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be a GWHF satisfying the general assumptions, let ΩΩ\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}roman_Ω ⊂ blackboard_C be a compact domain with smooth boundary, and let u𝑢u\in\mathbb{C}italic_u ∈ blackboard_C. Then the following hold almost surely.

  • (i)

    The level-crossings of F𝐹Fitalic_F are non-degenerate, i.e.,

    (3.1) JacF(z)0,z{F=u}Ω.formulae-sequenceJac𝐹𝑧0𝑧𝐹𝑢Ω\displaystyle\operatorname{Jac}F(z)\not=0,\qquad z\in\{F=u\}\cap\Omega.roman_Jac italic_F ( italic_z ) ≠ 0 , italic_z ∈ { italic_F = italic_u } ∩ roman_Ω .
  • (ii)

    {F=0}Ω𝐹0Ω\{F=0\}\cap\Omega{ italic_F = 0 } ∩ roman_Ω is finite and does not intersect ΩΩ\partial\Omega∂ roman_Ω.

  • (iii)

    (Covariant Poincare’s index formula)

    (3.2) κΩ=1π|Ω|+12πiΩ(𝒟1FFdz+𝒟2FFdz¯).subscript𝜅Ω1𝜋Ω12𝜋𝑖subscriptΩsubscript𝒟1𝐹𝐹𝑑𝑧subscript𝒟2𝐹𝐹𝑑¯𝑧\displaystyle\kappa_{\Omega}=\frac{1}{\pi}|\Omega|+\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{% \partial\Omega}\left(\frac{\mathcal{D}_{1}F}{F}\,dz+\frac{\mathcal{D}_{2}F}{F}% \,d\bar{z}\right).italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π end_ARG | roman_Ω | + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F end_ARG start_ARG italic_F end_ARG italic_d italic_z + divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F end_ARG start_ARG italic_F end_ARG italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) .
Proof.

For part (i), we invoke [5, Proposition 6.5]. The required hypotheses are that F𝐹Fitalic_F be C2superscript𝐶2C^{2}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT almost surely, as we assume in (1.14), and that the probability density of F(z)𝐹𝑧F(z)italic_F ( italic_z ) be bounded near u𝑢uitalic_u uniformly on z𝑧zitalic_z, which in our case holds because F(z)𝐹𝑧F(z)italic_F ( italic_z ) is a circularly symmetric complex Gaussian vector with variance Var[F(z)]=H(0)=1𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]𝐹𝑧𝐻01\mathop{Var}\nolimits[F(z)]=H(0)=1start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_F ( italic_z ) ] = italic_H ( 0 ) = 1 and bounded mean by (1.8).

For part (ii), we use Kac-Rice’s formula to conclude that there is a measurable function ρ1:[0,):subscript𝜌10\rho_{1}\colon\mathbb{C}\to[0,\infty)italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_C → [ 0 , ∞ ) such that for any Borel set E𝐸E\subset\mathbb{C}italic_E ⊂ blackboard_C:

(3.3) 𝔼[#{F=0}E]=Eρ1𝑑A.𝔼delimited-[]#𝐹0𝐸subscript𝐸subscript𝜌1differential-d𝐴\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\#\{F=0\}\cap E\big{]}=\int_{E}\rho_{1}\,dA.blackboard_E [ # { italic_F = 0 } ∩ italic_E ] = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_A .

Concretely, we invoke [5, Theorem 6.2], a version of Kac-Rice’s formula for Gaussian random fields that requires: (a) F𝐹Fitalic_F to be almost surely C1superscript𝐶1C^{1}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, which is granted by (1.14); (b) Var[F(z)]𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]𝐹𝑧\mathop{Var}\nolimits[F(z)]start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_F ( italic_z ) ] to be non-zero for all z𝑧zitalic_z, which is granted by (1.11); (c) the non-degeneracy condition (3.1). The function ρ1subscript𝜌1\rho_{1}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be expressed as a certain conditional expectation [5, Theorem 6.2], but we shall not need this fact. Simply, since ΩΩ\partial\Omega∂ roman_Ω has null Lebesgue measure, we use (3.3) with E=Ω𝐸ΩE=\partial\Omegaitalic_E = ∂ roman_Ω to learn that 𝔼[#{F=0}Ω]=0𝔼delimited-[]#𝐹0Ω0\mathbb{E}\big{[}\#\{F=0\}\cap\partial\Omega\big{]}=0blackboard_E [ # { italic_F = 0 } ∩ ∂ roman_Ω ] = 0, and thus #{F=0}Ω=0#𝐹0Ω0\#\{F=0\}\cap\partial\Omega=0# { italic_F = 0 } ∩ ∂ roman_Ω = 0 almost surely.

For part (iii), we note that (3.1) means that 00 is a regular value of F𝐹Fitalic_F. We invoke Poincare’s index formula [43, 54] κΩ=12πiΩdFFsubscript𝜅Ω12𝜋𝑖subscriptΩ𝑑𝐹𝐹\kappa_{\Omega}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\partial\Omega}\frac{dF}{F}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_d italic_F end_ARG start_ARG italic_F end_ARG and deduce (3.2) as follows:

2πiκΩ2𝜋𝑖subscript𝜅Ω\displaystyle 2\pi i\cdot\kappa_{\Omega}2 italic_π italic_i ⋅ italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =ΩdFF=Ω(FFdz+¯FFdz¯)absentsubscriptΩ𝑑𝐹𝐹subscriptΩ𝐹𝐹𝑑𝑧¯𝐹𝐹𝑑¯𝑧\displaystyle=\int_{\partial\Omega}\frac{dF}{F}=\int_{\partial\Omega}\left(% \frac{\partial F}{F}\,dz+\frac{\bar{\partial}F}{F}\,d\bar{z}\right)= ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_d italic_F end_ARG start_ARG italic_F end_ARG = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F end_ARG start_ARG italic_F end_ARG italic_d italic_z + divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F end_ARG start_ARG italic_F end_ARG italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG )
=Ω(𝒟1FFdz+𝒟2FFdz¯)+12Ωz¯𝑑z12Ωz𝑑z¯absentsubscriptΩsubscript𝒟1𝐹𝐹𝑑𝑧subscript𝒟2𝐹𝐹𝑑¯𝑧12subscriptΩ¯𝑧differential-d𝑧12subscriptΩ𝑧differential-d¯𝑧\displaystyle=\int_{\partial\Omega}\left(\frac{\mathcal{D}_{1}F}{F}\,dz+\frac{% \mathcal{D}_{2}F}{F}\,d\bar{z}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\partial\Omega}\bar{z}% \,dz-\frac{1}{2}\int_{\partial\Omega}z\,d\bar{z}= ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F end_ARG start_ARG italic_F end_ARG italic_d italic_z + divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F end_ARG start_ARG italic_F end_ARG italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG italic_d italic_z - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG
=Ω(𝒟1FFdz+𝒟2FFdz¯)+iIm[Ωz¯𝑑z].absentsubscriptΩsubscript𝒟1𝐹𝐹𝑑𝑧subscript𝒟2𝐹𝐹𝑑¯𝑧𝑖subscriptΩ¯𝑧differential-d𝑧\displaystyle=\int_{\partial\Omega}\left(\frac{\mathcal{D}_{1}F}{F}\,dz+\frac{% \mathcal{D}_{2}F}{F}\,d\bar{z}\right)+i\cdot\imaginary\left[\int_{\partial% \Omega}\bar{z}\,dz\right].= ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F end_ARG start_ARG italic_F end_ARG italic_d italic_z + divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F end_ARG start_ARG italic_F end_ARG italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) + italic_i ⋅ start_OPERATOR roman_Im end_OPERATOR [ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG italic_d italic_z ] .

Finally, by Green’s theorem,

Im[Ωz¯𝑑z]=Ω(xdyydx)=Ω2𝑑x𝑑y=2|Ω|,subscriptΩ¯𝑧differential-d𝑧subscriptΩ𝑥𝑑𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑥subscriptΩ2differential-d𝑥differential-d𝑦2Ω\displaystyle\imaginary\left[\int_{\partial\Omega}\bar{z}\,dz\right]=\int_{% \partial\Omega}\left(x\,dy-y\,dx\right)=\int_{\Omega}2\,dxdy=2\absolutevalue{% \Omega},start_OPERATOR roman_Im end_OPERATOR [ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG italic_d italic_z ] = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x italic_d italic_y - italic_y italic_d italic_x ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_d italic_x italic_d italic_y = 2 | start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG | ,

which gives (3.2). ∎

4. Covariance Estimates

Motivated by Lemma 3.1, we look into correlations between the quotients 𝒟jF/Fsubscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝐹\mathcal{D}_{j}F/Fcaligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F / italic_F, and derive several technical estimates.

Lemma 4.1.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be a GWHF satisfying the general assumptions. Then the following hold.

  • (i)

    For each p(0,)𝑝0p\in(0,\infty)italic_p ∈ ( 0 , ∞ ) there exists a constant Cpsubscript𝐶𝑝C_{p}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that

    (4.1) 𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)|p]Cp,z,j,k=1,2.formulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝑝subscript𝐶𝑝formulae-sequence𝑧𝑗𝑘12\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\big{|}\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)\big{|}^{p}\big{]}\leq C% _{p},\qquad z\in\mathbb{C},j,k=1,2.blackboard_E [ | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_z ∈ blackboard_C , italic_j , italic_k = 1 , 2 .

    and

    (4.2) 𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)𝒟kF(w)|p]Cp,z,w,j,k=1,2.formulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝑝subscript𝐶𝑝𝑧formulae-sequence𝑤𝑗𝑘12\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\big{|}\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)\cdot\mathcal{D}_{k}F(% w)\big{|}^{p}\big{]}\leq C_{p},\qquad z,w\in\mathbb{C},j,k=1,2.blackboard_E [ | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) ⋅ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_z , italic_w ∈ blackboard_C , italic_j , italic_k = 1 , 2 .
  • (ii)

    For each p(1,2)𝑝12p\in(1,2)italic_p ∈ ( 1 , 2 ) there exists a constant Cpsubscript𝐶𝑝C_{p}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that

    (4.3) 𝔼[|F(z)|p]Cp,z,formulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝑝subscript𝐶𝑝𝑧\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\big{|}F(z)\big{|}^{-p}\big{]}\leq C_{p},\qquad z% \in\mathbb{C},blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_z ∈ blackboard_C ,

    and

    (4.4) 𝔼[|F(z)F(w)|p]{Cpwhen |H(zw)|<1/2Cp(1|H(zw)|2)1pwhen |H(zw)|1/2.𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑝casessubscript𝐶𝑝when 𝐻𝑧𝑤12subscript𝐶𝑝superscript1superscript𝐻𝑧𝑤21𝑝when 𝐻𝑧𝑤12\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}{F(z)}\cdot F(w)\big{|}^{-p}\Big{]}\leq% \begin{cases}C_{p}&\mbox{when }|H(z-w)|<1/2\\ C_{p}\cdot(1-|H(z-w)|^{2})^{1-p}&\mbox{when }|H(z-w)|\geq 1/2\end{cases}.blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) ⋅ italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≤ { start_ROW start_CELL italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL when | italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) | < 1 / 2 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( 1 - | italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL when | italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) | ≥ 1 / 2 end_CELL end_ROW .

In each case, the constant Cpsubscript𝐶𝑝C_{p}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT depends on the model and p𝑝pitalic_p.

Proof.

Part (i). The mean of 𝒟jF(z)subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) is bounded by (1.8) and its variance is bounded by Lemma 2.1 and (1.15), which gives (4.1), while (4.2) follows in turn by Hölder.

Part (ii). The Gaussian random vector (F(z),F(w))𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤(F(z),F(w))( italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) ) has mean (F1(z),F1(w))subscript𝐹1𝑧subscript𝐹1𝑤(F_{1}(z),F_{1}(w))( italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) ) and covariance

(4.5) Γ(z,w)=[1H(zw)eiIm(zw¯)H(zw)¯eiIm(zw¯)1].Γ𝑧𝑤matrix1𝐻𝑧𝑤superscript𝑒𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤¯𝐻𝑧𝑤superscript𝑒𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤1\displaystyle\Gamma(z,w)=\begin{bmatrix}1&H(z-w)e^{i\mathrm{Im}(z\bar{w})}\\ \overline{H(z-w)}\cdot e^{-i\mathrm{Im}(z\bar{w})}&1\end{bmatrix}.roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) = [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL over¯ start_ARG italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) end_ARG ⋅ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] .

To prove (4.3) we invoke the Hardy-Littlewood rearrangement inequality:

𝔼[|F(z)|p]=1π|u+F1(z)|pe|u|2dA(u)1π|u|pe|u|2dA(u)=:Cp<,\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\big{|}F(z)\big{|}^{-p}\big{]}=\frac{1}{\pi}\int% _{\mathbb{C}}|u+F_{1}(z)|^{-p}e^{-|u|^{2}}\,dA(u)\leq\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{% \mathbb{C}}|u|^{-p}e^{-|u|^{2}}\,dA(u)=:C_{p}<\infty,blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) ≤ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) = : italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞ ,

because p<2𝑝2p<2italic_p < 2. Suppose that |H(zw)|<1/2𝐻𝑧𝑤12|H(z-w)|<1/2| italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) | < 1 / 2. Then Γ(z,w)Γ𝑧𝑤\Gamma(z,w)roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) has determinant 1/2absent12\geq 1/2≥ 1 / 2 and there exists a model-dependent constant a>0𝑎0a>0italic_a > 0 such that

(4.6) Γ1(z,w)aI.superscriptΓ1𝑧𝑤𝑎𝐼\displaystyle\Gamma^{-1}(z,w)\geq aI.roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ≥ italic_a italic_I .

We use (4.6) and the Hardy-Littlewood rearrangement inequality to estimate

𝔼[|F(z)F(w)|p]𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑝\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}{F(z)}\cdot F(w)\big{|}^{-p}\Big{]}blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) ⋅ italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] =1π2detΓ2|u+F1(z)|p|v+F1(w)|pe(u,v)Γ1(u,v)𝑑A(u)𝑑A(v)absent1superscript𝜋2Γsubscriptsuperscript2superscript𝑢subscript𝐹1𝑧𝑝superscript𝑣subscript𝐹1𝑤𝑝superscript𝑒superscript𝑢𝑣superscriptΓ1𝑢𝑣differential-d𝐴𝑢differential-d𝐴𝑣\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\pi^{2}\det\Gamma}\int_{\mathbb{C}^{2}}|u+F_{1}(z)|^{-p% }|v+F_{1}(w)|^{-p}e^{-(u,v)^{*}\Gamma^{-1}(u,v)}\,dA(u)dA(v)= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_det roman_Γ end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_v + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_u , italic_v ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_v )
|u+F1(z)|pea|u|2𝑑A(u)|v+F1(w)|pea|v|2𝑑A(v)less-than-or-similar-toabsentsubscriptsuperscript𝑢subscript𝐹1𝑧𝑝superscript𝑒𝑎superscript𝑢2differential-d𝐴𝑢subscriptsuperscript𝑣subscript𝐹1𝑤𝑝superscript𝑒𝑎superscript𝑣2differential-d𝐴𝑣\displaystyle\lesssim\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u+F_{1}(z)|^{-p}e^{-a|u|^{2}}\,dA(u)% \cdot\int_{\mathbb{C}}|v+F_{1}(w)|^{-p}e^{-a|v|^{2}}\,dA(v)≲ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) ⋅ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_v + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a | italic_v | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_v )
|u|pea|u|2dA(u)|v|pea|v|2dA(v)=:Cp<\displaystyle\leq\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u|^{-p}e^{-a|u|^{2}}\,dA(u)\cdot\int_{% \mathbb{C}}|v|^{-p}e^{-a|v|^{2}}\,dA(v)=:C_{p}<\infty≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) ⋅ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_v | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a | italic_v | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_v ) = : italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞

because p<2𝑝2p<2italic_p < 2.

Suppose now that |H(zw)|1/2𝐻𝑧𝑤12|H(z-w)|\geq 1/2| italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) | ≥ 1 / 2 and let α:=H(zw)eiIm(zw¯)assign𝛼𝐻𝑧𝑤superscript𝑒𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤\alpha:=H(z-w)e^{i\mathrm{Im}(z\bar{w})}italic_α := italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Inspecting (4.5) we write

F(z)=F1(z)+ξ1,𝐹𝑧subscript𝐹1𝑧subscript𝜉1\displaystyle F(z)=F_{1}(z)+\xi_{1},italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) + italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
F(w)=F1(w)+αξ1+(1|α|2)1/2ξ2,𝐹𝑤subscript𝐹1𝑤𝛼subscript𝜉1superscript1superscript𝛼212subscript𝜉2\displaystyle F(w)=F_{1}(w)+\alpha\cdot\xi_{1}+(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{1/2}\cdot\xi_% {2},italic_F ( italic_w ) = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) + italic_α ⋅ italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

with (ξ1,ξ2)𝒩(0,I)similar-tosubscript𝜉1subscript𝜉2subscript𝒩0𝐼(\xi_{1},\xi_{2})\sim\mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,I)( italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∼ caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 , italic_I ). Then,

𝔼[|F(z)F(w)|p]𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑝\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}{F(z)}\cdot F(w)\big{|}^{-p}\Big{]}blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) ⋅ italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ]
=1π22|u+F1(z)|p|αu+(1|α|2)1/2v+F1(w)|pe|u|2e|v|2𝑑A(u)𝑑A(v)absent1superscript𝜋2subscriptsuperscript2superscript𝑢subscript𝐹1𝑧𝑝superscript𝛼𝑢superscript1superscript𝛼212𝑣subscript𝐹1𝑤𝑝superscript𝑒superscript𝑢2superscript𝑒superscript𝑣2differential-d𝐴𝑢differential-d𝐴𝑣\displaystyle\quad=\frac{1}{\pi^{2}}\int_{\mathbb{C}^{2}}|u+F_{1}(z)|^{-p}\,|% \alpha u+(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{1/2}v+F_{1}(w)|^{-p}\,e^{-|u|^{2}}e^{-|v|^{2}}\,dA(% u)dA(v)= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_α italic_u + ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_v | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_v )
=1π22|u+F1(z)α1F1(w)|p|αu+(1|α|2)1/2v|pe|uα1F1(w)|2e|v|2𝑑A(u)𝑑A(v)absent1superscript𝜋2subscriptsuperscript2superscript𝑢subscript𝐹1𝑧superscript𝛼1subscript𝐹1𝑤𝑝superscript𝛼𝑢superscript1superscript𝛼212𝑣𝑝superscript𝑒superscript𝑢superscript𝛼1subscript𝐹1𝑤2superscript𝑒superscript𝑣2differential-d𝐴𝑢differential-d𝐴𝑣\displaystyle\quad=\frac{1}{\pi^{2}}\int_{\mathbb{C}^{2}}|u+F_{1}(z)-\alpha^{-% 1}F_{1}(w)|^{-p}\,|\alpha u+(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{1/2}v|^{-p}\,e^{-|u-\alpha^{-1}F% _{1}(w)|^{2}}e^{-|v|^{2}}\,dA(u)dA(v)= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) - italic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_α italic_u + ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_u - italic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_v | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_v )
1π22|u+F1(z)α1F1(w)|p|αu+(1|α|2)1/2v|pe|v|2𝑑A(u)𝑑A(v)absent1superscript𝜋2subscriptsuperscript2superscript𝑢subscript𝐹1𝑧superscript𝛼1subscript𝐹1𝑤𝑝superscript𝛼𝑢superscript1superscript𝛼212𝑣𝑝superscript𝑒superscript𝑣2differential-d𝐴𝑢differential-d𝐴𝑣\displaystyle\quad\leq\frac{1}{\pi^{2}}\int_{\mathbb{C}^{2}}|u+F_{1}(z)-\alpha% ^{-1}F_{1}(w)|^{-p}\,|\alpha u+(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{1/2}v|^{-p}\,e^{-|v|^{2}}\,dA% (u)dA(v)≤ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) - italic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_α italic_u + ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_v | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_v )
=1π2|u+F1(z)α1F1(w)|p|αu+(1|α|2)1/2v|pe|v|2𝑑A(v)𝑑A(u),absent1superscript𝜋2subscriptsuperscript𝑢subscript𝐹1𝑧superscript𝛼1subscript𝐹1𝑤𝑝subscriptsuperscript𝛼𝑢superscript1superscript𝛼212𝑣𝑝superscript𝑒superscript𝑣2differential-d𝐴𝑣differential-d𝐴𝑢\displaystyle\quad=\frac{1}{\pi^{2}}\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u+F_{1}(z)-\alpha^{-1}F_% {1}(w)|^{-p}\,\int_{\mathbb{C}}|\alpha u+(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{1/2}v|^{-p}e^{-|v|^% {2}}\,dA(v)dA(u),= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) - italic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α italic_u + ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_v | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_v ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) ,

where C𝐶Citalic_C depends on the model. Using Lemma 10.4, we estimate the inner integral as

|αu+(1|α|2)1/2v|pe|v|2𝑑A(v)=(1|α|2)p/2|α(1|α|2)1/2u+v|pe|v|2𝑑A(v)subscriptsuperscript𝛼𝑢superscript1superscript𝛼212𝑣𝑝superscript𝑒superscript𝑣2differential-d𝐴𝑣superscript1superscript𝛼2𝑝2subscriptsuperscript𝛼superscript1superscript𝛼212𝑢𝑣𝑝superscript𝑒superscript𝑣2differential-d𝐴𝑣\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{C}}|\alpha u+(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{1/2}v|^{-p}e^{-|v|^{% 2}}\,dA(v)=(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{-p/2}\int_{\mathbb{C}}|\alpha(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{-1% /2}u+v|^{-p}e^{-|v|^{2}}\,dA(v)∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α italic_u + ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_v | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_v ) = ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u + italic_v | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_v | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_v )
Cp(1|α|2)p/2(1+|α(1|α|2)1/2u|)p,absentsubscript𝐶𝑝superscript1superscript𝛼2𝑝2superscript1𝛼superscript1superscript𝛼212𝑢𝑝\displaystyle\qquad\leq C_{p}(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{-p/2}(1+|\alpha(1-|\alpha|^{2})% ^{-1/2}u|)^{-p},≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_α ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where Cpsubscript𝐶𝑝C_{p}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a constant only depending on p𝑝pitalic_p that might change from line to line. Therefore, using the Hardy-Littlewood rearrangement inequality

𝔼[|F(z)F(w)|p]𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑝\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}{F(z)}\cdot F(w)\big{|}^{-p}\Big{]}blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) ⋅ italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ]
Cp(1|α|2)p/2|u+F1(z)α1F1(w)|p(1+|α|(1|α|2)1/2|u|)p𝑑A(u)absentsubscript𝐶𝑝superscript1superscript𝛼2𝑝2subscriptsuperscript𝑢subscript𝐹1𝑧superscript𝛼1subscript𝐹1𝑤𝑝superscript1𝛼superscript1superscript𝛼212𝑢𝑝differential-d𝐴𝑢\displaystyle\quad\leq C_{p}(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{-p/2}\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u+F_{1}(z% )-\alpha^{-1}F_{1}(w)|^{-p}\,(1+|\alpha|(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{-1/2}|u|)^{-p}dA(u)≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) - italic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_α | ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_u | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u )
Cp(1|α|2)p/2|u|p(1+|α|(1|α|2)1/2|u|)p𝑑A(u)absentsubscript𝐶𝑝superscript1superscript𝛼2𝑝2subscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑝superscript1𝛼superscript1superscript𝛼212𝑢𝑝differential-d𝐴𝑢\displaystyle\quad\leq C_{p}(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{-p/2}\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u|^{-p}\,% (1+|\alpha|(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{-1/2}|u|)^{-p}dA(u)≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_α | ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_u | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u )
=Cp(1|α|2)1p/2|α|2||α|1(1|α|2)1/2u|p(1+|u|)p𝑑A(u)absentsubscript𝐶𝑝superscript1superscript𝛼21𝑝2superscript𝛼2subscriptsuperscriptsuperscript𝛼1superscript1superscript𝛼212𝑢𝑝superscript1𝑢𝑝differential-d𝐴𝑢\displaystyle\quad=C_{p}(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{1-p/2}|\alpha|^{-2}\int_{\mathbb{C}}% ||\alpha|^{-1}(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{1/2}u|^{-p}\,(1+|u|)^{-p}dA(u)= italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_u | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u )
Cp(1|α|2)1p|u|p(1+|u|)p𝑑A(u),absentsubscript𝐶𝑝superscript1superscript𝛼21𝑝subscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑝superscript1𝑢𝑝differential-d𝐴𝑢\displaystyle\quad\leq C_{p}(1-|\alpha|^{2})^{1-p}\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u|^{-p}\,(% 1+|u|)^{-p}dA(u),≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 - | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_u | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) ,

since |α|p21less-than-or-similar-tosuperscript𝛼𝑝21|\alpha|^{p-2}\lesssim 1| italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≲ 1. Finally, we note that |u|p(1+|u|)p𝑑A(u)<subscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑝superscript1𝑢𝑝differential-d𝐴𝑢\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u|^{-p}\,(1+|u|)^{-p}dA(u)<\infty∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_u | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) < ∞ because 1<p<21𝑝21<p<21 < italic_p < 2, and obtain (4.4). ∎

Corollary 4.2.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be a GWHF satisfying the general assumptions. Then there exist model-dependent constants C,L>0𝐶𝐿0C,L>0italic_C , italic_L > 0 such that

(4.7) 𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)F(z)|]C,z,formulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝐶𝑧\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}\big{|}% \Big{]}\leq C,\qquad z\in\mathbb{C},blackboard_E [ | divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG | ] ≤ italic_C , italic_z ∈ blackboard_C ,

and

(4.8) 𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)F(z)𝒟kF(w)F(w)|]C,z,w,|zw|>L.formulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝐶𝑧formulae-sequence𝑤𝑧𝑤𝐿\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}\cdot{% \tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\big{|}\Big{]}\leq C,\qquad z,w\in\mathbb{% C},|z-w|>L.blackboard_E [ | divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ⋅ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG | ] ≤ italic_C , italic_z , italic_w ∈ blackboard_C , | italic_z - italic_w | > italic_L .
Proof.

Let us choose 1<p<21𝑝21<p<21 < italic_p < 2, say p=3/2𝑝32p=3/2italic_p = 3 / 2, and let q(2,)𝑞2q\in(2,\infty)italic_q ∈ ( 2 , ∞ ) be its Hölder conjugate, 1/p+1/q=11𝑝1𝑞11/p+1/q=11 / italic_p + 1 / italic_q = 1. By Hölder and Lemma 4.1,

𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)F(z)|]𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)|q]1/q𝔼[|F(z)|p]1/pC.𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝔼superscriptdelimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝑞1𝑞𝔼superscriptdelimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝑝1𝑝𝐶\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}\big{|}% \Big{]}\leq\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)\big{|}^{q}\Big{]}^{1/q}% \cdot\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}F(z)\big{|}^{-p}\Big{]}^{1/p}\leq C.blackboard_E [ | divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG | ] ≤ blackboard_E [ | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_C .

Similarly, by (1.9) and (1.15), there exists a constant L>0𝐿0L>0italic_L > 0 such that |H(zw)|<1/2𝐻𝑧𝑤12|H(z-w)|<1/2| italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) | < 1 / 2 for |zw|>L𝑧𝑤𝐿|z-w|>L| italic_z - italic_w | > italic_L and Lemma 4.1 implies

𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)F(z)𝒟kF(w)F(w)|]𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)𝒟kF(w)|q]1/q𝔼[|F(z)F(w)|p]1/pC.𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝔼superscriptdelimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝑞1𝑞𝔼superscriptdelimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑝1𝑝superscript𝐶\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}\cdot{% \tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\big{|}\Big{]}\leq\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}% {\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}\cdot{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}\big{|}^{q}\Big{]}^{1/q}\cdot% \mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}{F(z)}\cdot{F(w)}\big{|}^{-p}\Big{]}^{1/p}\leq C^{% \prime}.blackboard_E [ | divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ⋅ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG | ] ≤ blackboard_E [ | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) ⋅ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) ⋅ italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Proposition 4.3.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be a GWHF satisfying the general assumptions. Then there exist model-dependent constants L,C>0𝐿𝐶0L,C>0italic_L , italic_C > 0 such that the following bound holds for all j,k{1,2}𝑗𝑘12j,k\in\{1,2\}italic_j , italic_k ∈ { 1 , 2 }:

(4.9) |Cov[𝒟jF(z)F(z),𝒟kF(w)F(w)]|C(1+|zw|)2,|zw|>L.formulae-sequenceCovsubscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝐶superscript1𝑧𝑤2𝑧𝑤𝐿\displaystyle\Big{|}\operatorname{Cov}\Big{[}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}% ,{\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\Big{]}\Big{|}\leq C(1+|z-w|)^{-2},% \qquad|z-w|>L.| roman_Cov [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG , divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] | ≤ italic_C ( 1 + | italic_z - italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , | italic_z - italic_w | > italic_L .
Proof.

Throughout the proof, we fix j,k{1,2}𝑗𝑘12j,k\in\{1,2\}italic_j , italic_k ∈ { 1 , 2 }.
Step 1. Assume first that the random vectors (F(z),𝒟jF(z))𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧(F(z),\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z))( italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) ), (F(w),𝒟kF(w))𝐹𝑤subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤(F(w),\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w))( italic_F ( italic_w ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) ) have non-singular covariance matrices, and denote them by Aj,Ak2×2subscript𝐴𝑗subscript𝐴𝑘superscript22A_{j},A_{k}\in\mathbb{C}^{2\times 2}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 × 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. These matrices are independent of (z,w)𝑧𝑤(z,w)( italic_z , italic_w ) by Lemma 2.1 (see also Lemma 2.2).

We consider the random vector

(4.10) (F(z),𝒟jF(z),F(w),𝒟kF(w))𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤\displaystyle(F(z),\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z),F(w),\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w))( italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) )

and decompose its covariance into 2×2222\times 22 × 2 blocks

(4.11) Γ(z,w):=[AjB(z,w)B(z,w)Ak],assignΓ𝑧𝑤matrixsubscript𝐴𝑗𝐵𝑧𝑤superscript𝐵𝑧𝑤subscript𝐴𝑘\displaystyle\Gamma(z,w):=\begin{bmatrix}A_{j}&B(z,w)\\ B^{*}(z,w)&A_{k}\end{bmatrix},roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) := [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_B ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_CELL start_CELL italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ,

The entries in these blocks are the covariances derived in (2.2)–(2.4). Thus, by Assumption (1.15), Aj,Ak1less-than-or-similar-tonormsubscript𝐴𝑗normsubscript𝐴𝑘1\|A_{j}\|,\|A_{k}\|\lesssim 1∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ , ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ≲ 1, while B(z,w)(1+|zw|)2less-than-or-similar-tonorm𝐵𝑧𝑤superscript1𝑧𝑤2\|B(z,w)\|\lesssim(1+|z-w|)^{-2}∥ italic_B ( italic_z , italic_w ) ∥ ≲ ( 1 + | italic_z - italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. As the approximate covariance matrix

(4.12) Γ~(z,w):=[Aj00Ak]assign~Γ𝑧𝑤matrixsubscript𝐴𝑗00subscript𝐴𝑘\displaystyle\widetilde{\Gamma}(z,w):=\begin{bmatrix}A_{j}&0\\ 0&A_{k}\end{bmatrix}over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) := [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ]

is invertible, there exist constants L,a>0𝐿𝑎0L,a>0italic_L , italic_a > 0 such that if |zw|>L𝑧𝑤𝐿|z-w|>L| italic_z - italic_w | > italic_L, Γ(z.w)\Gamma(z.w)roman_Γ ( italic_z . italic_w ) is also invertible, and, moreover,

(4.13) Γ(z,w)Γ~(z,w),Γ(z,w)1Γ~(z,w)1(1+|zw|)2,less-than-or-similar-tonormΓ𝑧𝑤~Γ𝑧𝑤normΓsuperscript𝑧𝑤1~Γsuperscript𝑧𝑤1superscript1𝑧𝑤2\displaystyle\|\Gamma(z,w)-\widetilde{\Gamma}(z,w)\|,\ \|\Gamma(z,w)^{-1}-% \widetilde{\Gamma}(z,w)^{-1}\|\lesssim(1+|z-w|)^{-2},∥ roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) - over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) ∥ , ∥ roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ≲ ( 1 + | italic_z - italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
(4.14) Γ(z,w)aI,Γ(z,w)1aI,Γ~(z,w)aI,Γ~(z,w)1aI,formulae-sequenceΓ𝑧𝑤𝑎𝐼formulae-sequenceΓsuperscript𝑧𝑤1𝑎𝐼formulae-sequence~Γ𝑧𝑤𝑎𝐼~Γsuperscript𝑧𝑤1𝑎𝐼\displaystyle\Gamma(z,w)\geq aI,\qquad\Gamma(z,w)^{-1}\geq aI,\qquad\widetilde% {\Gamma}(z,w)\geq aI,\qquad\widetilde{\Gamma}(z,w)^{-1}\geq aI,roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) ≥ italic_a italic_I , roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ italic_a italic_I , over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) ≥ italic_a italic_I , over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ italic_a italic_I ,

where a𝑎aitalic_a is model dependent (depending on the smallest eigenvalue of Γ~~Γ\widetilde{\Gamma}over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG). We also assume that L𝐿Litalic_L is larger than the corresponding constant in Corollary 4.2, so that (4.7) and (4.8) hold.

Step 2. Let z,w𝑧𝑤z,w\in\mathbb{C}italic_z , italic_w ∈ blackboard_C with |zw|>L𝑧𝑤𝐿|z-w|>L| italic_z - italic_w | > italic_L.

Using (4.13) and a relative perturbation bound for determinats, we get

|detΓ(z,w)detΓ~(z,w)detΓ~(z,w)|O((1+|zw|)2).Γ𝑧𝑤~Γ𝑧𝑤~Γ𝑧𝑤𝑂superscript1𝑧𝑤2\bigg{\lvert}\frac{\det\Gamma(z,w)-\det\widetilde{\Gamma}(z,w)}{\det\widetilde% {\Gamma}(z,w)}\bigg{\rvert}\leq O((1+|z-w|)^{-2}).| divide start_ARG roman_det roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) - roman_det over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG roman_det over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_ARG | ≤ italic_O ( ( 1 + | italic_z - italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Thus, by (4.8), we can rewrite

(4.15) 𝔼[𝒟jF(z)F(z)(𝒟kF(w)F(w))¯]=detΓ(z,w)detΓ~(z,w)𝔼[𝒟jF(z)F(z)(𝒟kF(w)F(w))¯]+O((1+|zw|)2).𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧¯subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤Γ𝑧𝑤~Γ𝑧𝑤𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧¯subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝑂superscript1𝑧𝑤2\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}\overline{\left% ({\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\right)}\Big{]}=\frac{\det\Gamma(z,w)}{% \det\widetilde{\Gamma}(z,w)}\cdot\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{% F(z)}\overline{\left({\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\right)}\Big{]}+O((1% +|z-w|)^{-2}).blackboard_E [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG over¯ start_ARG ( divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ) end_ARG ] = divide start_ARG roman_det roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG roman_det over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG over¯ start_ARG ( divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ) end_ARG ] + italic_O ( ( 1 + | italic_z - italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Hence,

(4.16) Cov[𝒟jF(z)F(z),𝒟kF(w)F(w)]=𝔼[𝒟jF(z)F(z)(𝒟kF(w)F(w))¯]𝔼[𝒟jF(z)F(z)]𝔼[(𝒟kF(w)F(w))¯]=detΓ(z,w)detΓ~(z,w)𝔼[𝒟jF(z)F(z)(𝒟kF(w)F(w))¯]𝔼[𝒟jF(z)F(z)]𝔼[(𝒟kF(w)F(w))¯]+O((1+|zw|)2)=1detΓ~(z,w)4u2+𝒟jF1(z)u1+F1(z)(u4+𝒟kF1(w)u3+F1(w))¯[euΓ(z,w)1ueuΓ~(z,w)1u]𝑑A(u)+O((1+|zw|)2).missing-subexpressionCovsubscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤missing-subexpressionabsent𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧¯subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝔼delimited-[]¯subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤missing-subexpressionabsentΓ𝑧𝑤~Γ𝑧𝑤𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧¯subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝔼delimited-[]¯subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝑂superscript1𝑧𝑤2missing-subexpressionabsent1~Γ𝑧𝑤subscriptsuperscript4subscript𝑢2subscript𝒟𝑗subscript𝐹1𝑧subscript𝑢1subscript𝐹1𝑧¯subscript𝑢4subscript𝒟𝑘subscript𝐹1𝑤subscript𝑢3subscript𝐹1𝑤delimited-[]superscript𝑒𝑢Γsuperscript𝑧𝑤1superscript𝑢superscript𝑒𝑢~Γsuperscript𝑧𝑤1superscript𝑢differential-d𝐴𝑢missing-subexpression𝑂superscript1𝑧𝑤2\displaystyle\begin{aligned} &\operatorname{Cov}\Big{[}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F% (z)}{F(z)},{\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\Big{]}\\ &\qquad=\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}\overline{\left({% \tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\right)}\Big{]}-\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\tfrac{% \mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}\Big{]}\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\overline{\Big{(}{\tfrac{% \mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\Big{)}}\Big{]}\\ &\qquad=\frac{\det\Gamma(z,w)}{\det\widetilde{\Gamma}(z,w)}\cdot\mathbb{E}\Big% {[}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}\overline{\left({\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w% )}{{F(w)}}}\right)}\Big{]}-\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}% \Big{]}\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\overline{\Big{(}{\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}% \Big{)}}\Big{]}+O((1+|z-w|)^{-2})\\ &\qquad=\frac{1}{\det\widetilde{\Gamma}(z,w)}\int_{\mathbb{C}^{4}}\frac{u_{2}+% \mathcal{D}_{j}F_{1}(z)}{u_{1}+F_{1}(z)}\cdot\overline{\left(\frac{u_{4}+% \mathcal{D}_{k}F_{1}(w)}{u_{3}+F_{1}(w)}\right)}\left[e^{-u\Gamma(z,w)^{-1}u^{% *}}-e^{-u\widetilde{\Gamma}(z,w)^{-1}u^{*}}\right]\,dA(u)\\ &\qquad\quad+O((1+|z-w|)^{-2}).\end{aligned}start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL roman_Cov [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG , divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL = blackboard_E [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG over¯ start_ARG ( divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ) end_ARG ] - blackboard_E [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ] blackboard_E [ over¯ start_ARG ( divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ) end_ARG ] end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL = divide start_ARG roman_det roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG roman_det over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG over¯ start_ARG ( divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ) end_ARG ] - blackboard_E [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ] blackboard_E [ over¯ start_ARG ( divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ) end_ARG ] + italic_O ( ( 1 + | italic_z - italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG roman_det over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) end_ARG ⋅ over¯ start_ARG ( divide start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG ) end_ARG [ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_u roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_u over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL + italic_O ( ( 1 + | italic_z - italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) . end_CELL end_ROW

We use the estimate |etes||ts|(et+es)superscript𝑒𝑡superscript𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑠superscript𝑒𝑡superscript𝑒𝑠|e^{-t}-e^{-s}|\leq|t-s|(e^{-t}+e^{-s})| italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ≤ | italic_t - italic_s | ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), s,t>0𝑠𝑡0s,t>0italic_s , italic_t > 0, and the fact that Γ(z,w)Γ𝑧𝑤\Gamma(z,w)roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) and Γ~(z,w)~Γ𝑧𝑤\widetilde{\Gamma}(z,w)over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) are positive matrices to bound

|euΓ(z,w)1ueuΓ~(z,w)1u||u(Γ1(z,w)Γ~1(z,w))u|(euΓ(z,w)1u+euΓ~(z,w)1u)superscript𝑒𝑢Γsuperscript𝑧𝑤1superscript𝑢superscript𝑒𝑢~Γsuperscript𝑧𝑤1superscript𝑢𝑢superscriptΓ1𝑧𝑤superscript~Γ1𝑧𝑤superscript𝑢superscript𝑒𝑢Γsuperscript𝑧𝑤1superscript𝑢superscript𝑒𝑢~Γsuperscript𝑧𝑤1superscript𝑢\displaystyle\big{|}e^{-u\Gamma(z,w)^{-1}u^{*}}-e^{-u\widetilde{\Gamma}(z,w)^{% -1}u^{*}}\big{|}\leq|u(\Gamma^{-1}(z,w)-\widetilde{\Gamma}^{-1}(z,w))u^{*}|% \big{(}e^{-u\Gamma(z,w)^{-1}u^{*}}+e^{-u\widetilde{\Gamma}(z,w)^{-1}u^{*}}\big% {)}| italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_u roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_u over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ≤ | italic_u ( roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) - over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ) italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_u roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_u over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
(1+|zw|)2(euΓ(z,w)1u+euΓ~(z,w)1u)(|u1|2+|u2|2+|u3|2+|u4|2)less-than-or-similar-toabsentsuperscript1𝑧𝑤2superscript𝑒𝑢Γsuperscript𝑧𝑤1superscript𝑢superscript𝑒𝑢~Γsuperscript𝑧𝑤1superscript𝑢superscriptsubscript𝑢12superscriptsubscript𝑢22superscriptsubscript𝑢32superscriptsubscript𝑢42\displaystyle\qquad\lesssim(1+|z-w|)^{-2}\big{(}e^{-u\Gamma(z,w)^{-1}u^{*}}+e^% {-u\widetilde{\Gamma}(z,w)^{-1}u^{*}}\big{)}(|u_{1}|^{2}+|u_{2}|^{2}+|u_{3}|^{% 2}+|u_{4}|^{2})≲ ( 1 + | italic_z - italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_u roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_u over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ( italic_z , italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
(1+|zw|)2h=14ea|uj|2(1+|uj|2).less-than-or-similar-toabsentsuperscript1𝑧𝑤2superscriptsubscriptproduct14superscript𝑒𝑎superscriptsubscript𝑢𝑗21superscriptsubscript𝑢𝑗2\displaystyle\qquad\lesssim(1+|z-w|)^{-2}\prod_{h=1}^{4}e^{-a|u_{j}|^{2}}(1+|u% _{j}|^{2}).≲ ( 1 + | italic_z - italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Combining this estimate with (4.16) we conclude that

(4.17) |Cov[𝒟jF(z)F(z),𝒟kF(w)F(w)]|(1+|zw|)2(1+I1I2I3I4),less-than-or-similar-toCovsubscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤superscript1𝑧𝑤21subscript𝐼1subscript𝐼2subscript𝐼3subscript𝐼4\displaystyle\Big{|}\operatorname{Cov}\Big{[}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}% ,{\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\Big{]}\Big{|}\lesssim(1+|z-w|)^{-2}\big% {(}1+I_{1}\cdot I_{2}\cdot I_{3}\cdot I_{4}\big{)},| roman_Cov [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG , divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] | ≲ ( 1 + | italic_z - italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ,

where

(4.18) I1=|u1+F1(z)|1(1+|u1|2)ea|u1|2𝑑A(u1)|u1+F1(z)|1ea2|u1|2𝑑A(u1)|u1|1ea2|u1|2𝑑A(u1)1,subscript𝐼1subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑢1subscript𝐹1𝑧11superscriptsubscript𝑢12superscript𝑒𝑎superscriptsubscript𝑢12differential-d𝐴subscript𝑢1less-than-or-similar-toabsentsubscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑢1subscript𝐹1𝑧1superscript𝑒𝑎2superscriptsubscript𝑢12differential-d𝐴subscript𝑢1missing-subexpressionabsentsubscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑢11superscript𝑒𝑎2superscriptsubscript𝑢12differential-d𝐴subscript𝑢1less-than-or-similar-to1\displaystyle\begin{aligned} I_{1}=\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u_{1}+F_{1}(z)|^{-1}(1+|u% _{1}|^{2})e^{-a|u_{1}|^{2}}\,dA(u_{1})&\lesssim\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u_{1}+F_{1}(z% )|^{-1}e^{-\tfrac{a}{2}|u_{1}|^{2}}\,dA(u_{1})\\ &\leq\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u_{1}|^{-1}e^{-\tfrac{a}{2}|u_{1}|^{2}}\,dA(u_{1})% \lesssim 1,\end{aligned}start_ROW start_CELL italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_CELL start_CELL ≲ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL ≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≲ 1 , end_CELL end_ROW

by the Hardy-Littlewood rearrangement inequality;

(4.19) I2=|u2+𝒟jF1(z)|(1+|u2|2)ea|u2|2𝑑A(u2)(1+|u2|)(1+|u2|2)ea|u2|2𝑑A(u2)1,subscript𝐼2subscriptsubscript𝑢2subscript𝒟𝑗subscript𝐹1𝑧1superscriptsubscript𝑢22superscript𝑒𝑎superscriptsubscript𝑢22differential-d𝐴subscript𝑢2less-than-or-similar-tosubscript1subscript𝑢21superscriptsubscript𝑢22superscript𝑒𝑎superscriptsubscript𝑢22differential-d𝐴subscript𝑢2less-than-or-similar-to1\displaystyle I_{2}=\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u_{2}+\mathcal{D}_{j}F_{1}(z)|(1+|u_{2}|% ^{2})e^{-a|u_{2}|^{2}}\,dA(u_{2})\lesssim\int_{\mathbb{C}}(1+|u_{2}|)\cdot(1+|% u_{2}|^{2})e^{-a|u_{2}|^{2}}\,dA(u_{2})\lesssim 1,italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | ( 1 + | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≲ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) ⋅ ( 1 + | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≲ 1 ,

by (1.8); and

(4.20) I3=|u3+F1(w)|1(1+|u3|2)ea|u3|2𝑑A(u3)1,subscript𝐼3subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑢3subscript𝐹1𝑤11superscriptsubscript𝑢32superscript𝑒𝑎superscriptsubscript𝑢32differential-d𝐴subscript𝑢3less-than-or-similar-to1\displaystyle I_{3}=\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u_{3}+F_{1}(w)|^{-1}(1+|u_{3}|^{2})e^{-a% |u_{3}|^{2}}\,dA(u_{3})\lesssim 1,italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≲ 1 ,
(4.21) I4=|u4+𝒟kF1(w)|(1+|u4|2)ea|u4|2𝑑A(u4)1,subscript𝐼4subscriptsubscript𝑢4subscript𝒟𝑘subscript𝐹1𝑤1superscriptsubscript𝑢42superscript𝑒𝑎superscriptsubscript𝑢42differential-d𝐴subscript𝑢4less-than-or-similar-to1\displaystyle I_{4}=\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u_{4}+\mathcal{D}_{k}F_{1}(w)|(1+|u_{4}|% ^{2})e^{-a|u_{4}|^{2}}\,dA(u_{4})\lesssim 1,italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | ( 1 + | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≲ 1 ,

as in (4.18), (4.19). We now combine (4.18), (4.19), (4.20), (4.21) to obtain the desired conclusion.

Step 3. Finally, we consider the case in which the covariance matrix of either

Vj(z):=(F(z),𝒟jF(z))orVk(w):=(F(w),𝒟kF(w))formulae-sequenceassignsubscript𝑉𝑗𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧orassignsubscript𝑉𝑘𝑤𝐹𝑤subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤V_{j}(z):=(F(z),\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z))\qquad\mbox{or}\qquad V_{k}(w):=(F(w),% \mathcal{D}_{k}F(w))italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) := ( italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) ) or italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) := ( italic_F ( italic_w ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) )

is singular (possibly both).

If the covariance matrix of Vj(z)subscript𝑉𝑗𝑧V_{j}(z)italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) is non-singular, let Vj(z):=Vj(z)assignsuperscriptsubscript𝑉𝑗𝑧subscript𝑉𝑗𝑧V_{j}^{*}(z):=V_{j}(z)italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) := italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ). If it is singular, let Vj(z):=F(z)assignsubscriptsuperscript𝑉𝑗𝑧𝐹𝑧V^{*}_{j}(z):=F(z)italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) := italic_F ( italic_z ). Note that in this latter case, since Var[F(z)]=|H(0)|2=1𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]𝐹𝑧superscript𝐻021\mathop{Var}\nolimits[F(z)]=|H(0)|^{2}=1start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_F ( italic_z ) ] = | italic_H ( 0 ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 1, there exists a deterministic constant λjsubscript𝜆𝑗\lambda_{j}\in\mathbb{C}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_C such that 𝒟jF0(z)=λjF0(z)subscript𝒟𝑗subscript𝐹0𝑧subscript𝜆𝑗subscript𝐹0𝑧\mathcal{D}_{j}F_{0}(z)=\lambda_{j}F_{0}(z)caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) and, thus, 𝒟jF(z)=𝒟jF1(z)+λjF0(z)subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑗subscript𝐹1𝑧subscript𝜆𝑗subscript𝐹0𝑧\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)=\mathcal{D}_{j}F_{1}(z)+\lambda_{j}F_{0}(z)caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) = caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) + italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ). Moreover, |λj|1less-than-or-similar-tosubscript𝜆𝑗1|\lambda_{j}|\lesssim 1| italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ≲ 1 by (1.15). We define Vksuperscriptsubscript𝑉𝑘V_{k}^{*}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT similarly, and concatenate Vjsuperscriptsubscript𝑉𝑗V_{j}^{*}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and Vksuperscriptsubscript𝑉𝑘V_{k}^{*}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to form a random vector V=(Vj,Vk)superscript𝑉subscriptsuperscript𝑉𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝑉𝑘V^{*}=(V^{*}_{j},V^{*}_{k})italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) of length n{2,3}𝑛23n\in\{2,3\}italic_n ∈ { 2 , 3 }. This vector is thus obtained from (4.10) by eliminating one or two components.

Let Aj,Aksubscript𝐴𝑗subscript𝐴𝑘A_{j},A_{k}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Γ(z,w)Γ𝑧𝑤\Gamma(z,w)roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) be the covariance matrices of Vjsubscriptsuperscript𝑉𝑗V^{*}_{j}italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, Vksubscriptsuperscript𝑉𝑘V^{*}_{k}italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Vsuperscript𝑉V^{*}italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT respectively, and consider again the decomposition (4.11) and (4.12). We argue as in the previous case to obtain constants a,L>0𝑎𝐿0a,L>0italic_a , italic_L > 0 such that (4.13) and (4.14) hold. As a consequence (4.15) remains valid. The expansion (4.16) remains valid with integration over nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{C}^{n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and by setting u2=λju1subscript𝑢2subscript𝜆𝑗subscript𝑢1u_{2}=\lambda_{j}u_{1}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and/or u4=λku3subscript𝑢4subscript𝜆𝑘subscript𝑢3u_{4}=\lambda_{k}u_{3}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. To adapt the subsequent bounds, one needs to consider one additional estimate of the form

I5subscript𝐼5\displaystyle I_{5}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =|u+F1(z)|1|λju+𝒟jF1(z)|(1+|u|2)ea|u|2𝑑A(u)absentsubscriptsuperscript𝑢subscript𝐹1𝑧1subscript𝜆𝑗𝑢subscript𝒟𝑗subscript𝐹1𝑧1superscript𝑢2superscript𝑒𝑎superscript𝑢2differential-d𝐴𝑢\displaystyle=\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u+F_{1}(z)|^{-1}|\lambda_{j}u+\mathcal{D}_{j}F% _{1}(z)|(1+|u|^{2})e^{-a|u|^{2}}\,dA(u)= ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u + caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | ( 1 + | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u )
|u+F1(z)|1(1+|u|)(1+|u|2)ea|u|2𝑑A(u)less-than-or-similar-toabsentsubscriptsuperscript𝑢subscript𝐹1𝑧11𝑢1superscript𝑢2superscript𝑒𝑎superscript𝑢2differential-d𝐴𝑢\displaystyle\lesssim\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u+F_{1}(z)|^{-1}(1+|u|)(1+|u|^{2})e^{-a% |u|^{2}}\,dA(u)≲ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_u | ) ( 1 + | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u )
|u+F1(z)|1ea2|u|2𝑑A(u)less-than-or-similar-toabsentsubscriptsuperscript𝑢subscript𝐹1𝑧1superscript𝑒𝑎2superscript𝑢2differential-d𝐴𝑢\displaystyle\lesssim\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u+F_{1}(z)|^{-1}e^{-\tfrac{a}{2}|u|^{2}% }\,dA(u)≲ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u )
|u|1ea2|u|2𝑑A(u)1,absentsubscriptsuperscript𝑢1superscript𝑒𝑎2superscript𝑢2differential-d𝐴𝑢less-than-or-similar-to1\displaystyle\leq\int_{\mathbb{C}}|u|^{-1}e^{-\tfrac{a}{2}|u|^{2}}\,dA(u)% \lesssim 1,≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) ≲ 1 ,

and an analogous quantity with (F1(w),𝒟kF1(w))subscript𝐹1𝑤subscript𝒟𝑘subscript𝐹1𝑤(F_{1}(w),\mathcal{D}_{k}F_{1}(w))( italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) ) in lieu of (F1(z),𝒟jF1(z))subscript𝐹1𝑧subscript𝒟𝑗subscript𝐹1𝑧(F_{1}(z),\mathcal{D}_{j}F_{1}(z))( italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ). This completes the proof. ∎

5. Variance of Aggregated Charge

We now state and prove the following more precise version of Theorem 1.1.

Theorem 5.1.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be the GWHF (1.1) and assume (1.8), (1.9), (1.11), (1.12), (1.14), and (1.15). Then there exists a model-dependent constant c𝑐citalic_c such that

supwsupR11RVar[|zw|Rκz]c<.subscriptsupremum𝑤subscriptsupremum𝑅11𝑅Vardelimited-[]subscript𝑧𝑤𝑅subscript𝜅𝑧𝑐\displaystyle\sup_{w\in\mathbb{C}}\sup_{R\geq 1}\tfrac{1}{R}\mathrm{Var}\Big{[% }\sum_{|z-w|\leq R}\kappa_{z}\Big{]}\leq c<\infty.roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w ∈ blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_R end_ARG roman_Var [ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_w | ≤ italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ≤ italic_c < ∞ .
Proof.

We restrict attention to the ball B=BR(0)𝐵subscript𝐵𝑅0B=B_{R}(0)italic_B = italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ). The conclusions then extend to balls centered at any point because the distribution of F0subscript𝐹0F_{0}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is invariant under twisted shifts (1.3), while all assumptions on F1subscript𝐹1F_{1}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT also hold for 𝒯ξF1subscript𝒯𝜉subscript𝐹1\mathcal{T}_{\xi}F_{1}caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the constants we rely on are model dependent, cf. Remark 2.5.

Using (3.2) we formally expand the variance as

(5.1) 4π2Var[κB]=BB(Cov[𝒟1F(z)F(z),𝒟1F(w)F(w)]dzdw¯+Cov[𝒟1F(z)F(z),𝒟2F(w)F(w)]dzdw+Cov[𝒟2F(z)F(z),𝒟1F(w)F(w)]dz¯dw¯+Cov[𝒟2F(z)F(z),𝒟2F(w)F(w)]dz¯dw).\displaystyle\begin{aligned} 4\pi^{2}\cdot\mathop{Var}\nolimits\big{[}\kappa_{% B}\big{]}&=\int_{\partial B}\int_{\partial B}\Big{(}\operatorname{Cov}\left[% \tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{1}F(z)}{F(z)},{\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{1}F(w)}{F(w)}}\right]\,% dz\,d\bar{w}+\operatorname{Cov}\left[\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{1}F(z)}{F(z)},{\tfrac% {\mathcal{D}_{2}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\right]\,dz\,dw\\ &\qquad+\operatorname{Cov}\left[\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{2}F(z)}{F(z)},{\tfrac{% \mathcal{D}_{1}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\right]\,d\bar{z}\,d\bar{w}+\operatorname{Cov}% \left[\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{2}F(z)}{F(z)},{\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{2}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}% \right]\,d\bar{z}\,dw\Big{)}.\end{aligned}start_ROW start_CELL 4 italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] end_CELL start_CELL = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Cov [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG , divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] italic_d italic_z italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG + roman_Cov [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG , divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] italic_d italic_z italic_d italic_w end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL + roman_Cov [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG , divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG + roman_Cov [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG , divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG italic_d italic_w ) . end_CELL end_ROW

We now derive estimates that justify the expansion (5.1) and bound each of the terms in it. We make use of some estimates for convolutions proved in Section 10.2.

Let L>0𝐿0L>0italic_L > 0 be larger than the corresponding constants in Corollary 4.2 and Proposition 4.3. Let

(5.2) ε:=inf|z|L1|H(z)|2|z|2.assign𝜀subscriptinfimum𝑧𝐿1superscript𝐻𝑧2superscript𝑧2\displaystyle\varepsilon:=\inf_{|z|\leq L}\frac{1-|H(z)|^{2}}{|z|^{2}}.italic_ε := roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z | ≤ italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 - | italic_H ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

Proposition 2.4 and Assumption (1.12) imply that ε>0𝜀0\varepsilon>0italic_ε > 0, cf. (2.6).

Fix p(1,2)𝑝12p\in(1,2)italic_p ∈ ( 1 , 2 ) and let q(2,)𝑞2q\in(2,\infty)italic_q ∈ ( 2 , ∞ ) be the Hölder conjugate 1/p+1/q=11𝑝1𝑞11/p+1/q=11 / italic_p + 1 / italic_q = 1. Fix initially j,k{1,2}𝑗𝑘12j,k\in\{1,2\}italic_j , italic_k ∈ { 1 , 2 }.

Step 1. Recall that, by Corollary 4.2, (4.7) holds. Hence,

(5.3) zBwB𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)F(z)|]𝔼[|𝒟kF(z)F(z)|]|dz||dw|R2,less-than-or-similar-tosubscript𝑧𝐵subscript𝑤𝐵𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝑑𝑧𝑑𝑤superscript𝑅2\displaystyle\int_{z\in\partial B}\int_{w\in\partial B}\mathbb{E}\big{[}\big{|% }\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}\big{|}\big{]}\cdot\mathbb{E}\big{[}\big{|}% \tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(z)}{F(z)}\big{|}\big{]}\,|dz||dw|\lesssim R^{2},∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w ∈ ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ | divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG | ] ⋅ blackboard_E [ | divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG | ] | italic_d italic_z | | italic_d italic_w | ≲ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

while, by Lemma 10.3 (with δ=0𝛿0\delta=0italic_δ = 0),

(5.4) zBwB,|zw|L𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)F(z)|]𝔼[|𝒟kF(z)F(z)|]|dz||dw|CLRR.subscript𝑧𝐵subscriptformulae-sequence𝑤𝐵𝑧𝑤𝐿𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝑑𝑧𝑑𝑤superscript𝐶𝐿𝑅less-than-or-similar-to𝑅\displaystyle\int_{z\in\partial B}\int_{w\in\partial B,|z-w|\leq L}\mathbb{E}% \big{[}\big{|}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}\big{|}\big{]}\cdot\mathbb{E}% \big{[}\big{|}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(z)}{F(z)}\big{|}\big{]}\,|dz||dw|\leq C^% {\prime}LR\lesssim R.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w ∈ ∂ italic_B , | italic_z - italic_w | ≤ italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ | divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG | ] ⋅ blackboard_E [ | divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG | ] | italic_d italic_z | | italic_d italic_w | ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L italic_R ≲ italic_R .

Step 2. We use Hölder’s inequality and Lemma 4.1 to estimate

(5.5) 𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)F(z)𝒟kF(w)F(w)|]𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)𝒟kF(w)|q]1/q𝔼[|F(z)F(w)|p]1/p𝔼[|F(z)F(w)|p]1/p.𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤absent𝔼superscriptdelimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝑞1𝑞𝔼superscriptdelimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑝1𝑝missing-subexpressionless-than-or-similar-toabsent𝔼superscriptdelimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑝1𝑝\displaystyle\begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}\frac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)% }{F(z)}\cdot{\frac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\big{|}\Big{]}&\leq\mathbb{E}% \Big{[}\big{|}{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}\cdot\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)\big{|}^{q}\Big{]}^% {1/q}\cdot\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}{F(z)}\cdot F(w)\big{|}^{-p}\Big{]}^{1/p}\\ &\lesssim\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}{F(z)}\cdot F(w)\big{|}^{-p}\Big{]}^{1/p}.% \end{aligned}start_ROW start_CELL blackboard_E [ | divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ⋅ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG | ] end_CELL start_CELL ≤ blackboard_E [ | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) ⋅ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) ⋅ italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL ≲ blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) ⋅ italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . end_CELL end_ROW

Set

E1subscript𝐸1\displaystyle E_{1}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT :={(z,w)B×B:|zw|L,|H(zw)|1/2},assignabsentconditional-set𝑧𝑤𝐵𝐵formulae-sequence𝑧𝑤𝐿𝐻𝑧𝑤12\displaystyle:=\{(z,w)\in\partial B\times\partial B:|z-w|\leq L,|H(z-w)|\geq 1% /2\},:= { ( italic_z , italic_w ) ∈ ∂ italic_B × ∂ italic_B : | italic_z - italic_w | ≤ italic_L , | italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) | ≥ 1 / 2 } ,
E2subscript𝐸2\displaystyle E_{2}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT :={(z,w)B×B:|zw|L,|H(zw)|<1/2},assignabsentconditional-set𝑧𝑤𝐵𝐵formulae-sequence𝑧𝑤𝐿𝐻𝑧𝑤12\displaystyle:=\{(z,w)\in\partial B\times\partial B:|z-w|\leq L,|H(z-w)|<1/2\},:= { ( italic_z , italic_w ) ∈ ∂ italic_B × ∂ italic_B : | italic_z - italic_w | ≤ italic_L , | italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) | < 1 / 2 } ,
E3subscript𝐸3\displaystyle E_{3}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT :={(z,w)B×B:|zw|>L}.assignabsentconditional-set𝑧𝑤𝐵𝐵𝑧𝑤𝐿\displaystyle:=\{(z,w)\in\partial B\times\partial B:|z-w|>L\}.:= { ( italic_z , italic_w ) ∈ ∂ italic_B × ∂ italic_B : | italic_z - italic_w | > italic_L } .

Step 3. Let (z,w)E1𝑧𝑤subscript𝐸1(z,w)\in E_{1}( italic_z , italic_w ) ∈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We recall (4.4) and use (5.5) to further estimate

𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)F(z)𝒟kF(w)F(w)|]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}\frac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}\cdot{% \frac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\big{|}\Big{]}blackboard_E [ | divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ⋅ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG | ] 𝔼[|F(z)F(w)|p]1/pless-than-or-similar-toabsent𝔼superscriptdelimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑝1𝑝\displaystyle\lesssim\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}{F(z)}\cdot F(w)\big{|}^{-p}\Big{% ]}^{1/p}≲ blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) ⋅ italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
(1|H(zw)|2)1/p1ε1/p1|zw|2(1/p1),less-than-or-similar-toabsentsuperscript1superscript𝐻𝑧𝑤21𝑝1superscript𝜀1𝑝1superscript𝑧𝑤21𝑝1\displaystyle\lesssim(1-|H(z-w)|^{2})^{1/p-1}\leq\varepsilon^{1/p-1}|z-w|^{2(1% /p-1)},≲ ( 1 - | italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_ε start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( 1 / italic_p - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where we used the definition (5.2). Since 2(1/p1)>121𝑝112(1/p-1)>-12 ( 1 / italic_p - 1 ) > - 1, Lemma 10.3 (with δ=2(11/p)𝛿211𝑝\delta=2(1-1/p)italic_δ = 2 ( 1 - 1 / italic_p )) gives

(5.6) (z,w)E1𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)F(z)𝒟kF(w)F(w)|]|dz||dw|zBwB,|zw|L|zw|2(1/p1)|dw||dz|CR.less-than-or-similar-tosubscript𝑧𝑤subscript𝐸1𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝑑𝑧𝑑𝑤subscript𝑧𝐵subscript𝑤𝐵𝑧𝑤𝐿superscript𝑧𝑤21𝑝1𝑑𝑤𝑑𝑧𝐶𝑅\displaystyle\int_{(z,w)\in E_{1}}\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{% j}F(z)}{F(z)}\cdot{\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\big{|}\Big{]}\,|dz||dw% |\lesssim\int_{z\in\partial B}\int_{\begin{subarray}{c}w\in\partial B,\\ |z-w|\leq L\end{subarray}}|z-w|^{2(1/p-1)}\,|dw||dz|\leq CR.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ∈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ | divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ⋅ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG | ] | italic_d italic_z | | italic_d italic_w | ≲ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_w ∈ ∂ italic_B , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL | italic_z - italic_w | ≤ italic_L end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( 1 / italic_p - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_d italic_w | | italic_d italic_z | ≤ italic_C italic_R .

This estimate, together with (5.4) shows that

(5.7) (z,w)E1|Cov[𝒟jF(z)F(z),𝒟kF(w)F(w)]||dz||dw|CR.subscript𝑧𝑤subscript𝐸1Covsubscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝑑𝑧𝑑𝑤𝐶𝑅\displaystyle\int_{(z,w)\in E_{1}}\big{|}\operatorname{Cov}\Big{[}\tfrac{% \mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)},{\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\Big{]}\big{|}% \,|dz|\,|dw|\leq CR.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ∈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_Cov [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG , divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] | | italic_d italic_z | | italic_d italic_w | ≤ italic_C italic_R .

Step 4. For (z,w)E2𝑧𝑤subscript𝐸2(z,w)\in E_{2}( italic_z , italic_w ) ∈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, Lemma 4.1 gives 𝔼[|F(z)F(w)|p]1/p1less-than-or-similar-to𝔼superscriptdelimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑝1𝑝1\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}{F(z)}\cdot F(w)\big{|}^{-p}\Big{]}^{1/p}\lesssim 1blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) ⋅ italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≲ 1. Thus, we combine (5.5) with Lemma 10.3 to conclude

(5.8) (z,w)E2𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)F(z)𝒟kF(w)F(w)|]|dz||dw|zBwB,|zw|L𝔼[|F(z)F(w)|p]1/p|dz||dw|R.less-than-or-similar-tosubscript𝑧𝑤subscript𝐸2𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝑑𝑧𝑑𝑤subscript𝑧𝐵subscript𝑤𝐵𝑧𝑤𝐿𝔼superscriptdelimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑝1𝑝𝑑𝑧𝑑𝑤less-than-or-similar-to𝑅\displaystyle\int_{(z,w)\in E_{2}}\mathbb{E}\big{[}\big{|}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{% j}F(z)}{F(z)}\cdot{\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\big{|}\big{]}\,|dz|\,|% dw|\lesssim\int_{z\in\partial B}\int_{\begin{subarray}{c}w\in\partial B,\\ |z-w|\leq L\end{subarray}}\mathbb{E}\big{[}\big{|}{F(z)}\cdot F(w)\big{|}^{-p}% \big{]}^{1/p}\,|dz||dw|\lesssim R.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ∈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ | divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ⋅ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG | ] | italic_d italic_z | | italic_d italic_w | ≲ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_w ∈ ∂ italic_B , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL | italic_z - italic_w | ≤ italic_L end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) ⋅ italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_d italic_z | | italic_d italic_w | ≲ italic_R .

Together with (5.4), this shows that

(5.9) (z,w)E2|Cov[𝒟jF(z)F(z),𝒟kF(w)F(w)]||dz||dw|CR.subscript𝑧𝑤subscript𝐸2Covsubscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝑑𝑧𝑑𝑤𝐶𝑅\displaystyle\int_{(z,w)\in E_{2}}\big{|}\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\tfrac{% \mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)},{\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\big{]}\big{|}% \,|dz|\,|dw|\leq CR.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ∈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_Cov [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG , divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] | | italic_d italic_z | | italic_d italic_w | ≤ italic_C italic_R .

Step 5. We combine Proposition 4.3 and Lemma 10.2 to estimate

(5.10) (z,w)E3|Cov[𝒟jF(z)F(z),𝒟kF(w)F(w)]||dz||dw|BB(1+|zw|)2|dz||dw|B|dz|CR.subscript𝑧𝑤subscript𝐸3Covsubscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝑑𝑧𝑑𝑤less-than-or-similar-toabsentsubscript𝐵subscript𝐵superscript1𝑧𝑤2𝑑𝑧𝑑𝑤missing-subexpressionless-than-or-similar-toabsentsubscript𝐵𝑑𝑧𝐶𝑅\displaystyle\begin{aligned} \int_{(z,w)\in E_{3}}\big{|}\operatorname{Cov}% \Big{[}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)},{\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}% \Big{]}\big{|}\,|dz|\,|dw|&\lesssim\int_{\partial B}\int_{\partial B}(1+|z-w|)% ^{-2}\,|dz||dw|\\ &\lesssim\int_{\partial B}\,|dz|\leq CR.\end{aligned}start_ROW start_CELL ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ∈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_Cov [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG , divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] | | italic_d italic_z | | italic_d italic_w | end_CELL start_CELL ≲ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_z - italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_d italic_z | | italic_d italic_w | end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL ≲ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_d italic_z | ≤ italic_C italic_R . end_CELL end_ROW

In addition, by Corollary 4.2, (4.8) holds and

(5.11) (z,w)E3𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)F(z)𝒟kF(w)F(w)|]|dz||dw|R2.less-than-or-similar-tosubscript𝑧𝑤subscript𝐸3𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝑑𝑧𝑑𝑤superscript𝑅2\displaystyle\int_{(z,w)\in E_{3}}\mathbb{E}\big{[}\big{|}\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{% j}F(z)}{F(z)}\cdot{\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\big{|}\big{]}\,|dz|\,|% dw|\lesssim R^{2}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ∈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ | divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ⋅ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG | ] | italic_d italic_z | | italic_d italic_w | ≲ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Step 6. Combining (5.7), (5.9), and (5.10) we conclude that

(5.12) BB|Cov[𝒟jF(z)F(z),𝒟kF(w)F(w)]||dz||dw|R,j,k=1,2.formulae-sequenceless-than-or-similar-tosubscript𝐵subscript𝐵Covsubscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝑑𝑧𝑑𝑤𝑅𝑗𝑘12\displaystyle\int_{\partial B}\int_{\partial B}\big{|}\operatorname{Cov}\Big{[% }\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)},{\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\Big{]% }\big{|}\,|dz|\,|dw|\lesssim R,\qquad j,k=1,2.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_Cov [ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG , divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ] | | italic_d italic_z | | italic_d italic_w | ≲ italic_R , italic_j , italic_k = 1 , 2 .

In addition, combining (5.6), (5.8), and (5.11) we conclude that

(5.13) BB𝔼[|𝒟jF(z)F(z)𝒟kF(w)F(w)|]|dz||dw|R2.less-than-or-similar-tosubscript𝐵subscript𝐵𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟𝑘𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑤𝑑𝑧𝑑𝑤superscript𝑅2\displaystyle\int_{\partial B}\int_{\partial B}\mathbb{E}\big{[}\big{|}\tfrac{% \mathcal{D}_{j}F(z)}{F(z)}\cdot{\tfrac{\mathcal{D}_{k}F(w)}{{F(w)}}}\big{|}% \big{]}\,|dz|\,|dw|\lesssim R^{2}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ | divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ⋅ divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG | ] | italic_d italic_z | | italic_d italic_w | ≲ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Finally, we can justify the expansion (5.1): the interchange of integration and covariance is justified by (5.3) and (5.13). We now bound each of the terms in (5.1) with (5.12) to conclude that Var[κB]Rless-than-or-similar-to𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]subscript𝜅𝐵𝑅\mathop{Var}\nolimits\big{[}\kappa_{B}\big{]}\lesssim Rstart_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ≲ italic_R, as desired. ∎

6. Regularity of Level-Crossing Statistics

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be a zero mean GWHF satisfying the general assumptions. The goal of this section is to show that level-crossing statistics #{zK:F(z)=u}#conditional-set𝑧𝐾𝐹𝑧𝑢\#\{z\in K:F(z)=u\}# { italic_z ∈ italic_K : italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u } depend continuously on the level value u𝑢uitalic_u in quadratic mean. For stationary processes, this follows by simply inspecting explicit formulae; see, e.g., [41]. In our case, we will need to develop estimates for the densities of the level-crossing statistics.

6.1. Improved covariance bounds in diagonal directions

Under the general assumptions, the vector (F(z),F(w))𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤(F(z),F(w))( italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) ) is non-degenerate for zw𝑧𝑤z\not=witalic_z ≠ italic_w and we will denote its covariance matrix by

(6.1) Γ(z,w)=Cov[(F(z),F(w))].Γ𝑧𝑤Cov𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤\Gamma(z,w)=\operatorname{Cov}[(F(z),F(w))].roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) = roman_Cov [ ( italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) ) ] .

By (2.6), the inverse covariance matrix Γ1(z,w)superscriptΓ1𝑧𝑤\Gamma^{-1}(z,w)roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) (henceforth, we will write Γ1superscriptΓ1\Gamma^{-1}roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and omit the dependency on z𝑧zitalic_z and w𝑤witalic_w if the arguments are clear from context) has norm O(|zw|2)less-than-or-similar-toabsent𝑂superscript𝑧𝑤2\lesssim O(|z-w|^{-2})≲ italic_O ( | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) (see (6.12) below). We now make the crucial observation that Γ1superscriptΓ1\Gamma^{-1}roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is much better conditioned when acting on diagonal vectors.

Lemma 6.1.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be a zero mean GWHF satisfying the general assumptions. Then for each R>0𝑅0R>0italic_R > 0 there exists a model-dependent constant CR<subscript𝐶𝑅C_{R}<\inftyitalic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞, such that for distinct z,wBR(0)𝑧𝑤subscript𝐵𝑅0z,w\in B_{R}(0)\subset\mathbb{C}italic_z , italic_w ∈ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) ⊂ blackboard_C:

(6.2) Var[F(z)F(w)]CR|zw|2,𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤subscript𝐶𝑅superscript𝑧𝑤2\displaystyle\mathop{Var}\nolimits\big{[}F(z)-F(w)\big{]}\leq C_{R}|z-w|^{2},start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_F ( italic_z ) - italic_F ( italic_w ) ] ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
(6.3) |Γ1(1,1)|CRmin{1,|zw|}.superscriptΓ1superscript11subscript𝐶𝑅1𝑧𝑤\displaystyle\left|\Gamma^{-1}\cdot(1,1)^{\intercal}\right|\leq\frac{C_{R}}{% \min\{1,|z-w|\}}.| roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ ( 1 , 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊺ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ≤ divide start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_min { 1 , | italic_z - italic_w | } end_ARG .
(6.4) |(1,1)Γ1(1,1)|CR.11superscriptΓ1superscript11subscript𝐶𝑅\displaystyle\left|(1,1)\cdot\Gamma^{-1}\cdot(1,1)^{\intercal}\right|\leq C_{R}.| ( 1 , 1 ) ⋅ roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ ( 1 , 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊺ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

(Here, Γ=Γ(z,w)ΓΓ𝑧𝑤\Gamma=\Gamma(z,w)roman_Γ = roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) is the covariance matrix (6.1).)

Proof.

Since zw𝑧𝑤z\not=witalic_z ≠ italic_w, (F(z),F(w))𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤(F(z),F(w))( italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) ) is a non-degenerate jointly Gaussian vector. Specifically, writing K(z,w)=H(zw)eiIm(zw¯)𝐾𝑧𝑤𝐻𝑧𝑤superscript𝑒𝑖𝑧¯𝑤K(z,w)=H(z-w)e^{i\imaginary(z\bar{w})}italic_K ( italic_z , italic_w ) = italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_OPERATOR roman_Im end_OPERATOR ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, its covariance is

(6.5) Γ(z,w)=[1K(z,w)K(z,w)¯1]Γ𝑧𝑤matrix1𝐾𝑧𝑤¯𝐾𝑧𝑤1\displaystyle\Gamma(z,w)=\begin{bmatrix}1&K(z,w)\\ \overline{K(z,w)}&1\end{bmatrix}roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) = [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL italic_K ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL over¯ start_ARG italic_K ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_ARG end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ]

and has inverse

(6.6) Γ1(z,w)=11|H(zw)|2[1K(z,w)K(z,w)¯1].superscriptΓ1𝑧𝑤11superscript𝐻𝑧𝑤2matrix1𝐾𝑧𝑤¯𝐾𝑧𝑤1\displaystyle\Gamma^{-1}(z,w)=\frac{1}{1-|H(z-w)|^{2}}\begin{bmatrix}1&-K(z,w)% \\ -\overline{K(z,w)}&1\end{bmatrix}.roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 1 - | italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL - italic_K ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - over¯ start_ARG italic_K ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_ARG end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] .

A Taylor expansion in z𝑧zitalic_z around w𝑤witalic_w gives

K(z,w)𝐾𝑧𝑤\displaystyle K(z,w)italic_K ( italic_z , italic_w ) =1+1K(w,w)(zw)+¯1K(w,w)(zw)¯+O(|zw|2)absent1subscript1𝐾𝑤𝑤𝑧𝑤subscript¯1𝐾𝑤𝑤¯𝑧𝑤𝑂superscript𝑧𝑤2\displaystyle=1+\partial_{1}K(w,w)(z-w)+\bar{\partial}_{1}K(w,w)\overline{(z-w% )}+O(|z-w|^{2})= 1 + ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K ( italic_w , italic_w ) ( italic_z - italic_w ) + over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K ( italic_w , italic_w ) over¯ start_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) end_ARG + italic_O ( | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

where 1subscript1\partial_{1}∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and ¯1subscript¯1\bar{\partial}_{1}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote derivatives with respect to the first variable, and the implied constants may depend on R𝑅Ritalic_R. Hence,

2ReK(z,w)=K(z,w)+K(w,z)2𝐾𝑧𝑤𝐾𝑧𝑤𝐾𝑤𝑧\displaystyle 2\real K(z,w)=K(z,w)+K(w,z)2 start_OPERATOR roman_Re end_OPERATOR italic_K ( italic_z , italic_w ) = italic_K ( italic_z , italic_w ) + italic_K ( italic_w , italic_z ) =2+(1K(w,w)1K(z,z))(zw)absent2subscript1𝐾𝑤𝑤subscript1𝐾𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑤\displaystyle=2+(\partial_{1}K(w,w)-\partial_{1}K(z,z))(z-w)= 2 + ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K ( italic_w , italic_w ) - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K ( italic_z , italic_z ) ) ( italic_z - italic_w )
+(¯1K(w,w)¯1K(z,z))(zw)¯+O(|zw|2).subscript¯1𝐾𝑤𝑤subscript¯1𝐾𝑧𝑧¯𝑧𝑤𝑂superscript𝑧𝑤2\displaystyle\quad+(\bar{\partial}_{1}K(w,w)-\bar{\partial}_{1}K(z,z))% \overline{(z-w)}+O(|z-w|^{2}).+ ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K ( italic_w , italic_w ) - over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K ( italic_z , italic_z ) ) over¯ start_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) end_ARG + italic_O ( | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Since 1K(w,w)1K(z,z)=wz¯2subscript1𝐾𝑤𝑤subscript1𝐾𝑧𝑧¯𝑤𝑧2\partial_{1}K(w,w)-\partial_{1}K(z,z)=\frac{\overline{w-z}}{2}∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K ( italic_w , italic_w ) - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K ( italic_z , italic_z ) = divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_w - italic_z end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG and ¯1K(w,w)¯1K(z,z)=zw2subscript¯1𝐾𝑤𝑤subscript¯1𝐾𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑤2\bar{\partial}_{1}K(w,w)-\bar{\partial}_{1}K(z,z)=\frac{z-w}{2}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K ( italic_w , italic_w ) - over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K ( italic_z , italic_z ) = divide start_ARG italic_z - italic_w end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG are O(|zw|)𝑂𝑧𝑤O(|z-w|)italic_O ( | italic_z - italic_w | ), we see that

(6.7) 1ReK(z,w)=O(|zw|2),1K(z,w)=O(|zw|).formulae-sequence1𝐾𝑧𝑤𝑂superscript𝑧𝑤21𝐾𝑧𝑤𝑂𝑧𝑤\displaystyle 1-\real K(z,w)=O(|z-w|^{2}),\qquad 1-K(z,w)=O(|z-w|).1 - start_OPERATOR roman_Re end_OPERATOR italic_K ( italic_z , italic_w ) = italic_O ( | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , 1 - italic_K ( italic_z , italic_w ) = italic_O ( | italic_z - italic_w | ) .

Now (6.2) follows since

Var[F(z)F(w)]=𝔼[|F(z)F(w)|2]=2(1ReK(z,w)).𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤221𝐾𝑧𝑤\mathop{Var}\nolimits\big{[}F(z)-F(w)\big{]}=\mathbb{E}\left[|F(z)-F(w)|^{2}% \right]=2(1-\real K(z,w)).start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_F ( italic_z ) - italic_F ( italic_w ) ] = blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) - italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = 2 ( 1 - start_OPERATOR roman_Re end_OPERATOR italic_K ( italic_z , italic_w ) ) .

Second, we compute

Γ1(z,w)(1,1)=(1|H(zw)|2)1(1K(z,w),1K(z,w)¯),superscriptΓ1𝑧𝑤superscript11superscript1superscript𝐻𝑧𝑤21superscript1𝐾𝑧𝑤1¯𝐾𝑧𝑤\displaystyle\Gamma^{-1}(z,w)\cdot(1,1)^{\intercal}=\left(1-|H(z-w)|^{2}\right% )^{-1}\big{(}1-K(z,w),1-\overline{K(z,w)}\big{)}^{\intercal},roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ⋅ ( 1 , 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊺ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( 1 - | italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_K ( italic_z , italic_w ) , 1 - over¯ start_ARG italic_K ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊺ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

and

(1,1)Γ1(z,w)(1,1)=2(1|H(zw)|2)1(1ReK(z,w)).11superscriptΓ1𝑧𝑤superscript112superscript1superscript𝐻𝑧𝑤211𝐾𝑧𝑤\displaystyle(1,1)\cdot\Gamma^{-1}(z,w)\cdot(1,1)^{\intercal}=2\left(1-|H(z-w)% |^{2}\right)^{-1}\left(1-\real K(z,w)\right).( 1 , 1 ) ⋅ roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ⋅ ( 1 , 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊺ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 2 ( 1 - | italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - start_OPERATOR roman_Re end_OPERATOR italic_K ( italic_z , italic_w ) ) .

By (2.6), (6.7) readily implies (6.3) and (6.4). ∎

6.2. Boundedness of the intensity functions

We define the one and two point functions ρ:[0,]:𝜌0\rho\colon\mathbb{C}\to[0,\infty]italic_ρ : blackboard_C → [ 0 , ∞ ], τ:2[0,]:𝜏superscript20\tau\colon\mathbb{C}^{2}\to[0,\infty]italic_τ : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → [ 0 , ∞ ] (associated with the level u𝑢u\in\mathbb{C}italic_u ∈ blackboard_C) by

(6.8) ρ(z,u)𝜌𝑧𝑢\displaystyle\rho(z,u)italic_ρ ( italic_z , italic_u ) =𝔼[|detDF(z)||F(z)=u]pF(z)(u),absent𝔼delimited-[]conditional𝐷𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝑢subscript𝑝𝐹𝑧𝑢\displaystyle=\mathbb{E}\left[|\det DF(z)|\,\big{|}\,F(z)=u\right]p_{F(z)}(u),= blackboard_E [ | roman_det italic_D italic_F ( italic_z ) | | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u ] italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) ,
(6.9) τ(z,w,u)𝜏𝑧𝑤𝑢\displaystyle\tau(z,w,u)italic_τ ( italic_z , italic_w , italic_u ) ={𝔼[|detDF(z)||detDF(w)||F(z)=F(w)=u]pF(z),F(w)(u,u),zw0,z=w,absentcases𝔼delimited-[]conditional𝐷𝐹𝑧𝐷𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢subscript𝑝𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢𝑢𝑧𝑤0𝑧𝑤\displaystyle=\begin{cases}\mathbb{E}\left[|\det DF(z)|\cdot|\det DF(w)|\,\big% {|}\,F(z)=F(w)=u\right]p_{F(z),F(w)}(u,u),&z\not=w\\ 0,&z=w\end{cases},= { start_ROW start_CELL blackboard_E [ | roman_det italic_D italic_F ( italic_z ) | ⋅ | roman_det italic_D italic_F ( italic_w ) | | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_F ( italic_w ) = italic_u ] italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_u ) , end_CELL start_CELL italic_z ≠ italic_w end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 , end_CELL start_CELL italic_z = italic_w end_CELL end_ROW ,

where pF(z),F(w)subscript𝑝𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤p_{F(z),F(w)}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the joint probability density of (F(z),F(w))𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤(F(z),F(w))( italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) ) and the conditional expectation is defined by Gaussian regression; see, e.g., [5, Proposition 1.2]. The two point function is well-defined because (1.12) implies that (F(z),F(w))𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤(F(z),F(w))( italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) ) is non-singular for zw𝑧𝑤z\not=witalic_z ≠ italic_w.

According to the Kac-Rice formula [5, 1], the one and two point functions provide densities for the first and second factorial moments of the number of level crossings {F=u}𝐹𝑢\{F=u\}{ italic_F = italic_u } within a test set. The following key result estimates the two-point function associated with general level crossings.

Proposition 6.2.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be a zero mean GWHF satisfying the general assumptions. Then for each compact set K𝐾K\subset\mathbb{C}italic_K ⊂ blackboard_C there exists a model-dependent constant CK<subscript𝐶𝐾C_{K}<\inftyitalic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞, such that

(6.10) τ(z,w,u)CK,z,w,uK.formulae-sequence𝜏𝑧𝑤𝑢subscript𝐶𝐾𝑧𝑤𝑢𝐾\displaystyle\tau(z,w,u)\leq C_{K},\qquad z,w,u\in K.italic_τ ( italic_z , italic_w , italic_u ) ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_z , italic_w , italic_u ∈ italic_K .

Similarly, for each compact set K𝐾K\subset\mathbb{C}italic_K ⊂ blackboard_C there exists a model-dependent constant CK<subscript𝐶𝐾C_{K}<\inftyitalic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞, such that supz,uKρ(z,u)CKsubscriptsupremum𝑧𝑢𝐾𝜌𝑧𝑢subscript𝐶𝐾\sup_{z,u\in K}\rho(z,u)\leq C_{K}roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z , italic_u ∈ italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ ( italic_z , italic_u ) ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Proof.

We start by considering the bound (6.10) on the second intensity. Let us fix (z,w,u)K𝑧𝑤𝑢𝐾(z,w,u)\in K( italic_z , italic_w , italic_u ) ∈ italic_K with zw𝑧𝑤z\not=witalic_z ≠ italic_w. Without loss of generality we assume that K𝐾Kitalic_K is a ball. Throughout the proof we let CKsubscript𝐶𝐾C_{K}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote a finite constant that may depend on K𝐾Kitalic_K and the model. Other dependencies are noted with further subscripts. The particular values of CKsubscript𝐶𝐾C_{K}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT may change from line to line.

First we consider the factor pF(z),F(w)(u,u)subscript𝑝𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢𝑢p_{F(z),F(w)}(u,u)italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_u ) in (6.9) and show that

(6.11) pF(z),F(w)(u,v)CK|zw|2.subscript𝑝𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢𝑣subscript𝐶𝐾superscript𝑧𝑤2\displaystyle p_{F(z),F(w)}(u,v)\leq C_{K}|z-w|^{-2}.italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v ) ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Since zw𝑧𝑤z\not=witalic_z ≠ italic_w, (F(z),F(w))𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤(F(z),F(w))( italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) ) is a non-degenerate jointly Gaussian vector. Specifically, its covariance is given by (6.5) and its determinant satisfies

(6.12) detΓ(z,w)=1|H(zw)|2cmin{1,|zw|2}.Γ𝑧𝑤1superscript𝐻𝑧𝑤2𝑐1superscript𝑧𝑤2\displaystyle\det\Gamma(z,w)=1-|H(z-w)|^{2}\geq c\min\{1,|z-w|^{2}\}.roman_det roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) = 1 - | italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ italic_c roman_min { 1 , | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } .

As a consequence, the probability density

pF(z),F(w)(u,v)subscript𝑝𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢𝑣\displaystyle p_{F(z),F(w)}(u,v)italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v ) =1π2detΓ(z,w)exp((u,v)Γ(z,w)1(u,v)missing)absent1superscript𝜋2Γ𝑧𝑤superscript𝑢𝑣Γsuperscript𝑧𝑤1𝑢𝑣missing\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\pi^{2}\det\Gamma(z,w)}\exp\Big({-\big{(}u,v\big{)}^{*}% \,\Gamma(z,w)^{-1}\,\big{(}u,v\big{)}}\Big{missing})= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_det roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) end_ARG roman_exp ( start_ARG - ( italic_u , italic_v ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ ( italic_z , italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v ) roman_missing end_ARG )

satisfies (6.11).

Thus, to prove (6.10), it remains to show that the other factor in (6.9) satisfies

𝔼(|det(DF(z))||det(DF(w))||F(z)=F(w)=u)CK|zw|2.𝔼conditional𝐷𝐹𝑧𝐷𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢subscript𝐶𝐾superscript𝑧𝑤2\mathbb{E}\left(|\det(DF(z))|\cdot|\det(DF(w))|\,\big{|}\,F(z)=F(w)=u\right)% \leq C_{K}|z-w|^{2}.blackboard_E ( | roman_det ( start_ARG italic_D italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ) | ⋅ | roman_det ( start_ARG italic_D italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ) | | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_F ( italic_w ) = italic_u ) ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

This will be done in several steps.

Step 1. By Cauchy-Schwarz,

𝔼(|det(DF(z))||det(DF(w))||F(z)=F(w)=u)𝔼conditional𝐷𝐹𝑧𝐷𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\left(|\det(DF(z))|\cdot|\det(DF(w))|\,\big{|}\,F(z)=F(% w)=u\right)blackboard_E ( | roman_det ( start_ARG italic_D italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ) | ⋅ | roman_det ( start_ARG italic_D italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ) | | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_F ( italic_w ) = italic_u )
[𝔼(|det(DF(z))|2|F(z)=F(w)=u)]1/2[𝔼(|det(DF(w))|2|F(z)=F(w)=u)]1/2.absentsuperscriptdelimited-[]𝔼conditionalsuperscript𝐷𝐹𝑧2𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢12superscriptdelimited-[]𝔼conditionalsuperscript𝐷𝐹𝑤2𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢12\displaystyle\qquad\leq\left[\mathbb{E}\left(|\det(DF(z))|^{2}\,\big{|}\,F(z)=% F(w)=u\right)\right]^{1/2}\cdot\left[\mathbb{E}\left(|\det(DF(w))|^{2}\,\big{|% }\,F(z)=F(w)=u\right)\right]^{1/2}.≤ [ blackboard_E ( | roman_det ( start_ARG italic_D italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_F ( italic_w ) = italic_u ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ [ blackboard_E ( | roman_det ( start_ARG italic_D italic_F ( italic_w ) end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_F ( italic_w ) = italic_u ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Hence, by symmetry in z𝑧zitalic_z and w𝑤witalic_w, it remains to show that

(6.13) 𝔼(|det(DF(z))|2|F(z)=F(w)=u)CK|zw|2.𝔼conditionalsuperscript𝐷𝐹𝑧2𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢subscript𝐶𝐾superscript𝑧𝑤2\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\left(|\det(DF(z))|^{2}\,\big{|}\,F(z)=F(w)=u\right)% \leq C_{K}|z-w|^{2}.blackboard_E ( | roman_det ( start_ARG italic_D italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_F ( italic_w ) = italic_u ) ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Step 2. We expand F𝐹Fitalic_F around z𝑧zitalic_z to obtain

(6.14) F(w)𝐹𝑤\displaystyle F(w)italic_F ( italic_w ) =F(z)+(zw)F(z)+(zw)¯¯F(z)absent𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑤𝐹𝑧¯𝑧𝑤¯𝐹𝑧\displaystyle=F(z)+(z-w)\partial F(z)+\overline{(z-w)}\bar{\partial}F(z)= italic_F ( italic_z ) + ( italic_z - italic_w ) ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) + over¯ start_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) end_ARG over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z )
+(zw)2R1(z,w)+|zw|2R2(z,w)+(zw)¯2R3(z,w),superscript𝑧𝑤2subscript𝑅1𝑧𝑤superscript𝑧𝑤2subscript𝑅2𝑧𝑤superscript¯𝑧𝑤2subscript𝑅3𝑧𝑤\displaystyle\quad+(z-w)^{2}R_{1}(z,w)+|z-w|^{2}R_{2}(z,w)+\overline{(z-w)}^{2% }R_{3}(z,w),+ ( italic_z - italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) + | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) + over¯ start_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ,

where Rksubscript𝑅𝑘R_{k}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are zero mean Gaussian random functions resulting from Taylor’s theorem with integral remainder:

R1(z,w)subscript𝑅1𝑧𝑤\displaystyle R_{1}(z,w)italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) =012F(z+t(wz))(1t)dt,absentsuperscriptsubscript01superscript2𝐹𝑧𝑡𝑤𝑧1𝑡𝑑𝑡\displaystyle=\int_{0}^{1}\partial^{2}F(z+t(w-z))(1-t)dt,= ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z + italic_t ( italic_w - italic_z ) ) ( 1 - italic_t ) italic_d italic_t ,
R2(z,w)subscript𝑅2𝑧𝑤\displaystyle R_{2}(z,w)italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) =201¯F(z+t(wz))(1t)dt,absent2superscriptsubscript01¯𝐹𝑧𝑡𝑤𝑧1𝑡𝑑𝑡\displaystyle=2\int_{0}^{1}\partial\bar{\partial}F(z+t(w-z))(1-t)dt,= 2 ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z + italic_t ( italic_w - italic_z ) ) ( 1 - italic_t ) italic_d italic_t ,
R3(z,w)subscript𝑅3𝑧𝑤\displaystyle R_{3}(z,w)italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) =01¯2F(z+t(wz))(1t)𝑑t.absentsuperscriptsubscript01superscript¯2𝐹𝑧𝑡𝑤𝑧1𝑡differential-d𝑡\displaystyle=\int_{0}^{1}\bar{\partial}^{2}F(z+t(w-z))(1-t)dt.= ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z + italic_t ( italic_w - italic_z ) ) ( 1 - italic_t ) italic_d italic_t .

We introduce for v,|v|=1formulae-sequence𝑣𝑣1v\in\mathbb{C},|v|=1italic_v ∈ blackboard_C , | italic_v | = 1 the notation

(6.15) vF(z)=vF(z)+v¯¯F(z)subscript𝑣𝐹𝑧𝑣𝐹𝑧¯𝑣¯𝐹𝑧\displaystyle\partial_{v}F(z)=v\partial F(z)+\bar{v}\bar{\partial}F(z)∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_v ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) + over¯ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z )

for the corresponding directional derivative. Considering the unit vector v:=(zw)/|zw|assign𝑣𝑧𝑤𝑧𝑤v:=(z-w)/|z-w|italic_v := ( italic_z - italic_w ) / | italic_z - italic_w |, this allows us to rewrite (6.14) as

(6.16) vF(z)subscript𝑣𝐹𝑧\displaystyle\partial_{v}F(z)∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) =F(w)F(z)|zw|(zw)2|zw|R1(z,w)|zw|R2(z,w)(zw)¯2|zw|R3(z,w).absent𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑤superscript𝑧𝑤2𝑧𝑤subscript𝑅1𝑧𝑤𝑧𝑤subscript𝑅2𝑧𝑤superscript¯𝑧𝑤2𝑧𝑤subscript𝑅3𝑧𝑤\displaystyle=\frac{F(w)-F(z)}{|z-w|}-\frac{(z-w)^{2}}{|z-w|}R_{1}(z,w)-|z-w|R% _{2}(z,w)-\frac{\overline{(z-w)}^{2}}{|z-w|}R_{3}(z,w).= divide start_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) - italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_z - italic_w | end_ARG - divide start_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | italic_z - italic_w | end_ARG italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) - | italic_z - italic_w | italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) - divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | italic_z - italic_w | end_ARG italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) .

Furthermore, in the orthogonal coordinate system {v,iv}𝑣𝑖𝑣\{v,-iv\}{ italic_v , - italic_i italic_v }, the Jacobian of F𝐹Fitalic_F can be rewritten as:

(6.17) detDF(z)=|F(z)|2|¯F(z)|2=Im(vF(z)ivF(z)¯),z,|v|=1.formulae-sequence𝐷𝐹𝑧superscript𝐹𝑧2superscript¯𝐹𝑧2Imsubscript𝑣𝐹𝑧¯subscript𝑖𝑣𝐹𝑧formulae-sequence𝑧𝑣1\displaystyle\det DF(z)=|\partial F(z)|^{2}-|\bar{\partial}F(z)|^{2}=\mathrm{% Im}\Big{(}\partial_{v}F(z)\overline{\partial_{-iv}F(z)}\Big{)},\quad z\in% \mathbb{C},|v|=1.roman_det italic_D italic_F ( italic_z ) = | ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_Im ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ) , italic_z ∈ blackboard_C , | italic_v | = 1 .

Noting that we condition on the event F(z)=F(w)=u𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢F(z)=F(w)=uitalic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_F ( italic_w ) = italic_u, we can thus bound the left-hand side in (6.13) as

(6.18) 𝔼(|det(DF(z))|2|F(z)=F(w)=u)𝔼conditionalsuperscript𝐷𝐹𝑧2𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\left(|\det(DF(z))|^{2}\,\big{|}\,F(z)=F(w)=u\right)blackboard_E ( | roman_det ( start_ARG italic_D italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_F ( italic_w ) = italic_u )
𝔼((|R1(z,w)|+|R2(z,w)|+|R3(z,w)|)2(|F(z)|+|¯F(z)|)2|F(z)=F(w)=u)|zw|2.absent𝔼conditionalsuperscriptsubscript𝑅1𝑧𝑤subscript𝑅2𝑧𝑤subscript𝑅3𝑧𝑤2superscript𝐹𝑧¯𝐹𝑧2𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢superscript𝑧𝑤2\displaystyle\quad\leq\mathbb{E}\Big{(}\big{(}\big{\lvert}R_{1}(z,w)\big{% \rvert}+\big{\lvert}R_{2}(z,w)\big{\rvert}+\big{\lvert}R_{3}(z,w)\big{\rvert}% \big{)}^{2}\big{(}\lvert\partial F(z)\rvert+\lvert\bar{\partial}F(z)\rvert\big% {)}^{2}\,\Big{|}\,F(z)=F(w)=u\Big{)}\cdot|z-w|^{2}.≤ blackboard_E ( ( | italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) | + | italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) | + | italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( | ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | + | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_F ( italic_w ) = italic_u ) ⋅ | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

It remains to bound the conditional expectation on the right-hand side of (6.18) by a constant that depends only on K𝐾Kitalic_K and the model.

Step 3. For a multi-index α=(α1,α2)𝛼subscript𝛼1subscript𝛼2\alpha=(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2})italic_α = ( italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), we denote (z,z¯)α=α1¯α2superscriptsubscript𝑧¯𝑧𝛼superscriptsubscript𝛼1superscript¯subscript𝛼2\partial_{(z,\bar{z})}^{\alpha}=\partial^{\alpha_{1}}\bar{\partial}^{\alpha_{2}}∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and let

(6.19) E:=α:|α|2supξK|(z,z¯)αF(ξ)|.assign𝐸subscript:𝛼𝛼2subscriptsupremum𝜉𝐾superscriptsubscript𝑧¯𝑧𝛼𝐹𝜉\displaystyle E:=\sum_{\alpha:|\alpha|\leq 2}\sup_{\xi\in K}|\partial_{(z,\bar% {z})}^{\alpha}F(\xi)|.italic_E := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α : | italic_α | ≤ 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ ∈ italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_ξ ) | .

Note that the functions Rjsubscript𝑅𝑗R_{j}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in (6.14), as well as F(z)𝐹𝑧\partial F(z)∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) and ¯F(z)¯𝐹𝑧\bar{\partial}F(z)over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ), satisfy

(6.20) |X|E,X{F(z),¯F(z),R1(z,w),R2(z,w),R3(z,w)}.formulae-sequenceless-than-or-similar-to𝑋𝐸𝑋𝐹𝑧¯𝐹𝑧subscript𝑅1𝑧𝑤subscript𝑅2𝑧𝑤subscript𝑅3𝑧𝑤\displaystyle|X|\lesssim E,\qquad X\in\{\partial F(z),\bar{\partial}F(z),R_{1}% (z,w),R_{2}(z,w),R_{3}(z,w)\}.| italic_X | ≲ italic_E , italic_X ∈ { ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) , over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) } .

We will show that for p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1

(6.21) 𝔼[Ep]CK,p.𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝐸𝑝subscript𝐶𝐾𝑝\displaystyle\mathbb{E}[E^{p}]\leq C_{K,p}.blackboard_E [ italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Let us first fix a multi-index α𝛼\alphaitalic_α with |α|2𝛼2|\alpha|\leq 2| italic_α | ≤ 2 and set

Lα(ξ,χ):=𝔼[(z,z¯)αF(ξ)(z,z¯)αF(χ)¯],ξ,χK.formulae-sequenceassignsuperscript𝐿𝛼𝜉𝜒𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑧¯𝑧𝛼𝐹𝜉¯superscriptsubscript𝑧¯𝑧𝛼𝐹𝜒𝜉𝜒𝐾L^{\alpha}(\xi,\chi):=\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\,\partial_{(z,\bar{z})}^{\alpha}F(\xi)% \cdot\overline{\partial_{(z,\bar{z})}^{\alpha}F(\chi)}\,\Big{]},\qquad\xi,\chi% \in K.italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ξ , italic_χ ) := blackboard_E [ ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_ξ ) ⋅ over¯ start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_χ ) end_ARG ] , italic_ξ , italic_χ ∈ italic_K .

While we do not need an explicit expression for Lαsuperscript𝐿𝛼L^{\alpha}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we see as in Lemma 2.1, that we can exchange expectation and differentiation and the regularity assumption (1.14) on H𝐻Hitalic_H then implies that Lαsuperscript𝐿𝛼L^{\alpha}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is C2superscript𝐶2C^{2}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in the real sense. Thus, for ξ,χ𝜉𝜒\xi,\chiitalic_ξ , italic_χ in the compact domain K𝐾Kitalic_K,

(6.22) Var[(z,z¯)αF(ξ)]=Lα(ξ,ξ)CK,𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑧¯𝑧𝛼𝐹𝜉superscript𝐿𝛼𝜉𝜉subscript𝐶𝐾\displaystyle\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\partial_{(z,\bar{z})}^{\alpha}F(\xi)]=L^{% \alpha}(\xi,\xi)\leq C_{K},start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_ξ ) ] = italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ξ , italic_ξ ) ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(6.23) Var[(z,z¯)αF(ξ)(z,z¯)αF(χ)]=Lα(ξ,ξ)+Lα(χ,χ)2Re[Lα(ξ,χ)]CK|ξχ|.𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑧¯𝑧𝛼𝐹𝜉superscriptsubscript𝑧¯𝑧𝛼𝐹𝜒superscript𝐿𝛼𝜉𝜉superscript𝐿𝛼𝜒𝜒2superscript𝐿𝛼𝜉𝜒subscript𝐶𝐾𝜉𝜒\displaystyle\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\partial_{(z,\bar{z})}^{\alpha}F(\xi)-% \partial_{(z,\bar{z})}^{\alpha}F(\chi)]=L^{\alpha}(\xi,\xi)+L^{\alpha}(\chi,% \chi)-2\real[L^{\alpha}(\xi,\chi)]\leq C_{K}|\xi-\chi|.start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_ξ ) - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_χ ) ] = italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ξ , italic_ξ ) + italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_χ , italic_χ ) - 2 start_OPERATOR roman_Re end_OPERATOR [ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ξ , italic_χ ) ] ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_ξ - italic_χ | .

(The second estimate can be improved but this is not important for us).

We shall invoke Dudley’s inequality [5, Theorem 2.10] [1, Theorem 1.3.3], which estimates supξK|(z,z¯)αF(ξ)|subscriptsupremum𝜉𝐾superscriptsubscript𝑧¯𝑧𝛼𝐹𝜉\sup_{\xi\in K}|\partial_{(z,\bar{z})}^{\alpha}F(\xi)|roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ ∈ italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_ξ ) | in terms of the covering number of K𝐾Kitalic_K with respect to the so-called canonical distance (Var[(z,z¯)αF(ξ)αF(χ)])1/2superscript𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑧¯𝑧𝛼𝐹𝜉superscript𝛼𝐹𝜒12\big{(}\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\partial_{(z,\bar{z})}^{\alpha}F(\xi)-\partial^{% \alpha}F(\chi)]\big{)}^{1/2}( start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_ξ ) - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_χ ) ] ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. By (6.23), we can bound the logarithm of the covering number in question by a constant times the logarithm of the covering number associated with the Euclidean distance. Hence, Dudley’s inequality implies that

𝔼[supξK|(z,z¯)αF(ξ)|]CK.𝔼delimited-[]subscriptsupremum𝜉𝐾superscriptsubscript𝑧¯𝑧𝛼𝐹𝜉subscript𝐶𝐾\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\sup_{\xi\in K}|\partial_{(z,\bar{z})}^{\alpha}F% (\xi)|\big{]}\leq C_{K}.blackboard_E [ roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ ∈ italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_ξ ) | ] ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Due to the Borell-TIS inequality [5, Theorem 2.9] [1, Theorem 2.1.1], the previous estimate, together with (6.22) yields

[supξK|(z,z¯)αF(ξ)|>t]CKexp[cKt2],t0,formulae-sequencedelimited-[]subscriptsupremum𝜉𝐾superscriptsubscript𝑧¯𝑧𝛼𝐹𝜉𝑡subscript𝐶𝐾subscript𝑐𝐾superscript𝑡2𝑡0\displaystyle\mathbb{P}\big{[}\sup_{\xi\in K}|\partial_{(z,\bar{z})}^{\alpha}F% (\xi)|>t\big{]}\leq C_{K}\exp[-c_{K}t^{2}],\qquad t\geq 0,blackboard_P [ roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ ∈ italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_ξ ) | > italic_t ] ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_exp [ - italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] , italic_t ≥ 0 ,

which readily gives (6.21).

Step 4. We show that for X{F(z),¯F(z),R1(z,w),R2(z,w),R3(z,w)}𝑋𝐹𝑧¯𝐹𝑧subscript𝑅1𝑧𝑤subscript𝑅2𝑧𝑤subscript𝑅3𝑧𝑤X\in\{\partial F(z),\bar{\partial}F(z),R_{1}(z,w),R_{2}(z,w),R_{3}(z,w)\}italic_X ∈ { ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) , over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) } the following estimate holds

(6.24) |𝔼[X|F(z)=F(w)=u]|CK.\displaystyle\big{|}\mathbb{E}\big{[}X\,|\,F(z)=F(w)=u]\big{|}\leq C_{K}.| blackboard_E [ italic_X | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_F ( italic_w ) = italic_u ] | ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

The conditional expectation in question is the expectation of a certain Gaussian vector ZXsubscript𝑍𝑋Z_{X}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT—defined by Gaussian regression applied to the (zero mean, circularly symmetric) Gaussian vector (X,F(z),F(w))𝑋𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤(X,F(z),F(w))( italic_X , italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) ) [5, Proposition 1.2]. Specifically, the conditional mean is

(6.25) 𝔼[ZX]=(Cov[X,F(z)],Cov[X,F(w)])Γ1(z,w)(u,u),𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝑋Cov𝑋𝐹𝑧Cov𝑋𝐹𝑤superscriptΓ1𝑧𝑤superscript𝑢𝑢\displaystyle\mathbb{E}[Z_{X}]=\big{(}\operatorname{Cov}[X,F(z)],\operatorname% {Cov}[X,F(w)]\big{)}\cdot\Gamma^{-1}(z,w)\cdot(u,u)^{\intercal},blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = ( roman_Cov [ italic_X , italic_F ( italic_z ) ] , roman_Cov [ italic_X , italic_F ( italic_w ) ] ) ⋅ roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ⋅ ( italic_u , italic_u ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊺ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where we identify 21×2similar-tosuperscript2superscript12\mathbb{C}^{2}\sim\mathbb{C}^{1\times 2}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∼ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 × 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We split the last expression as

(6.26) 𝔼[ZX]=(Cov[X,F(w)],Cov[X,F(w)])Γ1(z,w)(u,u)+(Cov[X,F(z)F(w)],0)Γ1(z,w)(u,u).𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝑋absentlimit-fromCov𝑋𝐹𝑤Cov𝑋𝐹𝑤superscriptΓ1𝑧𝑤superscript𝑢𝑢missing-subexpressionCov𝑋𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤0superscriptΓ1𝑧𝑤superscript𝑢𝑢\displaystyle\begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}[Z_{X}]&=\big{(}\operatorname{Cov}[X,F(% w)],\operatorname{Cov}[X,F(w)]\big{)}\cdot\Gamma^{-1}(z,w)\cdot(u,u)^{% \intercal}\,+\\ &\qquad\qquad\big{(}\operatorname{Cov}[X,F(z)-F(w)],0\big{)}\cdot\Gamma^{-1}(z% ,w)\cdot(u,u)^{\intercal}.\end{aligned}start_ROW start_CELL blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] end_CELL start_CELL = ( roman_Cov [ italic_X , italic_F ( italic_w ) ] , roman_Cov [ italic_X , italic_F ( italic_w ) ] ) ⋅ roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ⋅ ( italic_u , italic_u ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊺ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL ( roman_Cov [ italic_X , italic_F ( italic_z ) - italic_F ( italic_w ) ] , 0 ) ⋅ roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ⋅ ( italic_u , italic_u ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊺ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . end_CELL end_ROW

We first recall that by (6.21) and (6.20), Var[X],Var[F(z)],Var[F(w)]CK𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]𝑋𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]𝐹𝑧𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]𝐹𝑤subscript𝐶𝐾\mathop{Var}\nolimits[X],\mathop{Var}\nolimits[F(z)],\mathop{Var}\nolimits[F(w% )]\leq C_{K}start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_X ] , start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_F ( italic_z ) ] , start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_F ( italic_w ) ] ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and consequently also |Cov[X,F(z)]|,|Cov[X,F(w)]|CKCov𝑋𝐹𝑧Cov𝑋𝐹𝑤subscript𝐶𝐾|\operatorname{Cov}[X,F(z)]|,|\operatorname{Cov}[X,F(w)]|\leq C_{K}| roman_Cov [ italic_X , italic_F ( italic_z ) ] | , | roman_Cov [ italic_X , italic_F ( italic_w ) ] | ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Thus, the first term on the right-hand side of (6.26) can be estimated with Lemma 6.1 as

|(Cov[X,F(w)],Cov[X,F(w)])Γ1(z,w)(u,u)|Cov𝑋𝐹𝑤Cov𝑋𝐹𝑤superscriptΓ1𝑧𝑤superscript𝑢𝑢\displaystyle\left|\big{(}\operatorname{Cov}[X,F(w)],\operatorname{Cov}[X,F(w)% ]\big{)}\cdot\Gamma^{-1}(z,w)\cdot(u,u)^{\intercal}\right|| ( roman_Cov [ italic_X , italic_F ( italic_w ) ] , roman_Cov [ italic_X , italic_F ( italic_w ) ] ) ⋅ roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ⋅ ( italic_u , italic_u ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊺ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT |
|Cov[X,F(w)]||u||(1,1)Γ1(z,w)(1,1)|CK.absentCov𝑋𝐹𝑤𝑢11superscriptΓ1𝑧𝑤superscript11subscript𝐶𝐾\displaystyle\qquad\leq\left|\operatorname{Cov}[X,F(w)]\right|\cdot|u|\cdot% \left|(1,1)\cdot\Gamma^{-1}(z,w)\cdot(1,1)^{\intercal}\right|\leq C_{K}.≤ | roman_Cov [ italic_X , italic_F ( italic_w ) ] | ⋅ | italic_u | ⋅ | ( 1 , 1 ) ⋅ roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ⋅ ( 1 , 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊺ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Similarly, we use Lemma 6.1 to estimate the second term on the right-hand side of (6.26) as

|(Cov[X,F(z)F(w)],0)Γ1(z,w)(u,u)|Cov𝑋𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤0superscriptΓ1𝑧𝑤superscript𝑢𝑢\displaystyle\left|\big{(}\operatorname{Cov}[X,F(z)-F(w)],0\big{)}\cdot\Gamma^% {-1}(z,w)\cdot(u,u)^{\intercal}\right|| ( roman_Cov [ italic_X , italic_F ( italic_z ) - italic_F ( italic_w ) ] , 0 ) ⋅ roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ⋅ ( italic_u , italic_u ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊺ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT |
|Cov[X,F(z)F(w)]||u||Γ1(z,w)(1,1)|absentCov𝑋𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢superscriptΓ1𝑧𝑤superscript11\displaystyle\qquad\leq\left|\operatorname{Cov}[X,F(z)-F(w)]\right|\cdot|u|% \cdot\left|\Gamma^{-1}(z,w)\cdot(1,1)^{\intercal}\right|≤ | roman_Cov [ italic_X , italic_F ( italic_z ) - italic_F ( italic_w ) ] | ⋅ | italic_u | ⋅ | roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ⋅ ( 1 , 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊺ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT |
Var[X]1/2Var[F(z)F(w)]1/2|u||Γ1(z,w)(1,1)|CK,absent𝑉𝑎𝑟superscriptdelimited-[]𝑋12𝑉𝑎𝑟superscriptdelimited-[]𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤12𝑢superscriptΓ1𝑧𝑤superscript11subscript𝐶𝐾\displaystyle\qquad\leq\mathop{Var}\nolimits[X]^{1/2}\cdot\mathop{Var}% \nolimits\big{[}F(z)-F(w)\big{]}^{1/2}\cdot|u|\cdot\left|\Gamma^{-1}(z,w)\cdot% (1,1)^{\intercal}\right|\leq C_{K},≤ start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_X ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_F ( italic_z ) - italic_F ( italic_w ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ | italic_u | ⋅ | roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) ⋅ ( 1 , 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊺ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

which finishes the proof of (6.24).

Step 5. We finally show that for every p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1 and X{F(z),¯F(z),R1(z,w),R2(z,w),R3(z,w)}𝑋𝐹𝑧¯𝐹𝑧subscript𝑅1𝑧𝑤subscript𝑅2𝑧𝑤subscript𝑅3𝑧𝑤X\in\{\partial F(z),\bar{\partial}F(z),R_{1}(z,w),R_{2}(z,w),R_{3}(z,w)\}italic_X ∈ { ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) , over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_w ) } the following estimate holds

(6.27) 𝔼[|X|p|F(z)=F(w)=u]Cp,K.𝔼delimited-[]conditionalsuperscript𝑋𝑝𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢subscript𝐶𝑝𝐾\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}|X|^{p}\,|\,F(z)=F(w)=u]\leq C_{p,K}.blackboard_E [ | italic_X | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_F ( italic_w ) = italic_u ] ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

This then can be combined with (6.18) and concludes the proof of (6.10).

First note that we want to bound the p𝑝pitalic_p-th absolute moment of the vector ZXsubscript𝑍𝑋Z_{X}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT described in Step 4. Its expectation is bounded as in (6.24) while its variance satisfies

Var[ZX]Var[X],Vardelimited-[]subscript𝑍𝑋Vardelimited-[]𝑋\displaystyle\mathrm{Var}[Z_{X}]\leq\mathrm{Var}[X],roman_Var [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ≤ roman_Var [ italic_X ] ,

because the conditional expectation map is an orthogonal projection. On the other hand, by (6.20) and (6.24),

Var[X]𝔼[E2]CK.less-than-or-similar-toVardelimited-[]𝑋𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝐸2subscript𝐶𝐾\mathrm{Var}[X]\lesssim\mathbb{E}[E^{2}]\leq C_{K}.roman_Var [ italic_X ] ≲ blackboard_E [ italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Since ZXsubscript𝑍𝑋Z_{X}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is normally distributed, it follows that

𝔼[|X|p|F(z)=F(w)=u]=𝔼[|ZX|p]|𝔼[ZX]|p+[Var[ZX]]p/2CK,p.𝔼delimited-[]conditionalsuperscript𝑋𝑝𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑢𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑍𝑋𝑝less-than-or-similar-tosuperscript𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝑋𝑝superscriptdelimited-[]Vardelimited-[]subscript𝑍𝑋𝑝2subscript𝐶𝐾𝑝\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}|X|^{p}\,|\,F(z)=F(w)=u]=\mathbb{E}\big{[}|Z_{X}% |^{p}]\lesssim\left|\mathbb{E}\big{[}Z_{X}]\right|^{p}+\left[\mathrm{Var}\big{% [}Z_{X}]\right]^{p/2}\leq C_{K,p}.blackboard_E [ | italic_X | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_F ( italic_w ) = italic_u ] = blackboard_E [ | italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≲ | blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + [ roman_Var [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

This proves (6.27).

Step 6. Finally, we prove the bound for the one-point function. This is significantly easier, as the probability density function pF(z)(u)subscript𝑝𝐹𝑧𝑢p_{F(z)}(u)italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) can be bounded by a constant and, thus, we only have to bound the conditional expectation in (6.8) by a constant CKsubscript𝐶𝐾C_{K}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Let zK𝑧𝐾z\in Kitalic_z ∈ italic_K, write detDF(z)=|F(z)|2|¯F(z)|2𝐷𝐹𝑧superscript𝐹𝑧2superscript¯𝐹𝑧2\det DF(z)=|\partial F(z)|^{2}-|\bar{\partial}F(z)|^{2}roman_det italic_D italic_F ( italic_z ) = | ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and estimate

𝔼[|detDF(z)||F(z)=u]𝔼[|F(z)|2|F(z)=u]+𝔼[|¯F(z)|2|F(z)=u]𝔼delimited-[]conditional𝐷𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝑢𝔼delimited-[]conditionalsuperscript𝐹𝑧2𝐹𝑧𝑢𝔼delimited-[]conditionalsuperscript¯𝐹𝑧2𝐹𝑧𝑢\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\left[|\det DF(z)|\,\big{|}\,F(z)=u\right]\leq\mathbb{E% }\left[|\partial F(z)|^{2}\,\big{|}\,F(z)=u\right]+\mathbb{E}\left[|\bar{% \partial}F(z)|^{2}\,\big{|}\,F(z)=u\right]blackboard_E [ | roman_det italic_D italic_F ( italic_z ) | | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u ] ≤ blackboard_E [ | ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u ] + blackboard_E [ | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u ]
|𝔼[F(z)|F(z)=u]|2+|𝔼[¯F(z)|F(z)=u]|2\displaystyle\quad\lesssim\left|\mathbb{E}\left[\partial F(z)\,\big{|}\,F(z)=u% \right]\right|^{2}+\left|\mathbb{E}\left[\bar{\partial}F(z)\,\big{|}\,F(z)=u% \right]\right|^{2}≲ | blackboard_E [ ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u ] | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | blackboard_E [ over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u ] | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+Var[F(z)|F(z)=u]+Var[¯F(z)|F(z)=u]𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]conditional𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝑢𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]conditional¯𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝑢\displaystyle\qquad\qquad+\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\partial F(z)\,|\,F(z)=u]+% \mathop{Var}\nolimits[\bar{\partial}F(z)\,|\,F(z)=u]+ start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u ] + start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u ]
|𝔼[F(z)|F(z)=u]|2+|𝔼[¯F(z)|F(z)=u]|2+Var[F(z)]+Var[¯F(z)].\displaystyle\quad\leq\left|\mathbb{E}\left[\partial F(z)\,\big{|}\,F(z)=u% \right]\right|^{2}+\left|\mathbb{E}\left[\bar{\partial}F(z)\,\big{|}\,F(z)=u% \right]\right|^{2}+\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\partial F(z)]+\mathop{Var}\nolimits[% \bar{\partial}F(z)].≤ | blackboard_E [ ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u ] | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | blackboard_E [ over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u ] | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) ] + start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) ] .

As in Step 2, Var[F(z)]+Var[¯F(z)]CK𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]𝐹𝑧𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]¯𝐹𝑧subscript𝐶𝐾\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\partial F(z)]+\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\bar{\partial}F(z)]% \leq C_{K}start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) ] + start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) ] ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In addition,

𝔼[F(z)|F(z)=u]=Var[F(z)]1Cov[F(z),F(z)]u,𝔼delimited-[]conditional𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝑢𝑉𝑎𝑟superscriptdelimited-[]𝐹𝑧1Cov𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝑢\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\left[\partial F(z)\,\big{|}\,F(z)=u\right]=\mathop{Var% }\nolimits[F(z)]^{-1}\operatorname{Cov}[F(z),\partial F(z)]u,blackboard_E [ ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u ] = start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_F ( italic_z ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Cov [ italic_F ( italic_z ) , ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) ] italic_u ,
𝔼[¯F(z)|F(z)=u]=Var[F(z)]1Cov[F(z),¯F(z)]u.𝔼delimited-[]conditional¯𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝑢𝑉𝑎𝑟superscriptdelimited-[]𝐹𝑧1Cov𝐹𝑧¯𝐹𝑧𝑢\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\left[\bar{\partial}F(z)\,\big{|}\,F(z)=u\right]=% \mathop{Var}\nolimits[F(z)]^{-1}\operatorname{Cov}[F(z),\bar{\partial}F(z)]u.blackboard_E [ over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u ] = start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_F ( italic_z ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Cov [ italic_F ( italic_z ) , over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) ] italic_u .

Finally, note that Var[F(z)]=1𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]𝐹𝑧1\mathop{Var}\nolimits[F(z)]=1start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_F ( italic_z ) ] = 1 while |Cov[F(z),F(z)]|Var[F(z)]1/2CKCov𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧𝑉𝑎𝑟superscriptdelimited-[]𝐹𝑧12subscript𝐶𝐾|\operatorname{Cov}[F(z),\partial F(z)]|\leq\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\partial F(z% )]^{1/2}\leq C_{K}| roman_Cov [ italic_F ( italic_z ) , ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) ] | ≤ start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and similarly |Cov[F(z),¯F(z)]|CKCov𝐹𝑧¯𝐹𝑧subscript𝐶𝐾|\operatorname{Cov}[F(z),\bar{\partial}F(z)]|\leq C_{K}| roman_Cov [ italic_F ( italic_z ) , over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) ] | ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This shows that ρ(z,u)CK𝜌𝑧𝑢subscript𝐶𝐾\rho(z,u)\leq C_{K}italic_ρ ( italic_z , italic_u ) ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. ∎

Remark 6.3.

Step 5 in the previous proof is somehow analogous to the estimate on Taylor expansions for stationary processes in [40, Proposition 1]; see also [18, Appendix A].

We can now prove that moments of level crossing statistics are continuous at the origin.

Theorem 6.4.

Under the hypothesis of Proposition 6.2, let Nu(K):=#{zK:F(z)=u}assignsubscript𝑁𝑢𝐾#conditional-set𝑧𝐾𝐹𝑧𝑢N_{u}(K):=\#\{z\in K:F(z)=u\}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) := # { italic_z ∈ italic_K : italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u }. Then

(6.28) limu0𝔼[Nu(K)]=𝔼[N0(K)],subscript𝑢0𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑁𝑢𝐾𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑁0𝐾\displaystyle\lim_{u\to 0}\mathbb{E}\big{[}N_{u}(K)\big{]}=\mathbb{E}\big{[}N_% {0}(K)\big{]},roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u → 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) ] = blackboard_E [ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) ] ,
(6.29) limu0𝔼[(Nu(K))2]=𝔼[(N0(K))2],subscript𝑢0𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑁𝑢𝐾2𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑁0𝐾2\displaystyle\lim_{u\to 0}\mathbb{E}\big{[}(N_{u}(K))^{2}\big{]}=\mathbb{E}% \big{[}(N_{0}(K))^{2}\big{]},roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u → 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = blackboard_E [ ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ,
(6.30) sup|u|1𝔼[(Nu(K))]2<.subscriptsupremum𝑢1𝔼superscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝑁𝑢𝐾2\displaystyle\sup_{|u|\leq 1}\mathbb{E}\big{[}(N_{u}(K))\big{]}^{2}<\infty.roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u | ≤ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < ∞ .
Proof.

We consider the intensity functions (6.8), (6.9). The conditional expectations defining these functions have explicit expressions [5, Proposition 1.2] in terms of the C2superscript𝐶2C^{2}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-smooth vector (F(z),F(w))𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤(F(z),F(w))( italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) ) and the C6superscript𝐶6C^{6}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-smooth matrix

Cov(F(z),F(w),F(z),F(w),¯F(z),¯F(w)),Cov𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤¯𝐹𝑧¯𝐹𝑤\operatorname{Cov}(F(z),F(w),\partial F(z),\partial F(w),\bar{\partial}F(z),% \bar{\partial}F(w)),roman_Cov ( italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) , ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) , ∂ italic_F ( italic_w ) , over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) , over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_w ) ) ,

which show that limu0ρ(z,u)=ρ(z,0)subscript𝑢0𝜌𝑧𝑢𝜌𝑧0\lim_{u\to 0}\rho(z,u)=\rho(z,0)roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u → 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ ( italic_z , italic_u ) = italic_ρ ( italic_z , 0 ) and, for zw𝑧𝑤z\not=witalic_z ≠ italic_w, limu0τ(z,w,u)=τ(z,w,0)subscript𝑢0𝜏𝑧𝑤𝑢𝜏𝑧𝑤0\lim_{u\to 0}\tau(z,w,u)=\tau(z,w,0)roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u → 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ ( italic_z , italic_w , italic_u ) = italic_τ ( italic_z , italic_w , 0 ).

On the other hand, the Kac-Rice formulae [5, Theorems 6.2 and 6.3] provide the representations

(6.31) 𝔼[Nu(K)]=Kρ(z,u)𝑑A(z),𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑁𝑢𝐾subscript𝐾𝜌𝑧𝑢differential-d𝐴𝑧\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}N_{u}(K)\big{]}=\int_{K}\rho(z,u)\,dA(z),blackboard_E [ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) ] = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ ( italic_z , italic_u ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ,
(6.32) 𝔼[Nu(K)2Nu(K)]=K×Kτ(z,w,u)𝑑A(z,w).𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑁𝑢superscript𝐾2subscript𝑁𝑢𝐾subscript𝐾𝐾𝜏𝑧𝑤𝑢differential-d𝐴𝑧𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}N_{u}(K)^{2}-N_{u}(K)\big{]}=\int_{K\times K}% \tau(z,w,u)\,dA(z,w).blackboard_E [ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) ] = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K × italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ ( italic_z , italic_w , italic_u ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z , italic_w ) .

(The formulae are applicable because F𝐹Fitalic_F has C2superscript𝐶2C^{2}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT paths; each F(z)𝐹𝑧F(z)italic_F ( italic_z ) is a standard normal variable; for zw𝑧𝑤z\not=witalic_z ≠ italic_w the vector (F(z),F(w))𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤(F(z),F(w))( italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_w ) ) has non-singular covariance; while Lemma 3.1 shows that zeros are almost surely non-degenerate.)

The uniform bound in Proposition 6.2 then allows us exchange 𝔼𝔼\mathbb{E}blackboard_E and limu0subscript𝑢0\lim_{u\to 0}roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u → 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in (6.31) and (6.32) to obtain (6.28) and (6.29). Similarly, Proposition 6.2 provides bounds for (6.31) and (6.32) which readily implies (6.30). ∎

Remark 6.5.

The analog of Theorem 6.4 for stationary processes follows by direct inspection of explicit formulae for the point intensities, see, e.g., [41].

6.3. Quadratic convergence of level crossing statistics

We can now prove that level crossing statistics are continuous in quadratic mean.

Lemma 6.6.

Under the hypothesis of Proposition 6.2, let Nu(K):=#{zK:F(z)=u}assignsubscript𝑁𝑢𝐾#conditional-set𝑧𝐾𝐹𝑧𝑢N_{u}(K):=\#\{z\in K:F(z)=u\}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) := # { italic_z ∈ italic_K : italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u }. Then 𝔼|Nu(K)N0(K)|20𝔼superscriptsubscript𝑁𝑢𝐾subscript𝑁0𝐾20\mathbb{E}|N_{u}(K)-N_{0}(K)|^{2}\to 0blackboard_E | italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) - italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → 0, as u0𝑢0u\to 0italic_u → 0.

Proof.

Let {uk:k1}conditional-setsubscript𝑢𝑘𝑘1\{u_{k}:k\geq 1\}\subset\mathbb{C}{ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_k ≥ 1 } ⊂ blackboard_C be an arbitrary sequence with uk0subscript𝑢𝑘0u_{k}\to 0italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0. Let us show that 𝔼[|Nuk(K)N0(K)|2]0𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑁subscript𝑢𝑘𝐾subscript𝑁0𝐾20\mathbb{E}\big{[}|N_{u_{k}}(K)-N_{0}(K)|^{2}\big{]}\to 0blackboard_E [ | italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) - italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] → 0 as k𝑘k\to\inftyitalic_k → ∞. By Theorem 6.4, 𝔼[(Nuk(K))2]𝔼[(N0(K))2]𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑁subscript𝑢𝑘𝐾2𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑁0𝐾2\mathbb{E}\big{[}(N_{u_{k}}(K))^{2}\big{]}\longrightarrow\mathbb{E}\big{[}(N_{% 0}(K))^{2}\big{]}blackboard_E [ ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ⟶ blackboard_E [ ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] as k𝑘k\to\inftyitalic_k → ∞. Hence, by the Brézis-Lieb Lemma [10, 42], it is enough to show that Nuk(K)N0(K)subscript𝑁subscript𝑢𝑘𝐾subscript𝑁0𝐾N_{u_{k}}(K)\to N_{0}(K)italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) → italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) almost surely. This is a standard argument [1, 5] and we just briefly sketch it.

By Lemma 3.1, the zeros of F𝐹Fitalic_F are almost surely non-degenerate, cf. (3.1). Fix one such realization of F𝐹Fitalic_F. Then the set {F=0}K𝐹0𝐾\{F=0\}\cap K{ italic_F = 0 } ∩ italic_K must be finite. In addition, by the inverse function theorem, around each zero z𝑧zitalic_z there is a neighborhood V(z)𝑉𝑧V(z)italic_V ( italic_z ) such that F:V(z)F(V(z)):𝐹𝑉𝑧𝐹𝑉𝑧F\colon V(z)\to F(V(z))italic_F : italic_V ( italic_z ) → italic_F ( italic_V ( italic_z ) ) is a homeomorphism. These neighborhoods can be assumed to be disjoint, and their union is denoted U𝑈Uitalic_U. For all sufficiently large k𝑘kitalic_k, the equation F(z)=uk𝐹𝑧subscript𝑢𝑘F(z)=u_{k}italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has a unique solution on each V(z)𝑉𝑧V(z)italic_V ( italic_z ) and therefore Nuk(K)N0(K)subscript𝑁subscript𝑢𝑘𝐾subscript𝑁0𝐾N_{u_{k}}(K)\geq N_{0}(K)italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) ≥ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ). On the other hand, suppose that, after passing to a subsequence of uksubscript𝑢𝑘u_{k}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, one can find solutions F(zk)=uk𝐹subscript𝑧𝑘subscript𝑢𝑘F(z_{k})=u_{k}italic_F ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with zkUsubscript𝑧𝑘𝑈z_{k}\notin Uitalic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∉ italic_U. After passing to a further subsequence, zkzKUsubscript𝑧𝑘subscript𝑧𝐾𝑈z_{k}\to z_{*}\in K\setminus Uitalic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_K ∖ italic_U, while, by continuity F(z)=0𝐹subscript𝑧0F(z_{*})=0italic_F ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 and therefore zUsubscript𝑧𝑈z_{*}\in Uitalic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_U. This contradiction concludes the proof. ∎

7. Chaos Expansion on the Complex Plane

7.1. Complex Hermite polynomials

We will employ the complex Hermite polynomials Hj,ksubscript𝐻𝑗𝑘H_{j,k}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, defined by the generating function identity as

euz+vz¯uv=j,k0ujvkj!k!Hj,k(z,z¯),z,formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑒𝑢𝑧𝑣¯𝑧𝑢𝑣subscript𝑗𝑘0superscript𝑢𝑗superscript𝑣𝑘𝑗𝑘subscript𝐻𝑗𝑘𝑧¯𝑧𝑧\displaystyle e^{uz+v\bar{z}-uv}=\sum_{j,k\geq 0}\frac{u^{j}v^{k}}{j!k!}H_{j,k% }(z,\bar{z}),\qquad z\in\mathbb{C},italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u italic_z + italic_v over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG - italic_u italic_v end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_j ! italic_k ! end_ARG italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) , italic_z ∈ blackboard_C ,

or, more explicitly, by

(7.1) Hj,k(z,z¯)=r=0min(j,k)(1)rr!(jr)(kr)zjrz¯kr,j,k0,formulae-sequencesubscript𝐻𝑗𝑘𝑧¯𝑧superscriptsubscript𝑟0𝑗𝑘superscript1𝑟𝑟binomial𝑗𝑟binomial𝑘𝑟superscript𝑧𝑗𝑟superscript¯𝑧𝑘𝑟𝑗𝑘0\displaystyle H_{j,k}(z,\bar{z})=\sum_{r=0}^{\min(j,k)}(-1)^{r}r!\binom{j}{r}% \binom{k}{r}z^{j-r}\bar{z}^{k-r},\qquad j,k\geq 0,italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_min ( italic_j , italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r ! ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_j end_ARG start_ARG italic_r end_ARG ) ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_r end_ARG ) italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j - italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_j , italic_k ≥ 0 ,

see, e.g., [34]. Using the explicit expression, Complex Hermite polynomials can be written in terms of associated Laguerre polynomials [34]. We shall only be interested in the following expression for diagonal index pairs:

(7.2) Hk,k(z,z¯)=(1)kk!Lk(|z|2),subscript𝐻𝑘𝑘𝑧¯𝑧superscript1𝑘𝑘subscript𝐿𝑘superscript𝑧2\displaystyle H_{k,k}(z,\bar{z})=(-1)^{k}k!L_{k}(|z|^{2}),italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k ! italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

where Lksubscript𝐿𝑘L_{k}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the standard Laguerre polynomial

(7.3) Lk(t)=j=0k(1)j(kj)tjj!.subscript𝐿𝑘𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑗0𝑘superscript1𝑗binomial𝑘𝑗superscript𝑡𝑗𝑗\displaystyle L_{k}(t)=\sum_{j=0}^{k}(-1)^{j}\binom{k}{j}\frac{t^{j}}{j!}.italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_j end_ARG ) divide start_ARG italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_j ! end_ARG .

Complex Hermite polynomials satisfy the orthogonality relation

Hj,k(z,z¯)Hl,m(z,z¯)¯e|z|2dA(z)π=j!k!δj=lδk=m,subscriptsubscript𝐻𝑗𝑘𝑧¯𝑧¯subscript𝐻𝑙𝑚𝑧¯𝑧superscript𝑒superscript𝑧2𝑑𝐴𝑧𝜋𝑗𝑘subscript𝛿𝑗𝑙subscript𝛿𝑘𝑚\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{C}}H_{j,k}(z,\bar{z})\overline{H_{l,m}(z,\bar{z})}e% ^{-|z|^{2}}\,\frac{dA(z)}{\pi}=j!k!\delta_{j=l}\delta_{k=m},∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) over¯ start_ARG italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l , italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_π end_ARG = italic_j ! italic_k ! italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

and they form an orthogonal basis of L2(,e|z|2dA(z)/π)superscript𝐿2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧2𝑑𝐴𝑧𝜋L^{2}\big{(}\mathbb{C},e^{-|z|^{2}}\,dA(z)/\pi\big{)}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_C , italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) / italic_π ). By (7.2), for any radial function fL2(,e|z|2dA(z)/π)𝑓superscript𝐿2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧2𝑑𝐴𝑧𝜋f\in L^{2}\big{(}\mathbb{C},e^{-|z|^{2}}\,dA(z)/\pi\big{)}italic_f ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_C , italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) / italic_π ) we have

f(z)=k0(1)kk!akHk,k(z,z¯)=k0akLk(|z|2),zformulae-sequence𝑓𝑧subscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘𝑘subscript𝑎𝑘subscript𝐻𝑘𝑘𝑧¯𝑧subscript𝑘0subscript𝑎𝑘subscript𝐿𝑘superscript𝑧2𝑧\displaystyle f(z)=\sum_{k\geq 0}\tfrac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}a_{k}H_{k,k}(z,\bar{z})=% \sum_{k\geq 0}a_{k}L_{k}(|z|^{2}),\qquad z\in\mathbb{C}italic_f ( italic_z ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k ! end_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_z ∈ blackboard_C

for adequate coefficients aksubscript𝑎𝑘a_{k}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Complex Hermite polynomials were discovered by [35] in the context of complex multiple Wiener integrals. They share many properties of standard Hermite polynomials [14] [34] [27]. To prove Theorem 1.2 we shall employ a so-called Wiener chaos expansion in complex Hermite polynomials, which is in many ways analogous to the more standard chaos expansion in real Hermite polynomials.

7.2. The planar chaos decomposition

Our presentation is based on Gaussian Hilbert spaces following Janson’s book [36], although we use somewhat different notation. He presents chaos decompositions in terms of Wick products rather than complex Hermite polynomials, which is just a notational difference.

Let F::𝐹F\colon\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}italic_F : blackboard_C → blackboard_C be a circularly symmetric Gaussian random function with underlying probability space (Ω,)Ω(\Omega,\mathbb{P})( roman_Ω , blackboard_P ), and consider the set of Gaussian variables

(7.4) S:={F(z),𝒟1F(z),𝒟2F(z):z}.assign𝑆conditional-set𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟1𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟2𝐹𝑧𝑧\displaystyle S:=\{F(z),\mathcal{D}_{1}F(z),\mathcal{D}_{2}F(z)\,:\,z\in% \mathbb{C}\}.italic_S := { italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) : italic_z ∈ blackboard_C } .

Let Ssubscript𝑆\mathcal{F}_{S}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the sigma-algebra generated by S𝑆Sitalic_S and G𝐺Gitalic_G the completion of the linear span of S𝑆Sitalic_S as a subspace of L2(Ω,S)superscript𝐿2Ωsubscript𝑆L^{2}(\Omega,\mathcal{F}_{S})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω , caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). The space G𝐺Gitalic_G, called the Gaussian space induced by S𝑆Sitalic_S, is a separable Hilbert space consisting of circularly symmetric complex Gaussian variables. Let {ξn}n=0,1,2,subscriptsubscript𝜉𝑛𝑛012\{\xi_{n}\}_{n=0,1,2,\ldots}{ italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 , 1 , 2 , … end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be some orthonormal basis of G𝐺Gitalic_G. Translated to our notation involving complex Hermite polynomials, Proposition 1.34 and Example 3.32 in [36] tell us that

(7.5) {k=01αk!βk!Hαk,βk(ξk,ξk¯):|α|,|β|<}conditional-setsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑘01subscript𝛼𝑘subscript𝛽𝑘subscript𝐻subscript𝛼𝑘subscript𝛽𝑘subscript𝜉𝑘¯subscript𝜉𝑘𝛼𝛽\displaystyle\bigg{\{}\prod_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha_{k}!\beta_{k}!% }}H_{\alpha_{k},\beta_{k}}(\xi_{k},\overline{\xi_{k}}):|\alpha|,|\beta|<\infty% \bigg{\}}{ ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ! italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ! end_ARG end_ARG italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) : | italic_α | , | italic_β | < ∞ }

is an orthonormal basis of L2(Ω,S)superscript𝐿2Ωsubscript𝑆L^{2}(\Omega,\mathcal{F}_{S})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω , caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Here α=(αk)k=0,1,2,,β=(βk)k=0,1,2,formulae-sequence𝛼subscriptsubscript𝛼𝑘𝑘012𝛽subscriptsubscript𝛽𝑘𝑘012\alpha=(\alpha_{k})_{k=0,1,2,\ldots},\beta=(\beta_{k})_{k=0,1,2,\ldots}italic_α = ( italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 , 1 , 2 , … end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_β = ( italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 , 1 , 2 , … end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are multi-indices, and we are using the notation |α|=kαk𝛼subscript𝑘subscript𝛼𝑘|\alpha|=\sum_{k}\alpha_{k}| italic_α | = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

The (M,N)𝑀𝑁(M,N)( italic_M , italic_N )’th chaotic subspace of L2(Ω,S)superscript𝐿2Ωsubscript𝑆L^{2}(\Omega,\mathcal{F}_{S})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω , caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is defined as

(7.6) CM,N=span¯{k=0Hαk,βk(ξk,ξk¯):|α|=M,|β|=N},N,M0formulae-sequencesubscript𝐶𝑀𝑁¯spanconditional-setsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑘0subscript𝐻subscript𝛼𝑘subscript𝛽𝑘subscript𝜉𝑘¯subscript𝜉𝑘formulae-sequence𝛼𝑀𝛽𝑁𝑁𝑀0\displaystyle C_{M,N}=\overline{\mathrm{span}}\bigg{\{}\prod_{k=0}^{\infty}H_{% \alpha_{k},\beta_{k}}(\xi_{k},\overline{\xi_{k}}):|\alpha|=M,|\beta|=N\bigg{\}% },\quad N,M\geq 0italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over¯ start_ARG roman_span end_ARG { ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) : | italic_α | = italic_M , | italic_β | = italic_N } , italic_N , italic_M ≥ 0

and we will denote the orthogonal projection onto CM,Nsubscript𝐶𝑀𝑁C_{M,N}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by QM,Nsubscript𝑄𝑀𝑁Q_{M,N}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We therefore have the following chaos decomposition:

(7.7) L2(Ω,S)=M,N0CM,N.superscript𝐿2Ωsubscript𝑆subscriptdirect-sum𝑀𝑁0subscript𝐶𝑀𝑁\displaystyle L^{2}(\Omega,\mathcal{F}_{S})=\bigoplus_{M,N\geq 0}C_{M,N}.italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω , caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ⨁ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

The decomposition is independent of the choice of the orthonormal basis of G𝐺Gitalic_G; for completeness, we provide a short argument for this fact in Section 10.3.

7.3. Chaos decomposition of number statistics

We now look into the chaotic components of the number statistic

N(B):=#{zB:F(z)=0}assign𝑁𝐵#conditional-set𝑧𝐵𝐹𝑧0\displaystyle N(B):=\#\{z\in B:F(z)=0\}italic_N ( italic_B ) := # { italic_z ∈ italic_B : italic_F ( italic_z ) = 0 }

associated with a GWHF F𝐹Fitalic_F and a test set B𝐵B\subset\mathbb{C}italic_B ⊂ blackboard_C.

This will be done by first considering certain regularized versions of N(B)𝑁𝐵N(B)italic_N ( italic_B ). Let χ:[0,+)[0,+):𝜒00\chi\colon[0,+\infty)\to[0,+\infty)italic_χ : [ 0 , + ∞ ) → [ 0 , + ∞ ) be smooth with supp(χ)[0,1]supp𝜒01\mathrm{supp}(\chi)\subset[0,1]roman_supp ( italic_χ ) ⊂ [ 0 , 1 ] and 0χ(t)𝑑t=1superscriptsubscript0𝜒𝑡differential-d𝑡1\int_{0}^{\infty}\chi(t)\,dt=1∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_χ ( italic_t ) italic_d italic_t = 1. For ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0, let

(7.8) χϵ(z)=1πϵ2χ(|z|2/ϵ2),z.formulae-sequencesubscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝑧1𝜋superscriptitalic-ϵ2𝜒superscript𝑧2superscriptitalic-ϵ2𝑧\displaystyle\chi_{\epsilon}(z)=\frac{1}{\pi\epsilon^{2}}\chi\left(|z|^{2}/% \epsilon^{2}\right),\qquad z\in\mathbb{C}.italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_χ ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_z ∈ blackboard_C .

Then χϵsubscript𝜒italic-ϵ\chi_{\epsilon}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is smooth, supp(χϵ)B¯ϵ(0)suppsubscript𝜒italic-ϵsubscript¯𝐵italic-ϵ0\mathrm{supp}(\chi_{\epsilon})\subset\bar{B}_{\epsilon}(0)roman_supp ( italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⊂ over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) and χϵ𝑑A=1subscript𝜒italic-ϵdifferential-d𝐴1\int\chi_{\epsilon}\,dA=1∫ italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_A = 1. We define the regularized variables Nϵ(B)superscript𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵N^{\epsilon}(B)italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) by

(7.9) Nϵ(B)=Bχϵ(F(z))||𝒟1F(z)|2|𝒟2F(z)|2|𝑑A(z).superscript𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵subscript𝐵subscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝐹𝑧superscriptsubscript𝒟1𝐹𝑧2superscriptsubscript𝒟2𝐹𝑧2differential-d𝐴𝑧\displaystyle N^{\epsilon}(B)=\int_{B}\chi_{\epsilon}(F(z))\big{|}|\mathcal{D}% _{1}F(z)|^{2}-|\mathcal{D}_{2}F(z)|^{2}\big{|}\,dA(z).italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_z ) ) | | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) .

Note that the expression involves the covariant Jacobian determinant |𝒟1F(z)|2|𝒟2F(z)|2superscriptsubscript𝒟1𝐹𝑧2superscriptsubscript𝒟2𝐹𝑧2|\mathcal{D}_{1}F(z)|^{2}-|\mathcal{D}_{2}F(z)|^{2}| caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT instead of the usual Euclidean Jacobian |F(z)|2|¯F(z)|2superscript𝐹𝑧2superscript¯𝐹𝑧2|\partial F(z)|^{2}-|\bar{\partial}F(z)|^{2}| ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

The following lemma, proved in Section 10.4, shows that Nϵ(B)L2(S)superscript𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵superscript𝐿2subscript𝑆N^{\epsilon}(B)\in L^{2}(\mathcal{F}_{S})italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

Lemma 7.1.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be a zero-mean GWHF satisfying the general assumptions. Let ϕ:3:italic-ϕsuperscript3\phi\colon\mathbb{C}^{3}\to\mathbb{C}italic_ϕ : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_C satisfy

|ϕ(ζ)ϕ(ζ)|C|ζζ|(1+|ζ|s+|ζ|s),ζ,ζ3,formulae-sequenceitalic-ϕ𝜁italic-ϕsuperscript𝜁𝐶𝜁superscript𝜁1superscript𝜁𝑠superscriptsuperscript𝜁𝑠𝜁superscript𝜁superscript3\displaystyle|\phi(\zeta)-\phi(\zeta^{\prime})|\leq C|\zeta-\zeta^{\prime}|(1+% |\zeta|^{s}+|\zeta^{\prime}|^{s}),\qquad\zeta,\zeta^{\prime}\in\mathbb{C}^{3},| italic_ϕ ( italic_ζ ) - italic_ϕ ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | ≤ italic_C | italic_ζ - italic_ζ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ( 1 + | italic_ζ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | italic_ζ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_ζ , italic_ζ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

for some constants C>0𝐶0C>0italic_C > 0 and s1𝑠1s\geq 1italic_s ≥ 1. Let B𝐵B\subset\mathbb{C}italic_B ⊂ blackboard_C be a bounded Borel set. For each n𝑛n\in\mathbb{N}italic_n ∈ blackboard_N consider a finite cover of B𝐵Bitalic_B by almost disjoint cubes Q1,QLnsubscript𝑄1subscript𝑄subscript𝐿𝑛Q_{1},\dots Q_{L_{n}}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with centers z1,,zLnsubscript𝑧1subscript𝑧subscript𝐿𝑛z_{1},\ldots,z_{L_{n}}italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and diameter 1/n1𝑛1/n1 / italic_n. Then

k=1Lnϕ(F(zk),𝒟1F(zk),𝒟2F(zk))|BQk|Bϕ(F(z),𝒟1F(z),𝒟2F(z))𝑑A(z)superscriptsubscript𝑘1subscript𝐿𝑛italic-ϕ𝐹subscript𝑧𝑘subscript𝒟1𝐹subscript𝑧𝑘subscript𝒟2𝐹subscript𝑧𝑘𝐵subscript𝑄𝑘subscript𝐵italic-ϕ𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟1𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟2𝐹𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑧\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{L_{n}}\phi\big{(}F(z_{k}),\mathcal{D}_{1}F(z_{k}),% \mathcal{D}_{2}F(z_{k})\big{)}\,\big{|}B\cap Q_{k}\big{|}\longrightarrow\int_{% B}\phi\big{(}F(z),\mathcal{D}_{1}F(z),\mathcal{D}_{2}F(z)\big{)}\,dA(z)∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ ( italic_F ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) | italic_B ∩ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ⟶ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ ( italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z )

in L2(d)superscript𝐿2dL^{2}(\mathrm{d}\mathbb{P})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_d blackboard_P ) as n𝑛n\to\inftyitalic_n → ∞, where the right-hand side is defined realization-wise.

We now show that the regularized number statistic converges in quadratic mean.

Proposition 7.2.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be a zero mean GWHF satisfying the general assumptions and let B𝐵B\subset\mathbb{C}italic_B ⊂ blackboard_C be a bounded Borel set. Then VarN(B)<𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑁𝐵\mathop{Var}\nolimits N(B)<\inftystart_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP italic_N ( italic_B ) < ∞ and

(7.10) Nϵ(B)N(B) in L2 as ϵ0+.superscript𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵𝑁𝐵 in superscript𝐿2 as italic-ϵsuperscript0\displaystyle N^{\epsilon}(B)\to N(B)\mbox{ in }L^{2}\mbox{ as }\epsilon\to 0^% {+}.italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) → italic_N ( italic_B ) in italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as italic_ϵ → 0 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Proof.

Step 1. Consider the Euclidean regularized statistic

N~ϵ(B)=Bχϵ(F(z))||F(z)|2|¯F(z)|2|𝑑A(z),superscript~𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵subscript𝐵subscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝐹𝑧superscript𝐹𝑧2superscript¯𝐹𝑧2differential-d𝐴𝑧\displaystyle\tilde{N}^{\epsilon}(B)=\int_{B}\chi_{\epsilon}(F(z))\big{|}|% \partial F(z)|^{2}-|\bar{\partial}F(z)|^{2}\big{|}\,dA(z),over~ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_z ) ) | | ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ,

where, in contrast to (7.9) we use the Euclidean Jacobian. Let us show that

(7.11) 𝔼[|N~ϵ(B)N(B)|2]0, as ϵ0+.formulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsuperscript~𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵𝑁𝐵20 as italic-ϵsuperscript0\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\big{|}\tilde{N}^{\epsilon}(B)-N(B)\big{|}^{2}% \big{]}\longrightarrow 0,\mbox{ as }\epsilon\to 0^{+}.blackboard_E [ | over~ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) - italic_N ( italic_B ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ⟶ 0 , as italic_ϵ → 0 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

To prove this, we take an arbitrary sequence ϵk0+subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑘superscript0\epsilon_{k}\to 0^{+}italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and consider the corresponding limit.

We shall invoke Lemma 6.6 and adopt its notation. By the area formula,

N~ϵk(B)=χϵk(u)Nu(B)𝑑A(u)=B1(0)χ1(u)Nϵku(B)𝑑A(u),superscript~𝑁subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑘𝐵subscriptsubscript𝜒subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑘𝑢subscript𝑁𝑢𝐵differential-d𝐴𝑢subscriptsubscript𝐵10subscript𝜒1𝑢subscript𝑁subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑘𝑢𝐵differential-d𝐴𝑢\displaystyle\tilde{N}^{\epsilon_{k}}(B)=\int_{\mathbb{C}}\chi_{\epsilon_{k}}(% u)N_{u}(B)\,dA(u)=\int_{B_{1}(0)}\chi_{1}(u)N_{\epsilon_{k}u}(B)\,dA(u),over~ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) ,

see, e.g., [5, Proposition 6.1.]. Consequently,

𝔼[|N~ϵk(B)N(B)|2]𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsuperscript~𝑁subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑘𝐵𝑁𝐵2\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}\tilde{N}^{\epsilon_{k}}(B)-N(B)\big{|}^{% 2}\Big{]}blackboard_E [ | over~ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) - italic_N ( italic_B ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] =𝔼[|B1(0)χ1(u)(Nϵku(B)N0(B))𝑑A(u)|2]absent𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝐵10subscript𝜒1𝑢subscript𝑁subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑘𝑢𝐵subscript𝑁0𝐵differential-d𝐴𝑢2\displaystyle=\mathbb{E}\bigg{[}\Big{|}\int_{B_{1}(0)}\chi_{1}(u)\big{(}N_{% \epsilon_{k}u}(B)-N_{0}(B)\big{)}\,dA(u)\Big{|}^{2}\bigg{]}= blackboard_E [ | ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) - italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ]
χ122B1(0)𝔼[|Nϵku(B)N0(B)|2]𝑑A(u).absentsuperscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝜒122subscriptsubscript𝐵10𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑁subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑘𝑢𝐵subscript𝑁0𝐵2differential-d𝐴𝑢\displaystyle\leq\|\chi_{1}\|_{2}^{2}\cdot\int_{B_{1}(0)}\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big% {|}N_{\epsilon_{k}u}(B)-N_{0}(B)\big{|}^{2}\Big{]}\,dA(u).≤ ∥ italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ | italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) - italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) .

The integrand in the last expression is bounded due to Theorem 6.4, and converges to 00 pointwise due to Lemma 6.6. Thus, the dominated convergence theorem yields (7.11).

Step 2. Let us show that

(7.12) 𝔼[|N~ϵ(B)Nϵ(B)|2]0, as ϵ0+.formulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsuperscript~𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵superscript𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵20 as italic-ϵsuperscript0\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\big{|}\tilde{N}^{\epsilon}(B)-N^{\epsilon}(B)% \big{|}^{2}\big{]}\longrightarrow 0,\mbox{ as }\epsilon\to 0^{+}.blackboard_E [ | over~ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) - italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ⟶ 0 , as italic_ϵ → 0 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Let us first estimate

|N~ϵ(B)Nϵ(B)|superscript~𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵superscript𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵\displaystyle\big{|}\tilde{N}^{\epsilon}(B)-N^{\epsilon}(B)\big{|}| over~ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) - italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) |
Bχϵ(F(z))|||F(z)|2|¯F(z)|2|||F(z)z¯2F(z)|2|¯F(z)+z2F(z)|2||𝑑A(z)absentsubscript𝐵subscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝐹𝑧superscript𝐹𝑧2superscript¯𝐹𝑧2superscript𝐹𝑧¯𝑧2𝐹𝑧2superscript¯𝐹𝑧𝑧2𝐹𝑧2differential-d𝐴𝑧\displaystyle\quad\leq\int_{B}\chi_{\epsilon}(F(z))\Big{|}\big{|}|\partial F(z% )|^{2}-|\bar{\partial}F(z)|^{2}\big{|}-\big{|}|\partial F(z)-\tfrac{\bar{z}}{2% }F(z)|^{2}-|\bar{\partial}F(z)+\tfrac{z}{2}F(z)|^{2}\big{|}\Big{|}\,dA(z)≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_z ) ) | | | ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | - | | ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) - divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) + divide start_ARG italic_z end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | | italic_d italic_A ( italic_z )
Bχϵ(F(z))(||F(z)|2|F(z)z¯2F(z)|2|+||¯F(z)|2|¯F(z)+z2F(z)|2|)𝑑A(z)absentsubscript𝐵subscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝐹𝑧superscript𝐹𝑧2superscript𝐹𝑧¯𝑧2𝐹𝑧2superscript¯𝐹𝑧2superscript¯𝐹𝑧𝑧2𝐹𝑧2differential-d𝐴𝑧\displaystyle\quad\leq\int_{B}\chi_{\epsilon}(F(z))\Big{(}\big{|}|\partial F(z% )|^{2}-|\partial F(z)-\tfrac{\bar{z}}{2}F(z)|^{2}\big{|}+\big{|}|\bar{\partial% }F(z)|^{2}-|\bar{\partial}F(z)+\tfrac{z}{2}F(z)|^{2}\big{|}\Big{)}\,dA(z)≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_z ) ) ( | | ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) - divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | + | | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) + divide start_ARG italic_z end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z )
Bχϵ(F(z))|z||F(z)|(|F(z)|+|¯F(z)|+|z||F(z)|)𝑑A(z)less-than-or-similar-toabsentsubscript𝐵subscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝐹𝑧𝑧𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧¯𝐹𝑧𝑧𝐹𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑧\displaystyle\quad\lesssim\int_{B}\chi_{\epsilon}(F(z))|z||F(z)|\big{(}|% \partial F(z)|+|\bar{\partial}F(z)|+|z||F(z)|\big{)}\,dA(z)≲ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_z ) ) | italic_z | | italic_F ( italic_z ) | ( | ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | + | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | + | italic_z | | italic_F ( italic_z ) | ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z )
CBϵBχϵ(F(z))Φ(z)𝑑A(z),absentsubscript𝐶𝐵italic-ϵsubscript𝐵subscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝐹𝑧Φ𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑧\displaystyle\quad\leq C_{B}\cdot\epsilon\cdot\int_{B}\chi_{\epsilon}(F(z))% \Phi(z)\,dA(z),≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_ϵ ⋅ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_z ) ) roman_Φ ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ,

where Φ(z)=(|F(z)|+|¯F(z)|+1)Φ𝑧𝐹𝑧¯𝐹𝑧1\Phi(z)=\big{(}|\partial F(z)|+|\bar{\partial}F(z)|+1\big{)}roman_Φ ( italic_z ) = ( | ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | + | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | + 1 ).

Let p(1,2)𝑝12p\in(1,2)italic_p ∈ ( 1 , 2 ), p(2,)superscript𝑝2p^{\prime}\in(2,\infty)italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ ( 2 , ∞ ) its Hölder conjugate, 1/p+1/p=11𝑝1superscript𝑝11/p+1/p^{\prime}=11 / italic_p + 1 / italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 1, and select q(1,2)𝑞12q\in(1,2)italic_q ∈ ( 1 , 2 ) with pq<2𝑝𝑞2pq<2italic_p italic_q < 2. Our assumptions on F𝐹Fitalic_F imply that

supz,wB(𝔼|Φ(z)Φ(w)|p)1/pCB,p.subscriptsupremum𝑧𝑤𝐵superscript𝔼superscriptΦ𝑧Φ𝑤superscript𝑝1superscript𝑝subscriptsuperscript𝐶𝐵𝑝\displaystyle\sup_{z,w\in B}\big{(}\mathbb{E}|\Phi(z)\Phi(w)|^{p^{\prime}}\big% {)}^{1/p^{\prime}}\leq C^{\prime}_{B,p}.roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z , italic_w ∈ italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_E | roman_Φ ( italic_z ) roman_Φ ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

In addition, since 1<pq<21𝑝𝑞21<pq<21 < italic_p italic_q < 2, by Lemma 4.1 and Proposition 2.4,

𝔼[|F(z)F(w)|pq]Cpqmax{1,|zw|2(1pq)},z,w.formulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑝𝑞subscript𝐶𝑝𝑞1superscript𝑧𝑤21𝑝𝑞𝑧𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}|F(z)F(w)|^{-pq}\big{]}\leq C_{pq}\max\big{\{}1,% |z-w|^{2(1-pq)}\big{\}},\qquad z,w\in\mathbb{C}.blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_max { 1 , | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( 1 - italic_p italic_q ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } , italic_z , italic_w ∈ blackboard_C .

We also note that χϵ(F(z))ϵq2|F(z)|qless-than-or-similar-tosubscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝐹𝑧superscriptitalic-ϵ𝑞2superscript𝐹𝑧𝑞\chi_{\epsilon}(F(z))\lesssim\epsilon^{q-2}\lvert F(z)\rvert^{-q}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_z ) ) ≲ italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and further estimate

𝔼[|N~ϵ(B)Nϵ(B)|2]𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsuperscript~𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵superscript𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵2\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}\big{|}\tilde{N}^{\epsilon}(B)-N^{\epsilon}(B)% \big{|}^{2}\big{]}blackboard_E [ | over~ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) - italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] CB2ϵ2B×B𝔼[χϵ(F(z))χϵ(F(w))Φ(z)Φ(w)]𝑑A(z)𝑑A(w)absentsubscriptsuperscript𝐶2𝐵superscriptitalic-ϵ2subscript𝐵𝐵𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝐹𝑧subscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝐹𝑤Φ𝑧Φ𝑤differential-d𝐴𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑤\displaystyle\leq C^{2}_{B}\cdot\epsilon^{2}\cdot\int_{B\times B}\mathbb{E}% \big{[}\chi_{\epsilon}(F(z))\chi_{\epsilon}(F(w))\Phi(z)\Phi(w)\big{]}\,dA(z)% dA(w)≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B × italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_z ) ) italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_w ) ) roman_Φ ( italic_z ) roman_Φ ( italic_w ) ] italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_w )
CB,p′′ϵ2B×B(𝔼[|χϵ(F(z))χϵ(F(w))|p])1/p𝑑A(z)𝑑A(w)less-than-or-similar-toabsentsubscriptsuperscript𝐶′′𝐵𝑝superscriptitalic-ϵ2subscript𝐵𝐵superscript𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝐹𝑧subscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝐹𝑤𝑝1𝑝differential-d𝐴𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑤\displaystyle\lesssim C^{\prime\prime}_{B,p}\cdot\epsilon^{2}\cdot\int_{B% \times B}\big{(}\mathbb{E}\big{[}|\chi_{\epsilon}(F(z))\chi_{\epsilon}(F(w))|^% {p}\big{]}\big{)}^{1/p}\,dA(z)dA(w)≲ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B × italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_E [ | italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_z ) ) italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_w ) ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_w )
CB,p′′ϵ2ϵ2q4B×B(𝔼[|F(z)F(w)|pq])1/p𝑑A(z)𝑑A(w)less-than-or-similar-toabsentsubscriptsuperscript𝐶′′𝐵𝑝superscriptitalic-ϵ2superscriptitalic-ϵ2𝑞4subscript𝐵𝐵superscript𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑤𝑝𝑞1𝑝differential-d𝐴𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑤\displaystyle\lesssim C^{\prime\prime}_{B,p}\cdot\epsilon^{2}\cdot\epsilon^{2q% -4}\cdot\int_{B\times B}\big{(}\mathbb{E}\big{[}|F(z)F(w)|^{-pq}\big{]}\big{)}% ^{1/p}\,dA(z)dA(w)≲ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_q - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B × italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( italic_z ) italic_F ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_w )
CB,p,q′′ϵ2q2B×Bmax{1,|zw|2(1/pq)}𝑑A(z)𝑑A(w).less-than-or-similar-toabsentsubscriptsuperscript𝐶′′𝐵𝑝𝑞superscriptitalic-ϵ2𝑞2subscript𝐵𝐵1superscript𝑧𝑤21𝑝𝑞differential-d𝐴𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑤\displaystyle\lesssim C^{\prime\prime}_{B,p,q}\cdot\epsilon^{2q-2}\cdot\int_{B% \times B}\max\{1,|z-w|^{2(1/p-q)}\}\,dA(z)dA(w).≲ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B , italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_q - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B × italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_max { 1 , | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( 1 / italic_p - italic_q ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_w ) .

The previous integral is finite because 0<2(q1/p)<2(2/p1/p)=2/p<202𝑞1𝑝22𝑝1𝑝2𝑝20<2(q-1/p)<2(2/p-1/p)=2/p<20 < 2 ( italic_q - 1 / italic_p ) < 2 ( 2 / italic_p - 1 / italic_p ) = 2 / italic_p < 2, while the power of ϵitalic-ϵ\epsilonitalic_ϵ is positive, which proves (7.12).

Step 3. Finally, we combine (7.11) and (7.12) to conclude that VarN(B)<𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑁𝐵\mathop{Var}\nolimits N(B)<\inftystart_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP italic_N ( italic_B ) < ∞ and obtain (7.10). ∎

Lemma 7.1 shows that Nϵ(B)L2(S,d)superscript𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵superscript𝐿2subscript𝑆dN^{\epsilon}(B)\in L^{2}(\mathcal{F}_{S},\mathrm{d}\mathbb{P})italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_d blackboard_P ) and, therefore, by Proposition 7.2,

N(B)L2(S,d).𝑁𝐵superscript𝐿2subscript𝑆dN(B)\in L^{2}(\mathcal{F}_{S},\mathrm{d}\mathbb{P}).italic_N ( italic_B ) ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_d blackboard_P ) .

Hence, the number statistic N(B)𝑁𝐵N(B)italic_N ( italic_B ) can be expanded as

(7.13) N(B)=M,N0QM,N(N(B)),QM,N(N(B))CM,N,formulae-sequence𝑁𝐵subscript𝑀𝑁0subscript𝑄𝑀𝑁𝑁𝐵subscript𝑄𝑀𝑁𝑁𝐵subscript𝐶𝑀𝑁\displaystyle N(B)=\sum_{M,N\geq 0}Q_{M,N}(N(B)),\qquad Q_{M,N}(N(B))\in C_{M,% N},italic_N ( italic_B ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ( italic_B ) ) , italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ( italic_B ) ) ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

into chaotic components (7.6) associated with the Gaussian space induced by S𝑆Sitalic_S. We now calculate the chaos expansion of N(B)𝑁𝐵N(B)italic_N ( italic_B ) explicitly in the case of radial twisted kernels.

Theorem 7.3.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be a zero mean GWHF satisfying the general assumptions and with a twisted kernel of the form H(z)=P(|z|2)𝐻𝑧𝑃superscript𝑧2H(z)=P(|z|^{2})italic_H ( italic_z ) = italic_P ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) where P::𝑃P\colon\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{C}italic_P : blackboard_R → blackboard_C is C6superscript𝐶6C^{6}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Let B𝐵B\subset\mathbb{C}italic_B ⊂ blackboard_C be a bounded Borel set and consider the number statistic N(B)𝑁𝐵N(B)italic_N ( italic_B ). Then N(B)L2(S,d)𝑁𝐵superscript𝐿2subscript𝑆dN(B)\in L^{2}(\mathcal{F}_{S},\mathrm{d}\mathbb{P})italic_N ( italic_B ) ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_d blackboard_P ), where Ssubscript𝑆\mathcal{F}_{S}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ-algebra generated by S𝑆Sitalic_S given by (7.4).

Consider the chaos decomposition associated with F𝐹Fitalic_F and let (7.13) be corresponding expansion of N(B)𝑁𝐵N(B)italic_N ( italic_B ). Let N,M0𝑁𝑀0N,M\geq 0italic_N , italic_M ≥ 0. Then QM,N(N(B))=0subscript𝑄𝑀𝑁𝑁𝐵0Q_{M,N}(N(B))=0italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ( italic_B ) ) = 0 for NM𝑁𝑀N\not=Mitalic_N ≠ italic_M, while

(7.14) QN,N(N(B))subscript𝑄𝑁𝑁𝑁𝐵\displaystyle Q_{N,N}(N(B))italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ( italic_B ) ) =1πk+l+j=Nck,lBLj(|F(z)|2)Lk(|𝒟1F(z)|21/2ΔH(0))Ll(|𝒟2F(z)|21/2ΔH(0))𝑑A(z),absent1𝜋subscript𝑘𝑙𝑗𝑁subscript𝑐𝑘𝑙subscript𝐵subscript𝐿𝑗superscript𝐹𝑧2subscript𝐿𝑘superscriptsubscript𝒟1𝐹𝑧212Δ𝐻0subscript𝐿𝑙superscriptsubscript𝒟2𝐹𝑧212Δ𝐻0differential-d𝐴𝑧\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{k+l+j=N}c_{k,l}\int_{B}L_{j}\left(|F(z)|^{2}% \right)L_{k}\left(\frac{|\mathcal{D}_{1}F(z)|^{2}}{1/2-\Delta H(0)}\right)L_{l% }\left(\frac{|\mathcal{D}_{2}F(z)|^{2}}{-1/2-\Delta H(0)}\right)\,dA(z),= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + italic_l + italic_j = italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 1 / 2 - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) end_ARG ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG - 1 / 2 - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) end_ARG ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ,

where the integral is defined realization-wise and

(7.15) ck,l=1π2|(ΔH(0)+1/2)|z|2(ΔH(0)1/2)|w|2|Lk(|z|2)Ll(|w|2)e|z|2|w|2dA(z)dA(w).\displaystyle c_{k,l}=\frac{1}{\pi^{2}}\int_{\mathbb{C}}\int_{\mathbb{C}}\bigl% {|}(-\Delta H(0)+1/2)|z|^{2}-(-\Delta H(0)-1/2)|w|^{2}\bigr{|}L_{k}(|z|^{2})\,% L_{l}(|w|^{2})\,e^{-|z|^{2}-|w|^{2}}\,dA(z)dA(w).italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ( - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) + 1 / 2 ) | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) - 1 / 2 ) | italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_w ) .
Proof.

Step 1. We have already observed that N(B)L2(S)𝑁𝐵superscript𝐿2subscript𝑆N(B)\in L^{2}(\mathcal{F}_{S})italic_N ( italic_B ) ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Let ε>0𝜀0\varepsilon>0italic_ε > 0 and consider the smooth mollifier χϵsubscript𝜒italic-ϵ\chi_{\epsilon}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (7.8) and the regularized number statistic Nϵ(B)superscript𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵N^{\epsilon}(B)italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) (7.9). Since χϵsubscript𝜒italic-ϵ\chi_{\epsilon}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is radial, its expansion in the basis (7.5) has the form

χϵ(ζ)=j0aj,ϵ(1)j1j!Hj,j(ζ,ζ¯)=j0aj,ϵLj(|ζ|2),subscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝜁subscript𝑗0subscript𝑎𝑗italic-ϵsuperscript1𝑗1𝑗subscript𝐻𝑗𝑗𝜁¯𝜁subscript𝑗0subscript𝑎𝑗italic-ϵsubscript𝐿𝑗superscript𝜁2\displaystyle\chi_{\epsilon}(\zeta)=\sum_{j\geq 0}a_{j,\epsilon}(-1)^{j}\frac{% 1}{j!}H_{j,j}(\zeta,\bar{\zeta})=\sum_{j\geq 0}a_{j,\epsilon}L_{j}(|\zeta|^{2}),italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ζ ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_j ! end_ARG italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ζ , over¯ start_ARG italic_ζ end_ARG ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ζ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

with convergence in L2(,e|ζ|2dA(ζ)/π)superscript𝐿2superscript𝑒superscript𝜁2𝑑𝐴𝜁𝜋L^{2}\big{(}\mathbb{C},e^{-|\zeta|^{2}}\,dA(\zeta)/\pi\big{)}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_C , italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_ζ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_ζ ) / italic_π ) and (aj,ϵ)j02subscriptsubscript𝑎𝑗italic-ϵ𝑗0superscript2(a_{j,\epsilon})_{j\geq 0}\in\ell^{2}( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We do not need the exact value of aj,ϵsubscript𝑎𝑗italic-ϵa_{j,\epsilon}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT; we just note that

(7.16) aj,ϵ1πδ0(ζ)Lj(|ζ|2)e|ζ|2𝑑A(ζ)=1π,as ϵ0.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑎𝑗italic-ϵ1𝜋subscriptsubscript𝛿0𝜁subscript𝐿𝑗superscript𝜁2superscript𝑒superscript𝜁2differential-d𝐴𝜁1𝜋as italic-ϵ0\displaystyle a_{j,\epsilon}\to\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\mathbb{C}}\delta_{0}(\zeta)% L_{j}(|\zeta|^{2})e^{-|\zeta|^{2}}\,dA(\zeta)=\frac{1}{\pi},\qquad\mbox{as }% \epsilon\to 0.italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ζ ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ζ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_ζ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_ζ ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π end_ARG , as italic_ϵ → 0 .

We also expand:

|(ΔH(0)+1/2)|ζ1|2(ΔH(0)1/2)|ζ2|2|Δ𝐻012superscriptsubscript𝜁12Δ𝐻012superscriptsubscript𝜁22\displaystyle\big{|}(-\Delta H(0)+1/2)|\zeta_{1}|^{2}-(-\Delta H(0)-1/2)|\zeta% _{2}|^{2}\big{|}| ( - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) + 1 / 2 ) | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) - 1 / 2 ) | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | =k,l0ck,lLk(|ζ1|2)Ll(|ζ2|2)absentsubscript𝑘𝑙0subscript𝑐𝑘𝑙subscript𝐿𝑘superscriptsubscript𝜁12subscript𝐿𝑙superscriptsubscript𝜁22\displaystyle=\sum_{k,l\geq 0}c_{k,l}L_{k}(|\zeta_{1}|^{2})L_{l}(|\zeta_{2}|^{% 2})= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_l ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

with convergence in L2(,1π2e|ζ1|2|ζ2|2dA(ζ1)dA(ζ2))superscript𝐿21superscript𝜋2superscript𝑒superscriptsubscript𝜁12superscriptsubscript𝜁22𝑑𝐴subscript𝜁1𝑑𝐴subscript𝜁2L^{2}\big{(}\mathbb{C},\frac{1}{\pi^{2}}e^{-|\zeta_{1}|^{2}-|\zeta_{2}|^{2}}dA% (\zeta_{1})dA(\zeta_{2})\big{)}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_C , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ).

We thus arrive at the expansion

(7.17) χϵ(ζ1)|(ΔH(0)+1/2)|ζ2|2(ΔH(0)1/2)|ζ3|2|=j,k,l0aj,ϵck,lLj(|ζ1|2)Lk(|ζ2|2)Ll(|ζ3|2),subscript𝜒italic-ϵsubscript𝜁1Δ𝐻012superscriptsubscript𝜁22Δ𝐻012superscriptsubscript𝜁32subscript𝑗𝑘𝑙0subscript𝑎𝑗italic-ϵsubscript𝑐𝑘𝑙subscript𝐿𝑗superscriptsubscript𝜁12subscript𝐿𝑘superscriptsubscript𝜁22subscript𝐿𝑙superscriptsubscript𝜁32\displaystyle\chi_{\epsilon}(\zeta_{1})\big{|}(-\Delta H(0)+1/2)|\zeta_{2}|^{2% }-(-\Delta H(0)-1/2)|\zeta_{3}|^{2}\big{|}=\sum_{j,k,l\geq 0}a_{j,\epsilon}c_{% k,l}L_{j}(|\zeta_{1}|^{2})L_{k}(|\zeta_{2}|^{2})L_{l}(|\zeta_{3}|^{2}),italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | ( - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) + 1 / 2 ) | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) - 1 / 2 ) | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_k , italic_l ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

with convergence in L2(,1π3e|ζ1|2|ζ2|2|ζ3|2dA(ζ1)dA(ζ2)dA(ζ3))superscript𝐿21superscript𝜋3superscript𝑒superscriptsubscript𝜁12superscriptsubscript𝜁22superscriptsubscript𝜁32𝑑𝐴subscript𝜁1𝑑𝐴subscript𝜁2𝑑𝐴subscript𝜁3L^{2}\big{(}\mathbb{C},\frac{1}{\pi^{3}}e^{-|\zeta_{1}|^{2}-|\zeta_{2}|^{2}-|% \zeta_{3}|^{2}}dA(\zeta_{1})dA(\zeta_{2})dA(\zeta_{3})\big{)}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_C , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ).

Step 2. Let z𝑧z\in\mathbb{C}italic_z ∈ blackboard_C be arbitrary but fixed. The covariance of the Gaussian vector

(F(z),𝒟1F(z),𝒟2F(z))𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟1𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟2𝐹𝑧(F(z),\mathcal{D}_{1}F(z),\mathcal{D}_{2}F(z))( italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) )

is given by (2.5). Since H(z)=P(|z|2)𝐻𝑧𝑃superscript𝑧2H(z)=P(|z|^{2})italic_H ( italic_z ) = italic_P ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) it follows that H(0)=¯H(0)=2H(0)=¯2H(0)=0𝐻0¯𝐻0superscript2𝐻0superscript¯2𝐻00\partial H(0)=\bar{\partial}H(0)=\partial^{2}H(0)=\bar{\partial}^{2}H(0)=0∂ italic_H ( 0 ) = over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_H ( 0 ) = ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H ( 0 ) = over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H ( 0 ) = 0. Consequently,

(7.18) (ξ(z),ξ(z),ξ′′(z)):=(F(z),𝒟1F(z)(ΔH(0)+1/2)1/2,𝒟2F(z)(ΔH(0)1/2)1/2)assign𝜉𝑧superscript𝜉𝑧superscript𝜉′′𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟1𝐹𝑧superscriptΔ𝐻01212subscript𝒟2𝐹𝑧superscriptΔ𝐻01212(\xi(z),\xi^{\prime}(z),\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)):=\bigg{(}F(z),\frac{\mathcal{D}% _{1}F(z)}{(-\Delta H(0)+1/2)^{1/2}},\frac{\mathcal{D}_{2}F(z)}{(-\Delta H(0)-1% /2)^{1/2}}\bigg{)}( italic_ξ ( italic_z ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ) := ( italic_F ( italic_z ) , divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG ( - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) + 1 / 2 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , divide start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG ( - roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) - 1 / 2 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG )

is a standard complex Gaussian vector and the map

L2(,1π3e|ζ1|2|ζ2|2|ζ3|2dA(ζ1)dA(ζ2)dA(ζ3))superscript𝐿21superscript𝜋3superscript𝑒superscriptsubscript𝜁12superscriptsubscript𝜁22superscriptsubscript𝜁32𝑑𝐴subscript𝜁1𝑑𝐴subscript𝜁2𝑑𝐴subscript𝜁3\displaystyle L^{2}\big{(}\mathbb{C},\tfrac{1}{\pi^{3}}e^{-|\zeta_{1}|^{2}-|% \zeta_{2}|^{2}-|\zeta_{3}|^{2}}dA(\zeta_{1})dA(\zeta_{2})dA(\zeta_{3})\big{)}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_C , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) L2(d)absentsuperscript𝐿2d\displaystyle\to L^{2}(\mathrm{d}\mathbb{P})→ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_d blackboard_P )
f𝑓\displaystyle fitalic_f f(ξ(z),ξ(z),ξ′′(z))maps-toabsent𝑓𝜉𝑧superscript𝜉𝑧superscript𝜉′′𝑧\displaystyle\mapsto f(\xi(z),\xi^{\prime}(z),\xi^{\prime\prime}(z))↦ italic_f ( italic_ξ ( italic_z ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) )

is an isometric embedding. Thus (7.17) translates into the almost sure equality

(7.19) χϵ(F(z))||𝒟1F(z)|2|𝒟2F(z)|2|=j,k,l0aj,ϵck,lLj(|ξ(z)|2)Lk(|ξ(z)|2)Ll(|ξ′′(z)|2),subscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝐹𝑧superscriptsubscript𝒟1𝐹𝑧2superscriptsubscript𝒟2𝐹𝑧2subscript𝑗𝑘𝑙0subscript𝑎𝑗italic-ϵsubscript𝑐𝑘𝑙subscript𝐿𝑗superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿𝑘superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿𝑙superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2\displaystyle\chi_{\epsilon}(F(z))\big{|}|\mathcal{D}_{1}F(z)|^{2}-|\mathcal{D% }_{2}F(z)|^{2}\big{|}=\sum_{j,k,l\geq 0}a_{j,\epsilon}c_{k,l}L_{j}(|\xi(z)|^{2% })L_{k}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})L_{l}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)|^{2}),italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_z ) ) | | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_k , italic_l ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

with convergence in quadratic mean for each z𝑧z\in\mathbb{C}italic_z ∈ blackboard_C.

We shall invoke Lemma 7.1 with the functions

ϕ0(ζ1,ζ2,ζ3)=χϵ(ζ1)||ζ2|2|ζ3|2|,subscriptitalic-ϕ0subscript𝜁1subscript𝜁2subscript𝜁3subscript𝜒italic-ϵsubscript𝜁1superscriptsubscript𝜁22superscriptsubscript𝜁32\displaystyle\phi_{0}(\zeta_{1},\zeta_{2},\zeta_{3})=\chi_{\epsilon}(\zeta_{1}% )\big{|}|\zeta_{2}|^{2}-|\zeta_{3}|^{2}\big{|},italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ,
ϕj,k,l(ζ1,ζ2,ζ3)=Lj(|ζ1|2)Lk(|ζ2|2)Ll(|ζ3|2),subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑘𝑙subscript𝜁1subscript𝜁2subscript𝜁3subscript𝐿𝑗superscriptsubscript𝜁12subscript𝐿𝑘superscriptsubscript𝜁22subscript𝐿𝑙superscriptsubscript𝜁32\displaystyle\phi_{j,k,l}(\zeta_{1},\zeta_{2},\zeta_{3})=L_{j}(|\zeta_{1}|^{2}% )L_{k}(|\zeta_{2}|^{2})L_{l}(|\zeta_{3}|^{2}),italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_k , italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

which satisfy the hypothesis of the lemma (with constants that depend on j,k,l𝑗𝑘𝑙j,k,litalic_j , italic_k , italic_l). With the notation of Lemma 7.1,

(7.20) QM,N[h=1Lnχϵ(F(zh))||𝒟1F(zh)|2|𝒟2F(zh)|2||BQh|]subscript𝑄𝑀𝑁delimited-[]superscriptsubscript1subscript𝐿𝑛subscript𝜒italic-ϵ𝐹subscript𝑧superscriptsubscript𝒟1𝐹subscript𝑧2superscriptsubscript𝒟2𝐹subscript𝑧2𝐵subscript𝑄\displaystyle Q_{M,N}\left[\sum_{h=1}^{L_{n}}\chi_{\epsilon}(F(z_{h}))\big{|}|% \mathcal{D}_{1}F(z_{h})|^{2}-|\mathcal{D}_{2}F(z_{h})|^{2}\big{|}\,\,\big{|}B% \cap Q_{h}\big{|}\right]italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) | | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | | italic_B ∩ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ]
=h=1Lnj,k,l0aj,ϵck,lQM,N[Lj(|ξ(zh)|2)Lk(|ξ(zh)|2)Ll(|ξ′′(zh)|2)]|BQh|absentsuperscriptsubscript1subscript𝐿𝑛subscript𝑗𝑘𝑙0subscript𝑎𝑗italic-ϵsubscript𝑐𝑘𝑙subscript𝑄𝑀𝑁delimited-[]subscript𝐿𝑗superscript𝜉subscript𝑧2subscript𝐿𝑘superscriptsuperscript𝜉subscript𝑧2subscript𝐿𝑙superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′subscript𝑧2𝐵subscript𝑄\displaystyle\quad=\sum_{h=1}^{L_{n}}\sum_{j,k,l\geq 0}a_{j,\epsilon}c_{k,l}Q_% {M,N}\left[L_{j}(\lvert\xi(z_{h})\rvert^{2})L_{k}(\lvert\xi^{\prime}(z_{h})% \rvert^{2})L_{l}(\lvert\xi^{\prime\prime}(z_{h})\rvert^{2})\right]\,\big{|}B% \cap Q_{h}\big{|}= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_k , italic_l ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] | italic_B ∩ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT |
(7.21) =δN=Mh=1Lnj+k+l=Naj,ϵck,lLj(|ξ(zh)|2)Lk(|ξ(zh)|2)Ll(|ξ′′(zh)|2)|BQh|.absentsubscript𝛿𝑁𝑀superscriptsubscript1subscript𝐿𝑛subscript𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑁subscript𝑎𝑗italic-ϵsubscript𝑐𝑘𝑙subscript𝐿𝑗superscript𝜉subscript𝑧2subscript𝐿𝑘superscriptsuperscript𝜉subscript𝑧2subscript𝐿𝑙superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′subscript𝑧2𝐵subscript𝑄\displaystyle\quad={\delta_{N=M}}\sum_{h=1}^{L_{n}}\sum_{j+k+l=N}a_{j,\epsilon% }c_{k,l}L_{j}(\lvert\xi(z_{h})\rvert^{2})L_{k}(\lvert\xi^{\prime}(z_{h})\rvert% ^{2})L_{l}(\lvert\xi^{\prime\prime}(z_{h})\rvert^{2})\,\big{|}B\cap Q_{h}\big{% |}.= italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N = italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + italic_k + italic_l = italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | italic_B ∩ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | .

By Lemma 7.1, as n𝑛n\to\inftyitalic_n → ∞, the Riemann sums in (7.20) and (7.21) converge to the corresponding integrals in quadratic mean. Since QM,Nsubscript𝑄𝑀𝑁Q_{M,N}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is continuous in L2(d)superscript𝐿2dL^{2}(\mathrm{d}\mathbb{P})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_d blackboard_P ), we conclude that

QM,N[Nϵ(B)]=δN=MBj+k+l=Naj,ϵck,lLj(|ξ(z)|2)Lk(|ξ(z)|2)Ll(|ξ′′(z)|2)dA(z).subscript𝑄𝑀𝑁delimited-[]superscript𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵subscript𝛿𝑁𝑀subscript𝐵subscript𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑁subscript𝑎𝑗italic-ϵsubscript𝑐𝑘𝑙subscript𝐿𝑗superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿𝑘superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿𝑙superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2𝑑𝐴𝑧\displaystyle Q_{M,N}[N^{\epsilon}(B)]=\delta_{N=M}\int_{B}\sum_{j+k+l=N}a_{j,% \epsilon}c_{k,l}L_{j}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{k}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})L_{l}(|\xi^{% \prime\prime}(z)|^{2})\,dA(z).italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) ] = italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N = italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + italic_k + italic_l = italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) .

By Proposition 7.2, QM,N[Nϵ(B)]QM,N[N(B)]subscript𝑄𝑀𝑁delimited-[]superscript𝑁italic-ϵ𝐵subscript𝑄𝑀𝑁delimited-[]𝑁𝐵Q_{M,N}[N^{\epsilon}(B)]\longrightarrow Q_{M,N}[N(B)]italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) ] ⟶ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_N ( italic_B ) ] in quadratic mean as ϵ0+italic-ϵsuperscript0\epsilon\to 0^{+}italic_ϵ → 0 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, which, together with (7.16) gives (7.14) and the vanishing of the projection for NM𝑁𝑀N\not=Mitalic_N ≠ italic_M. ∎

8. Non-Hyperuniformity of Uncharged Zeros: Proof of Theorem 1.2

In this section we prove Theorem 1.2, regarding the non-hyperuniformity of the uncharged zeros of a zero mean GWHF F𝐹Fitalic_F with the specific twisted kernel

(8.1) H(z)=(1|z|2)e12|z|2.𝐻𝑧1superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2H(z)=(1-|z|^{2})e^{-\frac{1}{2}|z|^{2}}.italic_H ( italic_z ) = ( 1 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

We analyze the zero set {F=0}𝐹0\{F=0\}{ italic_F = 0 } on the observation disk B=BR(0)𝐵subscript𝐵𝑅0B=B_{R}(0)italic_B = italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) centered at 00.

8.1. Lower bound

Let us consider the chaos decomposition of the number statistic N(B)𝑁𝐵N(B)italic_N ( italic_B ). The gist of the proof is to estimate the second order chaotic component Q2,2(N(B))subscript𝑄22𝑁𝐵Q_{2,2}(N(B))italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ( italic_B ) ). By the orthogonality of the chaos decomposition (as in (7.7)), we then have the estimate

Var[N(B)]Var[Q2,2(N(B))].𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]𝑁𝐵𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]subscript𝑄22𝑁𝐵\mathop{Var}\nolimits[N(B)]\geq\mathop{Var}\nolimits[Q_{2,2}(N(B))].start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_N ( italic_B ) ] ≥ start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ( italic_B ) ) ] .

We will show that Var[Q2,2(N(B))]R2greater-than-or-equivalent-to𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]subscript𝑄22𝑁𝐵superscript𝑅2\mathop{Var}\nolimits[Q_{2,2}(N(B))]\gtrsim R^{2}start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ( italic_B ) ) ] ≳ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. (On the other hand, one can check that Var[Q1,1(N(B))]=O(R)𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]subscript𝑄11𝑁𝐵𝑂𝑅\mathop{Var}\nolimits[Q_{1,1}(N(B))]=O(R)start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ( italic_B ) ) ] = italic_O ( italic_R ), which is not enough for our purpose.)

We shall inspect the explicit expression for Q2,2(N(B))subscript𝑄22𝑁𝐵Q_{2,2}(N(B))italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ( italic_B ) ) given in Theorem 7.3. In our case,

ΔH(0)=¯H(0)=32.Δ𝐻0¯𝐻032\Delta H(0)=\partial\bar{\partial}H(0)=-\frac{3}{2}.roman_Δ italic_H ( 0 ) = ∂ over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_H ( 0 ) = - divide start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG .

We follow the notation from Section 7.3 and particularize (7.18) to

(8.2) (ξ(z),ξ(z),ξ′′(z))=(F(z),12𝒟1F(z),𝒟2F(z)),𝜉𝑧superscript𝜉𝑧superscript𝜉′′𝑧𝐹𝑧12subscript𝒟1𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟2𝐹𝑧(\xi(z),\xi^{\prime}(z),\xi^{\prime\prime}(z))=\Big{(}F(z),\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}% \mathcal{D}_{1}F(z),\mathcal{D}_{2}F(z)\Big{)},( italic_ξ ( italic_z ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ) = ( italic_F ( italic_z ) , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) ) ,

whose entries are independent and 𝒩(0,1)subscript𝒩01\mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,1)caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 , 1 ) distributed, for every z𝑧z\in\mathbb{C}italic_z ∈ blackboard_C. By Theorem 7.3, the projection of N(B)𝑁𝐵N(B)italic_N ( italic_B ) onto C2,2subscript𝐶22C_{2,2}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is given by

(8.3) Q2,2(N(B))=1πBϕ(z)𝑑A(z),subscript𝑄22𝑁𝐵1𝜋subscript𝐵italic-ϕ𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑧Q_{2,2}(N(B))=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{B}\phi(z)\,dA(z),italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ( italic_B ) ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ,

where

(8.4) ϕ(z)italic-ϕ𝑧\displaystyle\phi(z)italic_ϕ ( italic_z ) =k+l+j=2ck,lLj(|ξ(z)|2)Lk(|ξ(z)|2)Ll(|ξ′′(z)|2)absentsubscript𝑘𝑙𝑗2subscript𝑐𝑘𝑙subscript𝐿𝑗superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿𝑘superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿𝑙superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2\displaystyle=\sum_{k+l+j=2}c_{k,l}L_{j}\left(|\xi(z)|^{2}\right)L_{k}\left(|% \xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2}\right)L_{l}\left(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)|^{2}\right)= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + italic_l + italic_j = 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
=c1,0L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ(z)|2)+c0,1L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ′′(z)|2)+c1,1L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ′′(z)|2)absentsubscript𝑐10subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝑐01subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2subscript𝑐11subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2\displaystyle=c_{1,0}L_{1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})+c_{0,1}L_% {1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)|^{2})+c_{1,1}L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}% (z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)|^{2})= italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
+c0,0L2(|ξ(z)|2)+c2,0L2(|ξ(z)|2)+c0,2L2(|ξ′′(z)|2).subscript𝑐00subscript𝐿2superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝑐20subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝑐02subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2\displaystyle\qquad+c_{0,0}L_{2}(|\xi(z)|^{2})+c_{2,0}L_{2}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^% {2})+c_{0,2}L_{2}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)|^{2}).+ italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Using (7.15), we compute the coefficients explicitly (see the accompanying notebook [19]

(8.5) c0,0=53,c0,1=19,c1,0=149,c0,2=c2,0=827,c1,1=1627.formulae-sequenceformulae-sequencesubscript𝑐0053formulae-sequencesubscript𝑐0119formulae-sequencesubscript𝑐10149subscript𝑐02subscript𝑐20827subscript𝑐111627c_{0,0}=\frac{5}{3},\quad c_{0,1}=-\frac{1}{9},\quad c_{1,0}=-\frac{14}{9},% \quad c_{0,2}=c_{2,0}=\frac{8}{27},\quad c_{1,1}=-\frac{16}{27}.italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 5 end_ARG start_ARG 3 end_ARG , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 9 end_ARG , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG 14 end_ARG start_ARG 9 end_ARG , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 8 end_ARG start_ARG 27 end_ARG , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG 16 end_ARG start_ARG 27 end_ARG .

The random variable Q2,2(N(B))subscript𝑄22𝑁𝐵Q_{2,2}(N(B))italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ( italic_B ) ) has zero mean because it is orthogonal to 1C0,01subscript𝐶001\in C_{0,0}1 ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Thus, from (8.3),

(8.6) Var[Q2,2(N(B))]=𝔼[1π2BBϕ(z)ϕ(w)𝑑A(z)𝑑A(w)]=1π2BB𝔼[ϕ(z)ϕ(w)]𝑑A(z)𝑑A(w),𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]subscript𝑄22𝑁𝐵𝔼delimited-[]1superscript𝜋2subscript𝐵subscript𝐵italic-ϕ𝑧italic-ϕ𝑤differential-d𝐴𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑤1superscript𝜋2subscript𝐵subscript𝐵𝔼delimited-[]italic-ϕ𝑧italic-ϕ𝑤differential-d𝐴𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑤\mathop{Var}\nolimits[Q_{2,2}(N(B))]=\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{\pi^{2}}\int_{B}% \int_{B}\phi(z)\phi(w)\,dA(z)dA(w)\right]=\frac{1}{\pi^{2}}\int_{B}\int_{B}% \mathbb{E}[\phi(z)\phi(w)]\,dA(z)dA(w),start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ( italic_B ) ) ] = blackboard_E [ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ ( italic_z ) italic_ϕ ( italic_w ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_w ) ] = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ italic_ϕ ( italic_z ) italic_ϕ ( italic_w ) ] italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_w ) ,

where the exchange of integral and expectation is justified by noticing that, by (8.4), ϕ(z)ϕ(w)italic-ϕ𝑧italic-ϕ𝑤\phi(z)\phi(w)italic_ϕ ( italic_z ) italic_ϕ ( italic_w ) is a polynomial in the coordinates of the Gaussian vector (ξ(z),ξ(z),ξ′′(z),ξ(w),ξ(w),ξ′′(w))𝜉𝑧superscript𝜉𝑧superscript𝜉′′𝑧𝜉𝑤superscript𝜉𝑤superscript𝜉′′𝑤(\xi(z),\xi^{\prime}(z),\xi^{\prime\prime}(z),\xi(w),\xi^{\prime}(w),\xi^{% \prime\prime}(w))( italic_ξ ( italic_z ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) , italic_ξ ( italic_w ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) ).

The following proposition is an application of the so-called Feynman-diagram method and enables us to compute 𝔼[ϕ(z)ϕ(w)]𝔼delimited-[]italic-ϕ𝑧italic-ϕ𝑤\mathbb{E}[\phi(z)\phi(w)]blackboard_E [ italic_ϕ ( italic_z ) italic_ϕ ( italic_w ) ] term-by-term according to (8.4).

Proposition 8.1.

Suppose that (α,β,γ,δ)𝛼𝛽𝛾𝛿(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta)( italic_α , italic_β , italic_γ , italic_δ ) is a complex Gaussian random vector, where each coordinate has a standard complex Gaussian distribution, and 𝔼(αβ¯)=0𝔼𝛼¯𝛽0\mathbb{E}(\alpha\overline{\beta})=0blackboard_E ( italic_α over¯ start_ARG italic_β end_ARG ) = 0, 𝔼(γδ¯)=0𝔼𝛾¯𝛿0\mathbb{E}(\gamma\overline{\delta})=0blackboard_E ( italic_γ over¯ start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG ) = 0. Then:

  1. (1)

    𝔼[L1(|α|2)L1(|β|2)L1(|γ|2)L1(|δ|2)]=|𝔼(αγ¯)𝔼(βδ¯)+𝔼(αδ¯)𝔼(βγ¯)|2𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐿1superscript𝛼2subscript𝐿1superscript𝛽2subscript𝐿1superscript𝛾2subscript𝐿1superscript𝛿2superscript𝔼𝛼¯𝛾𝔼𝛽¯𝛿𝔼𝛼¯𝛿𝔼𝛽¯𝛾2\mathbb{E}[L_{1}(|\alpha|^{2})L_{1}(|\beta|^{2})L_{1}(|\gamma|^{2})L_{1}(|% \delta|^{2})]=\Big{|}\mathbb{E}(\alpha\overline{\gamma})\mathbb{E}(\beta% \overline{\delta})+\mathbb{E}(\alpha\overline{\delta})\mathbb{E}(\beta% \overline{\gamma})\Big{|}^{2}blackboard_E [ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_β | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_γ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_δ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] = | blackboard_E ( italic_α over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ) blackboard_E ( italic_β over¯ start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG ) + blackboard_E ( italic_α over¯ start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG ) blackboard_E ( italic_β over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT,

  2. (2)

    𝔼[L1(|α|2)L1(|β|2)L2(|γ|2)]=2|𝔼(αγ¯)𝔼(βγ¯)|2𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐿1superscript𝛼2subscript𝐿1superscript𝛽2subscript𝐿2superscript𝛾22superscript𝔼𝛼¯𝛾𝔼𝛽¯𝛾2\mathbb{E}[L_{1}(|\alpha|^{2})L_{1}(|\beta|^{2})L_{2}(|\gamma|^{2})]=2\left|% \mathbb{E}(\alpha\overline{\gamma})\mathbb{E}(\beta\overline{\gamma})\right|^{2}blackboard_E [ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_β | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_γ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] = 2 | blackboard_E ( italic_α over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ) blackboard_E ( italic_β over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT,

  3. (3)

    𝔼[L2(|α|2)L2(|γ|2)]=|𝔼(αγ¯)|4𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐿2superscript𝛼2subscript𝐿2superscript𝛾2superscript𝔼𝛼¯𝛾4\mathbb{E}[L_{2}(|\alpha|^{2})L_{2}(|\gamma|^{2})]=\left|\mathbb{E}(\alpha% \overline{\gamma})\right|^{4}blackboard_E [ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_γ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] = | blackboard_E ( italic_α over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

The proof of this proposition is provided in Section 8.3 below. Here we apply it to α,β{ξ(z),ξ(z),ξ′′(z)}𝛼𝛽𝜉𝑧superscript𝜉𝑧superscript𝜉′′𝑧\alpha,\beta\in\{\xi(z),\xi^{\prime}(z),\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)\}italic_α , italic_β ∈ { italic_ξ ( italic_z ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) } and γ,δ{ξ(w),ξ(w),ξ′′(w)}𝛾𝛿𝜉𝑤superscript𝜉𝑤superscript𝜉′′𝑤\gamma,\delta\in\{\xi(w),\xi^{\prime}(w),\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)\}italic_γ , italic_δ ∈ { italic_ξ ( italic_w ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) } such that αβ𝛼𝛽\alpha\neq\betaitalic_α ≠ italic_β, γδ𝛾𝛿\gamma\neq\deltaitalic_γ ≠ italic_δ. This allows us to continue from (8.6), using the form of ϕitalic-ϕ\phiitalic_ϕ given in (8.4). The expectation of each term is then expressed (via Proposition 8.1) in terms of covariances between (ξ(z),ξ(z),ξ′′(z))𝜉𝑧superscript𝜉𝑧superscript𝜉′′𝑧(\xi(z),\xi^{\prime}(z),\xi^{\prime\prime}(z))( italic_ξ ( italic_z ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ) and (ξ(w),ξ(w),ξ′′(w))𝜉𝑤superscript𝜉𝑤superscript𝜉′′𝑤(\xi(w),\xi^{\prime}(w),\xi^{\prime\prime}(w))( italic_ξ ( italic_w ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) ). These covariance computations are explicitly carried out using the relations in Lemma 2.1, and recalling the definitions in (1.3), (1.6), (8.1), and (8.2). We include the details in Appendix A. Using (8.5) and combining all the resulting expressions, we obtain that

𝔼[ϕ(z)ϕ(w)]=g(|zw|2), where 𝔼delimited-[]italic-ϕ𝑧italic-ϕ𝑤𝑔superscript𝑧𝑤2 where \mathbb{E}[\phi(z)\phi(w)]=g(|z-w|^{2}),\text{ where }blackboard_E [ italic_ϕ ( italic_z ) italic_ϕ ( italic_w ) ] = italic_g ( | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , where
g(s)=2729e2s(209122110s+62628s277836s3+48325s415040s5+2156s6116s7+2s8),𝑔𝑠2729superscript𝑒2𝑠209122110𝑠62628superscript𝑠277836superscript𝑠348325superscript𝑠415040superscript𝑠52156superscript𝑠6116superscript𝑠72superscript𝑠8g(s)=\frac{2}{729}e^{-2s}(2091-22110s+62628s^{2}-77836s^{3}+48325s^{4}-15040s^% {5}+2156s^{6}-116s^{7}+2s^{8}),italic_g ( italic_s ) = divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG 729 end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2091 - 22110 italic_s + 62628 italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 77836 italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 48325 italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 15040 italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2156 italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 116 italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2 italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

see the accompanying notebook for symbolic calculations [19]. This leads to the explicit bound

(8.7) VarN(B)VarQ2,2(N(B))=1π2BBg(|zw|2)dA(z)dA(w)=1π2B(g(||2)1B)(z)dA(z),\mathop{Var}\nolimits N(B)\geq\mathop{Var}\nolimits Q_{2,2}(N(B))=\frac{1}{\pi% ^{2}}\int_{B}\int_{B}g(|z-w|^{2})dA(z)dA(w)=\frac{1}{\pi^{2}}\int_{B}\big{(}g(% |\cdot|^{2})*1_{B}\big{)}(z)\,dA(z),start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP italic_N ( italic_B ) ≥ start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ( italic_B ) ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ( | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_w ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_g ( | ⋅ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∗ 1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ,

which we now inspect. One can easily verify that

g(|z|2)𝑑A(z)=π0g(s)𝑑s=781π,subscript𝑔superscript𝑧2differential-d𝐴𝑧𝜋superscriptsubscript0𝑔𝑠differential-d𝑠781𝜋\int_{\mathbb{C}}g\big{(}|z|^{2}\big{)}\,dA(z)=\pi\int_{0}^{\infty}g(s)ds=% \frac{7}{81}\pi,∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) = italic_π ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g ( italic_s ) italic_d italic_s = divide start_ARG 7 end_ARG start_ARG 81 end_ARG italic_π ,

see for example the accompanying notebook [19].For us the important fact is that this number is not equal to zero. We also note that

|z||g(|z|2)|𝑑A(z)<.subscript𝑧𝑔superscript𝑧2differential-d𝐴𝑧\int_{\mathbb{C}}|z||g(|z|^{2})|dA(z)<\infty.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z | | italic_g ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) < ∞ .

We shall need the following standard estimate, which can be found in [29, Lemma 8.3].

Lemma 8.2.

Let BR=BR(0)subscript𝐵𝑅subscript𝐵𝑅0B_{R}=B_{R}(0)italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ). Let h::h\colon\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{R}italic_h : blackboard_C → blackboard_R be an integrable function satisfying h(z)𝑑A(z)0subscript𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑧0\int_{\mathbb{C}}h(z)dA(z)\neq 0∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ≠ 0 and

Ch:=|z||h(z)|𝑑A(z)<.assignsubscript𝐶subscript𝑧𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑧C_{h}:=\int_{\mathbb{C}}|z||h(z)|dA(z)<\infty.italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z | | italic_h ( italic_z ) | italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) < ∞ .

There exists a universal constant C𝐶Citalic_C such that

|BRh1BR(h(z)𝑑A(z))|BR||CChR,R>0.formulae-sequencesubscriptsubscript𝐵𝑅subscript1subscript𝐵𝑅subscript𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑧subscript𝐵𝑅𝐶subscript𝐶𝑅𝑅0\bigg{|}\int_{B_{R}}h*1_{B_{R}}-\bigg{(}\int_{\mathbb{C}}h(z)dA(z)\bigg{)}|B_{% R}|\bigg{|}\leq CC_{h}R,\quad R>0.| ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∗ 1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ) | italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | | ≤ italic_C italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R , italic_R > 0 .

Applying Lemma 8.2, we may continue from (8.7) to conclude that

VarN(B)𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑁𝐵\displaystyle\mathop{Var}\nolimits N(B)start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP italic_N ( italic_B ) BR(g(||2)1BR)(z)dA(z)\displaystyle\geq\int_{B_{R}}\big{(}g(|\cdot|^{2})*1_{B_{R}}\big{)}(z)\,dA(z)≥ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_g ( | ⋅ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∗ 1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z )
(8.8) =g(|z|2)𝑑A(z)πR2+O(R)=781R2+O(R)cR2absentsubscript𝑔superscript𝑧2differential-d𝐴𝑧𝜋superscript𝑅2𝑂𝑅781superscript𝑅2𝑂𝑅𝑐superscript𝑅2\displaystyle=\int_{\mathbb{C}}g\big{(}|z|^{2}\big{)}\,dA(z)\cdot\pi R^{2}+O(R% )=\frac{7}{81}R^{2}+O(R)\geq cR^{2}= ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ⋅ italic_π italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_O ( italic_R ) = divide start_ARG 7 end_ARG start_ARG 81 end_ARG italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_O ( italic_R ) ≥ italic_c italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

for large enough R𝑅Ritalic_R and a strictly positive constant c𝑐citalic_c. To conclude the proof of the lower bound, we need to observe that VarN(BR)>0𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑁subscript𝐵𝑅0\mathop{Var}\nolimits N(B_{R})>0start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP italic_N ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) > 0 for any R>0𝑅0R>0italic_R > 0. This is the case, in general, for any Euclidean stationary point process on the plane with positive and finite first intensity (see, e.g., Lemma 10.1 below). In our case {F=0}𝐹0\{F=0\}{ italic_F = 0 } is stationary because F𝐹Fitalic_F has zero mean (and is invariant under twisted shifts), while the first intensity of the zero set is finite and 1πabsent1𝜋\geq\tfrac{1}{\pi}≥ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π end_ARG, as shown in [29, Theorem 1.6].

8.2. Upper bound

We now look into an upper bound for the variance of the number statistic.

Let z{0}𝑧0z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}italic_z ∈ blackboard_C ∖ { 0 }, consider the Gaussian vector

(8.9) X(z)=(F(z),¯F(z),F(0),¯F(0),F(z),F(0)),𝑋𝑧𝐹𝑧¯𝐹𝑧𝐹0¯𝐹0𝐹𝑧𝐹0\displaystyle X(z)=(\partial F(z),\bar{\partial}F(z),\partial F(0),\bar{% \partial}F(0),F(z),F(0)),italic_X ( italic_z ) = ( ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) , over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) , ∂ italic_F ( 0 ) , over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( 0 ) , italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( 0 ) ) ,

and write its covariance as

(8.10) Γ(z)=[ABBC]Γ𝑧matrix𝐴𝐵superscript𝐵𝐶\displaystyle\Gamma(z)=\begin{bmatrix}A&B\\ B^{*}&C\end{bmatrix}roman_Γ ( italic_z ) = [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_A end_CELL start_CELL italic_B end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_C end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ]

with A4×4𝐴superscript44A\in\mathbb{C}^{4\times 4}italic_A ∈ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 × 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Let Z𝑍Zitalic_Z be a standard complex Gaussian vector in 4superscript4\mathbb{C}^{4}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (so that Cov(Z)=I4×4Cov𝑍𝐼superscript44\operatorname{Cov}(Z)=I\in\mathbb{C}^{4\times 4}roman_Cov ( italic_Z ) = italic_I ∈ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 × 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT). The two point function (6.9) can be expressed by Gaussian regression as

τ(z,0,0)=𝔼[f((ABC1B)1/2Z)],𝜏𝑧00𝔼delimited-[]𝑓superscript𝐴𝐵superscript𝐶1superscript𝐵12𝑍\displaystyle\tau(z,0,0)=\mathbb{E}\Big{[}f((A-BC^{-1}B^{*})^{1/2}Z)\Big{]},italic_τ ( italic_z , 0 , 0 ) = blackboard_E [ italic_f ( ( italic_A - italic_B italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z ) ] ,

where f(u1,,u6)=||u1|2|u2|2|||u3|2|u4|2|𝑓subscript𝑢1subscript𝑢6superscriptsubscript𝑢12superscriptsubscript𝑢22superscriptsubscript𝑢32superscriptsubscript𝑢42f(u_{1},\dots,u_{6})=\big{|}|u_{1}|^{2}-|u_{2}|^{2}\big{|}\cdot\big{|}|u_{3}|^% {2}-|u_{4}|^{2}\big{|}italic_f ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = | | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ⋅ | | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT |. We note that

(8.11) |f(u)f(u)||uu|(1+|u|s+|u|s),u,u6,formulae-sequenceless-than-or-similar-to𝑓𝑢𝑓superscript𝑢𝑢superscript𝑢1superscript𝑢𝑠superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑠𝑢𝑢superscript6\displaystyle|f(u)-f(u^{\prime})|\lesssim|u-u^{\prime}|\cdot(1+|u|^{s}+|u^{% \prime}|^{s}),\qquad u,u\in\mathbb{C}^{6},| italic_f ( italic_u ) - italic_f ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | ≲ | italic_u - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ⋅ ( 1 + | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_u , italic_u ∈ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

for some s>0𝑠0s>0italic_s > 0.

Let Γ~~Γ\tilde{\Gamma}over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG be obtained from ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ by replacing with 00 every entry that corresponds to correlations between a function of z𝑧zitalic_z and a function evaluated at 00. Thus Γ~~Γ\tilde{\Gamma}over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG is the covariance of a Gaussian vector defined analogously to (8.9) but replacing (F(z),¯F(z),F(z))𝐹𝑧¯𝐹𝑧𝐹𝑧(\partial F(z),\bar{\partial}F(z),F(z))( ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) , over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) , italic_F ( italic_z ) ) and (F(0),¯F(0),F(0))𝐹0¯𝐹0𝐹0(\partial F(0),\bar{\partial}F(0),F(0))( ∂ italic_F ( 0 ) , over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( 0 ) , italic_F ( 0 ) ) with two independent copies of those vectors. As a consequence, the one point function (6.8) satisfies

ρ(z,0)ρ(0,0)=𝔼[f((A~B~C~1B~)1/2Z)],𝜌𝑧0𝜌00𝔼delimited-[]𝑓superscript~𝐴~𝐵superscript~𝐶1superscript~𝐵12𝑍\displaystyle\rho(z,0)\rho(0,0)=\mathbb{E}\Big{[}f((\tilde{A}-\tilde{B}\tilde{% C}^{-1}\tilde{B}^{*})^{1/2}Z)\Big{]},italic_ρ ( italic_z , 0 ) italic_ρ ( 0 , 0 ) = blackboard_E [ italic_f ( ( over~ start_ARG italic_A end_ARG - over~ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z ) ] ,

where Γ~~Γ\tilde{\Gamma}over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG is split into blocks analogous to (8.10). (Actually, C~=I~𝐶𝐼\tilde{C}=Iover~ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG = italic_I.)

By the fast decay of H𝐻Hitalic_H and its derivatives,

ΓΓ~ec|z|2,Γ,Γ~1,formulae-sequenceless-than-or-similar-tonormΓ~Γsuperscript𝑒𝑐superscript𝑧2normΓless-than-or-similar-tonorm~Γ1\displaystyle\|\Gamma-\tilde{\Gamma}\|\lesssim e^{-c|z|^{2}},\qquad\|\Gamma\|,% \|\tilde{\Gamma}\|\lesssim 1,∥ roman_Γ - over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ∥ ≲ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_c | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ∥ roman_Γ ∥ , ∥ over~ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG ∥ ≲ 1 ,

for some constant c>0𝑐0c>0italic_c > 0. It follows that there exists L>0𝐿0L>0italic_L > 0 such that for |z|>L𝑧𝐿|z|>L| italic_z | > italic_L, C11less-than-or-similar-tonormsuperscript𝐶11\|C^{-1}\|\lesssim 1∥ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ≲ 1. Taking into account that the square-root operation is continuous on the set of positive matrices, this implies that, for |z|>L𝑧𝐿|z|>L| italic_z | > italic_L,

(ABC1B)1/2(A~B~C~1B~)1/2ec|z|2less-than-or-similar-tonormsuperscript𝐴𝐵superscript𝐶1superscript𝐵12superscript~𝐴~𝐵superscript~𝐶1superscript~𝐵12superscript𝑒𝑐superscript𝑧2\|(A-BC^{-1}B^{*})^{1/2}-(\tilde{A}-\tilde{B}\tilde{C}^{-1}\tilde{B}^{*})^{1/2% }\|\lesssim e^{-c|z|^{2}}∥ ( italic_A - italic_B italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( over~ start_ARG italic_A end_ARG - over~ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ≲ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_c | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

and, by (8.11),

|τ(z,0,0)ρ(z)ρ(0)|𝔼[|f((ABC1B)1/2Z)f((A~B~C~1B~)1/2Z)|]𝜏𝑧00𝜌𝑧𝜌0𝔼delimited-[]𝑓superscript𝐴𝐵superscript𝐶1superscript𝐵12𝑍𝑓superscript~𝐴~𝐵superscript~𝐶1superscript~𝐵12𝑍\displaystyle\big{|}\tau(z,0,0)-\rho(z)\rho(0)\big{|}\leq\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big% {|}f((A-BC^{-1}B^{*})^{1/2}Z)-f((\tilde{A}-\tilde{B}\tilde{C}^{-1}\tilde{B}^{*% })^{1/2}Z)\big{|}\Big{]}| italic_τ ( italic_z , 0 , 0 ) - italic_ρ ( italic_z ) italic_ρ ( 0 ) | ≤ blackboard_E [ | italic_f ( ( italic_A - italic_B italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z ) - italic_f ( ( over~ start_ARG italic_A end_ARG - over~ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z ) | ]
𝔼[|(ABC1B)1/2Z(A~B~C~1B~)1/2Z)|\displaystyle\qquad\lesssim\mathbb{E}\Big{[}\big{|}(A-BC^{-1}B^{*})^{1/2}Z-(% \tilde{A}-\tilde{B}\tilde{C}^{-1}\tilde{B}^{*})^{1/2}Z)\big{|}\,\cdot\,≲ blackboard_E [ | ( italic_A - italic_B italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z - ( over~ start_ARG italic_A end_ARG - over~ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z ) | ⋅
(1+|(ABC1B)1/2Z|s+|(A~B~C~1B~)1/2Z)|s)]\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\Big{(}1+\big{|}(A-BC^{-1}B^{*})^{1/2}Z% \big{|}^{s}+\big{|}(\tilde{A}-\tilde{B}\tilde{C}^{-1}\tilde{B}^{*})^{1/2}Z)% \big{|}^{s}\Big{)}\Big{]}( 1 + | ( italic_A - italic_B italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | ( over~ start_ARG italic_A end_ARG - over~ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ]
ec|z|2𝔼[1+|Z|s+1]ec|z|2.less-than-or-similar-toabsentsuperscript𝑒𝑐superscript𝑧2𝔼delimited-[]1superscript𝑍𝑠1less-than-or-similar-tosuperscript𝑒𝑐superscript𝑧2\displaystyle\qquad\lesssim e^{-c|z|^{2}}\mathbb{E}\big{[}1+|Z|^{s+1}\big{]}% \lesssim e^{-c|z|^{2}}.≲ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_c | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E [ 1 + | italic_Z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≲ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_c | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

On the other hand, for |z|L𝑧𝐿|z|\leq L| italic_z | ≤ italic_L we can invoke Proposition 6.2 and conclude that

(8.12) |τ(z,0,0)ρ(z)ρ(0)|ec|z|2,z.formulae-sequenceless-than-or-similar-to𝜏𝑧00𝜌𝑧𝜌0superscript𝑒𝑐superscript𝑧2𝑧\displaystyle\big{|}\tau(z,0,0)-\rho(z)\rho(0)\big{|}\lesssim e^{-c|z|^{2}},% \qquad z\in\mathbb{C}.| italic_τ ( italic_z , 0 , 0 ) - italic_ρ ( italic_z ) italic_ρ ( 0 ) | ≲ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_c | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_z ∈ blackboard_C .

Since F𝐹Fitalic_F has zero mean, the point process {F=0}𝐹0\{F=0\}{ italic_F = 0 } is stationary and

ρ(z,0)=ρ(0,0),τ(z,w,0)=τ(zw,0,0),z,w,formulae-sequence𝜌𝑧0𝜌00formulae-sequence𝜏𝑧𝑤0𝜏𝑧𝑤00𝑧𝑤\displaystyle\rho(z,0)=\rho(0,0),\qquad\tau(z,w,0)=\tau(z-w,0,0),\qquad z,w\in% \mathbb{C},italic_ρ ( italic_z , 0 ) = italic_ρ ( 0 , 0 ) , italic_τ ( italic_z , italic_w , 0 ) = italic_τ ( italic_z - italic_w , 0 , 0 ) , italic_z , italic_w ∈ blackboard_C ,

(this is special of the zero statistic; it does not apply to the more general u𝑢uitalic_u-crossings considered in Section 6.) We next write the variance of the number statistic with help of Kac-Rice formulae, whose application was justified in the proof of Theorem 6.4, cf. (6.31) and (6.32),

𝔼[N(B)]=Bρ(z,0)𝑑A(z)=ρ(0,0)|B|,𝔼delimited-[]𝑁𝐵subscript𝐵𝜌𝑧0differential-d𝐴𝑧𝜌00𝐵\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}N(B)\big{]}=\int_{B}\rho(z,0)\,dA(z)=\rho(0,0)% \cdot|B|,blackboard_E [ italic_N ( italic_B ) ] = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ ( italic_z , 0 ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) = italic_ρ ( 0 , 0 ) ⋅ | italic_B | ,
(𝔼[N(B)])2=B×Bρ(z,0)ρ(w,0)𝑑A(z)𝑑A(w)=ρ(0,0)2|B|2,superscript𝔼delimited-[]𝑁𝐵2subscript𝐵𝐵𝜌𝑧0𝜌𝑤0differential-d𝐴𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑤𝜌superscript002superscript𝐵2\displaystyle\left(\mathbb{E}\big{[}N(B)\big{]}\right)^{2}=\int_{B\times B}% \rho(z,0)\rho(w,0)\,dA(z)dA(w)=\rho(0,0)^{2}\cdot|B|^{2},( blackboard_E [ italic_N ( italic_B ) ] ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B × italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ ( italic_z , 0 ) italic_ρ ( italic_w , 0 ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_w ) = italic_ρ ( 0 , 0 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ | italic_B | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼[N(B)2N(B)]=B×Bτ(z,w,0)𝑑A(z)𝑑A(w)=B×Bτ(zw,0,0)𝑑A(z)𝑑A(w).𝔼delimited-[]𝑁superscript𝐵2𝑁𝐵subscript𝐵𝐵𝜏𝑧𝑤0differential-d𝐴𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑤subscript𝐵𝐵𝜏𝑧𝑤00differential-d𝐴𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{[}N(B)^{2}-N(B)\big{]}=\int_{B\times B}\tau(z,w,0)% \,dA(z)dA(w)=\int_{B\times B}\tau(z-w,0,0)\,dA(z)dA(w).blackboard_E [ italic_N ( italic_B ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N ( italic_B ) ] = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B × italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ ( italic_z , italic_w , 0 ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_w ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B × italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ ( italic_z - italic_w , 0 , 0 ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_w ) .

Hence,

(8.13) Var[N(B)]=ρ(0,0)|B|+B×B(τ(zw,0,0)ρ(0,0)2)𝑑A(z)𝑑A(w).𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]𝑁𝐵𝜌00𝐵subscript𝐵𝐵𝜏𝑧𝑤00𝜌superscript002differential-d𝐴𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑤\displaystyle\mathop{Var}\nolimits[N(B)]=\rho(0,0)\cdot|B|+\int_{B\times B}% \left(\tau(z-w,0,0)-\rho(0,0)^{2}\right)\,dA(z)dA(w).start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_N ( italic_B ) ] = italic_ρ ( 0 , 0 ) ⋅ | italic_B | + ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B × italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_τ ( italic_z - italic_w , 0 , 0 ) - italic_ρ ( 0 , 0 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_w ) .

Using (8.12) and Lemma 8.2 we estimate

|B×B(τ(zw,0,0)ρ(0,0)2)𝑑A(z,w)|subscript𝐵𝐵𝜏𝑧𝑤00𝜌superscript002differential-d𝐴𝑧𝑤\displaystyle\Big{|}\int_{B\times B}\left(\tau(z-w,0,0)-\rho(0,0)^{2}\right)\,% dA(z,w)\Big{|}| ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B × italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_τ ( italic_z - italic_w , 0 , 0 ) - italic_ρ ( 0 , 0 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z , italic_w ) | B×Bec|zw|2𝑑A(z)𝑑A(w)less-than-or-similar-toabsentsubscript𝐵𝐵superscript𝑒𝑐superscript𝑧𝑤2differential-d𝐴𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑤\displaystyle\lesssim\int_{B\times B}e^{-c|z-w|^{2}}\,dA(z)dA(w)≲ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B × italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_c | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_w )
=α|B|+O(R),absent𝛼𝐵𝑂𝑅\displaystyle=\alpha\cdot|B|+O(R),= italic_α ⋅ | italic_B | + italic_O ( italic_R ) ,

where α:=ec|z|2𝑑A(z)assign𝛼subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑐superscript𝑧2differential-d𝐴𝑧\alpha:=\int_{\mathbb{C}}e^{-c|z|^{2}}\,dA(z)italic_α := ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_c | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ). Combining this with (8.13) gives

Var[N(B)](ρ(0,0)+α)πR2+O(R)CR2,𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]𝑁𝐵𝜌00𝛼𝜋superscript𝑅2𝑂𝑅𝐶superscript𝑅2\displaystyle\mathop{Var}\nolimits[N(B)]\leq(\rho(0,0)+\alpha)\cdot\pi R^{2}+O% (R)\leq CR^{2},start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ italic_N ( italic_B ) ] ≤ ( italic_ρ ( 0 , 0 ) + italic_α ) ⋅ italic_π italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_O ( italic_R ) ≤ italic_C italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

for some constant C>0𝐶0C>0italic_C > 0. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.2. ∎

8.3. Proof of Proposition 8.1

The proof relies on the well-known diagram method (see Janson [36]), which has been previously used in somewhat similar situations, e.g., in  [13], [53], [12]. We briefly recall this method.

Let (α1,,αk)subscript𝛼1subscript𝛼𝑘(\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{k})( italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) be a complex Gaussian random vector, normalized so that αr𝒩(0,1)similar-tosubscript𝛼𝑟subscript𝒩01\alpha_{r}\sim\mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,1)italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 , 1 ) for all 1rk1𝑟𝑘1\leq r\leq k1 ≤ italic_r ≤ italic_k, and let i1,ik,j1,,jksubscript𝑖1subscript𝑖𝑘subscript𝑗1subscript𝑗𝑘i_{1},\dots i_{k},j_{1},\dots,j_{k}\in\mathbb{N}italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_N. A complete Feynman diagram is a graph with r=1k(ir+jr)superscriptsubscript𝑟1𝑘subscript𝑖𝑟subscript𝑗𝑟\sum_{r=1}^{k}(i_{r}+j_{r})∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) vertices labelled by {αr,αr¯}r=1ksuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝛼𝑟¯subscript𝛼𝑟𝑟1𝑘\{\alpha_{r},\overline{\alpha_{r}}\}_{r=1}^{k}{ italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, such that:

  • there are exactly irsubscript𝑖𝑟i_{r}italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT vertices labelled by αrsubscript𝛼𝑟\alpha_{r}italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and jrsubscript𝑗𝑟j_{r}italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT vertices labelled by αr¯¯subscript𝛼𝑟\overline{\alpha_{r}}over¯ start_ARG italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG.

  • each vertex has degree 1111.

  • no edge joins a vertex with another vertex of the same label, or of its conjugate label.

The value of a diagram ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is defined as

v(Γ)=(a,b)E(Γ)𝔼(ab),𝑣Γsubscriptproduct𝑎𝑏𝐸Γ𝔼𝑎𝑏v(\Gamma)=\prod_{(a,b)\in E(\Gamma)}\mathbb{E}(a\,b),italic_v ( roman_Γ ) = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a , italic_b ) ∈ italic_E ( roman_Γ ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E ( italic_a italic_b ) ,

where E(Γ)𝐸ΓE(\Gamma)italic_E ( roman_Γ ) is the set of edges of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ. Then, by [36, Theorem 3.12], we have222 The relation to complex Hermite polynomials is given in [36, Example 3.31].

𝔼[Hi1,j1(α1,α1¯)Hik,jk(αk,αk¯)]=Γv(Γ),𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐻subscript𝑖1subscript𝑗1subscript𝛼1¯subscript𝛼1subscript𝐻subscript𝑖𝑘subscript𝑗𝑘subscript𝛼𝑘¯subscript𝛼𝑘subscriptΓ𝑣Γ\mathbb{E}\left[H_{i_{1},j_{1}}(\alpha_{1},\overline{\alpha_{1}})\cdot\ldots% \cdot H_{i_{k},j_{k}}(\alpha_{k},\overline{\alpha_{k}})\right]=\sum_{\Gamma}v(% \Gamma),blackboard_E [ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) ⋅ … ⋅ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) ] = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ( roman_Γ ) ,

where the sum is over all complete Feynman diagrams ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ, and Hi,jsubscript𝐻𝑖𝑗H_{i,j}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are the complex Hermite polynomials introduced in (7.1). In the case where ir=jrsubscript𝑖𝑟subscript𝑗𝑟i_{r}=j_{r}italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all r𝑟ritalic_r, we may use Laguerre polynomials via (7.2), to obtain:

(8.14) 𝔼[Li1(|α1|2)Lik(|αk|2)]=(1)rirrir!Γv(Γ).𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐿subscript𝑖1superscriptsubscript𝛼12subscript𝐿subscript𝑖𝑘superscriptsubscript𝛼𝑘2superscript1subscript𝑟subscript𝑖𝑟subscriptproduct𝑟subscript𝑖𝑟subscriptΓ𝑣Γ\mathbb{E}\left[L_{i_{1}}(|\alpha_{1}|^{2})\cdots L_{i_{k}}(|\alpha_{k}|^{2})% \right]=\frac{(-1)^{\sum_{r}i_{r}}}{\prod_{r}i_{r}!}\sum_{\Gamma}v(\Gamma).blackboard_E [ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⋯ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] = divide start_ARG ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ! end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ( roman_Γ ) .

Proposition 8.1 can now be proved by using formula (8.14) with a suitable set of diagrams in each part. In the first part, we need to compute the product of four elements:

𝔼[L1(|α|)2L1(|β|2)L1(|γ|2)L1(|δ|2)].𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐿1superscript𝛼2subscript𝐿1superscript𝛽2subscript𝐿1superscript𝛾2subscript𝐿1superscript𝛿2\mathbb{E}[L_{1}(|\alpha|)^{2}L_{1}(|\beta|^{2})L_{1}(|\gamma|^{2})L_{1}(|% \delta|^{2})].blackboard_E [ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_α | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_β | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_γ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_δ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] .

We illustrate the associated diagram counting in Fig. 2.

Refer to caption
Figure 2. Diagram counting. Left: One must choose an edge connecting α𝛼\alphaitalic_α either to γ¯¯𝛾\overline{\gamma}over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG or δ¯¯𝛿\overline{\delta}over¯ start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG and another edge connecting γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ to either α¯¯𝛼\overline{\alpha}over¯ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG or β¯¯𝛽\overline{\beta}over¯ start_ARG italic_β end_ARG. Right: The diagram resulting from connecting α𝛼\alphaitalic_α to γ¯¯𝛾\overline{\gamma}over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG and γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ to β¯¯𝛽\overline{\beta}over¯ start_ARG italic_β end_ARG.

In the corresponding diagrams each label among {α,α¯,β,β¯,γ,γ¯,δ,δ¯}𝛼¯𝛼𝛽¯𝛽𝛾¯𝛾𝛿¯𝛿\{\alpha,\overline{\alpha},\beta,\overline{\beta},\gamma,\overline{\gamma},% \delta,\overline{\delta}\}{ italic_α , over¯ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG , italic_β , over¯ start_ARG italic_β end_ARG , italic_γ , over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG , italic_δ , over¯ start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG } appears exactly once. We note that all relevant diagrams are bi-partite graphs, with edges between V1={α,α¯,β,β¯}subscript𝑉1𝛼¯𝛼𝛽¯𝛽V_{1}=\{\alpha,\overline{\alpha},\beta,\overline{\beta}\}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_α , over¯ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG , italic_β , over¯ start_ARG italic_β end_ARG } and V2={γ,γ¯,δ,δ¯}subscript𝑉2𝛾¯𝛾𝛿¯𝛿V_{2}=\{\gamma,\overline{\gamma},\delta,\overline{\delta}\}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_γ , over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG , italic_δ , over¯ start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG }. Indeed, there are no edges within V1subscript𝑉1V_{1}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT since, by definition, there are no edges between a label and its conjugate, and by independence, there are no edges between {α,α¯}𝛼¯𝛼\{\alpha,\overline{\alpha}\}{ italic_α , over¯ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG } and {β,β¯}𝛽¯𝛽\{\beta,\overline{\beta}\}{ italic_β , over¯ start_ARG italic_β end_ARG }. For the same reasons, there are no edges within V2subscript𝑉2V_{2}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We further note that 𝔼(αγ)=0𝔼𝛼𝛾0\mathbb{E}(\alpha\gamma)=0blackboard_E ( italic_α italic_γ ) = 0 for any circularly symmetric complex Gaussian random vector (α,γ)𝛼𝛾(\alpha,\gamma)( italic_α , italic_γ ). Since the degree of each vertex must be 1111, there must be an edge joining α𝛼\alphaitalic_α with γ¯¯𝛾\overline{\gamma}over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG or with δ¯¯𝛿\overline{\delta}over¯ start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG; the remaining vertex must be joined to β𝛽\betaitalic_β. Similarly, there must be an edge joining γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ with α¯¯𝛼\overline{\alpha}over¯ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG or with β¯¯𝛽\overline{\beta}over¯ start_ARG italic_β end_ARG; the remaining vertex will be joined with δ𝛿\deltaitalic_δ. These choices are independent. Therefore, the sum of values of the resulting four diagrams is

(𝔼(αγ¯)𝔼(βδ¯)+𝔼(αδ¯)𝔼(βγ¯))(𝔼(γα¯)𝔼(δβ¯)+𝔼(γβ¯)𝔼(δα¯))=|𝔼(αγ¯)𝔼(βδ¯)+𝔼(αδ¯)𝔼(βγ¯)|2.𝔼𝛼¯𝛾𝔼𝛽¯𝛿𝔼𝛼¯𝛿𝔼𝛽¯𝛾𝔼𝛾¯𝛼𝔼𝛿¯𝛽𝔼𝛾¯𝛽𝔼𝛿¯𝛼superscript𝔼𝛼¯𝛾𝔼𝛽¯𝛿𝔼𝛼¯𝛿𝔼𝛽¯𝛾2\left(\mathbb{E}(\alpha\overline{\gamma})\mathbb{E}(\beta\overline{\delta})+% \mathbb{E}(\alpha\overline{\delta})\mathbb{E}(\beta\overline{\gamma})\right)% \left(\mathbb{E}(\gamma\overline{\alpha})\mathbb{E}(\delta\overline{\beta})+% \mathbb{E}(\gamma\overline{\beta})\mathbb{E}(\delta\overline{\alpha})\right)=% \Big{|}\mathbb{E}(\alpha\overline{\gamma})\mathbb{E}(\beta\overline{\delta})+% \mathbb{E}(\alpha\overline{\delta})\mathbb{E}(\beta\overline{\gamma})\Big{|}^{% 2}.( blackboard_E ( italic_α over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ) blackboard_E ( italic_β over¯ start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG ) + blackboard_E ( italic_α over¯ start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG ) blackboard_E ( italic_β over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ) ) ( blackboard_E ( italic_γ over¯ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG ) blackboard_E ( italic_δ over¯ start_ARG italic_β end_ARG ) + blackboard_E ( italic_γ over¯ start_ARG italic_β end_ARG ) blackboard_E ( italic_δ over¯ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG ) ) = | blackboard_E ( italic_α over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ) blackboard_E ( italic_β over¯ start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG ) + blackboard_E ( italic_α over¯ start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG ) blackboard_E ( italic_β over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Plugging this into (8.14), we obtain the first item.

For the second part, we need to compute

𝔼[L1(|α|2)L1(|β|2)L2(|γ|2)].𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐿1superscript𝛼2subscript𝐿1superscript𝛽2subscript𝐿2superscript𝛾2\mathbb{E}[L_{1}(|\alpha|^{2})L_{1}(|\beta|^{2})L_{2}(|\gamma|^{2})].blackboard_E [ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_β | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_γ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] .

The corresponding diagrams are bi-partite graphs, with edges between V1={α,α¯,β,β¯}subscript𝑉1𝛼¯𝛼𝛽¯𝛽V_{1}=\{\alpha,\overline{\alpha},\beta,\overline{\beta}\}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_α , over¯ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG , italic_β , over¯ start_ARG italic_β end_ARG } and V2={γ,γ¯,γ,γ¯}subscript𝑉2𝛾¯𝛾𝛾¯𝛾V_{2}=\{\gamma,\overline{\gamma},\gamma,\overline{\gamma}\}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_γ , over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG , italic_γ , over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG } (that is, V2subscript𝑉2V_{2}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a set of four vertices carrying two labels of γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ and two labels of γ¯¯𝛾\overline{\gamma}over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG). By the same arguments as before, α𝛼\alphaitalic_α must be joined to one of two copies of γ¯¯𝛾\overline{\gamma}over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG (and the remaining copy must be joined to β𝛽\betaitalic_β), and the first copy of γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ must be joined to either α¯¯𝛼\overline{\alpha}over¯ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG or β¯¯𝛽\overline{\beta}over¯ start_ARG italic_β end_ARG (and the remaining vertex must be joined to the second copy of γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ). These four diagrams have the value

𝔼(αγ¯)𝔼(βγ¯)𝔼(α¯γ)𝔼(β¯γ)=|𝔼(αγ¯)𝔼(βγ¯)|2.𝔼𝛼¯𝛾𝔼𝛽¯𝛾𝔼¯𝛼𝛾𝔼¯𝛽𝛾superscript𝔼𝛼¯𝛾𝔼𝛽¯𝛾2\mathbb{E}(\alpha\overline{\gamma})\mathbb{E}(\beta\overline{\gamma})\mathbb{E% }(\overline{\alpha}\gamma)\mathbb{E}(\overline{\beta}\gamma)=\left|\mathbb{E}(% \alpha\overline{\gamma})\mathbb{E}(\beta\overline{\gamma})\right|^{2}.blackboard_E ( italic_α over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ) blackboard_E ( italic_β over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ) blackboard_E ( over¯ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG italic_γ ) blackboard_E ( over¯ start_ARG italic_β end_ARG italic_γ ) = | blackboard_E ( italic_α over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ) blackboard_E ( italic_β over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Considering the normalising factor in (8.14), we establish the second item.

For the computation of 𝔼[L2(|α|2)L2(|γ|2)]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐿2superscript𝛼2subscript𝐿2superscript𝛾2\mathbb{E}[L_{2}(|\alpha|^{2})L_{2}(|\gamma|^{2})]blackboard_E [ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_α | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_γ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] in the third part, the corresponding diagrams are bi-partite graphs with edges between V1={α,α¯,α,α¯}subscript𝑉1𝛼¯𝛼𝛼¯𝛼V_{1}=\{\alpha,\overline{\alpha},\alpha,\overline{\alpha}\}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_α , over¯ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG , italic_α , over¯ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG } and V2={γ,γ¯,γ,γ¯}subscript𝑉2𝛾¯𝛾𝛾¯𝛾V_{2}=\{\gamma,\overline{\gamma},\gamma,\overline{\gamma}\}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_γ , over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG , italic_γ , over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG }. Again there are four diagrams, resulting from a choice of edge joining the first copy of α𝛼\alphaitalic_α to one of the two copies of γ¯¯𝛾\overline{\gamma}over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG, and an edge joining the first copy of γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ to one of the two copies of α¯¯𝛼\overline{\alpha}over¯ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG. The value of each such diagram is |𝔼(αγ¯)|4superscript𝔼𝛼¯𝛾4|\mathbb{E}(\alpha\overline{\gamma})|^{4}| blackboard_E ( italic_α over¯ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The normalizing factor in (8.14) is 12!2!122\tfrac{1}{2!2!}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 ! 2 ! end_ARG, which yields the result.

9. Applications

9.1. Gaussian entire functions

We start by identifying Gaussian entire functions and their iterated covariant derivatives as GWHF.

Lemma 9.1.

Let G=G0+G1𝐺subscript𝐺0subscript𝐺1G=G_{0}+G_{1}italic_G = italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where G0subscript𝐺0G_{0}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the translation invariant GEF (1.4) and G1::subscript𝐺1G_{1}\colon\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_C → blackboard_C is entire with

(9.1) supz|G1(z)|e12|z|2<.subscriptsupremum𝑧subscript𝐺1𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2\displaystyle\sup_{z\in\mathbb{C}}|G_{1}(z)|e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^% {2}}<\infty.roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < ∞ .

Consider the iterated covariant derivative (¯)nG=(z¯)nGsuperscriptsuperscript¯𝑛𝐺superscript¯𝑧𝑛𝐺\big{(}\bar{\partial}^{*}\big{)}^{n}G=\big{(}\bar{z}-\partial)^{n}G( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G = ( over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG - ∂ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G with n0𝑛subscript0n\in\mathbb{N}_{0}italic_n ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and set

F(n)(z)=e12|z|2n!(¯)nG(z).superscript𝐹𝑛𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2𝑛superscriptsuperscript¯𝑛𝐺𝑧\displaystyle F^{(n)}(z)=\frac{e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}}{\sqrt{n% !}}\big{(}\bar{\partial}^{*}\big{)}^{n}G(z).italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG end_ARG ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G ( italic_z ) .

Then F(n)superscript𝐹𝑛F^{(n)}italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a GWHF with twisted kernel

(9.2) H(n)(z)=Ln(|z|2)e12|z|2,superscript𝐻𝑛𝑧subscript𝐿𝑛superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2\displaystyle H^{(n)}(z)=L_{n}(|z|^{2})\cdot e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}% ^{2}},italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⋅ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where Lnsubscript𝐿𝑛L_{n}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the Laguerre polynomial of degree n𝑛nitalic_n (7.3). In addition, conditions (1.8), (1.9), (1.11), (1.12), (1.14), and (1.15) are satisfied.

Proof.

When G10subscript𝐺10G_{1}\equiv 0italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ 0, the lemma is contained in [29, Lemma 6.3]—and was proved by resorting to [27, 34]—so we only check (1.8), which concerns the mean function

F1(n)(z)=e12|z|2n!(¯)nG1(z).superscriptsubscript𝐹1𝑛𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2𝑛superscriptsuperscript¯𝑛subscript𝐺1𝑧\displaystyle F_{1}^{(n)}(z)=\frac{e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}}{% \sqrt{n!}}\big{(}\bar{\partial}^{*}\big{)}^{n}G_{1}(z).italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG end_ARG ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) .

The key observation is that for an arbitrary real smooth function L::𝐿L\colon\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}italic_L : blackboard_C → blackboard_C, the Wirtinger operators and the twisted derivatives are related by

𝒟1[e12|z|2L(z)]=e12|z|2¯L(z),subscript𝒟1delimited-[]superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2𝐿𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2superscript¯𝐿𝑧\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{1}\big{[}e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}L(z)% \big{]}=-e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}\,\bar{\partial}^{*}L(z),caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L ( italic_z ) ] = - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L ( italic_z ) ,
𝒟2[e12|z|2L(z)]=e12|z|2¯L(z).subscript𝒟2delimited-[]superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2𝐿𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2¯𝐿𝑧\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{2}\big{[}e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}L(z)% \big{]}=e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}\,\bar{\partial}L(z).caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L ( italic_z ) ] = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_L ( italic_z ) .

In particular,

F1(n)=(1)nn!(𝒟1)nF1(0).subscriptsuperscript𝐹𝑛1superscript1𝑛𝑛superscriptsubscript𝒟1𝑛subscriptsuperscript𝐹01\displaystyle F^{(n)}_{1}=\frac{(-1)^{n}}{\sqrt{n!}}\big{(}\mathcal{D}_{1}\big% {)}^{n}F^{(0)}_{1}.italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG end_ARG ( caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

We also observe that each twisted shift of F1(0)subscriptsuperscript𝐹01F^{(0)}_{1}italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a weighted analytic function:

𝒯ξF1(0)(z)=F1(0)(zξ)eiIm(zξ¯)=G1(zξ)e|zξ|2/2eiIm(zξ¯)=WξG1(z)e12|z|2,subscript𝒯𝜉subscriptsuperscript𝐹01𝑧subscriptsuperscript𝐹01𝑧𝜉superscript𝑒𝑖𝑧¯𝜉subscript𝐺1𝑧𝜉superscript𝑒superscript𝑧𝜉22superscript𝑒𝑖𝑧¯𝜉subscript𝑊𝜉subscript𝐺1𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2\displaystyle\mathcal{T}_{\xi}F^{(0)}_{1}(z)=F^{(0)}_{1}(z-\xi)e^{i\imaginary(% z\bar{\xi})}=G_{1}(z-\xi)e^{-|z-\xi|^{2}/2}e^{i\imaginary(z\bar{\xi})}=W_{\xi}% G_{1}(z)e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}},caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z - italic_ξ ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_OPERATOR roman_Im end_OPERATOR ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z - italic_ξ ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z - italic_ξ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_OPERATOR roman_Im end_OPERATOR ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where WξG1(z):=G1(zξ)ezξ¯|ξ|2/2assignsubscript𝑊𝜉subscript𝐺1𝑧subscript𝐺1𝑧𝜉superscript𝑒𝑧¯𝜉superscript𝜉22W_{\xi}G_{1}(z):=G_{1}(z-\xi)e^{z\bar{\xi}-|\xi|^{2}/2}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) := italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z - italic_ξ ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ end_ARG - | italic_ξ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the so called Bargmann shift of G1subscript𝐺1G_{1}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [59]. Hence, by a Cauchy estimate, for each k1𝑘1k\geq 1italic_k ≥ 1 we have

|𝒟1k[𝒯ξF1(0)](0)|superscriptsubscript𝒟1𝑘delimited-[]subscript𝒯𝜉subscriptsuperscript𝐹010\displaystyle\big{|}\mathcal{D}_{1}^{k}\big{[}\mathcal{T}_{\xi}F^{(0)}_{1}\big% {]}(0)\big{|}| caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ( 0 ) | =e|0|2/2|(¯)kWξG1(0)|=|kWξG1(0)|absentsuperscript𝑒superscript022superscriptsuperscript¯𝑘subscript𝑊𝜉subscript𝐺10superscript𝑘subscript𝑊𝜉subscript𝐺10\displaystyle=e^{-|0|^{2}/2}\big{|}(\bar{\partial}^{*})^{k}\,W_{\xi}G_{1}(0)% \big{|}=\big{|}\partial^{k}W_{\xi}G_{1}(0)\big{|}= italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | 0 | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) | = | ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) |
(9.3) Ckmax|z|1|WξG1(z)|Ckmax|z|1|𝒯ξF1(0)(z)|CkF1(0).absentsubscript𝐶𝑘subscript𝑧1subscript𝑊𝜉subscript𝐺1𝑧subscriptsuperscript𝐶𝑘subscript𝑧1subscript𝒯𝜉subscriptsuperscript𝐹01𝑧subscriptsuperscript𝐶𝑘subscriptnormsubscriptsuperscript𝐹01\displaystyle\leq C_{k}\max_{|z|\leq 1}|W_{\xi}G_{1}(z)|\leq C^{\prime}_{k}% \max_{|z|\leq 1}|\mathcal{T}_{\xi}F^{(0)}_{1}(z)|\leq C^{\prime}_{k}\|F^{(0)}_% {1}\|_{\infty}.≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z | ≤ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z | ≤ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Similarly

(9.4) |𝒟2𝒟1k[𝒯ξF1(0)](0)|subscript𝒟2superscriptsubscript𝒟1𝑘delimited-[]subscript𝒯𝜉subscriptsuperscript𝐹010\displaystyle\big{|}\mathcal{D}_{2}\mathcal{D}_{1}^{k}\big{[}\mathcal{T}_{\xi}% F^{(0)}_{1}\big{]}(0)\big{|}| caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ( 0 ) | =e|0|2/2|¯(¯)kWξG1(0)|=k|k1WξG1(0)|Ck′′F1(0),absentsuperscript𝑒superscript022¯superscriptsuperscript¯𝑘subscript𝑊𝜉subscript𝐺10𝑘superscript𝑘1subscript𝑊𝜉subscript𝐺10subscriptsuperscript𝐶′′𝑘subscriptnormsubscriptsuperscript𝐹01\displaystyle=e^{-|0|^{2}/2}\big{|}\bar{\partial}(\bar{\partial}^{*})^{k}\,W_{% \xi}G_{1}(0)\big{|}=k\big{|}\partial^{k-1}W_{\xi}G_{1}(0)\big{|}\leq C^{\prime% \prime}_{k}\|F^{(0)}_{1}\|_{\infty},= italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | 0 | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) | = italic_k | ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) | ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

where the second equality follows from the following identity, which holds for an analytic function f𝑓fitalic_f:

¯(¯)kf(z)=k(¯)k1f(z),¯superscriptsuperscript¯𝑘𝑓𝑧𝑘superscriptsuperscript¯𝑘1𝑓𝑧\bar{\partial}(\bar{\partial}^{*})^{k}f(z)=k(\bar{\partial}^{*})^{k-1}f(z),over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_z ) = italic_k ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_z ) ,

see, e.g., [30, Eq. (3.4)]. For j=1,2𝑗12j=1,2italic_j = 1 , 2, we can now use (9.1), (9.4), the commutation property (1.7) and (9.1) to obtain

|𝒟jF1(n)(z)|subscript𝒟𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝐹𝑛1𝑧\displaystyle|\mathcal{D}_{j}F^{(n)}_{1}(z)|| caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | =1n!|𝒟j(𝒟1)nF1(0)(z)|=1n!|𝒯z[𝒟j(𝒟1)nF1(0)](0)|absent1𝑛subscript𝒟𝑗superscriptsubscript𝒟1𝑛subscriptsuperscript𝐹01𝑧1𝑛subscript𝒯𝑧delimited-[]subscript𝒟𝑗superscriptsubscript𝒟1𝑛subscriptsuperscript𝐹010\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}|\mathcal{D}_{j}(\mathcal{D}_{1})^{n}F^{(0)}_% {1}(z)|=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}|\mathcal{T}_{-z}\big{[}\mathcal{D}_{j}(\mathcal{D}% _{1})^{n}F^{(0)}_{1}\big{]}(0)|= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG end_ARG | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG end_ARG | caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ( 0 ) |
=1n!|𝒟j(𝒟1)n𝒯zF1(0)(0)|CnF1(0)<,absent1𝑛subscript𝒟𝑗superscriptsubscript𝒟1𝑛subscript𝒯𝑧subscriptsuperscript𝐹010subscript𝐶𝑛subscriptnormsubscriptsuperscript𝐹01\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}\,|\mathcal{D}_{j}(\mathcal{D}_{1})^{n}% \mathcal{T}_{-z}F^{(0)}_{1}(0)|\leq C_{n}\|F^{(0)}_{1}\|_{\infty}<\infty,= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG end_ARG | caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) | ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞ ,

which shows that (1.8) indeed holds. ∎

We can now prove the hyperuniformity of the zeros of GEF with non-trivial mean.

Proof of Theorem 1.3.

By Lemma 9.1, we identify G=G0+G1𝐺subscript𝐺0subscript𝐺1G=G_{0}+G_{1}italic_G = italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with a GWHF with twisted kernel

H(z)=e12|z|2𝐻𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2\displaystyle H(z)=e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}italic_H ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

by setting

Fj(z)=e12|z|2Gj(z),j=0,1.formulae-sequencesubscript𝐹𝑗𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2subscript𝐺𝑗𝑧𝑗01\displaystyle F_{j}(z)=e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}G_{j}(z),\qquad j% =0,1.italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) , italic_j = 0 , 1 .

By Lemma 9.1, F:=F0+F1assign𝐹subscript𝐹0subscript𝐹1F:=F_{0}+F_{1}italic_F := italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, so it suffices to observe that all its charges are 1. This follows from the analyticity of G𝐺Gitalic_G. Indeed, if F(z)=0𝐹𝑧0F(z)=0italic_F ( italic_z ) = 0 then

JacF(z)=|F(z)|2|¯F(z)|20Jac𝐹𝑧superscript𝐹𝑧2superscript¯𝐹𝑧20\displaystyle\operatorname{Jac}F(z)=|\partial F(z)|^{2}-|\bar{\partial}F(z)|^{% 2}\geq 0roman_Jac italic_F ( italic_z ) = | ∂ italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ 0

because

¯F(z)=(¯G(z)z2G(z))e12|z|2=0,¯𝐹𝑧¯𝐺𝑧𝑧2𝐺𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧20\displaystyle\bar{\partial}F(z)=\Big{(}\bar{\partial}G(z)-\frac{z}{2}G(z)\Big{% )}e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}=0,over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_F ( italic_z ) = ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_G ( italic_z ) - divide start_ARG italic_z end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_G ( italic_z ) ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 ,

while JacF(z)0Jac𝐹𝑧0\operatorname{Jac}F(z)\not=0roman_Jac italic_F ( italic_z ) ≠ 0 by Lemma 3.1. Therefore κz=sgnJacF(z)=1subscript𝜅𝑧sgnJac𝐹𝑧1\kappa_{z}=\operatorname{sgn}\operatorname{Jac}F(z)=1italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_sgn roman_Jac italic_F ( italic_z ) = 1, as claimed. ∎

We now look into the critical points of translation invariant GEF.

Proof of Theorems 1.4 and 1.5.

Let G=G0𝐺subscript𝐺0G=G_{0}italic_G = italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the zero-mean Gaussian entire function given by (1.4). By Lemma 9.1,

F(z)=e12|z|2¯G(z)𝐹𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2superscript¯𝐺𝑧F(z)=e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}\,\bar{\partial}^{*}G(z)italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G ( italic_z )

is a GWHF with twisted kernel H(z)=(1|z|2)e|z|2/2𝐻𝑧1superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22H(z)=(1-|z|^{2})e^{-\absolutevalue{z}^{2}/2}italic_H ( italic_z ) = ( 1 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Hence Theorem 1.4 follows immediately from Theorem 1.2.

Second, because multiplication by a smooth non-vanishing factor does not alter indices (see e.g., [29, Lemma 6.5]) the charge of F𝐹Fitalic_F at a zero is exactly the index of ¯Gsuperscript¯𝐺\bar{\partial}^{*}Gover¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G. Thus, Theorem 1.1 (or [29, Theorem 1.12]) implies that

(9.5) Var[𝒩R+𝒩R]CR,R>1,formulae-sequence𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅𝐶𝑅𝑅1\displaystyle\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\mathcal{N}_{R}^{+}-\mathcal{N}_{R}^{-}]% \leq CR,\qquad R>1,start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≤ italic_C italic_R , italic_R > 1 ,

for a constant C>0𝐶0C>0italic_C > 0. On the other hand 𝒩R++𝒩Rsuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅\mathcal{N}_{R}^{+}+\mathcal{N}_{R}^{-}caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the total number of zeros of ¯Gsuperscript¯𝐺\bar{\partial}^{*}Gover¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G in BR(0)subscript𝐵𝑅0B_{R}(0)italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) and therefore Theorem 1.1 gives

(9.6) kR2Var[𝒩R++𝒩R]KR2,R>1,formulae-sequence𝑘superscript𝑅2𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅𝐾superscript𝑅2𝑅1\displaystyle kR^{2}\leq\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\mathcal{N}_{R}^{+}+\mathcal{N}_% {R}^{-}]\leq KR^{2},\qquad R>1,italic_k italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≤ italic_K italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R > 1 ,

for adequate constants k,K>0𝑘𝐾0k,K>0italic_k , italic_K > 0. As a consequence, we have

Var[𝒩R+]Var[𝒩R++𝒩R]+Var[𝒩R+𝒩R](K+C)R2,less-than-or-similar-to𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅less-than-or-similar-to𝐾𝐶superscript𝑅2\displaystyle\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\mathcal{N}_{R}^{+}]\lesssim\mathop{Var}% \nolimits[\mathcal{N}_{R}^{+}+\mathcal{N}_{R}^{-}]+\mathop{Var}\nolimits[% \mathcal{N}_{R}^{+}-\mathcal{N}_{R}^{-}]\lesssim(K+C)R^{2},start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≲ start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] + start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≲ ( italic_K + italic_C ) italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

while

kR2𝑘superscript𝑅2\displaystyle kR^{2}italic_k italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Var[𝒩R++𝒩R]=Var[2𝒩R+(𝒩R+𝒩R)]absent𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]2superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅\displaystyle\leq\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\mathcal{N}_{R}^{+}+\mathcal{N}_{R}^{-}% ]=\mathop{Var}\nolimits[2\mathcal{N}_{R}^{+}-(\mathcal{N}_{R}^{+}-\mathcal{N}_% {R}^{-})]≤ start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ 2 caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ]
8Var[𝒩R+]+2Var[𝒩R+𝒩R]8Var[𝒩R+]+2CR.absent8𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅2𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅8𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅2𝐶𝑅\displaystyle\leq 8\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\mathcal{N}_{R}^{+}]+2\mathop{Var}% \nolimits[\mathcal{N}_{R}^{+}-\mathcal{N}_{R}^{-}]\leq 8\mathop{Var}\nolimits[% \mathcal{N}_{R}^{+}]+2CR.≤ 8 start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] + 2 start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≤ 8 start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] + 2 italic_C italic_R .

A similar argument applies to 𝒩Rsuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅\mathcal{N}_{R}^{-}caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and proves (1.21) for large R𝑅Ritalic_R. To conclude the proof we observe that the each of processes defining 𝒩R±superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅plus-or-minus\mathcal{N}_{R}^{\pm}caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is stationary and has finite first intensities — c.f. Remark 2.5 or [29, Proof of Lemma 3.3] — so that Lemma 10.1 below implies that Var[𝒩R±]𝑉𝑎𝑟delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅plus-or-minus\mathop{Var}\nolimits[\mathcal{N}_{R}^{\pm}]start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP [ caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] cannot vanish for any R>0𝑅0R>0italic_R > 0. Hence, (1.21) also holds in the range R1𝑅1R\geq 1italic_R ≥ 1. ∎

9.2. Weighted entire functions

Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 can also be formulated in terms of the weighted magnitude

(9.7) A(z)=e12|z|2|G0(z)|𝐴𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2subscript𝐺0𝑧\displaystyle A(z)=e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}|G_{0}(z)|italic_A ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) |

associated with the translation invariant Gaussian entire function G0subscript𝐺0G_{0}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT given by (1.4). Near points where the amplitude A𝐴Aitalic_A does not vanish, it is smooth and its gradient is related to the covariant derivative of G0subscript𝐺0G_{0}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by

|A(z)|=e12|z|2|¯G0(z)|=|F(z)|,𝐴𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2superscript¯subscript𝐺0𝑧𝐹𝑧\displaystyle|\nabla A(z)|=e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}|\bar{% \partial}^{*}G_{0}(z)|=|F(z)|,| ∇ italic_A ( italic_z ) | = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | = | italic_F ( italic_z ) | ,

where F(z)=e12|z|2¯G0(z)𝐹𝑧superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2superscript¯subscript𝐺0𝑧F(z)=e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}\bar{\partial}^{*}G_{0}(z)italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ). Hence each critical point z0subscript𝑧0z_{0}italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of A𝐴Aitalic_A (in the usual real sense) that is not a zero of A𝐴Aitalic_A is a zero of ¯G0(z)superscript¯subscript𝐺0𝑧\bar{\partial}^{*}G_{0}(z)over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ). Conversely, a zero of ¯G0superscript¯subscript𝐺0\bar{\partial}^{*}G_{0}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is almost surely not a zero of A𝐴Aitalic_A, as this would correspond to a degenerate zero of the GWHF e|z|2/2G0(z)superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22subscript𝐺0𝑧e^{-|z|^{2}/2}G_{0}(z)italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ), contradicting Lemma 3.1.

Thus the critical points of A𝐴Aitalic_A are either zeros of A𝐴Aitalic_A or critical points of G0subscript𝐺0G_{0}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, as discussed Section 1.5. Let us further inspect a critical point z0subscript𝑧0z_{0}italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of A𝐴Aitalic_A that is not a zero. Near z0subscript𝑧0z_{0}italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we can write G(z)=L(z)2𝐺𝑧𝐿superscript𝑧2G(z)=L(z)^{2}italic_G ( italic_z ) = italic_L ( italic_z ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with L𝐿Litalic_L analytic and compute

2A=A(1,0)iA(0,1)=L¯LF.2𝐴superscript𝐴10𝑖superscript𝐴01¯𝐿𝐿𝐹\displaystyle 2\partial A=A^{(1,0)}-iA^{(0,1)}=-{\frac{\overline{L}}{L}}\cdot F.2 ∂ italic_A = italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 , 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 , 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ⋅ italic_F .

The factor L¯/L¯𝐿𝐿{{\overline{L}}/{L}}over¯ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG / italic_L is smooth (in the real sense) and non-zero near z0subscript𝑧0z_{0}italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and therefore does not affect the corresponding charge (see e.g., [29, Lemma 6.5]). Thus, the charge of F𝐹Fitalic_F at z0subscript𝑧0z_{0}italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is

κz=sgn[[A(1,1)]2A(2,0)A(0,2)],subscript𝜅𝑧sgnsuperscriptdelimited-[]superscript𝐴112superscript𝐴20superscript𝐴02\displaystyle\kappa_{z}=\operatorname{sgn}\Big{[}\big{[}A^{(1,1)}\big{]}^{2}-A% ^{(2,0)}A^{(0,2)}\Big{]},italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_sgn [ [ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 , 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 , 0 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 , 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ,

that is, the opposite of the sign of the determinant of the Hessian matrix of A𝐴Aitalic_A at z0subscript𝑧0z_{0}italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. As a consequence, κz=1subscript𝜅𝑧1\kappa_{z}=1italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 if z0subscript𝑧0z_{0}italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a saddle point of A𝐴Aitalic_A, while κz=1subscript𝜅𝑧1\kappa_{z}=-1italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - 1 if A𝐴Aitalic_A has a local maximum or local minimum at z0subscript𝑧0z_{0}italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In addition, by an argument based on superharmonicity one can see that local minima of A𝐴Aitalic_A are not possible (as these correspond to zeros of A𝐴Aitalic_A) [33, Section 8.2.2]) [17, Lemma 3.1].

Hence,

(9.8) 𝒩R+=#saddle points of A in BR(0),superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅#saddle points of A in subscript𝐵𝑅0\displaystyle\mathcal{N}_{R}^{+}=\#\mbox{saddle points of $A$ in }B_{R}(0),caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = # saddle points of italic_A in italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) ,
(9.9) 𝒩R=#local maxima of A in BR(0).superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅#local maxima of A in subscript𝐵𝑅0\displaystyle\mathcal{N}_{R}^{-}=\#\mbox{local maxima of $A$ in }B_{R}(0).caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = # local maxima of italic_A in italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) .

The second order statistics of local extrema and saddle points of A𝐴Aitalic_A thus satisfy (9.5), (9.6), and (1.21).

9.3. Time-frequency analysis

Given a non-zero Schwartz function g𝒮()𝑔𝒮g\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})italic_g ∈ caligraphic_S ( blackboard_R ), the short-time Fourier transform (STFT) of a distribution f𝒮()𝑓superscript𝒮f\in\mathcal{S}^{\prime}(\mathbb{R})italic_f ∈ caligraphic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) is defined by (1.26), where the integral is interpreted in the distributional sense (action on a test function). The modulation space M()superscript𝑀M^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) consists of all tempered distributions with bounded STFT:

M()={f𝒮():VgfL(2)}.superscript𝑀conditional-set𝑓superscript𝒮subscript𝑉𝑔𝑓superscript𝐿superscript2\displaystyle M^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})=\{f\in\mathcal{S}^{\prime}(\mathbb{R}):V_% {g}f\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{2})\}.italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) = { italic_f ∈ caligraphic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) : italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) } .

Historically, this space was first considered with respect to the Gaussian window function (in which case the STFT can be identified with the Bargmann transform [8]). In fact, it is easy to show that different choices of (non-zero, Schwartz) window functions g1,g2𝒮(){0}subscript𝑔1subscript𝑔2𝒮0g_{1},g_{2}\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})\setminus\{0\}italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_S ( blackboard_R ) ∖ { 0 } define the same space, and that moreover there exists a constant Cg1,g2>0subscript𝐶subscript𝑔1subscript𝑔20C_{g_{1},g_{2}}>0italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 such that

(9.10) Vg1fCg1,g2Vg2f,fM(),formulae-sequencesubscriptnormsubscript𝑉subscript𝑔1𝑓subscript𝐶subscript𝑔1subscript𝑔2subscriptnormsubscript𝑉subscript𝑔2𝑓𝑓superscript𝑀\displaystyle\|V_{g_{1}}f\|_{\infty}\leq C_{g_{1},g_{2}}\|V_{g_{2}}f\|_{\infty% },\qquad f\in M^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}),∥ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_f ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) ,

see, e.g., [9] for the modern theory of modulation spaces.

The space M()superscript𝑀M^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) contains L2()superscript𝐿2L^{2}(\mathbb{R})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) and also all distributions commonly used in signal processing, such as the Dirac measure, sums of Dirac measures located along well-spread sets of points, and also their Fourier transforms [9].

We are mainly interested in a so-called signal fM()𝑓superscript𝑀f\in M^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})italic_f ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) impacted by additive noise. Let 𝒲𝒲\mathcal{W}caligraphic_W be standard complex white noise on \mathbb{R}blackboard_R, that is, 𝒲=12ddt(W1+iW2)𝒲12𝑑𝑑𝑡subscript𝑊1𝑖subscript𝑊2\mathcal{W}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{d}{dt}\big{(}W_{1}+iW_{2}\big{)}caligraphic_W = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG divide start_ARG italic_d end_ARG start_ARG italic_d italic_t end_ARG ( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_i italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), where W1subscript𝑊1W_{1}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and W2subscript𝑊2W_{2}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are independent copies of the Wiener process (Brownian motion with almost surely continuous paths), and the derivative is taken in the distributional sense. Then, almost every realization of 𝒲𝒲\mathcal{W}caligraphic_W is a tempered distribution and we can consider Vg𝒲subscript𝑉𝑔𝒲V_{g}\mathcal{W}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_W. For more details, see [29, Section 6.1], or [7] for a different approach.

The following Lemma identifies the STFT of a distribution impacted by additive complex white noise with a GWHF.

Lemma 9.2.

Let g𝒮()𝑔𝒮g\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})italic_g ∈ caligraphic_S ( blackboard_R ) be normalized by g2=1subscriptnorm𝑔21\|g\|_{2}=1∥ italic_g ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1, fM()𝑓superscript𝑀f\in M^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})italic_f ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ), and 𝒲𝒲\mathcal{W}caligraphic_W standard complex white noise. Set

(9.11) F(z):=eixyVg(f+𝒲)(z¯/π),z=x+iy.formulae-sequenceassign𝐹𝑧superscript𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑦subscript𝑉𝑔𝑓𝒲¯𝑧𝜋𝑧𝑥𝑖𝑦\displaystyle F(z):=e^{-ixy}\cdot V_{g}\,(f+\mathcal{W})\big{(}\bar{z}/\sqrt{% \pi}\big{)},\qquad z=x+iy.italic_F ( italic_z ) := italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_x italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f + caligraphic_W ) ( over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) , italic_z = italic_x + italic_i italic_y .

Then F𝐹Fitalic_F is a GWHF with twisted kernel

H(z)=eixyVgg(z¯/π),z=x+iy.formulae-sequence𝐻𝑧superscript𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑦subscript𝑉𝑔𝑔¯𝑧𝜋𝑧𝑥𝑖𝑦\displaystyle H(z)=e^{-ixy}\cdot V_{g}g\big{(}\bar{z}/\sqrt{\pi}\big{)},\qquad z% =x+iy.italic_H ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_x italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ( over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) , italic_z = italic_x + italic_i italic_y .

In addition, conditions (1.8), (1.9), (1.11), (1.12), (1.14), and (1.15) are satisfied.

Proof.

Since g𝒮()𝑔𝒮g\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})italic_g ∈ caligraphic_S ( blackboard_R ), it is easy to see that H𝒮(2)𝐻𝒮superscript2H\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{2})italic_H ∈ caligraphic_S ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) — see, e.g., [24, Proposition 1.42] — which proves (1.15). In the zero mean case, the rest of the lemma is contained in [29, Lemma 6.1], so we focus on the mean function

F1(z)=F1,g(z):=eixyVgf(z¯/π),z=x+iy,formulae-sequencesubscript𝐹1𝑧subscript𝐹1𝑔𝑧assignsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑦subscript𝑉𝑔𝑓¯𝑧𝜋𝑧𝑥𝑖𝑦\displaystyle F_{1}(z)=F_{1,g}(z):=e^{-ixy}\cdot V_{g}\,f\big{(}\bar{z}/\sqrt{% \pi}\big{)},\qquad z=x+iy,italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) := italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_x italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) , italic_z = italic_x + italic_i italic_y ,

where, for convenience, we stress the dependence on the window function g𝑔gitalic_g. The assumption fM()𝑓superscript𝑀f\in M^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})italic_f ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) means that FL(2)𝐹superscript𝐿superscript2F\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{2})italic_F ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), so it remains to inspect the twisted derivatives.

Taking the distributional interpretation of the formula defining the STFT (1.26) into account, a direct calculation gives

𝒟1F1,g(z)subscript𝒟1subscript𝐹1𝑔𝑧\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{1}F_{1,g}(z)caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) =πF1,Pg(z)12πF1,g(z),absent𝜋subscript𝐹1𝑃𝑔𝑧12𝜋subscript𝐹1superscript𝑔𝑧\displaystyle=\sqrt{\pi}F_{1,Pg}(z)-\tfrac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}}F_{1,g^{\prime}}(z),= square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_P italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG end_ARG italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ,
𝒟2F1,g(z)subscript𝒟2subscript𝐹1𝑔𝑧\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{2}F_{1,g}(z)caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) =πF1,Pg(z)12πF1,g(z),absent𝜋subscript𝐹1𝑃𝑔𝑧12𝜋subscript𝐹1superscript𝑔𝑧\displaystyle=-\sqrt{\pi}F_{1,Pg}(z)-\tfrac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}}F_{1,g^{\prime}}(z),= - square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_P italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG end_ARG italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ,

where 𝒫g(t)=tg(t)𝒫𝑔𝑡𝑡𝑔𝑡\mathcal{P}g(t)=tg(t)caligraphic_P italic_g ( italic_t ) = italic_t italic_g ( italic_t ). Since gsuperscript𝑔g^{\prime}italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 𝒫g𝒫𝑔\mathcal{P}gcaligraphic_P italic_g are non-zero Schwartz functions, the norm equivalence (9.10) implies that, for j=1,2𝑗12j=1,2italic_j = 1 , 2,

𝒟jF1,gF1,𝒫g+F1,g=V𝒫gf+VgfVgf<,less-than-or-similar-tosubscriptnormsubscript𝒟𝑗subscript𝐹1𝑔subscriptnormsubscript𝐹1𝒫𝑔subscriptnormsubscript𝐹1superscript𝑔subscriptnormsubscript𝑉𝒫𝑔𝑓subscriptnormsubscript𝑉superscript𝑔𝑓less-than-or-similar-tosubscriptnormsubscript𝑉𝑔𝑓\displaystyle\|\mathcal{D}_{j}F_{1,g}\|_{\infty}\lesssim\|F_{1,\mathcal{P}g}\|% _{\infty}+\|F_{1,g^{\prime}}\|_{\infty}=\|V_{\mathcal{P}g}f\|_{\infty}+\|V_{g^% {\prime}}f\|_{\infty}\lesssim\|V_{g}f\|_{\infty}<\infty,∥ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ ∥ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , caligraphic_P italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∥ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∥ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ ∥ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞ ,

because fM()𝑓superscript𝑀f\in M^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})italic_f ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ). ∎

We can now justify the application of our results to time-frequency analysis.

Proof of Theorem 1.6.

By Lemma 9.2,

F(z):=eixyV(f+𝒲)(z¯/π),z=x+iyformulae-sequenceassign𝐹𝑧superscript𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑦𝑉𝑓𝒲¯𝑧𝜋𝑧𝑥𝑖𝑦\displaystyle F(z):=e^{-ixy}\cdot V\,(f+\mathcal{W})\big{(}\bar{z}/\sqrt{\pi}% \big{)},\qquad z=x+iyitalic_F ( italic_z ) := italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_x italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V ( italic_f + caligraphic_W ) ( over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) , italic_z = italic_x + italic_i italic_y

is a GWHF𝐺𝑊𝐻𝐹GWHFitalic_G italic_W italic_H italic_F and the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 are satisfied. In addition, the twisted kernel is H(z)=e|z|2/2𝐻𝑧superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22H(z)=e^{-|z|^{2}/2}italic_H ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and F𝐹Fitalic_F can be further identified with a Gaussian entire function F(z)=e|z|2/2G(z)𝐹𝑧superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22𝐺𝑧F(z)=e^{-|z|^{2}/2}G(z)italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G ( italic_z ), as in the proof Theorem 1.4, and the charges of F𝐹Fitalic_F are all 1111. The zeros of Sf𝑆𝑓Sfitalic_S italic_f are precisely the zeros of F𝐹Fitalic_F and Theorem 1.1 (or Theorem 1.4) implies (1.24).

In addition, in the zero mean case f=0𝑓0f=0italic_f = 0, the (Gaussian) spectrogram of 𝒲𝒲\mathcal{W}caligraphic_W is related to the weighted amplitude of G=G0𝐺subscript𝐺0G=G_{0}italic_G = italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, c.f., (9.7), by S𝒲(x,ξ)=(A(x+iξ))2𝑆𝒲𝑥𝜉superscript𝐴𝑥𝑖𝜉2S\,\mathcal{W}(x,\xi)=(A(x+i\xi))^{2}italic_S caligraphic_W ( italic_x , italic_ξ ) = ( italic_A ( italic_x + italic_i italic_ξ ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Thus, the local maxima of S𝒲𝑆𝒲S\,\mathcal{W}italic_S caligraphic_W coincides with the local maxima of A𝐴Aitalic_A, denoted 𝒩Rsuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑅\mathcal{N}_{R}^{-}caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in (9.9), which in turn satisfies (1.21). This gives (1.25). ∎

Proof of Theorem 1.7.

Let g:=h121h1assign𝑔superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript121subscript1g:=\|h_{1}\|_{2}^{-1}h_{1}italic_g := ∥ italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. By Lemma 9.2,

F(z):=eixyVg𝒲(z¯/π),z=x+iy,formulae-sequenceassign𝐹𝑧superscript𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑦subscript𝑉𝑔𝒲¯𝑧𝜋𝑧𝑥𝑖𝑦\displaystyle F(z):=e^{-ixy}\cdot V_{g}\,\mathcal{W}\big{(}\bar{z}/\sqrt{\pi}% \big{)},\qquad z=x+iy,italic_F ( italic_z ) := italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_x italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_W ( over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) , italic_z = italic_x + italic_i italic_y ,

defines a zero-mean GWHF function with twisted kernel

H(z)=eixyVgg(z¯/π)=(1|z|2)e12|z|2,z=x+iy,formulae-sequence𝐻𝑧superscript𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑦subscript𝑉𝑔𝑔¯𝑧𝜋1superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2𝑧𝑥𝑖𝑦H(z)=e^{-ixy}V_{g}g(\bar{z}/\sqrt{\pi})=(1-|z|^{2})e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}% \absolutevalue{z}^{2}},\qquad z=x+iy,italic_H ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_x italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ( over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) = ( 1 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_z = italic_x + italic_i italic_y ,

as can be verified with a direct calculation (the last equality is a special case of the so-called Hermite-Laguerre connection [24, Theorem (1.104)]; see also [29, Section 6.4]). By Lemma 9.2, the hypothesis of Theorem 1.2 is satisfied, and the desired conclusion follows. ∎

Proof of Theorem 1.8.

Without loss of generality we may assume that g2=1subscriptnorm𝑔21\|g\|_{2}=1∥ italic_g ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1, and invoke Lemma 9.2. If z=a+ib𝑧𝑎𝑖𝑏z=a+ibitalic_z = italic_a + italic_i italic_b is a zero of the GWHF (9.11), then

xF(z)subscript𝑥𝐹𝑧\displaystyle\partial_{x}F(z)∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) =eiabπx(Vg(f+𝒲))(a/π,b/π),absentsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑎𝑏𝜋subscript𝑥subscript𝑉𝑔𝑓𝒲𝑎𝜋𝑏𝜋\displaystyle=\frac{e^{-iab}}{\sqrt{\pi}}\partial_{x}\big{(}V_{g}\,(f+\mathcal% {W})\big{)}(a/\sqrt{\pi},-b/\sqrt{\pi}),= divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_a italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f + caligraphic_W ) ) ( italic_a / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG , - italic_b / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) ,
yF(z)subscript𝑦𝐹𝑧\displaystyle\partial_{y}F(z)∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) =eiabπy(Vg(f+𝒲))(a/π,b/π),absentsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑎𝑏𝜋subscript𝑦subscript𝑉𝑔𝑓𝒲𝑎𝜋𝑏𝜋\displaystyle=-\frac{e^{-iab}}{\sqrt{\pi}}\partial_{y}\big{(}V_{g}\,(f+% \mathcal{W})\big{)}(a/\sqrt{\pi},-b/\sqrt{\pi}),= - divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_a italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f + caligraphic_W ) ) ( italic_a / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG , - italic_b / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) ,

and, consequently, the corresponding charge is

sgnIm[xF(z)yF(z)¯]=μz¯/π(f+𝒲).sgnsubscript𝑥𝐹𝑧¯subscript𝑦𝐹𝑧subscript𝜇¯𝑧𝜋𝑓𝒲\displaystyle-\operatorname{sgn}\imaginary[\partial_{x}F(z)\cdot\overline{% \partial_{y}F(z)}]=\mu_{\bar{z}/\sqrt{\pi}}(f+\mathcal{W}).- roman_sgn start_OPERATOR roman_Im end_OPERATOR [ ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) ⋅ over¯ start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) end_ARG ] = italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / square-root start_ARG italic_π end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f + caligraphic_W ) .

Thus the desired conclusion follows from Theorem 1.1. ∎

10. Auxiliary results and postponed proofs

10.1. Stationary number statistics cannot be deterministic

We prove the following lemma, for which we could not find a citable reference.

Lemma 10.1.

Let 𝒵𝒵\mathcal{Z}caligraphic_Z be a stationary point process on \mathbb{C}blackboard_C with positive and finite first intensity. Then

Var#(𝒵B¯(0,R))>0,for all R>0.formulae-sequence𝑉𝑎𝑟#𝒵¯𝐵0𝑅0for all 𝑅0\mathop{Var}\nolimits\#\big{(}\mathcal{Z}\cap\overline{B}(0,R)\big{)}>0,\qquad% \mbox{for all }R>0.start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP # ( caligraphic_Z ∩ over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ( 0 , italic_R ) ) > 0 , for all italic_R > 0 .
Proof.

Suppose on the contrary that there exists R>0𝑅0R>0italic_R > 0 with Var(𝒵B¯(0,R))=0𝑉𝑎𝑟𝒵¯𝐵0𝑅0\mathop{Var}\nolimits\big{(}\mathcal{Z}\cap\overline{B}(0,R)\big{)}=0start_BIGOP italic_V italic_a italic_r end_BIGOP ( caligraphic_Z ∩ over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ( 0 , italic_R ) ) = 0. Let N:=𝔼[#(𝒵B¯(0,R))]assign𝑁𝔼delimited-[]#𝒵¯𝐵0𝑅N:=\mathbb{E}\big{[}\#\big{(}\mathcal{Z}\cap\overline{B}(0,R)\big{)}\big{]}italic_N := blackboard_E [ # ( caligraphic_Z ∩ over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ( 0 , italic_R ) ) ]. Thus, for every ζ𝜁\zeta\in\mathbb{C}italic_ζ ∈ blackboard_C, the event #[𝒵B¯(ζ,R)]=N#delimited-[]𝒵¯𝐵𝜁𝑅𝑁\#\big{[}\mathcal{Z}\cap\overline{B}(\zeta,R)\big{]}=N# [ caligraphic_Z ∩ over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ( italic_ζ , italic_R ) ] = italic_N has probability one. In particular, N{0,}𝑁0N\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0,\infty\}italic_N ∈ blackboard_N ∪ { 0 , ∞ }, while by the assumption of the first intensity, 0<N<0𝑁0<N<\infty0 < italic_N < ∞. Collecting exceptional events for all ζ+i𝜁𝑖\zeta\in\mathbb{Q}+i\mathbb{Q}italic_ζ ∈ blackboard_Q + italic_i blackboard_Q we find an event Ω0subscriptΩ0\Omega_{0}roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that (Ω0)=1subscriptΩ01\mathbb{P}(\Omega_{0})=1blackboard_P ( roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 1 and #[𝒵B¯(ζ,R)]=N#delimited-[]𝒵¯𝐵𝜁𝑅𝑁\#\big{[}\mathcal{Z}\cap\overline{B}(\zeta,R)\big{]}=N# [ caligraphic_Z ∩ over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ( italic_ζ , italic_R ) ] = italic_N for all ζ+i𝜁𝑖\zeta\in\mathbb{Q}+i\mathbb{Q}italic_ζ ∈ blackboard_Q + italic_i blackboard_Q.

Fix a realization ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ of 𝒵𝒵\mathcal{Z}caligraphic_Z within the event Ω0subscriptΩ0\Omega_{0}roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, so that

(10.1) #[ΛB¯(ζ,R)]=N,ζ+i.formulae-sequence#delimited-[]Λ¯𝐵𝜁𝑅𝑁𝜁𝑖\displaystyle\#\big{[}\Lambda\cap\overline{B}(\zeta,R)\big{]}=N,\qquad\zeta\in% \mathbb{Q}+i\mathbb{Q}.# [ roman_Λ ∩ over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ( italic_ζ , italic_R ) ] = italic_N , italic_ζ ∈ blackboard_Q + italic_i blackboard_Q .

Since N1𝑁1N\geq 1italic_N ≥ 1, there exists at least one point λΛ𝜆Λ\lambda\in\Lambdaitalic_λ ∈ roman_Λ. Consider the set of exceptional points

Γ=λΛ{λ}(B(λ,R)B(λ,R)).Γsubscriptsuperscript𝜆Λ𝜆𝐵𝜆𝑅𝐵superscript𝜆𝑅\displaystyle\Gamma=\bigcup_{\lambda^{\prime}\in\Lambda\setminus\{\lambda\}}% \left(\partial B(\lambda,R)\cap\partial B(\lambda^{\prime},R)\right).roman_Γ = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ roman_Λ ∖ { italic_λ } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ italic_B ( italic_λ , italic_R ) ∩ ∂ italic_B ( italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R ) ) .

By (10.1), ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ has finitely many points on any given compact set. Since B(λ,R)B(λ,R)𝐵𝜆𝑅𝐵superscript𝜆𝑅\partial B(\lambda,R)\cap\partial B(\lambda^{\prime},R)∂ italic_B ( italic_λ , italic_R ) ∩ ∂ italic_B ( italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R ) has at most two points, it follows that ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is finite. We can therefore choose a point zB(λ,R)Γ𝑧𝐵𝜆𝑅Γz\in\partial B(\lambda,R)\setminus\Gammaitalic_z ∈ ∂ italic_B ( italic_λ , italic_R ) ∖ roman_Γ. This choice of z𝑧zitalic_z guarantees that

(10.2) B(z,R)Λ={λ}.𝐵𝑧𝑅Λ𝜆\displaystyle\partial B(z,R)\cap\Lambda=\{\lambda\}.∂ italic_B ( italic_z , italic_R ) ∩ roman_Λ = { italic_λ } .

Since ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ is locally finite, the set B¯(ζ,R)(Λ{λ})¯𝐵𝜁𝑅Λ𝜆\overline{B}(\zeta,R)\cap\big{(}\Lambda\setminus\{\lambda\}\big{)}over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ( italic_ζ , italic_R ) ∩ ( roman_Λ ∖ { italic_λ } ) remains unaltered for all centers ζ𝜁\zetaitalic_ζ that are sufficiently close to z𝑧zitalic_z. Thus (10.2) allows us to choose ζ1,ζ2+isubscript𝜁1subscript𝜁2𝑖\zeta_{1},\zeta_{2}\in\mathbb{Q}+i\mathbb{Q}italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Q + italic_i blackboard_Q, two small perturbations of z𝑧zitalic_z, such that

#[ΛB¯(ζ1,R)]<[ΛB¯(ζ2,R)],#delimited-[]Λ¯𝐵subscript𝜁1𝑅delimited-[]Λ¯𝐵subscript𝜁2𝑅\displaystyle\#\big{[}\Lambda\cap\overline{B}(\zeta_{1},R)\big{]}<\big{[}% \Lambda\cap\overline{B}(\zeta_{2},R)\big{]},# [ roman_Λ ∩ over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_R ) ] < [ roman_Λ ∩ over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_R ) ] ,

by simply including or excluding λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ from the observation disk. This contradicts (10.1), and completes the proof. ∎

10.2. Convolution estimates

Lemma 10.2.

There exists a constant C>0𝐶0C>0italic_C > 0 such that

(10.3) supzw:|w|=R(1+|zw|)2|dw|C.subscriptsupremum𝑧subscript:𝑤𝑤𝑅superscript1𝑧𝑤2𝑑𝑤𝐶\displaystyle\sup_{z\in\mathbb{C}}\int_{w:|w|=R}(1+|z-w|)^{-2}\,|dw|\leq C.roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w : | italic_w | = italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_z - italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_d italic_w | ≤ italic_C .
Proof.

By applying a rotation, we assume that z=a𝑧𝑎z=a\in\mathbb{R}italic_z = italic_a ∈ blackboard_R. We also assume that R4𝑅4R\geq 4italic_R ≥ 4. Note first that

(10.4) w:|w|=R,|wa|>R(1+|wa|)2|dw|2π(1+R)2R1.subscript:𝑤𝑤𝑅𝑤𝑎𝑅superscript1𝑤𝑎2𝑑𝑤2𝜋superscript1𝑅2𝑅less-than-or-similar-to1\displaystyle\int_{\begin{subarray}{c}w:|w|=R,\\ |w-a|>\sqrt{R}\end{subarray}}(1+|w-a|)^{-2}\,|dw|\leq 2\pi(1+\sqrt{R})^{-2}R% \lesssim 1.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_w : | italic_w | = italic_R , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL | italic_w - italic_a | > square-root start_ARG italic_R end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_w - italic_a | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_d italic_w | ≤ 2 italic_π ( 1 + square-root start_ARG italic_R end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_R ≲ 1 .

On the other hand, writing w=Reiθ𝑤𝑅superscript𝑒𝑖𝜃w=Re^{i\theta}italic_w = italic_R italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_θ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with θ(π,π]𝜃𝜋𝜋\theta\in(-\pi,\pi]italic_θ ∈ ( - italic_π , italic_π ], we have |wa|R|sin(θ)|𝑤𝑎𝑅𝜃|w-a|\geq R|\sin(\theta)|| italic_w - italic_a | ≥ italic_R | roman_sin ( start_ARG italic_θ end_ARG ) |. Hence, if |wa|R𝑤𝑎𝑅|w-a|\leq\sqrt{R}| italic_w - italic_a | ≤ square-root start_ARG italic_R end_ARG, then |sin(θ)|R1/2<1/2𝜃superscript𝑅1212|\sin(\theta)|\leq R^{-1/2}<1/2| roman_sin ( start_ARG italic_θ end_ARG ) | ≤ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < 1 / 2 and thus |θ|c|sin(θ)|𝜃𝑐𝜃|\theta|\leq c|\sin(\theta)|| italic_θ | ≤ italic_c | roman_sin ( start_ARG italic_θ end_ARG ) | for an absolute constant c>0𝑐0c>0italic_c > 0. Therefore |wa|Rc|θ|𝑤𝑎𝑅𝑐𝜃|w-a|\geq\tfrac{R}{c}|\theta|| italic_w - italic_a | ≥ divide start_ARG italic_R end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG | italic_θ |, while |θ|cR1/2𝜃𝑐superscript𝑅12|\theta|\leq cR^{-1/2}| italic_θ | ≤ italic_c italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. With this information, we estimate

(10.5) w:|w|=R,|wa|R(1+|wa|)2|dw|RcR1/2cR1/2(1+|Rcθ|)2𝑑θRR(1+|t|)2𝑑t1.subscript:𝑤𝑤𝑅𝑤𝑎𝑅superscript1𝑤𝑎2𝑑𝑤𝑅superscriptsubscript𝑐superscript𝑅12𝑐superscript𝑅12superscript1𝑅𝑐𝜃2differential-d𝜃less-than-or-similar-tosuperscriptsubscript𝑅𝑅superscript1𝑡2differential-d𝑡less-than-or-similar-to1\displaystyle\int_{\begin{subarray}{c}w:|w|=R,\\ |w-a|\leq\sqrt{R}\end{subarray}}(1+|w-a|)^{-2}\,|dw|\leq R\int_{-cR^{-1/2}}^{% cR^{-1/2}}\big{(}1+|\tfrac{R}{c}\theta|\big{)}^{-2}\,d\theta\lesssim\int_{-% \sqrt{R}}^{\sqrt{R}}(1+|t|)^{-2}\,dt\lesssim 1.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_w : | italic_w | = italic_R , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL | italic_w - italic_a | ≤ square-root start_ARG italic_R end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_w - italic_a | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_d italic_w | ≤ italic_R ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_c italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + | divide start_ARG italic_R end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG italic_θ | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_θ ≲ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - square-root start_ARG italic_R end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_R end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_t | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_t ≲ 1 .

Combining (10.4) and (10.5) we obtain (10.3). ∎

Lemma 10.3.

Let 0δ<10𝛿10\leq\delta<10 ≤ italic_δ < 1. Then there exists a constant Cδsubscript𝐶𝛿C_{\delta}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that for all R,L>0𝑅𝐿0R,L>0italic_R , italic_L > 0:

supz:|z|=Rw:|w|=R,|zw|L|zw|δ|dw|CδL1δ.subscriptsupremum:𝑧𝑧𝑅subscript:𝑤formulae-sequence𝑤𝑅𝑧𝑤𝐿superscript𝑧𝑤𝛿𝑑𝑤subscript𝐶𝛿superscript𝐿1𝛿\displaystyle\sup_{z:|z|=R}\int_{w:|w|=R,|z-w|\leq L}|z-w|^{-\delta}\,|dw|\leq C% _{\delta}L^{1-\delta}.roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z : | italic_z | = italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w : | italic_w | = italic_R , | italic_z - italic_w | ≤ italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_d italic_w | ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Proof.

By applying a rotation, we assume that z=R𝑧𝑅z=Ritalic_z = italic_R, and by rescaling, we assume that R=1𝑅1R=1italic_R = 1. Assume first that L1/2𝐿12L\leq 1/2italic_L ≤ 1 / 2, write w=eiθ𝑤superscript𝑒𝑖𝜃w=e^{i\theta}italic_w = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_θ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with θ(π,π]𝜃𝜋𝜋\theta\in(-\pi,\pi]italic_θ ∈ ( - italic_π , italic_π ], and note that if |w1|L𝑤1𝐿|w-1|\leq L| italic_w - 1 | ≤ italic_L, then |sin(θ)|L<1/2𝜃𝐿12|\sin(\theta)|\leq L<1/2| roman_sin ( start_ARG italic_θ end_ARG ) | ≤ italic_L < 1 / 2, so |θ|c|sin(θ)|𝜃𝑐𝜃|\theta|\leq c|\sin(\theta)|| italic_θ | ≤ italic_c | roman_sin ( start_ARG italic_θ end_ARG ) | for an absolute constant c>0𝑐0c>0italic_c > 0. As a consequence, |w1||sin(θ)||θ|/c𝑤1𝜃𝜃𝑐|w-1|\geq|\sin(\theta)|\geq|\theta|/c| italic_w - 1 | ≥ | roman_sin ( start_ARG italic_θ end_ARG ) | ≥ | italic_θ | / italic_c, and

w:|w|=1,|w1|L|w1|δ|dw|cLcL(|θ|c)δ𝑑θCδL1δ.subscript:𝑤𝑤1𝑤1𝐿superscript𝑤1𝛿𝑑𝑤superscriptsubscript𝑐𝐿𝑐𝐿superscript𝜃𝑐𝛿differential-d𝜃subscript𝐶𝛿superscript𝐿1𝛿\displaystyle\int_{\begin{subarray}{c}w:|w|=1,\\ |w-1|\leq L\end{subarray}}|w-1|^{-\delta}\,|dw|\leq\int_{-{cL}}^{{cL}}\big{(}% \tfrac{|\theta|}{c}\big{)}^{-\delta}\,d\theta\leq C_{\delta}L^{1-\delta}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_w : | italic_w | = 1 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL | italic_w - 1 | ≤ italic_L end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_w - 1 | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_d italic_w | ≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_c italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG | italic_θ | end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_θ ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Finally, if L1/2𝐿12L\geq 1/2italic_L ≥ 1 / 2, the previous case gives

w:|w|=1,|w1|1/2|w1|δ|dw|CδCδL1δ,subscript:𝑤𝑤1𝑤112superscript𝑤1𝛿𝑑𝑤subscript𝐶𝛿subscriptsuperscript𝐶𝛿superscript𝐿1𝛿\displaystyle\int_{\begin{subarray}{c}w:|w|=1,\\ |w-1|\leq 1/2\end{subarray}}|w-1|^{-\delta}\,|dw|\leq C_{\delta}\leq C^{\prime% }_{\delta}L^{1-\delta},∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_w : | italic_w | = 1 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL | italic_w - 1 | ≤ 1 / 2 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_w - 1 | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_d italic_w | ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

while

w:|w|=1,|w1|1/2|w1|δ|dw|CδCδL1δ.less-than-or-similar-tosubscript:𝑤𝑤1𝑤112superscript𝑤1𝛿𝑑𝑤subscript𝐶𝛿less-than-or-similar-tosubscriptsuperscript𝐶𝛿superscript𝐿1𝛿\displaystyle\int_{\begin{subarray}{c}w:|w|=1,\\ |w-1|\geq 1/2\end{subarray}}|w-1|^{-\delta}\,|dw|\lesssim C_{\delta}\lesssim C% ^{\prime}_{\delta}L^{1-\delta}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_w : | italic_w | = 1 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL | italic_w - 1 | ≥ 1 / 2 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_w - 1 | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_d italic_w | ≲ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Lemma 10.4.

Let 0<p<20𝑝20<p<20 < italic_p < 2, then there exists a constant Cp>0subscript𝐶𝑝0C_{p}>0italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 such that

(10.6) |z+w|pe|z|2𝑑A(z)Cp(1+|w|)p,w.formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝑧𝑤𝑝superscript𝑒superscript𝑧2differential-d𝐴𝑧subscript𝐶𝑝superscript1𝑤𝑝𝑤\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{C}}|z+w|^{-p}e^{-|z|^{2}}\,dA(z)\leq C_{p}(1+|w|)^{% -p},\qquad w\in\mathbb{C}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z + italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_w ∈ blackboard_C .
Proof.

First note that, by the Hardy-Littlewood rearrangement inequality,

(10.7) |z+w|pe|z|2𝑑A(z)|z|pe|z|2𝑑A(z)<,subscriptsuperscript𝑧𝑤𝑝superscript𝑒superscript𝑧2differential-d𝐴𝑧subscriptsuperscript𝑧𝑝superscript𝑒superscript𝑧2differential-d𝐴𝑧\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{C}}|z+w|^{-p}e^{-|z|^{2}}\,dA(z)\leq\int_{\mathbb{C% }}|z|^{-p}e^{-|z|^{2}}\,dA(z)<\infty,∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z + italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) < ∞ ,

while

(10.8) |z+w||w|/2|z+w|pe|z|2𝑑A(z)2p|w|pe|z|2𝑑A(z)=Cp|w|p.subscript𝑧𝑤𝑤2superscript𝑧𝑤𝑝superscript𝑒superscript𝑧2differential-d𝐴𝑧superscript2𝑝superscript𝑤𝑝subscriptsuperscript𝑒superscript𝑧2differential-d𝐴𝑧subscript𝐶𝑝superscript𝑤𝑝\displaystyle\int_{|z+w|\geq|w|/2}|z+w|^{-p}e^{-|z|^{2}}\,dA(z)\leq 2^{p}|w|^{% -p}\int_{\mathbb{C}}e^{-|z|^{2}}\,dA(z)=C_{p}|w|^{-p}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z + italic_w | ≥ | italic_w | / 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z + italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ≤ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Second, if |z+w||w|/2𝑧𝑤𝑤2|z+w|\leq|w|/2| italic_z + italic_w | ≤ | italic_w | / 2, then |w|2|z|𝑤2𝑧|w|\leq 2|z|| italic_w | ≤ 2 | italic_z | and

(10.9) |z+w||w|/2|z+w|pe|z|2𝑑A(z)e|w|2/4|u||w|/2|u|p𝑑A(u)Cpe|w|2/4|w|2p.subscript𝑧𝑤𝑤2superscript𝑧𝑤𝑝superscript𝑒superscript𝑧2differential-d𝐴𝑧superscript𝑒superscript𝑤24subscript𝑢𝑤2superscript𝑢𝑝differential-d𝐴𝑢subscriptsuperscript𝐶𝑝superscript𝑒superscript𝑤24superscript𝑤2𝑝\displaystyle\int_{|z+w|\leq|w|/2}|z+w|^{-p}e^{-|z|^{2}}\,dA(z)\leq e^{-|w|^{2% }/4}\int_{|u|\leq|w|/2}|u|^{-p}\,dA(u)\leq C^{\prime}_{p}e^{-|w|^{2}/4}|w|^{2-% p}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z + italic_w | ≤ | italic_w | / 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z + italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ≤ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u | ≤ | italic_w | / 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_u ) ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Hence, (10.7) gives (10.6) for |w|1𝑤1|w|\leq 1| italic_w | ≤ 1, while (10.8) and (10.9) cover the case |w|>1𝑤1|w|>1| italic_w | > 1. ∎

10.3. The planar chaos decomposition is independent of the choice of basis

Recall the notation of Section 7.2. As we now argue, the chaos decomposition (7.7) is independent of the choice of the orthonormal basis of G𝐺Gitalic_G. While this is implicit in [36], we offer the following short argument.

We further split chaotic subspaces as follows. Given a polynomial p𝑝pitalic_p in the variables η1,η1¯,,ηk,ηk¯subscript𝜂1¯subscript𝜂1subscript𝜂𝑘¯subscript𝜂𝑘\eta_{1},\overline{\eta_{1}},\ldots,\eta_{k},\overline{\eta_{k}}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , … , italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG, where η1,,ηkGsubscript𝜂1subscript𝜂𝑘𝐺\eta_{1},\ldots,\eta_{k}\in Gitalic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_G, we say that p𝑝pitalic_p is of degree (N,M)absent𝑁𝑀\leq(N,M)≤ ( italic_N , italic_M ) if it is of total degree Nabsent𝑁\leq N≤ italic_N in variables η1,,ηksubscript𝜂1subscript𝜂𝑘\eta_{1},\ldots,\eta_{k}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and of total degree Mabsent𝑀\leq M≤ italic_M in variables η1¯,,ηk¯.¯subscript𝜂1¯subscript𝜂𝑘\overline{\eta_{1}},\ldots,\overline{\eta_{k}}.over¯ start_ARG italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , … , over¯ start_ARG italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG . We consider the polynomial spaces

PolN,M(G)=span{p(η1,η1¯,,ηk,ηk¯):p is a polynomial of degree(N,M),η1,,ηkG}.subscriptPol𝑁𝑀𝐺spanconditional-set𝑝subscript𝜂1¯subscript𝜂1subscript𝜂𝑘¯subscript𝜂𝑘formulae-sequence𝑝 is a polynomial of degree𝑁𝑀subscript𝜂1subscript𝜂𝑘𝐺\displaystyle\mathrm{Pol}_{N,M}(G)=\text{span}\{p(\eta_{1},\overline{\eta_{1}}% ,\ldots,\eta_{k},\overline{\eta_{k}}):p\text{ is a polynomial of degree}\leq(N% ,M),\eta_{1},\ldots,\eta_{k}\in G\}.roman_Pol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) = span { italic_p ( italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , … , italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) : italic_p is a polynomial of degree ≤ ( italic_N , italic_M ) , italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_G } .

These spaces split the chaotic spaces as follows.

Proposition 10.5.

For a (circularly symmetric) Gaussian random function F𝐹Fitalic_F with probability space (Ω,)Ω(\Omega,\mathbb{P})( roman_Ω , blackboard_P ), the following decomposition holds:

CM,N=PolN,M(G)¯PolN1,M(G)¯PolN,M1(G)¯,N,M0,formulae-sequencesubscript𝐶𝑀𝑁symmetric-difference¯subscriptPol𝑁𝑀𝐺¯subscriptPol𝑁1𝑀𝐺¯subscriptPol𝑁𝑀1𝐺𝑁𝑀0\displaystyle C_{M,N}=\overline{\mathrm{Pol}_{N,M}(G)}\ominus\overline{\mathrm% {Pol}_{N-1,M}(G)}\ominus\overline{\mathrm{Pol}_{N,M-1}(G)},\qquad N,M\geq 0,italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over¯ start_ARG roman_Pol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) end_ARG ⊖ over¯ start_ARG roman_Pol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N - 1 , italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) end_ARG ⊖ over¯ start_ARG roman_Pol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_M - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) end_ARG , italic_N , italic_M ≥ 0 ,

where PolN,M(G)=0subscriptPol𝑁𝑀𝐺0\mathrm{Pol}_{N,M}(G)=0roman_Pol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) = 0 if N<0𝑁0N<0italic_N < 0 or M<0𝑀0M<0italic_M < 0.

As a consequence, the spaces CM,Nsubscript𝐶𝑀𝑁C_{M,N}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are independent of the choice of orthonormal basis of the Gaussian space G𝐺Gitalic_G.

Proof.

Let us consider, more generally, polynomial spaces associated with a (not necessarily closed) linear subspace in G𝐺Gitalic_G. If V𝑉Vitalic_V is a linear subspace of G𝐺Gitalic_G, we let

PolN,M(V)=span{p(η1,η1¯,,ηk,ηk¯):p is a polynomial of of degree (N,M),η1,,ηkV}.subscriptPol𝑁𝑀𝑉spanconditional-set𝑝subscript𝜂1¯subscript𝜂1subscript𝜂𝑘¯subscript𝜂𝑘formulae-sequence𝑝 is a polynomial of of degree 𝑁𝑀subscript𝜂1subscript𝜂𝑘𝑉\displaystyle\mathrm{Pol}_{N,M}(V)=\text{span}\{p(\eta_{1},\overline{\eta_{1}}% ,\ldots,\eta_{k},\overline{\eta_{k}}):p\text{ is a polynomial of of degree }% \leq(N,M),\eta_{1},\ldots,\eta_{k}\in V\}.roman_Pol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_V ) = span { italic_p ( italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , … , italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) : italic_p is a polynomial of of degree ≤ ( italic_N , italic_M ) , italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_V } .

Let V𝑉Vitalic_V be the linear span (i.e., finite linear combinations) of the variables {ξj:j0}conditional-setsubscript𝜉𝑗𝑗0\{\xi_{j}:j\geq 0\}{ italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_j ≥ 0 }. Then

PolN,M(G)¯=PolN,M(V)¯,¯subscriptPol𝑁𝑀𝐺¯subscriptPol𝑁𝑀𝑉\displaystyle\overline{\mathrm{Pol}_{N,M}(G)}=\overline{\mathrm{Pol}_{N,M}(V)},over¯ start_ARG roman_Pol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) end_ARG = over¯ start_ARG roman_Pol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_V ) end_ARG ,

while

PolN,M(V)=span{k=0Hαk,βk(ξk,ξ¯k):|α|M,|β|N}.subscriptPol𝑁𝑀𝑉spanconditional-setsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑘0subscript𝐻subscript𝛼𝑘subscript𝛽𝑘subscript𝜉𝑘subscript¯𝜉𝑘formulae-sequence𝛼𝑀𝛽𝑁\displaystyle\mathrm{Pol}_{N,M}(V)=\mathrm{span}\bigg{\{}\prod_{k=0}^{\infty}H% _{\alpha_{k},\beta_{k}}(\xi_{k},\bar{\xi}_{k}):|\alpha|\leq M,|\beta|\leq N% \bigg{\}}.roman_Pol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_V ) = roman_span { ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) : | italic_α | ≤ italic_M , | italic_β | ≤ italic_N } .

It follows from orthogonality of complex Hermite polynomials that the random variables

{k=0Hαk,βk(ξk,ξ¯k):|α|=M,|β|=N}conditional-setsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑘0subscript𝐻subscript𝛼𝑘subscript𝛽𝑘subscript𝜉𝑘subscript¯𝜉𝑘formulae-sequence𝛼𝑀𝛽𝑁\displaystyle\bigg{\{}\prod_{k=0}^{\infty}H_{\alpha_{k},\beta_{k}}(\xi_{k},% \bar{\xi}_{k}):|\alpha|=M,|\beta|=N\bigg{\}}{ ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) : | italic_α | = italic_M , | italic_β | = italic_N }

are orthogonal to the spaces 𝒫M1,N(V)subscript𝒫𝑀1𝑁𝑉\mathcal{P}_{M-1,N}(V)caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M - 1 , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_V ) and 𝒫M,N1(V)subscript𝒫𝑀𝑁1𝑉\mathcal{P}_{M,N-1}(V)caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_V ), and, therefore, also to 𝒫M1,N(G)subscript𝒫𝑀1𝑁𝐺\mathcal{P}_{M-1,N}(G)caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M - 1 , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) and 𝒫M,N1(G)subscript𝒫𝑀𝑁1𝐺\mathcal{P}_{M,N-1}(G)caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M , italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ). Consequently,

span¯{k=0Hαk,βk(ξk,ξ¯k):|α|=M,|β|=N}=PolN,M(G)¯PolN1,M(G)¯PolN,M1(G)¯¯spanconditional-setsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑘0subscript𝐻subscript𝛼𝑘subscript𝛽𝑘subscript𝜉𝑘subscript¯𝜉𝑘formulae-sequence𝛼𝑀𝛽𝑁symmetric-difference¯subscriptPol𝑁𝑀𝐺¯subscriptPol𝑁1𝑀𝐺¯subscriptPol𝑁𝑀1𝐺\displaystyle\overline{\mathrm{span}}\bigg{\{}\prod_{k=0}^{\infty}H_{\alpha_{k% },\beta_{k}}(\xi_{k},\bar{\xi}_{k}):|\alpha|=M,|\beta|=N\bigg{\}}=\overline{% \mathrm{Pol}_{N,M}(G)}\ominus\overline{\mathrm{Pol}_{N-1,M}(G)}\ominus% \overline{\mathrm{Pol}_{N,M-1}(G)}over¯ start_ARG roman_span end_ARG { ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) : | italic_α | = italic_M , | italic_β | = italic_N } = over¯ start_ARG roman_Pol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) end_ARG ⊖ over¯ start_ARG roman_Pol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N - 1 , italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) end_ARG ⊖ over¯ start_ARG roman_Pol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_M - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) end_ARG

which proves the claim. ∎

10.4. Proof of Lemma 7.1

Let us denote Ψ(z):=(F(z),𝒟1F(z),𝒟2F(z))assignΨ𝑧𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟1𝐹𝑧subscript𝒟2𝐹𝑧\Psi(z):=(F(z),\mathcal{D}_{1}F(z),\mathcal{D}_{2}F(z)\big{)}roman_Ψ ( italic_z ) := ( italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) , caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_z ) ). By Lemma 2.2 and (1.15), the vector Ψ(z)Ψ𝑧\Psi(z)roman_Ψ ( italic_z ) has a suitably smooth covariance kernel and

supzCov[Ψ(z)]subscriptsupremum𝑧normCovΨ𝑧\displaystyle\sup_{z\in\mathbb{C}}\|\operatorname{Cov}[\Psi(z)]\|roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ roman_Cov [ roman_Ψ ( italic_z ) ] ∥ 1,less-than-or-similar-toabsent1\displaystyle\lesssim 1,≲ 1 ,
sup1kLnsupzQk𝔼[|Ψ(z)Ψ(zk)|2]subscriptsupremum1𝑘subscript𝐿𝑛subscriptsupremum𝑧subscript𝑄𝑘𝔼delimited-[]superscriptΨ𝑧Ψsubscript𝑧𝑘2\displaystyle\sup_{1\leq k\leq L_{n}}\sup_{z\in Q_{k}}\mathbb{E}\big{[}|\Psi(z% )-\Psi(z_{k})|^{2}\big{]}roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_k ≤ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ | roman_Ψ ( italic_z ) - roman_Ψ ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] 1n.less-than-or-similar-toabsent1𝑛\displaystyle\lesssim\frac{1}{n}.≲ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG .

By normality, this implies that for every p[1,)𝑝1p\in[1,\infty)italic_p ∈ [ 1 , ∞ ),

Cp:=supz(𝔼[1+|Ψ(z)|p])1/p<,assignsubscript𝐶𝑝subscriptsupremum𝑧superscript𝔼delimited-[]1superscriptΨ𝑧𝑝1𝑝\displaystyle C_{p}:=\sup_{z\in\mathbb{C}}(\mathbb{E}[1+|\Psi(z)|^{p}])^{1/p}<\infty,italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_E [ 1 + | roman_Ψ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < ∞ ,

while

δp(n):=sup1kLnsupzQk(𝔼|Ψ(z)Ψ(zk)|p)1/p0, as n.formulae-sequenceassignsubscript𝛿𝑝𝑛subscriptsupremum1𝑘subscript𝐿𝑛subscriptsupremum𝑧subscript𝑄𝑘superscript𝔼superscriptΨ𝑧Ψsubscript𝑧𝑘𝑝1𝑝0 as 𝑛\displaystyle\delta_{p}(n):=\sup_{1\leq k\leq L_{n}}\sup_{z\in Q_{k}}\left(% \mathbb{E}\left|\Psi(z)-\Psi(z_{k})\right|^{p}\right)^{1/p}\to 0,\mbox{ as }n% \to\infty.italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n ) := roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_k ≤ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_E | roman_Ψ ( italic_z ) - roman_Ψ ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → 0 , as italic_n → ∞ .

Let p,p(1,)𝑝superscript𝑝1p,p^{\prime}\in(1,\infty)italic_p , italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ ( 1 , ∞ ) be conjugate Hölder exponents and let us estimate,

(𝔼[|Bϕ(Ψ(z))𝑑A(z)k=1Lnϕ(Ψ(zk))|BQk||2])1/2superscript𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝐵italic-ϕΨ𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑧superscriptsubscript𝑘1subscript𝐿𝑛italic-ϕΨsubscript𝑧𝑘𝐵subscript𝑄𝑘212\displaystyle\left(\mathbb{E}\bigg{[}\bigg{|}\int_{B}\phi(\Psi(z))\,dA(z)-\sum% _{k=1}^{L_{n}}\phi(\Psi(z_{k}))\,\big{|}B\cap Q_{k}\big{|}\bigg{|}^{2}\bigg{]}% \right)^{1/2}( blackboard_E [ | ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ ( roman_Ψ ( italic_z ) ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ ( roman_Ψ ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) | italic_B ∩ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
(𝔼[(k=1LnBQk|ϕ(Ψ(z))ϕ(Ψ(zk))|𝑑A(z))2])1/2absentsuperscript𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑘1subscript𝐿𝑛subscript𝐵subscript𝑄𝑘italic-ϕΨ𝑧italic-ϕΨsubscript𝑧𝑘differential-d𝐴𝑧212\displaystyle\qquad\leq\left(\mathbb{E}\bigg{[}\bigg{(}\sum_{k=1}^{L_{n}}\int_% {B\cap Q_{k}}\left|\phi(\Psi(z))-\phi(\Psi(z_{k}))\right|\,dA(z)\bigg{)}^{2}% \bigg{]}\right)^{1/2}≤ ( blackboard_E [ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B ∩ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_ϕ ( roman_Ψ ( italic_z ) ) - italic_ϕ ( roman_Ψ ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) | italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
C(𝔼[(k=1LnBQk|Ψ(z)Ψ(zk)|(1+|Ψ(z)|s+|Ψ(zk)|s)𝑑A(z))2])1/2absent𝐶superscript𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑘1subscript𝐿𝑛subscript𝐵subscript𝑄𝑘Ψ𝑧Ψsubscript𝑧𝑘1superscriptΨ𝑧𝑠superscriptΨsubscript𝑧𝑘𝑠differential-d𝐴𝑧212\displaystyle\qquad\leq C\left(\mathbb{E}\bigg{[}\bigg{(}\sum_{k=1}^{L_{n}}% \int_{B\cap Q_{k}}\left|\Psi(z)-\Psi(z_{k})\right|(1+|\Psi(z)|^{s}+|\Psi(z_{k}% )|^{s})\,dA(z)\bigg{)}^{2}\bigg{]}\right)^{1/2}≤ italic_C ( blackboard_E [ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B ∩ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_Ψ ( italic_z ) - roman_Ψ ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | ( 1 + | roman_Ψ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | roman_Ψ ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
Ck=1LnBQk(𝔼[|Ψ(z)Ψ(zk)|2(1+|Ψ(z)|s+|Ψ(zk)|s)2])1/2𝑑A(z)absent𝐶superscriptsubscript𝑘1subscript𝐿𝑛subscript𝐵subscript𝑄𝑘superscript𝔼delimited-[]superscriptΨ𝑧Ψsubscript𝑧𝑘2superscript1superscriptΨ𝑧𝑠superscriptΨsubscript𝑧𝑘𝑠212differential-d𝐴𝑧\displaystyle\qquad\leq{C}\sum_{k=1}^{L_{n}}\int_{B\cap Q_{k}}\left(\mathbb{E}% \big{[}\left|\Psi(z)-\Psi(z_{k})\right|^{2}(1+|\Psi(z)|^{s}+|\Psi(z_{k})|^{s})% ^{2}\big{]}\right)^{1/2}\,dA(z)≤ italic_C ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B ∩ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_E [ | roman_Ψ ( italic_z ) - roman_Ψ ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + | roman_Ψ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | roman_Ψ ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z )
Ck=1LnBQk(𝔼[|Ψ(z)Ψ(zk)|2p])1/2p(𝔼[(1+|Ψ(z)|s+|Ψ(zk)|s)2p])1/2p𝑑A(z)absent𝐶superscriptsubscript𝑘1subscript𝐿𝑛subscript𝐵subscript𝑄𝑘superscript𝔼delimited-[]superscriptΨ𝑧Ψsubscript𝑧𝑘2𝑝12𝑝superscript𝔼delimited-[]superscript1superscriptΨ𝑧𝑠superscriptΨsubscript𝑧𝑘𝑠2superscript𝑝12superscript𝑝differential-d𝐴𝑧\displaystyle\qquad\leq{C}\sum_{k=1}^{L_{n}}\int_{B\cap Q_{k}}\big{(}\mathbb{E% }\big{[}\left|\Psi(z)-\Psi(z_{k})\right|^{2p}\big{]}\big{)}^{1/{2p}}\big{(}% \mathbb{E}\big{[}(1+|\Psi(z)|^{s}+|\Psi(z_{k})|^{s})^{2p^{\prime}}\big{]}\big{% )}^{1/{2p^{\prime}}}\,dA(z)≤ italic_C ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B ∩ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_E [ | roman_Ψ ( italic_z ) - roman_Ψ ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_E [ ( 1 + | roman_Ψ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | roman_Ψ ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_A ( italic_z )
C|B|C2spsδ2p(n)0,absent𝐶𝐵superscriptsubscript𝐶2𝑠superscript𝑝𝑠subscript𝛿2𝑝𝑛0\displaystyle\qquad\leq C\cdot|B|\cdot C_{2sp^{\prime}}^{s}\cdot\delta_{2p}(n)% \longrightarrow 0,≤ italic_C ⋅ | italic_B | ⋅ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_s italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n ) ⟶ 0 ,

as n𝑛n\to\inftyitalic_n → ∞.

Appendix A Computations

We use the notation of Section 8 and present the computations needed to obtain an explicit expression for 𝔼[ϕ(z)ϕ(w)]𝔼delimited-[]italic-ϕ𝑧italic-ϕ𝑤\mathbb{E}[\phi(z)\phi(w)]blackboard_E [ italic_ϕ ( italic_z ) italic_ϕ ( italic_w ) ]. We recall that the chaos projection of N(B)𝑁𝐵N(B)italic_N ( italic_B ) to C2,2subscript𝐶22C_{2,2}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is 1πBϕ(z)𝑑A(z)1𝜋subscript𝐵italic-ϕ𝑧differential-d𝐴𝑧\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{B}\phi(z)dA(z)divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_A ( italic_z ), where

ϕ(z)italic-ϕ𝑧\displaystyle\phi(z)italic_ϕ ( italic_z ) =c1,0L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ(z)|2)+c0,1L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ′′(z)|2)+c1,1L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ′′(z)|2)absentsubscript𝑐10subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝑐01subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2subscript𝑐11subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2\displaystyle=c_{1,0}L_{1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})+c_{0,1}L_% {1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)|^{2})+c_{1,1}L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}% (z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)|^{2})= italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
+c0,0L2(|ξ(z)|2)+c2,0L2(|ξ(z)|2)+c0,2L2(|ξ′′(z)|2)subscript𝑐00subscript𝐿2superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝑐20subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝑐02subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2\displaystyle+c_{0,0}L_{2}(|\xi(z)|^{2})+c_{2,0}L_{2}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})+c% _{0,2}L_{2}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)|^{2})+ italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

and the constants ck,lsubscript𝑐𝑘𝑙c_{k,l}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are as in (8.5). Recall also that we are focusing on the case

H(z)=(1|z|2)e12|z|2.𝐻𝑧1superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒12superscript𝑧2H(z)=(1-|z|^{2})e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}\absolutevalue{z}^{2}}.italic_H ( italic_z ) = ( 1 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | start_ARG italic_z end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

We will need the following derivatives of H𝐻Hitalic_H:

𝒟1H(z)subscript𝒟1𝐻𝑧\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{1}H(z)caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H ( italic_z ) =(z¯/2)[(1|z|2)e|z|2/2]=z¯(2|z|2)e|z|2/2,absent¯𝑧2delimited-[]1superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22¯𝑧2superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22\displaystyle=(\partial-\bar{z}/2)\big{[}(1-|z|^{2})e^{-|z|^{2}/2}\big{]}=-% \bar{z}(2-|z|^{2})e^{-|z|^{2}/2},= ( ∂ - over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / 2 ) [ ( 1 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = - over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ( 2 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝒟2H(z)subscript𝒟2𝐻𝑧\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{2}H(z)caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H ( italic_z ) =(¯+z/2)[(1|z|2)e|z|2/2]=ze|z|2/2,absent¯𝑧2delimited-[]1superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22𝑧superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22\displaystyle=(\bar{\partial}+z/2)\big{[}(1-|z|^{2})e^{-|z|^{2}/2}\big{]}=-ze^% {-|z|^{2}/2},= ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG + italic_z / 2 ) [ ( 1 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = - italic_z italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝒟1𝒟2¯H(z)subscript𝒟1¯subscript𝒟2𝐻𝑧\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{1}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{2}}H(z)caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( italic_z ) =𝒟2𝒟1¯H(z)¯=(z¯/2)(+z¯/2)[(1|z|2)e|z|2/2]absent¯subscript𝒟2¯subscript𝒟1𝐻𝑧¯𝑧2¯𝑧2delimited-[]1superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22\displaystyle=\overline{\mathcal{D}_{2}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{1}}H(z)}=(% \partial-\bar{z}/2)(\partial+\bar{z}/2)\big{[}(1-|z|^{2})e^{-|z|^{2}/2}\big{]}= over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( italic_z ) end_ARG = ( ∂ - over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / 2 ) ( ∂ + over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / 2 ) [ ( 1 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ]
=(+z¯/2)[z¯(2|z|2)e|z|2/2]absent¯𝑧2delimited-[]¯𝑧2superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22\displaystyle=-(\partial+\bar{z}/2)\big{[}\bar{z}(2-|z|^{2})e^{-|z|^{2}/2}\big% {]}= - ( ∂ + over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / 2 ) [ over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ( 2 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ]
=z¯𝒟2[e|z|2/2+(1|z|2)e|z|2/2]¯=z¯2e|z|2/2,absent¯𝑧¯subscript𝒟2delimited-[]superscript𝑒superscript𝑧221superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22superscript¯𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22\displaystyle=-\bar{z}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{2}\big{[}e^{-|z|^{2}/2}+(1-|z|^{2% })e^{-|z|^{2}/2}\big{]}}=\bar{z}^{2}e^{-|z|^{2}/2},= - over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( 1 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] end_ARG = over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝒟1𝒟1¯H(z)subscript𝒟1¯subscript𝒟1𝐻𝑧\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{1}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{1}}H(z)caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( italic_z ) =(z¯/2)[z(2|z|2)e|z|2/2]absent¯𝑧2delimited-[]𝑧2superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22\displaystyle=-(\partial-\bar{z}/2)\big{[}z(2-|z|^{2})e^{-|z|^{2}/2}\big{]}= - ( ∂ - over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG / 2 ) [ italic_z ( 2 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ]
=[(2|z|2)|z|2|z|22(2|z|2)|z|22(2|z|2)]e|z|2/2absentdelimited-[]2superscript𝑧2superscript𝑧2superscript𝑧222superscript𝑧2superscript𝑧222superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22\displaystyle=-\bigg{[}(2-|z|^{2})-|z|^{2}-\frac{|z|^{2}}{2}(2-|z|^{2})-\frac{% |z|^{2}}{2}(2-|z|^{2})\bigg{]}e^{-|z|^{2}/2}= - [ ( 2 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( 2 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - divide start_ARG | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( 2 - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=(|z|44|z|2+2)e|z|2/2=2L2(|z|2)e|z|2/2,absentsuperscript𝑧44superscript𝑧22superscript𝑒superscript𝑧222subscript𝐿2superscript𝑧2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22\displaystyle=-(|z|^{4}-4|z|^{2}+2)e^{-|z|^{2}/2}=-2L_{2}(|z|^{2})e^{-|z|^{2}/% 2},= - ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2 ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - 2 italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝒟2𝒟2¯H(z)subscript𝒟2¯subscript𝒟2𝐻𝑧\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{2}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{2}}H(z)caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( italic_z ) =(¯+z/2)(z¯e|z|2/2)=e|z|2/2.absent¯𝑧2¯𝑧superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22superscript𝑒superscript𝑧22\displaystyle=-(\bar{\partial}+z/2)\big{(}\bar{z}e^{-|z|^{2}/2}\big{)}=-e^{-|z% |^{2}/2}.= - ( over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG + italic_z / 2 ) ( over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

These computations along with Lemma 2.1 give us

𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯𝔼𝜉𝑧¯𝜉𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi(w)}blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG =L1(|zw|2)e|zw|2/2+iIm(zw¯),absentsubscript𝐿1superscript𝑧𝑤2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧𝑤22𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤\displaystyle=L_{1}(|z-w|^{2})e^{-|z-w|^{2}/2+i\mathrm{Im}(z\bar{w})},= italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 + italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(w)}blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG =12𝒯w𝒟1𝒟1¯H(z)=L2(|zw|2)e|zw|2/2+iIm(zw¯),absent12subscript𝒯𝑤subscript𝒟1¯subscript𝒟1𝐻𝑧subscript𝐿2superscript𝑧𝑤2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧𝑤22𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{T}_{w}\mathcal{D}_{1}\overline{\mathcal{D}_% {1}}H(z)=L_{2}(|z-w|^{2})e^{-|z-w|^{2}/2+i\mathrm{Im}(z\bar{w})},= - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( italic_z ) = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 + italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ′′(w)¯𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG =𝒯w𝒟2𝒟2¯H(z)=e|zw|2/2+iIm(zw¯),absentsubscript𝒯𝑤subscript𝒟2¯subscript𝒟2𝐻𝑧superscript𝑒superscript𝑧𝑤22𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤\displaystyle=-\mathcal{T}_{w}\mathcal{D}_{2}\overline{\mathcal{D}_{2}}H(z)=e^% {-|z-w|^{2}/2+i\mathrm{Im}(z\bar{w})},= - caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( italic_z ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 + italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯𝜉𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime}(z)\overline{\xi(w)}blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG =12𝒟1H(zw)eiIm(zw¯)=12(zw)¯(2|zw|2)e|zw|2/2+iIm(zw¯),absent12subscript𝒟1𝐻𝑧𝑤superscript𝑒𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤12¯𝑧𝑤2superscript𝑧𝑤2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧𝑤22𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathcal{D}_{1}H(z-w)e^{i\mathrm{Im}(z\bar{w})% }=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{(z-w)}(2-|z-w|^{2})e^{-|z-w|^{2}/2+i\mathrm{Im}% (z\bar{w})},= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG over¯ start_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) end_ARG ( 2 - | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 + italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{{\xi^{\prime}(w)}}blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG =12(zw)(2|zw|2)e|zw|2/2+iIm(zw¯),absent12𝑧𝑤2superscript𝑧𝑤2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧𝑤22𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(z-w)(2-|z-w|^{2})e^{-|z-w|^{2}/2+i\mathrm{Im}% (z\bar{w})},= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) ( 2 - | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 + italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ(w)¯𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯𝜉𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)\overline{\xi(w)}blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG =𝒟2H(zw)eiIm(zw¯)=(zw)e|zw|2/2+iIm(zw¯),absentsubscript𝒟2𝐻𝑧𝑤superscript𝑒𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤𝑧𝑤superscript𝑒superscript𝑧𝑤22𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤\displaystyle=\mathcal{D}_{2}H(z-w)e^{i\mathrm{Im}(z\bar{w})}=-(z-w)e^{-|z-w|^% {2}/2+i\mathrm{Im}(z\bar{w})},= caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H ( italic_z - italic_w ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - ( italic_z - italic_w ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 + italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG =(zw)¯e|zw|2/2+iIm(zw¯),absent¯𝑧𝑤superscript𝑒superscript𝑧𝑤22𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤\displaystyle=\overline{(z-w)}e^{-|z-w|^{2}/2+i\mathrm{Im}(z\bar{w})},= over¯ start_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 + italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ(w)¯𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(w)}blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG =12𝒯w𝒟2𝒟1¯H(z)=12(zw)2e|zw|2/2+iIm(zw¯),absent12subscript𝒯𝑤subscript𝒟2¯subscript𝒟1𝐻𝑧12superscript𝑧𝑤2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧𝑤22𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathcal{T}_{w}\mathcal{D}_{2}\overline{% \mathcal{D}_{1}}H(z)=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(z-w)^{2}e^{-|z-w|^{2}/2+i\mathrm{Im}(% z\bar{w})},= - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H ( italic_z ) = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 + italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG =12(zw)¯2e|zw|2/2+iIm(zw¯).absent12superscript¯𝑧𝑤2superscript𝑒superscript𝑧𝑤22𝑖Im𝑧¯𝑤\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{(z-w)}^{2}e^{-|z-w|^{2}/2+i\mathrm{% Im}(z\bar{w})}.= - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG over¯ start_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 + italic_i roman_Im ( italic_z over¯ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

To abbreviate notation, we will in the following write s=|zw|2𝑠superscript𝑧𝑤2s=|z-w|^{2}italic_s = | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Applying Proposition 8.1, we obtain the following.

𝔼(L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ(w)|2)L1(|ξ(w)|2))𝔼subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑤2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑤2\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{(}L_{1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})L% _{1}(|\xi(w)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(w)|^{2})\big{)}blackboard_E ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) )
=|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯+𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯|2=|L1(s)L2(s)12s(2s)2|2e2s,absentsuperscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯𝜉𝑤𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯𝜉𝑤2superscriptsubscript𝐿1𝑠subscript𝐿2𝑠12𝑠superscript2𝑠22superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle=\big{|}\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi(w)}\cdot\mathbb{E}\xi^{% \prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(w)}+\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(w)% }\cdot\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime}(z)\overline{\xi(w)}\big{|}^{2}=\big{|}L_{1}(s)L_{% 2}(s)-\frac{1}{2}s(2-s)^{2}\big{|}^{2}e^{-2s},= | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG + blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = | italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_s ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_s ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_s ( 2 - italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼(L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ(w)|2)L1(|ξ′′(w)|2))𝔼subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑤2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑤2\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{(}L_{1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})L% _{1}(|\xi(w)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)|^{2})\big{)}blackboard_E ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) )
=|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯+𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯|2absentsuperscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯𝜉𝑤𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯𝜉𝑤2\displaystyle=\big{|}\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi(w)}\cdot\mathbb{E}\xi^{% \prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}+\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi^{% \prime\prime}(w)}\cdot\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime}(z)\overline{\xi(w)}\big{|}^{2}= | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG + blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=|12L1(s)(zw)¯2+12(zw)¯2(2s)|2e2s=s22|L1(s)+(2s)|2e2s,absentsuperscript12subscript𝐿1𝑠superscript¯𝑧𝑤212superscript¯𝑧𝑤22𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠superscript𝑠22superscriptsubscript𝐿1𝑠2𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle=\big{|}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}L_{1}(s)\overline{(z-w)}^{2}+\frac{1}{% \sqrt{2}}\overline{(z-w)}^{2}(2-s)\bigg{|}^{2}e^{-2s}=\frac{s^{2}}{2}\big{|}L_% {1}(s)+(2-s)\big{|}^{2}e^{-2s},= | divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_s ) over¯ start_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG over¯ start_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 - italic_s ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_s ) + ( 2 - italic_s ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼(L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ(w)|2)L1(|ξ′′(w)|2))𝔼subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑤2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑤2\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{(}L_{1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})L% _{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(w)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)|^{2})\big{)}blackboard_E ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) )
=|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(z)¯𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯+𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯|2absentsuperscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑧𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤2\displaystyle=|\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(z)}\cdot\mathbb{E}\xi^{% \prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}+\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi^{% \prime\prime}(w)}\cdot\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(w)}|^{2}= | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG + blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=|12(wz)(2s)(wz)¯2(zw)¯L2(s)|2e2s=s|s(2s)/2L2(s)|2e2s,absentsuperscript12𝑤𝑧2𝑠superscript¯𝑤𝑧2¯𝑧𝑤subscript𝐿2𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠𝑠superscript𝑠2𝑠2subscript𝐿2𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle=\bigg{|}-\frac{1}{2}(w-z)(2-s)\overline{(w-z)}^{2}-\overline{(z-% w)}L_{2}(s)\bigg{|}^{2}e^{-2s}=s\big{|}s(2-s)/2-L_{2}(s)\big{|}^{2}e^{-2s},= | - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_w - italic_z ) ( 2 - italic_s ) over¯ start_ARG ( italic_w - italic_z ) end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) end_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_s ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_s | italic_s ( 2 - italic_s ) / 2 - italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_s ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼(L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ′′(z)|2)L1(|ξ(w)|2)L1(|ξ′′(w)|2))𝔼subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑤2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑤2\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{(}L_{1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)|% ^{2})L_{1}(|\xi(w)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)|^{2})\big{)}blackboard_E ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) )
=|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ(w)¯+𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ(z)¯|2=|L1(s)s|2e2s,absentsuperscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯𝜉𝑤𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯𝜉𝑤𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯𝜉𝑧2superscriptsubscript𝐿1𝑠𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle=|\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi(w)}\cdot\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime% \prime}(z)\overline{\xi(w)}+\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}% \cdot\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)\overline{\xi(z)}|^{2}=\big{|}L_{1}(s)-s% \big{|}^{2}e^{-2s},= | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG + blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_z ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = | italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_s ) - italic_s | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼(L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ′′(z)|2)L1(|ξ(w)|2)L1(|ξ′′(w)|2))𝔼subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑤2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑤2\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{(}L_{1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)|% ^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(w)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)|^{2})\big{)}blackboard_E ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) )
=|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ′′(w)¯+𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ(w)¯|2absentsuperscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤2\displaystyle=|\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(w)}\cdot\mathbb{E}\xi^{% \prime\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}+\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi% ^{\prime\prime}(w)}\cdot\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(% w)}|^{2}= | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG + blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=|12(zw)(2s)12(zw)¯(wz)2|2e2sabsentsuperscript12𝑧𝑤2𝑠12¯𝑧𝑤superscript𝑤𝑧22superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle=\bigg{|}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(z-w)(2-s)-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\overline% {(z-w)}(w-z)^{2}\bigg{|}^{2}e^{-2s}= | divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) ( 2 - italic_s ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG over¯ start_ARG ( italic_z - italic_w ) end_ARG ( italic_w - italic_z ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=12s|2ss|2e2s=2s|1s|2e2s,absent12𝑠superscript2𝑠𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠2𝑠superscript1𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}s\big{|}2-s-s|^{2}e^{-2s}=2s|1-s|^{2}e^{-2s},= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_s | 2 - italic_s - italic_s | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 2 italic_s | 1 - italic_s | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼(L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ′′(z)|2)L1(|ξ(w)|2)L1(|ξ′′(w)|2))𝔼subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑤2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑤2\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\big{(}L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime% \prime}(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(w)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)|^{2})% \big{)}blackboard_E ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) )
=|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ′′(w)¯+𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ(w)¯|2=|L2(s)+12s2|e2s,absentsuperscript𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤2subscript𝐿2𝑠12superscript𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle=|\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(w)}\cdot\mathbb% {E}\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}+\mathbb{E}\xi(z)% \overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}\cdot\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)\overline{% \xi^{\prime}(w)}|^{2}=\big{|}L_{2}(s)+\frac{1}{2}s^{2}\big{|}e^{-2s},= | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG + blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = | italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_s ) + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ(z)|2)L2(|ξ(w)|2)=2|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯|2|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯|2=2L1(s)212s(2s)2e2s,𝔼subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿2superscript𝜉𝑤22superscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯𝜉𝑤2superscript𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯𝜉𝑤22subscript𝐿1superscript𝑠212𝑠superscript2𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})L_{2}(|% \xi(w)|^{2})=2|\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi(w)}|^{2}|\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime}(z% )\overline{\xi(w)}|^{2}=2L_{1}(s)^{2}\cdot\frac{1}{2}s(2-s)^{2}e^{-2s},blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 2 | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 2 italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_s ( 2 - italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ(z)|2)L2(|ξ(w)|2)=2|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯|2|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯|2=212s(2s)2L2(s)2e2s,𝔼subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑤22superscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤2superscript𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤2212𝑠superscript2𝑠2subscript𝐿2superscript𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})L_{2}(|% \xi^{\prime}(w)|^{2})=2|\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(w)}|^{2}|% \mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(w)}|^{2}=2\frac{1}{2}s(2-s)^{2% }L_{2}(s)^{2}e^{-2s},blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 2 | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ⁤ 2 divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_s ( 2 - italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ(z)|2)L2(|ξ′′(w)|2)=2|𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯|2|𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯|2=2s12s2e2s=s3e2s,𝔼subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑤22superscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤2superscript𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤22𝑠12superscript𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠superscript𝑠3superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})L_{2}(|% \xi^{\prime\prime}(w)|^{2})=2|\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}% |^{2}|\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}|^{2}=2s\cdot% \frac{1}{2}s^{2}e^{-2s}=s^{3}e^{-2s},blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 2 | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 2 italic_s ⋅ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ′′(z)|2)L2(|ξ(w)|2)=2|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯|2|𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ(w)¯|2=2L1(s)2se2s,𝔼subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2subscript𝐿2superscript𝜉𝑤22superscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯𝜉𝑤2superscript𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯𝜉𝑤22subscript𝐿1superscript𝑠2𝑠superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)|^{2})L_% {2}(|\xi(w)|^{2})=2|\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi(w)}|^{2}|\mathbb{E}\xi^{% \prime\prime}(z)\overline{\xi(w)}|^{2}=2L_{1}(s)^{2}se^{-2s},blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 2 | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 2 italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ′′(z)|2)L2(|ξ(w)|2)=2|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯|2|𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ(w)¯|2=12s(2s)2s2e2s,𝔼subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑤22superscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤2superscript𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤212𝑠superscript2𝑠2superscript𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)|^{2})L_% {2}(|\xi^{\prime}(w)|^{2})=2|\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(w)}|^{2}|% \mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(w)}|^{2}=\frac{1}{2}s(2-% s)^{2}s^{2}e^{-2s},blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 2 | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_s ( 2 - italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ′′(z)|2)L2(|ξ′′(w)|2)=2|𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯|2|𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ′′(w)¯|2=2se2s,𝔼subscript𝐿1superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑤22superscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤2superscript𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤22𝑠superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{1}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)|^{2})L_% {2}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)|^{2})=2|\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime% }(w)}|^{2}|\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}|^{2% }=2se^{-2s},blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 2 | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 2 italic_s italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ′′(z)|2)L2(|ξ(w)|2)=2|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯|2|𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ(w)¯|2=s2(2s)2e2s,𝔼subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2subscript𝐿2superscript𝜉𝑤22superscript𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯𝜉𝑤2superscript𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯𝜉𝑤2superscript𝑠2superscript2𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z% )|^{2})L_{2}(|\xi(w)|^{2})=2|\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime}(z)\overline{\xi(w)}|^{2}|% \mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)\overline{\xi(w)}|^{2}=s^{2}(2-s)^{2}e^{-2s},blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 2 | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 - italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ′′|2)L2(|ξ(w)|2)=2|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯|2|𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ(w)¯|2=L2(s)2s2e2s,𝔼subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′2subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑤22superscript𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤2superscript𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤2subscript𝐿2superscript𝑠2superscript𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}|^% {2})L_{2}(|\xi^{\prime}(w)|^{2})=2|\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{% \prime}(w)}|^{2}|\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(w)}|^{2% }=L_{2}(s)^{2}s^{2}e^{-2s},blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 2 | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L1(|ξ(z)|2)L1(|ξ′′(z)|2)L2(|ξ′′(w)|2)=2|𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯|2|𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ′′(w)¯|2=s2e2s,𝔼subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿1superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑤22superscript𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤2superscript𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤2superscript𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})L_{1}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z% )|^{2})L_{2}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)|^{2})=2|\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime}(z)\overline% {\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}|^{2}|\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{% \prime\prime}(w)}|^{2}=s^{2}e^{-2s},blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 2 | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L2(|ξ(z)|2)L2(|ξ(w)|2)=|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯|4=L1(s)4e2s,𝔼subscript𝐿2superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿2superscript𝜉𝑤2superscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯𝜉𝑤4subscript𝐿1superscript𝑠4superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{2}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{2}(|\xi(w)|^{2})=|\mathbb{E}\xi(z% )\overline{\xi(w)}|^{4}=L_{1}(s)^{4}e^{-2s},blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L2(|ξ(z)|2)L2(|ξ(w)|2)=|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯|4=14s2(2s)4e2s,𝔼subscript𝐿2superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑤2superscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤414superscript𝑠2superscript2𝑠4superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{2}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{2}(|\xi^{\prime}(w)|^{2})=|% \mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(w)}|^{4}=\frac{1}{4}s^{2}(2-s)^{4}e^{-2% s},blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 - italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L2(|ξ(z)|2)L2(|ξ′′(w)|2)=|𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯|4=s2e2s,𝔼subscript𝐿2superscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑤2superscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤4superscript𝑠2superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{2}(|\xi(z)|^{2})L_{2}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)|^{2})=|% \mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}|^{4}=s^{2}e^{-2s},blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L2(|ξ(z)|2)L2(|ξ(w)|2)=|𝔼ξ(z)ξ(w)¯|4=L2(s)4e2s,𝔼subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑤2superscript𝔼superscript𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉𝑤4subscript𝐿2superscript𝑠4superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{2}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})L_{2}(|\xi^{\prime}(w)|^{2}% )=|\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime}(w)}|^{4}=L_{2}(s)^{4}e^{-2s},blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L2(|ξ(z)|2)L2(|ξ′′(w)|2)=|𝔼ξ(z)ξ′′(w)¯|4=14s4e2s,𝔼subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉𝑧2subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑤2superscript𝔼𝜉𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤414superscript𝑠4superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{2}(|\xi^{\prime}(z)|^{2})L_{2}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(w% )|^{2})=|\mathbb{E}\xi(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(w)}|^{4}=\frac{1}{4}s^{4% }e^{-2s},blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = | blackboard_E italic_ξ ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
𝔼L2(|ξ′′(z)|2)L2(|ξ′′(w)|2)=|𝔼ξ′′(z)ξ′′(w)¯|4=e2s.𝔼subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑧2subscript𝐿2superscriptsuperscript𝜉′′𝑤2superscript𝔼superscript𝜉′′𝑧¯superscript𝜉′′𝑤4superscript𝑒2𝑠\displaystyle\mathbb{E}L_{2}(|\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)|^{2})L_{2}(|\xi^{\prime% \prime}(w)|^{2})=|\mathbb{E}\xi^{\prime\prime}(z)\overline{\xi^{\prime\prime}(% w)}|^{4}=e^{-2s}.blackboard_E italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = | blackboard_E italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) over¯ start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_w ) end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

These expressions are combined into an expression for 𝔼[ϕ(z)ϕ(w)]𝔼delimited-[]italic-ϕ𝑧italic-ϕ𝑤\mathbb{E}[\phi(z)\phi(w)]blackboard_E [ italic_ϕ ( italic_z ) italic_ϕ ( italic_w ) ] in the accompanying notebook[19].

References

  • [1] R. J. Adler and J. E. Taylor. Random fields and geometry. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2007.
  • [2] S. T. Ali, F. Bagarello, and G. Honnouvo. Modular structures on trace class operators and applications to Landau levels. J. Phys. A, 43(10):105202, 17, 2010.
  • [3] G. Ascensi and J. Bruna. Model space results for the Gabor and wavelet transforms. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 55(5):2250–2259, 2009.
  • [4] J.-M. Azaïs, F. Dalmao, and J. R. León. Winding number for stationary Gaussian processes using real variables. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat., 59(3):1183–1202, 2023.
  • [5] J.-M. Azaïs and M. Wschebor. Level sets and extrema of random processes and fields. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2009.
  • [6] R. Bardenet, J. Flamant, and P. Chainais. On the zeros of the spectrogram of white noise. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 48(2):682–705, 2020.
  • [7] R. Bardenet and A. Hardy. Time-frequency transforms of white noises and Gaussian analytic functions. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 50:73–104, 2021.
  • [8] V. Bargmann. On a Hilbert space of analytic functions and an associated integral transform. Part II. A family of related function spaces. Application to distribution theory. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 20:1–101, 1967.
  • [9] Á. Bényi and K. A. Okoudjou. Modulation Spaces: With Applications to Pseudodifferential Operators and Nonlinear Schrödinger Equations. Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis. Birkhäuser Basel, 2020.
  • [10] H. Brézis and E. Lieb. A relation between pointwise convergence of functions and convergence of functionals. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 88(3):486–490, 1983.
  • [11] J. Buckley and N. Feldheim. The winding of stationary Gaussian processes. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 172(1-2):583–614, 2018.
  • [12] J. Buckley and A. Nishry. Gaussian complex zeroes are not always normal: limit theorems on the disc. Probab. Math. Phys., 3(3):675–706, 2022.
  • [13] J. Buckley and M. Sodin. Fluctuations of the increment of the argument for the Gaussian entire function. J. Stat. Phys., 168(2):300–330, 2017.
  • [14] Y. Chen and Y. Liu. Complex Wiener-Itô chaos decomposition revisited. Acta Math. Sci. Ser. B (Engl. Ed.), 39(3):797–818, 2019.
  • [15] F. Dalmao, I. Nourdin, G. Peccati, and M. Rossi. Phase singularities in complex arithmetic random waves. Electron. J. Probab., 24:Paper No. 71, 45, 2019.
  • [16] M. R. Douglas, B. Shiffman, and S. Zelditch. Critical points and supersymmetric vacua. I. Comm. Math. Phys., 252(1-3):325–358, 2004.
  • [17] L. A. Escudero, N. Feldheim, G. Koliander, and J. L. Romero. Efficient Computation of the Zeros of the Bargmann Transform Under Additive White Noise. Found. Comput. Math., 24(1):279–312, 2024.
  • [18] A. Estrade and J. R. León. A central limit theorem for the Euler characteristic of a Gaussian excursion set. Ann. Probab., 44(6):3849–3878, 2016.
  • [19] N. Feldheim, A. Haimi, G. Koliander, and J. L. Romero. Jupyter notebook nonhyp_gwhf, June 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12582083, URL: https://mybinder.org/v2/gh/gkoliander/nonhyp_gwhf/ea0a1e5d2c7d52253f548014d2e6f3b27d2d0349?urlpath=lab%2Ftree%2FNonhyp_zeros.ipynb.
  • [20] N. D. Feldheim. Variance of the number of zeroes of shift-invariant Gaussian analytic functions. Israel J. Math., 227(2):753–792, 2018.
  • [21] P. Flandrin. Time–frequency filtering based on spectrogram zeros. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 22(11):2137–2141, 2015.
  • [22] P. Flandrin. The sound of silence: Recovering signals from time-frequency zeros. In 2016 50th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, pages 544–548, 2016.
  • [23] P. Flandrin. Explorations in time-frequency analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
  • [24] G. B. Folland. Harmonic analysis in phase space, volume 122 of Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1989.
  • [25] P. J. Forrester and G. Honner. Exact statistical properties of the zeros of complex random polynomials. J. Phys. A, 32(16):2961–2981, 1999.
  • [26] T. J. Gardner and M. O. Magnasco. Sparse time-frequency representations. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sc., 103(16):6094–6099, 2006.
  • [27] A. Ghanmi. Operational formulae for the complex Hermite polynomials Hp,q(z,z¯)subscript𝐻𝑝𝑞𝑧¯𝑧H_{p,q}(z,\overline{z})italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , over¯ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ). Integral Transforms Spec. Funct., 24(11):884–895, 2013. Typos corrected in: arXiv:1211.5746v3.
  • [28] A. Haimi and H. Hedenmalm. The polyanalytic Ginibre ensembles. J. Stat. Phys., 153(1):10–47, 2013.
  • [29] A. Haimi, G. Koliander, and J. L. Romero. Zeros of Gaussian Weyl-Heisenberg functions and hyperuniformity of charge. J. Stat. Phys., 187(3):Paper No. 22, 41, 2022.
  • [30] A. Haimi and A. Wennman. A central limit theorem for fluctuations in polyanalytic Ginibre ensembles. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (5):1350–1372, 2019.
  • [31] J. H. Hannay. Chaotic analytic zero points: exact statistics for those of a random spin state. J. Phys. A, 29(5):L101–L105, 1996.
  • [32] J. H. Hannay. The chaotic analytic function. J. Phys. A, 31(49):L755–L761, 1998.
  • [33] J. B. Hough, M. Krishnapur, Y. Peres, and B. Virág. Zeros of Gaussian analytic functions and determinantal point processes, volume 51 of University Lecture Series. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2009.
  • [34] M. E. H. Ismail. Analytic properties of complex Hermite polynomials. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 368(2):1189–1210, 2016.
  • [35] K. Itô. Complex multiple Wiener integral. Jpn. J. Math., 22:63–86, 1952.
  • [36] S. Janson. Gaussian Hilbert spaces, volume 129 of Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
  • [37] J.-P. Kahane. Some random series of functions, volume 5 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 1985.
  • [38] M. F. Kratz and J. R. León. Hermite polynomial expansion for non-smooth functionals of stationary Gaussian processes: crossings and extremes. Stochastic Process. Appl., 66(2):237–252, 1997.
  • [39] M. F. Kratz and J. R. León. On the second moment of the number of crossings by a stationary Gaussian process. Ann. Probab., 34(4):1601–1607, 2006.
  • [40] S. Ladgham and R. Lachieze-Rey. Local repulsion of planar Gaussian critical points. Stochastic Process. Appl., 166:Paper No. 104221, 25, 2023.
  • [41] M. R. Leadbetter. Point processes generated by level crossings. In Stochastic point processes: statistical analysis, theory, and applications (Conf., IBM Res. Center, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., 1971), Wiley Ser. Probab. Math. Statist., pages 436–467. Wiley-Interscience [A division of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.], New York-London-Sydney, 1972.
  • [42] E. H. Lieb and M. Loss. Analysis, volume 14 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, second edition, 2001.
  • [43] J. W. Milnor. Topology from the differentiable viewpoint. Princeton Landmarks in Mathematics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1997. Based on notes by David W. Weaver, Revised reprint of the 1965 original.
  • [44] J. M. Miramont, R. Bardenet, P. Chainais, and F. Auger. A public benchmark for denoising and detection methods. In XXVIIIème Colloque Francophone du GRETSI, pages 1–4, Nancy, France, Sept. 2022. GRETSI.
  • [45] J. M. Miramont, R. Bardenet, P. Chainais, and F. Auger. Benchmarking multi-component signal processing methods in the time-frequency plane. Preprint, arXiv:2402.08521, 2024.
  • [46] F. Nazarov and M. Sodin. What is\ldotsa Gaussian entire function? Notices Amer. Math. Soc., 57(3):375–377, 2010.
  • [47] F. Nazarov and M. Sodin. Fluctuations in random complex zeroes: asymptotic normality revisited. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (24):5720–5759, 2011.
  • [48] I. Nourdin, G. Peccati, and M. Rossi. Nodal statistics of planar random waves. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 369:99–151, 2019.
  • [49] G. E. Pfander, H. Rauhut, and J. A. Tropp. The restricted isometry property for time-frequency structured random matrices. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 156(3-4):707–737, 2013.
  • [50] B. Shiffman and S. Zelditch. Number variance of random zeros on complex manifolds. Geom. Funct. Anal., 18(4):1422–1475, 2008.
  • [51] E. Slud. Multiple Wiener-Itô integral expansions for level-crossing-count functionals. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 87(3):349–364, 1991.
  • [52] E. V. Slud. MWI representation of the number of curve-crossings by a differentiable Gaussian process, with applications. Ann. Probab., 22(3):1355–1380, 1994.
  • [53] M. Sodin and B. Tsirelson. Random complex zeroes, i. asymptotic normality. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 144(1):125–149, 2004.
  • [54] M. Spivak. Calculus on manifolds. A modern approach to classical theorems of advanced calculus. W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York-Amsterdam, 1965.
  • [55] S. Torquato. Hyperuniformity and its generalizations. Phys. Rev. E, 94(2):022122, 2016.
  • [56] S. Torquato. Hyperuniform states of matter. Phys. Rep., 745:1–95, 2018.
  • [57] N. L. Vasilevski. Poly-Fock spaces. In Differential operators and related topics, Vol. I (Odessa, 1997), volume 117 of Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., pages 371–386. Birkhäuser, Basel, 2000.
  • [58] M. Wilkinson. Screening of charged singularities of random fields. J. Phys. A, 37(26):6763–6771, 2004.
  • [59] K. Zhu. Analysis on Fock spaces, volume 263 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2012.