Hyperuniformity and non-hyperuniformity of zeros of Gaussian Weyl-Heisenberg Functions
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, hyperuniformity2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
60G15, 60G55, 94A12, 42A611. Introduction and Results
1.1. Gaussian Weyl-Heisenberg functions
We study random functions on the complex plane and their zeros. Specifically, we consider
(1.1) |
where is deterministic and is a circularly symmetric complex Gaussian random field on with covariance kernel of the form
(1.2) |
Here, is a suitably smooth function called twisted kernel.
The covariance structure (1.2) means that is twisted stationary, that is, the distribution of is invariant under all twisted shifts
(1.3) |
The random functions 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 .
We mention en passant some first examples. For the special choice
can be identified with a translation invariant Gaussian entire function [46, 33] as follows:
with
(1.4) |
and independent standard complex random variables. Other choices of may lead to non-analytic random functions. For example, if
then
(1.5) |
where is the Gaussian entire function (1.4), see [29, Section 6.5]. The expression in brackets in (1.5) is the covariant derivative of and is instrumental to study critical points of the weighted magnitude (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) |
called twisted derivatives, which commute with the twisted shifts (1.3):
(1.7) |
Here, we use the Wirtinger differential operators
Throughout, we make the following assumptions, which are similar to those made in [29]:
-
•
We assume that the deterministic function is and
(1.8) -
•
For the twisted kernel we assume the positive-definiteness condition
(1.9) which guarantees that (1.2) is indeed a covariance kernel. This implies that
(1.10) and .
-
•
We further impose the normalization
(1.11) which means that has unit variance.
-
•
We assume the regularity condition
(1.12) which implies that no two samples , are deterministically correlated, as the determinant of their covariance matrix is
(1.13) -
•
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) which guarantees that is almost surely a function [5, Chapter 1].
-
•
We assume the decay condition
(1.15)
1.3. Charged zeros and hyperuniformity
We augment each zero of with the attribute of charge , according to whether preserves or reverses orientation around . More precisely, we inspect the differential matrix of considered as and define
(1.16) |
As we show in Lemma 3.1, almost surely, .
The following is our first main result.
Theorem 1.1.
To compare, under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, the expected charge to be found in a ball can be as large as . In fact, when has zero mean, [29, Theorem 1.12] gives the exact expression
(1.17) |
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 and is radial, Theorem 1.1 follows from [29, Theorem 1.14], which also provides an asymptotic expression of the variance as . 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 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 be the GWHF (1.1) with and . Then there exist constants such that
(1.18) |
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 , with , our method gives a sufficient condition for (1.18) in terms of a finite computation with the coefficients of . 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 with , where denotes the Laguerre polynomial of degree – while Theorem 1.2 corresponds to the case , since . The random functions that result from choosing 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 be the zero-mean random analytic function given by (1.4). It is well-known that the zero set of is hyperuniform:
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 is supplemented with a non-trivial analytic mean in the so-called Bargmann-Fock spaces of entire functions with quadratic exponential growth [59].
Theorem 1.3 (Hyperuniformity of GEF zeros with mean).
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
of a zero mean translation invariant GEF . The operator is the adjoint of the Wirtinger derivative with respect to the -inner product with Gaussian weight . In the language of complex geometry, is the derivative of a holomorphic section to the standard line bundle on the plane with Gaussian metric (Hermitian Gaussian measure). The set of critical points corresponding to a random section is instrumental in the analysis of heuristic or approximate models in string theory [16]. First order statistics for the critical points of are computed (with respect to more general metrics) in [16]. We shall look into second order statistics.
A simple computation shows that is a GWHF with twisted kernel [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 satisfies
for adequate constants .
We emphasize that the covariant derivative is not analytic, and the study of the second order statistics of its zeros is different from the corresponding endeavor for [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](x1.png)
The critical points of (which are almost surely non-degenerate) can be classified according to their topological index (which is almost surely ):
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 is exactly the charge of the GWHF (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 satisfies
(1.21) |
for adequate constants .
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 —called signal—by means of its spectrogram
(1.22) |
The integral, which is to be interpreted distributionally, quantifies the influence of the frequency in near .
In realistic applications, the signal is non-stationary, which means that all frequencies can potentially contribute to the spectrogram, and therefore the shape of the essential support of (that is, the region where most of the energy concentrates) is rather unpredictable. Nevertheless, in practice, 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 is traditionally done by looking into large values of , a task that can be challenging if is contaminated with significant additive noise [23]. Remarkably, it has been recently discovered that in the additive noise regime the zeros of provide a rich set of landmarks from which the essential support of can be effectively inferred. The intuition is that the zeros of the spectrogram of (white) noise 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 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 . The union of all meaningful disks furnishes an approximation of the essential support of .
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) |
associated with standard complex white noise as input can be identified with the translation invariant Gaussian entire function (1.4):
see [32, 6, 7]. Hence, the zeros of the spectrogram of noise are hyperuniform (moderate variance in comparison to its expectation at large scales). This gives partial support to the success of empirical zero statistics for : If the observed number of zeros deviates significantly from what is expected for the spectrogram of noise , we can conclude with high probability that a signal is present. Furthermore, a formula for the expected number of zeros of is known [17, Proposition 3.4], which suggests that in parts of the time-frequency plane where the deterministic signal 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 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 be a distribution with bounded spectrogram and let be standard complex white noise. Then
-
(i)
The zero set of is hyperuniform. More precisely
(1.24) -
(ii)
The set of local maxima of is not hyperuniform. More precisely,
(1.25)
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 is standard—it means that belongs to the modulation space [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 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 where 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 is defined more generally with respect to a window function :
(1.26) |
The most common choice for is the Gaussian function, which corresponds to (1.23). In practice the same signal is often processed with multiple windows so as to average out the bias that they introduce (multi-tapering) [23, Chapter 10]. Typical choices for are Hermite functions as these optimize several measures related to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
For the Gaussian window , the STFT of a general signal is a weighted analytic function. While this is not the case for any other choice of (up to symmetries) [3], the STFT of a signal impacted by standard complex white noise can still be identified with a GWHF as follows:
see [29]. Our work shows that the zero counting statistics for the STFT with respect to a general window 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 are not hyperuniform.
Theorem 1.7.
Let and standard complex white noise. Then the zero set of satisfies
On the bright side, we are able to show that, for a general window function , charge statistics, corresponding to sums of winding numbers of the STFT:
(1.27) |
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 be non-zero, (i.e., ), and standard complex white noise. Then
for a constant .
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 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
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 . 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 .
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 and . 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, , (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 -level counting statistics are continuous in the level , 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 . 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 and their dependence on . 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 . The approach can be extended to non-radial 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 . 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 , , 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 is denoted . We adopt the usual complex-variable notations , , , while the differential of the Lebesgue (area) measure on is denoted . We will write , which is one quarter times the standard Laplace operator.
The Jacobian of a function at is the determinant of its differential matrix considered as :
Recall that the charge of at a zero is given by (1.16). The total charge of on a domain is defined as
(2.1) |
We will also make extensive use of the covariant differential operators (1.6). If the operators are applied to a function of more than one variable, we specify the relevant variable in a second subindex, e.g., .
2.2. Covariances
In what follows, we will often need the covariance between and , , at different points . The following lemma expresses these in terms of twisted shifts.
Lemma 2.1.
Proof.
2.3. Invertibility of the Hessian of the squared twisted kernel
We will show that our assumptions on imply that there exists a positive constant such that
for in a neighborhood of the origin. The proof requires the following two lemmas.
Lemma 2.2.
Proof.
Lemma 2.3.
Proof.
We will use repeatedly the relations , in the process. The second identity implies for example
Similar relations hold for other derivatives of first and second orders.
Gaussian elimination gives
Next, we will compute the determinant of the matrix in the statement of the lemma. We have
so
We obtain the claim by comparing this expression with the expression for . ∎
Proposition 2.4.
Proof.
By (1.12), attains a maximum at , and thus can be Taylor expanded near the origin as
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 such that
This implies that there is a real number such that
This means
which implies that
However, the left-hand side is by Lemma 2.3, a contradiction. ∎
2.4. Model-dependent constants
We say that is a GWHF satisfying the general assumptions if 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:
Importantly, estimates for GWHF formulated in terms of model-dependant constants remain valid if is replaced with the twisted shift . The corresponding zero sets are related as follows.
Remark 2.5.
If vanishes at then a direct computation shows that vanishes at and
3. Poincare Index
We consider a GWHF and the total charge (2.1) of on a domain . 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 be a GWHF satisfying the general assumptions, let be a compact domain with smooth boundary, and let . Then the following hold almost surely.
-
(i)
The level-crossings of are non-degenerate, i.e.,
(3.1) -
(ii)
is finite and does not intersect .
-
(iii)
(Covariant Poincare’s index formula)
(3.2)
Proof.
For part (i), we invoke [5, Proposition 6.5]. The required hypotheses are that be almost surely, as we assume in (1.14), and that the probability density of be bounded near uniformly on , which in our case holds because is a circularly symmetric complex Gaussian vector with variance and bounded mean by (1.8).
For part (ii), we use Kac-Rice’s formula to conclude that there is a measurable function such that for any Borel set :
(3.3) |
Concretely, we invoke [5, Theorem 6.2], a version of Kac-Rice’s formula for Gaussian random fields that requires: (a) to be almost surely , which is granted by (1.14); (b) to be non-zero for all , which is granted by (1.11); (c) the non-degeneracy condition (3.1). The function can be expressed as a certain conditional expectation [5, Theorem 6.2], but we shall not need this fact. Simply, since has null Lebesgue measure, we use (3.3) with to learn that , and thus almost surely.
4. Covariance Estimates
Motivated by Lemma 3.1, we look into correlations between the quotients , and derive several technical estimates.
Lemma 4.1.
Let be a GWHF satisfying the general assumptions. Then the following hold.
-
(i)
For each there exists a constant such that
(4.1) and
(4.2) -
(ii)
For each there exists a constant such that
(4.3) and
(4.4)
In each case, the constant depends on the model and .
Proof.
Part (i). The mean of 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 has mean and covariance
(4.5) |
To prove (4.3) we invoke the Hardy-Littlewood rearrangement inequality:
because . Suppose that . Then has determinant and there exists a model-dependent constant such that
(4.6) |
We use (4.6) and the Hardy-Littlewood rearrangement inequality to estimate
because .
Suppose now that and let . Inspecting (4.5) we write
with . Then,
where depends on the model. Using Lemma 10.4, we estimate the inner integral as
where is a constant only depending on that might change from line to line. Therefore, using the Hardy-Littlewood rearrangement inequality
since . Finally, we note that because , and obtain (4.4). ∎
Corollary 4.2.
Let be a GWHF satisfying the general assumptions. Then there exist model-dependent constants such that
(4.7) |
and
(4.8) |
Proof.
Proposition 4.3.
Let be a GWHF satisfying the general assumptions. Then there exist model-dependent constants such that the following bound holds for all :
(4.9) |
Proof.
Throughout the proof, we fix .
Step 1. Assume first that the random vectors , have non-singular covariance matrices, and denote them by . These matrices are independent of by Lemma 2.1 (see also Lemma 2.2).
We consider the random vector
(4.10) |
and decompose its covariance into blocks
(4.11) |
The entries in these blocks are the covariances derived in (2.2)–(2.4). Thus, by Assumption (1.15), , while . As the approximate covariance matrix
(4.12) |
is invertible, there exist constants such that if , is also invertible, and, moreover,
(4.13) |
(4.14) |
where is model dependent (depending on the smallest eigenvalue of ). We also assume that is larger than the corresponding constant in Corollary 4.2, so that (4.7) and (4.8) hold.
Step 2. Let with .
Using (4.13) and a relative perturbation bound for determinats, we get
Thus, by (4.8), we can rewrite
(4.15) |
Hence,
(4.16) |
We use the estimate , , and the fact that and are positive matrices to bound
Combining this estimate with (4.16) we conclude that
(4.17) |
where
(4.18) |
by the Hardy-Littlewood rearrangement inequality;
(4.19) |
by (1.8); and
(4.20) | |||
(4.21) |
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
is singular (possibly both).
If the covariance matrix of is non-singular, let . If it is singular, let . Note that in this latter case, since , there exists a deterministic constant such that and, thus, . Moreover, by (1.15). We define similarly, and concatenate and to form a random vector of length . This vector is thus obtained from (4.10) by eliminating one or two components.
Let and be the covariance matrices of , and respectively, and consider again the decomposition (4.11) and (4.12). We argue as in the previous case to obtain constants such that (4.13) and (4.14) hold. As a consequence (4.15) remains valid. The expansion (4.16) remains valid with integration over and by setting and/or . To adapt the subsequent bounds, one needs to consider one additional estimate of the form
and an analogous quantity with in lieu of . 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.
Proof.
We restrict attention to the ball . The conclusions then extend to balls centered at any point because the distribution of is invariant under twisted shifts (1.3), while all assumptions on also hold for and the constants we rely on are model dependent, cf. Remark 2.5.
Using (3.2) we formally expand the variance as
(5.1) |
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 be larger than the corresponding constants in Corollary 4.2 and Proposition 4.3. Let
(5.2) |
Proposition 2.4 and Assumption (1.12) imply that , cf. (2.6).
Fix and let be the Hölder conjugate . Fix initially .
Step 1. Recall that, by Corollary 4.2, (4.7) holds. Hence,
(5.3) |
while, by Lemma 10.3 (with ),
(5.4) |
Step 2. We use Hölder’s inequality and Lemma 4.1 to estimate
(5.5) |
Set
Step 3. Let . We recall (4.4) and use (5.5) to further estimate
where we used the definition (5.2). Since , Lemma 10.3 (with ) gives
(5.6) |
This estimate, together with (5.4) shows that
(5.7) |
Step 4. For , Lemma 4.1 gives . Thus, we combine (5.5) with Lemma 10.3 to conclude
(5.8) |
Together with (5.4), this shows that
(5.9) |
Step 5. We combine Proposition 4.3 and Lemma 10.2 to estimate
(5.10) |
In addition, by Corollary 4.2, (4.8) holds and
(5.11) |
6. Regularity of Level-Crossing Statistics
Let be a zero mean GWHF satisfying the general assumptions. The goal of this section is to show that level-crossing statistics depend continuously on the level value 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 is non-degenerate for and we will denote its covariance matrix by
(6.1) |
By (2.6), the inverse covariance matrix (henceforth, we will write and omit the dependency on and if the arguments are clear from context) has norm (see (6.12) below). We now make the crucial observation that is much better conditioned when acting on diagonal vectors.
Lemma 6.1.
Let be a zero mean GWHF satisfying the general assumptions. Then for each there exists a model-dependent constant , such that for distinct :
(6.2) | |||
(6.3) | |||
(6.4) |
(Here, is the covariance matrix (6.1).)
Proof.
Since , is a non-degenerate jointly Gaussian vector. Specifically, writing , its covariance is
(6.5) |
and has inverse
(6.6) |
A Taylor expansion in around gives
where and denote derivatives with respect to the first variable, and the implied constants may depend on . Hence,
Since and are , we see that
(6.7) |
Now (6.2) follows since
6.2. Boundedness of the intensity functions
We define the one and two point functions , (associated with the level ) by
(6.8) | ||||
(6.9) |
where is the joint probability density of 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 is non-singular for .
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 within a test set. The following key result estimates the two-point function associated with general level crossings.
Proposition 6.2.
Let be a zero mean GWHF satisfying the general assumptions. Then for each compact set there exists a model-dependent constant , such that
(6.10) |
Similarly, for each compact set there exists a model-dependent constant , such that .
Proof.
We start by considering the bound (6.10) on the second intensity. Let us fix with . Without loss of generality we assume that is a ball. Throughout the proof we let denote a finite constant that may depend on and the model. Other dependencies are noted with further subscripts. The particular values of may change from line to line.
First we consider the factor in (6.9) and show that
(6.11) |
Since , is a non-degenerate jointly Gaussian vector. Specifically, its covariance is given by (6.5) and its determinant satisfies
(6.12) |
As a consequence, the probability density
satisfies (6.11).
Thus, to prove (6.10), it remains to show that the other factor in (6.9) satisfies
This will be done in several steps.
Step 1. By Cauchy-Schwarz,
Hence, by symmetry in and , it remains to show that
(6.13) |
Step 2. We expand around to obtain
(6.14) | ||||
where are zero mean Gaussian random functions resulting from Taylor’s theorem with integral remainder:
We introduce for the notation
(6.15) |
for the corresponding directional derivative. Considering the unit vector , this allows us to rewrite (6.14) as
(6.16) |
Furthermore, in the orthogonal coordinate system , the Jacobian of can be rewritten as:
(6.17) |
Noting that we condition on the event , we can thus bound the left-hand side in (6.13) as
(6.18) | ||||
It remains to bound the conditional expectation on the right-hand side of (6.18) by a constant that depends only on and the model.
Step 3. For a multi-index , we denote and let
(6.19) |
Note that the functions in (6.14), as well as and , satisfy
(6.20) |
We will show that for
(6.21) |
Let us first fix a multi-index with and set
While we do not need an explicit expression for , we see as in Lemma 2.1, that we can exchange expectation and differentiation and the regularity assumption (1.14) on then implies that is in the real sense. Thus, for in the compact domain ,
(6.22) | ||||
(6.23) |
(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 in terms of the covering number of with respect to the so-called canonical distance . 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
Due to the Borell-TIS inequality [5, Theorem 2.9] [1, Theorem 2.1.1], the previous estimate, together with (6.22) yields
which readily gives (6.21).
Step 4. We show that for the following estimate holds
(6.24) |
The conditional expectation in question is the expectation of a certain Gaussian vector —defined by Gaussian regression applied to the (zero mean, circularly symmetric) Gaussian vector [5, Proposition 1.2]. Specifically, the conditional mean is
(6.25) |
where we identify . We split the last expression as
(6.26) |
We first recall that by (6.21) and (6.20), , and consequently also . Thus, the first term on the right-hand side of (6.26) can be estimated with Lemma 6.1 as
Similarly, we use Lemma 6.1 to estimate the second term on the right-hand side of (6.26) as
which finishes the proof of (6.24).
Step 5. We finally show that for every and the following estimate holds
(6.27) |
This then can be combined with (6.18) and concludes the proof of (6.10).
First note that we want to bound the -th absolute moment of the vector described in Step 4. Its expectation is bounded as in (6.24) while its variance satisfies
because the conditional expectation map is an orthogonal projection. On the other hand, by (6.20) and (6.24),
Since is normally distributed, it follows that
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 can be bounded by a constant and, thus, we only have to bound the conditional expectation in (6.8) by a constant . Let , write and estimate
As in Step 2, . In addition,
Finally, note that while and similarly . This shows that . ∎
Remark 6.3.
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 . Then
(6.28) | ||||
(6.29) | ||||
(6.30) |
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 -smooth vector and the -smooth matrix
which show that and, for , .
On the other hand, the Kac-Rice formulae [5, Theorems 6.2 and 6.3] provide the representations
(6.31) | ||||
(6.32) |
(The formulae are applicable because has paths; each is a standard normal variable; for the vector has non-singular covariance; while Lemma 3.1 shows that zeros are almost surely non-degenerate.)
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 . Then , as .
Proof.
Let be an arbitrary sequence with . Let us show that as . By Theorem 6.4, as . Hence, by the Brézis-Lieb Lemma [10, 42], it is enough to show that almost surely. This is a standard argument [1, 5] and we just briefly sketch it.
By Lemma 3.1, the zeros of are almost surely non-degenerate, cf. (3.1). Fix one such realization of . Then the set must be finite. In addition, by the inverse function theorem, around each zero there is a neighborhood such that is a homeomorphism. These neighborhoods can be assumed to be disjoint, and their union is denoted . For all sufficiently large , the equation has a unique solution on each and therefore . On the other hand, suppose that, after passing to a subsequence of , one can find solutions with . After passing to a further subsequence, , while, by continuity and therefore . This contradiction concludes the proof. ∎
7. Chaos Expansion on the Complex Plane
7.1. Complex Hermite polynomials
We will employ the complex Hermite polynomials , defined by the generating function identity as
or, more explicitly, by
(7.1) |
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) |
where is the standard Laguerre polynomial
(7.3) |
Complex Hermite polynomials satisfy the orthogonality relation
and they form an orthogonal basis of . By (7.2), for any radial function we have
for adequate coefficients .
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 be a circularly symmetric Gaussian random function with underlying probability space , and consider the set of Gaussian variables
(7.4) |
Let be the sigma-algebra generated by and the completion of the linear span of as a subspace of . The space , called the Gaussian space induced by , is a separable Hilbert space consisting of circularly symmetric complex Gaussian variables. Let be some orthonormal basis of . Translated to our notation involving complex Hermite polynomials, Proposition 1.34 and Example 3.32 in [36] tell us that
(7.5) |
is an orthonormal basis of . Here are multi-indices, and we are using the notation .
The ’th chaotic subspace of is defined as
(7.6) |
and we will denote the orthogonal projection onto by . We therefore have the following chaos decomposition:
(7.7) |
The decomposition is independent of the choice of the orthonormal basis of ; 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
associated with a GWHF and a test set .
This will be done by first considering certain regularized versions of . Let be smooth with and . For , let
(7.8) |
Then is smooth, and . We define the regularized variables by
(7.9) |
Note that the expression involves the covariant Jacobian determinant instead of the usual Euclidean Jacobian .
The following lemma, proved in Section 10.4, shows that .
Lemma 7.1.
Let be a zero-mean GWHF satisfying the general assumptions. Let satisfy
for some constants and . Let be a bounded Borel set. For each consider a finite cover of by almost disjoint cubes with centers and diameter . Then
in as , 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 be a zero mean GWHF satisfying the general assumptions and let be a bounded Borel set. Then and
(7.10) |
Proof.
Step 1. Consider the Euclidean regularized statistic
where, in contrast to (7.9) we use the Euclidean Jacobian. Let us show that
(7.11) |
To prove this, we take an arbitrary sequence and consider the corresponding limit.
We shall invoke Lemma 6.6 and adopt its notation. By the area formula,
see, e.g., [5, Proposition 6.1.]. Consequently,
The integrand in the last expression is bounded due to Theorem 6.4, and converges to pointwise due to Lemma 6.6. Thus, the dominated convergence theorem yields (7.11).
Step 2. Let us show that
(7.12) |
Let us first estimate
where .
Lemma 7.1 shows that and, therefore, by Proposition 7.2,
Hence, the number statistic can be expanded as
(7.13) |
into chaotic components (7.6) associated with the Gaussian space induced by . We now calculate the chaos expansion of explicitly in the case of radial twisted kernels.
Theorem 7.3.
Let be a zero mean GWHF satisfying the general assumptions and with a twisted kernel of the form where is . Let be a bounded Borel set and consider the number statistic . Then , where is the -algebra generated by given by (7.4).
Consider the chaos decomposition associated with and let (7.13) be corresponding expansion of . Let . Then for , while
(7.14) |
where the integral is defined realization-wise and
(7.15) |
Proof.
Step 1. We have already observed that . Let and consider the smooth mollifier (7.8) and the regularized number statistic (7.9). Since is radial, its expansion in the basis (7.5) has the form
with convergence in and . We do not need the exact value of ; we just note that
(7.16) |
We also expand:
with convergence in .
We thus arrive at the expansion
(7.17) |
with convergence in .
Step 2. Let be arbitrary but fixed. The covariance of the Gaussian vector
is given by (2.5). Since it follows that . Consequently,
(7.18) |
is a standard complex Gaussian vector and the map
is an isometric embedding. Thus (7.17) translates into the almost sure equality
(7.19) |
with convergence in quadratic mean for each .
We shall invoke Lemma 7.1 with the functions
which satisfy the hypothesis of the lemma (with constants that depend on ). With the notation of Lemma 7.1,
(7.20) | ||||
(7.21) |
By Lemma 7.1, as , the Riemann sums in (7.20) and (7.21) converge to the corresponding integrals in quadratic mean. Since is continuous in , we conclude that
By Proposition 7.2, in quadratic mean as , which, together with (7.16) gives (7.14) and the vanishing of the projection for . ∎
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 with the specific twisted kernel
(8.1) |
We analyze the zero set on the observation disk centered at .
8.1. Lower bound
Let us consider the chaos decomposition of the number statistic . The gist of the proof is to estimate the second order chaotic component . By the orthogonality of the chaos decomposition (as in (7.7)), we then have the estimate
We will show that . (On the other hand, one can check that , which is not enough for our purpose.)
We shall inspect the explicit expression for given in Theorem 7.3. In our case,
We follow the notation from Section 7.3 and particularize (7.18) to
(8.2) |
whose entries are independent and distributed, for every . By Theorem 7.3, the projection of onto is given by
(8.3) |
where
(8.4) | ||||
Using (7.15), we compute the coefficients explicitly (see the accompanying notebook [19]
(8.5) |
The random variable has zero mean because it is orthogonal to . Thus, from (8.3),
(8.6) |
where the exchange of integral and expectation is justified by noticing that, by (8.4), is a polynomial in the coordinates of the Gaussian vector .
The following proposition is an application of the so-called Feynman-diagram method and enables us to compute term-by-term according to (8.4).
Proposition 8.1.
Suppose that is a complex Gaussian random vector, where each coordinate has a standard complex Gaussian distribution, and , . Then:
-
(1)
,
-
(2)
,
-
(3)
.
The proof of this proposition is provided in Section 8.3 below. Here we apply it to and such that , . This allows us to continue from (8.6), using the form of given in (8.4). The expectation of each term is then expressed (via Proposition 8.1) in terms of covariances between and . 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
see the accompanying notebook for symbolic calculations [19]. This leads to the explicit bound
(8.7) |
which we now inspect. One can easily verify that
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
We shall need the following standard estimate, which can be found in [29, Lemma 8.3].
Lemma 8.2.
Let . Let be an integrable function satisfying and
There exists a universal constant such that
Applying Lemma 8.2, we may continue from (8.7) to conclude that
(8.8) |
for large enough and a strictly positive constant . To conclude the proof of the lower bound, we need to observe that for any . 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 is stationary because has zero mean (and is invariant under twisted shifts), while the first intensity of the zero set is finite and , 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 , consider the Gaussian vector
(8.9) |
and write its covariance as
(8.10) |
with . Let be a standard complex Gaussian vector in (so that ). The two point function (6.9) can be expressed by Gaussian regression as
where . We note that
(8.11) |
for some .
Let be obtained from by replacing with every entry that corresponds to correlations between a function of and a function evaluated at . Thus is the covariance of a Gaussian vector defined analogously to (8.9) but replacing and with two independent copies of those vectors. As a consequence, the one point function (6.8) satisfies
where is split into blocks analogous to (8.10). (Actually, .)
By the fast decay of and its derivatives,
for some constant . It follows that there exists such that for , . Taking into account that the square-root operation is continuous on the set of positive matrices, this implies that, for ,
and, by (8.11),
On the other hand, for we can invoke Proposition 6.2 and conclude that
(8.12) |
Since has zero mean, the point process is stationary and
(this is special of the zero statistic; it does not apply to the more general -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),
Hence,
(8.13) |
Using (8.12) and Lemma 8.2 we estimate
where . Combining this with (8.13) gives
for some constant . 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 be a complex Gaussian random vector, normalized so that for all , and let . A complete Feynman diagram is a graph with vertices labelled by , such that:
-
•
there are exactly vertices labelled by , and vertices labelled by .
-
•
each vertex has degree .
-
•
no edge joins a vertex with another vertex of the same label, or of its conjugate label.
The value of a diagram is defined as
where is the set of edges of . Then, by [36, Theorem 3.12], we have222 The relation to complex Hermite polynomials is given in [36, Example 3.31].
where the sum is over all complete Feynman diagrams , and are the complex Hermite polynomials introduced in (7.1). In the case where for all , we may use Laguerre polynomials via (7.2), to obtain:
(8.14) |
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:
We illustrate the associated diagram counting in Fig. 2.
![Refer to caption](x2.png)
In the corresponding diagrams each label among appears exactly once. We note that all relevant diagrams are bi-partite graphs, with edges between and . Indeed, there are no edges within since, by definition, there are no edges between a label and its conjugate, and by independence, there are no edges between and . For the same reasons, there are no edges within . We further note that for any circularly symmetric complex Gaussian random vector . Since the degree of each vertex must be , there must be an edge joining with or with ; the remaining vertex must be joined to . Similarly, there must be an edge joining with or with ; the remaining vertex will be joined with . These choices are independent. Therefore, the sum of values of the resulting four diagrams is
Plugging this into (8.14), we obtain the first item.
For the second part, we need to compute
The corresponding diagrams are bi-partite graphs, with edges between and (that is, is a set of four vertices carrying two labels of and two labels of ). By the same arguments as before, must be joined to one of two copies of (and the remaining copy must be joined to ), and the first copy of must be joined to either or (and the remaining vertex must be joined to the second copy of ). These four diagrams have the value
Considering the normalising factor in (8.14), we establish the second item.
For the computation of in the third part, the corresponding diagrams are bi-partite graphs with edges between and . Again there are four diagrams, resulting from a choice of edge joining the first copy of to one of the two copies of , and an edge joining the first copy of to one of the two copies of . The value of each such diagram is . The normalizing factor in (8.14) is , 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 , where is the translation invariant GEF (1.4) and is entire with
(9.1) |
Consider the iterated covariant derivative with and set
Then is a GWHF with twisted kernel
(9.2) |
where is the Laguerre polynomial of degree (7.3). In addition, conditions (1.8), (1.9), (1.11), (1.12), (1.14), and (1.15) are satisfied.
Proof.
When , 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
The key observation is that for an arbitrary real smooth function , the Wirtinger operators and the twisted derivatives are related by
In particular,
We also observe that each twisted shift of is a weighted analytic function:
where is the so called Bargmann shift of [59]. Hence, by a Cauchy estimate, for each we have
(9.3) |
Similarly
(9.4) |
where the second equality follows from the following identity, which holds for an analytic function :
see, e.g., [30, Eq. (3.4)]. For , we can now use (9.1), (9.4), the commutation property (1.7) and (9.1) to obtain
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.
We now look into the critical points of translation invariant GEF.
Proof of Theorems 1.4 and 1.5.
Let be the zero-mean Gaussian entire function given by (1.4). By Lemma 9.1,
is a GWHF with twisted kernel . 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 at a zero is exactly the index of . Thus, Theorem 1.1 (or [29, Theorem 1.12]) implies that
(9.5) |
for a constant . On the other hand is the total number of zeros of in and therefore Theorem 1.1 gives
(9.6) |
for adequate constants . As a consequence, we have
while
A similar argument applies to and proves (1.21) for large . To conclude the proof we observe that the each of processes defining 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 cannot vanish for any . Hence, (1.21) also holds in the range . ∎
9.2. Weighted entire functions
Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 can also be formulated in terms of the weighted magnitude
(9.7) |
associated with the translation invariant Gaussian entire function given by (1.4). Near points where the amplitude does not vanish, it is smooth and its gradient is related to the covariant derivative of by
where . Hence each critical point of (in the usual real sense) that is not a zero of is a zero of . Conversely, a zero of is almost surely not a zero of , as this would correspond to a degenerate zero of the GWHF , contradicting Lemma 3.1.
Thus the critical points of are either zeros of or critical points of , as discussed Section 1.5. Let us further inspect a critical point of that is not a zero. Near we can write with analytic and compute
The factor is smooth (in the real sense) and non-zero near and therefore does not affect the corresponding charge (see e.g., [29, Lemma 6.5]). Thus, the charge of at is
that is, the opposite of the sign of the determinant of the Hessian matrix of at . As a consequence, if is a saddle point of , while if has a local maximum or local minimum at . In addition, by an argument based on superharmonicity one can see that local minima of are not possible (as these correspond to zeros of ) [33, Section 8.2.2]) [17, Lemma 3.1].
9.3. Time-frequency analysis
Given a non-zero Schwartz function , the short-time Fourier transform (STFT) of a distribution is defined by (1.26), where the integral is interpreted in the distributional sense (action on a test function). The modulation space consists of all tempered distributions with bounded STFT:
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 define the same space, and that moreover there exists a constant such that
(9.10) |
see, e.g., [9] for the modern theory of modulation spaces.
The space contains 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 impacted by additive noise. Let be standard complex white noise on , that is, , where and 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 is a tempered distribution and we can consider . 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.
Proof.
Since , it is easy to see that — 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
where, for convenience, we stress the dependence on the window function . The assumption means that , so it remains to inspect the twisted derivatives.
We can now justify the application of our results to time-frequency analysis.
Proof of Theorem 1.6.
By Lemma 9.2,
is a and the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 are satisfied. In addition, the twisted kernel is and can be further identified with a Gaussian entire function , as in the proof Theorem 1.4, and the charges of are all . The zeros of are precisely the zeros of and Theorem 1.1 (or Theorem 1.4) implies (1.24).
Proof of Theorem 1.7.
Let . By Lemma 9.2,
defines a zero-mean GWHF function with twisted kernel
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. ∎
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 be a stationary point process on with positive and finite first intensity. Then
Proof.
Suppose on the contrary that there exists with . Let . Thus, for every , the event has probability one. In particular, , while by the assumption of the first intensity, . Collecting exceptional events for all we find an event such that and for all .
Fix a realization of within the event , so that
(10.1) |
Since , there exists at least one point . Consider the set of exceptional points
By (10.1), has finitely many points on any given compact set. Since has at most two points, it follows that is finite. We can therefore choose a point . This choice of guarantees that
(10.2) |
10.2. Convolution estimates
Lemma 10.2.
There exists a constant such that
(10.3) |
Proof.
Lemma 10.3.
Let . Then there exists a constant such that for all :
Proof.
By applying a rotation, we assume that , and by rescaling, we assume that . Assume first that , write with , and note that if , then , so for an absolute constant . As a consequence, , and
Finally, if , the previous case gives
while
∎
Lemma 10.4.
Let , then there exists a constant such that
(10.6) |
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 . While this is implicit in [36], we offer the following short argument.
We further split chaotic subspaces as follows. Given a polynomial in the variables , where , we say that is of degree if it is of total degree in variables and of total degree in variables We consider the polynomial spaces
These spaces split the chaotic spaces as follows.
Proposition 10.5.
For a (circularly symmetric) Gaussian random function with probability space , the following decomposition holds:
where if or .
As a consequence, the spaces are independent of the choice of orthonormal basis of the Gaussian space .
Proof.
Let us consider, more generally, polynomial spaces associated with a (not necessarily closed) linear subspace in . If is a linear subspace of , we let
Let be the linear span (i.e., finite linear combinations) of the variables . Then
while
It follows from orthogonality of complex Hermite polynomials that the random variables
are orthogonal to the spaces and , and, therefore, also to and . Consequently,
which proves the claim. ∎
10.4. Proof of Lemma 7.1
Let us denote . By Lemma 2.2 and (1.15), the vector has a suitably smooth covariance kernel and
By normality, this implies that for every ,
while
Let be conjugate Hölder exponents and let us estimate,
as .
Appendix A Computations
We use the notation of Section 8 and present the computations needed to obtain an explicit expression for . We recall that the chaos projection of to is , where
and the constants are as in (8.5). Recall also that we are focusing on the case
We will need the following derivatives of :
These computations along with Lemma 2.1 give us
To abbreviate notation, we will in the following write . Applying Proposition 8.1, we obtain the following.
These expressions are combined into an expression for 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 . 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 isa 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.