A law of large numbers concerning the number of critical points of isotropic Gaussian functions

Liviu I. Nicolaescu Department of Mathematics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556-4618. [email protected] http://www.nd.edu/~lnicolae/
(Date: Last revised August 26, 2024.)
Abstract.

Let ΦΦ\Phiroman_Φ be a smooth isotropic random Gaussian function ΦΦ\Phiroman_Φ on msuperscript𝑚{\mathbb{R}}^{m}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Denote by ZN(Φ)subscript𝑍𝑁ΦZ_{N}(\Phi)italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Φ ) the number of critical points of ΦΦ\Phiroman_Φ inside the cube [0,N]msuperscript0𝑁𝑚[0,N]^{m}[ 0 , italic_N ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We prove that NmZN(Φ)superscript𝑁𝑚subscript𝑍𝑁ΦN^{-m}Z_{N}(\Phi)italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Φ ) converges a.s.formulae-sequenceas\mathrm{a.s.}roman_a . roman_s . and L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to a universal explicit constant Cm(Φ)subscript𝐶𝑚ΦC_{m}(\Phi)italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Φ ).

Key words and phrases:
isotropic Gaussian functions, critical points, Kac-Rice formula, law of large numbers

1. Introduction

Denote by Meas(m)Meassuperscript𝑚\operatorname{Meas}({\mathbb{R}}^{m})roman_Meas ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) the space of finite Borel measures on msuperscript𝑚{\mathbb{R}}^{m}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Suppose that 𝔞::𝔞\mathfrak{a}:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}fraktur_a : blackboard_R → blackboard_R is an even Schwartz function such that 𝔞(0)=1𝔞01\mathfrak{a}(0)=1fraktur_a ( 0 ) = 1. Consider the finite measure μMeas(m)𝜇Meassuperscript𝑚\mu\in\operatorname{Meas}({\mathbb{R}}^{m})italic_μ ∈ roman_Meas ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

μ[dξ]=μ𝔞[dξ]=1(2π)mw𝔞,m(ξ)𝝀[dξ],w𝔞,m(ξ)=𝔞(|ξ|)2.formulae-sequence𝜇delimited-[]𝑑𝜉subscript𝜇𝔞delimited-[]𝑑𝜉1superscript2𝜋𝑚subscript𝑤𝔞𝑚𝜉𝝀delimited-[]𝑑𝜉subscript𝑤𝔞𝑚𝜉𝔞superscript𝜉2\mu\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}=\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}=\frac{1}{(2% \pi)^{m}}w_{\mathfrak{a},m}\big{(}\,\xi\,\big{)}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\big{[}% \,d\xi\,\big{]},\;\;w_{\mathfrak{a},m}\big{(}\,\xi\,\big{)}=\mathfrak{a}\big{(% }\,|\xi|\,\big{)}^{2}.italic_μ [ italic_d italic_ξ ] = italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a , italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ ) bold_italic_λ [ italic_d italic_ξ ] , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a , italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ ) = fraktur_a ( | italic_ξ | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Its characteristic function is the nonnegative definite function

𝑲(𝒙)=𝑲𝔞(𝒙)=me𝒊ξ,𝒙μ𝔞[dξ]=1(2π)mme𝒊ξ,𝒙𝔞(|ξ|)2𝝀[dξ].𝑲𝒙subscript𝑲𝔞𝒙subscriptsuperscript𝑚superscript𝑒𝒊𝜉𝒙subscript𝜇𝔞delimited-[]𝑑𝜉1superscript2𝜋𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝑚superscript𝑒𝒊𝜉𝒙𝔞superscript𝜉2𝝀delimited-[]𝑑𝜉{\boldsymbol{K}}\big{(}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{)}={\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak% {a}}\big{(}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{)}=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}e^{\boldsymbol{i% }\langle\xi,{\boldsymbol{x}}\rangle}\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}=% \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{m}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}e^{\boldsymbol{i}\langle\xi,{% \boldsymbol{x}}\rangle}\mathfrak{a}\big{(}\,|\xi|\,\big{)}^{2}{\boldsymbol{% \lambda}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}.bold_italic_K ( bold_italic_x ) = bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_i ⟨ italic_ξ , bold_italic_x ⟩ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_i ⟨ italic_ξ , bold_italic_x ⟩ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a ( | italic_ξ | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_λ [ italic_d italic_ξ ] . (1.1)

Clearly 𝑲𝔞(𝒙)subscript𝑲𝔞𝒙{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) is an O(n)𝑂𝑛O(n)italic_O ( italic_n )-invariant, real valued Schwartz function. Then 𝑲𝔞(𝒙𝒚)subscript𝑲𝔞𝒙𝒚{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{(}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{y}}\,% \big{)}bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) is the covariance kernel of a real valued, smooth isotropic Gaussian function Φ=Φ𝔞ΦsubscriptΦ𝔞\Phi=\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ = roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on msuperscript𝑚{\mathbb{R}}^{m}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with spectral measure μ𝔞subscript𝜇𝔞\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

A box is a subset of msuperscript𝑚{\mathbb{R}}^{m}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of the form [a1,b1]××[am,bm]subscript𝑎1subscript𝑏1subscript𝑎𝑚subscript𝑏𝑚[a_{1},b_{1}]\times\cdots\times[a_{m},b_{m}][ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] × ⋯ × [ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ], ai<bisubscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖a_{i}<b_{i}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, ifor-all𝑖\forall i∀ italic_i. For any box B𝐵Bitalic_B we denote by Z𝔞[B]subscript𝑍𝔞delimited-[]𝐵Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,B\,\big{]}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_B ] the number of critical points of Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in B𝐵Bitalic_B. Then a.s.formulae-sequenceas\mathrm{a.s.}roman_a . roman_s . Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has no critical points on B𝐵\partial B∂ italic_B and all the critical points of Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in B𝐵Bitalic_B are nondegenerate; see [1, 3].

There exists a universal explicit constant Cm(𝔞)>0subscript𝐶𝑚𝔞0C_{m}(\mathfrak{a})>0italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) > 0 such that for any box B𝐵Bitalic_B we have

𝔼[Z𝔞(B)]=Cm(𝔞)vol[B].𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞𝐵subscript𝐶𝑚𝔞vol𝐵{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B)\,\big{]}=C_{m}(\mathfrak{a})% \operatorname{vol}\big{[}\,B\,\big{]}.blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) ] = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) roman_vol [ italic_B ] .

Fix numbers a1,,am>0subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑚0a_{1},\dotsc,a_{m}>0italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 and denote by B𝐵Bitalic_B the box [0,a1]×[0,am]0subscript𝑎10subscript𝑎𝑚[0,a_{1}]\times\cdots[0,a_{m}][ 0 , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] × ⋯ [ 0 , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ]. For {\vec{\ell}}\in{{\mathbb{N}}}over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ blackboard_N we denote by Bsubscript𝐵B_{\vec{\ell}}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the box

B=j=1m[(j1)aj,jaj].subscript𝐵superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1𝑚subscript𝑗1subscript𝑎𝑗subscript𝑗subscript𝑎𝑗B_{\vec{\ell}}=\prod_{j=1}^{m}\big{[}\,(\ell_{j}-1)a_{j},\ell_{j}a_{j}\,\big{]}.italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ ( roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] .

For N𝑁N\in{{\mathbb{N}}}italic_N ∈ blackboard_N we denote by BNsubscript𝐵𝑁B_{N}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the box

BN=NB=j=1m[ 0,Naj].subscript𝐵𝑁𝑁𝐵superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1𝑚 0𝑁subscript𝑎𝑗B_{N}=N\cdot B=\prod_{j=1}^{m}\big{[}\,0,Na_{j}\,\big{]}.italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_N ⋅ italic_B = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ 0 , italic_N italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] .

The main goal of this paper is to prove the following strong law of large numbers.

Theorem 1.1.

As N𝑁N\to\inftyitalic_N → ∞, the random variable

1NmZ𝔞[NB]1superscript𝑁𝑚subscript𝑍𝔞delimited-[]𝑁𝐵\frac{1}{N^{m}}Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,N\cdot B\,\big{]}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_N ⋅ italic_B ]

converges a.s.formulae-sequenceas\mathrm{a.s.}roman_a . roman_s . and L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to the (deterministic) constant

𝔼[Z𝔞(B)]=Cm(𝔞)vol[B].𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞𝐵subscript𝐶𝑚𝔞vol𝐵{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B)\,\big{]}=C_{m}(\mathfrak{a})% \operatorname{vol}\big{[}\,B\,\big{]}.blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) ] = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) roman_vol [ italic_B ] .

square-intersectionsquare-union\hbox to0.0pt{$\sqcap$\hss}\sqcup⊓ ⊔

Let us offer a different perspective on this result. For >0Planck-constant-over-2-pi0\hbar>0roman_ℏ > 0 we set

𝔞(t):=𝔞(t),t.formulae-sequenceassignsubscript𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝑡𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝑡for-all𝑡\mathfrak{a}_{\hbar}(t):=\mathfrak{a}(\hbar t\,\big{)},\;\;\forall t\in{% \mathbb{R}}.fraktur_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) := fraktur_a ( roman_ℏ italic_t ) , ∀ italic_t ∈ blackboard_R .

Consider the finite Borel measure μ𝔞Meas(m)superscriptsubscript𝜇𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-piMeassuperscript𝑚\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}^{\hbar}\in\operatorname{Meas}({\mathbb{R}}^{m})italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ roman_Meas ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

μ𝔞[dξ]=1(2π)mw𝒂,m(ξ)𝝀[dξ]=1(2π)mw𝒂,m(ξ)𝝀[dξ].superscriptsubscript𝜇𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pidelimited-[]𝑑𝜉1superscript2𝜋𝑚subscript𝑤𝒂𝑚Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝜉𝝀delimited-[]𝑑𝜉1superscript2𝜋𝑚subscript𝑤subscript𝒂Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝑚𝜉𝝀delimited-[]𝑑𝜉\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}^{\hbar}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{m}}w_{{% \boldsymbol{a}},m}\big{(}\,\hbar\xi\,\big{)}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\big{[}\,d% \xi\,\big{]}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{m}}w_{{\boldsymbol{a}}_{\hbar},m}\big{(}\,\xi\,% \big{)}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}.italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_a , italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_ℏ italic_ξ ) bold_italic_λ [ italic_d italic_ξ ] = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ ) bold_italic_λ [ italic_d italic_ξ ] .

Its characteristic function is the nonnegative definite function

𝑲(𝒙)=𝑲𝔞(𝒙)=1(2π)mme𝒊ξ,𝒙𝔞(|ξ|)2𝑑ξ.superscript𝑲Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝒙superscriptsubscript𝑲𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝒙1superscript2𝜋𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝑚superscript𝑒𝒊𝜉𝒙𝔞superscriptPlanck-constant-over-2-pi𝜉2differential-d𝜉{\boldsymbol{K}}^{\hbar}\big{(}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{)}={\boldsymbol{K}}_{% \mathfrak{a}}^{\hbar}\big{(}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{)}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{m}}% \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}e^{\boldsymbol{i}\langle\xi,{\boldsymbol{x}}\rangle}% \mathfrak{a}\big{(}\,|\hbar\xi|\,\big{)}^{2}d\xi.bold_italic_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) = bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_i ⟨ italic_ξ , bold_italic_x ⟩ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a ( | roman_ℏ italic_ξ | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ξ . (1.2)

We set ω:=ξassign𝜔Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝜉\omega:=\hbar\xiitalic_ω := roman_ℏ italic_ξ in (1.2) and we deduce

𝑲𝔞(𝒙)=1(2π)mme𝒊ω,𝒙𝔞(|ω|)2𝑑ω,superscriptsubscript𝑲𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝒙1superscript2𝜋Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝑚superscript𝑒𝒊Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝜔𝒙𝔞superscript𝜔2differential-d𝜔{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}^{\hbar}\big{(}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{)}=% \frac{1}{(2\pi\hbar)^{m}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}e^{\frac{\boldsymbol{i}}{\hbar% }\langle\omega,{\boldsymbol{x}}\rangle}\mathfrak{a}\big{(}\,|\omega|\,\big{)}^% {2}d\omega,bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π roman_ℏ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG bold_italic_i end_ARG start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG ⟨ italic_ω , bold_italic_x ⟩ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a ( | italic_ω | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ω ,

so that

𝑲𝔞(𝒙)=m𝑲𝔞(1𝒙).superscriptsubscript𝑲𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝒙superscriptPlanck-constant-over-2-pi𝑚subscript𝑲𝔞superscriptPlanck-constant-over-2-pi1𝒙{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}^{\hbar}({\boldsymbol{x}})=\hbar^{-m}{% \boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{(}\,\hbar^{-1}{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{)}.bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) = roman_ℏ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_ℏ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x ) .

We deduce that 𝑲𝔞(𝒙𝒚)superscriptsubscript𝑲𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝒙𝒚{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}^{\hbar}\big{(}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{% y}}\,\big{)}bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) is the covariance kernel of the Gaussian function

Φ𝔞(𝒙):=m/2Φ𝔞(1𝒙).assignsuperscriptsubscriptΦ𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝒙superscriptPlanck-constant-over-2-pi𝑚2subscriptΦ𝔞superscriptPlanck-constant-over-2-pi1𝒙\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}^{\hbar}({\boldsymbol{x}}):=\hbar^{-m/2}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}% \big{(}\,\hbar^{-1}{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{)}.roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) := roman_ℏ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_ℏ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x ) .

We want to investigate the behavior of 𝑲𝔞(𝒙)superscriptsubscript𝑲𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝒙{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}^{\hbar}({\boldsymbol{x}})bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) as 0Planck-constant-over-2-pi0\hbar\searrow 0roman_ℏ ↘ 0. Using the Fourier inversion formula we deduce

m𝑲𝔞(𝒙)𝑑𝒙=𝔞(0)2=1.subscriptsuperscript𝑚subscript𝑲𝔞𝒙differential-d𝒙𝔞superscript021\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})d{% \boldsymbol{x}}=\mathfrak{a}(0)^{2}=1.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) italic_d bold_italic_x = fraktur_a ( 0 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 1 .

This implies that the measures 𝑲𝔞(𝒙)dxsuperscriptsubscript𝑲𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝒙𝑑𝑥{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}^{\hbar}\big{(}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{)}dxbold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) italic_d italic_x converge weakly to the Dirac measure δ0subscript𝛿0\delta_{0}italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. To use a terminology favored by physicists, we have

𝑲𝔞(𝒙)δ(𝒙),superscriptsubscript𝑲𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝒙𝛿𝒙{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}^{\hbar}\big{(}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{)}\to% \delta({\boldsymbol{x}}),bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) → italic_δ ( bold_italic_x ) ,

where δ(𝒙)𝛿𝒙\delta({\boldsymbol{x}})italic_δ ( bold_italic_x ) is Dirac’s mysterious Delta function. In particular,

𝑲𝔞(𝒙𝒚)δ(𝒙𝒚).superscriptsubscript𝑲𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝒙𝒚𝛿𝒙𝒚{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}^{\hbar}\big{(}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{% y}}\,\big{)}\to\delta({\boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{y}}).bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) → italic_δ ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) .

In other words, as 0Planck-constant-over-2-pi0\hbar\searrow 0roman_ℏ ↘ 0, the Gaussian random function Φ𝔞superscriptsubscriptΦ𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pi\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}^{\hbar}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT converges in some sense to a Gaussian random “function” Φ0superscriptΦ0\Phi^{0}roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT whose covariance kernel is 𝑲0(𝒙𝒚)=δ(𝒙𝒚)superscript𝑲0𝒙𝒚𝛿𝒙𝒚{\boldsymbol{K}}^{0}({\boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{y}})=\delta({\boldsymbol{x}% }-{\boldsymbol{y}})bold_italic_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) = italic_δ ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ). This is a Gaussian white noise.

Note that

Z𝔞[B]=Z𝔞[1B].subscript𝑍subscript𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pidelimited-[]𝐵subscript𝑍𝔞delimited-[]superscriptPlanck-constant-over-2-pi1𝐵Z_{\mathfrak{a}_{\hbar}}\big{[}\,B\,\big{]}=Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,\hbar^{-1% }B\,\big{]}.italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_B ] = italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ roman_ℏ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B ] .

Consider the random measure

ν=mCm(𝔞)Φ𝔞(𝒙)=0δ𝒙.subscript𝜈Planck-constant-over-2-pisuperscriptPlanck-constant-over-2-pi𝑚subscript𝐶𝑚𝔞subscriptsubscriptΦsubscript𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝒙0subscript𝛿𝒙\nu_{\hbar}=\frac{\hbar^{m}}{C_{m}(\mathfrak{a})}\sum_{\nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a% }_{\hbar}}({\boldsymbol{x}})=0}\delta_{\boldsymbol{x}}.italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG roman_ℏ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Then

mCm(𝔞)Z𝔞[B]=ν[B].superscriptPlanck-constant-over-2-pi𝑚subscript𝐶𝑚𝔞subscript𝑍subscript𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pidelimited-[]𝐵subscript𝜈Planck-constant-over-2-pidelimited-[]𝐵\frac{\hbar^{m}}{C_{m}(\mathfrak{a})}Z_{\mathfrak{a}_{\hbar}}\big{[}\,B\,\big{% ]}=\nu_{\hbar}\big{[}\,B\,\big{]}.divide start_ARG roman_ℏ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) end_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_B ] = italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_B ] .

Now let =N1Planck-constant-over-2-pisuperscript𝑁1\hbar=N^{-1}roman_ℏ = italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In this case Z𝔞[B]=Z𝔞[NB]subscript𝑍subscript𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pidelimited-[]𝐵subscript𝑍𝔞delimited-[]𝑁𝐵Z_{\mathfrak{a}_{\hbar}}\big{[}\,B\,\big{]}=Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,N\cdot B% \,\big{]}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_B ] = italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_N ⋅ italic_B ]. Theorem 1.1 shows that in the white noise limit (N𝑁N\to\inftyitalic_N → ∞) the random measure νN1subscript𝜈superscript𝑁1\nu_{N^{-1}}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT converges a.s.formulae-sequenceas\mathrm{a.s.}roman_a . roman_s . to the deterministic measure 𝝀𝝀{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}bold_italic_λ, the Lebesgue measure on msuperscript𝑚{\mathbb{R}}^{m}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In other words, the critical points of Φ𝔞subscriptΦsubscript𝔞Planck-constant-over-2-pi\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}_{\hbar}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT will a.s.formulae-sequenceas\mathrm{a.s.}roman_a . roman_s . equidistribute as 0Planck-constant-over-2-pi0\hbar\searrow 0roman_ℏ ↘ 0.

In the earlier work [7] we proved that the random variable Z𝔞[NB]subscript𝑍𝔞delimited-[]𝑁𝐵Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,N\cdot B\,\big{]}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_N ⋅ italic_B ] is highly concentrated around its mean. More precisely we showed that N𝑁N\to\inftyitalic_N → ∞ we have

Var[Z𝔞[NB]]cNm,similar-toVarsubscript𝑍𝔞delimited-[]𝑁𝐵𝑐superscript𝑁𝑚\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,N\cdot B\,\big{]}\,\big{]}% \sim c\cdot N^{m},roman_Var [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_N ⋅ italic_B ] ] ∼ italic_c ⋅ italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where c𝑐citalic_c is a positive constant and the renormalized random variables

Nm/2(Z𝔞[B]𝔼[Z𝔞[B]])superscript𝑁𝑚2subscript𝑍𝔞delimited-[]𝐵𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞delimited-[]𝐵N^{-m/2}\big{(}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,B\,\big{]}-{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z_{% \mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,B\,\big{]}\,\big{]}\,\big{)}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_B ] - blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_B ] ] )

converge in distribution to a normal random variable with nonzero standard deviation.

The strategy we use to prove Theorem 1.1 is very simple. Set 𝕀N:=[1,N]assignsubscript𝕀𝑁1𝑁{\mathbb{I}}_{N}:=[1,N]\cap{{\mathbb{N}}}blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := [ 1 , italic_N ] ∩ blackboard_N.

1NmZ𝔞[NB]=1Nm𝕀NmZ𝔞[B].1superscript𝑁𝑚subscript𝑍𝔞delimited-[]𝑁𝐵1superscript𝑁𝑚subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝕀𝑁𝑚subscript𝑍𝔞delimited-[]subscript𝐵\frac{1}{N^{m}}Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,N\cdot B\,\big{]}=\frac{1}{N^{m}}\sum_% {{\vec{\ell}}\in{\mathbb{I}}_{N}^{m}}Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,B_{\vec{\ell}}\,% \big{]}.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_N ⋅ italic_B ] = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] .

Since the Gaussian function Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is stationary, the family of random variables (Z𝔞[B])msubscriptsubscript𝑍𝔞delimited-[]subscript𝐵superscript𝑚\big{(}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,B_{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{]}\,\big{)}_{{\vec{\ell% }}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{m}}( italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is stationary. Using the multiparametric ergodic theorem [6, Chap.6, Thm.2.5] we conclude that 1NmZ𝔞[NB]1superscript𝑁𝑚subscript𝑍𝔞delimited-[]𝑁𝐵\frac{1}{N^{m}}Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,N\cdot B\,\big{]}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_N ⋅ italic_B ] converge a.s.formulae-sequenceas\mathrm{a.s.}roman_a . roman_s . and L1superscript𝐿1L^{1}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to some random variable Zsubscript𝑍Z_{\infty}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. To show that Zsubscript𝑍Z_{\infty}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a.s.formulae-sequenceas\mathrm{a.s.}roman_a . roman_s . constant we prove that

Var[NmZ𝔞[NB]]0as N.Varsuperscript𝑁𝑚subscript𝑍𝔞delimited-[]𝑁𝐵0as N\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,N^{-m}Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,N\cdot B\,\big{]}\,% \big{]}\to 0\;\;\mbox{as $N\to\infty$}.roman_Var [ italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_N ⋅ italic_B ] ] → 0 as italic_N → ∞ .

We achieve this by observing that

Var[NmZ𝔞[NB]=N2mk,𝕀NmCov[Z𝔞[Bk],Z𝔞[B]=:C(k,).\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,N^{-m}Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,N\cdot B\,\big{]}=N^% {-2m}\sum_{{\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}}\in{\mathbb{I}}_{N}^{m}}\underbrace{% \operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,B_{\vec{k}}\,\big{]},Z_{% \mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,B_{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{]}}_{=:C({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})}.roman_Var [ italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_N ⋅ italic_B ] = italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT under⏟ start_ARG roman_Cov [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] , italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT = : italic_C ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

The above sum consists of N2msuperscript𝑁2𝑚N^{2m}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT terms, but the terms that are far from the diagonal k=𝑘{\vec{k}}={\vec{\ell}}over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG = over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG contribute very little. More precisely, using the Kac-Rice formula we will prove that for any p>0𝑝0p>0italic_p > 0 there exists C=C(p)>0𝐶𝐶𝑝0C=C(p)>0italic_C = italic_C ( italic_p ) > 0 such that

|C(k,)|C(p)( 1+|k|1)p,(k,)m×m,formulae-sequence𝐶𝑘𝐶𝑝superscript1subscript𝑘1𝑝for-all𝑘superscript𝑚superscript𝑚\big{|}\,C({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\,\big{|}\leq\frac{C(p)}{\big{(}\,1+|{\vec{k% }}-{\vec{\ell}}|_{1}\,\big{)}^{p}},\;\;\forall({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\in{{% \mathbb{N}}}^{m}\times{{\mathbb{N}}}^{m},| italic_C ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) | ≤ divide start_ARG italic_C ( italic_p ) end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + | over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG - over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , ∀ ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where

|𝒙|1=i=1m|xi|,𝒙=(x1,,xm)m.formulae-sequencesubscript𝒙1superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚subscript𝑥𝑖for-all𝒙subscript𝑥1subscript𝑥𝑚superscript𝑚\big{|}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{|}_{1}=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\big{|}\,x_{i}\,\big{|},% \;\;\forall{\boldsymbol{x}}=(x_{1},\dotsc,x_{m})\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m}.| bold_italic_x | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | , ∀ bold_italic_x = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

According to Lemma 3.1, this implies that

k,NC(k,)=O(N2m1)as N.subscript𝑘subscript𝑁𝐶𝑘𝑂superscript𝑁2𝑚1as N\sum_{{\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}}\in\mathcal{R}_{N}}C({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})=O\big% {(}\,N^{2m-1}\,\big{)}\;\;\mbox{as $N\to\infty$}.∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) = italic_O ( italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) as italic_N → ∞ .

Theorem 1.1 is valid for a wider family of homogeneous Gaussian functions on msuperscript𝑚{\mathbb{R}}^{m}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with fewer constraints on their spectral functions. We chose to work in this more restrictive context for two reasons. First, relaxing the assumptions on the Gaussian function would have added a few more technical complications that would have blurred the main arguments.

The second reason is that the class of Gaussian functions discussed in this paper is exactly the class of function that arises when studying critical points of certain random Fourier series of eigenvalues on Riemann manifolds.

More precisely given a Riemann manifold (M,g)𝑀𝑔(M,g)( italic_M , italic_g ) with Laplacian ΔΔ\Deltaroman_Δ we denote by 𝒦𝔞gsubscriptsuperscript𝒦𝑔𝔞\mathcal{K}^{g}_{\mathfrak{a}}caligraphic_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the Schwartz kernel of the smoothing operator 𝔞(Δg)2𝔞superscriptsubscriptΔ𝑔2\mathfrak{a}(\Delta_{g})^{2}fraktur_a ( roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This the the covariance kernel of a smooth random function on M𝑀Mitalic_M that can be represented as a random Fourier series. Upon rescaling the metric gg=2g𝑔subscript𝑔Planck-constant-over-2-pisuperscriptPlanck-constant-over-2-pi2𝑔g\to g_{\hbar}=\hbar^{-2}gitalic_g → italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_ℏ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g we have Δg=2ΔgsubscriptΔsubscript𝑔Planck-constant-over-2-pisuperscriptPlanck-constant-over-2-pi2subscriptΔ𝑔\Delta_{g_{\hbar}}=\hbar^{2}\Delta_{g}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_ℏ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and, as 0Planck-constant-over-2-pi0\hbar\searrow 0roman_ℏ ↘ 0, the kernel 𝒦𝔞gsuperscriptsubscript𝒦𝔞subscript𝑔Planck-constant-over-2-pi\mathcal{K}_{\mathfrak{a}}^{g_{\hbar}}caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℏ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT converges in a precise sense to the kernel 𝑲𝔞subscript𝑲𝔞{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in (1.1).

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe some basic properties of Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Section 3 describes an abstract weak law of large numbers for families of mean zero random variables (X)msubscriptsubscript𝑋superscript𝑚(X_{\vec{\ell}})_{{\vec{\ell}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{m}}( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that Xsubscript𝑋X_{\vec{\ell}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, Xksubscript𝑋𝑘X_{\vec{k}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are weakly correlated if k𝑘{\vec{k}}over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG and {\vec{\ell}}over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG are far apart. The main theorem is an immediate consequence of this result.

2. Some properties of the function Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

We collect in this section several useful properties of the random function Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT used throughout the paper. For k𝑘k\in{{\mathbb{N}}}italic_k ∈ blackboard_N we denote by DkΦ𝔞superscript𝐷𝑘subscriptΦ𝔞D^{k}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the k𝑘kitalic_k-th order differential of Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

Proposition 2.1.

Let N𝑁N\in{{\mathbb{N}}}italic_N ∈ blackboard_N. Then the following hold.

  1. (i)

    The function Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is N𝑁Nitalic_N-ample, i.e., for any are distinct points 𝒙1,,𝒙Nmsubscript𝒙1subscript𝒙𝑁superscript𝑚{\boldsymbol{x}}_{1},\dotsc,{\boldsymbol{x}}_{N}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m}bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the Gausian vector

    (Φ𝔞(𝒙1),,Φ𝔞(𝒙N)).subscriptΦ𝔞subscript𝒙1subscriptΦ𝔞subscript𝒙𝑁\big{(}\,\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}}_{1}),\dotsc,\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}(% {\boldsymbol{x}}_{N})\,\big{)}.( roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , … , roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) .

    is nondegenerate.

  2. (ii)

    The function Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is JNsubscript𝐽𝑁J_{N}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-ample, i.e., the Gaussian vector

    Φ𝔞(𝒙)DΦ𝔞(𝒙)DNΦ𝔞(𝒙)direct-sumsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒙𝐷subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙superscript𝐷𝑁subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\oplus D\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{% x}})\oplus\cdots\oplus D^{N}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ⊕ italic_D roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ⊕ ⋯ ⊕ italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x )

    is nondegenerate for any 𝒙m𝒙superscript𝑚{\boldsymbol{x}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m}bold_italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Proof.

(i) Since w𝔞,m(|ξ|)=𝔞(|ξ|)2subscript𝑤𝔞𝑚𝜉𝔞superscript𝜉2w_{\mathfrak{a},m}\big{(}\,\big{|}\,\xi\,\big{|}\,\big{)}=\mathfrak{a}\big{(}% \,|\xi|\,\big{)}^{2}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a , italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_ξ | ) = fraktur_a ( | italic_ξ | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is positive on an open neighborhood of 0m0superscript𝑚0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m}0 ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we deduce from [8, Thm. 6.8] that if 𝒙1,,𝒙Nmsubscript𝒙1subscript𝒙𝑁superscript𝑚{\boldsymbol{x}}_{1},\dotsc,{\boldsymbol{x}}_{N}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m}bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are distinct points, then the symmetric N×N𝑁𝑁N\times Nitalic_N × italic_N matrix

(K(𝒙i𝒙j)1i,jN\big{(}\,K({\boldsymbol{x}}_{i}-{\boldsymbol{x}}_{j}\,\big{)}_{1\leq i,j\leq N}( italic_K ( bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_i , italic_j ≤ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

is positive definite. This matrix is the variance matrix of the Gaussian vector

(Φ𝔞(𝒙1),,Φ𝔞(𝒙N)).subscriptΦ𝔞subscript𝒙1subscriptΦ𝔞subscript𝒙𝑁\big{(}\,\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}}_{1}),\dotsc,\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}(% {\boldsymbol{x}}_{N})\,\big{)}.( roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , … , roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) .

(ii) Observe that for any multi-indices α(0)m𝛼superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑚\alpha\in\big{(}\,{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}\,\big{)}^{m}italic_α ∈ ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we have

𝔼(αΦ𝔞(𝒙)βΦ𝔞(𝒙))=xαyβ𝑲𝔞(𝒙𝒚)|𝒙=𝒚𝔼superscript𝛼subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙superscript𝛽subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙evaluated-atsubscriptsuperscript𝛼𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝛽𝑦subscript𝑲𝔞𝒙𝒚𝒙𝒚{\mathbb{E}}\big{(}\,\partial^{\alpha}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})% \partial^{\beta}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{)}=\partial^{% \alpha}_{x}\partial^{\beta}_{y}{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}% }-{\boldsymbol{y}}\,\big{)}\big{|}_{{\boldsymbol{x}}={\boldsymbol{y}}}blackboard_E ( ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ) = ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x = bold_italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
=mξαξβμ𝔞[dξ],ξα:=ξ1α1ξmαmformulae-sequenceabsentsubscriptsuperscript𝑚superscript𝜉𝛼superscript𝜉𝛽subscript𝜇𝔞delimited-[]𝑑𝜉assignsuperscript𝜉𝛼superscriptsubscript𝜉1subscript𝛼1superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑚subscript𝛼𝑚=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\xi^{\alpha}\xi^{\beta}\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,d\xi% \,\big{]},\;\;\xi^{\alpha}:=\xi_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}\cdots\xi_{m}^{\alpha_{m}}= ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] , italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT := italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

This shows that for any N𝑁N\in{{\mathbb{N}}}italic_N ∈ blackboard_N and any 𝒙n𝒙superscript𝑛{\boldsymbol{x}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n}bold_italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT the variance the Gaussian vector (αΦ𝔞(𝒙))|α|Nsubscriptsuperscript𝛼subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙𝛼𝑁\big{(}\,\partial^{\alpha}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{)}_{|% \alpha|\leq N}( ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the Gramian matrix of the functions (ξα)|α|Nsubscriptsuperscript𝜉𝛼𝛼𝑁\big{(}\,\xi^{\alpha}\,\big{)}_{|\alpha|\leq N}( italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with respect to the inner product in L2(m,μ𝔞)superscript𝐿2superscript𝑚subscript𝜇𝔞L^{2}\big{(}\,{\mathbb{R}}^{m},\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}\,\big{)}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Since 𝔞(0)=1𝔞01\mathfrak{a}(0)=1fraktur_a ( 0 ) = 1 we deduce that the functions ξαsuperscript𝜉𝛼\xi^{\alpha}italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are linearly independent in L2(m,μ𝔞)superscript𝐿2superscript𝑚subscript𝜇𝔞L^{2}\big{(}\,{\mathbb{R}}^{m},\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}\,\big{)}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) so the determinant of their Gramian matrix is nonzero. Hence the Gaussian vector

Φ𝔞(𝒙)DΦ𝔞(𝒙)DNΦ𝔞(𝒙)direct-sumsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒙𝐷subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙superscript𝐷𝑁subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\oplus D\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{% x}})\oplus\cdots\oplus D^{N}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ⊕ italic_D roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ⊕ ⋯ ⊕ italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x )

is nondegenerate, for any k𝑘k\in{{\mathbb{N}}}italic_k ∈ blackboard_N and any 𝒙m𝒙superscript𝑚{\boldsymbol{x}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m}bold_italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. square-intersectionsquare-union\hbox to0.0pt{$\sqcap$\hss}\sqcup⊓ ⊔

We deduce from the above proposition and the results of Ancona-Letendre [2] or Gass-Stecconi [4] that for any box B𝐵Bitalic_B the random variable Z𝔞[B]subscript𝑍𝔞delimited-[]𝐵Z_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,B\,\big{]}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_B ] has finite moments of any order. To compute the expectation of Z𝔞(B)subscript𝑍𝔞𝐵Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B)italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) we rely on the Kac-Rice formula [1, 3]

Theorem 2.2.

Let 𝐕𝐕{\boldsymbol{V}}bold_italic_V be a finite dimensional Euclidean space, 𝒱𝐕𝒱𝐕\mathcal{V}\subset{\boldsymbol{V}}caligraphic_V ⊂ bold_italic_V an open set and F:𝒱:𝐹𝒱F:\mathcal{V}\to{\mathbb{R}}italic_F : caligraphic_V → blackboard_R a Gaussian random function that is a.s.formulae-sequenceas\mathrm{a.s.}roman_a . roman_s . C2superscript𝐶2C^{2}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and such that the Gaussian vector F(𝐯)𝐹𝐯\nabla F({\boldsymbol{v}})∇ italic_F ( bold_italic_v ) is nondegenerate for any 𝐯𝒱𝐯𝒱{\boldsymbol{v}}\in\mathcal{V}bold_italic_v ∈ caligraphic_V. We denote by pF(v)subscript𝑝𝐹𝑣p_{\nabla F(v)}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ italic_F ( italic_v ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is probability density. For a subset S𝒱𝑆𝒱S\subset\mathcal{V}italic_S ⊂ caligraphic_V we denote by Z(S,F)𝑍𝑆𝐹Z(S,F)italic_Z ( italic_S , italic_F ) the number of critical points of F𝐹Fitalic_F in S𝑆Sitalic_S. Then for any box B𝒱𝐵𝒱B\subset\mathcal{V}italic_B ⊂ caligraphic_V, the function F𝐹Fitalic_F a.s.formulae-sequenceas\mathrm{a.s.}roman_a . roman_s . has no critical points on B𝐵\partial B∂ italic_B, all the critical points are nondegenerate and

𝔼[Z(B,F)]=B𝔼[|detHessF(𝒗)||F(𝒗)=0]pF(v)(0)𝑑𝒗.𝔼delimited-[]𝑍𝐵𝐹subscript𝐵𝔼delimited-[]conditionalHess𝐹𝒗𝐹𝒗0subscript𝑝𝐹𝑣0differential-d𝒗{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z(B,F)\,\big{]}=\int_{B}{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,|\det% \operatorname{Hess}F({\boldsymbol{v}})|\,\,\big{|}\nabla F({\boldsymbol{v}})=0% \,\big{]}p_{\nabla F(v)}(0)d{\boldsymbol{v}}.blackboard_E [ italic_Z ( italic_B , italic_F ) ] = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ | roman_det roman_Hess italic_F ( bold_italic_v ) | | ∇ italic_F ( bold_italic_v ) = 0 ] italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ italic_F ( italic_v ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) italic_d bold_italic_v . (2.1)

square-intersectionsquare-union\hbox to0.0pt{$\sqcap$\hss}\sqcup⊓ ⊔

We want to apply the above result to the function Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Prooposition 2.1 shows that the Gaussian vector Φ𝔞(𝒙)subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙\nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) is nondegenerate for any 𝒙m𝒙superscript𝑚{\boldsymbol{x}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m}bold_italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

For any multi-indices α,β(0)m𝛼𝛽superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑚\alpha,\beta\in\big{(}\,{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}\,\big{)}^{m}italic_α , italic_β ∈ ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we have

𝔼[αΦ𝔞(𝒙)βΦ𝔞(𝒚)]𝒙=𝒚=𝒙α𝒚β𝒦𝔞(𝒙,𝒚)|𝒙=𝒚=(1)|β||𝒊|α|+|β|(2π)mmξα+β𝔞(|ξ|)2𝑑ξ.{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,\partial^{\alpha}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})% \partial^{\beta}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}_{{\boldsymbol{x% }}={\boldsymbol{y}}}=\partial^{\alpha}_{\boldsymbol{x}}\partial^{\beta}_{% \boldsymbol{y}}\mathcal{K}^{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})% \big{|}\,_{{\boldsymbol{x}}={\boldsymbol{y}}}=\frac{(-1)^{|\beta||}\boldsymbol% {i}^{|\alpha|+|\beta|}}{(2\pi)^{m}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\xi^{\alpha+\beta}% \mathfrak{a}(|\xi|)^{2}d\xi.blackboard_E [ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y ) ] start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x = bold_italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x = bold_italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_β | | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_α | + | italic_β | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α + italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a ( | italic_ξ | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ξ . (2.2)

For any multi-index α(0)m𝛼superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑚\alpha\in\big{(}\,{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}\,\big{)}^{m}italic_α ∈ ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we set

Mγ𝔞:=mξαμ𝔞[dξ]=1(2π)mmξα𝔞(|ξ|)2𝑑ξassignsubscriptsuperscript𝑀𝔞𝛾subscriptsuperscript𝑚superscript𝜉𝛼subscript𝜇𝔞delimited-[]𝑑𝜉1superscript2𝜋𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝑚superscript𝜉𝛼𝔞superscript𝜉2differential-d𝜉M^{\mathfrak{a}}_{\gamma}:=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\xi^{\alpha}\mu_{\mathfrak{a% }}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{m}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\xi^{% \alpha}\mathfrak{a}(|\xi|)^{2}d\xiitalic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a ( | italic_ξ | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ξ

We say that the multi-index α=(α1,,αm)𝛼subscript𝛼1subscript𝛼𝑚\alpha=(\alpha_{1},\dotsc,\alpha_{m})italic_α = ( italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is even if αjsubscript𝛼𝑗\alpha_{j}italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is even for any j=1,,m𝑗1𝑚j=1,\dotsc,mitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_m. The multi-index α𝛼\alphaitalic_α is called odd if it is not even. The radial symmetry of 𝔞(|ξ|)𝔞𝜉\mathfrak{a}\big{(}\,|\xi|\,\big{)}fraktur_a ( | italic_ξ | ) implies that

Mα𝔞=0if α is odd.subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝔞𝛼0if α is oddM^{\mathfrak{a}}_{\alpha}=0\;\;\mbox{if $\alpha$ is odd}.italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 if italic_α is odd . (2.3)

Using spherical coordinates on msuperscript𝑚{\mathbb{R}}^{m}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we deduce that for any α𝛼\alphaitalic_α we have

Mα𝔞=1(2π)m(0rm1+|α|𝔞(r)2𝑑r)×Sm1ξαvolSm1[dξ]=:𝒎α.subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝔞𝛼1superscript2𝜋𝑚superscriptsubscript0superscript𝑟𝑚1𝛼𝔞superscript𝑟2differential-d𝑟subscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑆𝑚1superscript𝜉𝛼subscriptvolsuperscript𝑆𝑚1𝑑𝜉:absentsubscript𝒎𝛼M^{\mathfrak{a}}_{\alpha}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{m}}\left(\int_{0}^{\infty}r^{m-1+|% \alpha|}\mathfrak{a}(r)^{2}dr\right)\times\underbrace{\int_{S^{m-1}}\xi^{% \alpha}\operatorname{vol}_{S^{m-1}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}}_{=:\boldsymbol{m}_{% \alpha}}.italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 + | italic_α | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a ( italic_r ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_r ) × under⏟ start_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_vol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT = : bold_italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (2.4)

Note that 𝒎αsubscript𝒎𝛼\boldsymbol{m}_{\alpha}bold_italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is independent of 𝔞𝔞\mathfrak{a}fraktur_a. If we let 𝔞0:=(2π)m/2et24assignsubscript𝔞0superscript2𝜋𝑚2superscript𝑒superscript𝑡24\mathfrak{a}_{0}:=(2\pi)^{m/2}e^{-\frac{t^{2}}{4}}fraktur_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then

Mα𝔞0=mξγe|ξ|2/2𝑑ξ=(2π)m/2j=1mξαj𝜸1[dξ]subscriptsuperscript𝑀subscript𝔞0𝛼subscriptsuperscript𝑚superscript𝜉𝛾superscript𝑒superscript𝜉22differential-d𝜉superscript2𝜋𝑚2superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝜉subscript𝛼𝑗subscript𝜸1delimited-[]𝑑𝜉M^{\mathfrak{a}_{0}}_{\alpha}=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\xi^{\gamma}e^{-|\xi|^{2}% /2}d\xi=(2\pi)^{m/2}\prod_{j=1}^{m}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\xi^{\alpha_{j}}{% \boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{1}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_ξ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ξ = ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ]

where 𝜸1subscript𝜸1{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{1}bold_italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denotes the Gaussian measure on {\mathbb{R}}blackboard_R with mean zero and variance 1111. If α𝛼\alphaitalic_α is even, α=2κ𝛼2𝜅\alpha=2\kappaitalic_α = 2 italic_κ, then

M2κ𝔞0=(2π)m/2j=1m(2κj1)!!.subscriptsuperscript𝑀subscript𝔞02𝜅superscript2𝜋𝑚2superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1𝑚double-factorial2subscript𝜅𝑗1M^{\mathfrak{a}_{0}}_{2\kappa}=(2\pi)^{m/2}\prod_{j=1}^{m}(2\kappa_{j}-1)!!.italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) !! .

On the other hand, using (2.4) we deduce

M2κ𝔞0=𝒎2κ0rm+2|κ|1er2/2𝑑r=π2𝒎2κ|x|m+2|κ|1𝜸1[dx]subscriptsuperscript𝑀subscript𝔞02𝜅subscript𝒎2𝜅superscriptsubscript0superscript𝑟𝑚2𝜅1superscript𝑒superscript𝑟22differential-d𝑟𝜋2subscript𝒎2𝜅subscriptsuperscript𝑥𝑚2𝜅1subscript𝜸1delimited-[]𝑑𝑥M^{\mathfrak{a}_{0}}_{2\kappa}=\boldsymbol{m}_{2\kappa}\int_{0}^{\infty}r^{m+2% |\kappa|-1}e^{-r^{2}/2}dr=\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\boldsymbol{m}_{2\kappa}\int_{% \mathbb{R}}|x|^{m+2|\kappa|-1}{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{1}\big{[}\,dx\,\big{]}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = bold_italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m + 2 | italic_κ | - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_r = square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_π end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG bold_italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m + 2 | italic_κ | - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_x ]
=2|κ|+m/21𝒎2κΓ(|κ|+m/2).absentsuperscript2𝜅𝑚21subscript𝒎2𝜅Γ𝜅𝑚2=2^{|\kappa|+m/2-1}\boldsymbol{m}_{2\kappa}\Gamma\big{(}\,|\kappa|+m/2\,\big{)}.= 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_κ | + italic_m / 2 - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ ( | italic_κ | + italic_m / 2 ) .

Hence

𝒎2κ=2|κ|+m/21j=1m(2κj1)!!Γ(|κ|+m/2)=2j=1Γ(κj+1/2)Γ(|κ|+m/2).subscript𝒎2𝜅superscript2𝜅𝑚21superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1𝑚double-factorial2subscript𝜅𝑗1Γ𝜅𝑚22subscriptproduct𝑗1Γsubscript𝜅𝑗12Γ𝜅𝑚2\boldsymbol{m}_{2\kappa}=2^{|\kappa|+m/2-1}\frac{\prod_{j=1}^{m}(2\kappa_{j}-1% )!!}{\Gamma\big{(}\,|\kappa|+m/2\,\big{)}}=\frac{2\prod_{j=1}\Gamma(\kappa_{j}% +1/2)}{\Gamma\big{(}\,|\kappa|+m/2\,\big{)}}.bold_italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_κ | + italic_m / 2 - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) !! end_ARG start_ARG roman_Γ ( | italic_κ | + italic_m / 2 ) end_ARG = divide start_ARG 2 ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ ( italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 / 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG roman_Γ ( | italic_κ | + italic_m / 2 ) end_ARG . (2.5)

For every k0𝑘subscriptabsent0k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}italic_k ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we set

Ik(𝔞):=0rk𝔞(r)2𝑑r.assignsubscript𝐼𝑘𝔞superscriptsubscript0superscript𝑟𝑘𝔞superscript𝑟2differential-d𝑟I_{k}(\mathfrak{a}):=\int_{0}^{\infty}r^{k}\mathfrak{a}(r)^{2}dr.italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) := ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a ( italic_r ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_r .

We deduce

(2π)mM2κ𝔞=2Im1+2|κ|(𝔞)2j=1Γ(κj+1/2)Γ(|κ|+m/2).superscript2𝜋𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝔞2𝜅2subscript𝐼𝑚12𝜅𝔞2subscriptproduct𝑗1Γsubscript𝜅𝑗12Γ𝜅𝑚2(2\pi)^{m}M^{\mathfrak{a}}_{2\kappa}=2I_{m-1+2|\kappa|}(\mathfrak{a})\frac{2% \prod_{j=1}\Gamma(\kappa_{j}+1/2)}{\Gamma\big{(}\,|\kappa|+m/2\,\big{)}}.( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2 italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 + 2 | italic_κ | end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) divide start_ARG 2 ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ ( italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 / 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG roman_Γ ( | italic_κ | + italic_m / 2 ) end_ARG . (2.6)

We set

sm:=mμ𝔞[dξ],dm=mξ12μ𝔞[dξ],hm:=mξ12ξ22μ𝔞[dξ].formulae-sequenceassignsubscript𝑠𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝑚subscript𝜇𝔞delimited-[]𝑑𝜉formulae-sequencesubscript𝑑𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝑚superscriptsubscript𝜉12subscript𝜇𝔞delimited-[]𝑑𝜉assignsubscript𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝑚superscriptsubscript𝜉12superscriptsubscript𝜉22subscript𝜇𝔞delimited-[]𝑑𝜉s_{m}:=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]},\;\;d_{% m}=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\xi_{1}^{2}\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]},% \;\;h_{m}:=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\xi_{1}^{2}\xi_{2}^{2}\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}\big% {[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}.italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] , italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] . (2.7)

Then

m𝔞(|ξ|)2𝑑ξ=2πm/2Γ(m/2)Im1(𝔞)=(2π)msm,subscriptsuperscript𝑚𝔞superscript𝜉2differential-d𝜉2superscript𝜋𝑚2Γ𝑚2subscript𝐼𝑚1𝔞superscript2𝜋𝑚subscript𝑠𝑚\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\mathfrak{a}(|\xi|)^{2}d\xi=\frac{2\pi^{m/2}}{\Gamma(m/% 2)}I_{m-1}(\mathfrak{a})=(2\pi)^{m}s_{m},∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a ( | italic_ξ | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ξ = divide start_ARG 2 italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Γ ( italic_m / 2 ) end_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) = ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (2.8)
mξj2𝔞(|ξ|)2𝑑ξ=2πm/2Γ(m/2+1)Im+1(𝔞)=(2π)mdm,j,formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝑚superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑗2𝔞superscript𝜉2differential-d𝜉2superscript𝜋𝑚2Γ𝑚21subscript𝐼𝑚1𝔞superscript2𝜋𝑚subscript𝑑𝑚for-all𝑗\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\xi_{j}^{2}\mathfrak{a}(|\xi|)^{2}d\xi=\frac{2\pi^{m/2}% }{\Gamma(m/2+1)}I_{m+1}(\mathfrak{a})=(2\pi)^{m}d_{m},\;\;\forall j,∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a ( | italic_ξ | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ξ = divide start_ARG 2 italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Γ ( italic_m / 2 + 1 ) end_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) = ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∀ italic_j , (2.9)
mξj2ξk2𝔞(|ξ|)2𝑑ξ=(2π)m/2Γ(m/2+2)Im+3(𝔞)=(2π)mhm,jk,formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝑚superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑘2𝔞superscript𝜉2differential-d𝜉superscript2𝜋𝑚2Γ𝑚22subscript𝐼𝑚3𝔞superscript2𝜋𝑚subscript𝑚for-all𝑗𝑘\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\xi_{j}^{2}\xi_{k}^{2}\mathfrak{a}(|\xi|)^{2}d\xi=\frac% {(2\pi)^{m/2}}{\Gamma(m/2+2)}I_{m+3}(\mathfrak{a})=(2\pi)^{m}h_{m},\;\;\forall j% \neq k,∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a ( | italic_ξ | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ξ = divide start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Γ ( italic_m / 2 + 2 ) end_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) = ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∀ italic_j ≠ italic_k , (2.10)
mξj4𝔞(|ξ|)2𝑑ξ=6πm/2Γ(m/2+1)Im+3(𝔞)=3(2π)mhm,j.formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝑚superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑗4𝔞superscript𝜉2differential-d𝜉6superscript𝜋𝑚2Γ𝑚21subscript𝐼𝑚3𝔞3superscript2𝜋𝑚subscript𝑚for-all𝑗\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\xi_{j}^{4}\mathfrak{a}(|\xi|)^{2}d\xi=\frac{6\pi^{m/2}% }{\Gamma(m/2+1)}I_{m+3}(\mathfrak{a})=3(2\pi)^{m}h_{m},\;\;\forall j.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a ( | italic_ξ | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ξ = divide start_ARG 6 italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Γ ( italic_m / 2 + 1 ) end_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) = 3 ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∀ italic_j . (2.11)

Using (2.2) and (2.3) we deduce that for any 𝒙m𝒙superscript𝑚{\boldsymbol{x}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m}bold_italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT the Gaussian vectors Φ(𝒙)Φ𝒙\nabla\Phi({\boldsymbol{x}})∇ roman_Φ ( bold_italic_x ) and HessΦ(𝒙)subscriptHessΦ𝒙\operatorname{Hess}_{\Phi}({\boldsymbol{x}})roman_Hess start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) are independent.

Using (2.2)and (2.9) we deduce that the variance matrix of Φ(𝒙)Φ𝒙\nabla\Phi({\boldsymbol{x}})∇ roman_Φ ( bold_italic_x ) is

Var[Φ(𝒙)]=dm𝟙m,𝒙m,formulae-sequenceVarΦ𝒙subscript𝑑𝑚subscript1𝑚for-all𝒙superscript𝑚\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla\Phi({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{]}=d_{m}{% \mathbbm{1}}_{m},\;\;\forall{\boldsymbol{x}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m},roman_Var [ ∇ roman_Φ ( bold_italic_x ) ] = italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∀ bold_italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (2.12)

where 𝟙msubscript1𝑚{\mathbbm{1}}_{m}blackboard_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denotes the identity m×m𝑚𝑚m\times mitalic_m × italic_m matrix.

The space 𝐒𝐲𝐦(m)𝐒𝐲𝐦superscript𝑚\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}({\mathbb{R}}^{m})bold_Sym ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of real symmetric m×m𝑚𝑚m\times mitalic_m × italic_m matrices is equipped with an inner product (A,B)=tr(A)𝐴𝐵tr𝐴(A,B)=\operatorname{{\rm tr}}(A)( italic_A , italic_B ) = roman_tr ( italic_A ). Moreover the linear functions ij,ωij:𝐒𝐲𝐦(m):subscript𝑖𝑗subscript𝜔𝑖𝑗𝐒𝐲𝐦superscript𝑚\ell_{ij},\omega_{ij}:\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}({\mathbb{R}}^{m})\to{\mathbb% {R}}roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : bold_Sym ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) → blackboard_R, 1ijm1𝑖𝑗𝑚1\leq i\leq j\leq m1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_m,

ij(A)=aij,ωij(A)={aii,i=j,2aij,i<jformulae-sequencesubscript𝑖𝑗𝐴subscript𝑎𝑖𝑗subscript𝜔𝑖𝑗𝐴casessubscript𝑎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑗2subscript𝑎𝑖𝑗𝑖𝑗\ell_{ij}(A)=a_{ij},\;\;\omega_{ij}(A)=\begin{cases}a_{ii},&i=j,\\ \sqrt{2}a_{ij},&i<j\end{cases}roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) = { start_ROW start_CELL italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL italic_i = italic_j , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL italic_i < italic_j end_CELL end_ROW (2.13)

define coordinates on 𝐒𝐲𝐦(m)𝐒𝐲𝐦superscript𝑚\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}({\mathbb{R}}^{m})bold_Sym ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) that are orthonormal with respect to the above inner product. We set

Lij(𝒙):=ij(HessΦ(𝒙)),Ωij(𝒙):=ωij(HessΦ(𝒙)).formulae-sequenceassignsubscript𝐿𝑖𝑗𝒙subscript𝑖𝑗subscriptHessΦ𝒙assignsubscriptΩ𝑖𝑗𝒙subscript𝜔𝑖𝑗subscriptHessΦ𝒙L_{ij}({\boldsymbol{x}}):=\ell_{ij}\big{(}\,\operatorname{Hess}_{\Phi}({% \boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{)},\;\;\Omega_{ij}({\boldsymbol{x}}):=\omega_{ij}\big{(% }\,\operatorname{Hess}_{\Phi}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{)}.italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) := roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Hess start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ) , roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) := italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Hess start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ) . (2.14)

Then

𝔼[xixj2Φ𝔞(x)xkx2Φ𝔞(𝒙)]=1(2π)mmξiξjξkξa(|ξ|2)𝑑ξ,ij,k.formulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]subscriptsuperscript2subscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝑥𝑗subscriptΦ𝔞𝑥subscriptsuperscript2subscript𝑥𝑘subscript𝑥subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙1superscript2𝜋𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝑚subscript𝜉𝑖subscript𝜉𝑗subscript𝜉𝑘subscript𝜉𝑎superscript𝜉2differential-d𝜉formulae-sequence𝑖𝑗𝑘{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,\partial^{2}_{x_{i}x_{j}}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}(x)\partial^{% 2}_{x_{k}x_{\ell}}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{]}=\frac{1}{(2% \pi)^{m}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\xi_{i}\xi_{j}\xi_{k}\xi_{\ell}a\big{(}\,|\xi|% ^{2}\,\big{)}d\xi,\;\;i\leq j,\;\;k\leq\ell.blackboard_E [ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ] = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ( | italic_ξ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_ξ , italic_i ≤ italic_j , italic_k ≤ roman_ℓ .

Note that if i<j𝑖𝑗i<jitalic_i < italic_j, then the above integral is nonzero iff (i,j)=(k,)𝑖𝑗𝑘(i,j)=(k,\ell)( italic_i , italic_j ) = ( italic_k , roman_ℓ ) in which case

𝔼[Lij(𝒙)Lij(𝒙)]=𝔼[(xixj2Φ𝔞(x))2]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐿𝑖𝑗𝒙subscript𝐿𝑖𝑗𝒙𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscriptsuperscript2subscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝑥𝑗subscriptΦ𝔞𝑥2{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,L_{ij}({\boldsymbol{x}})L_{ij}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{]}% ={\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,\big{(}\,\partial^{2}_{x_{i}x_{j}}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}(x)% \,\big{)}^{2}\,\big{]}blackboard_E [ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ] = blackboard_E [ ( ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ]
=1(2π)mmξi2ξj2𝔞(|ξ|2)𝑑ξ=(2.10)hm.absent1superscript2𝜋𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝑚superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑖2superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑗2𝔞superscript𝜉2differential-d𝜉superscript2.10subscript𝑚=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{m}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\xi_{i}^{2}\xi_{j}^{2}\mathfrak{a}% \big{(}\,|\xi|^{2}\,\big{)}d\xi\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{spec_mom_2})}}{{=}% }h_{m}.= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_a ( | italic_ξ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_ξ start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG = end_ARG start_ARG ( ) end_ARG end_RELOP italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

If i=j𝑖𝑗i=jitalic_i = italic_j, then the above integral is nonzero iff k=𝑘k=\ellitalic_k = roman_ℓ, in which case we deduce from (2.10) and (2.11)

𝔼[xi2Φ𝔞(x)xk2Φ𝔞(𝒙)]={hmik,3hm,i=k.𝔼delimited-[]subscriptsuperscript2subscript𝑥𝑖subscriptΦ𝔞𝑥subscriptsuperscript2subscript𝑥𝑘subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙casessubscript𝑚𝑖𝑘3subscript𝑚𝑖𝑘{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,\partial^{2}_{x_{i}}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}(x)\partial^{2}_{x% _{k}}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{]}=\begin{cases}h_{m}&i\neq k% ,\\ 3h_{m},&i=k.\end{cases}blackboard_E [ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ] = { start_ROW start_CELL italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_i ≠ italic_k , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 3 italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL italic_i = italic_k . end_CELL end_ROW

The above equalities can be rewritten in the more compact form

𝔼[Lij(𝒙)Lk(𝒙)]=hm(δijδk+δikδj+δiδjk),ij,k.formulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐿𝑖𝑗𝒙subscript𝐿𝑘𝒙subscript𝑚subscript𝛿𝑖𝑗subscript𝛿𝑘subscript𝛿𝑖𝑘subscript𝛿𝑗subscript𝛿𝑖subscript𝛿𝑗𝑘formulae-sequencefor-all𝑖𝑗𝑘{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,L_{ij}({\boldsymbol{x}})L_{k\ell}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big% {]}=h_{m}\big{(}\,\delta_{ij}\delta_{k\ell}+\delta_{ik}\delta_{j\ell}+\delta_{% i\ell}\delta_{jk}\,\big{)},\;\;\forall i\leq j,\;k\leq\ell.blackboard_E [ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ] = italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , ∀ italic_i ≤ italic_j , italic_k ≤ roman_ℓ . (2.15)

These equalities show that the off diagonal entries of HessΦsubscriptHessΦ\operatorname{Hess}_{\Phi}roman_Hess start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are i.i.d.formulae-sequenceiid\mathrm{i.i.d.}roman_i . roman_i . roman_d ., and also independent of the diagonal entries. The diagonal entries have identical distributions but are dependent. The parameter hmsubscript𝑚h_{m}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT describes the various variances and covariances.

The Gaussian measure on 𝐒𝐲𝐦(m)𝐒𝐲𝐦superscript𝑚\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}({\mathbb{R}}^{m})bold_Sym ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) determined by these covariance equalities is invariant with respect to the action of O(m)𝑂𝑚O(m)italic_O ( italic_m ) by conjugation on 𝐒𝐲𝐦(m)𝐒𝐲𝐦superscript𝑚\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}({\mathbb{R}}^{m})bold_Sym ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). For v>0𝑣0v>0italic_v > 0 denote by 𝒮mvsuperscriptsubscript𝒮𝑚𝑣\mathcal{S}_{m}^{v}caligraphic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT the space 𝐒𝐲𝐦(m)𝐒𝐲𝐦superscript𝑚\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}({\mathbb{R}}^{m})bold_Sym ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) equipped with the O(m)𝑂𝑚O(m)italic_O ( italic_m )-invariant Gaussian measure on 𝐒𝐲𝐦(m)𝐒𝐲𝐦superscript𝑚\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}({\mathbb{R}}^{m})bold_Sym ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) determined by the covariances

𝔼[Lij(𝒙)Lk(𝒙)]=v(δijδk+δikδj+δiδjk),ij,k.formulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐿𝑖𝑗𝒙subscript𝐿𝑘𝒙𝑣subscript𝛿𝑖𝑗subscript𝛿𝑘subscript𝛿𝑖𝑘subscript𝛿𝑗subscript𝛿𝑖subscript𝛿𝑗𝑘formulae-sequencefor-all𝑖𝑗𝑘{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,L_{ij}({\boldsymbol{x}})L_{k\ell}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big% {]}=v\big{(}\,\delta_{ij}\delta_{k\ell}+\delta_{ik}\delta_{j\ell}+\delta_{i% \ell}\delta_{jk}\,\big{)},\;\;\forall i\leq j,\;k\leq\ell.blackboard_E [ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ] = italic_v ( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , ∀ italic_i ≤ italic_j , italic_k ≤ roman_ℓ .

For any box Bm𝐵superscript𝑚B\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{m}italic_B ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we denote by Z𝔞(B)=Z𝔞,m(B)subscript𝑍𝔞𝐵subscript𝑍𝔞𝑚𝐵Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B)=Z_{\mathfrak{a},m}(B)italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) = italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a , italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) the number of critical points of Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in B𝐵Bitalic_B. We deduce from the Kac-Rice formula (2.1) that

𝔼[Z𝔞(B)]=B𝔼𝒮mhm[|detH|]pΦ(𝒙)(0)𝝀[d𝒙]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞𝐵subscript𝐵subscript𝔼superscriptsubscript𝒮𝑚subscript𝑚delimited-[]𝐻subscript𝑝Φ𝒙0𝝀delimited-[]𝑑𝒙{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B)\,\big{]}=\int_{B}{\mathbb{E}}_{% \mathcal{S}_{m}^{h_{m}}}\big{[}\,|\det H|\,\big{]}p_{\nabla\Phi({\boldsymbol{x% }})}(0){\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\big{[}\,d{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{]}blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) ] = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ | roman_det italic_H | ] italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ roman_Φ ( bold_italic_x ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) bold_italic_λ [ italic_d bold_italic_x ]
=(2.12)(2πdm)m/2𝔼𝒮mhm[|detH|]vol[B]superscript2.12absentsuperscript2𝜋subscript𝑑𝑚𝑚2subscript𝔼superscriptsubscript𝒮𝑚subscript𝑚delimited-[]𝐻vol𝐵\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{grad_iso})}}{{=}}(2\pi d_{m})^{-m/2}{\mathbb{E}}_% {\mathcal{S}_{m}^{h_{m}}}\big{[}\,|\det H|\,\big{]}\operatorname{vol}\big{[}\,% B\,\big{]}start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG = end_ARG start_ARG ( ) end_ARG end_RELOP ( 2 italic_π italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ | roman_det italic_H | ] roman_vol [ italic_B ]

(X=(2hm)1/2H𝑋superscript2subscript𝑚12𝐻X=(2h_{m})^{-1/2}Hitalic_X = ( 2 italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H)

=(hmπdm)m/2𝔼𝒮m1/2[|detX|]=:Cm(𝔞)vol[B].absentsubscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑚𝜋subscript𝑑𝑚𝑚2subscript𝔼superscriptsubscript𝒮𝑚12delimited-[]𝑋:absentsubscript𝐶𝑚𝔞vol𝐵=\underbrace{\left(\frac{h_{m}}{\pi d_{m}}\right)^{m/2}{\mathbb{E}}_{\mathcal{% S}_{m}^{1/2}}\big{[}\,|\det X|\,\big{]}}_{=:C_{m}(\mathfrak{a})}\,% \operatorname{vol}\big{[}\,B\,\big{]}.= under⏟ start_ARG ( divide start_ARG italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_π italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ | roman_det italic_X | ] end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT = : italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_vol [ italic_B ] .

Hence

𝔼[Z𝔞,m(B)]=Cm(𝔞)vol[B].𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞𝑚𝐵subscript𝐶𝑚𝔞vol𝐵{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a},m}(B)\,\big{]}=C_{m}(\mathfrak{a})% \operatorname{vol}\big{[}\,B\,\big{]}.blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a , italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) ] = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) roman_vol [ italic_B ] . (2.16)
Remark 2.3.

One can prove that as m𝑚m\to\inftyitalic_m → ∞

Cm(𝔞)252Γ(m+32)(hmπdm)m/2(1m+1)1/2.similar-tosubscript𝐶𝑚𝔞superscript252Γ𝑚32superscriptsubscript𝑚𝜋subscript𝑑𝑚𝑚2superscript1𝑚112C_{m}(\mathfrak{a})\sim 2^{\frac{5}{2}}\Gamma\left(\frac{m+3}{2}\right)\left(% \frac{h_{m}}{\pi d_{m}}\right)^{m/2}\left(\frac{1}{m+1}\right)^{1/2}.italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) ∼ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 5 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ ( divide start_ARG italic_m + 3 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ( divide start_ARG italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_π italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_m + 1 end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Using (2.9) and (2.10) we deduce

hmdm=Γ(1+m/2)Γ(2+m/2)×Im+3(𝔞)Im+1(𝔞)=2Im+3(𝔞)(m+2)Im+1(𝔞).subscript𝑚subscript𝑑𝑚Γ1𝑚2Γ2𝑚2subscript𝐼𝑚3𝔞subscript𝐼𝑚1𝔞2subscript𝐼𝑚3𝔞𝑚2subscript𝐼𝑚1𝔞\frac{h_{m}}{d_{m}}=\frac{\Gamma(1+m/2)}{\Gamma(2+m/2)}\times\frac{I_{m+3}(% \mathfrak{a})}{I_{m+1}(\mathfrak{a})}=\frac{2I_{m+3}(\mathfrak{a})}{(m+2)I_{m+% 1}(\mathfrak{a})}.divide start_ARG italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = divide start_ARG roman_Γ ( 1 + italic_m / 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG roman_Γ ( 2 + italic_m / 2 ) end_ARG × divide start_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) end_ARG = divide start_ARG 2 italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_m + 2 ) italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) end_ARG .

Hence

Cm(𝔞)25/2(hm(𝔞)dm(𝔞))m/2Γ(m+32)m1/22m+52(Im+3(𝔞)(m+2)Im+1(𝔞))m/2Γ(m+32)m1/2as m.similar-tosubscript𝐶𝑚𝔞superscript252superscriptsubscript𝑚𝔞subscript𝑑𝑚𝔞𝑚2Γ𝑚32superscript𝑚12similar-tosuperscript2𝑚52superscriptsubscript𝐼𝑚3𝔞𝑚2subscript𝐼𝑚1𝔞𝑚2Γ𝑚32superscript𝑚12as m\begin{split}C_{m}(\mathfrak{a})\sim 2^{5/2}\left(\frac{h_{m}(\mathfrak{a})}{d% _{m}(\mathfrak{a})}\right)^{m/2}\Gamma\left(\frac{m+3}{2}\right)m^{-1/2}\hskip 7% 2.26999pt\\ \sim 2^{\frac{m+5}{2}}\left(\frac{I_{m+3}(\mathfrak{a})}{(m+2)I_{m+1}(% \mathfrak{a})}\right)^{m/2}\Gamma\left(\frac{m+3}{2}\right)m^{-1/2}\;\;\mbox{% as $m\to\infty$}.\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) ∼ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ ( divide start_ARG italic_m + 3 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ∼ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_m + 5 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_m + 2 ) italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ ( divide start_ARG italic_m + 3 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as italic_m → ∞ . end_CELL end_ROW (2.17)

The constant Cm(𝔞)subscript𝐶𝑚𝔞C_{m}(\mathfrak{a})italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ) tends to grow very fast as m𝑚m\to\inftyitalic_m → ∞, but its large m𝑚mitalic_m behavior depends on the tail of the amplitude 𝔞𝔞\mathfrak{a}fraktur_a. Roughly speaking, the slower the decay at \infty of 𝔞𝔞\mathfrak{a}fraktur_a the faster the growth of Cm(𝔞)subscript𝐶𝑚𝔞C_{m}(\mathfrak{a})italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a ). square-intersectionsquare-union\hbox to0.0pt{$\sqcap$\hss}\sqcup⊓ ⊔

3. An abstract law of large numbers

Fix m𝑚m\in{{\mathbb{N}}}italic_m ∈ blackboard_N. For N𝑁N\in{{\mathbb{N}}}italic_N ∈ blackboard_N, let 𝕀N:=[1,N]assignsubscript𝕀𝑁1𝑁{\mathbb{I}}_{N}:=[1,N]\cap{{\mathbb{N}}}blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := [ 1 , italic_N ] ∩ blackboard_N. Suppose that we have an even continuous function ρ:m(0,):𝜌superscript𝑚0\rho:{\mathbb{R}}^{m}\to(0,\infty)italic_ρ : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ( 0 , ∞ ) that decays sufficiently fast to 00 as |x|𝑥|x|\to\infty| italic_x | → ∞. Then

NB×NBρ(𝒙𝒚)𝑑𝒙𝑑𝒚=N2mB×BρN(𝒖𝒗)𝑑𝒖𝑑𝒗subscript𝑁𝐵𝑁𝐵𝜌𝒙𝒚differential-d𝒙differential-d𝒚superscript𝑁2𝑚subscript𝐵𝐵subscript𝜌𝑁𝒖𝒗differential-d𝒖differential-d𝒗\int_{NB\times NB}\rho({\boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{y}})d{\boldsymbol{x}}d{% \boldsymbol{y}}=N^{2m}\int_{B\times B}\rho_{N}\big{(}\,{\boldsymbol{u}}-{% \boldsymbol{v}}\,\big{)}d{\boldsymbol{u}}d{\boldsymbol{v}}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N italic_B × italic_N italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) italic_d bold_italic_x italic_d bold_italic_y = italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B × italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_u - bold_italic_v ) italic_d bold_italic_u italic_d bold_italic_v

where ρN(𝒙)=ρ(N𝒙)subscript𝜌𝑁𝒙𝜌𝑁𝒙\rho_{N}({\boldsymbol{x}})=\rho(N{\boldsymbol{x}})italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) = italic_ρ ( italic_N bold_italic_x ). Observing that ρN(𝒙)0subscript𝜌𝑁𝒙0\rho_{N}({\boldsymbol{x}})\to 0italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) → 0 almost everywhere on B𝐵Bitalic_B we deduce from the dominated convergence theorem that

B×BρN(𝒖𝒗)𝑑𝒖𝑑𝒗0subscript𝐵𝐵subscript𝜌𝑁𝒖𝒗differential-d𝒖differential-d𝒗0\int_{B\times B}\rho_{N}\big{(}\,{\boldsymbol{u}}-{\boldsymbol{v}}\,\big{)}d{% \boldsymbol{u}}d{\boldsymbol{v}}\to 0∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B × italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_u - bold_italic_v ) italic_d bold_italic_u italic_d bold_italic_v → 0

as N𝑁N\to\inftyitalic_N → ∞. Hence

NB×NBρ(𝒙𝒚)𝑑𝒙𝑑𝒚=o(N2m)as Nsubscript𝑁𝐵𝑁𝐵𝜌𝒙𝒚differential-d𝒙differential-d𝒚𝑜superscript𝑁2𝑚as N\int_{NB\times NB}\rho({\boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{y}})d{\boldsymbol{x}}d{% \boldsymbol{y}}=o\big{(}\,N^{2m}\,\big{)}\;\;\mbox{as $N\to\infty$}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N italic_B × italic_N italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) italic_d bold_italic_x italic_d bold_italic_y = italic_o ( italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) as italic_N → ∞

The sum

(k,)𝕀Nm×𝕀Nmρ(k)subscript𝑘superscriptsubscript𝕀𝑁𝑚superscriptsubscript𝕀𝑁𝑚𝜌𝑘\sum_{({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\in{\mathbb{I}}_{N}^{m}\times{\mathbb{I}}_{N}^{m% }}\rho({\vec{k}}-{\vec{\ell}})∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG - over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG )

is a very rough Riemann sum approximation of the above integral when B=[1]N𝐵superscriptdelimited-[]1𝑁B=[-1]^{N}italic_B = [ - 1 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The next result shows that under some conditions on the decay at infinity, this Riemann sum is also o(N2m)𝑜superscript𝑁2𝑚o\big{(}\,N^{2m}\,\big{)}italic_o ( italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) as N𝑁N\to\inftyitalic_N → ∞.

Lemma 3.1.

Fix α,p>0𝛼𝑝0\alpha,p>0italic_α , italic_p > 0. For any N𝑁N\in{{\mathbb{N}}}italic_N ∈ blackboard_N, α>0𝛼0\alpha>0italic_α > 0 we set N:=𝕀Nm×𝕀Nmassignsubscript𝑁superscriptsubscript𝕀𝑁𝑚superscriptsubscript𝕀𝑁𝑚\mathcal{R}_{N}:={\mathbb{I}}_{N}^{m}\times{\mathbb{I}}_{N}^{m}caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. There exists a constant K=K(α,p,m)>0𝐾𝐾𝛼𝑝𝑚0K=K(\alpha,p,m)>0italic_K = italic_K ( italic_α , italic_p , italic_m ) > 0 such that

(k,)N1( 1+α|k|1)pK{N2mκ(p),κ(p)=min(1,p),pm,N2m1logN,p=m.subscript𝑘subscript𝑁1superscript1𝛼subscript𝑘1𝑝𝐾casessuperscript𝑁2𝑚𝜅𝑝𝜅𝑝1𝑝𝑝𝑚superscript𝑁2𝑚1𝑁𝑝𝑚\sum_{({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\in\mathcal{R}_{N}}\frac{1}{\big{(}\,1+\alpha|{% \vec{\ell}}-{\vec{k}}|_{1}\,\big{)}^{p}}\leq K\begin{cases}N^{2m-\kappa(p)},\;% \;\kappa(p)=\min(1,p),&p\neq m,\\ N^{2m-1}\log N,&p=m.\end{cases}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + italic_α | over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG - over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ italic_K { start_ROW start_CELL italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_m - italic_κ ( italic_p ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_κ ( italic_p ) = roman_min ( 1 , italic_p ) , end_CELL start_CELL italic_p ≠ italic_m , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_log italic_N , end_CELL start_CELL italic_p = italic_m . end_CELL end_ROW
Proof.

For any N𝑁N\in{{\mathbb{N}}}italic_N ∈ blackboard_N define

DN:={(k,)N;j=1,,m,kj=j},N:=NDN.formulae-sequenceassignsubscript𝐷𝑁formulae-sequence𝑘subscript𝑁formulae-sequence𝑗1𝑚subscript𝑘𝑗subscript𝑗assignsuperscriptsubscript𝑁subscript𝑁subscript𝐷𝑁D_{N}:=\big{\{}\,({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\in\mathcal{R}_{N};\;\;\exists j=1,% \dotsc,m,\;\;k_{j}=\ell_{j}\,\big{\}},\;\;\mathcal{R}_{N}^{*}:=\mathcal{R}_{N}% \setminus D_{N}.italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := { ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; ∃ italic_j = 1 , … , italic_m , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } , caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT := caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∖ italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Note that

DN=i=1mDNi,DNi={(k,)N;ki=i}.formulae-sequencesubscript𝐷𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚superscriptsubscript𝐷𝑁𝑖superscriptsubscript𝐷𝑁𝑖formulae-sequence𝑘subscript𝑁subscript𝑘𝑖subscript𝑖D_{N}=\bigcup_{i=1}^{m}D_{N}^{i},\;\;D_{N}^{i}=\big{\{}\,({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell% }})\in\mathcal{R}_{N};\;\;k_{i}=\ell_{i}\,\big{\}}.italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } .

For 1i1<<irm1subscript𝑖1subscript𝑖𝑟𝑚1\leq i_{1}<\cdots<i_{r}\leq m1 ≤ italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m we have

#(DNi1DNip)=N2m2r+1#superscriptsubscript𝐷𝑁subscript𝑖1superscriptsubscript𝐷𝑁subscript𝑖𝑝superscript𝑁2𝑚2𝑟1\#\big{(}\,D_{N}^{i_{1}}\cap\cdots\cap D_{N}^{i_{p}}\,\big{)}=N^{2m-2r+1}# ( italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∩ ⋯ ∩ italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_m - 2 italic_r + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

Using the Inclusion-Exclusion Principle we deduce that

#DN=r=1m(1)p1(mp)N2m2r+12mN2m1.#subscript𝐷𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑟1𝑚superscript1𝑝1binomial𝑚𝑝superscript𝑁2𝑚2𝑟1superscript2𝑚superscript𝑁2𝑚1\#D_{N}=\sum_{r=1}^{m}(-1)^{p-1}\binom{m}{p}N^{2m-2r+1}\leq 2^{m}N^{2m-1}.# italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_m end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ) italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_m - 2 italic_r + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

We have

(k,)N1( 1+α|k|1)p=(k,)DN1( 1+α|k|1)p=:YN+(k,)N1( 1+α|k|1)p=:ZN.subscript𝑘subscript𝑁1superscript1𝛼subscript𝑘1𝑝subscriptsubscript𝑘subscript𝐷𝑁1superscript1𝛼subscript𝑘1𝑝:absentsubscript𝑌𝑁subscriptsubscript𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑁1superscript1𝛼subscript𝑘1𝑝:absentsubscript𝑍𝑁\sum_{({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\in\mathcal{R}_{N}}\frac{1}{\big{(}\,1+\alpha|{% \vec{\ell}}-{\vec{k}}|_{1}\,\big{)}^{p}}=\underbrace{\sum_{({\vec{k}},{\vec{% \ell}})\in D_{N}}\frac{1}{\big{(}\,1+\alpha|{\vec{\ell}}-{\vec{k}}|_{1}\,\big{% )}^{p}}}_{=:Y_{N}}+\underbrace{\sum_{({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\in\mathcal{R}_{N% }^{*}}\frac{1}{\big{(}\,1+\alpha|{\vec{\ell}}-{\vec{k}}|_{1}\,\big{)}^{p}}}_{=% :Z_{N}}.∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + italic_α | over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG - over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = under⏟ start_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + italic_α | over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG - over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT = : italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + under⏟ start_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + italic_α | over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG - over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT = : italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Note that

YN#DN2mN2m1.subscript𝑌𝑁#subscript𝐷𝑁superscript2𝑚superscript𝑁2𝑚1Y_{N}\leq\#D_{N}\leq 2^{m}N^{2m-1}.italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ # italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

To estimate ZNsubscript𝑍𝑁Z_{N}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we need to first analyze the structure of the region Nsuperscriptsubscript𝑁\mathcal{R}_{N}^{*}caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Denote by Risubscript𝑅𝑖R_{i}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the reflection

Ri:m×mm×m,[x1y1xiyixmym][x1y1yixixmym].:subscript𝑅𝑖formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑚superscript𝑚superscript𝑚superscript𝑚maps-todelimited-[]subscript𝑥1subscript𝑦1subscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝑦𝑖subscript𝑥𝑚subscript𝑦𝑚delimited-[]subscript𝑥1subscript𝑦1subscript𝑦𝑖subscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝑥𝑚subscript𝑦𝑚R_{i}:{\mathbb{R}}^{m}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{m}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{m}\times{\mathbb{% R}}^{m},\;\;\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}x_{1}&y_{1}\\ \vdots&\vdots\\ \mathchoice{\leavevmode\hbox to13pt{\vbox to13pt{\pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox% {\hskip 6.49834pt\lower-6.49834pt\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope% \pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}% \pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}% {0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{0.4pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to% 0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}}\hbox{\hbox{{\pgfsys@beginscope% \pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{{}}}{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{{}\pgfsys@moveto{6.29834pt}{0% .0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{6.29834pt}{3.47852pt}{3.47852pt}{6.29834pt}{0.0pt}{6.2983% 4pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-3.47852pt}{6.29834pt}{-6.29834pt}{3.47852pt}{-6.29834pt}{% 0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-6.29834pt}{-3.47852pt}{-3.47852pt}{-6.29834pt}{0.0pt}{-% 6.29834pt}\pgfsys@curveto{3.47852pt}{-6.29834pt}{6.29834pt}{-3.47852pt}{6.2983% 4pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke% \pgfsys@invoke{ } }{{{{}}\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@transformcm{1.0}{0.0}{0.0}{1% .0}{-3.82227pt}{-1.22945pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor% }{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }% \pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{$\displaystyle x_{i}$}} }}\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope{{{}}}{}{}\hss}% \pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}% \lxSVG@closescope\endpgfpicture}}}{\leavevmode\hbox to13pt{\vbox to13pt{% \pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox{\hskip 6.49834pt\lower-6.49834pt\hbox to0.0pt{% \pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}% \pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}% {0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{0.4pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to% 0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}}\hbox{\hbox{{\pgfsys@beginscope% \pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{{}}}{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{{}\pgfsys@moveto{6.29834pt}{0% .0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{6.29834pt}{3.47852pt}{3.47852pt}{6.29834pt}{0.0pt}{6.2983% 4pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-3.47852pt}{6.29834pt}{-6.29834pt}{3.47852pt}{-6.29834pt}{% 0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-6.29834pt}{-3.47852pt}{-3.47852pt}{-6.29834pt}{0.0pt}{-% 6.29834pt}\pgfsys@curveto{3.47852pt}{-6.29834pt}{6.29834pt}{-3.47852pt}{6.2983% 4pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke% \pgfsys@invoke{ } }{{{{}}\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@transformcm{1.0}{0.0}{0.0}{1% .0}{-3.82227pt}{-1.22945pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor% }{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }% \pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{$\textstyle x_{i}$}} }}\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope{{{}}}{}{}\hss}% \pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}% \lxSVG@closescope\endpgfpicture}}}{\leavevmode\hbox to10.09pt{\vbox to10.09pt{% \pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox{\hskip 5.04326pt\lower-5.04326pt\hbox to0.0pt{% \pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}% \pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}% {0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{0.4pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to% 0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}}\hbox{\hbox{{\pgfsys@beginscope% \pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{{}}}{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{{}\pgfsys@moveto{4.84326pt}{0% .0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{4.84326pt}{2.67488pt}{2.67488pt}{4.84326pt}{0.0pt}{4.8432% 6pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-2.67488pt}{4.84326pt}{-4.84326pt}{2.67488pt}{-4.84326pt}{% 0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-4.84326pt}{-2.67488pt}{-2.67488pt}{-4.84326pt}{0.0pt}{-% 4.84326pt}\pgfsys@curveto{2.67488pt}{-4.84326pt}{4.84326pt}{-2.67488pt}{4.8432% 6pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke% \pgfsys@invoke{ } }{{{{}}\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@transformcm{1.0}{0.0}{0.0}{1% .0}{-2.68936pt}{-0.84743pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor% }{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }% \pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{$\scriptstyle x_{i}$}} }}\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope{{{}}}{}{}\hss}% \pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}% \lxSVG@closescope\endpgfpicture}}}{\leavevmode\hbox to8.67pt{\vbox to8.67pt{% \pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox{\hskip 4.3355pt\lower-4.3355pt\hbox to0.0pt{% \pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}% \pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}% {0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{0.4pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to% 0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}}\hbox{\hbox{{\pgfsys@beginscope% \pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{{}}}{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{{}\pgfsys@moveto{4.1355pt}{0.% 0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{4.1355pt}{2.284pt}{2.284pt}{4.1355pt}{0.0pt}{4.1355pt}% \pgfsys@curveto{-2.284pt}{4.1355pt}{-4.1355pt}{2.284pt}{-4.1355pt}{0.0pt}% \pgfsys@curveto{-4.1355pt}{-2.284pt}{-2.284pt}{-4.1355pt}{0.0pt}{-4.1355pt}% \pgfsys@curveto{2.284pt}{-4.1355pt}{4.1355pt}{-2.284pt}{4.1355pt}{0.0pt}% \pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } }{{{{}}\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@transformcm{1.0}{0.0}{0.0}{1% .0}{-2.11784pt}{-0.41687pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor% }{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }% \pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{$\scriptscriptstyle x_{% i}$}} }}\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope{{{}}}{}{}\hss}% \pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}% \lxSVG@closescope\endpgfpicture}}}&\boxed{y_{i}}\\ \vdots&\vdots\\ x_{m}&y_{m}\end{array}\right]\mapsto\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}x_{1}&y_{1}\\ \vdots&\vdots\\ \boxed{y_{i}}&\mathchoice{\leavevmode\hbox to13pt{\vbox to13pt{\pgfpicture% \makeatletter\hbox{\hskip 6.49834pt\lower-6.49834pt\hbox to0.0pt{% \pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}% \pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}% {0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{0.4pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to% 0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}}\hbox{\hbox{{\pgfsys@beginscope% \pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{{}}}{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{{}\pgfsys@moveto{6.29834pt}{0% .0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{6.29834pt}{3.47852pt}{3.47852pt}{6.29834pt}{0.0pt}{6.2983% 4pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-3.47852pt}{6.29834pt}{-6.29834pt}{3.47852pt}{-6.29834pt}{% 0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-6.29834pt}{-3.47852pt}{-3.47852pt}{-6.29834pt}{0.0pt}{-% 6.29834pt}\pgfsys@curveto{3.47852pt}{-6.29834pt}{6.29834pt}{-3.47852pt}{6.2983% 4pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke% \pgfsys@invoke{ } }{{{{}}\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@transformcm{1.0}{0.0}{0.0}{1% .0}{-3.82227pt}{-1.22945pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor% }{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }% \pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{$\displaystyle x_{i}$}} }}\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope{{{}}}{}{}\hss}% \pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}% \lxSVG@closescope\endpgfpicture}}}{\leavevmode\hbox to13pt{\vbox to13pt{% \pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox{\hskip 6.49834pt\lower-6.49834pt\hbox to0.0pt{% \pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}% \pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}% {0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{0.4pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to% 0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}}\hbox{\hbox{{\pgfsys@beginscope% \pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{{}}}{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{{}\pgfsys@moveto{6.29834pt}{0% .0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{6.29834pt}{3.47852pt}{3.47852pt}{6.29834pt}{0.0pt}{6.2983% 4pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-3.47852pt}{6.29834pt}{-6.29834pt}{3.47852pt}{-6.29834pt}{% 0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-6.29834pt}{-3.47852pt}{-3.47852pt}{-6.29834pt}{0.0pt}{-% 6.29834pt}\pgfsys@curveto{3.47852pt}{-6.29834pt}{6.29834pt}{-3.47852pt}{6.2983% 4pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke% \pgfsys@invoke{ } }{{{{}}\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@transformcm{1.0}{0.0}{0.0}{1% .0}{-3.82227pt}{-1.22945pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor% }{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }% \pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{$\textstyle x_{i}$}} }}\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope{{{}}}{}{}\hss}% \pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}% \lxSVG@closescope\endpgfpicture}}}{\leavevmode\hbox to10.09pt{\vbox to10.09pt{% \pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox{\hskip 5.04326pt\lower-5.04326pt\hbox to0.0pt{% \pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}% \pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}% {0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{0.4pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to% 0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}}\hbox{\hbox{{\pgfsys@beginscope% \pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{{}}}{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{{}\pgfsys@moveto{4.84326pt}{0% .0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{4.84326pt}{2.67488pt}{2.67488pt}{4.84326pt}{0.0pt}{4.8432% 6pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-2.67488pt}{4.84326pt}{-4.84326pt}{2.67488pt}{-4.84326pt}{% 0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-4.84326pt}{-2.67488pt}{-2.67488pt}{-4.84326pt}{0.0pt}{-% 4.84326pt}\pgfsys@curveto{2.67488pt}{-4.84326pt}{4.84326pt}{-2.67488pt}{4.8432% 6pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke% \pgfsys@invoke{ } }{{{{}}\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@transformcm{1.0}{0.0}{0.0}{1% .0}{-2.68936pt}{-0.84743pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor% }{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }% \pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{$\scriptstyle x_{i}$}} }}\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope{{{}}}{}{}\hss}% \pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}% \lxSVG@closescope\endpgfpicture}}}{\leavevmode\hbox to8.67pt{\vbox to8.67pt{% \pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox{\hskip 4.3355pt\lower-4.3355pt\hbox to0.0pt{% \pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}% \pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}% {0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{0.4pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to% 0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}}\hbox{\hbox{{\pgfsys@beginscope% \pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{{}}}{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{{}\pgfsys@moveto{4.1355pt}{0.% 0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{4.1355pt}{2.284pt}{2.284pt}{4.1355pt}{0.0pt}{4.1355pt}% \pgfsys@curveto{-2.284pt}{4.1355pt}{-4.1355pt}{2.284pt}{-4.1355pt}{0.0pt}% \pgfsys@curveto{-4.1355pt}{-2.284pt}{-2.284pt}{-4.1355pt}{0.0pt}{-4.1355pt}% \pgfsys@curveto{2.284pt}{-4.1355pt}{4.1355pt}{-2.284pt}{4.1355pt}{0.0pt}% \pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } }{{{{}}\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@transformcm{1.0}{0.0}{0.0}{1% .0}{-2.11784pt}{-0.41687pt}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor% }{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }% \pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\hbox{{$\scriptscriptstyle x_{% i}$}} }}\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope}}} \pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope{{{}}}{}{}\hss}% \pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{\lxSVG@closescope }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}% \lxSVG@closescope\endpgfpicture}}}\\ \vdots&\vdots\\ x_{m}&y_{m}\end{array}\right].italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , [ start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY ] ↦ [ start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY ] .

Denote by Gmsubscript𝐺𝑚G_{m}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the direct product of cyclic groups

Gm=(/2)m={ϵ=(ϵ1,,ϵm);ϵk=0,1}.subscript𝐺𝑚superscript2𝑚formulae-sequenceitalic-ϵsubscriptitalic-ϵ1subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑚subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑘01G_{m}=\big{(}\,{\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}}\,\big{)}^{m}=\big{\{}\,\vec{{% \epsilon}}=({\epsilon}_{1},\dotsc,{\epsilon}_{m});\;\;{\epsilon}_{k}=0,1\,\big% {\}}.italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( blackboard_Z / 2 blackboard_Z ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { over→ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG = ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ; italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 , 1 } .

The group Gmsubscript𝐺𝑚G_{m}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT acts freely on Nsuperscriptsubscript𝑁\mathcal{R}_{N}^{*}caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

ϵ(k,)=Rϵ(k,),Rϵ=R1ϵ1Rmϵm.formulae-sequenceitalic-ϵ𝑘superscript𝑅italic-ϵ𝑘superscript𝑅italic-ϵsuperscriptsubscript𝑅1subscriptitalic-ϵ1superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑚subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑚\vec{{\epsilon}}\cdot\big{(}\,{\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{)}=R^{\vec{{% \epsilon}}}\big{(}\,{\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{)},\;\;R^{\vec{{\epsilon}}}=R% _{1}^{{\epsilon}_{1}}\cdots R_{m}^{{\epsilon}_{m}}.over→ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG ⋅ ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) = italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) , italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

We denote by 𝒞N+superscriptsubscript𝒞𝑁\mathcal{C}_{N}^{+}caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT the positive chamber of Nsuperscriptsubscript𝑁\mathcal{R}_{N}^{*}caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT,

𝒞n+:={((k,)N;j>kj,1jm},\mathcal{C}_{n}^{+}:=\big{\{}\,\big{(}\,({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\in\mathcal{R}% _{N}^{*};\;\ell_{j}>k_{j},\;\;\forall 1\leq j\leq m\,\big{\}},caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT := { ( ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∀ 1 ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_m } ,

and we observe that

𝒞n+=𝒯Nm,𝒯N:={(k,)𝕀N×𝕀N;>k}.formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝒞𝑛superscriptsubscript𝒯𝑁𝑚assignsubscript𝒯𝑁formulae-sequence𝑘subscript𝕀𝑁subscript𝕀𝑁𝑘\mathcal{C}_{n}^{+}=\mathcal{T}_{N}^{m},\;\;\mathcal{T}_{N}:=\big{\{}\,(k,\ell% )\in{\mathbb{I}}_{N}\times{\mathbb{I}}_{N};\;\;\ell>k\,\big{\}}.caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := { ( italic_k , roman_ℓ ) ∈ blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; roman_ℓ > italic_k } .

We have

N=ϵGmRϵ𝒞n+superscriptsubscript𝑁subscriptitalic-ϵsubscript𝐺𝑚superscript𝑅italic-ϵsuperscriptsubscript𝒞𝑛\mathcal{R}_{N}^{*}=\bigcup_{{\vec{{\epsilon}}}\in G_{m}}R^{\vec{{\epsilon}}}% \mathcal{C}_{n}^{+}caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG ∈ italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

The function ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ is Gmsubscript𝐺𝑚G_{m}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-invariant so

(k,)N1( 1+α|k|1)p=ϵGm(k,)Rϵ𝒞N+1( 1+α|k|1)psubscript𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑁1superscript1𝛼subscript𝑘1𝑝subscriptitalic-ϵsubscript𝐺𝑚subscript𝑘superscript𝑅italic-ϵsuperscriptsubscript𝒞𝑁1superscript1𝛼subscript𝑘1𝑝\sum_{({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\in\mathcal{R}_{N}^{*}}\frac{1}{\big{(}\,1+% \alpha|{\vec{\ell}}-{\vec{k}}|_{1}\,\big{)}^{p}}=\sum_{{\vec{{\epsilon}}}\in G% _{m}}\sum_{({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\in R^{\vec{{\epsilon}}}\mathcal{C}_{N}^{+}% }\frac{1}{\big{(}\,1+\alpha|{\vec{\ell}}-{\vec{k}}|_{1}\,\big{)}^{p}}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + italic_α | over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG - over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG ∈ italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + italic_α | over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG - over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG
=2m(k,)𝒞N+1( 1+α|k|1)p<2mαp(k,)𝒞N+1|k|1pabsentsuperscript2𝑚subscript𝑘superscriptsubscript𝒞𝑁1superscript1𝛼subscript𝑘1𝑝superscript2𝑚superscript𝛼𝑝subscript𝑘superscriptsubscript𝒞𝑁1subscriptsuperscript𝑘𝑝1=2^{m}\sum_{({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\in\mathcal{C}_{N}^{+}}\frac{1}{\big{(}\,1% +\alpha|{\vec{\ell}}-{\vec{k}}|_{1}\,\big{)}^{p}}<\frac{2^{m}}{\alpha^{p}}\sum% _{({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\in\mathcal{C}_{N}^{+}}\frac{1}{|{\vec{\ell}}-{\vec{% k}}|^{p}_{1}}= 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + italic_α | over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG - over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG < divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG - over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG

(use the AM-GM inequality)

2m(mα)p(k,)𝒞N+(j=1m(jkj))p/m.absentsuperscript2𝑚superscript𝑚𝛼𝑝subscript𝑘superscriptsubscript𝒞𝑁superscriptsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1𝑚subscript𝑗subscript𝑘𝑗𝑝𝑚\leq\frac{2^{m}}{(m\alpha)^{p}}\sum_{({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\in\mathcal{C}_{N% }^{+}}\Big{(}\,\prod_{j=1}^{m}(\ell_{j}-k_{j})\,\Big{)}^{-p/m}.≤ divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_m italic_α ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p / italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

(𝒞n+=𝒯Nmsuperscriptsubscript𝒞𝑛superscriptsubscript𝒯𝑁𝑚\mathcal{C}_{n}^{+}=\mathcal{T}_{N}^{m}caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT)

=2m(mα)pj=1m(kj,j)𝒯N(jkj)p/m=2m(mα)p((k,)𝒯N(k)p/m)mabsentsuperscript2𝑚superscript𝑚𝛼𝑝superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1𝑚subscriptsubscript𝑘𝑗subscript𝑗subscript𝒯𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑗subscript𝑘𝑗𝑝𝑚superscript2𝑚superscript𝑚𝛼𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑘subscript𝒯𝑁superscript𝑘𝑝𝑚𝑚=\frac{2^{m}}{(m\alpha)^{p}}\prod_{j=1}^{m}\sum_{(k_{j},\ell_{j})\in\mathcal{T% }_{N}}\big{(}\,\ell_{j}-k_{j}\,\big{)}^{-p/m}=\frac{2^{m}}{(m\alpha)^{p}}\Big{% (}\,\sum_{(k,\ell)\in\mathcal{T}_{N}}\big{(}\,\ell-k\,\big{)}^{-p/m}\,\Big{)}^% {m}= divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_m italic_α ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p / italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_m italic_α ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_k , roman_ℓ ) ∈ caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_ℓ - italic_k ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p / italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

. Now observe that

(k,)𝒯N(k)p/m=k=1N1j=1Nkjp/m.subscript𝑘subscript𝒯𝑁superscript𝑘𝑝𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑘1𝑁1superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑁𝑘superscript𝑗𝑝𝑚\sum_{(k,\ell)\in\mathcal{T}_{N}}\big{(}\,\ell-k\,\big{)}^{-p/m}=\sum_{k=1}^{N% -1}\sum_{j=1}^{N-k}j^{-p/m}.∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_k , roman_ℓ ) ∈ caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_ℓ - italic_k ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p / italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p / italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

To proceed further we need to use the following result.

Sublemma 3.2.

Let r𝑟r\in{\mathbb{R}}italic_r ∈ blackboard_R. Then for any M𝑀M\in{{\mathbb{N}}}italic_M ∈ blackboard_N

Sr(M):=j=1Mjrur(M):={1r+1Mr+1,r0,1r+1Mr+1+1,r(1,0),1+logMr=12,r<1.assignsubscript𝑆𝑟𝑀superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑀superscript𝑗𝑟subscript𝑢𝑟𝑀assigncases1𝑟1superscript𝑀𝑟1𝑟01𝑟1superscript𝑀𝑟11𝑟101𝑀𝑟12𝑟1S_{r}(M):=\sum_{j=1}^{M}j^{r}\leq u_{r}(M):=\begin{cases}\frac{1}{r+1}M^{r+1},% &r\geq 0,\\ \frac{1}{r+1}M^{r+1}+1,&r\in(-1,0),\\ 1+\log M&r=-1\\ 2,&r<-1.\end{cases}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M ) := { start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_r + 1 end_ARG italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL italic_r ≥ 0 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_r + 1 end_ARG italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 , end_CELL start_CELL italic_r ∈ ( - 1 , 0 ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 1 + roman_log italic_M end_CELL start_CELL italic_r = - 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 2 , end_CELL start_CELL italic_r < - 1 . end_CELL end_ROW
Proof.

Using approximations by Riemann sums for the integral

Ir(M):=1Mxr𝑑xassignsubscript𝐼𝑟𝑀superscriptsubscript1𝑀superscript𝑥𝑟differential-d𝑥I_{r}(M):=\int_{1}^{M}x^{r}dxitalic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M ) := ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_x

we deduce

Sr(M){Ir(M),r>0,Ir(M)+1,r<0={1r+1(Mr+11),r0,1r+1(Mr+11)+1,r(1,0),1+logM+1,r=1,1|r+1|( 1Mr+1)+1,r<1.subscript𝑆𝑟𝑀casessubscript𝐼𝑟𝑀𝑟0subscript𝐼𝑟𝑀1𝑟0cases1𝑟1superscript𝑀𝑟11𝑟01𝑟1superscript𝑀𝑟111𝑟101𝑀1𝑟11𝑟11superscript𝑀𝑟11𝑟1S_{r}(M)\leq\begin{cases}I_{r}(M),&r>0,\\ I_{r}(M)+1,&r<0\end{cases}=\begin{cases}\frac{1}{r+1}\big{(}\,M^{r+1}-1\,\big{% )},&r\geq 0,\\ \frac{1}{r+1}\big{(}\,M^{r+1}-1\,\big{)}+1,&r\in(-1,0),\\ 1+\log M+1,&r=-1,\\ \frac{1}{|r+1|}\big{(}\,1-M^{r+1}\,\big{)}+1,&r<-1.\end{cases}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M ) ≤ { start_ROW start_CELL italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M ) , end_CELL start_CELL italic_r > 0 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M ) + 1 , end_CELL start_CELL italic_r < 0 end_CELL end_ROW = { start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_r + 1 end_ARG ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) , end_CELL start_CELL italic_r ≥ 0 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_r + 1 end_ARG ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) + 1 , end_CELL start_CELL italic_r ∈ ( - 1 , 0 ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 1 + roman_log italic_M + 1 , end_CELL start_CELL italic_r = - 1 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | italic_r + 1 | end_ARG ( 1 - italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 1 , end_CELL start_CELL italic_r < - 1 . end_CELL end_ROW
{1r+1Mr+1,r0,1r+1Mr+1+1,r(1,0),1+logM,r=1,2,r<1.absentcases1𝑟1superscript𝑀𝑟1𝑟01𝑟1superscript𝑀𝑟11𝑟101𝑀𝑟12𝑟1\leq\begin{cases}\frac{1}{r+1}M^{r+1},&r\geq 0,\\ \frac{1}{r+1}M^{r+1}+1,&r\in(-1,0),\\ 1+\log M,&r=-1,\\ 2,&r<-1.\end{cases}≤ { start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_r + 1 end_ARG italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL italic_r ≥ 0 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_r + 1 end_ARG italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 , end_CELL start_CELL italic_r ∈ ( - 1 , 0 ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 1 + roman_log italic_M , end_CELL start_CELL italic_r = - 1 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 2 , end_CELL start_CELL italic_r < - 1 . end_CELL end_ROW

square-intersectionsquare-union\hbox to0.0pt{$\sqcap$\hss}\sqcup⊓ ⊔

Suppose that pm𝑝𝑚p\neq mitalic_p ≠ italic_m. Using Sublemma 3.2 we deduce that

j=1Nkjp/mup/m(Nk)={1(1p/m)(Nk)1p/m,p/m<1,21<p/m.superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑁𝑘superscript𝑗𝑝𝑚subscript𝑢𝑝𝑚𝑁𝑘cases11𝑝𝑚superscript𝑁𝑘1𝑝𝑚𝑝𝑚121𝑝𝑚\sum_{j=1}^{N-k}j^{-p/m}\leq u_{-p/m}(N-k)=\begin{cases}\frac{1}{(1-p/m)}(N-k)% ^{1-p/m},&p/m<1,\\ 2&1<p/m.\end{cases}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p / italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_p / italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N - italic_k ) = { start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 - italic_p / italic_m ) end_ARG ( italic_N - italic_k ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_p / italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL italic_p / italic_m < 1 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 2 end_CELL start_CELL 1 < italic_p / italic_m . end_CELL end_ROW

Next, using the sublemma again we deduce

k=1Nur(Nk){1(1p/m)(2p/m)N2p/m,p/m<1,2N1<p/m.superscriptsubscript𝑘1𝑁subscript𝑢𝑟𝑁𝑘cases11𝑝𝑚2𝑝𝑚superscript𝑁2𝑝𝑚𝑝𝑚12𝑁1𝑝𝑚\sum_{k=1}^{N}u_{r}(N-k)\leq\begin{cases}\frac{1}{(1-p/m)(2-p/m)}N^{2-p/m},&p/% m<1,\\ 2N&1<p/m.\end{cases}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N - italic_k ) ≤ { start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 - italic_p / italic_m ) ( 2 - italic_p / italic_m ) end_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 - italic_p / italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL italic_p / italic_m < 1 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 2 italic_N end_CELL start_CELL 1 < italic_p / italic_m . end_CELL end_ROW

Hence

(k,)𝒯N(k)p/m{1(1p/m)(2p/m)N2p/m,p/m<1,2N,1<p/m.subscript𝑘subscript𝒯𝑁superscript𝑘𝑝𝑚cases11𝑝𝑚2𝑝𝑚superscript𝑁2𝑝𝑚𝑝𝑚12𝑁1𝑝𝑚\sum_{(k,\ell)\in\mathcal{T}_{N}}\big{(}\,\ell-k\,\big{)}^{-p/m}\leq\begin{% cases}\frac{1}{(1-p/m)(2-p/m)}N^{2-p/m},&p/m<1,\\ 2N,&1<p/m.\end{cases}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_k , roman_ℓ ) ∈ caligraphic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_ℓ - italic_k ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p / italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ { start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 - italic_p / italic_m ) ( 2 - italic_p / italic_m ) end_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 - italic_p / italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL italic_p / italic_m < 1 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 2 italic_N , end_CELL start_CELL 1 < italic_p / italic_m . end_CELL end_ROW

and thus

ZN=(k,)N1(1+|k|1)p2m(mα)pC(m,α,p){N2mp,p<m,Nmp>m.subscript𝑍𝑁subscript𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑁1superscript1subscript𝑘1𝑝superscript2𝑚superscript𝑚𝛼𝑝𝐶𝑚𝛼𝑝casessuperscript𝑁2𝑚𝑝𝑝𝑚superscript𝑁𝑚𝑝𝑚Z_{N}=\sum_{({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\in\mathcal{R}_{N}^{*}}\frac{1}{(1+|{\vec{% \ell}}-{\vec{k}}|_{1})^{p}}\leq\frac{2^{m}}{(m\alpha)^{p}}\leq C(m,\alpha,p)% \begin{cases}N^{2m-p},&p<m,\\ N^{m}&p>m.\end{cases}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ caligraphic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + | over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG - over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_m italic_α ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ italic_C ( italic_m , italic_α , italic_p ) { start_ROW start_CELL italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_m - italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL italic_p < italic_m , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_p > italic_m . end_CELL end_ROW

If p=m𝑝𝑚p=mitalic_p = italic_m, then Sublemma 3.2 implies that

j=1Nkj1u1(Nk)=1+log(Nk),superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑁𝑘superscript𝑗1subscript𝑢1𝑁𝑘1𝑁𝑘\sum_{j=1}^{N-k}j^{-1}\leq u_{-1}(N-k)=1+\log(N-k),∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N - italic_k ) = 1 + roman_log ( italic_N - italic_k ) ,

and

k=1N( 1+log(Nk),)=N+logN!.\sum_{k=1}^{N}\big{(}\,1+\log(N-k),\,\big{)}=N+\log N!.∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + roman_log ( italic_N - italic_k ) , ) = italic_N + roman_log italic_N ! .

The conclusion follows from Stirling’s formula which implies that

logN!=O(NlogN).𝑁𝑂𝑁𝑁\log N!=O\big{(}\,N\log N\,\big{)}.roman_log italic_N ! = italic_O ( italic_N roman_log italic_N ) .

square-intersectionsquare-union\hbox to0.0pt{$\sqcap$\hss}\sqcup⊓ ⊔

Corollary 3.3.

Consider a family of random variable (X)Msubscriptsubscript𝑋superscript𝑀\big{(}\,X_{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{)}_{{\vec{\ell}}\in{{\mathbb{N}}}^{M}}( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT defined on the same probability space (Ω,𝒮,)Ω𝒮(\Omega,\mathcal{S},{{\mathbb{P}}})( roman_Ω , caligraphic_S , blackboard_P ) such that there exist constants C,α,p>0𝐶𝛼𝑝0C,\alpha,p>0italic_C , italic_α , italic_p > 0 such that

|Cov[Xk,X]|C( 1+α|k|1)p,k,m.formulae-sequenceCovsubscript𝑋𝑘subscript𝑋𝐶superscript1𝛼subscript𝑘1𝑝for-all𝑘superscript𝑚\big{|}\,\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,X_{\vec{k}},X_{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{]}\,\big{% |}\leq\frac{C}{\big{(}\,1+\alpha|{\vec{k}}-{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{|}_{1}\,\big{)}^% {p}},\;\;\forall{\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}}\in{{\mathbb{N}}}^{m}.| roman_Cov [ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] | ≤ divide start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + italic_α | over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG - over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , ∀ over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Then, as N𝑁N\to\inftyitalic_N → ∞

SN(X):=1Nmk𝕀Nm(Xk𝔼[Xk])0assignsubscript𝑆𝑁𝑋1superscript𝑁𝑚subscript𝑘superscriptsubscript𝕀𝑁𝑚subscript𝑋𝑘𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑋𝑘0S_{N}(X):=\frac{1}{N^{m}}\sum_{{\vec{k}}\in{\mathbb{I}}_{N}^{m}}\big{(}\,X_{% \vec{k}}-{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,X_{\vec{k}}\,\big{]}\,\big{)}\to 0italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ) := divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ∈ blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - blackboard_E [ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ) → 0

in L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In particular SN(X)subscript𝑆𝑁𝑋S_{N}(X)italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ) converges in probability to zero as N𝑁N\to\inftyitalic_N → ∞.

Proof.

We have

𝔼[SN(X)2]=1N2m(k,)𝕀Nm×𝕀NCov[Xk,X].𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑆𝑁superscript𝑋21superscript𝑁2𝑚subscript𝑘superscriptsubscript𝕀𝑁𝑚subscript𝕀𝑁Covsubscript𝑋𝑘subscript𝑋{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,S_{N}(X)^{2}\,\big{]}=\frac{1}{N^{2m}}\sum_{({\vec{k}},{% \vec{\ell}})\in{\mathbb{I}}_{N}^{m}\times{\mathbb{I}}_{N}}\operatorname{Cov}% \big{[}\,X_{\vec{k}},X_{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{]}.blackboard_E [ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Cov [ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] .

Lemma 3.1 implies that SN(X)0subscript𝑆𝑁𝑋0S_{N}(X)\to 0italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ) → 0 in L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. square-intersectionsquare-union\hbox to0.0pt{$\sqcap$\hss}\sqcup⊓ ⊔

4. Proof of Theorem 1.1

We have

Z𝔞(NB)=𝕀NmZ𝔞(B)subscript𝑍𝔞𝑁𝐵subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝕀𝑁𝑚subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(N\cdot B)=\sum_{{\vec{\ell}}\in{\mathbb{I}}_{N}^{m}}Z_{% \mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{\ell}})italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ⋅ italic_B ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

since the probability that Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has a critical point on the boundary of some Bsubscript𝐵B_{\ell}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is zero.

The Gaussian function Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a stationary is stationary, so the collection (Z𝔞(B))msubscriptsubscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵superscript𝑚\big{(}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{\ell}})\,\big{)}_{{\vec{\ell}}\in{{\mathbb{N% }}}^{m}}( italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is stationary as well, i.e., for any n𝑛n\in{{\mathbb{N}}}italic_n ∈ blackboard_N and any ,1,,nnsubscript1subscript𝑛superscript𝑛{\vec{\ell}},{\vec{\ell}}_{1},\dotsc,{\vec{\ell}}_{n}\in{{\mathbb{N}}}^{n}over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT the random vectors

(Z𝔞(B1),,Z𝔞(Bn))and(Z𝔞(B1+),,Z𝔞(Bn+))subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵subscript1subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵subscript𝑛andsubscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵subscript1subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵subscript𝑛\big{(}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{{\vec{\ell}}_{1}}),\dotsc,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{{% \vec{\ell}}_{n}})\,\big{)}\;\mbox{and}\;\big{(}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{{\vec{% \ell}}_{1}+{\vec{\ell}}}),\dotsc,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{{\vec{\ell}}_{n}+{\vec{% \ell}}})\,\big{)}( italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , … , italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) and ( italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , … , italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) )

have the same distribution. We deduce from the ergodic theorem [6, Chap.6, Thm.2.5] that the averages

1vol(NB)Z𝔞(NB)=1Nmvol(B)𝕀NZ𝔞(B)1vol𝑁𝐵subscript𝑍𝔞𝑁𝐵1superscript𝑁𝑚vol𝐵subscriptsubscript𝕀𝑁subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵\frac{1}{\operatorname{vol}(NB)}Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(N\cdot B)=\frac{1}{N^{m}% \operatorname{vol}(B)}\sum_{{\vec{\ell}}\in{\mathbb{I}}_{N}}Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B% _{\vec{\ell}})divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG roman_vol ( italic_N italic_B ) end_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_N ⋅ italic_B ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_vol ( italic_B ) end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

converge a.s.formulae-sequenceas\mathrm{a.s.}roman_a . roman_s . and in L1superscript𝐿1L^{1}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to some random variable Zsubscript𝑍Z_{\infty}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Set

X:=Z𝔞(B)𝔼[Z𝔞(B)].assignsubscript𝑋subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵X_{\vec{\ell}}:=Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{\ell}})-{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z_{% \mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{\ell}})\,\big{]}.italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] .

We need to prove that the limit Zsubscript𝑍Z_{\infty}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the constant

1vol(B)𝔼[Z𝔞(B)].1vol𝐵𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞𝐵\frac{1}{\operatorname{vol}(B)}{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B)\,\big{% ]}.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG roman_vol ( italic_B ) end_ARG blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) ] .

To achieve this

limN1Nm𝕀NmXL20.subscript𝑁1superscript𝑁𝑚subscriptnormsubscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝕀𝑁𝑚subscript𝑋superscript𝐿20\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N^{m}}\Bigg{\|}\sum_{{\vec{\ell}}\in{\mathbb{I}}_{N}% ^{m}}X_{\vec{\ell}}\Bigg{\|}_{L^{2}}\to 0.roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 .

We will deduce this from Corollary 3.3. We set

C(k,):=Cov[Z𝔞(Bk),Z𝔞(B)[=𝔼[XkX],k,𝕀Nm.C({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}}):=\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec% {k}}),Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{\ell}})\big{[}\,={\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,X_{\vec{k% }}X_{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{]},\;\;\forall{\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}}\in{\mathbb{I}}_{N}% ^{m}.italic_C ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) := roman_Cov [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) [ = blackboard_E [ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] , ∀ over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ blackboard_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Notice that since Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a stationary Gaussian function we have

𝔼[Z𝔞(B)p]=𝔼[Z𝔞(B)p]<,p[1,),mformulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞superscriptsubscript𝐵𝑝𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞superscript𝐵𝑝formulae-sequencefor-all𝑝1superscript𝑚{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{\ell})^{p}\,\big{]}={\mathbb{E}}\big{% [}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B)^{p}\,\big{]}<\infty,\;\;\forall p\in[1,\infty),\;\;{% \vec{\ell}}\in{{\mathbb{N}}}^{m}blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] < ∞ , ∀ italic_p ∈ [ 1 , ∞ ) , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

and we deduce that

K1=K1(𝔞,m)>0:|C(k,)|<K1,k,m.:subscript𝐾1subscript𝐾1𝔞𝑚0formulae-sequence𝐶𝑘subscript𝐾1for-all𝑘superscript𝑚\exists K_{1}=K_{1}(\mathfrak{a},m)>0:\big{|}\,C({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\,\big% {|}<K_{1},\;\;\forall{\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}}\in{{\mathbb{N}}}^{m}.∃ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( fraktur_a , italic_m ) > 0 : | italic_C ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) | < italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∀ over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (4.1)

To proceed further we define

Φ^:m×m,Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)=Φ𝔞(𝒙)+Φ𝔞(𝒚):^Φformulae-sequencesuperscript𝑚superscript𝑚^Φ𝒙𝒚subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙subscriptΦ𝔞𝒚{\widehat{\Phi}}:{\mathbb{R}}^{m}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{m}\to{\mathbb{R}},\;\;{% \widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})=\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({% \boldsymbol{x}})+\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{y}})over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R , over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) = roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) + roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y )

and we set

H^(𝒙,𝒚):=HessΦ^(𝒙,𝒚),H(𝒙):=HessΦ𝔞(𝒙).formulae-sequenceassign^𝐻𝒙𝒚subscriptHess^Φ𝒙𝒚assign𝐻𝒙subscriptHesssubscriptΦ𝔞𝒙\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}):=\operatorname{Hess}_{\widehat{% \Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}),\;\;H({\boldsymbol{x}}):=% \operatorname{Hess}_{\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}}({\boldsymbol{x}}).over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) := roman_Hess start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) , italic_H ( bold_italic_x ) := roman_Hess start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) .

Denote for any Borel subset B^m×m^𝐵superscript𝑚superscript𝑚\widehat{B}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{m}over^ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by Z^(B^)^𝑍^𝐵\widehat{Z}\big{(}\,\widehat{B}\,\big{)}over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG ( over^ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ) the number of critical points of Φ^^Φ{\widehat{\Phi}}over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG in B^^𝐵\widehat{B}over^ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG. Note that if BkB=subscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵B_{\vec{k}}\cap B_{\vec{\ell}}=\emptysetitalic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∅, then

Z^(Bk×B)=Z𝔞(Bk)Z𝔞(B)^𝑍subscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵\widehat{Z}(B_{\vec{k}}\times B_{\vec{\ell}})=Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{k}})Z_{% \mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{\ell}})over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

so

𝔼[Z𝔞(Bk)Z𝔞(B)]=𝔼[Z^(Bk×B)].𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵𝔼delimited-[]^𝑍subscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{k}})Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{% \ell}})\,\big{]}={\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,\widehat{Z}(B_{\vec{k}}\times B_{\vec{% \ell}})\,\big{]}.blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] = blackboard_E [ over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] .

We want to compute 𝔼[Z^(Bk×B)]𝔼delimited-[]^𝑍subscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,\widehat{Z}(B_{\vec{k}}\times B_{\vec{\ell}})\,\big{]}blackboard_E [ over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] using the Kac-Rice formula. We first need to verify that Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)^Φ𝒙𝒚\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) is nondegenerate for any 𝒙𝒚𝒙𝒚{\boldsymbol{x}}\neq{\boldsymbol{y}}bold_italic_x ≠ bold_italic_y.

Lemma 4.1.

For any 𝐱,𝐲m𝐱𝐲superscript𝑚{\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m}bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, 𝐱𝐲𝐱𝐲{\boldsymbol{x}}\neq{\boldsymbol{y}}bold_italic_x ≠ bold_italic_y, the Gaussian vector Φ^(𝐱,𝐲)^Φ𝐱𝐲\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) is nondegenerate.

Proof.

We have

Var[Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)]=[Var[Φ𝔞(𝒙)]Cov[Φ𝔞(𝒙),Φ𝔞(𝒚)]Cov[Φ𝔞(𝒚),Φ𝔞(𝒙)]Var[Φ𝔞(𝒚)]].Var^Φ𝒙𝒚delimited-[]VarsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒙CovsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒙subscriptΦ𝔞𝒚missing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionCovsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒚subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙VarsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒚\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}=\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,% \nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{]}&\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}% \,\nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}}),\nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}\\ &\\ \operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,\nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{y}}),\nabla% \Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{]}&\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,% \nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}\end{array}\right].roman_Var [ ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] = [ start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL roman_Var [ ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ] end_CELL start_CELL roman_Cov [ ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) , ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y ) ] end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL roman_Cov [ ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y ) , ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ] end_CELL start_CELL roman_Var [ ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y ) ] end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY ] .

As shown in(2.12), for any 𝒙n𝒙superscript𝑛{\boldsymbol{x}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n}bold_italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we have

Var[Φ𝔞(𝒙)]=vm𝟙m,vm=nξ12μ𝔞[dξ].formulae-sequenceVarsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒙subscript𝑣𝑚subscript1𝑚subscript𝑣𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝜉12subscript𝜇𝔞delimited-[]𝑑𝜉\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{]% }=v_{m}{\mathbbm{1}}_{m},\;\;v_{m}=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}\xi_{1}^{2}\mu_{% \mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}.roman_Var [ ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ] = italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] .

We have

Cov[Φ𝔞(𝒙),Φ𝔞(𝒚)]=(xjyk𝑲𝔞(𝒙𝒚))1j,kmCovsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒙subscriptΦ𝔞𝒚subscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑥𝑗subscriptsubscript𝑦𝑘subscript𝑲𝔞𝒙𝒚formulae-sequence1𝑗𝑘𝑚\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,\nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}}),\nabla% \Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}=\big{(}\,\partial_{x_{j}}% \partial_{y_{k}}{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{% y}})\,\big{)}_{1\leq j,k\leq m}roman_Cov [ ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) , ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y ) ] = ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j , italic_k ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

and

[xjyk𝑲𝔞(𝒙𝒚)=me𝒊ξ,𝒙,𝒚ξjξkμ𝔞[dξ].\big{[}\,\partial_{x_{j}}\partial_{y_{k}}{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}({% \boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{y}})=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}e^{-\boldsymbol{i}% \langle\xi,{\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}\rangle}\xi_{j}\xi_{k}\mu_{% \mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}.[ ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_italic_i ⟨ italic_ξ , bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ⟩ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] . (4.2)

Since Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is stationary it suffice to consider only the case 𝒙=0𝒙0{\boldsymbol{x}}=0bold_italic_x = 0. On the other hand, Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is O(m)𝑂𝑚O(m)italic_O ( italic_m )-invariant so, up to a rotation we can assume that 𝒙𝒚=t𝒆1𝒙𝒚𝑡subscript𝒆1{\boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{y}}=-t{\boldsymbol{e}}_{1}bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y = - italic_t bold_italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, t0𝑡0t\neq 0italic_t ≠ 0, where {𝒆1,,𝒆m}subscript𝒆1subscript𝒆𝑚\{{\boldsymbol{e}}_{1},\dotsc,{\boldsymbol{e}}_{m}\}{ bold_italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , bold_italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } is the canonical basis of msuperscript𝑚{\mathbb{R}}^{m}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Hence

xjyk𝑲𝔞(𝒙𝒚)=me𝒊tξ1ξjξkμ𝔞[dξ].subscriptsubscript𝑥𝑗subscriptsubscript𝑦𝑘subscript𝑲𝔞𝒙𝒚subscriptsuperscript𝑚superscript𝑒𝒊𝑡subscript𝜉1subscript𝜉𝑗subscript𝜉𝑘subscript𝜇𝔞delimited-[]𝑑𝜉\partial_{x_{j}}\partial_{y_{k}}{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x% }}-{\boldsymbol{y}})=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}e^{\boldsymbol{i}t\xi_{1}}\xi_{j}% \xi_{k}\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}.∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_i italic_t italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] .

Let us observe that if jk𝑗𝑘j\neq kitalic_j ≠ italic_k, then either j1𝑗1j\neq 1italic_j ≠ 1, or k1𝑘1k\neq 1italic_k ≠ 1. Suppose j1𝑗1j\neq 1italic_j ≠ 1. The function e𝒊tξ1ξjξksuperscript𝑒𝒊𝑡subscript𝜉1subscript𝜉𝑗subscript𝜉𝑘e^{\boldsymbol{i}t\xi_{1}}\xi_{j}\xi_{k}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_i italic_t italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is odd with respect to the reflection ξjξjmaps-tosubscript𝜉𝑗subscript𝜉𝑗\xi_{j}\mapsto-\xi_{j}italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↦ - italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT so

xjyk𝑲𝔞(𝒙,𝒚)=me𝒊tξ1ξjξkμ𝔞[dξ]=0,jk.formulae-sequencesubscriptsubscript𝑥𝑗subscriptsubscript𝑦𝑘subscript𝑲𝔞𝒙𝒚subscriptsuperscript𝑚superscript𝑒𝒊𝑡subscript𝜉1subscript𝜉𝑗subscript𝜉𝑘subscript𝜇𝔞delimited-[]𝑑𝜉0for-all𝑗𝑘\partial_{x_{j}}\partial_{y_{k}}{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x% }},{\boldsymbol{y}})=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}e^{\boldsymbol{i}t\xi_{1}}\xi_{j}% \xi_{k}\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}=0,\;\;\forall j\neq k.∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_i italic_t italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] = 0 , ∀ italic_j ≠ italic_k .

If j=k𝑗𝑘j=kitalic_j = italic_k, then

vm(j):=xjyj𝑲𝔞(𝒙,𝒚)=me𝒊tξ1ξj2μ𝔞[dξ]=mcos(tξ1)ξj2μ𝔞[dξ]assignsubscript𝑣𝑚𝑗subscriptsubscript𝑥𝑗subscriptsubscript𝑦𝑗subscript𝑲𝔞𝒙𝒚subscriptsuperscript𝑚superscript𝑒𝒊𝑡subscript𝜉1superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑗2subscript𝜇𝔞delimited-[]𝑑𝜉subscriptsuperscript𝑚𝑡subscript𝜉1superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑗2subscript𝜇𝔞delimited-[]𝑑𝜉v_{m}(j):=\partial_{x_{j}}\partial_{y_{j}}{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}({% \boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}e^{\boldsymbol{i}t\xi% _{1}}\xi_{j}^{2}\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m% }}\cos(t\xi_{1})\xi_{j}^{2}\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_j ) := ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_i italic_t italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_cos ( italic_t italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ]

and we deduce111At this point we use the fact that 𝔞(|ξ)|>0\mathfrak{a}\big{(}\,|\xi\,\big{)}|>0fraktur_a ( | italic_ξ ) | > 0 for |ξ|𝜉|\xi|| italic_ξ | sufficiently small.

|vm(j)|m|cos(tξ1)|ξj2μ𝔞[dξ]<mξj2μ𝔞[dξ]=vm.subscript𝑣𝑚𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝑚𝑡subscript𝜉1superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑗2subscript𝜇𝔞delimited-[]𝑑𝜉subscriptsuperscript𝑚superscriptsubscript𝜉𝑗2subscript𝜇𝔞delimited-[]𝑑𝜉subscript𝑣𝑚|v_{m}(j)|\leq\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\big{|}\,\cos(t\xi_{1})\,\big{|}\xi_{j}^{% 2}\mu_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}<\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}\xi_{j}^{2}% \mu_{\mathfrak{a}}\big{[}\,d\xi\,\big{]}=v_{m}.| italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_j ) | ≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_cos ( italic_t italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] < ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d italic_ξ ] = italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

After a reordering

(x1Φ𝔞(𝒙),,xmΦ𝔞(𝒙),y1Φ𝔞(𝒚),ymΦ𝔞(𝒚))(x1Φ𝔞(𝒙),y1Φ𝔞(𝒚),,xmΦ𝔞(𝒙),ymΦ𝔞(𝒚))subscriptsubscript𝑥1subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙subscriptsubscript𝑥𝑚subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙subscriptsubscript𝑦1subscriptΦ𝔞𝒚subscriptsubscript𝑦𝑚subscriptΦ𝔞𝒚subscriptsubscript𝑥1subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙subscriptsubscript𝑦1subscriptΦ𝔞𝒚subscriptsubscript𝑥𝑚subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙subscriptsubscript𝑦𝑚subscriptΦ𝔞𝒚\begin{array}[]{c}\big{(}\,\partial_{x_{1}}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}% }),\dotsc,\partial_{x_{m}}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}}),\partial_{y_{1% }}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{y}}),\dotsc\partial_{y_{m}}\Phi_{\mathfrak{% a}}({\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{)}\\ \downarrow\\ \big{(}\,\partial_{x_{1}}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}}),\partial_{y_{1}% }\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{y}}),\dotsc,\partial_{x_{m}}\Phi_{\mathfrak{% a}}({\boldsymbol{x}}),\partial_{y_{m}}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{y}})\,% \big{)}\end{array}start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) , … , ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) , ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y ) , … ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y ) ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ↓ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) , ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y ) , … , ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) , ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y ) ) end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY

we see that

Var[Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)]=j=1m[vmvm(j)vm(j)vm]=:Vj.Var^Φ𝒙𝒚superscriptsubscriptdirect-sum𝑗1𝑚subscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝑣𝑚subscript𝑣𝑚𝑗subscript𝑣𝑚𝑗subscript𝑣𝑚:absentsubscript𝑉𝑗\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}=\bigoplus_{j=1}^{m}\underbrace{\left[\begin{array}[]% {cc}v_{m}&v_{m}(j)\\ v_{m}(j)&v_{m}\end{array}\right]}_{=:V_{j}}.roman_Var [ ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] = ⨁ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT under⏟ start_ARG [ start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_j ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_j ) end_CELL start_CELL italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY ] end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT = : italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Note that, for each j𝑗jitalic_j, the symmetric matrix Vjsubscript𝑉𝑗V_{j}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive definite since

detVj=vm2vm(j)2>0.subscript𝑉𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑣𝑚2subscript𝑣𝑚superscript𝑗20\det V_{j}=v_{m}^{2}-v_{m}(j)^{2}>0.roman_det italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_j ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > 0 .

square-intersectionsquare-union\hbox to0.0pt{$\sqcap$\hss}\sqcup⊓ ⊔

Suppose that BkB=subscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵B_{\vec{k}}\cap B_{\vec{\ell}}=\emptysetitalic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∅. We deduce from Lemma 4.1 that Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)^Φ𝒙𝒚\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ), is nondegenerate for any (𝒙,𝒚)Bk,×B({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\in B_{\vec{k}},\times B_{\vec{\ell}}( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ∈ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , × italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We can the apply the Kac-Rice formula to deduce that

𝔼[Z𝔞(Bk)Z𝔞(B)]=𝔼[Z^(Bk×B)]=Bk×B𝔼[|detH^(𝒙,𝒚)||Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)=0]pΦ^(𝒙,𝒚)(0)=ρ^(𝒙,𝒚)𝝀[d𝒙d𝒚],if BkB=.formulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵𝔼delimited-[]^𝑍subscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵subscriptsubscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵subscript𝔼delimited-[]conditional^𝐻𝒙𝒚^Φ𝒙𝒚0subscript𝑝^Φ𝒙𝒚0absent^𝜌𝒙𝒚𝝀delimited-[]𝑑𝒙𝑑𝒚if BkB=\begin{split}{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{k}})Z_{\mathfrak{a}% }(B_{\vec{\ell}})\,\big{]}={\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,\widehat{Z}(B_{\vec{k}}\times B% _{\vec{\ell}})\,\big{]}\hskip 142.26378pt\\ =\int_{B_{\vec{k}}\times B_{\vec{\ell}}}\underbrace{{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,|\det% \widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})|\,\big{|}\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}% ({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})=0\,\big{]}p_{\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({% \boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})}(0)}_{=\widehat{\rho}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\big{[}\,d{\boldsymbol{x}}d{\boldsymbol% {y}}\,\big{]},\\ \;\;\mbox{if $B_{\vec{k}}\cap B_{\vec{\ell}}=\emptyset$}\hskip 199.16928pt.% \end{split}start_ROW start_CELL blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] = blackboard_E [ over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT under⏟ start_ARG blackboard_E [ | roman_det over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) | | ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) = 0 ] italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over^ start_ARG italic_ρ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_λ [ italic_d bold_italic_x italic_d bold_italic_y ] , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL if italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∅ . end_CELL end_ROW (4.3)

For 𝒙m𝒙superscript𝑚{\boldsymbol{x}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m}bold_italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we denote by |𝒙|subscript𝒙\big{|}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{|}_{\infty}| bold_italic_x | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the sup-norm of 𝒙𝒙{\boldsymbol{x}}bold_italic_x

|𝒙|:=max1im|xi|.assignsubscript𝒙subscript1𝑖𝑚subscript𝑥𝑖\big{|}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{|}_{\infty}:=\max_{1\leq i\leq m}|x_{i}|.| bold_italic_x | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | .

Note that

|𝒙|1m|𝒙|.subscript𝒙1𝑚subscript𝒙\big{|}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{|}_{1}\leq m\big{|}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}\,\big{|}% _{\infty}.| bold_italic_x | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m | bold_italic_x | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

and BkB=subscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵B_{\vec{k}}\cap B_{\vec{\ell}}=\emptysetitalic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∅ if |k|>1subscript𝑘1\big{|}\,{\vec{k}}-{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{|}_{\infty}>1| over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG - over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1. Hence,

|k|1>mBkB=.subscript𝑘1𝑚subscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵\big{|}\,{\vec{k}}-{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{|}_{1}>m\Rightarrow B_{\vec{k}}\cap B_{% \vec{\ell}}=\emptyset.| over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG - over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_m ⇒ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∅ .

Hence

𝔼[Z𝔞(Bvk)Z𝔞(B)]=Bk×B𝔼[|detH^(𝒙,𝒚)||Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)=0]pΦ^(𝒙,𝒚)(0)=ρ^(𝒙,𝒚)𝝀[d𝒙d𝒚],if |k|1>m.𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵𝑣𝑘subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵subscriptsubscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵subscript𝔼delimited-[]conditional^𝐻𝒙𝒚^Φ𝒙𝒚0subscript𝑝^Φ𝒙𝒚0absent^𝜌𝒙𝒚𝝀delimited-[]𝑑𝒙𝑑𝒚if |k|1>m\begin{split}{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{v}k)Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{% \vec{\ell}})\,\big{]}=&\int_{B_{\vec{k}}\times B_{\vec{\ell}}}\underbrace{{% \mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,|\det\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})|\,\big% {|}\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})=0\,\big{]}p_{% \nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})}(0)}_{=\widehat{\rho% }({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\big{[}\,d{% \boldsymbol{x}}d{\boldsymbol{y}}\,\big{]},\\ \;\;\mbox{if $\big{|}\,{\vec{k}}-{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{|}_{1}>m$}.&\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ) italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] = end_CELL start_CELL ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT under⏟ start_ARG blackboard_E [ | roman_det over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) | | ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) = 0 ] italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over^ start_ARG italic_ρ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_λ [ italic_d bold_italic_x italic_d bold_italic_y ] , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL if | over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG - over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_m . end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW (4.4)

Let us now express 𝔼[Z𝔞(Bk)]𝔼[Z𝔞(B)]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵𝑘𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{k}})\,\big{]}{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}% \,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{\ell}})\,\big{]}blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] as an integral over Bk×Bsubscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵B_{\vec{k}}\times B_{\vec{\ell}}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Choose an independent copy Φ𝔞subscriptsuperscriptΦ𝔞\Phi^{*}_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We set

Φ~(𝒙,𝒚):=Φ𝔞(𝒙)+Φ𝔞(𝒚),H~(𝒙,𝒚):=HessΦ~(𝒙,𝒚).formulae-sequenceassign~Φ𝒙𝒚subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙subscriptsuperscriptΦ𝔞𝒚assign~𝐻𝒙𝒚subscriptHess~Φ𝒙𝒚{\widetilde{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}):=\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({% \boldsymbol{x}})+\Phi^{*}_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{y}}),\;\;\widetilde{H}({% \boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}):=\operatorname{Hess}_{\widetilde{\Phi}}({% \boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}).over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) := roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) + roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y ) , over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) := roman_Hess start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) .

Then

𝔼[Z𝔞(Bk)]𝔼[Z𝔞(B)]=𝔼[ZΦ~(Bk×B)]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵𝑘𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝔞subscript𝐵𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍~Φsubscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{k}})\,\big{]}{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}% \,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{\ell}})\,\big{]}={\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,Z_{{% \widetilde{\Phi}}}(B_{\vec{k}}\times B_{\vec{\ell}})\,\big{]}blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] = blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ]
=Bk×B𝔼[|detH~(𝒙,𝒚)|Φ~(𝒙,𝒚)=0]pΦ~(𝒙,𝒚)(0)=ρ~(𝒙,𝒚)𝝀[d𝒙d𝒚],|k|1>m.absentsubscriptsubscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵subscript𝔼delimited-[]conditional~𝐻𝒙𝒚~Φ𝒙𝒚0subscript𝑝~Φ𝒙𝒚0absent~𝜌𝒙𝒚𝝀delimited-[]𝑑𝒙𝑑𝒚subscript𝑘1𝑚\begin{split}=&\int_{B_{\vec{k}}\times B_{\vec{\ell}}}\underbrace{{\mathbb{E}}% \big{[}\,\big{|}\,\det\widetilde{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{|% }\,\big{\|}\,\nabla{\widetilde{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})=0\,% \big{]}p_{\nabla{\widetilde{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})}(0)}_{=% \widetilde{\rho}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\big% {[}\,d{\boldsymbol{x}}d{\boldsymbol{y}}\,\big{]},\\ \;\;\mbox{$\big{|}\,{\vec{k}}-{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{|}_{1}>m$}.&\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT under⏟ start_ARG blackboard_E [ | roman_det over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) | ∥ ∇ over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) = 0 ] italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over~ start_ARG italic_ρ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_λ [ italic_d bold_italic_x italic_d bold_italic_y ] , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL | over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG - over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_m . end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW

Thus

Cov[Z𝔞(Bk),Z𝔞(B)]=Bk×B(ρ^(𝒙,𝒚)ρ~(𝒙,𝒚))𝝀[𝒙d𝒚.]\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{\vec{k}}),Z_{\mathfrak{a}}(B_{% \vec{\ell}})]=\int_{B_{k}\times B_{\ell}}\big{(}\,\widehat{\rho}({\boldsymbol{% x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})-\widetilde{\rho}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,% \big{)}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\big{[}\,{\boldsymbol{x}}d{\boldsymbol{y}}.\,\big% {]}roman_Cov [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_ρ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) - over~ start_ARG italic_ρ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ) bold_italic_λ [ bold_italic_x italic_d bold_italic_y . ] (4.5)

To proceed further, we need to describe technical results that seems to be part of the mathematical folklore.

Digression 4.2.

Suppose that 𝑽𝑽{\boldsymbol{V}}bold_italic_V is an m𝑚mitalic_m-dimensional real Euclidean space with inner product (,)(-,-)( - , - ). Denote by S1(𝑽)subscript𝑆1𝑽S_{1}({\boldsymbol{V}})italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ) the unit sphere in 𝑽𝑽{\boldsymbol{V}}bold_italic_V and by 𝐒𝐲𝐦(𝑽)𝐒𝐲𝐦𝑽\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}({\boldsymbol{V}})bold_Sym ( bold_italic_V ) the space of symmetric operators 𝑽𝑽𝑽𝑽{\boldsymbol{V}}\to{\boldsymbol{V}}bold_italic_V → bold_italic_V and by 𝐒𝐲𝐦0(𝑽)subscript𝐒𝐲𝐦absent0𝑽\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}_{\geq 0}({\boldsymbol{V}})bold_Sym start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ) the cone of nonnegative ones. For A𝐒𝐲𝐦0(𝑽)𝐴subscript𝐒𝐲𝐦absent0𝑽A\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}_{\geq 0}({\boldsymbol{V}})italic_A ∈ bold_Sym start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ) we denote by ΓAsubscriptΓ𝐴\Gamma_{A}roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the centered Gaussian measure with variance A𝐴Aitalic_A.

The space 𝐒𝐲𝐦(𝑽)𝐒𝐲𝐦𝑽\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}({\boldsymbol{V}})bold_Sym ( bold_italic_V ) is equipped with an inner product

(A,B)op=tr(AB),A,B𝐒𝐲𝐦(𝑽).formulae-sequencesubscript𝐴𝐵optr𝐴𝐵for-all𝐴𝐵𝐒𝐲𝐦𝑽\big{(}\,A,B\,\big{)}_{\mathrm{op}}=\operatorname{{\rm tr}}(AB),\;\;\forall A,% B\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}({\boldsymbol{V}}).( italic_A , italic_B ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_tr ( italic_A italic_B ) , ∀ italic_A , italic_B ∈ bold_Sym ( bold_italic_V ) .

We denote by op\|-\|_{\mathrm{op}}∥ - ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the associated norm.

We have a natural map 𝐒𝐲𝐦0(𝑽)𝐒𝐲𝐦0(𝑽)subscript𝐒𝐲𝐦absent0𝑽subscript𝐒𝐲𝐦absent0𝑽\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}_{\geq 0}({\boldsymbol{V}})\to\operatorname{\mathbf% {Sym}}_{\geq 0}({\boldsymbol{V}})bold_Sym start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ) → bold_Sym start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ), AA1/2maps-to𝐴superscript𝐴12A\mapsto A^{1/2}italic_A ↦ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We will need the following result, [5, Prop.2.1]

μA1/2B1/2opABop1/2,A,B𝐒𝐲𝐦0(𝑽),A1/2+B1/2μ𝟙formulae-sequence𝜇subscriptnormsuperscript𝐴12superscript𝐵12opsubscriptsuperscriptnorm𝐴𝐵12opfor-all𝐴formulae-sequence𝐵subscript𝐒𝐲𝐦absent0𝑽superscript𝐴12superscript𝐵12𝜇1\mu\big{\|}\,A^{1/2}-B^{1/2}\,\big{\|}_{\mathrm{op}}\leq\big{\|}\,A-B\,\big{\|% }^{1/2}_{\mathrm{op}},\;\;\forall A,B\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}_{\geq 0}({% \boldsymbol{V}}),\;\;A^{1/2}+B^{1/2}\geq\mu{\mathbbm{1}}italic_μ ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∥ italic_A - italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∀ italic_A , italic_B ∈ bold_Sym start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ) , italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ italic_μ blackboard_1 (4.6)

This ends the digression. square-intersectionsquare-union\hbox to0.0pt{$\sqcap$\hss}\sqcup⊓ ⊔

Lemma 4.3.

Fix μ0>0subscript𝜇00\mu_{0}>0italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 and A0𝐒𝐲𝐦0(𝐕)subscript𝐴0subscript𝐒𝐲𝐦absent0𝐕A_{0}\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}_{\geq 0}({\boldsymbol{V}})italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ bold_Sym start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ) such that A01/2μ0𝟙superscriptsubscript𝐴012subscript𝜇01A_{0}^{1/2}\geq\mu_{0}{\mathbbm{1}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_1. Suppose that f:𝐕:𝑓𝐕f:{\boldsymbol{V}}\to{\mathbb{R}}italic_f : bold_italic_V → blackboard_R is a locally Lipschitz function that is homogeneous of degree k1𝑘1k\geq 1italic_k ≥ 1. For A𝐒𝐲𝐦0(𝐕)𝐴subscript𝐒𝐲𝐦absent0𝐕A\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}_{\geq 0}({\boldsymbol{V}})italic_A ∈ bold_Sym start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ) we set

A(f):=𝑽f(𝒗)ΓA[d𝒗],assignsubscript𝐴𝑓subscript𝑽𝑓𝒗subscriptΓ𝐴delimited-[]𝑑𝒗{\mathcal{I}}_{A}(f):=\int_{\boldsymbol{V}}f({\boldsymbol{v}})\Gamma_{A}\big{[% }\,d{\boldsymbol{v}}\,\big{]},caligraphic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) := ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( bold_italic_v ) roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d bold_italic_v ] ,

where ΓAsubscriptΓ𝐴\Gamma_{A}roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denotes the centered Gaussian measure on 𝐕𝐕{\boldsymbol{V}}bold_italic_V with variance A𝐴Aitalic_A. Then for any RA0op𝑅subscriptnormsubscript𝐴0opR\geq\|A_{0}\|_{\mathrm{op}}italic_R ≥ ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT there exists a constant C=C(f,R,μ0)>0𝐶𝐶𝑓𝑅subscript𝜇00C=C(f,R,\mu_{0})>0italic_C = italic_C ( italic_f , italic_R , italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) > 0 such that, A𝐒𝐲𝐦0(𝐕)for-all𝐴subscript𝐒𝐲𝐦absent0𝐕\forall A\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Sym}}_{\geq 0}({\boldsymbol{V}})∀ italic_A ∈ bold_Sym start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ), AopRsubscriptnorm𝐴op𝑅\|A\|_{\mathrm{op}}\leq R∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_R

|A0(f)A(f)|CAA01/2.subscriptsubscript𝐴0𝑓subscript𝐴𝑓𝐶superscriptnorm𝐴subscript𝐴012\big{|}\,{\mathcal{I}}_{A_{0}}(f)-{\mathcal{I}}_{A}(f)\,\big{|}\leq C\|A-A_{0}% \|^{1/2}.| caligraphic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) - caligraphic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) | ≤ italic_C ∥ italic_A - italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (4.7)
Proof.

The function f𝑓fitalic_f is Lipschitz on the ball

BR(𝑽):={𝒗𝑽;𝒗R},assignsubscript𝐵𝑅𝑽formulae-sequence𝒗𝑽norm𝒗𝑅B_{R}({\boldsymbol{V}}):=\big{\{}\,{\boldsymbol{v}}\in{\boldsymbol{V}};\|{% \boldsymbol{v}}\|\leq R\,\big{\}},italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ) := { bold_italic_v ∈ bold_italic_V ; ∥ bold_italic_v ∥ ≤ italic_R } ,

so there exists L=L(R)>0𝐿𝐿𝑅0L=L(R)>0italic_L = italic_L ( italic_R ) > 0 such that

[f(𝒖)f(𝒗)|L𝒖𝒗,𝒖,𝒗BR(𝑽).\big{[}\,f({\boldsymbol{u}})-f({\boldsymbol{v}})\,\big{|}\leq L\|{\boldsymbol{% u}}-{\boldsymbol{v}}\|,\;\;\forall{\boldsymbol{u}},{\boldsymbol{v}}\in B_{R}({% \boldsymbol{V}}).[ italic_f ( bold_italic_u ) - italic_f ( bold_italic_v ) | ≤ italic_L ∥ bold_italic_u - bold_italic_v ∥ , ∀ bold_italic_u , bold_italic_v ∈ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ) . (4.8)

Note that

A(f)=𝑽f(A1/2𝒗)Γ𝟙[d𝒗],subscript𝐴𝑓subscript𝑽𝑓superscript𝐴12𝒗subscriptΓ1delimited-[]𝑑𝒗{\mathcal{I}}_{A}(f)=\int_{\boldsymbol{V}}f\big{(}\,A^{1/2}{\boldsymbol{v}}\,% \big{)}\Gamma_{{\mathbbm{1}}}\big{[}\,d{\boldsymbol{v}}\,\big{]},caligraphic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_v ) roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d bold_italic_v ] ,

so

|A0(f)A(f)|𝑽|f(A1/2𝒗)f(A01/2𝒗)|Γ𝟙[d𝒗]subscriptsubscript𝐴0𝑓subscript𝐴𝑓subscript𝑽𝑓superscript𝐴12𝒗𝑓superscriptsubscript𝐴012𝒗subscriptΓ1delimited-[]𝑑𝒗\big{|}\,{\mathcal{I}}_{A_{0}}(f)-{\mathcal{I}}_{A}(f)\,\big{|}\leq\int_{% \boldsymbol{V}}\big{|}\,f\big{(}\,A^{1/2}{\boldsymbol{v}}\,\big{)}-f\big{(}\,A% _{0}^{1/2}{\boldsymbol{v}}\,\big{)}\,\big{|}\;\Gamma_{{\mathbbm{1}}}\big{[}\,d% {\boldsymbol{v}}\,\big{]}| caligraphic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) - caligraphic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) | ≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_f ( italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_v ) - italic_f ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_v ) | roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d bold_italic_v ]
=1(2π)m/2(0rn+k1er2/2𝑑r)Cm,kS1(𝑽)|f(A1/2𝒗)f(A01/2𝒗)|volS1(𝑽)[d𝒗]absentsubscript1superscript2𝜋𝑚2superscriptsubscript0superscript𝑟𝑛𝑘1superscript𝑒superscript𝑟22differential-d𝑟subscript𝐶𝑚𝑘subscriptsubscript𝑆1𝑽𝑓superscript𝐴12𝒗𝑓superscriptsubscript𝐴012𝒗subscriptvolsubscript𝑆1𝑽𝑑𝒗=\underbrace{\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{m/2}}\left(\int_{0}^{\infty}r^{n+k-1}e^{-r^{2}/2% }dr\right)}_{C_{m,k}}\;\int_{S_{1}({\boldsymbol{V}})}\big{|}\,f\big{(}\,A^{1/2% }{\boldsymbol{v}}\,\big{)}-f\big{(}\,A_{0}^{1/2}{\boldsymbol{v}}\,\big{)}\,% \big{|}\operatorname{vol}_{S_{1}({\boldsymbol{V}})}\big{[}\,d{\boldsymbol{v}}% \,\big{]}= under⏟ start_ARG divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_r ) end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_f ( italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_v ) - italic_f ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_v ) | roman_vol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d bold_italic_v ]
(4.8)Cm,kL(R)S1(𝑽)A1/2A01/2opvolS1(𝑽)[d𝒗](4.6)C(k,R,μ0)AA0op1/2.superscript4.8absentsubscript𝐶𝑚𝑘𝐿𝑅subscriptsubscript𝑆1𝑽subscriptnormsuperscript𝐴12superscriptsubscript𝐴012opsubscriptvolsuperscript𝑆1𝑽𝑑𝒗superscript4.6𝐶𝑘𝑅subscript𝜇0superscriptsubscriptnorm𝐴subscript𝐴0op12\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{Lipschitz_gauss})}}{{\leq}}C_{m,k}L(R)\int_{S_{1}% ({\boldsymbol{V}})}\|A^{1/2}-A_{0}^{1/2}\|_{\mathrm{op}}\operatorname{vol}_{S^% {1}({\boldsymbol{V}})}\big{[}\,d{\boldsymbol{v}}\,\big{]}\stackrel{{% \scriptstyle(\ref{sq_holder})}}{{\leq}}C(k,R,\mu_{0})\|A-A_{0}\|_{\mathrm{op}}% ^{1/2}.start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG ≤ end_ARG start_ARG ( ) end_ARG end_RELOP italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L ( italic_R ) ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_vol start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_V ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_d bold_italic_v ] start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG ≤ end_ARG start_ARG ( ) end_ARG end_RELOP italic_C ( italic_k , italic_R , italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ italic_A - italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

square-intersectionsquare-union\hbox to0.0pt{$\sqcap$\hss}\sqcup⊓ ⊔

Note that

Var[H~(𝒙,𝒚)]=[Var[H(𝒙)]00Var[H(𝒚)]].Var~𝐻𝒙𝒚delimited-[]Var𝐻𝒙00Var𝐻𝒚\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\widetilde{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,% \big{]}=\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,H({\boldsymbol{x}}% )\,\big{]}&0\\ 0&\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,H({\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}\end{array}\right].roman_Var [ over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] = [ start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL roman_Var [ italic_H ( bold_italic_x ) ] end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL roman_Var [ italic_H ( bold_italic_y ) ] end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY ] .

Note that since Φ𝔞subscriptΦ𝔞\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is stationary, Var[H~(𝒙,𝒚)]Var~𝐻𝒙𝒚\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\widetilde{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,% \big{]}roman_Var [ over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] is independent of 𝒙𝒙{\boldsymbol{x}}bold_italic_x and 𝒚𝒚{\boldsymbol{y}}bold_italic_y. We have

Var[H^(𝒙,𝒚)]=[Var[H(𝒙)]Cov[H(𝒙),H(𝒚)]Cov[H(𝒚),H(𝒙)]Var[H(𝒚)]]Var^𝐻𝒙𝒚delimited-[]Var𝐻𝒙Cov𝐻𝒙𝐻𝒚missing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionCov𝐻𝒚𝐻𝒙Var𝐻𝒚\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,% \big{]}=\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,H({\boldsymbol{x}}% )\,\big{]}&\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,H({\boldsymbol{x}}),H({\boldsymbol{y}})% \,\big{]}\\ &\\ \operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,H({\boldsymbol{y}}),H({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{]}&% \operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,H({\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}\end{array}\right]roman_Var [ over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] = [ start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL roman_Var [ italic_H ( bold_italic_x ) ] end_CELL start_CELL roman_Cov [ italic_H ( bold_italic_x ) , italic_H ( bold_italic_y ) ] end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL roman_Cov [ italic_H ( bold_italic_y ) , italic_H ( bold_italic_x ) ] end_CELL start_CELL roman_Var [ italic_H ( bold_italic_y ) ] end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY ]
=Var[H~(𝒙,𝒚)]+[0Cov[H(𝒙),H(𝒚)]Cov[H(𝒚),H(𝒙)]0]=:RH(𝒙,𝒚).absentVar~𝐻𝒙𝒚subscriptdelimited-[]0Cov𝐻𝒙𝐻𝒚missing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionCov𝐻𝒚𝐻𝒙0:absentsubscript𝑅𝐻𝒙𝒚=\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\widetilde{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,% \big{]}+\underbrace{\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}0&\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,H({% \boldsymbol{x}}),H({\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}\\ &\\ \operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,H({\boldsymbol{y}}),H({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{]}&0% \end{array}\right]}_{=:R_{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})}.= roman_Var [ over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] + under⏟ start_ARG [ start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL roman_Cov [ italic_H ( bold_italic_x ) , italic_H ( bold_italic_y ) ] end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL roman_Cov [ italic_H ( bold_italic_y ) , italic_H ( bold_italic_x ) ] end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY ] end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT = : italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

For every 𝒛m𝒛superscript𝑚{\boldsymbol{z}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m}bold_italic_z ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we set

T(z):=|α|4|α𝑲𝔞(𝒛)|.assign𝑇𝑧subscript𝛼4superscript𝛼subscript𝑲𝔞𝒛T(z):=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq 4}\big{|}\,\partial^{\alpha}{\boldsymbol{K}}_{% \mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{z}})|.italic_T ( italic_z ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_z ) | .

Since 𝑲𝔞subscript𝑲𝔞{\boldsymbol{K}}_{\mathfrak{a}}bold_italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a Schwartz function we deduce that

T(𝒛)=O(|𝒛|1)as |𝒛|1.𝑇𝒛𝑂superscriptsubscript𝒛1as |𝒛|1T({\boldsymbol{z}})=O\big{(}\,|{\boldsymbol{z}}|_{1}^{-\infty}\,\big{)}\;\;% \mbox{as $|{\boldsymbol{z}}|_{1}\to\infty$}.italic_T ( bold_italic_z ) = italic_O ( | bold_italic_z | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) as | bold_italic_z | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → ∞ .

This means that

N,T(𝒛)=O(|𝒛|1N)as |𝒛|1.formulae-sequencefor-all𝑁𝑇𝒛𝑂superscriptsubscript𝒛1𝑁as |𝒛|1\forall N\in{{\mathbb{N}}},\;\;T({\boldsymbol{z}})=O\big{(}\,|{\boldsymbol{z}}% |_{1}^{-N}\,\big{)}\;\;\mbox{as $|{\boldsymbol{z}}|_{1}\to\infty$}.∀ italic_N ∈ blackboard_N , italic_T ( bold_italic_z ) = italic_O ( | bold_italic_z | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) as | bold_italic_z | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → ∞ .

We deduce

Var[H^(𝒙,𝒚)]Var[H~(𝒙,𝒚)]op=RH(𝒙,𝒚)op=O(T(𝒙𝒚)).subscriptnormVar^𝐻𝒙𝒚Var~𝐻𝒙𝒚opsubscriptnormsubscript𝑅𝐻𝒙𝒚op𝑂𝑇𝒙𝒚\big{\|}\,\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol% {y}})\,\big{]}-\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\widetilde{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}\,\big{\|}_{\mathrm{op}}=\|R_{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\|_{\mathrm{op}}=O\big{(}\,T({\boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{y}}% )\,\big{)}.∥ roman_Var [ over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] - roman_Var [ over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_O ( italic_T ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) ) . (4.9)

Observe next that

Var[Φ~(𝒙,𝒚)]=[Var[Φ𝔞(𝒙)]00Var[Φ𝔞(𝒙)]],Var~Φ𝒙𝒚delimited-[]VarsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒙00VarsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒙\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widetilde{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}=\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,% \nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{]}&0\\ 0&\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big% {]}\end{array}\right],roman_Var [ ∇ over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] = [ start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL roman_Var [ ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ] end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL roman_Var [ ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ] end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY ] ,

and

Var[Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)]=[Var[Φ𝔞(𝒙)]Cov[Φ𝔞(𝒙),Φ𝔞(𝒚)]Cov[Φ𝔞(𝒚),Φ𝔞(𝒙)]Var[Φ𝔞(𝒙)]]Var^Φ𝒙𝒚delimited-[]VarsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒙CovsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒙subscriptΦ𝔞𝒚missing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionCovsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒚subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙VarsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒙\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}=\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,% \nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{]}&\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}% \,\nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}}),\nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}\\ &\\ \operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,\nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{y}}),\nabla% \Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{]}&\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,% \nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{]}\end{array}\right]roman_Var [ ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] = [ start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL roman_Var [ ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ] end_CELL start_CELL roman_Cov [ ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) , ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y ) ] end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL roman_Cov [ ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y ) , ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ] end_CELL start_CELL roman_Var [ ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ] end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY ]
=Var[Φ~(𝒙,𝒚)]+[0Cov[Φ𝔞(𝒙),Φ𝔞(𝒚)]Cov[Φ𝔞(𝒚),Φ𝔞(𝒙)]0]=:R(𝒙,𝒚).absentVar~Φ𝒙𝒚subscriptdelimited-[]0CovsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒙subscriptΦ𝔞𝒚missing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionCovsubscriptΦ𝔞𝒚subscriptΦ𝔞𝒙0:absentsubscript𝑅𝒙𝒚=\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widetilde{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}+\underbrace{\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}0&\operatorname% {Cov}\big{[}\,\nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}}),\nabla\Phi_{% \mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}\\ &\\ \operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,\nabla\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{y}}),\nabla% \Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\,\big{]}&0\end{array}\right]}_{=:R_{% \nabla}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})}.= roman_Var [ ∇ over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] + under⏟ start_ARG [ start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL roman_Cov [ ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) , ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y ) ] end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL roman_Cov [ ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_y ) , ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x ) ] end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY ] end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT = : italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

We deduce

Var[Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)]Var[Φ~(𝒙,𝒚)]op=R(𝒙,𝒚)op=O(T(𝒙𝒚)).subscriptnormVar^Φ𝒙𝒚Var~Φ𝒙𝒚opsubscriptnormsubscript𝑅𝒙𝒚op𝑂𝑇𝒙𝒚\big{\|}\,\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}-\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widetilde{\Phi}}(% {\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}\,\big{\|}_{\mathrm{op}}=\|R_{% \nabla}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\|_{\mathrm{op}}=O\big{(}\,T({% \boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{)}.∥ roman_Var [ ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] - roman_Var [ ∇ over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_O ( italic_T ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) ) . (4.10)

We denote by H~(𝒙,y)~𝐻superscript𝒙𝑦\widetilde{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},y)^{\flat}over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , italic_y ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ♭ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT the Gaussian random matrix obtained from H~(𝒙,𝒚)~𝐻𝒙𝒚\widetilde{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) by conditioning on Φ~(𝒙,𝒚)=0~Φ𝒙𝒚0\nabla{\widetilde{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})=0∇ over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) = 0. Similarly, we denote by H^(𝒙,y)^𝐻superscript𝒙𝑦\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},y)^{\flat}over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , italic_y ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ♭ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT the Gaussian random matrix obtained from H^(𝒙,𝒚)^𝐻𝒙𝒚\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) by conditioning on Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)=0^Φ𝒙𝒚0\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})=0∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) = 0. The distributions of H~(𝒙,y)~𝐻superscript𝒙𝑦\widetilde{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},y)^{\flat}over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , italic_y ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ♭ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and H^(𝒙,y)^𝐻superscript𝒙𝑦\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},y)^{\flat}over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , italic_y ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ♭ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are determined by the Gaussian regression formula.

Since H~(𝒙,y)~𝐻𝒙𝑦\widetilde{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},y)over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , italic_y ) and Φ~(𝒙,𝒚)~Φ𝒙𝒚\nabla{\widetilde{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})∇ over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) are independent we deduce

Var[H~(𝒙,𝒚)]=Var[H~(𝒙,𝒚)].Var~𝐻superscript𝒙𝒚Var~𝐻𝒙𝒚\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\widetilde{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})^{% \flat}\,\big{]}=\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\widetilde{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}.roman_Var [ over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ♭ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = roman_Var [ over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] .

From the Gaussian regression formula we deduce we deduce

Var[H^(𝒙,𝒚)]=Var[H^(𝒙,𝒚)]Cov[H^(𝒙,𝒚),Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)]Var[Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)]1CovΦ^(𝒙,𝒚),H^(𝒙,𝒚)]\begin{split}\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})^{\flat}\,\big{]}=\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\widehat{H}({% \boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}\hskip 85.35826pt&\\ -\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}),% \nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}% \operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}^{-1}\operatorname{Cov}\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({% \boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}),\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}% })\,\big{]}&\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL roman_Var [ over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ♭ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = roman_Var [ over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - roman_Cov [ over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) , ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] roman_Var [ ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Cov ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) , over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW
Var[H^(𝒙,𝒚)]=Var[H~(𝒙,𝒚)]+RH(𝒙,𝒚)Cov[H^(𝒙,𝒚),Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)]Var[Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)]1Cov[Φ^(𝒙,𝒚),H^(𝒙,𝒚)]\begin{split}\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})^{\flat}\,\big{]}=\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\widetilde{H}({% \boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}+R_{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol% {y}})\hskip 28.45274pt&\\ -\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}),% \nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}% \operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}^{-1}\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}% }({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}),\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol% {y}})\,\big{]}&\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL roman_Var [ over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ♭ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = roman_Var [ over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] + italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - roman_Cov [ over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) , ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] roman_Var [ ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Cov [ ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) , over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW

Now observe that

Cov[H^(𝒙,𝒚),Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)]=O(T(𝒙𝒚))Cov^𝐻𝒙𝒚^Φ𝒙𝒚𝑂𝑇𝒙𝒚\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}),% \nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}=O\big{(}\,T% ({\boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{)}roman_Cov [ over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) , ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] = italic_O ( italic_T ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) )
Var[Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)]1=(Var[Φ~(𝒙,𝒚)]+R(𝒙,𝒚))1\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}^{-1}=\Big{(}\,\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{% \widetilde{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}+R_{\nabla}({% \boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\Big{)}^{-1}roman_Var [ ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( roman_Var [ ∇ over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] + italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
Var[Φ~(𝒙,𝒚)]1( 1+Var[Φ~(𝒙,𝒚)]1R(𝒙,𝒚))1\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widetilde{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}^{-1}\Big{(}\,{\mathbbm{1}}+\operatorname{Var}\big{[}% \,\nabla{\widetilde{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}^{-1}R_{% \nabla}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\Big{)}^{-1}roman_Var [ ∇ over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_1 + roman_Var [ ∇ over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

Since Var[Φ~(𝒙,𝒚)]Var~Φ𝒙𝒚\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widetilde{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}roman_Var [ ∇ over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] is independent of 𝒙𝒙{\boldsymbol{x}}bold_italic_x and 𝒚𝒚{\boldsymbol{y}}bold_italic_y we deduce

Cov[H^(𝒙,𝒚),Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)]Var[Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)]1Cov[Φ^(𝒙,𝒚),H^(𝒙,𝒚)]=O(T(𝒙,𝒚)),\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}),% \nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}% \operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}^{-1}\operatorname{Cov}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}% }({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}),\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol% {y}})\,\big{]}=O\big{(}\,T({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{)},roman_Cov [ over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) , ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] roman_Var [ ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Cov [ ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) , over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] = italic_O ( italic_T ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ) ,

and

|detVar[Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)]1detVar[Φ~(𝒙,𝒚)]1|=O(T(𝒙𝒚)).\Big{|}\,\det\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widehat{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}% },{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}^{-1}-\det\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{% \widetilde{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}^{-1}\,\Big{|}=O% \big{(}\,T({\boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{)}.| roman_det roman_Var [ ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - roman_det roman_Var [ ∇ over~ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | = italic_O ( italic_T ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) ) . (4.11)

Since Var[H~(𝒙,𝒚)]Var~𝐻𝒙𝒚\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\widetilde{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,% \big{]}roman_Var [ over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] is independent of 𝒙,𝒚𝒙𝒚{\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y we deduce that

sup𝒙𝒚Var[H^(𝒙,𝒚)]op<,subscriptsupremum𝒙𝒚subscriptnormVar^𝐻superscript𝒙𝒚op\sup_{{\boldsymbol{x}}\neq{\boldsymbol{y}}}\|\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,% \widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})^{\flat}\,\big{]}\|_{\mathrm{op}% }<\infty,roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x ≠ bold_italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ roman_Var [ over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ♭ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞ ,

and we deduce from (4.7) that

|𝔼[|detH^(𝒙,𝒚)|]𝔼[|detH~(𝒙,𝒚)|]|=O(T(𝒙𝒚)1/2).𝔼delimited-[]^𝐻𝒙𝒚𝔼delimited-[]~𝐻𝒙𝒚𝑂𝑇superscript𝒙𝒚12\Big{|}\,{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,|\det\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y% }})|\,\big{]}-{\mathbb{E}}\big{[}\,|\det\widetilde{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})|\,\big{]}\,\Big{|}=O\big{(}\,T({\boldsymbol{x}}-{\boldsymbol{% y}})^{1/2}\,\big{)}.| blackboard_E [ | roman_det over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) | ] - blackboard_E [ | roman_det over~ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) | ] | = italic_O ( italic_T ( bold_italic_x - bold_italic_y ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) . (4.12)

We can now estimate the right-hand-side of (4.5). Note that if BkB=subscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵B_{{\vec{k}}}\cap B_{\vec{\ell}}=\emptysetitalic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∅ we have

sup(𝒙,𝒚)Bk×BO(T(k))=O(k|1).subscriptsupremum𝒙𝒚subscript𝐵𝑘subscript𝐵𝑂𝑇𝑘𝑂𝑘evaluated-at1\sup_{({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\in B_{{\vec{k}}}\times B_{\vec{\ell}% }}O\big{(}\,T({\vec{k}}-{\vec{\ell}})\,\big{)}=O\big{(}\,{\vec{k}}-{\vec{\ell}% }|_{1}^{-\infty}\,\big{)}.roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ∈ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O ( italic_T ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG - over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ) = italic_O ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG - over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Since

sup𝒙𝒚(Var[H^(𝒙,𝒚)]op+Var[Φ^(𝒙,𝒚)]op)<subscriptsupremum𝒙𝒚subscriptnormVar^𝐻superscript𝒙𝒚opsubscriptnormVar^Φ𝒙𝒚op\sup_{{\boldsymbol{x}}\neq{\boldsymbol{y}}}\big{(}\,\big{\|}\,\operatorname{% Var}\big{[}\,\widehat{H}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})^{\flat}\,\big{]}\,% \big{\|}_{\mathrm{op}}+\big{\|}\,\operatorname{Var}\big{[}\,\nabla{\widehat{% \Phi}}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{]}\,\big{\|}_{\mathrm{op}}\,% \big{)}<\inftyroman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x ≠ bold_italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∥ roman_Var [ over^ start_ARG italic_H end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ♭ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∥ roman_Var [ ∇ over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_op end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) < ∞

we deduce from (4.11) and (4.12) that

sup𝒙𝒚|ρ^(𝒙,𝒚)ρ~(𝒙,𝒚)|=O(|k|1).subscriptsupremum𝒙𝒚^𝜌𝒙𝒚~𝜌𝒙𝒚𝑂superscriptsubscript𝑘1\sup_{{\boldsymbol{x}}\neq{\boldsymbol{y}}}\big{|}\,\widehat{\rho}({% \boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}})-\widetilde{\rho}({\boldsymbol{x}},{% \boldsymbol{y}})\,\big{|}=O\big{(}\,\big{|}\,{\vec{k}}-{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{|}_{% 1}^{-\infty}\,\big{)}.roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x ≠ bold_italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | over^ start_ARG italic_ρ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) - over~ start_ARG italic_ρ end_ARG ( bold_italic_x , bold_italic_y ) | = italic_O ( | over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG - over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Hence

C(k,)=O(|k|1)as |k|1.𝐶𝑘𝑂superscriptsubscript𝑘1as |k|1C({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})=O\big{(}\,\big{|}\,{\vec{k}}-{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{|}_{% 1}^{-\infty}\,\big{)}\;\;\mbox{as $\big{|}\,{\vec{k}}-{\vec{\ell}}\,\big{|}_{1% }\to\infty$}.italic_C ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) = italic_O ( | over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG - over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) as | over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG - over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → ∞ .

The above estimate coupled with (4.1) implies that, for any p>0𝑝0p>0italic_p > 0 ,there exists a constant C=C(p)>0𝐶𝐶𝑝0C=C(p)>0italic_C = italic_C ( italic_p ) > 0 such that

|C(k,)|C(p)( 1+|k|1)p,(k,)m×m.formulae-sequence𝐶𝑘𝐶𝑝superscript1subscript𝑘1𝑝for-all𝑘superscript𝑚superscript𝑚\big{|}\,C({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\,\big{|}\leq\frac{C(p)}{\big{(}\,1+|{\vec{k% }}-{\vec{\ell}}|_{1}\,\big{)}^{p}},\;\;\forall({\vec{k}},{\vec{\ell}})\in{{% \mathbb{N}}}^{m}\times{{\mathbb{N}}}^{m}.| italic_C ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) | ≤ divide start_ARG italic_C ( italic_p ) end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + | over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG - over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , ∀ ( over→ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , over→ start_ARG roman_ℓ end_ARG ) ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Theorem 1.1 now follows from the above estimate and Corollary 3.3.

References

  • [1] R. Adler, R. J. E. Taylor: Random Fields and Geometry, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer Verlag, 2007.
  • [2] M. Ancona, T. Letendre: Multijet bundles and applications to the finiteness of moments for zeros of Gaussian fields, arXiv.2307.10659
  • [3] J.-M. Azaïs, M. Wschebor: Level Sets and Extrema of Random Processes, John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
  • [4] L. Gass, M. Stecconi: The number of critical points of a Gaussian field: finiteness of moments, arxiv.org: 2305.17586v2
  • [5] J. L. van Hemmen, J. Ando: An inequality for trace ideals, Comm. Math. Phys., 76(1980), 143-148.
  • [6] U. Krengel: Ergodic Theorems. With a Supplement by Antoine Brunel, Walter de Gruyter, 1985.
  • [7] L. I. Nicolaescu: A CLT involving critical points of random smooth functions on a Euclidean space, arXiv: 1509.06200, Stoch. Proc. and their Appl. 127(2017), 3412-3446.
  • [8] H. Wenland: Scattered Data Approximation, Cambridge University Press, 2005.