Necessary and sufficient conditions for universality limits
Abstract.
We derive necessary and sufficient conditions for universality limits for orthogonal polynomials on the real line and related systems. One of our results is that the Christoffel–Darboux kernel has sine kernel asymptotics at a point , with regularly varying scaling, if and only if the orthogonality measure (spectral measure) has a unique tangent measure at and that tangent measure is the Lebesgue measure. This includes all prior results with absolutely continuous or singular measures.
Our work is not limited to bulk universality; we show that the Christoffel–Darboux kernel has a regularly varying scaling limit with a nontrivial limit kernel if and only if the orthogonality measure has a unique tangent measure at and that tangent measure is not a point mass. The possible limit kernels correspond to homogeneous de Branges spaces; in particular, this equivalence completely characterizes several prominent universality classes such as hard edge universality, Fisher–Hartwig singularities, and jump discontinuities in the weights.
The main part of the proof is the derivation of a new homeomorphism. In order to directly apply to the Christoffel–Darboux kernel, this homeomorphism is between measures and chains of de Branges spaces, not between Weyl functions and Hamiltonians. In order to handle limits with power law weights, this homeomorphism goes beyond the more common setting of Poisson-finite measures, and allows arbitrary power bounded measures.
Dedicated to the memory of Heinz Langer, one of the founders
of the theory of indefinite inner product spaces.
1. Introduction
In this paper, we derive necessary and sufficient conditions for universality limits. We will initially present our results in the bulk universality (sine kernel) regime, before formulating the general statements. We will also initially present the results in the setting of orthogonal polynomials on the real line (OPRL), in which this topic has a long history.
We consider orthogonal polynomials with respect to a measure on , obtained by the Gram–Schmidt process in from the sequence . By general principles, the polynomial has real simple zeros. Their local distribution/spacing on the real line is a question of classical interest; in the setting of Jacobi polynomials, it was long known [79] that zeros of Jacobi polynomials are locally asymptotically uniformly spaced, and this was generalized by Erdös–Turán [23] to a class of smooth weights on an interval. In modern literature, this phenomenon is known as clock behavior, and it is stated as follows. Zeros of can be indexed by counting to the left and right from a fixed point , denoting them by so that
(of course, only of these are well-defined for fixed ). The measure can be said to have clock behavior at if for every , is well-defined for all large enough and if for some scaling sequence as ,
(1.1) |
for every (it is common to impose additional assumptions on ).
A theorem of Freud [27], rediscovered by Levin in [51], states that clock behavior follows from a local scaling limit of the Christoffel–Darboux (CD) kernel: namely, the CD kernel for the measure is defined as
(1.2) |
and clock behavior (1.1) follows from the local scaling limit
(1.3) |
The phenomenon (1.3) is called bulk universality, and sufficient conditions for bulk universality have been greatly studied in the literature.
We digress to say that similar scaling limits of CD kernels are motivated by random matrix theory; the eigenvalues of random matrix ensembles with a unitary conjugation invariance are a determinantal point process whose correlation kernel is precisely the CD kernel [64, 17], so certain limits of CD kernels encode local eigenvalue statistics of the random matrices. In that setting, an explicit -dependence is naturally placed in the measure, so this is often referred to as a varying measure limit, with pioneering work by Bleher–Its [6], Pastur–Shcherbina [65], and Deift–Kriecherbauer–McLaughlin–Venakides–Zhou [14, 15, 16], see also [17] and the survey of Lubinsky [58].
Returning to the "fixed measure" bulk universality limit (1.3), many different methods were developed to prove it under different sufficient conditions. Riemann–Hilbert techniques were used by Kuijlaars–Vanlessen [44] for Jacobi-like analytic weights on . Another method was found by Lubinsky [56], with further developments by [24, 77, 82, 83], which instead requires Stahl–Totik regularity [78] of the measure and Lebesgue point and local Szegő conditions at the point . A second approach of Lubinsky [55] is conditional on the behavior of the CD kernel on the diagonal; this was used by Avila–Last–Simon [2] to prove bulk universality for ergodic Jacobi matrices on an essential support of the a.c. spectrum. Breuer [7] found the first examples of bulk universality with singular measures, within the class of sparse decaying discrete Schrödinger operators. Lubinsky first explored the connection with de Branges spaces [57, 55]. Using the theory of canonical systems, a local sufficient condition was proved by Eichinger–Lukić–Simanek [21]: a strictly positive, finite nontangential limit of the Poisson transform of the measure at a point implies bulk universality at that point. This approach works with the continuous family of kernels obtained by piecewise linear interpolation,
(1.4) |
which naturally appears through the reduction of a Jacobi matrix to a canonical system.
As a consequence of our main result, Theorem 1.11, we obtain necessary and sufficient conditions for bulk universality:
Theorem 1.1.
Let be a measure on with a determinate moment problem. For any and any , the following are equivalent:
-
(i)
(1.5) -
(ii)
Uniformly on compact subsets of ,
(1.6) -
(iii)
Uniformly on compact subsets of ,
(1.7) and
(1.8)
Note that we consistently use as a discrete parameter and as a continuous parameter; in particular, the equivalence of (ii) and (iii) above relates the sine kernel asymptotics for the continuous family of linearly interpolated kernels (1.4) to that for the original sequence of CD kernels (1.2).
Theorem 1.11 is significantly more general than Theorem 1.1 in various directions, and we shall gradually built up towards that result. Let us first compare Theorem 1.1 with prior literature.
Remark 1.2.
-
(i)
The determinate moment problem condition means that is uniquely determined by its moments , . A sufficient condition is exponential decay of the tails, for some .
-
(ii)
Theorem 1.1 describes bulk universality at the scale . The inverse of is known as the Christoffel function and its asymptotic behavior is widely studied. By work of Máté–Nevai–Totik [61] and Totik [81], Stahl–Totik regularity and local Lebesgue point/local Szegő conditions at the point imply that grows linearly with . This contains previous bulk universality results for compactly supported measures with an a.c. part; thus, although those results were formulated at the explicit scale , this is equivalent to the scaling limit (1.6).
- (iii)
-
(iv)
Prior results were based on a mix of global and local assumptions of the measure, and the local assumptions included Lebesgue point conditions on the measure; in particular, they required presence of an a.c. part of the measure. Theorem 1.1 is completely local, and the local condition (1.5) is weaker than a Lebesgue point condition; in particular, it makes it obvious that bulk universality at a single point can even be achieved for a pure point measure (see Lemma 9.1).
-
(v)
It was proved in [21, Theorem 1.2] that if for some ,
(1.9) then (1.6) holds. This sufficient condition (1.9) is equivalent to (1.5) for any and any , by a general result of Loomis [52] for positive harmonic functions (see also [70] which gives a proof related to our rescaled Weyl functions). Thus, Theorem 1.1 shows that the implication in [21] is optimal; however, the opposite implication (ii)(i) of Theorem 1.1 is outside the scope of the method in [21].
The approach in [21] is based on a homeomorphism between trace-normalized limit circle-limit point Hamiltonians and Nevanlinna functions (analytic maps , where ). In particular, the implication (1.9)(1.6) was proved by a shifted rescaling trick which does not give the converse implication and does not easily generalize to other situations. The approach in this paper is different, and at its core is a homeomorphism between certain measures and certain chains of de Branges spaces. This homeomorphism is better suited for the study of convergence of kernels, and necessary for statements such as the implication (ii)(i) of Theorem 1.1. We will be more precise below.
We also characterize a more general sine kernel asymptotics with regularly varying scaling. In that equivalence, the derivative condition on the measure is replaced by a tangent measure condition. We provide the required definitions before stating this result.
For a locally finite measure in , and , consider the affine pushforwards of defined by for Borel sets . A measure is a tangent measure of at if is locally finite, , and there exist positive sequences with and weakly in as . The set of tangent measures of at is denoted . This notion was introduced in geometric measure theory by Preiss [67], see also [62].
The set is closed under multiplication by a positive scalar. It is said that has a unique tangent measure at if there exists such that .
A function is said to be regularly varying (at ) with index if for all , as . Regularly varying functions were introduced by Karamata [39, 40] and play an important role in Abelian and Tauberian theorems; see also [5], and applications to spectral theory [20, 49, 69]. Another regularly varying function is said to be an asymptotic inverse of if and as . Every regularly varying function of order has an asymptotic inverse of order .
Theorem 1.3.
Let be a measure on with a determinate moment problem. For any , the following are equivalent:
-
(i)
There exists regularly varying with index such that
-
(ii)
where denotes Lebesgue measure on
-
(iii)
There exists regularly varying with index such that uniformly on compact subsets of ,
(1.10) -
(iv)
There exists regularly varying with index such that uniformly on compact subsets of ,
and (1.8) holds.
In this case, is an asymptotic inverse of .
Remark 1.4 (Scaling functions and spectral type).
-
(i)
Scaling by regularly varying functions is significantly more general than power law scaling; it allows, e.g., additional logarithmic factors, and scaling functions such as , . Thus, a sine kernel limit can exist even where has zero or infinite derivative w.r.t. Lebesgue measure.
-
(ii)
Bulk universality with regularly varying scaling on a set implies -dimensionality of the measure on this set (see Theorem 9.2).
-
(iii)
Breuer’s class of examples is chosen from the class of sparse decaying discrete Schrödinger operators, and the bulk universality limit is formulated with an explicit in place of in (1.10). For sparse decaying perturbations of the free Jacobi matrix, is a regularly varying function of (see Lemma 9.3). Thus, Breuer’s examples are within the setting of Theorem 1.3; in particular, in the regime of [7], we conclude that for every ,
with an explicit function (see Corollary 9.4 and surrounding discussion).
-
(iv)
There exist finite measures on which are singular with respect to Lebesgue measure, but have Lebesgue measure as the unique tangent measure at every (see [67, Example 5.9], [26]). By Theorem 1.3, for these measures, bulk universality holds at every . This is a slight improvement over the examples in [7] in the sense that no discrete spectrum is needed.
Our general setting is much more general than bulk universality and characterizes other universality classes studied in the literature. The most prominent of those is hard edge universality, which has traditionally been studied at the edge of the support of and is characterized by a limiting Bessel kernel. In particular, for Jacobi-type measures with analytic weights on , at the endpoint , Kuijlaars–Vanlessen [44, 43] proved hard edge universality by Riemann–Hilbert methods; Lubinsky [53] generalized this to a class of Stahl–Totik regular measures on , and proved in [54] a conditional statement at a gap edge of the support. Other limit kernels have been found for other power-law behaviors of the weight . For Fisher–Hartwig singularities, Vanlessen [84] proved strong asymptotics and Danka [11] proved a universality limit for a class of Stahl–Totik regular measures (see also Kuijlaars–Vanlessen [45]). For a class of step-like analytic weights, Foulquié Moreno–Martínez-Finkelstein–Sousa [25] proved a hypergeometric kernel scaling limit.
Our result characterizes the limiting behavior of the kernel when the measure has a local behavior of the form
(1.11) |
for some regularly varying function with index and some . The limit kernel will be a function of and , as follows:
Definition 1.5.
Let and . Recall:
where and . The symbol denotes the rising factorial, i.e.,
We define functions by distinguishing two cases.
-
(i)
Assume that . Define
-
(ii)
Assume that or . Define
Now set
This kernel is expressed in terms of entire functions. When or , the kernel can be rewritten in terms of Bessel functions, as is customary in the hard edge literature (see [22, Remark 4.2]); likewise, when , it can be rewritten in terms of Bessel functions (see Lemma 10.2).
Theorem 1.6.
Let be a measure on with a determinate moment problem. For any , the following are equivalent:
-
(i)
There exists a regularly varying function with index and such that (1.11) holds.
-
(ii)
has a unique tangent measure at , which is not the Dirac measure
-
(iii)
There exists regularly varying with index such that uniformly on compact subsets of
(1.12) and .
-
(iv)
There exists regularly varying at with index such that uniformly on compact subsets of
(1.13) with and (1.8) holds.
In this case , is the asymptotic inverse of , and .
The assumption is used to rule out a trivial limit obtained by a scaling function which is too small, since such a trivial limit would carry no information; likewise for the assumption .
We compare Theorem 1.6 with prior literature:
Remark 1.7.
-
(i)
Theorem 1.6 contains as special cases several universality classes studied separately in the literature. Most notably, and is bulk universality, is hard edge universality, and is a Fisher–Hartwig singularity, and with is a jump discontinuity.
-
(ii)
For any of those limit kernels except the sine kernel, prior literature required analyticity of the weight or Stahl–Totik regularity of the measure, and Theorem 1.6 is the first completely local sufficient condition for a scaling limit.
-
(iii)
Even if Theorem 1.6 is specialized to the power law case , the local condition is still weaker than the local assumptions in the prior literature; prior literature always assumed power law scaling of the weight
For the study of bulk universality as in Theorems 1.1 and 1.3, an important realization was that although one starts from a probability measure , convergence should be viewed in the larger space of Poisson-finite measures/Nevanlinna functions. This is motivated by the fact that bulk universality corresponds to having Lebesgue measure as the tangent measure. For the setting of Theorem 1.6, extending to an even larger class of measures/functions is necessary. Namely, the local behavior (1.11) corresponds to a tangent measure with a power law scaling; this measure need not be Poisson-finite, but it has power law growth at (see [63] and Lemma A.2). Accordingly, the core of our approach is a homeomorphism between power-bounded measures on (measures such that for some ) and a certain class of chains of de Branges spaces. On the function theoretic side, going beyond Poisson-finite measures, is reflected in passing to reproducing kernels with a finite number of negative eigenvalues. The Weyl functions are no longer Nevanlinna functions, but are in the larger class of generalized Nevanlinna functions suitable for the indefinite setting and introduced by Krein–Langer [42].
It has been observed before [58, 4] that the proof of the Freud–Levin theorem extends to other limiting kernels (see Theorem 10.1). Combining that proof with Theorem 1.6 gives the following description of the local configuration of zeros of orthogonal polynomials:
Corollary 1.8.
Let be a measure on with a determinate moment problem. Let . If there exists a regularly varying function with index and , such that (1.11) holds, then:
-
(i)
For every , for all large enough , has at least zeros larger than ; in other words the -th zero to the right of , denoted , is well-defined for all large enough .
-
(ii)
The function has infinitely many positive zeros. Denoting by its smallest positive zero,
-
(iii)
Fix a sequence such that the limit
exists. Denote its value by and denote by all the zeros of in . Then for every ,
In the special case of the sine kernel limit, the differences are independent of or , which is why clock behavior has a more elegant formulation. However, the conclusions are of the same strength: they describe the local zero configuration up to one free parameter (location of the nearest zero to the right of ).
Convergent subsequences as in Corollary 1.8(iii) exist by compactness of , but in general one cannot expect convergence of the sequence . Such convergence, however, holds in the hard edge case; to state this, we denote positive zeros of the Bessel function of the first kind and order by , , …, so that
(1.14) |
Theorem 1.9.
Let be a probability measure on with a determinate Stieltjes moment problem. Denote by the zeros of . If the function
is a regularly varying function with index , then for every ,
(1.15) |
where denotes an asymptotic inverse of .
This was previously proved by Levin–Lubinsky [51, Theorem 1.2] in the special case of Stahl–Totik regular measures whose essential spectrum is a compact interval, and for which is purely a.c. on some subinterval , with weight as . We note that determinacy of the Stieltjes moment problem follows, e.g., from for some .
After this detour to zero distributions, we return to the subject of scaling limits of kernels. Although so far we formulated statements for orthogonal polynomials, the natural setting for our results is the more general setting of -decreasing transfer matrices. To state this, we must set the following notation. To denote the action of a fractional linear transformation on the Riemann sphere, for a matrix with and a point we set, with the usual conventions concerning algebra in ,
(1.16) |
For an entire function we denote
and say is real if . We denote
Definition 1.10.
An entire matrix function with real entries and is -inner if
is a positive kernel on . A family of such functions is -decreasing if is -inner whenever .
Such a family is in the limit point case if for every and every the limit
(1.17) |
exists, and its value is independent of . The function is an analytic map from to . Thus, if , there exists , , and a positive Borel measure with
(1.18) |
such that
(1.19) |
The -decreasing family also generates the reproducing kernels
(1.20) |
Theorem 1.11.
For any continuous -decreasing family of transfer matrices in the limit point case with and with , and the measure and kernels determined by (1.19), (1.20), for any , the following are equivalent:
-
(i)
There exist and a regularly varying function with index such that (1.11) holds.
-
(ii)
has a unique tangent measure, which is not the Dirac measure
-
(iii)
There exists regularly varying at with index such that uniformly on compact subsets of
(1.21) and .
In this case , is the asymptotic inverse of , and .
Theorem 1.11 is the main result of this paper; the results for orthogonal polynomials described above are its applications.
Theorem 1.11 has additional applications to other models in spectral theory.
One are "half-line" Schrödinger operators with , with a regular endpoint at and in the limit point case at . Fixing a boundary condition gives a self-adjoint operator, with a standard way of associating a canonical spectral measure [80]. Consider the eigensolution given by
and the reproducing kernels
(1.22) |
The class of potentials can also be generalized to , with the replacement of by a quasiderivative throughout [29, 60].
Theorem 1.12.
For any half-line Schrödinger operator in the limit point case, its canonical spectral measure , and the reproducing kernels (1.22), for any , the following are equivalent:
-
(i)
There exist and a regularly varying function with index such that (1.11) holds.
-
(ii)
has a unique tangent measure, which is not the Dirac measure
-
(iii)
There exists regularly varying at with index such that (1.21) uniformly on compact subsets of and .
In this case , is the asymptotic inverse of , and .
Completely analogously, Theorem 1.11 applies to some other settings such as Sturm–Liouville and Dirac operators.
With some additional arguments, Theorem 1.11 also applies to universality limits for orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle. To state this, let be a probability measure on such that is not a finite set. Orthogonal polynomials are obtained from the sequence by the Gram–Schmidt process in , and they obey
The corresponding CD kernels are defined by
(1.23) |
Theorem 1.13.
Let be a probability measure on such that is not finite. For any , the following are equivalent:
-
(i)
There exists a regularly varying function with index and such that
-
(ii)
has a unique tangent measure at , which is not the Dirac measure
-
(iii)
There exists regularly varying with index such that uniformly on compact subsets of
(1.24) with and
In this case , is the asymptotic inverse of , and .
In Section 2, we recall aspects of de Branges’ theory of Hilbert spaces of entire functions and its relation to canonical systems. In Section 3, we study structure Hamiltonians. In Section 4, we axiomatize the notion of a chain of de Branges spaces, and develop a notion of convergence of chains of de Branges spaces. In Section 5, we relate this to the measures associated to unbounded chains. In Section 6, we apply this to study rescaling limits of reproducing kernels, culminating in the proof of Theorem 1.11. In Section 7, we address different conventions in the literature and prove the application to Schrödinger operators (Theorem 1.12). In Section 8, we address applications to orthogonal polynomials and prove Theorems 1.1, 1.3, 1.6, 1.13. In Section 9, we discuss the connections between bulk universality and spectral type. In Section 10, we describe a generalization of the Freud–Levin theorem to reproducing kernels of de Branges spaces and prove Corollary 1.8 and Theorem 1.9.
2. De Branges spaces and canonical systems; a reminder
This section is of preliminary nature. We recall facts of de Branges’ theory of Hilbert spaces of entire functions and its relation to two-dimensional canonical systems. Standard references are [13, 74, 71, 19]. The underlying basis for the theory of de Branges spaces is the notion of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces. Our standard reference in this context is the seminal paper [1].
All content of this section is extracted from the named references.
2.1. Reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces of entire functions
Definition 2.1.
Let be a nonempty set. A Hilbert space of complex valued functions on is called a reproducing kernel Hilbert space, if for each the point evaluation functional , is continuous.
If is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space of functions on , there exists a unique function which satisfies:
-
(i)
For each , ;
-
(ii)
For each and we have
This function is called the reproducing kernel of .
It directly follows that
(2.1) |
In particular, the norm of the point evaluation functional at a point is given by
A function is called a positive kernel, if for all , and for any finite collection the matrix is positive semidefinite. The reproducing kernel of some reproducing kernel Hilbert space always is a positive kernel, and conversely, for every positive kernel there exists a unique reproducing kernel Hilbert space so that is its reproducing kernel. We denote this space as .
Definition 2.2.
Let be a nonempty set, and reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces on .
-
(i)
We say that is isometrically contained in and write , if
-
(ii)
We say that is contractively contained in and write , if
Note that
(2.2) |
Contractive inclusion is equivalent to a property of reproducing kernels: For two positive kernels defined on the same set write
(2.3) |
if is a positive kernel. Then
(2.4) |
If and is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space of functions on , we have the operator of multiplication by the independent variable defined on its natural maximal domain . We denote the closure of this domain as
(2.5) |
The following partial order, which lies in between contractive and isometric inclusion, is crucial.
Definition 2.3.
Let be a nonempty set and reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces on . We say that is almost isometrically contained in and write , if
Now we turn our attention to reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces whose elements are analytic functions. For an open and nonempty subset we denote
and endow with the topology of locally uniform convergence. Recall that this topology is metrizable: Let , , be compact such that and . Then becomes a Fréchet space with the metric
(2.6) |
and this metric induces locally uniform convergence.
Definition 2.4.
If is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space on and , then we call a reproducing kernel Hilbert space of analytic functions on . We denote the set of all reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces of analytic functions on by . If we speak of a reproducing kernel Hilbert space of entire functions and write for the set of all such spaces.
Analyticity of the elements of a reproducing kernel Hilbert space can be characterized in terms of its reproducing kernel : we have if and only if . In particular, for , the norm of the point evaluation functional is locally bounded, and hence convergence in the norm of implies convergence in .
The map
is injective, and we topologize by pulling back the metric from eq. 2.6 from to via the map . Thus convergence of spaces means locally uniform convergence of their reproducing kernels. Obviously, the set of positive kernels is closed under locally uniform (even pointwise) limits, and thus is a complete metric space.
Lemma 2.5.
Let be open and nonempty and . Then
(2.7) |
is compact.
Proof.
Consider the set
By eq. 2.4 it follows that
Since is a homeomorphism, it suffices to show that is compact.
For the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives
and Montel’s theorem implies that is a normal family. Since the inequality in the definition of is preserved by taking limits, is also closed and thus compact. ∎
Example 2.6.
Two classical examples of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces of entire functions are the following.
-
(i)
Let . The Paley-Wiener space is the space of all entire functions of exponential type at most which are square integrable on endowed with the -scalar product. It follows by direct verification using the Paley-Wiener theorem and properties of the Fourier transform that . Moreover, .
-
(ii)
For we denote by the set of polynomials of degree at most , and formally set . Let and a positive Borel measure on which has at least finite moments and whose support contains at least points. For each the space endowed with the -scalar product belongs to . Moreover, .
2.2. De Branges spaces
De Branges spaces are reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces of entire functions that satisfy certain additional axioms.
Throughout the following, we denote for an entire function
(2.8) |
and say that is a real entire function if .
Definition 2.7.
A de Branges space (dB-space, for short) is a Hilbert space which satisfies:
-
(i)
;
-
(ii)
For each , also and ;
-
(iii)
If and with , then
Note here that .
We denote the set of all dB-spaces by . The set of all those dB-spaces which satisfy in addition:
-
(iv)
If and with , then
is denoted as .
Those subspaces of a dB-space which are with the inner product inherited from themselves dB-spaces play an outstanding role and are discussed in detail in Section 3. We call such a subspace a dB-subspace of .
In this place we only observe the following property: if is a linear subspace of which is closed under the operations in Definition 2.7(ii),(iii), then the closure of in is a dB-subspace of . This has two consequences, which we also state explicitly:
-
(i)
For every dB-space , the space is a dB-subspace of .
-
(ii)
If is a dB-space, is a closed linear subspace of , and is a scalar product on such that is a dB-space, then is a dB-space.
In this context, let us also recall that
(2.9) |
A dB-space can be generated from one single entire function. This follows since the reproducing kernel of a dB-space is of a particular form. To explain the connection, recall the notion of Hermite-Biehler functions.
Definition 2.8.
A Hermite-Biehler function is an entire function which satisfies
(2.10) |
We denote the set of all Hermite-Biehler functions by . The set of all those Hermite-Biehler functions which have no real zeros is denoted by .
For an entire function we denote its real and imaginary part in the sense of the involution eq. 2.8 by
Then , , and . In particular, the assignment is injective. We freely apply the convention that are related in this way, if the meaning is clear from the context. Another useful notation in this context is the following: if is entire and is a -matrix function with real entire entries, we set
Given we define
(2.11) |
which should be appropriately interpreted in terms of derivatives if . Using the functions , the kernel writes as
(2.12) |
where .
In the following theorem we summarize the connection between dB-spaces and Hermite-Biehler functions. Here we endow with the subspace topology of , and with the subspace topology of .
Theorem 2.9.
For any the function is a positive kernel and the reproducing kernel space generated by is a dB-space.
Let be the map . Then
-
(i)
is surjective;
-
(ii)
if and only if there exists such that ;
-
(iii)
;
-
(iv)
is continuous and has a continuous right inverse.
In this context note the formula
which determines one possible choice of given the kernel of the space. This formula also implies that the closure of in is equal to . Also note the formula for the norm of point evaluation at a nonreal point :
The real zero divisor of an entire function which does not vanish identically is the function defined by
For we set
where is such that . It follows from Theorem 2.9(ii) that this definition does not depend on the choice of . It holds that
For many purposes, it suffices to study Hermite-Biehler functions without real zeros, due to the following simple fact.
Lemma 2.10.
Let and a real entire function without nonreal zeros such that (here “” is understood pointwise). Then, and the map
is an isometric isomorphism. We have
Proof.
That is clear. The other assertions follow directly from
∎
Similar to the scalar case, a function is called a positive kernel, if for all , and for any finite collections and , the matrix is positive semidefinite.
Definition 2.11.
We say that a matrix function is -inner, if its entries are real entire functions, , and
is a positive kernel on (for this formula has to be interpreted as derivative).
Theorem 2.12.
The following statements hold.
-
(i)
Let , be -inner, and set . Then
-
(ii)
If , , and , then there exists a unique -inner matrix function such that .
Example 2.13.
The simplest example for nonconstant -inner matrix functions are linear polynomials of a specific form. For we denote
(2.13) |
Then, for and , the matrix function is -inner.
Assume that . Then by a direct computation
(2.14) |
Provided that , we have
(2.15) | ||||
If , then the inclusion map of into is bijective and a nonisometric contraction.
-inner matrix functions are related to de Branges spaces also in another way. Assume we have with these properties, then the function
(2.16) |
is a Hermite-Biehler function. In fact, a -inner matrix function generates a whole family of Hermite-Biehler functions, but (2.16) is the one we work with.
2.3. Canonical systems
In this subsection we recall some facts and basic definitions about canonical systems.
Definition 2.14.
Let , and let be a function with
(2.17) |
-
(i)
We say that is in limit circle case at the endpoint (lc at , for short), if for one (and hence for all)
Otherwise, is in limit point case at (lp at , for short). Analogous definitions apply to the endpoint .
-
(ii)
We say that is a Hamiltonian, if for a.a. . The set of all Hamiltonians defined on the interval is denoted as .
-
(iii)
We call trace normalized, if for a.a. , and denote the set of all such functions as .
-
(iv)
We denote the set of all functions which satisfy for a.a. as .
The set can be topologized in a natural way, see for example the exposition in [68]. This topology is compact and metrizable, for example in the following way: choose sequences and such that for all and , , and use the metric
(2.18) |
for .
With a function subject to eq. 2.17 we associate a differential equation for a -vector valued function , namely
(2.19) |
which is called a canonical system. For , we define the transfer matrix at as the matrix solution of the initial value problem
(2.20) |
Observe that eq. 2.20 is transposed compared to eq. 2.19. We use eq. 2.20 since this is practical in many respects and was the convention that de Branges used in [13] on which we heavily rely in this paper. Note that, by uniqueness of solutions of the above differential equation, transfer matrices are multiplicative in the sense that
(2.21) |
Assume that is a lc endpoint. Then the solutions of eq. 2.19 can be continuously extended to and we define the fundamental solution associated to by
(2.22) |
Based on eq. 2.16 we obtain a family of Hermite-Biehler functions with no real zeros. Namely, writing , we have
(2.23) |
Moreover, we introduce the notation
(2.24) |
cf. eq. 2.12. Note that the kernels depend continuously on . Moreover, if is lp at , then
(2.25) |
cf. [13]. Since is nondecreasing in for each fixed , Dini’s theorem implies that this limit is attained uniformly on every compact subset of .
Definition 2.15.
Let denote the set of all matrix functions which are -inner and satisfy the normalization condition . Moreover, we define a function as
We equip with the product topology of in every component. Note that is closed in the space of all entire matrix functions. For all we have since is real, entire, for and .
Lemma 2.16.
For any , the set
is compact.
Proof.
A calculation shows that is uniformly bounded on compact subsets, and thus is a normal family by Montel’s theorem. It is closed because is closed and is continuous. ∎
Let be a function subject to eq. 2.17. Differentiating the form , which is possible a.e., yields
(2.26) |
Since , this shows that is -inner whenever . Clearly, all entries of a transfer matrix are real and entire functions in the variable , and . Hence . The meaning of the function in this context is that
(2.27) |
which follows from eq. 2.20 and the fact that .
The following is a fundamental result.
Theorem 2.17.
For each the map
is a homeomorphism.
Making a change of variable in the time-parameter will not affect essential properties of the solution of a canonical system. To formalize this, the following notion is used.
Definition 2.18.
Let and . We say that is a reparametrization of and write , if there exists an increasing bijection such that and are absolutely continuous and
(2.28) |
Fundamental solutions behave well when performing a reparameterization: a direct computation shows that eq. 2.28 implies
(2.29) |
for .
Clearly, the relation is an equivalence relation on the set of all Hamiltonians. Each equivalence class contains a trace normalized element. In fact, pick and use
(2.30) |
in eq. 2.28 (with the convention if ).
Definition 2.19.
Let be subject to eq. 2.17. A nonempty interval is called indivisible for , if for some angle (recall eq. 2.13)
The number is called the length of the indivisible interval. Unless a.e. on , i.e. , the angle is determined up to integer multiples of and is called the type of the indivisible interval.
A point is called regular, if it is not an interior point of an indivisible interval. A point which is not regular is called singular. We denote the set of all regular points of as .
Transfer matrices of indivisible intervals are linear polynomials: if is indivisible with length and of type , then
(2.31) |
Recall that we have already met matrices of this form in Example 2.13.
The following simple transformation rule for canonical systems is often practical.
Lemma 2.20.
2.4. Canonical systems and Nevanlinna functions
We say that a function is a Nevanlinna function (in the literature also called Herglotz function), if it is defined and analytic in the open upper half-plane and maps this half-plane into . The set of all Nevanlinna functions is denoted by . Often the class of Nevanlinna functions is augmented by the function which is identically equal to infinity, and considered as a subclass of the analytic functions of into the Riemann sphere. We equip with the topology of local uniform convergence which is metrizable.
For there exists , , and a positive Borel measure with (1.18) such that (1.19) holds. Conversely, every function of this form belongs to . Note that the integral representation eq. 1.19 can be rewritten as
The data in this integral representation is uniquely determined by . First, the Stieltjes inversion formula says that
and hence is determined by . Now can be computed as
Convergence of Nevanlinna functions translates to convergence of the data in their integral representation. This result is known as the Grommer-Hamburger theorem. Let with data and in the respective integral representations. Then
(2.32) | ||||
where the limit of measures is understood in the -topology of .
Let us now explain the relation of Nevanlinna functions and canonical systems. Recall the notation (1.16) for fractional linear transformations. Let such that is lc and is lp. Then for every family with the limit
(2.33) |
exists, and its value is independent of the parameter family . The function either is a Nevanlinna function or identically equal to .
Definition 2.21.
Let such that is lc and is lp. The function defined by eq. 2.33 is called the Weyl coefficient of . The measure in the integral representation of is called the spectral measure of , and we denote it by .
The relation eq. 2.29 shows that implies , and hence also . Therefore, one can for many purposes restrict attention to .
The relation eq. 2.33 establishes a map from Hamiltonians to functions. The following is a fundamental result known as de Branges’ inverse spectral theorem.
Theorem 2.22.
The map
is a homeomorphism.
By the Grommer-Hamburger theorem convergence of Hamiltonians also implies convergence of spectral measures.
2.5. Power bounded measures and generalized Nevanlinna functions
We already discussed the connection between Nevanlinna functions and Poisson integrable measures in Section 2.4: the formula eq. 1.19 establishes a bijection between the set and the set of all pairs where is a positive measure on the real line with eq. 1.18 and with and . This correspondence has an analogy for a class of functions larger than and a class of measures being not anymore Poisson integrable.
To define this class of functions, we have to move away from positive definiteness, and consider sign-indefinite kernel functions. Recall that a function is called a kernel with negative squares, if for all , for any finite collection the matrix has at most negative eigenvalues (counted according to their multiplicities), and for at least one choice of this bound is attained.
Definition 2.23.
Let . We denote by the set of all functions which are analytic in , for which
(2.34) |
is a kernel with negative squares, and which satisfy
(2.35) |
Moreover, we set and .
It follows from known properties of the asymptotic behaviour of Nevanlinna functions (e.g. [32]) that . One should view as a sign-indefinite generalization of still retaining analyticity in and sign-definite behaviour along . This is ensured by the condition eq. 2.35 which means that the sign-indefinite contribution to is concentrated at (for details see [47]).
Definition 2.24.
Let . For a positive Borel measure on we set
(2.36) |
Moreover, let
We call elements of power bounded measures.
Definition 2.25.
Let . We denote by the set of all pairs where , is a polynomial with real coefficients whose degree does not exceed , and
(2.37) |
Definition 2.26.
Let . The -regularized Cauchy transform is the map
defined by
(2.38) |
The name “regularized Cauchy transform” is explained by the identity
Let , and , and set . Then, by the above formula,
This shows that the operators constitute an extension eq. 1.19 to power bounded measures, and also explains the role of eq. 2.37 in the definition of .
The next theorem says that power boundedness in the context of measures corresponds to sign indefiniteness in the context of their Cauchy-transforms. These facts are shown in [49].
Theorem 2.27.
Let .
-
(i)
The map is a bijection from onto . If and , then can be recovered by
(2.39) The polynomial can be recovered from the equations obtained by splitting real- and imaginary parts of , .
-
(ii)
Let be a sequence in and . Then we have if and only if
The relation eq. 2.39 is a variant of the Stieltjes inversion formula, and the statement in item (ii) is an analogue of the Grommer-Hamburger theorem about convergence of Cauchy transforms. Note here that due to eq. 2.37 and the Portmanteau theorem [3, Theorem 1] the kind of convergence of measures in item (ii) can be reformulated more explicitly as
In fact, a more general variant of eq. 2.39 holds, the Stieltjes-Livshits inversion formula (see e.g. [28, Theorem 1.2.4]). In the present context it can be formulated as follows: if and is a function which is analytic on some open set containing the real axis and takes real values on , then
(2.40) |
One can think of the formula eq. 2.38 as an additive decomposition of a function . There is also a multiplicative decomposition of such functions. The following result is shown in [18].
Theorem 2.28.
Let , and . Then , if and only if there exists a function and points (not necessarily different) , such that
2.6. Generalized Nevanlinna functions and matrix families
Recall again Section 2.4 where we saw that functions correspond to Hamiltonians which are in limit circle case at and in limit point case at . This correspondence is established via the fundamental solution of a Hamiltonian and Weyl’s limit formula ()
A sign-indefinite analogue of the theory of canonical systems, dealing with functions for which the kernel eq. 2.34 has a finite number of negative squares, is developed in the series of papers [33]–[37]. A refined investigation of the class in this context, and the connection with Hamiltonians with two limit point endpoints, is undertaken in [46] and [48]. We restate comprehensively what is needed from those papers for our present work.
Recall here that an analytic function is called of bounded type in some domain, if it can be written as a quotient of two bounded analytic functions in this domain.
Theorem 2.29.
Let . Then there exist functions
defined on some interval with , which possess the following properties (here we write ).
-
(i)
For each the functions are real entire and of bounded type in and . We have and .
-
(ii)
For each the function
belongs to .
-
(iii)
The function belongs to and is in limit point case at . For each the function is absolutely continuous, and
(2.41) -
(iv)
We have
locally uniformly for .
-
(v)
For every family with we have
locally uniformly for .
If are as in the theorem, we say that is a matrix family for with Hamiltonian .
The connection between is known to have several additional properties, and we state some of them.
Proposition 2.30.
Let , and let be a matrix family for with Hamiltonian (defined on and interval ). Then the following statements hold.
-
(i)
The Hamiltonian is in limit circle case at , if and only if with some and a polynomial with real coefficients.
-
(ii)
If is in limit circle case at , then
with some polynomial with real coefficients.
-
(iii)
If is not a polynomial with real coefficients, then there exist , , such that .
For later reference, let us make the following simple formula explicit.
Lemma 2.31.
Let , and let be a matrix family for with Hamiltonian (defined on ). Then, for each , we have
(2.42) |
Proof.
3. The structure Hamiltonian
The connection between dB-spaces on the one hand and canonical systems on the other is a core feature in de Branges’ work. Our aim in this section is to present it in a language adapted to our present needs and to prove some additions to [13].
The link between the two objects is the set of subspaces of a given dB-space which are themselves dB-spaces.
Definition 3.1.
Let . Then we denote
The comprehensive result now reads as follows.
Theorem 3.2.
Let . Then there exists with , such that the solution of
(3.1) | ||||
has the following properties.
-
(i)
Set . For we have , and for the function is a scalar multiple of a real entire function. We have .
-
(ii)
It holds that
(3.2) (3.3) -
(iii)
Denote
Then is an order isomorphism and homeomorphism. In particular, is totally ordered w.r.t. and compact as a subset of .
The Hamiltonian is uniquely determined by the property that the solution of eq. 3.1 satisfies eq. 3.3.
The following additional properties are satisfied.
-
(iv)
Let be an indivisible interval with . Then . For with the map is a decreasing bijection from onto .
-
(v)
Set , then .
This theorem is only a slight extension of what was shown by de Branges. In [13] all assertions of the theorem are shown with exception of the topological properties in (iii), the inclusion “” in eq. 3.2, and it was always assumed that has no real zeros. While removing the restriction on real zeros is simple, showing equality in eq. 3.2 requires an argument which we provide now. First note the following geometric fact.
Lemma 3.3.
Let be a Hilbert space, and let and be linear subspaces of with . Assume that is a scalar product on such that
(3.4) |
Then
Proof.
Let . For each we have
Since was arbitrary, it follows that . ∎
Proof of Theorem 3.2.
We proceed in two steps. First we assume that and prove the missing parts, where we use that all other assertions in the theorem are readily known from [13]. After having completed this step, we remove the assumption on real zeros.
-
①
To show the inclusion “” in eq. 3.2 let and with . In view of eq. 3.3 we may assume furthermore that , and hence that . Since the set is a closed linear subspace of , and since is invariant under the operations in Definition 2.7(ii),(iii) the space is a dB-space which is isometrically contained in . The same holds, clearly, for , and eq. 3.3 furnishes us with such that
Since , we have and the interval is indivisible.
Choose such that . By Lemma 3.3, also . Since is contractively contained in , we have . Item (iv) of the theorem provides us with with .
We come to item (iii). We know from Theorem 3.2 that is order preserving and injective. Moreover, is continuous for and , and this yields that maps continuously into . It remains to note that is compact.
-
②
Assume now we have with . Choose a real entire function with only real zeros such that . Set , then and we may define
The solution of eq. 3.1 is nothing but , and Lemma 2.10 shows that all properties of the family transfer to the corresponding properties of .
∎
Based on the above theorem we may introduce the following notation.
Definition 3.4.
Let . The Hamiltonian whose existence and uniqueness is granted by Theorem 3.2 is called the structure Hamiltonian of . If we wish to emphasize the dependence on , we denote the structure Hamiltonian as and write and .
Example 3.5.
Assume we have which is in lc at both endpoints, let , , be its fundamental solution and be the associated Hermite-Biehler functions eq. 2.23. Then the structure Hamiltonian of is given as
Moreover, .
This example is universal in the following sense: If with , then if and only if occurs from a limit circle Hamiltonian in the above way.
Let us state two immediate consequences of uniqueness in Theorem 3.2. The first is obvious and the second relies on the transformation rule Lemma 2.20.
Corollary 3.6.
Let and its structure Hamiltonian. Let and , where is the solution of eq. 3.1. Then we have
Corollary 3.7.
Let and its structure Hamiltonian. Let , then
Proof.
We have
and hence
By Lemma 2.20 it holds that , and the assertion follows by uniqueness of the structure Hamiltonian. ∎
There is a close connection between structure Hamiltonians and Weyl coefficients. This is based on use of an involution on the set of Hamiltonians: for , let be the Hamiltonian defined on by
where . The mentioned connection is established by the following result which can be found e.g. in [31]. For the convenience of the reader, we provide a direct deduction from Theorem 3.2.
Proposition 3.8.
Let and let be the corresponding structure Hamiltonian. Then we have
Remember here the definition eq. 2.33 of the Weyl coefficient.
Proof.
Let denote the transfer matrix for . Then we have
(3.5) |
As short computation shows that the fundamental solution for is given as
Since , we have . Transposing eq. 3.5 and rewriting for , we get for
For the parameter family defined as , we have
Since we have , and sending proves the assertion. ∎
As a first consequence we obtain a kind of converse to Corollary 3.6.
Corollary 3.9.
Let and its structure Hamiltonian. Let and , and set
Then the structure Hamiltonian of is given (a.e.) as
(3.6) |
and the corresponding chain of Hermite-Biehler functions as
Proof.
By our choice of a metric topologizing and , cf. eq. 2.18, the map is an isometry between those two sets of Hamiltonians.
We can now show a continuity result.
Proposition 3.10.
The maps
are continuous.
Proof.
Continuity of the first map comes from Theorem 2.22. Let be a net in , , and assume that . Then and . Proposition 3.8 yields , and it follows that .
Consider now the second map. Since all involved topologies are metrizable, it is enough to show sequential continuity. Let for , , and assume that and . We distinguish two cases.
Case 1, : We know that , and this implies that
Since all are trace normalized, we have , and together therefore . Since transfer matrices always have determinant , also inverse matrices converge, and eq. 3.5 implies that . In turn, it follows that , i.e., .
Preparation for Case 2: We show that
(3.7) |
is a normal family in .
Since the sequence converges in , it is bounded in the metric of , i.e., locally bounded as a family of complex valued functions. We have , and hence for all . The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality now yields that eq. 3.7 is locally bounded and, by Montel’s theorem, therefore a normal family in .
Case 2, : To show that , it is sufficient to prove that every convergent subsequence has limit . Assume we have , such that the limit exists. Let , then , and hence for all sufficiently large . Using what we have shown in Case 1, we find
Since was arbitrary, it follows that . This holds for all , and therefore . ∎
The family of Theorem 3.2 can be viewed as one possible parametrization of the family . All possible parameterizations can be described.
Proposition 3.11.
Let . For denote by and the corresponding number and family of functions given by Theorem 3.2 when applied with the function . Then (the dot indicates that the sets in the union are pairwise disjoint)
(3.8) |
Proof.
Due to Corollary 3.7 and its proof, and
Note that preserves indivisible intervals. We first show that the union in eq. 3.8 is disjoint. Let and and assume that
(3.9) |
Then
and it follows that . Since the functions and are linearly independent, eq. 3.9 implies .
The inclusion “” in eq. 3.8 is clear. To prove the reverse inclusion, let with and be given. Then there exists such that , and hence we find with . ∎
Corollary 3.12.
Let and be such that and . Then there exists a unique function such that and for some . The number is uniquely determined by and .
Proof.
Choose with . Then there exists a unique matrix with
Set . ∎
4. Chains of de Branges Spaces
We have seen in the previous section that a single Hermite-Biehler function gives rise to a whole chain of dB-spaces parameterized by a canonical system. Our aim in this section is to axiomatize the notion of a chain. This is a core concept, and in particular the convergence result Theorem 4.17 is a key tool.
4.1. Bounded and unbounded chains axiomatically
Definition 4.1.
Let . We call a chain if it satisfies the following properties.
-
(i)
and ;
-
(ii)
is totally ordered with respect to ;
-
(iii)
is closed (in the topology of );
-
(iv)
for each element we have
-
(v)
for each two elements we have .
We call a chain bounded if it contains a largest element and unbounded otherwise. We denote the set of chains, bounded chains, and unbounded chains as and , respectively. For a chain , we denote by the common real zero divisor of its nonzero elements, i.e., for all .
Example 4.2.
For a space we consider the set from Definition 3.1, and show that it is a bounded chain. By its definition satisfies (i) and (v) of Definition 4.1, and is the largest element of . We know from Theorem 3.2 that is compact and hence closed. Moreover, is order isomorphic to an interval with some , and this implies that (ii) and (iv) of Definition 4.1 hold.
Example 4.3.
Let be a Hamiltonian which is lc at and lp at , and let be its fundamental solution and the corresponding kernel eq. 2.24. We show that
is an unbounded chain. By Theorem 3.2 and Example 3.5 we have . The properties (i), (ii), (iv), (v) readily follow. To see (iii), it suffices to note that for a sequence we have whenever is nonreal, and hence the limit cannot exist.
The next result explains a lot about the nature of chains: each beginning section is of the form described in Example 4.2.
Proposition 4.4.
Let be a chain. If , then
(4.1) |
In particular, each beginning section of is a bounded chain.
Proof.
Choose such that , and let be the map from Theorem 3.2 (iii). Then the set on the right side of eq. 4.1 equals . The inclusion “” in eq. 4.1 is clear, hence we have to show that .
The inverse image is closed and contains the points and . Assume towards a contradiction that . Then we find with and . It follows that , and we obtain
This contradicts injectivity of . ∎
We have the obvious corollary that bounded chains can be seen as nothing but a different encoding of dB-spaces.
Corollary 4.5.
-
(i)
The maps and establish mutually inverse bijections between and .
-
(ii)
Let . Then is a bounded chain if and only if there exist and , such that is a homeomorphism and preserves order.
We also obtain a structural property of the set of chains.
Proposition 4.6.
The following statements hold.
-
(i)
Let with . Then either or .
-
(ii)
The set of maximal elements of is equal to .
Proof.
For the proof of (i) consider with . Then for each two elements . Choose with , and choose and with . Furthermore, choose with .
Let . Then since , and since it follows that . We obtain
The set is closed, and therefore contains a largest element, say . Proposition 4.4, applied to each element of , yields and this is a bounded chain.
We come to the proof of (ii). Assume is not maximal, and choose with . Applying the already proved statement (i) with yields that is a bounded chain. Conversely, assume that . Choose with , and set
Then and hence . ∎
4.2. Concrete realization of chains
We come to a description of chains (bounded or unbounded) which resembles Theorem 3.2. The idea is to pin one element of the chain at “” and describe the evolution to “” by a canonical system similar as in Example 4.3, and the part for “” by the structure Hamiltonian from Theorem 3.2. In particular, we will see that every unbounded chain is order isomorphic and homeomorphic to an interval with some . To formulate this description in a unified manner for bounded and unbounded chains, we introduce the following notation.
Definition 4.7.
We denote by the set of all locally integrable functions such that for a.a. , and that there exists with
We call the interval indivisible (of course without assigning a type to it), and let be the set of all points which are not inner point of an indivisible interval.
Lemma 4.8.
The map
is continuous, and is compact.
Proof.
We show that is closed in . To this end, let and a sequence in with . Then, in particular, for all we have
Choose a subsequence which converges to some number . Then
Since a.e., it follows that a.e. Thus and . We also see that the number is independent of the chosen subsequence, and therefore . This shows that is continuous. ∎
Definition 4.9.
We define a map111Here denotes the power set. as
The description of chains announced above now reads as follows.
Theorem 4.10.
The following statements hold.
-
(i)
Let . Then , and is bounded if and only if .
-
(ii)
If and are such that , then and a.e. In particular, if , then a.e.
-
(iii)
If and with , then there exists such that .
-
(iv)
Assume that and with . Then if and only if .
For later reference we state the essence for the proof of item (i) as a separate lemma.
Lemma 4.11.
Let . Define
and let be the solution of
Moreover, set
and let be the map
Then , and is an order isomorphism and homeomorphism onto its range. Moreover, is closed in .
Proof.
By Theorem 3.2 and the definition of we have . Consider , then the restriction is an order isomorphism and homeomorphism onto its image by Theorem 3.2. If , we can use and are done.
Assume that . Then the above shows that is an order isomorphism and continuous. It remains to show that is continuous and that is closed. Let be a sequence in such that the limit exists in . Since , we have for all , and therefore must be bounded. Now the already settled case applies, and we obtain that the limit exists and . We see that is continuous and that is closed. ∎
Proof of Theorem 4.10.
-
①
Item (i) of the theorem is immediate from Lemma 4.11. Since is order isomorphic to the interval , the properties (ii), (iv) in Definition 4.1 hold, and has a maximal element if and only if . Property (iii) in Definition 4.1 is directly from the lemma, and property (v) from the definition of . To see Definition 4.1(i), note that and .
Also item (iv) of the theorem is easy to see. First note that the definition of ensures that has a largest element, namely . On the other hand, if is the largest element of , then by Proposition 4.4.
-
②
In this step we establish the uniqueness statement (ii). Assume we are given and such that . Let , , and denote for . Assume that , then Corollary 3.9 implies that, for ,
The uniqueness part of Corollary 3.12 implies that and . Uniqueness of the structure Hamiltonian now implies that a.e.
We choose an increasing sequence with , and apply what we showed above. This yields a.e., and in turn and .
-
③
The last step is to prove the existence result (iii). Assume we are given and with .
For each we have
This relation, together with Proposition 4.4 applied with and and Theorem 3.2 with , yields that
If is bounded, we can use and are done. If is unbounded, we have to make a limit construction.
We start with observing a monotonicity property. Assume that with . Then , and by the already established item (ii) thus
(4.2) Set
This supremum is not attained since has no largest element. Choose a sequence of spaces such that
Due to eq. 4.2 an element in is (a.e.) well-defined by
Let with , and choose with . Then , and we find such that
We see that . Proposition 4.6 implies that equality holds.
∎
Based on the above theorem we may introduce the following notation.
Definition 4.12.
Let and such that . Let be the (a.e.) unique element such that . Then we denote
We have the analogue to Corollary 4.5(ii).
Corollary 4.13.
Let . Then is an unbounded chain if and only if there exist and , such that is a homeomorphism, preserves order, and the limit does not exist in .
4.3. Convergence of chains
We introduce a notion of convergence of chains.
Definition 4.14.
Let be a net in and . Then we say that converges to , and write , if
-
(i)
for every there exists a net of spaces , such that ;
-
(ii)
for every subnet , of spaces which converges in , the limit belongs to .
We intentionally do not use the notation “” since we do not know if this notion of convergence comes from a topology. However, convergence does transfer to subnets and limits are unique.
Lemma 4.15.
Let be a net in .
-
(i)
Let . If and is a subnet, then also .
-
(ii)
Let . If and , then .
Proof.
The assertion in (i) is clear. We come to the proof of (ii). Let . Since we find a net with and in . Since , it follows that . This shows that . Exchanging the roles of and yields the reverse inclusion. ∎
Example 4.16.
Let . Then endowed with is (in particular) a directed set. The net converges to . This follows easily: in item (i) of Definition 4.14 we can take a net which is constant from some index, and (ii) holds because is closed.
In the following theorem we make the connection between the abstract notion of convergence introduced above, and the concrete realization of chains from Theorem 4.10.
Theorem 4.17.
Proof.
The implication “(iii)(ii)” is trivial.
-
①
We show that “(ii)(i)”. Assume that we have with eq. 4.3 and eq. 4.4. Let notation and and be as in Lemma 4.11 for and , respectively. By Proposition 3.10 the relation eq. 4.3 implies that also , and it follows that
Combining this with yields
In particular, Definition 4.14 (i) is satisfied.
Now assume we have a subnet and , , such that in . Our aim is to show that . Let
be such that . By passing to a further subnet if necessary, we may assume that the limit exists in . First consider the case that . Using the convergence given by eq. 4.3 and eq. 4.4 in the same way as in the previous paragraph leads to
Second, assume that . For each we find such that for all . Passing to the limit yields , and hence for all . We have , and obtain
Finally, we are going to rule out the case that . If we had , then we find for each an index such that for all . Passing to the limit yields , and hence for all . By continuity of , we have , i.e., is an unbounded chain. This implies that whenever is nonreal, and we have reached a contradiction.
-
②
We show that “(i)(iii)”. Assume that and pick with . By Definition 4.14 (i) and Theorem 2.9 (iv) we find such that and . Our aim is to show that, for each such choice of , it holds that in . Since is compact, it suffices to evaluate limits of convergent subnets. Hence, assume we have and such that . Set , then by what we aready proved in the first step. Remembering Lemma 4.15 (i), we find , and now Lemma 4.15 (ii) implies
Theorem 4.10(ii) yields .
∎
As a corollary we obtain that on the set of bounded chains convergence can be characterized in a simple (in particular metrizable) way.
Corollary 4.18.
Let be a net in , and . Then if and only if .
Proof.
Assume first that . Choose such that
Since , it follows that .
Conversely, assume that . Choose with and such that and . Then . It follows that , and hence
It remains to note that . ∎
The next result allows us to conclude convergence of arbitrary (also unbounded) chains when a candidate for the limit is guessed. We state variant which is sufficient for our later needs.
Proposition 4.19.
Let be a net in , and let . Assume that is continuous with , that is strictly increasing with , and that there exists for and , such that
Then and .
Proof.
First of all note that all spaces with are and, being limits of dB-spaces, belong to .
Let . For we have
and hence find such that
The function
is nondecreasing, and we conclude that for all . In other words, it holds that for such . By Corollary 4.18 we have
Since is the limit of the subnet , it follows that . We see that
Let . Then , and thus we find such that . If , then . Since it follows that . Similarly, we obtain that for all .
Consider the case that . Then , and continuity of yields
i.e., . If , we have
and if , then
Thus, in every case, . We conclude that
(4.5) |
We can now check that . The properties (i), (ii), (iv), (v) of Definition 4.1 are clear from eq. 4.5. To show that is closed, it is enough to note that for any convergent net the net is eventually bounded since , and that is continuous.
It remains to show that . Property (i) of Definition 4.14 holds directly by the present assumption. Assume we have a convergent subnet as in (ii) of this definition, say, where . We argue in the same way as above. Let be such that . For we have
and hence there exists such that for all . We obtain
Similarly, for all . Continuity of yields . ∎
5. Measures associated to unbounded chains
In the previous section we saw that bounded chains correspond to de Branges spaces: by Corollary 4.5 and Corollary 4.18 the maps
are mutually inverse bijections and both preserve convergence.
For unbounded chains the situation is much more complex. The substitute for the set above is
and a map can be constructed, cf. Theorem 5.2 below. This map is surjective and preserves convergence, but it is not anymore injective.
In order to simplify the presentation we restrict all considerations to chains with ; treating the general case is not necessary for our purposes, and would involve some technical complications.
5.1. The direct problem
Inclusions of a space of entire functions in a space are understood via the restriction map -a.e. (which is often, but not always, injective).
Definition 5.1.
Let with . A measure is called a spectral measure for , if
The following theorem is again a slight addition to the results shown by de Branges.
Theorem 5.2.
-
(i)
Let with . Then there exists a unique spectral measure for , and we denote this measure as .
-
(ii)
Let . Then
and the measure in the integral representation of is .
Proof.
Let and choose with . Let be the Hamiltonian from Definition 4.12, let refer to , and denote by the solution of
For let be the Hamiltonian
Then for all . By [13, Problem 158] there exists a measure such that for all the measure in the integral representation of is .
At this point we split the argument distinguishing the cases whether is bounded from above or not. If we use to show that is the unique spectral measure for , and if we refer to [13, Problem 163] to obtain a unique spectral measure and then show that this measure equals .
-
①
Assume that . Let be such that a.e., set
Since , the functions and have no common zeros, and since also . In particular, this implies that both functions and have only real and simple zeros. Write
then we have for all
cf. eq. 2.15. A direct computation shows that we have . Hence, is discrete and supported on the zero set of with point mass for with . If we have by [13, Theorem 22], if the same relation holds trivially. Moreover, obviously, . Thus is a spectral measure for . Conversely, if is a spectral measure for , then we must have
and hence . Thus is discrete with support contained in the zero set of . If with , we have , and hence may evaluate
-
②
We invoke [13, Problem 163] which tells us that there exists an unique measure such that
We observe that is the unique spectral measure for . Given , we can choose with , and it follows that
On the other hand, if is a spectral measure for , and , choose with . Then
and it follows that .
In order to identify , we provide an auxiliary argument. Let . Since , [13, Theorem 27] provides us with a matrix function such that
-
(i)
has real and entire entries,
-
(ii)
and the kernel is positive definite,
-
(iii)
.
Set
then also has the properties (i), (ii). The functions and belong to , are continuous along , and a computation shows that
Thus, we find such that , and in turn
It follows that for all
and hence that the measures in the integral representations of and coincide.
Now fix . Then [13, Problem 90] provides us with a function such that the measure in the Herglotz integral representation of
is . We obtain from [13, Theorem 32] that the measure in the integral representation of , and hence in the one of , is .
We have , and since we can let inside it follows that the measure in the integral representation of is .
-
(i)
∎
By means of Theorem 5.2 we have a map
We show that this map is surjective but not injective, and that it preserves convergence.
Proposition 5.3.
The following statements hold.
-
(i)
For each the set
has infinitely many elements.
-
(ii)
Let be a net in , and . If , then in the -topology of .
Proof.
For the proof of item (i) we observe that the construction from Lemma 2.10 lifts to chains. If , , and is a real and zerofree entire function, then
The chains and are together bounded or unbounded. If for some , , then .
-
①
We show that whenever . Assuming this decay of ensures that contains the set of all polynomials with complex coefficients as a dense linear subspace (e.g. [27, Satz 5.2]).
Let and assume that contains at least points. Then the space
becomes a dB-space when endowed with the -scalar product. We are going to fill up this sequence of spaces in order to obtain an unbounded chain. To this end denote by , , the orthonormal polynomials in , i.e., with and
Then (here we set )
For set
and, for and ,
Then is a dB-space, and . Clearly, for all ,
If , then is an unbounded chain and
Assume that . Then we choose a polynomial with degree such that for all , and define for the space as endowed with the norm (, )
Then is an unbounded chain and again .
-
②
Let be given. Choose a continuous function such that
and choose an entire function such that
This is possible, e.g., by [75, Theorem 10.3]. We may assume w.l.o.g. that all power series coefficients of are nonnegative, so that
For let be the measure
Then
By the first part of the proof there exists with and . Let be the entire function
This function is real and zerofree. We have , and for each , , it holds that
where equality holds when ; recall again Lemma 2.10. We see that .
Each chain contains the space , and hence the chain contains . For we have
and therefore .
-
③
We come to the proof of (ii). Assume we have . According to Theorem 4.17 we find and such that
It follows that
and, remembering eq. 2.32, therefore .
∎
Remark 5.4.
Let . By [13, Theorem 40] we have
By the ordering theorem [13, Theorem 35] two elements of are either equal or . We have if and only if there exist functions and , such that their quotient is a meromorphic function of bounded characteristic in and (and further equivalent that this holds for all such ).
5.2. The inverse problem
We do not know any natural way to construct a right-inverse of the surjective map
For the subclass of power bounded measures, an inverse construction can be made. This is based on the fact that for such measures an element of with a particular additional function theoretic property can be singled out.
Theorem 5.5.
-
(i)
For each there exists a unique element such that
We denote this chain as .
-
(ii)
Let be a net in and , and assume that
If in the -topology of , then .
The proof of this theorem proceeds via a detour through the sign-indefinite world: it relies on the results recalled in the preliminaries, in particular on Theorem 2.27 and Theorem 2.29.
Proof of Theorem 5.5(i), existence.
Let be given. The case that is trivial. In fact, set
Then
and we see that
and for all .
Assume throughout the following that is not the zero measure. Choose such that , and a polynomial with real coefficients of degree whose leading coefficient is not smaller than . Then the function belongs to the class . Let be a matrix family for with Hamiltonian (recall Theorem 2.29). Our candidate for the required unbounded chain is
where is as in item (ii) of Theorem 2.29. Note that is of bounded type in and . Fix . The map defined as
is continuous, injective, and preserves order. Thus, by Corollary 4.5(ii), we have
Let be a reparameterization of , i.e., with an appropriate increasing bijection . Then
and hence
(5.1) |
We use the construction from Theorem 5.2 to compute . It holds that
and hence
We denote , then
This leads to
Since are all real entire functions, and
the Stieltjes-Livshits inversion eq. 2.40 formula yields that for with
Since for all , we conclude that . ∎
Proof of Theorem 5.5(i), uniqueness.
By Remark 5.4 each set can contain at most one element such that all elements of are of bounded type in and . ∎
Our next aim is to prove a continuity property on the level of functions . The assertion stated in Theorem 5.5(ii) will then follow easily.
We use the following notation: Let and be a matrix family for with Hamiltonian . For denote by the trace-normalized reparameterization of . Note here that is in limit circle case at and limit point case at .
Proposition 5.6.
Let , a net in , and . Then the following statements are equivalent.
-
(i)
locally uniformly on .
-
(ii)
There exist matrix families
for with respective Hamiltonians , and points , such that locally uniformly on and in .
Proof.
-
①
The implication “(ii)(i)” is the easy one, and we settle it first. Since and are solutions of the respective equations eq. 2.20, we have
-
②
The essence in the proof of “(i)(ii)” is the following statement, which we are going to prove in this step.
Let , , for , assume that , in the -topology in , and . Then there exist matrix families
for the functions
respectively, and , , such that
Note here that the assumptions on ensure that and , and hence that is well-defined.
We use induction on . Consider the case that . For let be the Hamiltonian with . Then the fundamental solution , , of is a matrix family for with Hamiltonian . By the Grommer-Hamburger theorem we have , and hence . In particular, .
Assume now that the assertion holds for some , and let be given as in the assertion for . Then we define as
and this is data to which our inductive hypothesis applies. We thus obtain matrix families for , and , such that
(5.2) W.l.o.g. we may thereby assume that (this can always be achieved by a reparameterization).
We have
and invoke [46, Lemma 4.16]. This provides us with a matrix family for . The formulae in the proof of this lemma are explicit, and say that , , and
where
Note here that for all since . The values of on the possible remainder of the domain of definition of are also determined in [46] but are irrelevant for our purposes.
-
③
We deduce the implication “(i)(ii)”. Assume that . Write
then
By what we showed in the previous step, there exist matrix families for defined on certain intervals , and corresponding points , such that
We have
and by [34, Lemma 10.2] and the computation in the proof of [46, Corollary 5.9] matrix families for can be obtained as
We see that
By Lemma 2.31 we have
and hence . This implies that .
∎
Proof of Theorem 5.5(ii).
We have and
Since , it follows that and . Set
then and . According to Proposition 5.6 we find matrix families for with Hamiltonians and corresponding points , such that
By the construction of , cf. eq. 5.1, we have
where . Clearly, , and Theorem 4.17 implies that . ∎
There are only few cases where the chain corresponding to a measure can be determined explicitly. One of them are measures with power density. For such measures can be described in terms of confluent hypergeometric functions. Recall:
where and . The symbol denotes the rising factorial, i.e.,
The following fact is shown in [22, Corollary 7.6].
Example 5.7.
Let , , and let be the measure which is absolutely continuous w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure and has derivative
We define functions by distinguishing two cases.
-
(i)
Assume that . Define
-
(ii)
Assume that or . Define
Now set
and for . Then
Remark 5.8.
It is an open problem to characterize those measures for which there exists a chain , such that all elements of are entire functions of bounded type in and . We do not expect an easy answer.
6. Rescaling limits for measures with regularly varying distribution function
We apply the theory developed in the previous sections to investigate rescaling limits of reproducing kernels. Recall the notion of regular variation from [5]. We will say that is locally if for every it holds that and .
Definition 6.1.
Let be in lc at and in lp at . Recall the kernel from eq. 2.24, and denote
Let be a regularly varying function with positive index, and assume that is locally . We say that has a rescaling limit with rate , if the limit
(6.1) |
exists locally uniformly for and is not constant.
Note that the factor is chosen such that .
A Hamiltonian which is in lc at and lp at gives rise to a spectral measure . In the below theorem we relate existence of a rescaling limit of with the local behaviour of at zero.
Theorem 6.2.
Let be in limit circle case at and in limit point case at , and let be its spectral measure. Then the following statements are equivalent.
-
(i)
There exists a regularly varying function with positive index which is locally , such that has a rescaling limit with rate .
-
(ii)
There exists a regularly varying function with positive index and numbers with , such that
(6.2) and .
Assume that (i) and (ii) hold. Then the functions and are asymptotic inverses of each other, and the limit kernel in (i) is equal to the kernel from Example 5.7 built with the data from (ii), namely and , where is the index of .
To prove this theorem we have to relate the reproducing kernels for large and small with the concentration of mass of the spectral measure around zero. This is achieved by relating both with a third object, and this man in the middle is a family of transforms of the Hamiltonian .
Definition 6.3.
Let be lc at and lp at , and let be a function. The we define, for each , a weighted rescaling of as follows: write and set
In the next lemma we provide the properties of this transform which we will use in the sequel.
Lemma 6.4.
Let be lc at and lp at , and let . Moreover, let . Then , and is lc at and lp at . We have
where is the map and is the pushforward of the measure under .
Proof.
It is clear that for each and, since
that is lc at and lp at . Plugging in the differential equation shows that the fundamental solution of is
A computation yields the asserted formula for the kernel . Moreover, we see that
and the Stieltjes inversion formula implies the assertion about the spectral measure. ∎
Combining the above lemma with Example 4.3 we have the following immediate corollary.
Corollary 6.5.
Assume we are in the situation of Lemma 6.4. Then
We can already establish one implication from Theorem 6.2.
Proof of Theorem 6.2, “(i)(ii)”.
Assume that has the rescaling limit with rate . We proceed in four steps.
-
①
The first step is to show that
Assume towards a contradiction that ; note here that is nondecreasing. Since is locally , we have
Choose a sequence with , such that the limit exists. Let , then by eq. 2.25 we have
uniformly for . We obtain that
and have reached a contradiction.
Since tends to infinity, it holds for every function with that
By the smooth variation theorem [5, Theorem 1.8.2] we may thus switch to a rate which is possibly better behaved than . We use this freedom and assume for the rest of the proof that is continuous and has a finite positive limit at .
-
②
In this step we pass to the man in the middle. Choose an asymptotic inverse of , and use to build the transforms . Moreover, denote by the index of . We consider the chains and the function
Note here that is a positive kernel as limit of positive kernels, and thus also is a positive kernel.
Our aim is to apply Proposition 4.19. It is clear that and that is continuous. We have , and since this function is strictly increasing and tends to . We have to produce elements , , such that for all . Set
then
and we see that
It remains to note that is continuous and .
Now Proposition 4.19 implies that
We show that . Let , and assume towards a contradiction that . Since for all , it follows that
Passing to the limit yields that , and this is a contradiction.
-
③
Let be the spectral measure of . In this step we show that is absolutely continuous w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure and that its derivative has the form
(6.3) with some and . The argument relies on the theory of homogeneous de Branges spaces developed in [12, 22].
To start with, we show that . Assume the contrary, then for all . In particular, the function is a scalar multiple of , say . Writing the power series expansion of as
and comparing coefficients of and yields that and for all . Thus is constant equal to , and hence all elements of the space are constant. We obtain that for all
i.e., is constant. This is a contradiction.
Since , we have , and hence there exists such that . We obtain
By [22, Lemma 2.3], for each , the map
restricts to an isometric isomorphism of onto and to one of onto . It follows that
Now [22, Proposition 5.4] implies that is homogeneous of order , and by [22, Theorem 7.2] (together with [22, Theorem 6.2]) the measure is of the form eq. 6.3.
-
④
It is easy to pass on to the measure . By Proposition 5.3(ii), we have in the -topology of . By the Portmanteau theorem [3, Theorem 1] this means that
Note here that has no point masses. By Lemma 6.4 we have
and it follows that
Moreover,
and since this implies that .
∎
The proof of the converse implication “(ii)(i)” in Theorem 6.2 works in essence by reversing the steps in the above argument.
The first step is to exploit the conditions on stated in (ii). We do this by means of the following lemma (recall here the notation eq. 2.36).
Lemma 6.6.
Proof.
The relation eq. 6.4 is easy to see. Let and compute
In the same way we obtain
Since , the relation eq. 6.4 follows.
The proof of eq. 6.5 is more involved; it relies on Karamata’s theorems about asymptotics of integrals and Stieltjes transforms of regularly varying functions. First, we rewrite the norms to a more convenient form. To this end let be the function , and let be the pushforward . Then
In order to understand the behaviour of , we thus have to analyze the measure . Note first that
Now consider the function defined as . This function is nonincreasing and nonnegative, in particular of bounded variation. We have
and see that is regularly varying with index . We apply [5, Theorem 1.6.4] to obtain (this integral is understood in Riemann-Stieltjes sense)
Consider the function defined as
Then
We apply [5, Theorem 1.7.4] to obtain
and thus (here is Euler’s Beta-function)
Making a change of variable, we evaluate
and this establishes eq. 6.5. ∎
Proof of Theorem 6.2, “(ii)(i)”.
Assume that and that the limits eq. 6.2 exist where is regularly varying with positive index. We proceed in three steps.
-
①
The above lemma applied with and justifies an application of Theorem 5.5(ii), from which we obtain that . The chain is known explicitly from Example 5.7, and we use the notation from this example. Moreover, recall that the chains are known from Corollary 6.5.
The definition of convergence of chains yields that there exists such that
(6.6) -
②
In this step we show that
Assume towards a contradiction that . Since , we obtain
a contradiction.
-
③
Let be an asymptotic inverse of . Our aim is to show that
(6.7) Set . Then , and hence and
The function is nondecreasing and the function is strictly increasing. Hence, the above limit relation implies that
From the first relation it follows that (here “” refers to the order of positive kernels, cf. eq. 2.3)
for all sufficiently large , and this shows that
is a normal family. In order to show eq. 6.7 it is thus enough to evaluate the limit of convergent subsequences.
Assume that is a sequence with such that the limit
exists. Let , , then for all sufficiently large we have
Passing to the limit yields
and letting and in this relation gives .
∎
Proof of Theorem 1.11.
Since , the family is also a -decreasing family and it corresponds to shifted kernels . Thus, we can assume without loss of generality that and that for all .
Since is -decreasing, the corresponding family of de Branges spaces is contained in a chain , and the map is monotone increasing. Denote by the corresponding trace-normalized Hamiltonian so that
If for some , then . Since is continuous, so is . Since is limit point at , and as . Thus, the rescaling limit
exists if and only if the rescaling limit (6.1) exists, and in this case their values are equal. Now the result follows directly from Theorem 6.2. ∎
7. Two conventions and Schrödinger operators
7.1. Two conventions
In this text, we used the convention prevalent in canonical systems [13], that for a -decreasing family of transfer matrices in the limit point case, its Weyl function is described by
(independent of ). One way to obtain such transfer matrices is as solutions of
(7.1) |
with a Hamiltonian. Another convention, more common in mathematical physics, is to work with a -increasing family of transfer matrices and associate with it a Weyl function by
To switch between the two conventions while preserving the Weyl function and the measure, we will use
(7.2) |
Remark 7.1.
One way to obtain a -increasing family is as a solution of
(7.3) |
with a Hamiltonian , but we warn the reader that this is not compatible with (7.1), (7.2). Instead, if is defined by (7.1), (7.2), we have since ; therefore satisfies
Thus, to switch from one convention to the other while preserving the Weyl function, the Hamiltonian should be replaced by . This also explains differences between Hamiltonians written in this paper and those in [21].
7.2. Schrödinger operators
Consider Schrödinger operators . We allow the general setting of a locally potential , where , [29, 30, 60]; the most often studied case corresponds to [80, 59]. Note that we impose the local integrability assumptions also at the endpoint , i.e., it is a regular endpoint. The corresponding transfer matrices are
where
8. Orthogonal polynomials and subexponential growth
In this section, we explain the specializations of our work to orthogonal polynomials on the real line and on the unit circle. We recall how the study of these systems is reduced to the canonical system setting, and how the sequence of CD kernels associated to orthogonal polynomials is embedded in a continuous family of kernels. Beyond this, we study the distinction between the scaling limit of the sequence of kernels and the scaling limit of the continuous family, and the role of the subexponential growth of orthogonal polynomials.
8.1. Orthogonal polynomials on the real line
Let be a measure on such that has infinite cardinality, and has finite moments corresponding to a determinate moment problem. Since shifting by merely shifts the CD kernels by , there is no loss of generality in discussing the canonical system correspondence in its usual notation, normalized at . The Weyl function
(8.1) |
of the measure corresponds to the canonical system with Hamiltonian
Since and is constant on , the family of kernels corresponding to this canonical system is known to be piecewise linear (1.4), and are indivisible intervals. Thus, most of Theorem 1.6 will be an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.11, and it remains to explain how the scaling limit of the continuous family of kernels is related to the scaling limit of the sequence of CD kernels. We start with a preliminary lemma:
Lemma 8.1.
Let be regularly varying at with index and assume that are sequences tending to with . Then
uniformly in .
Proof.
Define and note that . For sufficiently large, . Fix . Then by the uniform convergence theorem [5, Theorem 1.5.2], there exists so that for
Lemma 8.2.
Proof.
Without loss of generality we assume and abbreviate
The proof is by contradiction. If (1.8) fails, there exists a subsequence as , along which
for some . By linear interpolation, for ,
(8.2) |
Let and denote . For the sequence , we get
and
We write the linear interpolation (8.2) as
By Lemma 8.1 and the assumption (1.12), taking gives
To see the consequences of such a relation, we first rescale by a factor of to rewrite as
Expressing in terms of , we rewrite this relation as
Viewing this as a function of with fixed , the function is of the form on the part of the ray . Replacing by with arbitrary we cover the whole ray. On overlapping intervals the constants must match. Since and , by taking we see that on any ray, so , which is a contradiction. ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.6.
(i)(ii)(iii) follows immediately from Theorem 1.11.
(iii)(iv): this follows from the previous lemma.
The condition (1.13) with index shifted by reads
(8.4) |
Since convergence in (8.4) is uniform on compacts, we can combine it inside the parentheses with and finally multiply by to conclude
(8.5) |
For with , using (1.4) and computing a convex combination of limits (1.13) and (8.5), it follows that
uniformly in . Combining this with (8.3) inside the parentheses and multiplying by shows
uniformly in , which is equivalent to (1.12). ∎
8.2. Orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle
Let be a probability measure on such that is not a finite set, its orthogonal polynomials, and the CD kernels (1.23). In terms of reflected polynomials , they satisfy the CD formula
A way to relate orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle to an energy-periodic canonical system was described in [21, Section 6]. At the level of functions, it relates OPUC with Carathéodory function
(8.6) |
to the canonical system with the -periodic Weyl -function
(8.7) |
We provide further information about this correspondence in the following lemma. Since rotating the measure by as
replaces orthogonal polynomials by , it replaces kernels by ; thus writing down the canonical system normalized at suffices to study scaling limits at any point .
Lemma 8.3.
Let be a probability measure on such that is not a finite set, and let be its Carathéodory function (8.6). Then, the canonical system with Weyl function (8.7) has the following properties:
-
(i)
It corresponds to the measure on which is -periodic in the sense that for every Borel set , and
for all Borel sets .
-
(ii)
It corresponds to the piecewise constant Hamiltonian
where denote the second kind polynomials. Note that .
-
(iii)
It has the family of reproducing kernels given for , by
(8.8)
Proof.
(i) follows by Stieltjes inversion from (8.7).
(ii) Orthogonal polynomials satisfy the Szegő recursion, expressed by the Szegő transfer matrices
The derivation in [21, Section 6], expressed in the conventions of this paper, shows that this corresponds to the monotonic family of transfer matrices
where and , and that after the gauge change , it obeys
and therefore is the transfer matrix associated with the Hamiltonian
Note that the formula (8.8) can be used in two ways to evaluate the kernel with an integer index, by using or by using with shifted by ; compatibility of the two answers can be verified by the property of Szegő transfer matrices
The intervals have constant Hamiltonians, but they are not indivisible intervals; this is a qualitative difference compared to OPRL, and it affects the next step. When the kernel at is expressed as a linear combination the kernels at , the formula is different from the OPRL case:
Corollary 8.4.
Proof.
Lemma 8.5.
Assume that the canonical system kernels (8.8) associated to OPUC satisfy
(8.10) |
for some regularly varying of index and . Then
Proof.
Without loss of generality we take . Imitating the proof of Lemma 8.2, we get to
Since as (see [5, Prop. 1.5.1]), taking gives
Remarkably, the different interpolation of kernels leads to the same functional equation for the limit kernel as in OPRL, so the rest of the proof follows as in Lemma 8.2. ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.13.
After rotating the measure so that and passing to the canonical system, Theorem 1.11 implies the equivalence of (i), (ii), and (8.10), with and regularly varying with index .
9. Bulk universality and spectral type
In this section, we explore the interplay of bulk universality and spectral type of through a few brief remarks.
Historically, bulk universality (sine kernel asymptotics) was proved under conditions which included a continuity or Lebesgue point condition for the Radon–Nikodym derivative at the point, with a positive value at . For this reason, bulk universality was closely associated with the absolutely continuous part of . Our local condition (1.5) on makes it apparent that bulk universality at a single point can occur even for a pure point measure:
Lemma 9.1.
Nonetheless, bulk universality on some set of energies implies that the measure is -dimensional there:
Theorem 9.2.
If bulk universality holds on some set in the sense that for every , the kernels have scaling limit (1.10) with regularly varying scaling, then is -dimensional on in the sense that is -continuous for every ; denotes the -dimensional Hausdorff measure.
Proof.
By Theorem 1.3, for every , the limit
is nonzero, and is regularly varying with index . In particular, for every , , so
This is interpreted as an upper -derivative with respect to Hausdorff measure . By Rogers–Taylor [72, 73] (see also [50], [59, Section 6.3]), on the set where
is continuous with respect to . ∎
In the remainder of this section, we discuss sparse decaying Jacobi matrices. We call a Jacobi matrix sparse if there exists a sequence with such that , for all . We call it decaying if , as , since it is then a decaying perturbation of the free Jacobi matrix. The spectral type of a sparse decaying Jacobi matrix on its essential spectrum is completely understood [66, 41]: it has pure a.c. spectrum on if it is a Hilbert–Schmidt perturbation of the free Jacobi matrix, and pure singular spectrum on otherwise.
The first examples of bulk universality without a.c. spectrum were found within this class: for a fixed decaying sequence , Breuer [7] proved that there exist functions such that with the recursive choice and with , for all and otherwise, the sine kernel asymptotics
(9.1) |
hold for every . Note the explicit factor of in the scaling limit (9.1), as opposed to a regularly varying function of .
Our first remark is that Breuer’s examples are within the scope of this paper:
Lemma 9.3.
For every sparse decaying Jacobi matrix and every , the function is a regularly varying function of with index and
Proof.
Denote and diagonalize
Introduce vectors by
Then the Jacobi recursion rewrites as
In particular, is constant on . This implies constancy of
on the same intervals. Moreover, since and , as .
Consider the function defined by for . For every , for large enough , there is at most one jump in the value of between and , so as . By Karamata’s theorem [39, 40] (see also [5, Thm 1.5.11]), the function is regularly varying with index and . Meanwhile,
and partial sums of the oscillatory part are bounded by
so for integers with ,
Since the expression in the absolute value is piecewise linear in and the inequality holds at endpoints of the linear parts, it holds for all . By telescoping,
(9.2) |
The limit
implies by the Stolz–Cesàro theorem that as , and by monotonicity of that as . Thus, (9.2) implies . ∎
Combining this with our Theorem 1.3 gives very precise asymptotic behavior of the spectral measure on intervals, for Jacobi matrices in Breuer’s class:
Corollary 9.4.
Proof.
The function from the previous proof is continuous and strictly increasing, so Lemma 9.3 can be restated in the form . Thus, Theorem 1.3(iii) holds with , and this implies Theorem 1.3(i), that is,
Applying this to the sequence and combining with
(by Lemma 9.3 and regular variation with index ) concludes the proof. ∎
By a result of Zlatoš [85], sparse decaying Jacobi matrices always obey
and therefore have -dimensional spectral measures on ; note that Corollary 9.4 gives a more precise statement about the local behavior of the spectral measure, but within the narrower class of [7]. It is natural to conjecture:
Conjecture 9.5.
For every sparse decaying Jacobi matrix , its spectral measure has a unique tangent measure at every , and this tangent measure is the Lebesgue measure.
10. The local distribution of zeros
In this section, we consider applications to local zero distributions. We will begin with a generalization of the Freud–Levin theorem, formulated in the general context of Hermite–Biehler functions.
We will repeatedly use the following observations. For , the function maps into , and maps into . For fixed , if and only if , , and ; this follows from (2.11), and in particular, non-real zeros are ruled out by (2.10). Moreover, by the Cauchy–Riemann relations and local properties of analytic functions, there is a strictly increasing continuous choice of argument such that
(10.1) |
This representation implies that for with , the solutions of and strictly interlace. Moreover, by the strict interlacing property, the following are equivalent:
-
(i)
has infinitely many positive zeros (these are solutions of )
-
(ii)
has infinitely many positive zeros (these are solutions of )
-
(iii)
has infinitely many positive zeros (these are solutions of )
-
(iv)
as
Theorem 10.1.
Consider a sequence of Hermite-Biehler functions , a point and scaling sequence such that
uniformly on compacts, for some Hermite–Biehler function . If has infinitely many positive zeros, then:
-
(i)
For every , for all large enough , has at least zeros greater than ; in other words its -th zero to the right of , denoted , is well-defined for all large enough .
-
(ii)
Denoting by the smallest positive zero of ,
-
(iii)
If the limit
exists, denote its value by and denote by all the zeros of in . Then for every ,
(10.2) If, in addition, has at least zeros in for some , then has at least zeros in for all large enough , and (10.2) holds also for .
Proof.
Since the shift by and scaling by can be composed with , there is no loss of generality in assuming and .
(i) Fix . Since , by the Hurwitz theorem, for all large enough , has at least zeros with . Thus, there are at least strictly positive solutions of . Including , this means at least zeros in . By the strictly interlacing property, there are at least positive zeros of .
(ii) Denote by the smallest positive zero of . By the Hurwitz theorem, , and by the strictly interlacing property, since , . Thus, .
(iii) By the Hurwitz theorem, solutions of converge to solutions of . The claims for eigenvalues below follow analogously. ∎
Proof of Corollary 1.8.
(i), (ii) follow by applying Theorem 10.1(i),(ii) to the sequence .
(iii) follows by applying Theorem 10.1(iii) to the subsequence . ∎
For further applications, we need a rewriting of the limit kernel in the case . Let us factor Bessel functions as
In particular, we note that is entire, even, and . A rewritting of a kernel in terms of functions is essentially a rewriting in terms of Bessel functions, without branch ambiguities.
Lemma 10.2.
In the case , the limit kernel is of the form
(10.3) |
where
(10.4) |
Proof.
This allows us to describe precisely the local distribution of zeros of even measures around with a Fisher–Hartwig singularity at , in terms of zeros of Bessel functions (1.14). Whereas the Freud–Levin theorem describes the asymptotic distribution up to one free parameter, in this special case, the asymptotic distribution is described exactly, distinguishing between polynomials of even/odd degree:
Lemma 10.3.
If is an even measure on corresponding to a determinate moment problem, and the function
is regularly varying of index , then the following holds at :
- (i)
-
(ii)
Polynomials of even degree have zeros
with the symmetry and limits
(10.6)
Proof.
(i) Denote by the limit kernel (10.3) and by the corresponding Hermite–Biehler function. Since , the positive zeros of are precisely the positive zeros of . Since the function is a multiple of , those zeros are precisely .
By symmetry, is odd, so it has a zero at zero: thus, in our notation, for all , so by Theorem 10.1, (10.5) follows.
(ii) By (i) and Theorem 10.1,
Moreover, fix some sequence such that the limit exists,
for some . Going one zero to the left, by Theorem 10.1, the limit
is the largest zero of in . However, by the symmetry , this limit is . In particular, so and is characterized as the smallest positive number with the property
By Lemma 10.2, and since functions are even,
so this is zero if and only if and or . In other words, is the smallest positive zero of , i.e., the smallest positive zero of . Since , by the strict interlacing property, must be the smallest positive zero of , and we have proved
Finally, since the limit is independent of subsequence, by compactness,
so (10.6) holds for . By Theorem 10.1, rescalings of other zeros converge to other zeros of , i.e., (10.6) holds for all . ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.9.
Denote by the even measure on whose pushforward by the map is the measure . Since corresponds to a determinate Stieltjes moment problem, corresponds to a determinate (Hamburger) moment problem (see [10, Theorem 1] or [76, Prop. 3.19]).
Since is regularly varying with positive index, as , so . This further implies that
Thus, is in the setting of Lemma 10.3, with scaling function of index . Thus, its asymptotic inverse can be taken to be .
Moreover, since is even and its pushforward is , the orthogonal polynomials for the measure are linked with those for by
This gives an immediate relation between the Christoffel functions at ; moreover, denoting the zeros of by , the zeros of are
so by Lemma 10.3(ii) written in our current notation,
for every . Squaring and using regular variation of with index gives (1.15). ∎
Appendix A Tangent measures
Definition A.1.
Let be a measure on . Let be the map and be the pushforward of under . A measure on is a tangent measure of at if is locally finite, , and there exist positive sequences with and weakly as .
The set of tangent measures of at is denoted .
It is said that has a unique tangent measure at if there exists such that .
Analogous definitions hold at , by shifting by .
We note that existence of a tangent measure is not automatic. On the other hand, uniqueness of a tangent measure is sufficient to pass from sequential limits to a limit over and to conclude a scaling property of the unique tangent measure:
Lemma A.2.
For a measure on , the following are equivalent:
-
(a)
and
-
(b)
where is of the form
(A.1) for some with and
-
(c)
There exist with and which is regularly varying with index such that
Proof.
For notational simplicity, let in this proof.
(b)(a) is trivial.
(c)(b): for any , since is regularly varying with index ,
and analogously
so by the Portmanteau theorem, as , with given by (A.1). Moreover, for any , if converges to a nonzero locally finite measure, the ratio must converge in , and the limit must be a multiple of .
References
- [1] N. Aronszajn, Theory of reproducing kernels, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 68 (1950), 337–404. MR 0051437 (14,479c)
- [2] A. Avila, Y. Last, and B. Simon, Bulk universality and clock spacing of zeros for ergodic Jacobi matrices with absolutely continuous spectrum, Anal. PDE 3 (2010), no. 1, 81–108. MR 2663412
- [3] M. Barczy and G. Pap, Portmanteau theorem for unbounded measures, Statist. Probab. Lett. 76 (2006), no. 17, 1831–1835. MR 2271177
- [4] Á. Baricz and T. Danka, Zeros of orthogonal polynomials near an algebraic singularity of the measure, Constr. Approx. 47 (2018), no. 3, 407–435. MR 3795199
- [5] N. H. Bingham, C. M. Goldie, and J. L. Teugels, Regular variation, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 27, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989. MR 1015093
- [6] P. Bleher and A. Its, Semiclassical asymptotics of orthogonal polynomials, Riemann-Hilbert problem, and universality in the matrix model, Ann. of Math. (2) 150 (1999), no. 1, 185–266. MR 1715324
- [7] J. Breuer, Sine kernel asymptotics for a class of singular measures, J. Approx. Theory 163 (2011), no. 10, 1478–1491. MR 2832737
- [8] J. Breuer and M. Duits, The Nevai condition and a local law of large numbers for orthogonal polynomial ensembles, Adv. Math. 265 (2014), 441–484. MR 3255467
- [9] J. Breuer, Y. Last, and B. Simon, The Nevai condition, Constr. Approx. 32 (2010), no. 2, 221–254. MR 2677881
- [10] T. S. Chihara, Indeterminate symmetric moment problems, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 85 (1982), no. 2, 331–346. MR 649179
- [11] T. Danka, Universality limits for generalized Jacobi measures, Adv. Math. 316 (2017), 613–666. MR 3672915
- [12] L. de Branges, Homogeneous and periodic spaces of entire functions, Duke Math. J. 29 (1962), 203–224. MR 148917
- [13] by same author, Hilbert spaces of entire functions, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968. MR 0229011 (37 #4590)
- [14] P. Deift, T. Kriecherbauer, K. T-R McLaughlin, S. Venakides, and X. Zhou, Asymptotics for polynomials orthogonal with respect to varying exponential weights, Internat. Math. Res. Notices (1997), no. 16, 759–782. MR 1472344
- [15] by same author, Strong asymptotics of orthogonal polynomials with respect to exponential weights, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 52 (1999), no. 12, 1491–1552. MR 1711036
- [16] P. Deift, T. Kriecherbauer, K. T.-R. McLaughlin, S. Venakides, and X. Zhou, Uniform asymptotics for polynomials orthogonal with respect to varying exponential weights and applications to universality questions in random matrix theory, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 52 (1999), no. 11, 1335–1425. MR 1702716
- [17] P. A. Deift, Orthogonal polynomials and random matrices: a Riemann-Hilbert approach, Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 3, New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York; American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999. MR 1677884
- [18] A. Dijksma, H. Langer, A. Luger, and Yu. Shondin, A factorization result for generalized Nevanlinna functions of the class , Integral Equations Operator Theory 36 (2000), no. 1, 121–125. MR 1736921 (2000i:47027)
- [19] H. Dym and H. P. McKean, Gaussian processes, function theory, and the inverse spectral problem, Academic Press [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers], New York, 1976, Probability and Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 31. MR 0448523 (56 #6829)
- [20] J. Eckhardt, A. Kostenko, and G. Teschl, Spectral asymptotics for canonical systems, J. Reine Angew. Math. 736 (2018), 285–315. MR 3769992
- [21] B. Eichinger, M. Lukić, and B. Simanek, An approach to universality using Weyl m-functions, arXiv:2108.01629 (2021), 29p.
- [22] B. Eichinger and H. Woracek, Homogeneous spaces of entire functions, arxiv:2407.04979v1 (2024), 50p.
- [23] P. Erdös and P. Turán, On interpolation. III. Interpolatory theory of polynomials, Ann. of Math. (2) 41 (1940), 510–553. MR 1999
- [24] E. Findley, Universality for locally Szegő measures, J. Approx. Theory 155 (2008), no. 2, 136–154. MR 2477011
- [25] A. Foulquié Moreno, A. Martínez-Finkelshtein, and V. L. Sousa, Asymptotics of orthogonal polynomials for a weight with a jump on , Constr. Approx. 33 (2011), no. 2, 219–263. MR 2770532
- [26] D. Freedman and J. Pitman, A measure which is singular and uniformly locally uniform, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 108 (1990), no. 2, 371–381. MR 990427
- [27] G. Freud, Orthogonale Polynome, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel-Stuttgart, 1969 (German), Lehrbücher und Monographien aus dem Gebiete der Exakten Wissenschaften, Mathematische Reihe, Band 33.
- [28] M. L. Gorbachuk and V. I. Gorbachuk, M. G. Krein’s lectures on entire operators, Operator Theory: Advances and Applications, vol. 97, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1997. MR 1466698 (99f:47001)
- [29] R. O. Hryniv and Y. V. Mykytyuk, 1-D Schrödinger operators with periodic singular potentials, Methods Funct. Anal. Topology 7 (2001), no. 4, 31–42. MR 1879483
- [30] by same author, Self-adjointness of Schrödinger operators with singular potentials, Methods Funct. Anal. Topology 18 (2012), no. 2, 152–159. MR 2978191
- [31] I. S. Kac, On the nature of the de Branges Hamiltonian, Ukraïn. Mat. Zh. 59 (2007), no. 5, 658–678 (Russian), English translation: Ukrainian Math. J. 59 (2007), no. 5, 718–743. MR 2363522 (2009c:34166)
- [32] I. S. Kac and M. G. Krein, -functions — Analytic functions mapping the upper half plane into itself, pp. 629–647, Izdat. “Mir”, Moscow, 1968 (Russian), Addition I in F. V. Atkinson, Diskretnye i nepreryvnye granichnye zadachi (Russian translation). English translation: Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. (2) 103 (1974), 1–19.
- [33] M. Kaltenbäck and H. Woracek, Pontryagin spaces of entire functions. I, Integral Equations Operator Theory 33 (1999), no. 1, 34–97. MR 1664343 (2000a:46039)
- [34] by same author, Pontryagin spaces of entire functions. II, Integral Equations Operator Theory 33 (1999), no. 3, 305–380. MR 1671482 (2000a:46040)
- [35] by same author, Pontryagin spaces of entire functions. III, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 69 (2003), no. 1-2, 241–310. MR 1991668 (2004h:46022)
- [36] by same author, Pontryagin spaces of entire functions. IV, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 72 (2006), no. 3-4, 709–835. MR 2289763 (2007k:47075)
- [37] by same author, Pontryagin spaces of entire functions. VI, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 76 (2010), no. 3-4, 511–560. MR 2789685 (2012e:46046)
- [38] by same author, Pontryagin spaces of entire functions. V, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 77 (2011), no. 1-2, 223–336. MR 2841150 (2012e:46047)
- [39] J. Karamata, Sur un mode de croissance régulière des fonctions, Mathematica (Cluj) 4 (1930), 38–53.
- [40] by same author, Sur un mode de croissance régulière. théorèmes fondamentaux, Bull. Soc. Math. France 61 (1933), 55–62.
- [41] A. Kiselev, Y. Last, and B. Simon, Modified Prüfer and EFGP transforms and the spectral analysis of one-dimensional Schrödinger operators, Comm. Math. Phys. 194 (1998), no. 1, 1–45. MR 1628290
- [42] M. G. Krein and H. Langer, Über einige Fortsetzungsprobleme, die eng mit der Theorie hermitescher Operatoren im Raume zusammenhängen. I. Einige Funktionenklassen und ihre Darstellungen, Math. Nachr. 77 (1977), 187–236. MR 461188
- [43] A. B. J. Kuijlaars, K. T.-R. McLaughlin, W. Van Assche, and M. Vanlessen, The Riemann-Hilbert approach to strong asymptotics for orthogonal polynomials on , Adv. Math. 188 (2004), no. 2, 337–398. MR 2087231
- [44] A. B. J. Kuijlaars and M. Vanlessen, Universality for eigenvalue correlations from the modified Jacobi unitary ensemble, Int. Math. Res. Not. (2002), no. 30, 1575–1600. MR 1912278
- [45] by same author, Universality for eigenvalue correlations at the origin of the spectrum, Comm. Math. Phys. 243 (2003), no. 1, 163–191. MR 2020225
- [46] M. Langer and H. Woracek, Indefinite Hamiltonian systems whose Titchmarsh-Weyl coefficients have no finite generalized poles of non-positive type, Oper. Matrices 7 (2013), no. 3, 477–555. MR 3052315
- [47] by same author, Distributional representations of -functions, Math. Nachr. 288 (2015), no. 10, 1127–1149. MR 3367904
- [48] by same author, Direct and inverse spectral theorems for a class of canonical systems with two singular endpoints, Function Spaces, Theory and Applications, Fields insitute communications, vol. 87, Springer, 2023, pp. 105–205.
- [49] by same author, Karamata’s theorem for regularised Cauchy transforms, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A (2024), 61p., DOI:10.1017/prm.2023.128.
- [50] Y. Last, Quantum dynamics and decompositions of singular continuous spectra, J. Funct. Anal. 142 (1996), no. 2, 406–445. MR 1423040
- [51] E. Levin and D. S. Lubinsky, Applications of universality limits to zeros and reproducing kernels of orthogonal polynomials, J. Approx. Theory 150 (2008), no. 1, 69–95. MR 2381529
- [52] L. H. Loomis, The converse of the Fatou theorem for positive harmonic functions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 53 (1943), 239–250. MR 7832
- [53] D. S. Lubinsky, A new approach to universality limits at the edge of the spectrum, Integrable systems and random matrices, Contemp. Math., vol. 458, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2008, pp. 281–290. MR 2411912
- [54] by same author, Universality limits at the hard edge of the spectrum for measures with compact support, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2008), Art. ID rnn 099, 39. MR 2439541
- [55] by same author, Universality limits in the bulk for arbitrary measures on compact sets, J. Anal. Math. 106 (2008), 373–394. MR 2448991
- [56] by same author, A new approach to universality limits involving orthogonal polynomials, Ann. of Math. (2) 170 (2009), no. 2, 915–939. MR 2552113
- [57] by same author, Universality limits for random matrices and de Branges spaces of entire functions, J. Funct. Anal. 256 (2009), no. 11, 3688–3729. MR 2514057
- [58] by same author, An update on local universality limits for correlation functions generated by unitary ensembles, SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 12 (2016), Paper No. 078, 36. MR 3534989
- [59] M. Lukić, A first course in spectral theory, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 226, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, [2022] ©2022. MR 4497147
- [60] M. Lukić, S. Sukhtaiev, and X. Wang, Spectral properties of Schrödinger operators with locally potentials, J. Spectr. Theory 14 (2024), no. 1, 59–120. MR 4741056
- [61] A. Máté, P. Nevai, and V. Totik, Szegő’s extremum problem on the unit circle, Ann. of Math. (2) 134 (1991), no. 2, 433–453. MR 1127481
- [62] P. Mattila, Geometry of sets and measures in Euclidean spaces, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 44, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, Fractals and rectifiability. MR 1333890
- [63] by same author, Measures with unique tangent measures in metric groups, Math. Scand. 97 (2005), no. 2, 298–308. MR 2191708
- [64] M. L. Mehta and M. Gaudin, On the density of eigenvalues of a random matrix, Nuclear Phys. 18 (1960), 420–427. MR 112895
- [65] L. Pastur and M. Shcherbina, Universality of the local eigenvalue statistics for a class of unitary invariant random matrix ensembles, J. Statist. Phys. 86 (1997), no. 1-2, 109–147. MR 1435193
- [66] D. B. Pearson, Singular continuous measures in scattering theory, Comm. Math. Phys. 60 (1978), no. 1, 13–36. MR 484145
- [67] D. Preiss, Geometry of measures in : distribution, rectifiability, and densities, Ann. of Math. (2) 125 (1987), no. 3, 537–643. MR 890162
- [68] R. Pruckner and H. Woracek, Limit behavior of Weyl coefficients, Algebra i Analiz 33 (2021), no. 5, 153–175. MR 4315700
- [69] by same author, A growth estimate for the monodromy matrix of a canonical system, arXiv:2202.13984 (2022).
- [70] W. Ramey and D. Ullrich, On the behavior of harmonic functions near a boundary point, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 305 (1988), no. 1, 207–220. MR 920155
- [71] C. Remling, Spectral theory of canonical systems, De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics Series, Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2018.
- [72] C. A. Rogers and S. J. Taylor, The analysis of additive set functions in Euclidean space, Acta Math. 101 (1959), 273–302. MR 107690
- [73] by same author, Additive set functions in Euclidean space. II, Acta Math. 109 (1963), 207–240. MR 160860
- [74] R. Romanov, Canonical systems and de Branges spaces, arXiv:1408.6022v1 [math.SP] (2014), 74p.
- [75] L. A. Rubel, Entire and meromorphic functions, Universitext, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996, With the assistance of James E. Colliander. MR 1383095 (97c:30001)
- [76] K. Schmüdgen, The moment problem, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 277, Springer, Cham, 2017. MR 3729411
- [77] B. Simon, Two extensions of Lubinsky’s universality theorem, J. Anal. Math. 105 (2008), 345–362. MR 2438429
- [78] H. Stahl and V. Totik, General orthogonal polynomials, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 43, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992. MR 1163828
- [79] G. Szegö, Orthogonal Polynomials, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, vol. Vol. 23, American Mathematical Society, New York, 1939. MR 77
- [80] G. Teschl, Mathematical methods in quantum mechanics, second ed., Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 157, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2014, With applications to Schrödinger operators. MR 3243083
- [81] V. Totik, Asymptotics for Christoffel functions for general measures on the real line, J. Anal. Math. 81 (2000), 283–303. MR 1785285
- [82] by same author, Universality and fine zero spacing on general sets, Arkiv för Matematik 47 (2009), no. 2, 361 – 391.
- [83] by same author, Universality under Szegő’s condition, Canad. Math. Bull. 59 (2016), no. 1, 211–224. MR 3451913
- [84] M. Vanlessen, Strong asymptotics of the recurrence coefficients of orthogonal polynomials associated to the generalized Jacobi weight, J. Approx. Theory 125 (2003), no. 2, 198–237. MR 2019609
- [85] A. Zlatoš, Sparse potentials with fractional Hausdorff dimension, J. Funct. Anal. 207 (2004), no. 1, 216–252. MR 2027640