One can define the density of eigenvalues of a $N\times N$ Hermitian random matrix $H$ as: \begin{equation} \rho(\lambda)=\left \langle\frac{1}{N} \operatorname{Tr} \delta(\lambda-H)\right\rangle \end{equation} Where $\langle \dots \rangle$ denotes the average over the distribution of $H$.

In the large $N$ limit, it is famously known that $\rho(\lambda)$ will approach the Wigner semi circular law (given some conditions on the moments of the distribution of $H$). This can be shown with various methods, one that I favor is using the resolvent and computing its schur complements.

One can define the two-level correlation function: \begin{equation} \rho^{(2)}(\lambda, \mu)=\left \langle\frac{1}{N} \operatorname{Tr} \delta(\lambda-H) \frac{1}{N} \operatorname{Tr} \delta(\mu-H)\right\rangle \end{equation}

The following paper 1 provides a method to compute this quantity, and provides an exhaustive list of the existing methods to compute eq $(2)$. However the paper is now $25$ years old: is there any known results that extends their method? Can we compute this quantity using the schur complement and the resolvent? What about non-hermitian matrices?

Edit: My initial query was whether we could could compute equation $(2)$ using the resolvents and the Schur complements.

The paper mentions that contrary to $\rho(\lambda)$ there is no universality for $\rho^{(2)}(\lambda, \mu)$: it would depend on the choice of distribution. However in a certain regime, with large $N$ and small $\lambda- \mu$ then universal properties can be derived. Has this been we shown this using the Schur complements of the resolvents?

1 : Brézin, E., & Hikami, S. (1996). Correlations of nearby levels induced by a random potential. Nuclear Physics B, 479(3), 697-706. link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9605046.pdf

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a very wide question, essentially asking "what has happened in RMT since 1995?". The answer is a l"a lot", for example, universality. You should be more specific (as in the paper you quote) of the regime you care about: are $\lambda$ and $\mu$ separated (in which case you need to rescale to get interesting answers) or at distance $1/N$ of each other? For the latter case, look up work of Erdos-Yau and co-authors, as well as Tao-Vu. $\endgroup$ Jun 7, 2021 at 5:32

1 Answer 1


Let me address the issue raised by the OP of the universality of the two-point correlation function.

The universality of $\rho^{(2)}(\lambda,\mu)$ does exist if one considers the correlations locally, on the scale of the mean eigenvalue spacing. This is relevant for many applications, because the correlations decay quickly with increasing $|\lambda-\mu|$.

If the eigenvalue distribution has the Gibbs form $$P(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots \lambda_N)\propto e^{-\beta W},$$ $$W=\sum_{i<j}u(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)+\sum_i V(\lambda_i),$$ then the two-point correlation function $$K(\lambda,\mu)=N^2\rho^{(2)}(\lambda,\mu)-N^2\rho(\lambda)\rho(\mu)$$ is given in the large-$N$ local limit by the functional inverse $u^{\text{inv}}$ of $u$, $$K(\lambda,\mu)=\frac{1}{\beta}u^{\text{inv}}(\lambda,\mu).$$ See section 1.D of arXiv:cond-mat/9612179 .

Notice that this is independent of the "potential" $V$, only the eigenvalue interaction $u$ enters. That is the sense in which the two-point correlation function is "universal" on the local scale for a broad class of RMT ensembles with a logarithmic eigenvalue repulsion, $u(\lambda,\mu)=-\log|\lambda-\mu|$, see for example arXiv:cond-mat/9310010.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.