1) How to prove that $N\times N$ matrix integral over complex matrices $Z$ $$ \int d Z d Z^\dagger e^{-Tr Z Z^\dagger} \frac{x_1\det e^Z -x_2 \det e^{AZ^\dagger}}{\det(1-x_1e^Z)\det(1-x_2e^{AZ^\dagger})} $$ does not depend on the external Hermitian matrix $A$? $x_1$ and $x_2$ are numbers. The statement is trivial for $1\times1$ case.

2)The same for

$$ \int d Z d Z^\dagger e^{-Tr Z Z^\dagger} \frac{x_1\det e^Z -x_2 \det e^{AZ^\dagger}}{\det(1-x_1e^Zg)\det(1-x_2e^{AZ^\dagger}g)} $$

where g - arbitrary $GL(N)$ matrix.

  • $\begingroup$ I understand that $dZ$ is the Lebesgue measure on $N\times N$ complex matrices, that is $dZ=\prod_{i,j}d\Re z_{ij}d\Im z_{ij}$, but what $dZ^\dagger$ stands for ? $\endgroup$ Jul 20, 2011 at 6:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is just a notation sometimes used in the mathphys literature to show that you integrate over $2N^2$ real variables contrary to $N^2$ for the Hermitian model. $\endgroup$
    – Sasha
    Oct 20, 2011 at 9:14

1 Answer 1


Let us first slightly generalize OP's first integral to

$$\tag{1} I(x,y,A,B) ~:=~ \int_{{\rm Mat}_{n\times n}(\mathbb{C})} \! dZ~dZ^{\dagger} \frac{e^{-{\rm tr}(ZZ^{\dagger})}\left(xe^{{\rm tr}(ZA)}-ye^{{\rm tr}(BZ^{\dagger})}\right)}{\det \left({\bf 1}-xe^{ZA}\right)\det \left({\bf 1}-ye^{BZ^{\dagger}}\right)}, $$ where $A,B,Z\in {\rm Mat}_{n\times n}(\mathbb{C})$ and $x,y\in\mathbb{C}$.

I) Case $n=1$: As OP observes, it is straightforward to confirm that the integral (1)

$$I(x,y,a,b)~:=~ \int_{\mathbb{C}} \! dz~d\bar{z} ~e^{-|z|^2}\frac{xe^{az}-ye^{b\bar{z}}}{(1-xe^{az})(1-ye^{b\bar{z}})}$$ $$\tag{2} ~=~\int_{\mathbb{C}} \! dz~~d\bar{z}~e^{-|z|^2}\left(\frac{1}{1-xe^{az}}-\frac{1}{1-ye^{b\bar{z}}}\right)~=~\frac{\pi}{1-x}-\frac{\pi}{1-y}$$

is indeed independent of $a$ and $b$.

II) Case $n=2$: In two dimensions we have

$$\tag{3}\Delta(x,M)~:=~ \det \left({\bf 1}-xe^{M}\right) ~=~1-x{\rm tr}(e^{M})+x^2e^{{\rm tr}(M)},$$ $$\tag{4}{\rm tr}(e^{M}) ~=~e^{{\rm tr}(MP_+)}+e^{{\rm tr}(MP_-)} ,\qquad M~\in~ {\rm Mat}_{2\times 2}(\mathbb{C}),$$

where $P_{\pm}=\frac{1}{2}({\bf 1}_{2\times 2}\pm \sigma_{3})$ are projections.

The integral (1) now becomes

$$\tag{5} \int_{{\rm Mat}_{2\times 2}(\mathbb{C})} \! dZ~dZ^{\dagger}~ e^{-{\rm tr}(ZZ^{\dagger})} \frac{xe^{{\rm tr}(ZA)}-ye^{{\rm tr}(BZ^{\dagger})}}{\Delta(x,ZA)\Delta(y,BZ^{\dagger})}. $$

Let us view the integral (5) as a formal power series in the indeterminates $x$ and $y$. Let us consider just the coefficient in front of $x^2y$. It is$^1$

$$ \int_{{\rm Mat}_{2\times 2}(\mathbb{C})} \! dZ~dZ^{\dagger}~e^{-{\rm tr}(ZZ^{\dagger})} $$ $$\times \left\{e^{{\rm tr}(ZA)} {\rm tr}(e^{ZA}){\rm tr}(e^{BZ^{\dagger}})- e^{{\rm tr}(BZ^{\dagger})}\left( \left({\rm tr}(e^{ZA})\right)^2- e^{{\rm tr}(ZA)} \right)\right\}, $$ $$ ~=~\int_{{\rm Mat}_{2\times 2}(\mathbb{C})} \! dZ~dZ^{\dagger}~e^{-{\rm tr}(ZZ^{\dagger})} $$ $$\times \left\{ \left(e^{{\rm tr}(ZA(1+P_+))}+e^{{\rm tr}(ZA(1+P_-))}\right)\left(e^{{\rm tr}(P_+BZ^{\dagger})}+e^{{\rm tr}(P_-BZ^{\dagger})}\right)- e^{{\rm tr}(BZ^{\dagger})}\left( e^{2{\rm tr}(ZAP_+)}+e^{2{\rm tr}(ZAP_-)} +e^{{\rm tr}(ZA)} \right)\right\} $$ $$~\stackrel{(7)}{=}~ \pi^4 \left( {\rm tr}(e^{BA})-e^{{\rm tr}(BA)}\right), \tag{6} $$ which depends on the matrices $A$ and $B$, even if $A={\bf 1}_{2\times 2}$ and $B$ is Hermitian as in OP's case. So OP's conjecture is false.


$^1$ Recall the Gaussian integral formula

$$\tag{7} I(A,B)~:=~ \int_{{\rm Mat}_{n\times n}(\mathbb{C})} \! dZ~dZ^{\dagger} ~e^{{\rm tr}(-ZZ^{\dagger}+ZA+BZ^{\dagger})}~=~~\pi^{n^2}e^{{\rm tr}(BA)}. $$

  • $\begingroup$ Purely by pattern matching, shouldn't the "Gaussian" intergral have a determinant in it and not a exp-tr? In that case, it may be possible for $A$ to disappear as conjectured... $\endgroup$
    – Suvrit
    Oct 9, 2014 at 17:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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