Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Large n limit for the product of two coupled random matrices

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The limiting density of squared singular values of a coupled random matrix product equals the second component of a three-measure equilibrium minimizer, with Meijer-G, sine, and Airy kernels at hard edge, bulk, and soft edge.

desk verdict A substantial, well-executed RH analysis of coupled random matrix products; the main convergence and hard-edge results look right, but a circular dependency in Proposition 3.5 must be fixed and the sine/Airy claims qualified. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05708 v1 pith:GKCX75RA submitted 2019-08-15 math-ph math.CAmath.CVmath.MP

Guilherme L. F. Silva , Lun Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.CAmath.CVmath.MP MSC 60B2015B5230E2531A1533C10
keywords productsofrandommatricescoupledtwo-matrixmodelsquaredsingularvaluesvectorequilibriumproblemRiemann-HilbertmultipleorthogonalpolynomialsMeijer-Gkernelspectralcurve
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper resolves an open problem for correlated random matrices: what is the macroscopic spectrum of the product of two random matrices that are drawn together from a coupled model, rather than independently? Its main theorem proves that, when the coupling matrix has a single singular value, the limiting density of the squared singular values of the product is exactly the second component of the unique minimizer of a vector equilibrium problem — three measures on the line, the first constrained from above by an explicit singular density on the negative axis, the second carrying an external field on the positive axis. The minimizer is described in closed form: the positive measure is supported on $[0,p]$, diverging like $x^{-2/3}$ at the origin and vanishing like $(p-x)^{1/2}$ at $p$; the constraint is saturated on $(-\infty,-q]$; and the endpoints $p,q$ are explicit algebraic functions of the two coupling parameters. The paper also shows that the same local universality seen for products of independent Gaussian matrices — the Meijer-G kernel at the hard edge, the sine kernel in the bulk, the Airy kernel at the soft edge — holds for the coupled product at every fixed admissible coupling, via a $4\times 4$ Riemann-Hilbert steepest descent analysis of mixed-type multiple orthogonal polynomials for modified Bessel functions.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three interlocking constructions. First, the vector equilibrium problem: three measures of total masses $1/2, 1, 1/2$ interacting through $I(\nu_1)+I(\nu_2)+I(\nu_3)-I(\nu_1,\nu_2)-I(\nu_2,\nu_3)$, with the upper constraint $\nu_1\le\sigma$ for the singular density $\alpha/(\pi\sqrt{|x|})$ and the external field $2(\beta-\alpha)\sqrt{x}$ on $\nu_2$; the paper proves existence, uniqueness, and the one-cut structure of its minimizer using an iterative balayage argument together with a convexity criterion. Second, the four-sheeted Riemann surface glued across the three supports, which is shown to have genus $0$: its rational uniformization $z=t/h(t)^2$, $\xi=h(t)$ rewrites the spectral curve as a quartic, and the origin is an index-3 branch point whose only integer-compatible ramification forces the $x^{-2/3}$ singularity of the density. Third, the $4\times 4$ Riemann-Hilbert problem that encodes the correlation kernel from mixed-type multiple orthogonal polynomials with modified Bessel weights, analyzed by steepest descent along $Y\to X\to T\to S\to R$: the global parametrix is built from the uniformization, the parametrices at $p$ and $-q$ are Airy kernels, and the parametrix at the origin wraps the Meijer-G model problem for chains of coupled positive-definite matrices, matched with the two-circle technique of a fixed outer circle and a shrinking inner one.

What would settle it

Run the model: generate $X_1,X_2$ from (1.1) with fixed $\alpha<\beta$ (for instance $\alpha=1$, $\beta=2$) at large $n$, form $X_1X_2$, and histogram the squared singular values scaled by $n^2$; then compare with $d\mu_2/dx$ computed either numerically from the vector equilibrium problem or directly from the parametric formula $x=t/h(t)^2$, $d\mu_2/dx=\pi i\,h(t)$ for $t\in\gamma^-_2$. A mismatch in the bulk, a wrong edge $p$, or a missing $x^{-2/3}$ divergence at the origin would refute Theorem 2.3. A cheaper check: solve the quartic discriminant (3.61) and verify that its two real roots equal the closed-form endpoints (2.10) and (2.8).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, Theorem 2.3, is that the correlation kernel $K_n$ of the determinantal point process formed by the squared singular values of $\hat{Y}=X_1X_2$ satisfies, uniformly for $x$ in compact subsets of $(0,\infty)$, $$\lim_{n\to\infty} nK_n($n^{2}$x, $n^{2}$x) = \frac{d\mu_2}{dx}(x),$$ where $(\mu_1,\mu_2,\mu_3)$ is the unique minimizer of the energy $\mathcal{E}(\nu_1,\nu_2,\nu_3)=I(\nu_1)+I(\nu_2)+I(\nu_3)-I(\nu_1,\nu_2)-I(\nu_2,\nu_3)+2(\beta-\alpha)\int\sqrt{x}\,d\nu_2(x)$ over triples with $|\nu_1|=|\nu_3|=1/2$, $|\nu_2|=1$, constraint $\nu_1\le\sigma$ on $\mathbb{R}_-$ with $d\sigma/dx=\alpha/(\pi\sqrt{|x|})$, and $\nu_2$ supported on $\mathbb{R}_+$. The minimizer is structurally rigid: $\operatorname{supp}(\sigma-\mu_1)=(-\infty,-q]$, $\operatorname{supp}\mu_2=[0,p]$ with the explicit algebraic endpoints (2.10) and (2.8), densities with square-root vanishing at $p$ and $-q$ and an $x^{-2/3}$ blow-up at the origin, and $\mu_3$ equal to half the balayage of $\mu_2$ onto the negative axis. The Cauchy-transform combinations $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_4$ of these measures are the four branches of the spectral curve $\xi^4-\frac{\alpha^2+\beta^2}{z}\xi^2+\frac{\alpha^2-\beta^2}{z^2}\xi+\frac{\alpha^2\beta^2}{z^2}=0$, rationally parametrized by $(z,\xi)=(t/h(t)^2,h(t))$ with $h(t)=\frac{t^2-(\alpha^2+\beta^2)t+\alpha^2\beta^2}{\beta^2-\alpha^2}$, which yields an explicit parametric formula for the density $d\mu_2/dx$. At the hard edge, Theorem 2.4 identifies the scaled kernel limit as the universal Meijer-G kernel $\mathcal{K}_{\nu,\kappa}$, independent of $\alpha,\beta$; the sine and Airy limits in the bulk and at the soft edge are stated as further consequences of the same asymptotic analysis.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the equilibrium minimizer having a one-cut shape — one interval starting at the origin for the positive-axis measure and one unbounded interval of saturation for the negative-axis constraint — a structure the paper derives from a convexity computation together with a classical potential-theory criterion; if any admissible pair $\alpha<\beta$ produced a gap in the support or a second contact interval, the global parametrix and the main convergence statement would fail as written.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The zeros of the average characteristic polynomial of $\hat{Y}^*\hat{Y}$, scaled by $n^2$, accumulate according to $\mu_2$, and the empirical law of the squared singular values converges weakly to the same measure.
  • The hard-edge scaling limit is the universal Meijer-G kernel at every fixed coupling $\alpha<\beta$, with the explicit microscopic scale $1/(n(\beta^2-\alpha^2))$; this extends the previously known hard-edge results from specially tuned couplings to the full admissible range.
  • In the bulk of the spectrum the sine kernel governs, and at the soft edge $x=p$ the Airy kernel governs; the paper states these as consequences of the steepest descent analysis with all ingredients present, although the endpoint details are not written out.
  • The spectral curve yields an explicit parametric formula for the limiting density — the graph of $d\mu_2/dx$ is $(t/h(t)^2,\pi i\,h(t))$ along the contour $\gamma^-_2$ — so the density can be evaluated numerically without solving any variational problem.
  • As the coupling parameter moves across its range, the model interpolates between the Laguerre-type regime and the product-of-two-Ginibre regime, and the theorem supplies the limiting density along the entire interpolation path rather than only at the endpoints.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The equilibrium scheme (constraint on the left, external field on the right, free third measure) is presumably the template for longer chains of coupled products: any chain of measures with alternating interaction signs gives the same formal energy, and a genus-zero uniformization should again yield explicit densities. This extrapolation is ours, not the paper's.
  • The $x^{-2/3}$ blow-up at the hard edge is forced by an index-3 branch point, a mechanism that does not depend on the Bessel weights; if that reading is correct, the same exponent should appear at any hard edge where three sheets of a spectral curve meet, with a third-order Meijer-G kernel as the microscopic limit.
  • Because $\mu_3$ is the half-balayage of $\mu_2$, the whole minimizer is determined by $\mu_2$ and the single endpoint $q$; a practical consequence is that the constrained equilibrium problem can be treated numerically as a one-function problem on $[0,p]$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the squared singular values of the product X1 X2 of two coupled rectangular complex Gaussian matrices in the confluent case where the coupling matrix has a single singular value alpha < beta. The squared singular values form a determinantal point process whose correlation kernel Kn is expressed through mixed-type multiple orthogonal polynomials associated with modified Bessel functions. The authors introduce a vector equilibrium problem for three measures with an upper constraint on the first measure and an external field on the second, prove existence, uniqueness, and structural properties of the minimizer (Theorem 2.1), identify an explicit algebraic spectral curve of genus zero (Theorem 2.2), and then perform a Deift/Zhou steepest descent analysis of an associated 4x4 Riemann-Hilbert problem. This yields the main results: the limiting bulk density of the squared singular values is the second component of the equilibrium measure (Theorem 2.3), and the hard-edge scaling limit is the Meijer-G kernel (Theorem 2.4). The proof occupies most of the paper, with global, Airy, and Meijer-G parametrices, including a recent double-matching technique of Kuijlaars and Molag.

Significance. If correct, the paper resolves an open question raised by Akemann and Strahov by treating alpha and beta as independent parameters rather than coupled ones, and it extends the hard-edge results of Liu. The vector equilibrium formulation is natural and the explicit spectral curve with closed-form endpoints p and q is a concrete and valuable output. The four-sheeted Riemann surface and its rational uniformization are carefully developed, and the discriminant computations are explicit and checkable. The proof is technically substantial: the origin parametrix construction follows the Kuijlaars-Molag strategy with two matching conditions, and the auxiliary estimates in Lemmas 10.7, 10.12, and 12.1 are useful and clearly stated. The central results are falsifiable, and no free parameters are fitted to the limiting data. The main weakness is a circularity in the written order of the proof of the strict variational inequality (3.42), which feeds into the exponential decay estimates needed for the Riemann-Hilbert analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections 3.4-3.7, Proposition 3.5 and Remark 3.8] The proof of the strict inequality (3.42) in Proposition 3.5 cites 'Remark 3.8 below', and Remark 3.8 is established after Theorem 2.1 using the discriminant of the spectral curve (2.16), i.e., after Theorem 2.2. Theorem 2.2 is proved in Section 3.6 using Proposition 3.7, which in turn relies on the support assertions of Proposition 3.5. On inspection, Theorem 2.2 does not appear to use the strict inequality (3.42) itself; the dependency chain passes through (3.38), (3.39), (3.41), and (3.43), as the footnote in Proposition 3.5 states. Nevertheless, the written order is circular, and since (3.42) is used in Proposition 4.3 and then in Lemma 11.2 to obtain exponential decay of the jumps, the proof of Theorem 2.3 is incomplete as written. The authors should either prove the nonvanishing of xi_1 - xi_2 on (-q,0) directly, or restructure the presentation so that the spectral curve and the discriminant are derived before the strict part of Proposition 3.5, without invoking (3.42) in that derivation.
  2. [Section 12.1, proof of Theorem 2.3] The proof of Theorem 2.3 fully computes the limit only for x,y in a fixed compact subinterval (delta, p-delta) of the bulk. The theorem, however, claims uniform convergence on every compact subset of (0, infinity), which includes the soft edge x = p and the region x > p. These cases are dismissed with brief statements that they 'can be handled similarly' with an Airy parametrix or by the exponential decay of phi_2. Given that Theorem 2.3 is the central result, the endpoint and outside-support estimates should be written out, or the theorem statement should be narrowed to match the proof as presented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.4, proof of Proposition 3.5] The text says 'supp mu_3 = R_+' in the paragraph after (3.38), but the support of mu_3 should be R_- as stated in Theorem 2.1(c) and elsewhere; this is a typo.
  2. [Section 5, definition of sigma_3] The display defining sigma_3 as the matrix [[0,1],[-1,0]] is not the standard third Pauli matrix and is inconsistent with the subsequent use of z^{a sigma_3} as a diagonal matrix. It should be diag(1,-1).
  3. [Abstract and Section 2.4] The abstract promises local Sine and Airy universality results, but these are not stated as formal theorems and the text explicitly says the details are omitted. The authors should either state these results as theorems with proofs or soften the abstract and the discussion in Section 2.4.
  4. [Lemma 3.2 and Proposition 3.4] Lemma 3.1 establishes monotonicity, not strict monotonicity, yet the proof of Lemma 3.2 refers to a 'strictly increasing' quotient. The argument works with non-strict monotonicity, but the wording should be corrected.
  5. [Figure 2 caption] The caption mentions arcs gamma_k^+- for k = 1,2,3,4, but only k = 1,2,3 are defined.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the vector equilibrium problem is model-defined, the steepest descent proof is self-contained, and the Proposition 3.5/Remark 3.8 forward reference is not a cycle.

full rationale

The vector equilibrium problem (2.6) is defined directly from the model parameters α and β and the constraints (E1)-(E4); it is not fitted to the limiting correlation kernel, and existence/uniqueness is cited to external sources [9,34]. Theorem 2.3 is obtained through an independent Deift/Zhou steepest descent analysis of the 4x4 RH problem, with the final identification n K_n(n^2 x, n^2 x) → dµ2/dx coming from the Sokhotski-Plemelj formula, not from a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only potentially suspicious dependency is Proposition 3.5's invocation of 'Remark 3.8 below' to prove the strict inequality (3.42). Tracing the dependency chain shows this is an expositional forward reference rather than a circle: Proposition 3.5 first establishes the support structure (3.38) and the equalities (3.39), (3.41), (3.43) without using (3.42); Theorem 2.2 and Theorem 2.1 are proved from those support and equality statements, not from (3.42); and Remark 3.8 follows from Theorem 2.2/2.1 and the discriminant (3.61). The footnote in Proposition 3.5 explicitly says the nonvanishing argument relies on the equalities and not on the corresponding inequalities. Thus the dependency graph is acyclic once the strict inequality is isolated. The self-citation to Zhang [57] supplies the RH characterization of the biorthogonal ensemble from prior work, but the large-n asymptotics, parametrices, and limiting formulas are derived in the present paper; the hard-edge comparison with Liu [42] in Theorem 2.4 is made only after K∞ is shown to be independent of α and β, so it serves as an external benchmark rather than a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters. The quantities alpha, beta, kappa, nu are model parameters, not chosen to fit the limiting results. The vector equilibrium problem and the four-sheeted Riemann surface are mathematical constructions derived from the model, not ad hoc entities. The main domain restriction is the confluent assumption that all singular values of Omega equal a single alpha with alpha < beta.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The coupled matrix model (1.1) is well defined for alpha < beta and M >= L >= n, and the squared singular values form the biorthogonal ensemble (2.3).
    Section 2.1, equations (2.2) and (2.3), inherited from Akemann-Strahov [7] and Liu [42]. If this representation failed, the RH problem and all subsequent asymptotics would not apply.
  • standard math Existence and uniqueness of the minimizer of the vector equilibrium problem (2.6) follows from standard constrained potential theory.
    Invoked in Sections 3.1-3.4 via [34], [27], and [53], and used to derive the Euler-Lagrange conditions (3.31)-(3.36).
  • standard math The correlation kernel admits the RH Problem 2.5 and the representation (2.23) via mixed-type multiple orthogonal polynomials associated with modified Bessel functions.
    Section 2.5, based on Daems-Kuijlaars [21] and Zhang [57]. This is load-bearing: all steepest descent transformations start from this RH characterization.
  • domain assumption n is assumed even so that n1 = n2 = n/2.
    Section 2.5, stated as a non-essential simplification of notation.
  • standard math Standard Airy and Meijer-G local parametrices exist with the stated matching properties.
    Sections 9 and 10. The Meijer-G parametrix is taken from Bertola-Bothner [11]; the Airy parametrix is standard and its construction is omitted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large n limit for the product of two coupled random matrices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GKCX75RA

@misc{pith2026190805708,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large n limit for the product of two coupled random matrices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GKCX75RA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05708}
}
abstract

For a pair of coupled rectangular random matrices we consider the squared singular values of their product, which form a determinantal point process. We show that the limiting mean distribution of these squared singular values is described by the second component of the solution to a vector equilibrium problem. This vector equilibrium problem is defined for three measures with an upper constraint on the first measure and an external field on the second measure. We carry out the steepest descent analysis for a 4 $\times$ 4 matrix-valued Riemann-Hilbert problem, which characterizes the correlation kernel and is related to mixed type multiple orthogonal polynomials associated with the modified Bessel functions. A careful study of the vector equilibrium problem, combined with this asymptotic analysis, ultimately leads to the aforementioned convergence result for the limiting mean distribution, an explicit form of the associated spectral curve, as well as local Sine, Meijer-G and Airy universality results for the squared singular values considered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05708 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Riemann surface R. • Common branch points to R1 and R2 at ∞ and z = −q. • A common branch point to R2 and R3 at z = p. • A common branch point to R3 and R4 at ∞. • A common branch point to R2, R3 and R4 at z = 0. The last branch point enlisted above has ramification index 3, whereas the others have ramifi￾cation index 2. Consequently, it follows from the Riemann Hurwitz formula (cf. [46]) that R has genus 0. Pro… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The uniformization of the Riemann surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The lenses used for the transformation T 7→ S. RH Problem 7.1. The function S defined in (7.5) has the following properties: (1) S is defined and analytic in C \ ΓS, where ΓS := R ∪   [ 3 j=1 ∂L ± j   . (7.6) (2) For z ∈ ΓS, S satisfies the jump condition S+(z) = S−(z)JS(z), where JS(z) =    JT (z) = I4 + x κ e −nφ2(z)E23, z ∈ (p, +∞), I4 + z −κ e nφ2(z)E32, z ∈ ∂L ± 2 , … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The jump contour ΓΨ for the model RH problem Ψ and the regions Θk, k = 0, . . . , 5. (4) As z → ∞ with ± Im z > 0, we have Ψ(z) = z − B 3 U ±K(z)z − A 3 diag(e −3z 1/3ω± , e−3z 1/3ω∓ , e−3z 1/3 ), (10.14) where the diagonal matrices A and B are as in (8.17) and (8.18),…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The jump contours for the matrix R. Lemma 11.2. Let JR(z) be defined in (11.2). There exists two positive constants c1, c2 such that, as n → ∞, JR(z) =    I4 + O(n −1 ), z ∈ ∂DR ∪ ∂D(rn), I4 + O(e −c1n 1/2 ), z ∈ S j=2,3  ∂L ± j ∩ D(δ) \ D(rn)  , I4 + O(e −c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    Liu, Singular values for products of two coupled random matrices: hard edge phase transition, Constr

    D.-Z. Liu, Singular values for products of two coupled random matrices: hard edge phase transition, Constr. Approx. 47 (2018), 487–528

    work page 2018

  2. [57]

    Zhang, Mixed type multiple orthogonal polynomials associated with the modified Bessel functions and products of two coupled random matrices, J

    L. Zhang, Mixed type multiple orthogonal polynomials associated with the modified Bessel functions and products of two coupled random matrices, J. Approx. Theory 213 (2017), 92–119. 79

    work page 2017

  3. [1]

    Akemann, P

    G. Akemann, P. H. Damgaard, J. C. Osborn and K. Splittorff, A new chiral two-matrix theory for Dirac spectra with imaginary chemical potential, Nucl. Phys. B 766 (2007), 34–76. 75

    work page 2007

  4. [2]

    Akemann and J

    G. Akemann and J. R. Ipsen, Recent exact and asymptotic results for products of inde- pendent random matrices, Acta Phys. Polon. B 46 (2015), 1747–1784

    work page 2015

  5. [3]

    Akemann, J

    G. Akemann, J. R. Ipsen and M. Kieburg, Products of rectangular random matrices: Sin- gular values and progressive scattering, Phys. Rev. E 88 (2013), 052118 13 pp

    work page 2013

  6. [4]

    Akemann, M

    G. Akemann, M. Kieburg and L. Wei, Singular value correlation functions for products of Wishart random matrices, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46 (2013), 275205 22 pp

    work page 2013

  7. [5]

    Akemann and E

    G. Akemann and E. Strahov, Product matrix processes for coupled multi-matrix models and their hard edge scaling limits, Ann. Henri Poincar´ e 19 (2018), 2599–2649

    work page 2018

  8. [6]

    Akemann and E

    G. Akemann and E. Strahov, Hard edge limit of the product of two strongly coupled random matrices, Nonlinearity 29 (2016), 3743–3776

    work page 2016

Show all 57 references
  1. [7]

    Akemann and E

    G. Akemann and E. Strahov, Dropping the independence: singular values for products of two coupled random matrices, Comm. Math. Phys. 345 (2016), 101–140

    2016

  2. [8]

    A. I. Aptekarev, P. M. Bleher and A. B. J. Kuijlaars, Large n limit of Gaussian random matrices with external source. II, Comm. Math. Phys. 259 (2005), 367–389

    2005

  3. [9]

    Beckermann, V

    B. Beckermann, V. Kalyagin, A. Matos and F. Wielonsky, Equilibrium problems for vector potentials with semidefinite interaction matrices and constrained masses, Constr. Approx. 37 (2013), 101-134

    2013

  4. [10]

    Balogh and M

    F. Balogh and M. Bertola, Regularity of a vector potential problem and its spectral curve, J. Approx. Theory 161 (2009), 353-370

    2009

  5. [11]

    Bertola and T

    M. Bertola and T. Bothner, Universality conjecture and results for a model of several coupled positive-definite matrices, Comm. Math. Phys. 337 (2015), 1077–1141

    2015

  6. [12]

    Bertola, B

    M. Bertola, B. Eynard and J. Harnad, Differential systems for biorthogonal polynomials appearing in 2-matrix models and the associated Riemann-Hilbert problem, Comm. Math. Phys. 243 (2003), 193-240

    2003

  7. [13]

    Bertola, B

    M. Bertola, B. Eynard and J. Harnad, Semiclassical orthogonal polynomials, matrix models and isomonodromic tau functions, Comm. Math. Phys. 263 (2006), 401-437

    2006

  8. [14]

    Bertola, M

    M. Bertola, M. Gekhtman and J. Szmigielski, Cauchy-Laguerre two-matrix model and the Meijer-G random point field, Comm. Math. Phys. 326 (2014), 111–144

    2014

  9. [15]

    P. M. Bleher and A. B. J. Kuijlaars. Large n limit of Gaussian random matrices with external source, part III: double scaling limit, Comm. Math. Phys. 270 (2007), 481–517

    2007

  10. [16]

    P. M. Bleher and A. B. J. Kuijlaars, Large n limit of Gaussian random matrices with external source. I, Comm. Math. Phys. 252 (2004), 43–76

    2004

  11. [17]

    Borodin, Biorthogonal ensembles, Nucl

    A. Borodin, Biorthogonal ensembles, Nucl. Phys. B 536 (1999), 704–732

    1999

  12. [18]

    Bougerol and J

    P. Bougerol and J. Lacroix, Products of random matrices with applications to Schr¨ odinger operators (P. Huber and M. Rosenblatt, eds.), Progress in probability and statistics, vol. 8, Birkh¨ auser, Boston, 1985

    1985

  13. [19]

    Burda, A

    Z. Burda, A. Jarosz, G. Livan, M. A. Nowak and A. Swiech, Eigenvalues and singular values of products of rectangular Gaussian random matrices, Phys. Rev. E 82 (2010), 061114; - the extended version Acta Phys. Polon. B 42 (2011), 939–985. 76

    2010

  14. [20]

    Crisanti, G

    A. Crisanti, G. Paladin and A. Vulpiani, Products of Random Matrices in Statistical Physics, Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences 104, Springer, Heidelberg 1993

    1993

  15. [21]

    Daems and A

    E. Daems and A. B. J. Kuijlaars, Multiple orthogonal polynomials of mixed type and non-intersecting Brownian motions, J. Approx. Theory 146 (2007), 91–114

    2007

  16. [22]

    Deift, Orthogonal polynomials and random matrices: a Riemann-Hilbert approach, Courant Lecture Notes 3

    P. Deift, Orthogonal polynomials and random matrices: a Riemann-Hilbert approach, Courant Lecture Notes 3. New York University, 1999

    1999

  17. [23]

    Deift, T

    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), 1335–1425

    1999

  18. [24]

    Delvaux, A

    S. Delvaux, A. B. J. Kuijlaars, P. Rom´ an and L. Zhang, Non-intersecting squared Bessel paths with one positive starting and ending point, J. Anal. Math. 118 (2012), 105–159

    2012

  19. [25]

    P. D. Dragnev, Constrained energy problems for logarithmic potentials, Ph.D. Thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 1997

    1997

  20. [26]

    P. D. Dragnev and A. B. J. Kuijlaars, Equilibrium problems associated with fast decreasing polynomials, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 127 (1999), 1065–1074

    1999

  21. [27]

    P. D. Dragnev and E. B. Saff, Constrained energy problems with applications to orthogonal polynomials of a discrete variable, J. Anal. Math. 72 (1997), 223–259

    1997

  22. [28]

    Duits and A

    M. Duits and A. B. J. Kuijlaars, Universality in the two matrix model: a Riemann-Hilbert steepest descent analysis, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 62 (2009), 1076–1153

    2009

  23. [29]

    Duits, A

    M. Duits, A. B. J. Kuijlaars and M. Y. Mo, The Hermitian two matrix model with an even quartic potential, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 217 (2012), no. 1022, v+105 pp

    2012

  24. [30]

    A. S. Fokas, A. R. Its and A. V. Kitaev, The isomonodromy approach to matrix models in 2D quantum gravity, Comm. Math. Phys. 147 (1992), 395–430

    1992

  25. [31]

    P. J. Forrester, Eigenvalue statistics for product complex Wishart matrices, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47 (2014), 345202

    2014

  26. [32]

    P. J. Forrester and M. Kieburg, Relating the Bures measure to the Cauchy two-matrix model, Comm. Math. Phys. 342 (2016), 151–187

    2016

  27. [33]

    Furstenberg and H

    H. Furstenberg and H. Kesten, Products of random matrices, Ann. Math. Stat. 31 (1960), 457–469

    1960

  28. [34]

    Hardy and A

    A. Hardy and A. B. J. Kuijlaars, Weakly admissible vector equilibrium problems, J. Approx. Theory 164 (2012), 854–868

    2012

  29. [35]

    A. B. J. Kuijlaars, Universality, in the Oxford handbook of random matrix theory, pages 103–134, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2011

    2011

  30. [36]

    A. B. J. Kuijlaars, A. Mart´ ınez-Finkelstein and F. Wielonsky, Non-intersecting squared Bessel paths and multiple orthogonal polynomials for modified Bessel weights, Comm. Math. Phys. 286 (2009), 217–275

    2009

  31. [37]

    A. B. J. Kuijlaars and L. Molag, The local universality of Muttalib-Borodin biorthogonal ensembles with parameter θ = 1/2, Nonlinearity 32 (2019), 3023–3081. 77

    2019

  32. [38]

    A. B. J. Kuijlaars and D. Stivigny, Singular values of products of random matrices and polynomial ensembles, Random Matrices Theory Appl. 3 (2014), 1450011 22 pp

    2014

  33. [39]

    A. B. J. Kuijlaars and A. Tovbis, The supercritical regime in the normal matrix model with cubic potential, Adv. Math. 283 (2015), 530–587

    2015

  34. [40]

    A. B. J. Kuijlaars and L. Zhang, Singular values of products of Ginibre random matrices, multiple orthogonal polynomials and hard edge scaling limits, Comm. Math. Phys. 332 (2014), 759–781

    2014

  35. [41]

    N. S. Landkof, Foundations of modern potential thoery. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 180. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997

    1997

  36. [43]

    Wang and L

    D.-Z Liu, D. Wang and L. Zhang, Bulk and soft-edge universality for singular values of products of Ginibre random matrices, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e - Prob. Stat. 52 (2016), 1734–1762

    2016

  37. [44]

    Mart´ ınez-Finkelstein and G

    A. Mart´ ınez-Finkelstein and G. L. F. Silva, Spectral curves, variational problems, and the hermitian matrix model with external source, arXiv:1907.08108, 2019, 75 pp

    1907 arXiv

  38. [45]

    M. L. Mehta, Random Matrices, 3rd ed., Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2004

    2004

  39. [46]

    Miranda, Algebraic Curves and Riemann Surfaces, vol

    R. Miranda, Algebraic Curves and Riemann Surfaces, vol. 5 of Graduate Studies in Math- ematics, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1995

    1995

  40. [47]

    N. I. Muskhelishvili, Singular integral equations: Boundary problems of functions theory and their applications to mathematical physics, Revised translation from the Russian, edited by J. R. M. Radok, Wolters-Noordhoff Publishing, Groningen, 1972, xii+7–447

    1972

  41. [48]

    Neuschel, Plancherel-Rotach formulae for average characteristic polynomials of products of Ginibre random matrices and the Fuss-Catalan distribution, Random Matrices Theory Appl

    T. Neuschel, Plancherel-Rotach formulae for average characteristic polynomials of products of Ginibre random matrices and the Fuss-Catalan distribution, Random Matrices Theory Appl. 3 (2014), 1450003 18 pp

    2014

  42. [49]

    F. W. J. Olver, D. W. Lozier, R. F. Boisvert and C. W. Clark, editors, NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2010. Print companion to [DLMF]

    2010

  43. [50]

    J. C. Osborn, Universal results from an alternate random matrix model for QCD with a baryon chemical potential, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004), 222001–222004

    2004

  44. [51]

    Pommerenke, Univalent functions - With a chapter on quadratic differentials by Gerd Jensen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, G¨ ottingen, 1975

    C. Pommerenke, Univalent functions - With a chapter on quadratic differentials by Gerd Jensen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, G¨ ottingen, 1975

    1975

  45. [52]

    Ransford, Potential theory in the complex plane, London Mathematical Society Student Texts, 28, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995

    T. Ransford, Potential theory in the complex plane, London Mathematical Society Student Texts, 28, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995

    1995

  46. [53]

    E. B. Saff and V. Totik, Logarithmic potentials with external field. Grundlehren der math- ematischen Wissenschaften, 316. Springer, Berlin, 1997

    1997

  47. [54]

    J. R. Sendra, F. Winkler and S. P´ erez-D´ ıaz, Rational algebraic curves: a computer algebra approach, Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics, vol. 22, Springer, Berlin, 2008. 78

    2008

  48. [55]

    Tsuji, Potential theory in modern function theory

    M. Tsuji, Potential theory in modern function theory. 2nd edition, Chelsea, New York, 1975

    1975

  49. [56]

    Van Assche, J

    W. Van Assche, J. S. Geronimo and A. B. J. Kuijlaars, Riemann-Hilbert problems for multiple orthogonal polynomials, in Special functions 2000: current perspective and future directions (J. Bustoz et al., eds.), Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 2001, pp. 23–59

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.