Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Unitary $n$-correlations with restricted support in random matrix theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives an explicit formula for the n-correlation of eigenvalues of U(N) in the ratios form, valid when the Fourier transform of the test function has support |ξ1|+...+|ξn|<6, extending earlier results at supports <2 and <4.

desk verdict A solid q=2 calculation, but the headline q=3 theorem is under-proved as written; worth refereeing seriously rather than desk rejecting. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11662 v2 pith:OHXJWXZQ submitted 2024-12-16 math-ph math.MP

Patrik Demjan , N.C. Snaith This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MP MSC 11M2611M5015B52
keywords randommatrixtheoryunitarygroupU(N)n-correlationratiosofcharacteristicpolynomialsrestrictedFouriersupportL-functionzerosConjecture
topics The Riemann Hypothesis
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

The paper proves explicit formulas for the n-point correlation of eigenvalues of random unitary matrices, written in the ratios form that number theorists can mimic, when the Fourier transform of the test function has support on the region |ξ1|+...+|ξn| less than 6. It extends previous treatments at supports <2 and <4 by adding the contribution in which two z-variables are singled out on each side of the contour expression. The payoff is that random matrix theory can now supply a concrete asymptotic target for zero-correlation calculations of L-functions at a larger range of support, even though no number-theoretic calculation at this range exists yet. The two main results are the q=2 formula with support <4 and the q=3 formula with support <6.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ratios expression $J^*_q(z_K;-z_L)$, obtained from the Ratios Theorem, which replaces the determinantal correlation function by a contour integral over z-variables. The Fourier support restriction $\sum|\xi_j|<2q$ makes terms with |S|=|T|\ge q exponentially small, so $J^*$ reduces to a sum over subsets of size less than q. For q=3 the new term is $J^*_{z_{k_1},z_{k_2},-z_{l_1},-z_{l_2}}$, built from products of $z(x)=1/(1-e^{-x})$ and the functions $H_{2,2}(W)$, which are differences of logarithmic derivatives of z. The contour integrals are then evaluated by spreading the contours so that their real parts are ordered, collecting residues at coincident z-variables, and applying a generalized convolution theorem to the final single-variable integrals.

What would settle it

Compute the residues at $z_s=z_k$ and $z_t=z_l$ in the q=2 integrand for an index configuration other than the worked example, and the analogous residues at $z_{k_1}=z_{k_2}$ and $z_{l_1}=z_{l_2}$ in the q=3 integrand; if any residue fails to cancel against its paired partner, the displayed formula misses an additional residue contribution. A numerical check of Theorem 6.1 for small n with a chosen $\Phi$ of support <6 would also test whether the predicted leading term is indeed $\kappa(h)NT/(2\pi)$ with error O(T).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 6.1. For a test function F built from a rapidly decaying function f whose Fourier transform Φ is smooth, even, and compactly supported on |ξ1|+...+|ξn|<6, the averaging identity $$\int_{U(N)} \sum_{j_1,\dots,j_n} F(\theta_{j_1},\dots,\theta_{j_n})\,dX = \frac{NT}{2\pi}\kappa(h) \sum_{K+L+M=\{1,\dots,n\}} (-1)^{|L|}\,[\cdots] + O(T)$$ holds, with $\kappa(h)=\int_{\mathbb R} h_1(u)\cdots h_n(u)\,du$ and where $[\cdots]$ is an explicit finite sum over pairings of selected indices and over partitions of the remaining indices into four contributing sets, with integrands built from $\Phi$. Theorem 5.1 is the analogous statement for support <4, where only a single special pair is needed. This is deliberately not the familiar determinant expression for eigenvalue correlations; it is the ratios form, in which only subsets of size |S|=|T|<q survive once the Fourier support is restricted to $\sum|\xi_j|<2q$.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the assumption that apparent poles appearing when two integration variables are moved to coincide cancel in pairs, leaving no leftover residue terms; for the q=2 step this is checked for one representative index pair, while the remaining q=2 cases and the entire q=3 case with four special variables are taken as asserted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every test function whose Fourier transform is supported on $\sum|\xi_j|<6$, the U(N) average equals the displayed finite sum of $\Phi$-integrals with error O(T).
  • Setting the double-pair contribution to zero recovers the q=2 result with support <4, and further restriction recovers the q=1 result with support <2, so the new theorem contains the earlier cases.
  • Because the formula is expressed in the ratios form rather than the determinant form, it can in principle be mimicked in number-theoretic calculations of correlations of L-function zeros.
  • The prefactor $\kappa(h)NT/(2\pi)$ is universal, with the dependence on the smoothing functions entering only through $\kappa(h)$ and convolution integrals of their Fourier transforms $g_j$.
  • Should a future number-theoretic calculation reach Fourier support 6, this formula provides a concrete random-matrix prediction to match.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to adapt the q=3 n-correlation formula to the n-level density setting, following the precedent set by the q=2 n-level density calculation; the translation-invariance delta function would reshape the $\Phi$ integrals.
  • Keeping the O(1/T) terms in the residue expansions would yield lower-order corrections analogous to those the Ratios Conjecture predicts for L-functions.
  • The same contour method appears extendable to q=4, where the new term would involve three special z-variables on each side; the analytical mechanism would remain the same while the combinatorial complexity grows.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives an alternative, ratio-based expression for the n-point correlation function of eigenvalues of U(N) with Haar measure, restricting the support of the Fourier transform of the test function to (-6,6) (q=3). Section 5 gives a detailed proof for support (-4,4) (q=2), building on the q=1 result of Conrey and Snaith, and Section 6 states the q=3 result as Theorem 6.1 with a long explicit formula, equation (109). The paper's stated motivation is to provide a random-matrix expression that can be mimicked in number-theoretic calculations of n-correlations of L-function zeros.

Significance. If fully established, the q=3 formula would extend the range of support for this ratio-based correlation expression from the previously known (-4,4) to (-6,6), potentially matching or guiding future number-theoretic results. The q=2 theorem is derived in detail, with clearly stated lemmas and explicit conditions on the ξ variables; the derivation uses established identities rather than fitted parameters, and the support restriction is not circular. The central q=3 theorem, however, is not established as presented: its proof derives only the I^1 contribution in detail, and the contour-spreading step on which the derivation rests is verified only through a representative example in the q=2 case and asserted without residue computation in the q=3 case. The value of the paper therefore depends on whether these gaps can be filled.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6, proof of Theorem 6.1, equations (166)-(172)] The proof of the central q=3 result computes only the contribution I^1_2,2 in detail. The remaining five contributions I^2_2,2 through I^6_2,2 are introduced with the statement 'If we follow these same steps for I^2_2,2 to I^6_2,2, of course with slight modification to the change of variables' and only their final integrands are displayed. Since the displayed formula (109) is by construction the sum of these six contributions, the q=3 formula is not verified by the text as it stands. Please supply the omitted derivations, or an independent verification such as a low-dimensional comparison with the determinant expression (5), before the theorem can be regarded as proven.
  2. [Section 5, equations (65)-(66); Section 6, after equation (119)] The contour-spreading step used to order the z-contours in the q=2 calculation is justified only for the representative pair k=1, s=2, with the statement that a similar argument handles z_t=z_l. In the q=3 proof the analogous spreading is asserted with 'these follow exactly the same steps as before', but the integrand (112) contains the additional denominator factors z(z_{k1}-z_{k2})z(z_{k2}-z_{k1}) and z(z_{l1}-z_{l2})z(z_{l2}-z_{l1}). Moving contours in this setting must thread between genuine poles in the four special variables z_{k1}, z_{k2}, z_{l1}, z_{l2}, and no residue computation is supplied to rule out surviving contributions for some index configurations. Such surviving residues would add extra terms to (109), so a general proof of the cancellation is needed rather than a representative example.
  3. [Theorem 6.1, equation (109)] The theorem statement is difficult to check because the sets K1, K2, L1, L2 are defined only after the displayed formula, and the sign exponent contains Q^{>k_2}_2 where the surrounding definitions suggest Q^{>l_2}_2. In addition, the final 'dξ_Q' notation does not appear elsewhere in the proof. Please clarify the notation and correct the apparent typographical inconsistency so that the individual terms of (109) can be matched against the six contributions I^1_2,2 through I^6_2,2.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and title] The abstract contains typographical errors such as 'matrics' and the title is broken as 'UNIT ARY n-CORRELA TIONS'; these should be corrected in the published version.
  2. [Equation (109)] The conditions 'k2 > k1 and l2 > l1' appear only in the informal discussion around (111) and are not restated in Theorem 6.1; they should be made part of the theorem statement to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Proof of Lemma 6.1, paragraph after equation (129)] The text says 'we make a change of variables in zl2, zl2, zk1 , zk2 integrals' where the second 'zl2' should presumably be 'zl1'.
  4. [Lemma 6.1, equation (119)] The statement records the error term as O(1/N), while the proof at several places derives errors of size O(1/(NT)) from differentiating the h factors; the relation between these error terms should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Sections 5 and 6, notation] The formulas (44) and (109) are extremely long, and the notation R^c_1, Q^c_1, R^{>k}_1, and similar sets is introduced ad hoc; a short notation table or a preliminary lemma collecting these definitions would improve readability and checkability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is a self-contained extension of prior published theorems, not a reduction to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 6.1, is obtained by taking the Conrey-Snaith formula (Theorem 3.2, equation (25)) as a starting point, imposing the support restriction sum |xi_j| < 6, and then evaluating the resulting contour integrals. The target expression (109) is not an input to any step: no parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted, and the prefactor kappa(h) and the various xi-integrals are produced by explicit change-of-variables and residue calculations. The reliance on Conrey-Snaith [14] is real evidence rather than circular self-citation: that theorem is an established, parameter-free result whose assumptions do not include the support range (-6,6) being derived here. The q=2 term I_{0,0} is imported from [14], but that is a prior independent computation, not the new result. The proof of Lemma 6.1 works out the contour-spreading and residue steps for the four special variables, and while the verification of pairwise pole cancellation in Section 5 is shown only for one representative case, this is a gap in rigor rather than a circular reduction. Similarly, the statement that I_2 through I_6 follow 'the same steps' after I_1 is a brevity in exposition, not an assumption of the conclusion. No fitted values, no renaming of a known result, and no uniqueness claim imported from the authors' prior work are used to force the final formula. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters or new physical entities. The calculation relies on prior RMT identities and on a contour-deformation lemma that is only partially proved.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Ratios Theorem identity, Theorem 3.2 quoted from [14], expressing the U(N) average over eigenvalues of F as a multiple contour integral of J*(z_K; -z_L).
    This is the starting point of the calculation; cited to Conrey-Snaith [14] and not reproved here.
  • domain assumption The support-restriction simplification: terms in J* with |S|=|T|>=q vanish as N tends to infinity when the support of Phi is sum |xi_j| < 2q - epsilon.
    Derived in Sections 3-4 via contour bounds; depends on T growing faster than N and on the decay of the h factors.
  • ad hoc to paper Pairwise cancellation of the apparent poles at z_s = z_k and z_t = z_l allows ordering of the integration contours.
    Verified only for a single representative configuration, k=1 and s=2; assumed to hold for all configurations, including the q=3 case with four special variables.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unitary $n$-correlations with restricted support in random matrix theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OHXJWXZQ

@misc{pith2026241211662,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unitary $n$-correlations with restricted support in random matrix theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OHXJWXZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11662}
}
abstract

We consider the $n$-correlation of eigenvalues of random unitary matrices in the alternative form that is not the tidy determinant common in random matrix theory, but rather the expression derived from averages of ratios of characteristic polynomials in a method that can be mimicked in number theoretical calculations of the correlations of zeros of $L$-functions. This alternative form for eigenvalues of matrices from $U(N)$ was proposed by Conrey and Snaith and derived by them when the test function has support in (-2,2), derived by Chandee and Lee for support (-4,4) and here we calculate the expression when the support is (-6,6).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11662 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualisation of the placement of contours. The zk1 variable lies on the contour (δ1), zk2 lies on the contour (δ2), and so on. Also k1 < k2 < k3 < . . . and δ1 < δ2 < · · · . The variable zl1 is integrated on (−δ1), and so forth. (74) Y s∈R1 Z (δs) hs  izs T  e N zsξs z ′ z (zs − zk)dzs = (2πi) |R1| Y s∈R1 Res zs=zk [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alpoge, N

    L. Alpoge, N. Amersi, G. Iyer, O. Lazarev, S.J. Miller, an d L. Zhang. Maass waveforms and low-lying zeros. In Analytic Number Theory: In Honor of Helmut Maier’s 60th Birthday , pages 19–55. Springer, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Alpoge and S.J

    L. Alpoge and S.J. Miller. Low-lying zeros of Maass forms L-functions. Int. Math. Res. Not. , 2015(10):2678–2701, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Baluyot, V

    S. Baluyot, V. Chandee, and X Li. Low-lying zeros of a larg e orthogonal family of automorphic l-functions. arXiv:2310.07606

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Barrett, P

    O. Barrett, P. Burkhardt, J. DeWitt, R. Dorward, and S.J. Miller. One-level density for holomorphic cusp forms of arb itrary level. Research in Number Theory , 3, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Bettin and A

    S. Bettin and A. Fazzari. A weighted one-level density of the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta-function. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 307(2), 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Bracewell

    R. Bracewell. The Fourier Transform and Its Applications . McGraw-Hill, New York, third edition, 2000

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Chandee and Y

    V. Chandee and Y. Lee. n-level density of the low-lying zeros of primitive Dirichle t l-functions. Advances in Mathematics , 369, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Cohen, J

    P. Cohen, J. Dell, O.E. Gonz´ alez, G. Iyer, S. Khunger, C. -H. Kwan, S.J. Miller, A. Shashkov, A. Smith Reina, C. Sprung er, N. Triantafillou, N. Truong, R. Van Peski, S. Willis, and Y. Ya ng. Extending support for the centered moments of the low lying zeroes of cuspidal newforms. arXiv:2208.02625

    work page arXiv

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Conrey, D.W

    J.B. Conrey, D.W. Farmer, J.P. Keating, M.O. Rubinstein , and N.C. Snaith. Integral moments of L-functions. Proc. London Math. Soc. , 91(1):33–104, 2005. arXiv:math.nt/0206018

    2005

  2. [10]

    Conrey, P.J

    J.B. Conrey, P.J. Forrester, and N.C. Snaith. Averages of ratios of characteristic polynomials for the compact cla ssical groups. Int. Math. Res. Notices , 7:397–431, 2005

    2005

  3. [11]

    Conrey and N.C

    J.B. Conrey and N.C. Snaith. Applications of the L-functions ratios conjectures. Proc. London Math. Soc. , 94(3):594–646,

  4. [12]

    Conrey and N.C

    J.B. Conrey and N.C. Snaith. Correlations of eigenvalu es and Riemann zeros. Comm. Number Theory and Phyics , 2(3):477–536,

  5. [13]

    Conrey and N.C

    J.B. Conrey and N.C. Snaith. Triple correlation of the R iemann zeros. Journal de Th´ eorie des Nombres de Bordeaux, 20:61–106,

  6. [14]

    Conrey and N.C

    J.B. Conrey and N.C. Snaith. In support of n-correlation. Comm. Math. Phys. , 330(2):639–653, 2014. DOI:10.1007/s00220- 014-1969-1, arXiv:1212.5537

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Due˜ nez and S.J

    E. Due˜ nez and S.J. Miller. The low lying zeros of a GL(4) and a GL(6) family of L-functions. Compos. Math. , 142:1403–25, 2006

    2006

  8. [16]

    Entin, E Roditty-Gershon, and Z

    A. Entin, E Roditty-Gershon, and Z. Rudnick. Low-lying zeros of quadratic Dirichlet L-functions, hyper-elliptic curves and random matrix theory. Geom. and Func. Analysis , 23(4):1230–1261, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    A. Fazzari. A weighted one-level density of families of L-functions. Algebra and Number Theory , 18(1), 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Fiorilli and S

    D. Fiorilli and S. J. Miller. Surpassing the ratios conj ecture in the 1-level density of Dirichlet L-functions. Algebra and Number Theory, 9:13–52, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Fouvry and H

    E. Fouvry and H. Iwaniec. Low-lying zeros of dihedral L-functions. Duke Math. J , 116(2):189–217, 2003

    2003

  12. [20]

    P. Gao. N -level density of the low-lying zeros of quadratic Dirichle t L-functions. Int. Math. Res. Not. , 2014(6):1699–1728, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    J. Goes, S. Jackson, S.J. Miller, D. Montague, K. Ninsuw an, R. Peckner, and T. Pham. A unitary test of the ratios conje cture. J. Number Theory , 130:2238–2258, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    G¨ ulo˘ glu

    A.M. G¨ ulo˘ glu. Low-lying zeros of symmetric power L-functions. Int. Math. Res. Not. , 9:517–550, 2005

    2005

  15. [23]

    Hamieh and P.-J

    A. Hamieh and P.-J. W ong. Low-lying zeros of L-functions of ad´ elic Hilbert modular forms and their convo lutions. arXiv:2412.03034v1

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    D.A. Hejhal. On the triple correlation of zeros of the ze ta function. Inter. Math. Res. Notices , 7:293–302, 1994

    1994

  17. [25]

    Hughes and S.J

    C.P. Hughes and S.J. Miller. Low-lying zeros of L-functions with orthogonal symmetry. Duke Math. J. , 136(1):115–172, 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    Huynh, S.J

    D.K. Huynh, S.J. Miller, and R. Morrison. An elliptic cu rve test of the l-function ratios conjecture. J. Number Theory , 131:1117–1147, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Iwaniec, W

    H. Iwaniec, W. Luo, and P. Sarnak. Low lying zeros of fami lies of L-functions. Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. , 91:55–131, 2000

    2000

  20. [28]

    Katz and P

    N.M. Katz and P. Sarnak. Random Matrices, Frobenius Eigenvalues and Monodromy . American Mathematical Society Collo- quium Publications, 45. American Mathematical Society, Pr ovidence, Rhode Island, 1999

    1999

  21. [29]

    Katz and P

    N.M. Katz and P. Sarnak. Zeros of zeta functions and symm etry. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 36:1–26, 1999

    1999

  22. [30]

    Keating and N.C

    J.P. Keating and N.C. Snaith. Random matrix theory and L-functions at s = 1/ 2. Comm. Math. Phys , 214:91–110, 2000

    2000

  23. [31]

    Keating and N.C

    J.P. Keating and N.C. Snaith. Random matrix theory and ζ(1/ 2 + it). Comm. Math. Phys. , 214:57–89, 2000

    2000

  24. [32]

    Lesesvre

    D. Lesesvre. Low-lying zeros of L-functions for quaternion algebras. arXiv:1810.13257v2

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Levinson and S.J

    J. Levinson and S.J. Miller. The n-level densities of low-lying zeros of quadratic Dirichlet L-functions. Acta Arithmetica , 161(2):145–182, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    Li and S.J

    J.S. Li and S.J. Miller. Bounding vanishing at the centr al point of cuspidal newforms. J. Number Theory , 244:279–307, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Liu and S.J

    S.-C. Liu and S.J. Miller. Low-lying zeros for L-functions associated to Hilbert modular forms of large lev el. Acta Arithmetica, 180(3), 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Mason and N.C.Snaith

    A.M. Mason and N.C.Snaith. Orthogonal and symplectic n-level densities. Memoirs of the AMS , 251(1194), 2018. arXiv:1509.05250

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Mason and N.C

    A.M. Mason and N.C. Snaith. Symplectic n-level densities with restricted support. Random Matrices: Theory and Applications , 5(4), 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Mauro, J.B

    A. Mauro, J.B. Miller, and S.J. Miller. Extending the su pport of 1- and 2-level densities for cusp form L-functions under square-root cancellation hypothesis. Acta Arithmetica, 214:289–309, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    M.L. Mehta. Random Matrices. Elsevier, Amsterdam, third edition, 2004

    2004

  32. [40]

    S.J. Miller. One- and two-level densities for rational families of elliptic curves: evidence for the underlying gr oup symmetries. Compos. Math. , 140(4):952–992, 2004

    2004

  33. [41]

    S.J. Miller. A symplectic test of the L-functions ratios conjecture. Int. Math. Res. Notices , 2008. DOI:10.1093/imrn/rnm146, arXiv:0704.0927

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    S.J. Miller. An orthogonal test of the L-functions ratios conjecture. Proc. London Math. Soc. , 99:484–520, 2009. arXiv:0805.4208

    2009 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Miller and D

    S.J. Miller and D. Montague. An orthogonal test of the L-functions ratios conjecture, II. Acta Arithmetica, 146(1):53–90, 2011

    2011

  36. [44]

    Miller and R

    S.J. Miller and R. Peckner. Low-lying zeros of number fie ld l-functions. J. Number Theory , 132:2866–2891, 2012

    2012

  37. [45]

    Montgomery

    H.L. Montgomery. The pair correlation of the zeta funct ion. Proc. Symp. Pure Math , 24:181–93, 1973

    1973

  38. [46]

    A.M. Odlyzko. The 10 20th zero of the Riemann zeta function and 70 million of its neig hbors. preprint, 1989. http://www.dtc.umn.edu/∼ odlyzko/unpublished/index.html

    1989

  39. [47]

    A.M. Odlyzko. The 10 20th zero of the Riemann zeta function and 70 million of its neig hbors. preprint, 1997

    1997

  40. [48]

    A. E. ¨Ozl¨ uk and C. Snyder. On the distribution of the nontrivial z eros of quadratic L-functions close to the real axis. Acta Arith., 91(3):209–228, 1999

    1999

  41. [49]

    Ricotta and E

    G. Ricotta and E. Royer. Statistics for low-lying zeros of symmetric power L-functions in the level aspect. Forum Math. , 23:969–1028, 2011. arXiv:math.NT/0703760

    2011

  42. [50]

    Rubinstein

    M.O. Rubinstein. Low-lying zeros of L-functions and random matrix theory. Duke Math. J. , 109(1):147–181, 2001

    2001

  43. [51]

    Rudnick and P

    Z. Rudnick and P. Sarnak. Zeros of principal L-functions and random matrix theory. Duke Math. J. , 81(2):269–322, 1996

    1996

  44. [52]

    Shin and N

    S.W. Shin and N. Templier. Sato-Tate theorem for famili es and low-lying zeros of automorphic L-functions. Invent.Math., 2023:1–177, 2016

    2023

  45. [53]

    M. P. Young. Low-lying zeros of families of elliptic cur ves. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 19(1):205–250, 2006. arXiv:math.nt/0406330

    2006

  46. [2007]

    arXiv:math.NT/0509480

  47. [2008]

    UNITARY n-CORRELATIONS WITH RESTRICTED SUPPORT IN RANDOM MATRIX THE ORY 49

    arXiv:math/0610495. UNITARY n-CORRELATIONS WITH RESTRICTED SUPPORT IN RANDOM MATRIX THE ORY 49

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.