Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Moments of characteristic polynomials for classical $\beta$ ensembles

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the even moments of characteristic polynomials in the Gaussian, Laguerre, and Jacobi β-ensembles are governed by one universal Barnes-G constant, with a quantitative error bound, and it provides new asymptotics when…

desk verdict The Gaussian and Laguerre parts are solid, but the Jacobi saddle-point calculation is internally inconsistent, so the paper as submitted cannot be accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07142 v2 pith:RK24UQ2S submitted 2025-02-11 math-ph math.MP

Bo-Jian Shen , Peter J. Forrester This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MP MSC 15B5260B2041A60
keywords betaensemblescharacteristicpolynomialmomentssteepestdescentasymptoticsdualityformulasBarnesGfunctionSelbergintegralLaguerreandJacobiglobaldensity
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 is about the large-$N$ behaviour of the even moments of the characteristic polynomial in the classical Gaussian, Laguerre, and Jacobi $\beta$-ensembles. It claims that the previously obtained asymptotic expansions for these moments hold with an explicit multiplicative error of order $1+O(N^{-\min\{2/\beta,1\}})$, and that the constant in front is universal: for rational $\beta/2$ it is exactly the Barnes G-function constant first computed for the circular $\beta$ ensemble. The proof uses a duality relation to turn the $N$-variable average into a $2p$-dimensional integral, then applies multidimensional steepest descent around two conjugate saddle points. In the Laguerre and Jacobi cases the same method produces new asymptotic formulas when the weight exponents are strictly proportional to $N$, a regime not covered by the earlier work.

What carries the argument

The central object is the duality identity, which converts the average over $N$ eigenvalues of a $2p$-th power of the characteristic polynomial into a $2p$-dimensional integral $R_{N,\beta}[f;C]$ whose integrand contains $e^{N f(u_j,\lambda)}$ and the Vandermonde factors $|u_j-u_k|^{4/\beta}$. The analytic work is a multidimensional steepest-descent analysis of this integral: the phase $f$ has two complex-conjugate saddle points $u_\pm$ inside the support of the limiting density, and after deforming the integration contours to steepest-descent paths through these points the leading contribution comes from splitting the $2p$ variables into $p$ near each saddle. Tracking the next-order terms yields the explicit error bound. The second ingredient is a Barnes G-function identity, proved with the gamma multiplication formula, that rewrites the gamma-product constant $A_{\beta,p}$ as the circular-ensemble constant (1.11), establishing universality.

What would settle it

Numerically evaluate an exact even moment for a small instance, say $N=4$, $p=1$, $\beta=1$, with $\lambda$ inside the support, by integrating the β-ensemble density (1.1), and compare the ratio to the right-hand side of (1.16), (1.18), (1.19), (4.9), or (5.12); if the deviation is not of order $N^{-\min\{2/\beta,1\}}$, the saddle-point dominance or the claimed bound fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for every positive integer $p$, the large-$N$ asymptotics of the $2p$-th absolute moment of the characteristic polynomial in the Gaussian $\beta$-ensemble, and in the Laguerre and Jacobi $\beta$-ensembles with parameters either fixed or strictly proportional to $N$, are given by formulas of the form $A_{\beta,p}$ times powers of $N$ and of the limiting spectral density, with an explicit multiplicative remainder $1+O(N^{-\min\{2/\beta,1\}})$. The constant $A_{\beta,p}$, defined in (1.17) as a product of gamma functions, is the same in every case; Proposition 2.2 proves that for $\beta/2=m/n$ rational it coincides with the Barnes G-function product (1.11) previously computed for the circular $\beta$ ensemble. The Laguerre and Jacobi results with exponents proportional to $N$, stated as Propositions 4.2 and 5.1, are new, and the paper verifies that when $\beta=2$ the formulas reduce to the known Hankel-determinant asymptotics for the unitary ensembles.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the assumption that the integration contours can be deformed so that only the two complex-conjugate saddle points $u_\pm$ contribute and no other saddle points or branch cuts interfere; for the Laguerre and Jacobi cases with $O(N)$ parameters this is carried over from the fixed-parameter cases without a fully detailed check.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the Gaussian, Laguerre, and Jacobi $\beta$-ensembles with fixed weight parameters, the even moment asymptotics now carry a precise remainder $1+O(N^{-\min\{2/\beta,1\}})$, so the expansions can be used with controlled accuracy.
  • The Barnes G-function constant first found for the circular $\beta$ ensemble is universal: it appears unchanged in the Gaussian, Laguerre, and Jacobi ensembles whenever $\beta/2$ is rational.
  • New asymptotic formulas (4.9) and (5.12) cover Laguerre and Jacobi weights whose exponents are strictly proportional to $N$, a regime for which no such results were previously available.
  • Setting $\beta=2$ reproduces the known Hankel-determinant asymptotics for Laguerre-type and Jacobi-type potentials, so the general formulas are consistent with the unitary case.
  • The dependence on the power $p$ in the leading terms matches the Gaussian fluctuation formula for smooth linear statistics, with the singular statistic $\log|\lambda-x|$ reproduced after regularising a divergent sum.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The universality statement is proved for rational $\beta/2$, but both sides of the equality are continuous in $\beta$, so the coincidence of constants should extend to all real $\beta>0$ by continuity; the paper does not explicitly make this extension.
  • The new proportional-exponent formulas place the Laguerre and Jacobi ensembles in the same Gaussian-type class as one-cut regular potentials, so the same constant and structure should appear for any classical weight with $N$-proportional exponents; this could be tested by loop-equation expansions or small-$N$ numerical quadrature.
  • The regularisation of the divergent sum (2.10) that produces the $p^2$ exponent suggests that a similar device could be used to extract subleading Fisher-Hartwig corrections for $\beta\neq 2$, which the paper does not compute.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the large-N asymptotic form of the 2p-th moment of the characteristic polynomial for the classical Gaussian, Laguerre, and Jacobi beta ensembles. It refines results of Desrosiers and Liu by providing a multiplicative error bound of 1+O(N^{-min{2/beta,1}}), identifies the constant A_{beta,p} with the circular-beta Barnes-G constant for rational beta/2 (Proposition 2.2), and obtains new formulas when the Laguerre and Jacobi weight exponents are proportional to N (Propositions 4.2 and 5.1). The derivations use duality formulas followed by multidimensional steepest descent.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a unified and more rigorous treatment of characteristic-polynomial moments for the classical beta ensembles, including explicit error bounds and new O(N)-parameter results. The proof of the Barnes-G identity in Proposition 2.2 is explicit and checkable, and the appendix contains useful cross-checks against existing beta=2 results and against global density formulas. However, the Jacobi saddle-point analysis contains a concrete inconsistency that is load-bearing for the stated results, so the paper cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, displayed f_J and Eq. (5.2)] The stationary points of the leading-order function f_J*(u,lambda) = -ln u + ln(1+u) + ln(1-lambda) - ln(1-lambda u) are the real roots of lambda u^2 + 2 lambda u - 1 = 0, namely u = -1 +/- sqrt(1+1/lambda), not u_+/- = +/- i sqrt(1/lambda - 1) as stated. The printed second derivative also contains an error: the derivative of -ln(1-lambda u) contributes +lambda^2/(1-lambda u)^2, not -lambda^2/(1-lambda-lambda u)^2. Because the saddle values, the descent angles theta_+/-, the radius R, and the final formulas (1.19), (5.12), and the Jacobi case of Proposition 2.1 all rely on these data, the Jacobi branch of the central claim is not established as written. A corrected f_J or a corrected saddle-point computation is required.
  2. [Section 5.2] The same issue propagates to the proportional-parameter Jacobi case. The saddle points for f_J2 are stated without derivation, and given the inconsistency in the fixed-parameter case it must be verified that the displayed u_+/- in Section 5.2 actually solve the stationary equation for the displayed f_J2. Until this is checked, Proposition 5.1 and Eq. (5.12) are not supported.
  3. [Proposition 4.1 and its proof] The proof is reduced to 'the rest of the steps are similar to those of Proposition 3.1.' Unlike Proposition 3.1, Lemma 2 introduces an extra phase (-1)^{n(n-1)/beta} and a modified exponent f_tilde, and the error analysis must account for the unit-circle contour ordering and the branch cuts of ln u. The claimed uniform error O(N^{-min{2/beta,1}}) for the Laguerre and Jacobi cases therefore needs a more detailed justification than the one-line delegation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'providing too an error bound' should read 'providing also an error bound' or 'providing an error bound as well'.
  2. [Section 1.2] There is a typo in 'Desoriers and Liu' that should be 'Desrosiers and Liu'.
  3. [Section 4] The word 'saparately' should be 'separately'.
  4. [Section 5.1] The word 'asympototics' should be 'asymptotics', and in Section 5.2 'compannion' should be 'companion'.
  5. [Remark 2.1.1] The reference to 'Proposition 2.2' should likely be to 'Proposition 2.1' when discussing the asymptotic formulas for the moments.
  6. [Eq. (5.1)] The product in the first line of Eq. (5.1) is over l=1 to p, but the left-hand side involves the 2p-th power of the characteristic polynomial; please clarify whether the product should run to 2p or whether the notation CE_{4/beta,p} is intended with 2p factors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the asymptotic constants come from exact Selberg/gamma-function identities and the steepest-descent reductions are carried out independently of the target asymptotics.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained for the purposes of circularity analysis. The central constants A_{β,p} and the Barnes-G form of the circular-ensemble constant are not fitted parameters; they are evaluated from Selberg integral formulas and gamma-function multiplication identities. Proposition 2.2 proves the equality of the two forms by explicit induction and the standard gamma multiplication formula, rather than assuming the conclusion. The steepest-descent steps in Sections 3–5 begin from exact duality formulas and exact Selberg evaluations, and the remainder bounds are obtained from Gaussian-model integrals Γ_{n,β}, which are evaluated explicitly. The cited prior works by the same authors (e.g., [19] for contour-deformation lemmas and [28] for the circular-ensemble constant term) are exact, independently checkable identities or lemmas with stated assumptions, and they are not used as a substitute for the paper's own calculation. The apparent issue in the Jacobi saddle-point computation (§5.1, where the displayed derivative of f_J does not vanish at the claimed pure-imaginary saddle points) is a correctness or typographical concern about the internal steepest-descent derivation, not a case of the paper predicting its own inputs by construction. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter, a self-citation chain, or a definitional equivalence.

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

The central claim rests on standard duality identities, Selberg integral evaluations, gamma function identities, and saddle point analysis. There are no fitted numerical parameters and no new postulated physical or mathematical entities.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Duality identities (1.4), (4.1), and (5.1) convert the N-eigenvalue average to a 2p-eigenvalue average.
    These identities are cited from Desrosiers 2009 and Forrester 2025, and are not proved in this paper. They are the central structural input for the entire asymptotic analysis.
  • domain assumption Contour deformation lemmas from Desrosiers and Forrester 2006 (Lemmas 1 and 2 in this paper) make the Vandermonde product analytic on ordered contours.
    The lemmas are stated and attributed to [19] but not proved. The steepest descent argument depends on being able to deform the integration domain without hitting singularities.
  • domain assumption Selberg integral evaluations (3.4), (4.5), (4.6), and (5.3) give the normalization constants as gamma function products.
    These exact evaluations are standard in beta ensemble theory and are cited to Forrester's book. They supply the prefactors in the final asymptotic formulas.
  • standard math The gamma multiplication formula and Barnes G function recurrence used in Proposition 2.2.
    These are classical identities used to rewrite A_{beta,p} in Barnes G form and to prove the universality identity.
  • domain assumption The steepest descent analysis is controlled by exactly two non-degenerate saddle points, with no other saddle contributions or Stokes phenomena.
    The paper computes u_plus and u_minus in each case and assumes these dominate the integral. For the O(N)-parameter Laguerre and Jacobi cases this is asserted but not fully justified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Moments of characteristic polynomials for classical $\beta$ ensembles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RK24UQ2S

@misc{pith2026250207142,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Moments of characteristic polynomials for classical $\beta$ ensembles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RK24UQ2S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07142}
}
abstract

For random matrix ensembles with unitary symmetry, there is interest in the large $N$ form of the moments of the absolute value of the characteristic polynomial for their relevance to the Riemann zeta function on the critical line, and to Fisher-Hartwig asymptotics in the theory of Toeplitz determinants. The constant (with respect to $N$) in this asymptotic expansion, involving the Barnes $G$ function, is most relevant to the first of these, while the algebraic term (in $N$) and the functional dependence on the power are of primary interest in the latter. Desrosiers and Liu [20] have obtained the analogous expansions for the classical Gaussian, Laguerre and Jacobi $\beta$ ensembles in the case of even moments. We give simplified working of these results -- which requires the use of duality formulas and the use of steepest descents for multidimensional integrals -- providing too an error bound on the resulting asymptotic expressions. The universality of the constant term with respect to an earlier result known for the circular $\beta$ ensemble is established, which requires writing it in a Barnes $G$ function form, while the functional dependence on the powers is related to that appearing in Gaussian fluctuation formulas for linear statistics. In the Laguerre and Jacobi cases our working can be extended to the circumstance when the exponents in the weight function are (strictly) proportional to $N$, giving results not previously available in the literature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07142 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. New contours {C1, . . . Cn} in the complex uj -plane. The basic idea of steepest decent method is to choose a path on which f(u, x) has maximum decrease. In all the classical cases we are considering, f(u, λ) has two simple saddle points u±, that is ∂ ∂uf(u, x) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ameur, N-G

    Y. Ameur, N-G. Kang and S.-M. Seo,The random normal matrix model: insertion of a point charge, Potential Anal. 58 (2023), 331–372

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Baker and P.J

    T.H. Baker and P.J. Forrester,The Calogero-Sutherland model and generalized classical polynomials, Commun. Math. Phys.188 (1997), 175–216

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    Baker and P.J

    T.H. Baker and P.J. Forrester,Finite-N fluctuation formulas for random matrices, J. Stat. Phys.88 (1997), 1371–1386

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Berestycki, C

    N. Berestycki, C. Webb, and M.-D. Wong,Random Hermitian matrices and Gaussian multiplicative chaos, Probab. Theory Related Fields,172 (2018), 103–189

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Borot, A

    G. Borot, A. Guionnet,Asymptotic expansion ofβ matrix models in the one-cut regime, Commun. Math. Phys. 317 (2013), 447–483

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Bourgade and H

    P. Bourgade and H. Falconet, Liouville quantum gravity from random matrix dynamics , arXiv:2206.03029. 26

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Benford's law and the C$\beta$E

    N. Bradinoff and M. Duits,Benford’s law and the CβE, arXiv:2302.02932

    work page Pith review arXiv

  8. [8]

    Brézin and S

    E. Brézin and S. Hikami,Characteristic polynomials of random matrices, Commun. Math. Phys.214 (2000), 111–135

    work page 2000

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Byun,Planar equilibrium measure problem in the quadratic fields with a point charge, Comput

    S.-S. Byun,Planar equilibrium measure problem in the quadratic fields with a point charge, Comput. Methods Funct. Theory24 (2024), 303–332

    2024

  2. [10]

    S.-S. Byun, C. Charlier, P. Moreillon and N. Simm,Planar equilibrium measure for the truncated ensembles with a point charge, manuscript in progress

  3. [11]

    Byun and P.J

    S.-S. Byun and P.J. Forrester,Progress on the study of the Ginibre ensembles, KIAS Springer Series in Mathematics 3, Springer Nature, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Byun, P.J

    S.-S. Byun, P.J. Forrester and S. Lahiry,Properties of the one-component Coulomb gas on a sphere with two macroscopic external charges, arXiv:2501.05061

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Byun and E.Yoo,Three topological phases of the elliptic Ginibre ensembles with a point charge, arXiv:2502.02948

    S.-S. Byun and E.Yoo,Three topological phases of the elliptic Ginibre ensembles with a point charge, arXiv:2502.02948

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Charlier,Asymptotics of Hankel determinants with a one-cut regular potential and Fisher-Hartwig singularities, Int

    C. Charlier,Asymptotics of Hankel determinants with a one-cut regular potential and Fisher-Hartwig singularities, Int. Math. Res. Not.2019 (2019), 7515–7576

    2019

  7. [15]

    Charlier and R

    C. Charlier and R. Gharakhloo,Asymptotics of Hankel determinants with a Laguerre-type or Jacobi- type potential and Fisher-Hartwig singularities, Adv. Math.383 (2021), 107672

    2021

  8. [16]

    Conrey and M

    J.B. Conrey and M. Gonek,High moments of the Riemann zeta-function, Duke Math. J.,107 (2001), 577–604

    2001

  9. [17]

    Deaño and N

    A. Deaño and N. Simm, Characteristic polynomials of complex random matrices and Painlevé transcendents, Int. Math. Res. Not.,2022 (2022), 210–264

    2022

  10. [18]

    Desrosiers,Duality in random matrix ensembles for allβ, Nucl

    P. Desrosiers,Duality in random matrix ensembles for allβ, Nucl. Phys. B817 (2009), 224–251

    2009

  11. [19]

    Desrosiers and P.J

    P. Desrosiers and P.J. Forrester,Hermite and Laguerreβ-ensembles: asymptotic corrections to the eigenvalue density, Nucl. Phys. B743 (2006), 307–332

    2006

  12. [20]

    Desrosiers and D.-Z

    P. Desrosiers and D.-Z. Liu,Asymptotics for products of characteristic polynomials in classical β-ensembles, Constr. Approx.39 (2014), 273

    2014

  13. [21]

    Desrosiers and D.-Z

    P. Desrosiers and D.-Z. Liu,Scaling limits of correlations of characteristic polynomials for the Gaussian β-ensemble with external source, Int. Math. Res. Not.2015 (2015), 3751–3781

    2015

  14. [22]

    Diaconis and P.J

    P. Diaconis and P.J. Forrester,Hurwitz and the origin of random matrix theory in mathematics, Random Matrix Th. Appl.6 (2017), 1730001

    2017

  15. [23]

    Diaconis and M

    P. Diaconis and M. Shahshahani,On the eigenvalues of random matrices, J. Appl. Probab.31A (1994), 49–62

    1994

  16. [24]

    Dumitriu and A

    I. Dumitriu and A. Edelman,Matrix models for beta ensembles, J. Math. Phys.43 (2002), 5830–5847

    2002

  17. [25]

    Dyson,Statistical theory of energy levels of complex systems I, J

    F.J. Dyson,Statistical theory of energy levels of complex systems I, J. Math. Phys.3 (1962), 140–156

    1962

  18. [26]

    Forkel and J

    J. Forkel and J. P. Keating,The classical compact groups and Gaussian multiplicative chaos, Nonlin- earity, 34 (2021), 6050–6119

    2021

  19. [27]

    Forkel,Fisher-Hartwig asymptotics and log-correlated fields in random matrix theory, Ph.D

    J. Forkel,Fisher-Hartwig asymptotics and log-correlated fields in random matrix theory, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford, 2023. 27

    2023

  20. [28]

    Forrester,A constant term identity and its relationship to the log-gas and some quantum many body systems, Phys

    P.J. Forrester,A constant term identity and its relationship to the log-gas and some quantum many body systems, Phys. Lett. A163 (1992), 121–126

    1992

  21. [29]

    Forrester,Log-gases and random matrices, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010

    P.J. Forrester,Log-gases and random matrices, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010

    2010

  22. [30]

    Forrester,Spectral density asymptotics for Gaussian and Laguerreβ-ensembles in the exponen- tially small region, J

    P.J. Forrester,Spectral density asymptotics for Gaussian and Laguerreβ-ensembles in the exponen- tially small region, J. Phys. A45 (2012), 075206(17pp)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Forrester,A review of exact results for fluctuation formulas in random matrix theory, Probab

    P.J. Forrester,A review of exact results for fluctuation formulas in random matrix theory, Probab. Surveys 20 (2023), 170–225

    2023

  24. [32]

    Forrester,Dualities in random matrix theory, arXiv:2501.07144

    P.J. Forrester,Dualities in random matrix theory, arXiv:2501.07144

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Forrester and N.E

    P.J. Forrester and N.E. Frankel,Applications and generalizations of Fisher-Hartwig asymptotics, J. Math. Phys. 45 (2004), 2003–2028

    2004

  26. [34]

    Forrester, N.E

    P.J. Forrester, N.E. Frankel, T.M. Garoni, and N.S. Witte,Finite one-dimensional impenetrable bose systems: Occupation numbers, Phys. Rev. A,67 (2003), 043607

    2003

  27. [35]

    Forrester, A.A

    P.J. Forrester, A.A. Rahman, and N.S. Witte,Large N expansions for the Laguerre and Jacobiβ ensembles from the loop equations, J. Math. Phys.58 (2017), 113303

    2017

  28. [36]

    Y. V. Fyodorov, B. A. Khoruzhenko, and N. J. Simm,Fractional Brownian motion with Hurst index H = 0 and the Gaussian unitary ensemble, Ann. Probab.44 (2016), 2980–3031

    2016

  29. [37]

    Garoni,On the asymptotics of some large Hankel determinants generated by Fisher-Hartwig symbols defined on the real line, J

    T.M. Garoni,On the asymptotics of some large Hankel determinants generated by Fisher-Hartwig symbols defined on the real line, J. Math. Phys.46 (2005), 043516

    2005

  30. [38]

    Hardy, J.E

    G.H. Hardy, J.E. Littlewood,Contributions to the theory of the Riemann zeta-function and the theory of the distribution of primes, Acta Math.,41 (1918), 119–196

    1918

  31. [39]

    Hughes, J.P

    C.P. Hughes, J.P. Keating and N. O’Connell,On the characteristic polynomial of a random unitary matrix, Comm. Math. Phys.220 (2001), 429–451

    2001

  32. [40]

    Ingham,Mean-value theorems in the theory of the Riemann zeta-function, Proc

    A.E. Ingham,Mean-value theorems in the theory of the Riemann zeta-function, Proc. London Math. Soc. 27 (1926), 273–300

    1926

  33. [41]

    Johansson,On fluctuation of eigenvalues of random Hermitian matrices, Duke Math

    K. Johansson,On fluctuation of eigenvalues of random Hermitian matrices, Duke Math. J.91 (1998), 151–204

    1998

  34. [42]

    Kahane,Sur le chaos multiplicatif, Ann

    J.P. Kahane,Sur le chaos multiplicatif, Ann. Sci. Math. Québec9 (1985), 105–150

    1985

  35. [43]

    Keating and N.C

    J.P. Keating and N.C. Snaith,Random matrix theory andζ(1/2 + it), Commun. Math. Phys.214 (2001), 57–89

    2001

  36. [44]

    Kivimae,Gaussian multiplicative chaos for Gaussian orthogonal and symplectic ensembles, Electron

    P. Kivimae,Gaussian multiplicative chaos for Gaussian orthogonal and symplectic ensembles, Electron. J. Probab. 29 (2024), 1–71

    2024

  37. [45]

    Krasovsky,Correlations of the characteristic polynomials in the Gaussian unitary ensemble or a singular Hankel determinant, Duke Math J.139 (2007), 581—619

    I. Krasovsky,Correlations of the characteristic polynomials in the Gaussian unitary ensemble or a singular Hankel determinant, Duke Math J.139 (2007), 581—619

    2007

  38. [46]

    Krasovsky,Aspects of Toeplitz determinants, Random walks, boundaries and spectra, 305–324, Progr

    I. Krasovsky,Aspects of Toeplitz determinants, Random walks, boundaries and spectra, 305–324, Progr. Probab., 64, Birkhäuser/Springer Basel AG, Basel, 2011

    2011

  39. [47]

    Lambert and J

    G. Lambert and J. Najnudel,Subcritical multiplicative chaos and the characteristic polynomial of the CβE, arXiv: 2407.19817

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Nikula, E

    M. Nikula, E. Saksman and C. Webb,Multiplicative chaos and the characteristic polynomial of the CUE: the L1-phase, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.373 (2020), 3905–3965. 28

    2020

  41. [49]

    Serebryakov, N

    A. Serebryakov, N. Simm, and G. Dubach,Characteristic polynomials of random truncations: Mo- ments, duality and asymptotics, Random Matrices: Theory and Applications,12 (2023), 2250049

    2023

  42. [50]

    Webb,The characteristic polynomial of a random unitary matrix and Gaussian multiplicative chaos—the L2-phase, Electron

    C. Webb,The characteristic polynomial of a random unitary matrix and Gaussian multiplicative chaos—the L2-phase, Electron. J. Probab.,20 (2015), 1–21

    2015

  43. [51]

    Webb and M.D

    C. Webb and M.D. Wong,On the moments of the characteristic polynomial of a Ginibre random matrix, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.,118 (2019), 1017–1056. 29

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.