Lattice packing of spheres in high dimensions using a stochastically evolving ellipsoid (original) (raw)

Abstract

We prove that in any dimension n𝑛nitalic_n there exists an origin-symmetric ellipsoid ℰ⊂ℝnℰsuperscriptℝ𝑛{\mathcal{E}}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{n}caligraphic_E ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of volume c⁢n2𝑐superscript𝑛2cn^{2}italic_c italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that contains no points of ℤnsuperscriptℤ𝑛{\mathbb{Z}}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT other than the origin, where c>0𝑐0c>0italic_c > 0 is a universal constant. Equivalently, there exists a lattice sphere packing in ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛{\mathbb{R}}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT whose density is at least c⁢n2⋅2−n⋅𝑐superscript𝑛2superscript2𝑛cn^{2}\cdot 2^{-n}italic_c italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Previously known constructions of sphere packings in ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛{\mathbb{R}}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT had densities of the order of magnitude of n⋅2−n⋅𝑛superscript2𝑛n\cdot 2^{-n}italic_n ⋅ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, up to logarithmic factors. Our proof utilizes a stochastically evolving ellipsoid that accumulates at least c⁢n2𝑐superscript𝑛2cn^{2}italic_c italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT lattice points on its boundary, while containing no lattice points in its interior except for the origin.

1 Introduction

Let n≥2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2. A sphere packing in ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a collection of disjoint Euclidean balls of the same radius. A lattice in ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the image of ℤnsuperscriptℤ𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT under an invertible, linear transformation T:ℝn→ℝn:𝑇→superscriptℝ𝑛superscriptℝ𝑛T:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_T : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Thus, by a lattice in ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we always mean a lattice of full rank. The covolume of the lattice L=T⁢(ℤn)⊂ℝn𝐿𝑇superscriptℤ𝑛superscriptℝ𝑛L=T(\mathbb{Z}^{n})\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L = italic_T ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is

| V⁢o⁢ln⁢(ℝn/L):=|det(T)|.assign𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛superscriptℝ𝑛𝐿𝑇Vol_{n}(\mathbb{R}^{n}/L):=|\det(T)|.italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_L ) := | roman_det ( italic_T ) | . | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | - |

A lattice sphere packing is a collection of disjoint Euclidean balls, all of the same radius, whose centers form a lattice in ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The density of a lattice sphere packing is the proportion of space covered by the disjoint Euclidean balls of which it consists. Equivalently, if the lattice sphere packing consists of balls of radius r𝑟ritalic_r whose centers form the lattice L𝐿Litalic_L, then its density equals

where V⁢o⁢ln𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛Vol_{n}italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT stands for n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional volume in ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where Bn⊂ℝnsuperscript𝐵𝑛superscriptℝ𝑛B^{n}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the open Euclidean ball of radius 1111 centered at the origin, and where r⁢A={r⁢x;x∈A}𝑟𝐴𝑟𝑥𝑥𝐴rA=\{rx\,;\,x\in A\}italic_r italic_A = { italic_r italic_x ; italic_x ∈ italic_A } for A⊂ℝn𝐴superscriptℝ𝑛A\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_A ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We write δnsubscript𝛿𝑛\delta_{n}italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for the supremum of all densities of lattice sphere packings in ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The Minkowski-Hlawka theorem (see, e.g., Gruber and Lekkerkerker [9, Chapter 3]) implies that

where ζ⁢(n)=∑k=1∞k−n𝜁𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑘1superscript𝑘𝑛\zeta(n)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k^{-n}italic_ζ ( italic_n ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This bound was asymptotically improved in 1947 by Rogers [18], who showed that

for a universal constant c>0𝑐0c>0italic_c > 0. In his proof, Rogers used the Minkowski second theorem, as well as the concept of a random lattice and the Siegel summation formula, which we recall in Section 5 below.

The universal constant c𝑐citalic_c that Rogers’ proof of (1) yields satisfies c≥2/e𝑐2𝑒c\geq 2/eitalic_c ≥ 2 / italic_e. This was subsequently improved by Davenport and Rogers [7], who obtained (1) with c≈1.67𝑐1.67c\approx 1.67italic_c ≈ 1.67. Ball [2] used Bang’s solution of Tarski’s plank problem, and proved (1) with c=2−o⁢(1)𝑐2𝑜1c=2-o(1)italic_c = 2 - italic_o ( 1 ). A plank is the region in space between two parallel hyperplanes, and the problem was to show that the sum of widths of planks covering a convex body, is at least its minimal width. Vance [24] obtained c≥6/e𝑐6𝑒c\geq 6/eitalic_c ≥ 6 / italic_e in dimensions divisible by 4444, by using random lattices with quaternionic symmetries. Her approach was further developed by Venkatesh [25], who used random lattices with sophisticated algebraic symmetries in order to show that

Campos, Jenssen, Michelen and Sahasrabudhe [4] used graph-theoretic methods to prove the existence of a non-lattice sphere packing in ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of density

Graph theory was used earlier by Krivelevich, Litsyn and Vardy [12] for the construction of a non-lattice sphere packing of density c⁢n⋅2−n⋅𝑐𝑛superscript2𝑛cn\cdot 2^{-n}italic_c italic_n ⋅ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Schmidt [21] proved (1) by considering random lattices and by analyzing large hole events; these are rare events that occur with a probability of only exp⁡(−c~⁢n)~𝑐𝑛\exp(-\tilde{c}n)roman_exp ( - over~ start_ARG italic_c end_ARG italic_n ). His analysis fits well with the theme that random lattices may sometimes be approximated by a Poisson process. The Poisson heuristic, which we recall below, was hinted at already in Rogers [19].

To summarize, up to logarithmic factors, several papers which are based on quite different ideas have essentially arrived at the same bound (1) over the years. This bound has represented the state of the art on sphere packing in high dimensions – again, up to logarithmic factors – until now. We improve it as follows:

Theorem 1.1.

For any n≥2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2,

where c>0𝑐0c>0italic_c > 0 is a universal constant.

The universal constant c𝑐citalic_c arising from our proof of Theorem 1.1 can probably be computed numerically to a reasonable degree of accuracy; see Remark 5.3 below. Venkatesh [25] conjectures that 2n⁢δnsuperscript2𝑛subscript𝛿𝑛2^{n}\delta_{n}2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT grows at most polynomially in n𝑛nitalic_n. It is not entirely unlikely that Theorem 1.1 is tight, up to the value of the universal constant c𝑐citalic_c or perhaps up to a logarithmic correction. As for known upper bounds for δnsubscript𝛿𝑛\delta_{n}italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, in a short 1929 paper, Blichfeldt [3] proved that

See also Rankin [17]. Kabatjanskiĭ and Levenšteĭn [10] improved the bound to roughly δn≲(0.66)nless-than-or-similar-tosubscript𝛿𝑛superscript0.66𝑛\delta_{n}\lesssim(0.66)^{n}italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ ( 0.66 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, a result subsequently sharpened by constant factors by Cohn and Zhao [6]and by Sardari and Zargar [20]. These upper bounds also apply for non-lattice sphere packings. There is still a large gap between the known lower bound and the known upper bound for the optimal density of a sphere packing in high dimension. The precise optimal density is currently known in dimensions 2,3,82382,3,82 , 3 , 8 and 24242424, see Cohn [5] and references therein.

By considering the lattice sphere packing x+K/2(x∈L)𝑥𝐾2𝑥𝐿x+K/2\ \ (x\in L)italic_x + italic_K / 2 ( italic_x ∈ italic_L ), Theorem 1.1 is easily seen to be equivalent to the following:

Theorem 1.2.

Let n≥2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2 and letK⊂ℝn𝐾superscriptℝ𝑛K\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_K ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a Euclidean ball centered at the origin of volume

Then there exists a lattice L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of covolume one withL∩K={0}𝐿𝐾0L\cap K=\{0\}italic_L ∩ italic_K = { 0 }. Here, c>0𝑐0c>0italic_c > 0 is a universal constant.

An origin-symmetric ellipsoid in ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the image of the unit ball Bnsuperscript𝐵𝑛B^{n}italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT under an invertible, linear map T:ℝn→ℝn:𝑇→superscriptℝ𝑛superscriptℝ𝑛T:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_T : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Consider the lattice L𝐿Litalic_L and the Euclidean ball K𝐾Kitalic_K from Theorem 1.2 . Since L𝐿Litalic_L may be represented as L=T⁢(ℤn)𝐿𝑇superscriptℤ𝑛L=T(\mathbb{Z}^{n})italic_L = italic_T ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for a linear map T:ℝn→ℝn:𝑇→superscriptℝ𝑛superscriptℝ𝑛T:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_T : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with |det(T)|=1𝑇1|\det(T)|=1| roman_det ( italic_T ) | = 1, we conclude from Theorem 1.2 that the origin-symmetric ellipsoid

has volume c⁢n2,𝑐superscript𝑛2cn^{2},italic_c italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , yet it contains no points from ℤnsuperscriptℤ𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT other than the origin. This implies the statement in the abstract of this paper. We conjecture that the conclusion of Theorem 1.2 holds true for any origin-symmetric convex body K⊂ℝn𝐾superscriptℝ𝑛K\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_K ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPTsatisfying (2), and not just for Euclidean balls and ellipsoids. See Schmidt [22, 23]for a proof under the weaker assumption that V⁢o⁢ln⁢(K)≤c⁢n𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛𝐾𝑐𝑛Vol_{n}(K)\leq cnitalic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) ≤ italic_c italic_n.

Before presenting the main ideas of the proof of Theorem 1.2, let us briefly discuss the proof of (1) from Rogers [18]. Consider a random lattice L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT satisfying V⁢o⁢ln⁢(ℝn/L)=V⁢o⁢ln⁢(Bn)𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛superscriptℝ𝑛𝐿𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛superscript𝐵𝑛Vol_{n}(\mathbb{R}^{n}/L)=Vol_{n}(B^{n})italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_L ) = italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). By using the Siegel summation formula, it is shown that with positive probability,

where 0<λ1≤λ2≤…≤λn0subscript𝜆1subscript𝜆2…subscript𝜆𝑛0<\lambda_{1}\leq\lambda_{2}\leq\ldots\leq\lambda_{n}0 < italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ … ≤ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are the successive minima of the lattice L𝐿Litalic_L. Minkowski’s second theorem is then used in order to find a linear map T:ℝn→ℝn:𝑇→superscriptℝ𝑛superscriptℝ𝑛T:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_T : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with |det(T)|≥∏iλi𝑇subscriptproduct𝑖subscript𝜆𝑖|\det(T)|\geq\prod_{i}\lambda_{i}| roman_det ( italic_T ) | ≥ ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that T⁢(Bn)∩L={0}𝑇superscript𝐵𝑛𝐿0T(B^{n})\cap L=\{0\}italic_T ( italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∩ italic_L = { 0 }. Intuitively, the ellipsoid T⁢(Bn)𝑇superscript𝐵𝑛T(B^{n})italic_T ( italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) constructed this way “interacts” only with n𝑛nitalic_n vectors from the lattice – the ones corresponding to the successive minima.

In contrast, an ellipsoid in ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is determined by n⁢(n+1)/2𝑛𝑛12n(n+1)/2italic_n ( italic_n + 1 ) / 2 parameters, and it is reasonable to expect it to “interact” with roughly n2superscript𝑛2n^{2}italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT lattice points. In fact, it is not too difficult to show that there exists an open, origin-symmetric ellipsoid ℰ⊂ℝnℰsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathcal{E}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}caligraphic_E ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with ℰ∩ℤn={0}ℰsuperscriptℤ𝑛0\mathcal{E}\cap\mathbb{Z}^{n}=\{0\}caligraphic_E ∩ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { 0 } such that

| |∂ℰ∩ℤn|≥n⁢(n+1).ℰsuperscriptℤ𝑛𝑛𝑛1|\partial\mathcal{E}\cap\mathbb{Z}^{n}|\geq n(n+1).| ∂ caligraphic_E ∩ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ≥ italic_n ( italic_n + 1 ) . | (3) | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | --- |

Here, |A|𝐴|A|| italic_A | is the cardinality of the set A⊂ℝn𝐴superscriptℝ𝑛A\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_A ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and ∂ℰℰ\partial\mathcal{E}∂ caligraphic_E is the boundary of the ellipsoid ℰℰ\mathcal{E}caligraphic_E. See Remark 3.5 below for a proof of (3).

Our construction of the ellipsoid ℰ⊂ℝnℰsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathcal{E}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}caligraphic_E ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT begins with a random lattice L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT satisfying V⁢o⁢ln⁢(ℝn/L)=V⁢o⁢ln⁢(Bn)𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛superscriptℝ𝑛𝐿𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛superscript𝐵𝑛Vol_{n}(\mathbb{R}^{n}/L)=Vol_{n}(B^{n})italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_L ) = italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Consider a relatively large Euclidean ball disjoint from L∖{0}𝐿0L\setminus\{0\}italic_L ∖ { 0 }, and run a Brownian-type stochastic motion in the space of ellipsoids, starting from this Euclidean ball. The crucial property of our stochastic process is that whenever the evolving ellipsoid

hits a non-zero lattice point, it keeps it on its boundary at all later times. In other words, if the ellipsoid hits the point 0≠x0∈L0subscript𝑥0𝐿0\neq x_{0}\in L0 ≠ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L at time t0subscript𝑡0t_{0}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then we ensure that for t>t0𝑡subscript𝑡0t>t_{0}italic_t > italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT,

Note that (4) imposes a one-dimensional linear constraint on the matrix Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and that the stochastic evolution of Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT may be continued in the linear subspace of matrices obeying this constraint. The vector space of all real symmetric n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n matrices, denoted by

has dimension n⁢(n+1)/2𝑛𝑛12n(n+1)/2italic_n ( italic_n + 1 ) / 2. Hence our evolving ellipsoid freezes only when it has absorbed n⁢(n+1)𝑛𝑛1n(n+1)italic_n ( italic_n + 1 ) lattice points; note that the absorbed points come in pairs: x0∈Lsubscript𝑥0𝐿x_{0}\in Litalic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L and −x0∈Lsubscript𝑥0𝐿-x_{0}\in L- italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L. Related ideas were used in [11]. Intuitively, the random lattice L𝐿Litalic_L behaves somewhat like a Poisson process of intensity

in ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Thus, one might expect the ellipsoid to cover a volume of about c⁢n2⋅V⁢o⁢ln⁢(Bn)⋅𝑐superscript𝑛2𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛superscript𝐵𝑛cn^{2}\cdot Vol_{n}(B^{n})italic_c italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) during its evolution, since it manages to find n⁢(n+1)𝑛𝑛1n(n+1)italic_n ( italic_n + 1 ) lattice points. Our evolving ellipsoid expands and contracts in a random fashion, and its volume is not monotone. Still, we expect it not to withdraw too much from regions near absorbed lattice points. Thus the evolving ellipsoid is expected to reach a volume of c⁢n2⋅V⁢o⁢ln⁢(Bn)⋅𝑐superscript𝑛2𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛superscript𝐵𝑛cn^{2}\cdot Vol_{n}(B^{n})italic_c italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) while remaining L𝐿Litalic_L-free.

In the remainder of this paper we transform these vague heuristics into a mathematical proof. In Section 2 we construct the stochastically evolving ellipsoid for a given lattice (or a lattice-like set). In Section 3 we study the volume growth of the evolving ellipsoid, and in Section 4 we analyze the rate at which it absorbs lattice points. In Section 5 we discuss random lattices, and complete the proof of Theorem 1.2.

The linear space ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a Euclidean space equipped with the scalar product

where Tr⁢[A]Trdelimited-[]𝐴{\rm Tr}[A]roman_Tr [ italic_A ] is the trace of the matrix A∈ℝn×n𝐴superscriptℝ𝑛𝑛A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We denote the collection of positive-definite, symmetric n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n matrices by

We write that A≥B𝐴𝐵A\geq Bitalic_A ≥ italic_B (respectively, A>B𝐴𝐵A>Bitalic_A > italic_B) for two matricesA,B∈ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n𝐴𝐵subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚A,B\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}italic_A , italic_B ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT if A−B𝐴𝐵A-Bitalic_A - italic_B is positive semi-definite (respectively, positive-definite). We write IdId{\rm Id}roman_Id for the identity matrix. The Euclidean norm of x=(x1,…,xn)∈ℝn𝑥subscript𝑥1…subscript𝑥𝑛superscriptℝ𝑛x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})\in\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_x = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is denoted by |x|=∑ixi2𝑥subscript𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑖2|x|=\sqrt{\sum_{i}x_{i}^{2}}| italic_x | = square-root start_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG. For x,y∈ℝn𝑥𝑦superscriptℝ𝑛x,y\in\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_x , italic_y ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we write x⋅y=∑i=1nxi⁢yi⋅𝑥𝑦superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝑦𝑖x\cdot y=\sum_{i=1}^{n}x_{i}y_{i}italic_x ⋅ italic_y = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for their standard scalar product, and x⊗y=(xi⁢yj)i,j=1,…,n∈ℝn×ntensor-product𝑥𝑦subscriptsubscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝑦𝑗formulae-sequence𝑖𝑗1…𝑛superscriptℝ𝑛𝑛x\otimes y=(x_{i}y_{j})_{i,j=1,\ldots,n}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}italic_x ⊗ italic_y = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 , … , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for their tensor product. The natural logarithm is denoted by log\logroman_log. A subset A⊂ℝn𝐴superscriptℝ𝑛A\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_A ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is origin-symmetric if A=−A𝐴𝐴A=-Aitalic_A = - italic_A. All ellipsoids are assumed to be open and origin-symmetric. A random variable X𝑋Xitalic_X is centered when 𝔼⁢X=0𝔼𝑋0\mathbb{E}X=0blackboard_E italic_X = 0.

Throughout this paper, we write c,C,C~,c′,C^,C¯𝑐𝐶~𝐶superscript𝑐′^𝐶¯𝐶c,C,\tilde{C},c^{\prime},\hat{C},\bar{C}italic_c , italic_C , over~ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG , italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG , over¯ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG etc. for various positive universal constants whose value may change from one line to the next. We write C0,C1,c0subscript𝐶0subscript𝐶1subscript𝑐0C_{0},C_{1},c_{0}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT etc. – that is, the letters C𝐶Citalic_C or c𝑐citalic_c with numerical subscripts – for positive universal constants that remain fixed throughout the paper. In proving Theorem 1.2, we may assume that the dimension n𝑛nitalic_n is sufficiently large; this is our standing assumption throughout the text.

Acknowledgement. I am grateful to Barak Weiss for interesting discussions and for his encouragement. Supported by a grant from the Israel Science Foundation (ISF).

2 Constructing a stochastically evolving ellipsoid

Let L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a discrete subset of ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that for any origin-symmetric ellipsoid ℰ⊂ℝnℰsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathcal{E}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}caligraphic_E ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with ℰ∩L⊆{0}ℰ𝐿0\mathcal{E}\cap L\subseteq\{0\}caligraphic_E ∩ italic_L ⊆ { 0 },

| V⁢o⁢ln⁢(ℰ)≤CLand|∂ℰ∩L|≤C~L,formulae-sequence𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛ℰsubscript𝐶𝐿andℰ𝐿subscript~𝐶𝐿Vol_{n}(\mathcal{E})\leq C_{L}\qquad\text{and}\qquad|\partial\mathcal{E}\cap L% | \leq\tilde{C}_{L},italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E ) ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and | ∂ caligraphic_E ∩ italic_L | ≤ over~ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , | (5) | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --- |

for some constants CL,C~L>0subscript𝐶𝐿subscript~𝐶𝐿0C_{L},\tilde{C}_{L}>0italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over~ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 depending only on L𝐿Litalic_L. We refer to such a discrete set L𝐿Litalic_L as a lattice-like set. The most important case is when L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a lattice; in this case the inequalities in (5) hold true with CL=2n⋅V⁢o⁢ln⁢(ℝn/L)subscript𝐶𝐿⋅superscript2𝑛𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛superscriptℝ𝑛𝐿C_{L}=2^{n}\cdot Vol_{n}(\mathbb{R}^{n}/L)italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_L ), by Minkowski’s first theorem, and with

by an elementary argument which we reproduce in the Appendix below. For a symmetric matrix A∈ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n𝐴subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we consider the open set

Its boundary ∂ℰAsubscriptℰ𝐴\partial\mathcal{E}_{A}∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the collection of all x∈ℝn𝑥superscriptℝ𝑛x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with A⁢x⋅x=1⋅𝐴𝑥𝑥1Ax\cdot x=1italic_A italic_x ⋅ italic_x = 1. The matrix A∈ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n𝐴subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPTis positive-definite if and only if the set ℰAsubscriptℰ𝐴\mathcal{E}_{A}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an ellipsoid, in which case

When A𝐴Aitalic_A is not positive-definite, necessarily V⁢o⁢ln⁢(ℰA)=∞𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛subscriptℰ𝐴Vol_{n}(\mathcal{E}_{A})=\inftyitalic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∞. We say that an open subset ℰ⊆ℝnℰsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathcal{E}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}caligraphic_E ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is L𝐿Litalic_L-free if ℰ∩L⊆{0}ℰ𝐿0\mathcal{E}\cap L\subseteq\{0\}caligraphic_E ∩ italic_L ⊆ { 0 }. When we write that the matrix A∈ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n𝐴subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is L𝐿Litalic_L-free, we mean that the open set ℰAsubscriptℰ𝐴\mathcal{E}_{A}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is L𝐿Litalic_L-free. It follows from (5) that the volume of an L𝐿Litalic_L-free ellipsoid is at most CLsubscript𝐶𝐿C_{L}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and that it contains at most C~Lsubscript~𝐶𝐿\tilde{C}_{L}over~ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT points on its boundary.

A point belonging both to the boundary ∂ℰAsubscriptℰ𝐴\partial\mathcal{E}_{A}∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and to the discrete set L𝐿Litalic_L is referred to as a contact point. The following lemma describes a continuous deformation of an L𝐿Litalic_L-free ellipsoid that keeps all of its contact points.

Lemma 2.1.

Let Mt∈ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n⁢(t≥0)subscript𝑀𝑡subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚𝑡0M_{t}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}\ (t\geq 0)italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ≥ 0 ) be a family of matrices depending continuously on t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0, such that not all of the matrices are positive-definite. Assume that the matrix M0∈ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscript𝑀0subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚M_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive-definite and L𝐿Litalic_L-free, and that for all t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0,

Then the following hold:

1. (A)
   Denote

   τ:=sup{t≥0;Ms⁢is⁢L⁢-free with ⁢∂ℰMs∩L=∂ℰM0∩L⁢ for all ⁢s∈[0,t]}.assign𝜏supremumformulae-sequence𝑡0subscript𝑀𝑠is𝐿-free with subscriptℰsubscript𝑀𝑠𝐿subscriptℰsubscript𝑀0𝐿 for all 𝑠0𝑡\tau:=\sup\left\{\,t\geq 0\,;\,M_{s}\ \textrm{is}\ L\textrm{-free with }% \partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{s}}\cap L=\partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{0}}\cap L\textrm{ % for all }s\in[0,t]\,\right\}.italic_τ := roman_sup { italic_t ≥ 0 ; italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is italic_L -free with ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L = ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L for all italic_s ∈ [ 0 , italic_t ] } .

   Then 0<τ<∞0𝜏0<\tau<\infty0 < italic_τ < ∞.

2. (B)
   The symmetric matrix Mtsubscript𝑀𝑡M_{t}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive-definite and L𝐿Litalic_L-free for all 0≤t≤τ0𝑡𝜏0\leq t\leq\tau0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_τ.
3. (C)
   We gained at least one additional contact point at time τ𝜏\tauitalic_τ. That is,

   ∂ℰM0∩L⊊∂ℰMτ∩L.subscriptℰsubscript𝑀0𝐿subscriptℰsubscript𝑀𝜏𝐿\partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{0}}\cap L\subsetneq\partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{\tau}}\cap L.∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L ⊊ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L .	(10)

Proof.

We claim that there exist t0,ε>0subscript𝑡0𝜀0t_{0},\varepsilon>0italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ε > 0 such that for all 0≤t≤t00𝑡subscript𝑡00\leq t\leq t_{0}0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 0≠x∈L∖∂ℰM00𝑥𝐿subscriptℰsubscript𝑀00\neq x\in L\setminus\partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{0}}0 ≠ italic_x ∈ italic_L ∖ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT,

In order to prove this claim, we use the fact that M0subscript𝑀0M_{0}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive-definite, and hence there exists ε1>0subscript𝜀10\varepsilon_{1}>0italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 such that M0≥ε1⋅Idsubscript𝑀0⋅subscript𝜀1IdM_{0}\geq\varepsilon_{1}\cdot{\rm Id}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Id. The symmetric matrix Mtsubscript𝑀𝑡M_{t}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT depends continuously on t𝑡titalic_t, and hence for some t1>0subscript𝑡10t_{1}>0italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 we have Mt≥(ε1/2)⁢Idsubscript𝑀𝑡subscript𝜀12IdM_{t}\geq(\varepsilon_{1}/2){\rm Id}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ ( italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / 2 ) roman_Id for all 0≤t≤t10𝑡subscript𝑡10\leq t\leq t_{1}0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Therefore (11) holds true for all |x|>2/ε1𝑥2subscript𝜀1|x|>2/\sqrt{\varepsilon_{1}}| italic_x | > 2 / square-root start_ARG italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG, provided that ε<1𝜀1\varepsilon<1italic_ε < 1 and t0≤t1subscript𝑡0subscript𝑡1t_{0}\leq t_{1}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. All that remains is to prove (11) for x∈F𝑥𝐹x\in Fitalic_x ∈ italic_F where

| F={ 0≠x∈L∖∂ℰM0;|x|≤2/ε1}.F=\left\{\,0\neq x\in L\setminus\partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{0}}\,;\,|x|\leq 2/% \sqrt{\varepsilon_{1}}\,\right\}.italic_F = { 0 ≠ italic_x ∈ italic_L ∖ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; | italic_x | ≤ 2 / square-root start_ARG italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG } . | (12) | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |

The set F𝐹Fitalic_F is finite since L𝐿Litalic_L is discrete. The set F𝐹Fitalic_F is disjoint from the ellipsoid ℰM0subscriptℰsubscript𝑀0\mathcal{E}_{M_{0}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT since M0subscript𝑀0M_{0}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is L𝐿Litalic_L-free. It thus follows from (12) that F𝐹Fitalic_F is disjoint from the closure of the ellipsoid ℰM0subscriptℰsubscript𝑀0\mathcal{E}_{M_{0}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and hence M0⁢x⋅x>1⋅subscript𝑀0𝑥𝑥1M_{0}x\cdot x>1italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ⋅ italic_x > 1 for all x∈F𝑥𝐹x\in Fitalic_x ∈ italic_F. Since Mtsubscript𝑀𝑡M_{t}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT depends continuously on t𝑡titalic_t while F𝐹Fitalic_F is finite, there exists t0∈(0,t1)subscript𝑡00subscript𝑡1t_{0}\in(0,t_{1})italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ ( 0 , italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and ε∈(0,1)𝜀01\varepsilon\in(0,1)italic_ε ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) such that Mt⁢x⋅x>1+ε⋅subscript𝑀𝑡𝑥𝑥1𝜀M_{t}x\cdot x>1+\varepsilonitalic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ⋅ italic_x > 1 + italic_ε for all x∈F𝑥𝐹x\in Fitalic_x ∈ italic_F and 0≤t≤t00𝑡subscript𝑡00\leq t\leq t_{0}0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This completes the proof of (11).

Let us prove (A). Fix 0≤t≤t00𝑡subscript𝑡00\leq t\leq t_{0}0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. It follows from (11) that any point 0≠x∈L∖∂ℰM00𝑥𝐿subscriptℰsubscript𝑀00\neq x\in L\setminus\partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{0}}0 ≠ italic_x ∈ italic_L ∖ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT does not belong to ∂ℰMtsubscriptℰsubscript𝑀𝑡\partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{t}}∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, since Mt⁢y⋅y=1⋅subscript𝑀𝑡𝑦𝑦1M_{t}y\cdot y=1italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y ⋅ italic_y = 1 for all y∈∂ℰMt𝑦subscriptℰsubscript𝑀𝑡y\in\partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{t}}italic_y ∈ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Hence

where we also used the fact that 0∉∂ℰMt0subscriptℰsubscript𝑀𝑡0\not\in\partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{t}}0 ∉ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Consequently,

It follows from (9) that the open set ℰMtsubscriptℰsubscript𝑀𝑡\mathcal{E}_{M_{t}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPTcontains no points from L∩∂ℰM0𝐿subscriptℰsubscript𝑀0L\cap\partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{0}}italic_L ∩ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. It follows from (11) that the set ℰMtsubscriptℰsubscript𝑀𝑡\mathcal{E}_{M_{t}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPTdoes not contain non-zero points from L∖∂ℰM0𝐿subscriptℰsubscript𝑀0L\setminus\partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{0}}italic_L ∖ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Therefore ℰMtsubscriptℰsubscript𝑀𝑡\mathcal{E}_{M_{t}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT does not contain non-zero points from

In other words, the matrix Mtsubscript𝑀𝑡M_{t}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is L𝐿Litalic_L-free. It now follows from (9), (13) and the definition of τ𝜏\tauitalic_τ that

Since ℰMtsubscriptℰsubscript𝑀𝑡\mathcal{E}_{M_{t}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is L𝐿Litalic_L-free for 0≤t<τ0𝑡𝜏0\leq t<\tau0 ≤ italic_t < italic_τ, by (5),

It follows from (8) and (14) that the matrix Mtsubscript𝑀𝑡M_{t}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive-definite for all 0≤t<τ0𝑡𝜏0\leq t<\tau0 ≤ italic_t < italic_τ, and

This implies in particular that τ<∞𝜏\tau<\inftyitalic_τ < ∞, since we assumed that (Mt)0≤t<∞subscriptsubscript𝑀𝑡0𝑡(M_{t})_{0\leq t<\infty}( italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_t < ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is not a family of positive-definite matrices. Thus (A) is proven.

We move on to the proof of (B). We have seen that the matrix Mtsubscript𝑀𝑡M_{t}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is L𝐿Litalic_L-free for 0≤t<τ0𝑡𝜏0\leq t<\tau0 ≤ italic_t < italic_τ, and hence the matrix Mτsubscript𝑀𝜏M_{\tau}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is L𝐿Litalic_L-free as well, by continuity. Since Mtsubscript𝑀𝑡M_{t}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive-definite for 0≤t<τ0𝑡𝜏0\leq t<\tau0 ≤ italic_t < italic_τ, the matrix Mτsubscript𝑀𝜏M_{\tau}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive semi-definite, by continuity. It follows from (15) that detMτ>0subscript𝑀𝜏0\det M_{\tau}>0roman_det italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 and hence Mτsubscript𝑀𝜏M_{\tau}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is in fact positive-definite. This completes the proof of (B).

We still need to prove (C). If (10) does not hold true, then necessarily

according to (9). Hence, by (9),

The matrix Mτsubscript𝑀𝜏M_{\tau}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive-definite and L𝐿Litalic_L-free according to (B). Since Mtsubscript𝑀𝑡M_{t}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive-definite for 0≤t≤τ0𝑡𝜏0\leq t\leq\tau0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_τ, we know that (Mt+τ)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝑀𝑡𝜏𝑡0(M_{t+\tau})_{t\geq 0}( italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a family of matrices depending continuously on t𝑡titalic_t, not all of them positive-definite. Therefore, thanks to (17), we may apply the lemma for the family of matrices (Mt+τ)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝑀𝑡𝜏𝑡0(M_{t+\tau})_{t\geq 0}( italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and conclude from (A) that

satisfies τ1∈(τ,∞)subscript𝜏1𝜏\tau_{1}\in(\tau,\infty)italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ ( italic_τ , ∞ ). However, equality (16) and the maximality property of τ𝜏\tauitalic_τ implies that τ1=τsubscript𝜏1𝜏\tau_{1}=\tauitalic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_τ, in contradiction.

We recall that the standard Brownian motion in a finite-dimensional, real, inner product space V𝑉Vitalic_V is a centered, continuous, Gaussian process (Wt)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡𝑡0(W_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT attaining values in V𝑉Vitalic_V, with W0=0subscript𝑊00W_{0}=0italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0, and with independent increments111i.e., Wt−Wssubscript𝑊𝑡subscript𝑊𝑠W_{t}-W_{s}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is independent of Ws−Wrsubscript𝑊𝑠subscript𝑊𝑟W_{s}-W_{r}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all 0≤r<s<t0𝑟𝑠𝑡0\leq r<s<t0 ≤ italic_r < italic_s < italic_t., such that for all t>s≥0𝑡𝑠0t>s\geq 0italic_t > italic_s ≥ 0 and a linear functional f:V→ℝ:𝑓→𝑉ℝf:V\rightarrow\mathbb{R}italic_f : italic_V → blackboard_R,

| 𝔼⁢|f⁢(Wt−Ws)|2=(t−s)⁢‖f‖2.𝔼superscript𝑓subscript𝑊𝑡subscript𝑊𝑠2𝑡𝑠superscriptnorm𝑓2\mathbb{E}|f(W_{t}-W_{s})|^{2}=(t-s)\|f\|^{2}.blackboard_E | italic_f ( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_t - italic_s ) ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Here, ‖f‖=sup0≠v∈V|f⁢(v)|/‖v‖norm𝑓subscriptsupremum0𝑣𝑉𝑓𝑣norm𝑣\|f\|=\sup_{0\neq v\in V}|f(v)|/\|v\|∥ italic_f ∥ = roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≠ italic_v ∈ italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_f ( italic_v ) | / ∥ italic_v ∥ and ‖v‖=⟨v,v⟩norm𝑣𝑣𝑣\|v\|=\sqrt{\langle v,v\rangle}∥ italic_v ∥ = square-root start_ARG ⟨ italic_v , italic_v ⟩ end_ARG. We refer the reader e.g. to Øksendal [14] or Revuz and Yor [15] for background on Brownian motion and stochastic analysis.

The Dyson Brownian motion is a standard Brownian motion (Wt)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡𝑡0(W_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the Euclidean space ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For A∈ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n𝐴subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT consider the subspace

where ℰAsubscriptℰ𝐴\mathcal{E}_{A}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined in (7). We write πA:ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n→ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n:subscript𝜋𝐴→subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\pi_{A}:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}\to\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for the orthogonal projection operator onto the subspace FAsubscript𝐹𝐴F_{A}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The following lemma explains how to randomly evolve an L𝐿Litalic_L-free ellipsoid until we gain an additional contact point.

Lemma 2.2.

Let M0∈ℝ+n×nsubscript𝑀0subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛M_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{+}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be an L𝐿Litalic_L-free matrix with FM0≠{0}subscript𝐹subscript𝑀00F_{M_{0}}\neq\{0\}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ { 0 }. Let (Wt)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡𝑡0(W_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a Dyson Brownian motion in ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0denote

Then, with probability one, the random variable

is non-zero and finite. Moreover, almost surely, for 0≤t≤τ0𝑡𝜏0\leq t\leq\tau0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_τ the set ℰMtsubscriptℰsubscript𝑀𝑡\mathcal{E}_{M_{t}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an L𝐿Litalic_L-free ellipsoid, and

Proof.

Since FM0≠{0}subscript𝐹subscript𝑀00F_{M_{0}}\neq\{0\}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ { 0 }, the linear projection πM0:ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n→ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n:subscript𝜋subscript𝑀0→subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\pi_{M_{0}}:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is not identically zero. Hence there exists x0∈ℝnsubscript𝑥0superscriptℝ𝑛x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that πM0⁢(x0⊗x0)≠0subscript𝜋subscript𝑀0tensor-productsubscript𝑥0subscript𝑥00\pi_{M_{0}}(x_{0}\otimes x_{0})\neq 0italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≠ 0. Almost surely, a Brownian motion in ℝℝ\mathbb{R}blackboard_R does not remain bounded from below indefinitely. Therefore, almost surely

It follows from (19) and (21) that almost surely, (Mt)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝑀𝑡𝑡0(M_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is not a family of positive-definite matrices. In order to verify all of the other assumptions of Lemma 2.1, we note that if x∈∂ℰM0∩L𝑥subscriptℰsubscript𝑀0𝐿x\in\partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{0}}\cap Litalic_x ∈ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_Lthen by (18),

Recall that πM0⁢(Wt)∈FM0subscript𝜋subscript𝑀0subscript𝑊𝑡subscript𝐹subscript𝑀0\pi_{M_{0}}(W_{t})\in F_{M_{0}}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Thus, by (22), for all t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0 and x∈∂ℰM0∩L𝑥subscriptℰsubscript𝑀0𝐿x\in\partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{0}}\cap Litalic_x ∈ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L,

Hence x∈∂ℰMt∩L𝑥subscriptℰsubscript𝑀𝑡𝐿x\in\partial\mathcal{E}_{M_{t}}\cap Litalic_x ∈ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L for all t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0. We have thus shown that almost surely, for all t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0,

We have verified all of the assumptions of Lemma 2.1. We may therefore apply the lemma, and conclude that almost surely the random variable τ𝜏\tauitalic_τis finite and non-zero. From conclusion (B) of Lemma 2.1 we learn that almost surely, for all 0≤t≤τ0𝑡𝜏0\leq t\leq\tau0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_τthe set ℰMtsubscriptℰsubscript𝑀𝑡\mathcal{E}_{M_{t}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an L𝐿Litalic_L-free ellipsoid. Conclusion (C) of Lemma 2.1 implies (20).

Recall that the filtration associated with the Brownian motion (Wt)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡𝑡0(W_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTis (ℱt)t≥0subscriptsubscriptℱ𝑡𝑡0(\mathcal{F}_{t})_{t\geq 0}( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where ℱtsubscriptℱ𝑡\mathcal{F}_{t}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ-algebra generated by the random variables (Ws)0≤s≤tsubscriptsubscript𝑊𝑠0𝑠𝑡(W_{s})_{0\leq s\leq t}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_s ≤ italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. A stochastic process (At)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑡0(A_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is adapted to this filtration if for any fixed t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0, the random variable Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is measurable with respect to ℱtsubscriptℱ𝑡\mathcal{F}_{t}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. A stopping time τ𝜏\tauitalic_τ is a random variable attaining values in [0,∞)0[0,\infty)[ 0 , ∞ ) such that for any fixed t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0, the event {τ≤t}𝜏𝑡\{\tau\leq t\}{ italic_τ ≤ italic_t } is measurable with respect to ℱtsubscriptℱ𝑡\mathcal{F}_{t}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For example, the random variable τ𝜏\tauitalic_τ from Lemma 20 is a stopping time. The following proposition describes the construction of the stochastically evolving ellipsoid associated with the lattice-like set L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Proposition 2.3.

Let a0>0subscript𝑎00a_{0}>0italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 be such that the matrix a0⋅Id∈ℝn×n⋅subscript𝑎0Idsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛a_{0}\cdot{\rm Id}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Id ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is L𝐿Litalic_L-free. Let (Wt)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡𝑡0(W_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a Dyson Brownian motion in ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then there exists a continuous stochastic process (At)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑡0(A_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, attaining values in ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and adapted to the filtration induced by (Wt)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡𝑡0(W_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, with the following properties:

1. (A)
   Abbreviate πt=πAtsubscript𝜋𝑡subscript𝜋subscript𝐴𝑡\pi_{t}=\pi_{A_{t}}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then there exist a bounded, integer-valued random variable M≥0𝑀0M\geq 0italic_M ≥ 0 and stopping times 0=τ0<τ1<τ2<…0subscript𝜏0subscript𝜏1subscript𝜏2…0=\tau_{0}<\tau_{1}<\tau_{2}<\ldots0 = italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < …for which the following hold: for any fixed i≥1𝑖1i\geq 1italic_i ≥ 1 and t>0𝑡0t>0italic_t > 0, if i≤M𝑖𝑀i\leq Mitalic_i ≤ italic_M and t∈[τi−1,τi)𝑡subscript𝜏𝑖1subscript𝜏𝑖t\in[\tau_{i-1},\tau_{i})italic_t ∈ [ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) then πt=πτi−1subscript𝜋𝑡subscript𝜋subscript𝜏𝑖1\pi_{t}=\pi_{\tau_{i-1}}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and

   At=Aτi−1+πt⁢(Wt−Wτi−1).subscript𝐴𝑡subscript𝐴subscript𝜏𝑖1subscript𝜋𝑡subscript𝑊𝑡subscript𝑊subscript𝜏𝑖1A_{t}=A_{\tau_{i-1}}+\pi_{t}\left(W_{t}-W_{\tau_{i-1}}\right).italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

   (23)

2. (B)
   For t≥τM𝑡subscript𝜏𝑀t\geq\tau_{M}italic_t ≥ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we have At=AτMsubscript𝐴𝑡subscript𝐴subscript𝜏𝑀A_{t}=A_{\tau_{M}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and πt=0subscript𝜋𝑡0\pi_{t}=0italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0. Moreover, A0=a0⋅Idsubscript𝐴0⋅subscript𝑎0IdA_{0}=a_{0}\cdot{\rm Id}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Id.
3. (C)
   Almost surely, for all t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0 the matrix Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive-definite and L𝐿Litalic_L-free.
4. (D)
   Set ℰt:=ℰATassignsubscriptℰ𝑡subscriptℰsubscript𝐴𝑇\mathcal{E}_{t}:=\mathcal{E}_{A_{T}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then almost surely, ∂ℰs∩L⊆∂ℰt∩Lsubscriptℰ𝑠𝐿subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿\partial\mathcal{E}_{s}\cap L\subseteq\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L ⊆ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L for all 0≤s≤t0𝑠𝑡0\leq s\leq t0 ≤ italic_s ≤ italic_t.
5. (E)
   Denote Ft:=FAtassignsubscript𝐹𝑡subscript𝐹subscript𝐴𝑡F_{t}:=F_{A_{t}}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then almost surely,

   τ∗:=inf{t≥0;Ft={0}}assignsubscript𝜏infimumformulae-sequence𝑡0subscript𝐹𝑡0\tau_{*}:=\inf\{t\geq 0\,;\,F_{t}=\{0\}\}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_inf { italic_t ≥ 0 ; italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 0 } }	(24)
   is finite, and τ∗=τMsubscript𝜏subscript𝜏𝑀\tau_{*}=\tau_{M}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Proof.

We will recursively iterate the construction of Lemma 20. Set

and τ0=0subscript𝜏00\tau_{0}=0italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0. We will inductively construct stopping times

and symmetric matrices (Aτi)i≥1subscriptsubscript𝐴subscript𝜏𝑖𝑖1(A_{\tau_{i}})_{i\geq 1}( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that almost surely, the random variable τisubscript𝜏𝑖\tau_{i}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is finite and the matrix Aτisubscript𝐴subscript𝜏𝑖A_{\tau_{i}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a positive-definite, L𝐿Litalic_L-free matrix for all i𝑖iitalic_i. For the base of the induction, we note that the matrix Aτ0subscript𝐴subscript𝜏0A_{\tau_{0}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive-definite and L𝐿Litalic_L-free, by assumption.

Let i≥1𝑖1i\geq 1italic_i ≥ 1 and suppose that τi−1subscript𝜏𝑖1\tau_{i-1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Aτi−1subscript𝐴subscript𝜏𝑖1A_{\tau_{i-1}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT have been constructed such that almost surely τi−1subscript𝜏𝑖1\tau_{i-1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is finite, and Aτi−1subscript𝐴subscript𝜏𝑖1A_{\tau_{i-1}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive-definite and L𝐿Litalic_L-free. Let us contruct τisubscript𝜏𝑖\tau_{i}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Aτisubscript𝐴subscript𝜏𝑖A_{\tau_{i}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If

then we simply set At:=Aτi−1assignsubscript𝐴𝑡subscript𝐴subscript𝜏𝑖1A_{t}:=A_{\tau_{i-1}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for t>τi−1𝑡subscript𝜏𝑖1t>\tau_{i-1}italic_t > italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We also define M:=i−1assign𝑀𝑖1M:=i-1italic_M := italic_i - 1 and τM+j:=τM+jassignsubscript𝜏𝑀𝑗subscript𝜏𝑀𝑗\tau_{M+j}:=\tau_{M}+jitalic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M + italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_j for j≥1𝑗1j\geq 1italic_j ≥ 1, and end the recursive construction. By the induction hypothesis, Aτjsubscript𝐴subscript𝜏𝑗A_{\tau_{j}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a positive-definite, L𝐿Litalic_L-free matrix for all j≥i𝑗𝑖j\geq iitalic_j ≥ italic_i. This completes the description of the recursion step in the case where (27) holds true. Suppose now that

Define

which is a standard Brownian motion in ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, or in other words, a Dyson Brownian motion. Set

which is positive-definite and L𝐿Litalic_L-free by the induction hypothesis. We know that FM0≠{0}subscript𝐹subscript𝑀00F_{M_{0}}\neq\{0\}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ { 0 }, thanks to (28). Denote

and apply Lemma 20. From the conclusion of the lemma, almost surely the stopping time

is finite with τi>τi−1subscript𝜏𝑖subscript𝜏𝑖1\tau_{i}>\tau_{i-1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Moreover, almost surely ℰMtsubscriptℰsubscript𝑀𝑡\mathcal{E}_{M_{t}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an L𝐿Litalic_L-free ellipsoid for 0≤t≤τi−τi−10𝑡subscript𝜏𝑖subscript𝜏𝑖10\leq t\leq\tau_{i}-\tau_{i-1}0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Therefore, setting

we see that Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive-definite and L𝐿Litalic_L-free for t∈[τi−1,τi]𝑡subscript𝜏𝑖1subscript𝜏𝑖t\in[\tau_{i-1},\tau_{i}]italic_t ∈ [ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ]. Almost surely, the matrix Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT depends continuously on t∈[τi−1,τi]𝑡subscript𝜏𝑖1subscript𝜏𝑖t\in[\tau_{i-1},\tau_{i}]italic_t ∈ [ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ]. Furthermore, from conclusion (20) of Lemma 20 we learn that almost surely,

This completes the description of the recursive construction of τisubscript𝜏𝑖\tau_{i}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Aτisubscript𝐴subscript𝜏𝑖A_{\tau_{i}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all i≥0𝑖0i\geq 0italic_i ≥ 0. It follows from (26) that along the way we defined the random matrix Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all 0<t≤τM0𝑡subscript𝜏𝑀0<t\leq\tau_{M}0 < italic_t ≤ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, via formula (33). For completeness, set

Thus, almost surely the stochastic process (At)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑡0(A_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is well-defined and continuous. Let us discuss the basic properties of this construction.

We first claim that the random variable M𝑀Mitalic_M – the number of steps in the construction – is a bounded random variable. Indeed, relation (34) holds true for all i=1,…,M𝑖1…𝑀i=1,\ldots,Mitalic_i = 1 , … , italic_M. Therefore,

| |∂ℰAτi∩L|≥i(i=1,…,M),subscriptℰsubscript𝐴subscript𝜏𝑖𝐿𝑖𝑖1…𝑀|\partial\mathcal{E}_{A_{\tau_{i}}}\cap L|\geq i\qquad\qquad\qquad(i=1,\ldots,% M),| ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L | ≥ italic_i ( italic_i = 1 , … , italic_M ) , | (36) | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------- | ---- |

while the ellipsoid ℰAτisubscriptℰsubscript𝐴subscript𝜏𝑖\mathcal{E}_{A_{\tau_{i}}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is L𝐿Litalic_L-free. It follows from (5) and (36) that almost surely M≤C~L𝑀subscript~𝐶𝐿M\leq\tilde{C}_{L}italic_M ≤ over~ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and hence M𝑀Mitalic_M is a bounded random variable. We conclude that the random variable τMsubscript𝜏𝑀\tau_{M}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is almost surely finite, being almost surely the sum of finitely many numbers.

Next, by the construction of Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in (33), the matrix Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is almost surely positive-definite and L𝐿Litalic_L-free for t∈[τi−1,τi]𝑡subscript𝜏𝑖1subscript𝜏𝑖t\in[\tau_{i-1},\tau_{i}]italic_t ∈ [ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] for all i=1,…,M𝑖1…𝑀i=1,\ldots,Mitalic_i = 1 , … , italic_M. It thus follows from (25) and (26) that Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive-definite and L𝐿Litalic_L-free for t∈[0,τM]𝑡0subscript𝜏𝑀t\in[0,\tau_{M}]italic_t ∈ [ 0 , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ]. Observe that by (32) and (33), for any i=1,…,M𝑖1…𝑀i=1,\ldots,Mitalic_i = 1 , … , italic_M and t∈[τi−1,τi)𝑡subscript𝜏𝑖1subscript𝜏𝑖t\in[\tau_{i-1},\tau_{i})italic_t ∈ [ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ),

From (29), (30), (31), (33) and (37), for i=1,…,M𝑖1…𝑀i=1,\ldots,Mitalic_i = 1 , … , italic_M and t∈[τi−1,τi)𝑡subscript𝜏𝑖1subscript𝜏𝑖t\in[\tau_{i-1},\tau_{i})italic_t ∈ [ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )we have Ft=Fτi−1subscript𝐹𝑡subscript𝐹subscript𝜏𝑖1F_{t}=F_{{\tau_{i-1}}}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and

Since Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT depends continuously on t𝑡titalic_t, and since Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is constant for t∈[τM,∞)𝑡subscript𝜏𝑀t\in[\tau_{M},\infty)italic_t ∈ [ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∞ ) by (35), conclusion (A) and conclusion (B) are proven. Note that the matrix Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a function of a0,Lsubscript𝑎0𝐿a_{0},Litalic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_L and (Ws)0≤s≤tsubscriptsubscript𝑊𝑠0𝑠𝑡(W_{s})_{0\leq s\leq t}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_s ≤ italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In particular, the stochastic process (At)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑡0(A_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is adapted to the filtration induced by the Dyson Brownian motion.

Conclusion (C) holds true as Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive-definite and L𝐿Litalic_L-free for t∈[0,τM]𝑡0subscript𝜏𝑀t\in[0,\tau_{M}]italic_t ∈ [ 0 , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ], and At=AτMsubscript𝐴𝑡subscript𝐴subscript𝜏𝑀A_{t}=A_{\tau_{M}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for t∈[τM,∞)𝑡subscript𝜏𝑀t\in[\tau_{M},\infty)italic_t ∈ [ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∞ ). Conclusion (D) holds true in view of (34) and (37).

From our construction, if M≥1𝑀1M\geq 1italic_M ≥ 1 then the subspace Ft=FAtsubscript𝐹𝑡subscript𝐹subscript𝐴𝑡F_{t}=F_{A_{t}}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is constant and different from {0}0\{0\}{ 0 } for t∈[τi−1,τi)𝑡subscript𝜏𝑖1subscript𝜏𝑖t\in[\tau_{i-1},\tau_{i})italic_t ∈ [ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and i=1,…,M𝑖1…𝑀i=1,\ldots,Mitalic_i = 1 , … , italic_M. We always have FτM={0}subscript𝐹subscript𝜏𝑀0F_{\tau_{M}}=\{0\}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 0 }. It thus follows that τ∗=τMsubscript𝜏subscript𝜏𝑀\tau_{*}=\tau_{M}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where τ∗subscript𝜏\tau_{*}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined in (24). Thus the stopping time τ∗subscript𝜏\tau_{*}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is almost surely finite, completing the proof of (E).

We refer to the stochastic process (ℰt)t≥0subscriptsubscriptℰ𝑡𝑡0(\mathcal{E}_{t})_{t\geq 0}( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from Proposition 2.3 as the stochastically evolving ellipsoid. The volume of the L𝐿Litalic_L-free ellipsoid ℰtsubscriptℰ𝑡\mathcal{E}_{t}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT may increase or decrease with t𝑡titalic_t, but it remains bounded at all times. In fact, it follows from (5), (8) and Proposition 2.3(C) that almost surely,

with cL=(CL/V⁢o⁢ln⁢(Bn))2subscript𝑐𝐿superscriptsubscript𝐶𝐿𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛superscript𝐵𝑛2c_{L}=(C_{L}/Vol_{n}(B^{n}))^{2}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The Itô integral interpretation of conclusions (A) and (B) of Proposition 2.3 is given in the following:

Corollary 2.4.

Under the notation and assumptions of Proposition 2.3, for all t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0,

Thus A0=a0⋅Idsubscript𝐴0⋅subscript𝑎0IdA_{0}=a_{0}\cdot{\rm Id}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Id and we have the stochastic differential equation

Proof.

The Itô integral on the right-hand side of (39) may be defined as

where P={0=t0<t1<…<tNp=t}𝑃0subscript𝑡0subscript𝑡1…subscript𝑡subscript𝑁𝑝𝑡P=\{0=t_{0}<t_{1}<\ldots<t_{N_{p}}=t\}italic_P = { 0 = italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < … < italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_t } is a non-random partition of [0,t]0𝑡[0,t][ 0 , italic_t ] into NPsubscript𝑁𝑃N_{P}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT intervals and ε⁢(P)=max1≤i≤NP⁡|ti−ti−1|𝜀𝑃subscript1𝑖subscript𝑁𝑃subscript𝑡𝑖subscript𝑡𝑖1\varepsilon(P)=\max_{1\leq i\leq N_{P}}|t_{i}-t_{i-1}|italic_ε ( italic_P ) = roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT |. The convergence of the ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-valued random variables in (41) is in the sense of L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Thus (39) follows from (41) and conclusions (A) and (B) of Proposition 2.3 via a standard argument, while (40) is the stochastic differential equation rewriting of (39).

3 The shape and volume of the evolving ellipsoid

Let L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a lattice. Assume that a0>0subscript𝑎00a_{0}>0italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 is such that the matrix

is L𝐿Litalic_L-free. Fix a Dyson Brownian motion (Wt)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡𝑡0(W_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and consider the stochastic process (At)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑡0(A_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTconstructed in Proposition 2.3.

Lemma 3.1.

There exist two Dyson Brownian motions (Wt(1))t≥0subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡1𝑡0(W_{t}^{(1)})_{t\geq 0}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and (Wt(2))t≥0subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡2𝑡0(W_{t}^{(2)})_{t\geq 0}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that for all t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0,

Proof.

We use an idea that is attributed to Bernard Maurey, see Eldan and Lehec [8, Proposition 4]. Recall from Proposition 2.3 the linear map

Almost surely, for all t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0 the map πtsubscript𝜋𝑡\pi_{t}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an orthogonal projection. In particular, πtsubscript𝜋𝑡\pi_{t}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a symmetric operator and

in the sense of symmetric operators on the Euclidean space ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. It follows from Corollary 40 that (At)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑡0(A_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a martingale in ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Its quadratic variation process is

Denote π~t=Id−πt:ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n→ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n:subscript~𝜋𝑡Idsubscript𝜋𝑡→subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\tilde{\pi}_{t}={\rm Id}-\pi_{t}:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}\to\mathbb{R}^{n% \times n}_{symm}over~ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Id - italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and set

and

Thus (Wt(1))t≥0subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡1𝑡0(W_{t}^{(1)})_{t\geq 0}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and (Wt(2))t≥0subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡2𝑡0(W_{t}^{(2)})_{t\geq 0}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are well-defined, continuous martingales in ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, with

where the last passage follows from Corollary 40. This proves the desired conclusion (42). The quadratic variation processes of these two martingales satisfy, for t>0𝑡0t>0italic_t > 0,

and

Note that W0(1)=W0(2)=0superscriptsubscript𝑊01superscriptsubscript𝑊020W_{0}^{(1)}=W_{0}^{(2)}=0italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0. Thus, by Paul Lévy’s characterization of the standard Brownian motion, both (Wt)t≥0(1)subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡1𝑡0(W_{t})^{(1)}_{t\geq 0}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and (Wt(2))t≥0subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡2𝑡0(W_{t}^{(2)})_{t\geq 0}( italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are standard Brownian motions in ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In other words, both stochastic processes are Dyson Brownian motions.

Write ‖A‖o⁢p=sup0≠x∈ℝn|A⁢x|/|x|subscriptnorm𝐴𝑜𝑝subscriptsupremum0𝑥superscriptℝ𝑛𝐴𝑥𝑥\|A\|_{op}=\sup_{0\neq x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}}|Ax|/|x|∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≠ italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_A italic_x | / | italic_x | for the operator norm of the matrix A∈ℝn×n𝐴superscriptℝ𝑛𝑛A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Corollary 3.2.

For any t>0𝑡0t>0italic_t > 0 and r≥t⁢n𝑟𝑡𝑛r\geq\sqrt{tn}italic_r ≥ square-root start_ARG italic_t italic_n end_ARG,

| ℙ⁢(‖At−a0⋅Id‖o⁢p≥C0⁢r)≤C⁢exp⁡(−r2/t),ℙsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡⋅subscript𝑎0Id𝑜𝑝subscript𝐶0𝑟𝐶superscript𝑟2𝑡\mathbb{P}\left(\|A_{t}-a_{0}\cdot{\rm Id}\|_{op}\geq C_{0}r\right)\leq C\exp(% -r^{2}/t),blackboard_P ( ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Id ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r ) ≤ italic_C roman_exp ( - italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_t ) , | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

where C,C0>0𝐶subscript𝐶00C,C_{0}>0italic_C , italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 are universal constants.

Proof.

From Lemma 42, for any r>0𝑟0r>0italic_r > 0,

| ℙ⁢(‖At−a0⋅Id‖o⁢p≥r)ℙsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡⋅subscript𝑎0Id𝑜𝑝𝑟\displaystyle\mathbb{P}\left(\|A_{t}-a_{0}\cdot{\rm Id}\|_{op}\geq r\right)blackboard_P ( ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Id ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_r ) | =ℙ⁢(‖Wt(1)+Wt(2)2‖o⁢p≥r)absentℙsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡1superscriptsubscript𝑊𝑡22𝑜𝑝𝑟\displaystyle=\mathbb{P}\left(\left\|\frac{W_{t}^{(1)}+W_{t}^{(2)}}{2}\right\|% _{op}\geq r\right)= blackboard_P ( ∥ divide start_ARG italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_r ) | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ≤2⁢ℙ⁢(‖Wt‖o⁢p≥r)=2⁢ℙ⁢(t⁢n⁢‖Γ‖o⁢p≥r),absent2ℙsubscriptnormsubscript𝑊𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑟2ℙ𝑡𝑛subscriptnormΓ𝑜𝑝𝑟\displaystyle\leq 2\mathbb{P}\left(\|W_{t}\|_{op}\geq r\right)=2\mathbb{P}% \left(\sqrt{tn}\|\Gamma\|_{op}\geq r\right),≤ 2 blackboard_P ( ∥ italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_r ) = 2 blackboard_P ( square-root start_ARG italic_t italic_n end_ARG ∥ roman_Γ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_r ) , | |

where ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is a Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble (GOE) random matrix. This means that Γ=(Γi⁢j)i,j=1,…,n∈ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nΓsubscriptsubscriptΓ𝑖𝑗formulae-sequence𝑖𝑗1…𝑛subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\Gamma=(\Gamma_{ij})_{i,j=1,\ldots,n}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}roman_Γ = ( roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 , … , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a random symmetric matrix such that (Γi⁢j)i≤jsubscriptsubscriptΓ𝑖𝑗𝑖𝑗(\Gamma_{ij})_{i\leq j}( roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≤ italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are independent, centered Gaussian random variables, with 𝔼⁢Γi⁢j2=(1+δi⁢j)/n𝔼superscriptsubscriptΓ𝑖𝑗21subscript𝛿𝑖𝑗𝑛\mathbb{E}\Gamma_{ij}^{2}=(1+\delta_{ij})/nblackboard_E roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( 1 + italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / italic_n. It is well-known and proven by an epsilon-net argument (e.g., Vershynin [26, Corollary 4.4.8]) that for s≥1𝑠1s\geq 1italic_s ≥ 1,

| ℙ⁢(‖Γ‖o⁢p≥C⁢s)≤4⁢exp⁡(−s2⁢n)ℙsubscriptnormΓ𝑜𝑝𝐶𝑠4superscript𝑠2𝑛\mathbb{P}\left(\|\Gamma\|_{op}\geq Cs\right)\leq 4\exp(-s^{2}n)blackboard_P ( ∥ roman_Γ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_C italic_s ) ≤ 4 roman_exp ( - italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n ) | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

for a universal constant C>0𝐶0C>0italic_C > 0. The corollary is proven by setting s=r/t⁢n𝑠𝑟𝑡𝑛s=r/\sqrt{tn}italic_s = italic_r / square-root start_ARG italic_t italic_n end_ARG.

Corollary 3.2 implies that if t<c/n𝑡𝑐𝑛t<c/nitalic_t < italic_c / italic_n and a0≥1/2subscript𝑎012a_{0}\geq 1/2italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 1 / 2, then the ellipsoid ℰtsubscriptℰ𝑡\mathcal{E}_{t}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is typically sandwiched between two concentric Euclidean balls whose radii r1<r2subscript𝑟1subscript𝑟2r_{1}<r_{2}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfy r2/r1≤Csubscript𝑟2subscript𝑟1𝐶r_{2}/r_{1}\leq Citalic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_C. Our next goal is to study the volume growth of the ellipsoid ℰtsubscriptℰ𝑡\mathcal{E}_{t}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, or equivalently, the decay of the determinant of the positive-definite matrix Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. To this end we consider the non-negative, integer-valued random variable

where Ft=FAtsubscript𝐹𝑡subscript𝐹subscript𝐴𝑡F_{t}=F_{A_{t}}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined in (18) and in Proposition 2.3.

Lemma 3.3.

For any fixed T>0𝑇0T>0italic_T > 0,

| 𝔼⁢log⁢detAT≤n⁢log⁡a0−12⁢∫0T𝔼⁢[‖At‖o⁢p−2⋅Nt]⁢𝑑t.𝔼subscript𝐴𝑇𝑛subscript𝑎012superscriptsubscript0𝑇𝔼delimited-[]⋅superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝2subscript𝑁𝑡differential-d𝑡\mathbb{E}\log\det A_{T}\leq n\log a_{0}-\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{T}\mathbb{E}% \left[\|A_{t}\|_{op}^{-2}\cdot N_{t}\right]dt.blackboard_E roman_log roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_n roman_log italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E [ ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] italic_d italic_t . | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Proof.

For two fixed matrices P,B∈ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n𝑃𝐵subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚P,B\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}italic_P , italic_B ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with P𝑃Pitalic_P being positive-definite, we have the Taylor expansion as ε→0→𝜀0\varepsilon\to 0italic_ε → 0,

Denote the eigenvalues of P𝑃Pitalic_P, repeated according to their multiplicity, by λ1,…,λn∈(0,∞)subscript𝜆1…subscript𝜆𝑛0\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{n}\in(0,\infty)italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ ( 0 , ∞ ). Then for any orthonormal basis of eigenvectors u1,…,un∈ℝnsubscript𝑢1…subscript𝑢𝑛superscriptℝ𝑛u_{1},\ldots,u_{n}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT corresponding to these eigenvalues,

| d2d⁢ε2⁢log⁢det(P+ε⁢B)|ε=0=−∑i,j=1n(B⁢ui⋅uj)2λi⁢λj=−∑i,j=1n⟨B,ui⊗suj⟩2λi⁢λj,evaluated-atsuperscript𝑑2𝑑superscript𝜀2𝑃𝜀𝐵𝜀0superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑛superscript⋅𝐵subscript𝑢𝑖subscript𝑢𝑗2subscript𝜆𝑖subscript𝜆𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑛superscript𝐵subscripttensor-product𝑠subscript𝑢𝑖subscript𝑢𝑗2subscript𝜆𝑖subscript𝜆𝑗\left.\frac{d^{2}}{d\varepsilon^{2}}\log\det(P+\varepsilon B)\right|_{% \varepsilon=0}=-\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\frac{(Bu_{i}\cdot u_{j})^{2}}{\lambda_{i}% \lambda_{j}}=-\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\frac{\langle B,u_{i}\otimes_{s}u_{j}\rangle^{2}% }{\lambda_{i}\lambda_{j}},divide start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_d italic_ε start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG roman_log roman_det ( italic_P + italic_ε italic_B ) | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ( italic_B italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ⟨ italic_B , italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

where x⊗sy=(x⊗y+y⊗x)/2subscripttensor-product𝑠𝑥𝑦tensor-product𝑥𝑦tensor-product𝑦𝑥2x\otimes_{s}y=(x\otimes y+y\otimes x)/2italic_x ⊗ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y = ( italic_x ⊗ italic_y + italic_y ⊗ italic_x ) / 2for x,y∈ℝn𝑥𝑦superscriptℝ𝑛x,y\in\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_x , italic_y ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Observe that for any linear map S:ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n→ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn⊗n:𝑆→subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚subscriptsuperscriptℝtensor-product𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚S:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n\otimes n}_{symm}italic_S : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n ⊗ italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT,

Recall that d⁢At=πt⁢(d⁢Wt)𝑑subscript𝐴𝑡subscript𝜋𝑡𝑑subscript𝑊𝑡dA_{t}=\pi_{t}(dW_{t})italic_d italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_d italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) by Corollary 40, and that πt:ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n→ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n:subscript𝜋𝑡→subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\pi_{t}:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an orthogonal projection. From the Itô formula,

where

| δt=∑i,j=1n|πt⁢(ui⊗suj)|2λi⁢λj,subscript𝛿𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑛superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑡subscripttensor-product𝑠subscript𝑢𝑖subscript𝑢𝑗2subscript𝜆𝑖subscript𝜆𝑗\delta_{t}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\frac{|\pi_{t}(u_{i}\otimes_{s}u_{j})|^{2}}{\lambda% _{i}\lambda_{j}},italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG | italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

and λ1,…,λn∈(0,∞)subscript𝜆1…subscript𝜆𝑛0\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{n}\in(0,\infty)italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ ( 0 , ∞ ) are the eigenvalues of Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPTwhile u1,…,un∈ℝnsubscript𝑢1…subscript𝑢𝑛superscriptℝ𝑛u_{1},\ldots,u_{n}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT constitute a corresponding orthonormal basis of eigenvectors. Since λi≤‖At‖o⁢psubscript𝜆𝑖subscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝\lambda_{i}\leq\|A_{t}\|_{op}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all i𝑖iitalic_i, we have

| δt≥1‖At‖o⁢p2⁢∑i,j=1n|πt⁢(ui⊗suj)|2=1‖At‖o⁢p2⁢∑i,j=1n⟨πt⁢(ui⊗suj),ui⊗suj⟩=1‖At‖o⁢p2⋅Tr⁢[πt].subscript𝛿𝑡1superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝2superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑛superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑡subscripttensor-product𝑠subscript𝑢𝑖subscript𝑢𝑗21superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝2superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑛subscript𝜋𝑡subscripttensor-product𝑠subscript𝑢𝑖subscript𝑢𝑗subscripttensor-product𝑠subscript𝑢𝑖subscript𝑢𝑗⋅1superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝2Trdelimited-[]subscript𝜋𝑡\delta_{t}\geq\frac{1}{\|A_{t}\|_{op}^{2}}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}|\pi_{t}(u_{i}% \otimes_{s}u_{j})|^{2}=\frac{1}{\|A_{t}\|_{op}^{2}}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\left% \langle\pi_{t}(u_{i}\otimes_{s}u_{j}),u_{i}\otimes_{s}u_{j}\right\rangle=\frac% {1}{\|A_{t}\|_{op}^{2}}\cdot{\rm Tr}[\pi_{t}].italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ⋅ roman_Tr [ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] . | (46) | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |

Consider the martingale (Mt)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝑀𝑡𝑡0(M_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with M0=0subscript𝑀00M_{0}=0italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 that satisfies

In order to show that it is indeed a well-defined martingale, we bound its quadratic variation:

| 𝔼⁢|πt⁢(At−1)|2≤𝔼⁢|At−1|2≤n⋅𝔼⁢‖At−1‖o⁢p2≤n⋅𝔼⁢‖At‖o⁢p2⁢(n−1)det2At≤ncL2⋅𝔼⁢‖At‖o⁢p2⁢(n−1),𝔼superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑡superscriptsubscript𝐴𝑡12𝔼superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝐴𝑡12⋅𝑛𝔼superscriptsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscript𝐴𝑡1𝑜𝑝2⋅𝑛𝔼superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝2𝑛1superscript2subscript𝐴𝑡⋅𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑐𝐿2𝔼superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝2𝑛1\mathbb{E}|\pi_{t}(A_{t}^{-1})|^{2}\leq\mathbb{E}|A_{t}^{-1}|^{2}\leq n\cdot% \mathbb{E}\|A_{t}^{-1}\|_{op}^{2}\leq n\cdot\mathbb{E}\frac{\|A_{t}\|_{op}^{2(% n-1)}}{\det^{2}A_{t}}\leq\frac{n}{c_{L}^{2}}\cdot\mathbb{E}\|A_{t}\|_{op}^{2(n% -1)},blackboard_E | italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ blackboard_E | italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_n ⋅ blackboard_E ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_n ⋅ blackboard_E divide start_ARG ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_n - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_det start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ⋅ blackboard_E ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_n - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

where we used (38) in the last passage. By Corollary 3.2, for any fixed t>0𝑡0t>0italic_t > 0, the random variable ‖At‖o⁢psubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝\|A_{t}\|_{op}∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPThas a uniformly sub-gaussian tail. Hence, 𝔼⁢‖At‖o⁢pn−2≤Cn⁢(a0+t)n−2𝔼superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑛2subscript𝐶𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑎0𝑡𝑛2\mathbb{E}\|A_{t}\|_{op}^{n-2}\leq C_{n}(a_{0}+\sqrt{t})^{n-2}blackboard_E ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPTfor some constant Cnsubscript𝐶𝑛C_{n}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT depending only on n𝑛nitalic_n, and (Mt)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝑀𝑡𝑡0(M_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is indeed a martingale. It follows from (45) that

Since 𝔼⁢MT=M0=0𝔼subscript𝑀𝑇subscript𝑀00\mathbb{E}M_{T}=M_{0}=0blackboard_E italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0, by (46) and (47),

| 𝔼⁢log⁢detAT=log⁢detA0−12⁢∫0T𝔼⁢δt⁢𝑑t≤n⁢log⁡a0−12⁢∫0T𝔼⁢‖At‖o⁢p−2⋅Tr⁢[πt]⁢𝑑t.𝔼subscript𝐴𝑇subscript𝐴012superscriptsubscript0𝑇𝔼subscript𝛿𝑡differential-d𝑡𝑛subscript𝑎012superscriptsubscript0𝑇⋅𝔼superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝2Trdelimited-[]subscript𝜋𝑡differential-d𝑡\mathbb{E}\log\det A_{T}=\log\det A_{0}-\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{T}\mathbb{E}% \delta_{t}dt\leq n\log a_{0}-\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{T}\mathbb{E}\|A_{t}\|_{op}^{% -2}\cdot{\rm Tr}[\pi_{t}]dt.blackboard_E roman_log roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_log roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_t ≤ italic_n roman_log italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Tr [ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] italic_d italic_t . | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Since πtsubscript𝜋𝑡\pi_{t}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the orthogonal projection operator onto the subspace Ft⊆ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscript𝐹𝑡subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚F_{t}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we have Tr⁢[πt]=dim(Ft)=NtTrdelimited-[]subscript𝜋𝑡dimensionsubscript𝐹𝑡subscript𝑁𝑡{\rm Tr}[\pi_{t}]=\dim(F_{t})=N_{t}roman_Tr [ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = roman_dim ( italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and the lemma is proven.

Recall the L𝐿Litalic_L-free evolving ellipsoid ℰt=ℰAtsubscriptℰ𝑡subscriptℰsubscript𝐴𝑡\mathcal{E}_{t}=\mathcal{E}_{A_{t}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from Proposition 2.3.

Proposition 3.4.

Fix 0<T≤20⋅n−5/30𝑇⋅20superscript𝑛530<T\leq 20\cdot n^{-5/3}0 < italic_T ≤ 20 ⋅ italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 / 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and assume that 1≤a0≤1+10/n1subscript𝑎0110𝑛1\leq a_{0}\leq 1+10/n1 ≤ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 + 10 / italic_n. Then,

| 𝔼⁢log⁢detAT≤C−n2⁢T4+14⁢∫0T𝔼⁢|∂ℰt∩L|⁢𝑑t,𝔼subscript𝐴𝑇𝐶superscript𝑛2𝑇414superscriptsubscript0𝑇𝔼subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿differential-d𝑡\mathbb{E}\log\det A_{T}\leq C-\frac{n^{2}T}{4}+\frac{1}{4}\int_{0}^{T}\mathbb% {E}|\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L|dt,blackboard_E roman_log roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_C - divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E | ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L | italic_d italic_t , | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------- |

where C>0𝐶0C>0italic_C > 0 is a universal constant.

Proof.

Fix 0<t≤T0𝑡𝑇0<t\leq T0 < italic_t ≤ italic_T and let 𝒮tsubscript𝒮𝑡\mathcal{S}_{t}caligraphic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the event that

| ‖At−a0⋅Id‖o⁢p≤C0⁢t⁢n,subscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡⋅subscript𝑎0Id𝑜𝑝subscript𝐶0𝑡𝑛\|A_{t}-a_{0}\cdot{\rm Id}\|_{op}\leq C_{0}\sqrt{tn},∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Id ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_t italic_n end_ARG , | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

where C0>0subscript𝐶00C_{0}>0italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 is the constant from Corollary 3.2. Let 1𝒮tsubscript1subscript𝒮𝑡1_{\mathcal{S}_{t}}1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the indicator of 𝒮tsubscript𝒮𝑡\mathcal{S}_{t}caligraphic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, that equals 1111 if the event𝒮tsubscript𝒮𝑡\mathcal{S}_{t}caligraphic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT occurs, and that vanishes otherwise. Then,

| 𝔼⁢[‖At‖o⁢p−2⋅Nt]𝔼delimited-[]⋅superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝2subscript𝑁𝑡\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\left[\|A_{t}\|_{op}^{-2}\cdot N_{t}\right]blackboard_E [ ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] | ≥𝔼⁢[1𝒮t⁢‖At‖o⁢p−2⋅Nt]≥(a0+C⁢t⁢n)−2⁢𝔼⁢[1𝒮t⁢Nt]absent𝔼delimited-[]⋅subscript1subscript𝒮𝑡superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝2subscript𝑁𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑎0𝐶𝑡𝑛2𝔼delimited-[]subscript1subscript𝒮𝑡subscript𝑁𝑡\displaystyle\geq\mathbb{E}\left[1_{\mathcal{S}_{t}}\|A_{t}\|_{op}^{-2}\cdot N% _{t}\right]\geq(a_{0}+C\sqrt{tn})^{-2}\mathbb{E}[1_{\mathcal{S}_{t}}N_{t}]≥ blackboard_E [ 1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ≥ ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_C square-root start_ARG italic_t italic_n end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E [ 1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | =(a0+C⁢t⁢n)−2⁢(𝔼⁢[Nt]−𝔼⁢[(1−1𝒮t)⁢Nt]).absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑎0𝐶𝑡𝑛2𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑁𝑡𝔼delimited-[]1subscript1subscript𝒮𝑡subscript𝑁𝑡\displaystyle=(a_{0}+C\sqrt{tn})^{-2}\left(\mathbb{E}[N_{t}]-\mathbb{E}[(1-1_{% \mathcal{S}_{t}})N_{t}]\right).= ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_C square-root start_ARG italic_t italic_n end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_E [ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] - blackboard_E [ ( 1 - 1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ) . | (48) |

Since Nt=dim(Ft)≤n2subscript𝑁𝑡dimensionsubscript𝐹𝑡superscript𝑛2N_{t}=\dim(F_{t})\leq n^{2}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_dim ( italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, by Corollary 3.2,

| 𝔼⁢[(1−1𝒮t)⁢Nt]≤n2⁢𝔼⁢[1−1𝒮t]=n2⋅ℙ⁢(‖At−a0⋅Id‖o⁢p>C0⁢t⁢n)≤C⁢n2⁢e−n.𝔼delimited-[]1subscript1subscript𝒮𝑡subscript𝑁𝑡superscript𝑛2𝔼delimited-[]1subscript1subscript𝒮𝑡⋅superscript𝑛2ℙsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡⋅subscript𝑎0Id𝑜𝑝subscript𝐶0𝑡𝑛𝐶superscript𝑛2superscript𝑒𝑛\mathbb{E}[(1-1_{\mathcal{S}_{t}})N_{t}]\leq n^{2}\mathbb{E}[1-1_{\mathcal{S}_% {t}}]=n^{2}\cdot\mathbb{P}(\|A_{t}-a_{0}\cdot{\rm Id}\|_{op}>C_{0}\sqrt{tn})% \leq Cn^{2}e^{-n}.blackboard_E [ ( 1 - 1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ≤ italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E [ 1 - 1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ blackboard_P ( ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Id ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_t italic_n end_ARG ) ≤ italic_C italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

Therefore, by using (48) and the inequalities |a0−1|≤C/nsubscript𝑎01𝐶𝑛|a_{0}-1|\leq C/n| italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 | ≤ italic_C / italic_n and Nt≤n2subscript𝑁𝑡superscript𝑛2N_{t}\leq n^{2}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT,

| 𝔼⁢[‖At‖o⁢p−2⋅Nt]≥(1−C′⁢t⁢n−C/n)⁢𝔼⁢[Nt]−C~⁢e−n/2≥𝔼⁢[Nt]−C′⁢t⋅n5/2−C¯⁢n.𝔼delimited-[]⋅superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝2subscript𝑁𝑡1superscript𝐶′𝑡𝑛𝐶𝑛𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑁𝑡~𝐶superscript𝑒𝑛2𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑁𝑡⋅superscript𝐶′𝑡superscript𝑛52¯𝐶𝑛\mathbb{E}\left[\|A_{t}\|_{op}^{-2}\cdot N_{t}\right]\geq(1-C^{\prime}\sqrt{tn% }-C/n)\mathbb{E}[N_{t}]-\tilde{C}e^{-n/2}\geq\mathbb{E}[N_{t}]-C^{\prime}\sqrt% {t}\cdot n^{5/2}-\bar{C}n.blackboard_E [ ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ≥ ( 1 - italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_t italic_n end_ARG - italic_C / italic_n ) blackboard_E [ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] - over~ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ blackboard_E [ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] - italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ⋅ italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG italic_n . | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

By integrating over t𝑡titalic_t and recalling that T≤C⁢n−5/3𝑇𝐶superscript𝑛53T\leq Cn^{-5/3}italic_T ≤ italic_C italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 / 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we thus obtain

| ∫0T𝔼⁢[‖At‖o⁢p−2⋅Nt]⁢𝑑t≥∫0T𝔼⁢[Nt]⁢𝑑t−C′⁢T3/2⁢n5/2−T⋅C¯⁢n≥∫0T𝔼⁢[Nt]⁢𝑑t−C^.superscriptsubscript0𝑇𝔼delimited-[]⋅superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝2subscript𝑁𝑡differential-d𝑡superscriptsubscript0𝑇𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑁𝑡differential-d𝑡superscript𝐶′superscript𝑇32superscript𝑛52⋅𝑇¯𝐶𝑛superscriptsubscript0𝑇𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑁𝑡differential-d𝑡^𝐶\displaystyle\int_{0}^{T}\mathbb{E}\left[\|A_{t}\|_{op}^{-2}\cdot N_{t}\right]% dt\geq\int_{0}^{T}\mathbb{E}\left[N_{t}\right]dt-C^{\prime}T^{3/2}n^{5/2}-T% \cdot\bar{C}n\geq\int_{0}^{T}\mathbb{E}\left[N_{t}\right]dt-\hat{C}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E [ ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] italic_d italic_t ≥ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E [ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] italic_d italic_t - italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_T ⋅ over¯ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG italic_n ≥ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E [ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] italic_d italic_t - over^ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG . | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Therefore, from Lemma 3.3,

| 𝔼⁢log⁢detAT≤n⁢log⁡(1+10/n)−12⁢∫0T𝔼⁢[‖At‖o⁢p−2⋅Nt]⁢𝑑t≤C′−12⁢∫0T𝔼⁢[Nt]⁢𝑑t.𝔼subscript𝐴𝑇𝑛110𝑛12superscriptsubscript0𝑇𝔼delimited-[]⋅superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑝2subscript𝑁𝑡differential-d𝑡superscript𝐶′12superscriptsubscript0𝑇𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑁𝑡differential-d𝑡\mathbb{E}\log\det A_{T}\leq n\log(1+10/n)-\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{T}\mathbb{E}% \left[\|A_{t}\|_{op}^{-2}\cdot N_{t}\right]dt\leq C^{\prime}-\frac{1}{2}\int_{% 0}^{T}\mathbb{E}\left[N_{t}\right]dt.blackboard_E roman_log roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_n roman_log ( 1 + 10 / italic_n ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E [ ∥ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] italic_d italic_t ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E [ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] italic_d italic_t . | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

The subspace Ft=FAtsubscript𝐹𝑡subscript𝐹subscript𝐴𝑡F_{t}=F_{A_{t}}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined in (18) as the orthogonal complement in ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×nsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPTto the subspace E𝐸Eitalic_E spanned by x⊗x(x∈∂ℰt∩L)tensor-product𝑥𝑥𝑥subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿x\otimes x\ \ (x\in\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L)italic_x ⊗ italic_x ( italic_x ∈ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L ). The dimension of the subspace E𝐸Eitalic_Eis at most |∂ℰt∩L|/2subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿2|\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L|/2| ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L | / 2, since ∂ℰt∩L=−(∂ℰt∩L)subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L=-(\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L)∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L = - ( ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L ) while 0∉∂ℰt∩L0subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿0\not\in\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L0 ∉ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L. Therefore,

| Nt=dim(Ft)=dim(ℝs⁢y⁢m⁢mn×n)−dim(E)≥n⁢(n+1)2−|∂ℰt∩L|2.subscript𝑁𝑡dimensionsubscript𝐹𝑡dimensionsubscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑚dimension𝐸𝑛𝑛12subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿2N_{t}=\dim(F_{t})=\dim(\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{symm})-\dim(E)\geq\frac{n(n+1)}% {2}-\frac{|\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L|}{2}.italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_dim ( italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_dim ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_y italic_m italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - roman_dim ( italic_E ) ≥ divide start_ARG italic_n ( italic_n + 1 ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG - divide start_ARG | ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L | end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG . | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------- |

Consequently,

| 𝔼⁢log⁢detAT≤C′−12⁢∫0T𝔼⁢[Nt]⁢𝑑t≤C′−T⁢n⁢(n+1)4+14⁢∫0T𝔼⁢|∂ℰt∩L|⁢𝑑t,𝔼subscript𝐴𝑇superscript𝐶′12superscriptsubscript0𝑇𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑁𝑡differential-d𝑡superscript𝐶′𝑇𝑛𝑛1414superscriptsubscript0𝑇𝔼subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿differential-d𝑡\mathbb{E}\log\det A_{T}\leq C^{\prime}-\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{T}\mathbb{E}\left% [N_{t}\right]dt\leq C^{\prime}-T\frac{n(n+1)}{4}+\frac{1}{4}\int_{0}^{T}% \mathbb{E}|\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L|dt,blackboard_E roman_log roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E [ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] italic_d italic_t ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_T divide start_ARG italic_n ( italic_n + 1 ) end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E | ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L | italic_d italic_t , | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------- |

completing the proof.

4 Points absorbed by the evolving ellipsoid

We keep the notation and assumptions of the previous section. Thus L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a fixed lattice, a0>0subscript𝑎00a_{0}>0italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 is such that the matrix a0⋅Id⋅subscript𝑎0Ida_{0}\cdot{\rm Id}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Idis L𝐿Litalic_L-free, and we study the stochastic process (At)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝐴𝑡𝑡0(A_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT introduced in Proposition 2.3. The following proposition is a step toward showing that, for a typical lattice L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the number of points absorbed by the L𝐿Litalic_L-free ellipsoid ℰt=ℰAtsubscriptℰ𝑡subscriptℰsubscript𝐴𝑡\mathcal{E}_{t}=\mathcal{E}_{A_{t}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT up to time T𝑇Titalic_T is usually at most

Proposition 4.1.

For any fixed T>0𝑇0T>0italic_T > 0 and 0≠x∈L0𝑥𝐿0\neq x\in L0 ≠ italic_x ∈ italic_L,

| ℙ⁢(x∈∂ℰT)≤ 2⁢ℙ⁢(Z≥1T⁢(a0−1|x|2)),ℙ𝑥subscriptℰ𝑇2ℙ𝑍1𝑇subscript𝑎01superscript𝑥2\mathbb{P}(x\in\partial\mathcal{E}_{T})\,\leq\,2\mathbb{P}\left(Z\geq\frac{1}{% \sqrt{T}}\left(a_{0}-\frac{1}{|x|^{2}}\right)\right),blackboard_P ( italic_x ∈ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ 2 blackboard_P ( italic_Z ≥ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_T end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ) , | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ |

where Z∼N⁢(0,1)similar-to𝑍𝑁01Z\sim N(0,1)italic_Z ∼ italic_N ( 0 , 1 ) is a standard Gaussian random variable.

Proof.

Since the matrix a0⋅Id⋅subscript𝑎0Ida_{0}\cdot{\rm Id}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Id is L𝐿Litalic_L-free, necessarily a0⁢|x|2≥1subscript𝑎0superscript𝑥21a_{0}|x|^{2}\geq 1italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ 1. If a0⁢|x|2=1subscript𝑎0superscript𝑥21a_{0}|x|^{2}=1italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 1 then the conclusion of the lemma holds trivially, so let us assume that a0⁢|x|2>1subscript𝑎0superscript𝑥21a_{0}|x|^{2}>1italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > 1. For t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0 denote

If Mt>0subscript𝑀𝑡0M_{t}>0italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 then x∉∂ℰt𝑥subscriptℰ𝑡x\not\in\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}italic_x ∉ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and hence

By Corollary 40,

Thus (Mt)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝑀𝑡𝑡0(M_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a martingale with M0=a0⁢|x|2−1>0subscript𝑀0subscript𝑎0superscript𝑥210M_{0}=a_{0}|x|^{2}-1>0italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 > 0. Its quadratic variation is given by

| [M]t=∫0t|πs⁢(x⊗x)|2⁢𝑑s≤∫0t|x⊗x|2⁢𝑑s=t⁢|x|4,subscriptdelimited-[]𝑀𝑡superscriptsubscript0𝑡superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑠tensor-product𝑥𝑥2differential-d𝑠superscriptsubscript0𝑡superscripttensor-product𝑥𝑥2differential-d𝑠𝑡superscript𝑥4[M]_{t}=\int_{0}^{t}|\pi_{s}(x\otimes x)|^{2}ds\leq\int_{0}^{t}|x\otimes x|^{2% }ds=t|x|^{4},[ italic_M ] start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ⊗ italic_x ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_s ≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x ⊗ italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_s = italic_t | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , | (51) | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ----------------------------------------------- | ---- |

where we used the fact that πssubscript𝜋𝑠\pi_{s}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an orthogonal projection. For t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0 denote

where the infimum of an empty set is defined as +∞+\infty+ ∞. Almost surely, the function Rtsubscript𝑅𝑡R_{t}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is non-decreasing in t𝑡titalic_twith MRt−0=MRt+0subscript𝑀subscript𝑅𝑡0subscript𝑀subscript𝑅𝑡0M_{R_{t-0}}=M_{R_{t+0}}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t - 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all t𝑡titalic_t for which Rt+0<∞subscript𝑅𝑡0R_{t+0}<\inftyitalic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞. Here we write Rt−0=lims→t−Rssubscript𝑅𝑡0subscript→𝑠superscript𝑡subscript𝑅𝑠R_{t-0}=\lim_{s\rightarrow t^{-}}R_{s}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t - 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s → italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Rt+0=lims→t+Rssubscript𝑅𝑡0subscript→𝑠superscript𝑡subscript𝑅𝑠R_{t+0}=\lim_{s\rightarrow t^{+}}R_{s}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s → italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The Dambis-Dubins-Schwartz Theorem (e.g. Revuz and Yor [15, Chapter V]) states that there exists a standard Brownian motion (Bt)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝐵𝑡𝑡0(B_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in ℝℝ\mathbb{R}blackboard_Rsuch that for all t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0,

whenever Rt<∞subscript𝑅𝑡R_{t}<\inftyitalic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞. It follows from (51) and (52) that Rt≥t/|x|4subscript𝑅𝑡𝑡superscript𝑥4R_{t}\geq t/|x|^{4}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_t / | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Consequently,

| inf0≤t≤T⁢|x|4[M0+Bt]≤inf0≤t≤T⁢|x|4Rt<∞MRt≤inf0≤t≤TMt.subscriptinfimum0𝑡𝑇superscript𝑥4delimited-[]subscript𝑀0subscript𝐵𝑡subscriptinfimumFRACOP0𝑡𝑇superscript𝑥4subscript𝑅𝑡subscript𝑀subscript𝑅𝑡subscriptinfimum0𝑡𝑇subscript𝑀𝑡\inf_{0\leq t\leq T|x|^{4}}[M_{0}+B_{t}]\leq\inf_{0\leq t\leq T|x|^{4}\atop{R_% {t}<\infty}}M_{R_{t}}\leq\inf_{0\leq t\leq T}M_{t}.roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_T | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ≤ roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG 0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_T | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

Thus, from (50),

| ℙ⁢(x∈∂ℰT)≤ℙ⁢(inf0≤t≤T⁢|x|4[M0+Bt]≤0).ℙ𝑥subscriptℰ𝑇ℙsubscriptinfimum0𝑡𝑇superscript𝑥4delimited-[]subscript𝑀0subscript𝐵𝑡0\mathbb{P}(x\in\partial\mathcal{E}_{T})\leq\mathbb{P}\left(\inf_{0\leq t\leq T% | x|^{4}}[M_{0}+B_{t}]\leq 0\right).blackboard_P ( italic_x ∈ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ blackboard_P ( roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_T | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ≤ 0 ) . | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

By the reflection principle for the standard Brownian motion (e.g. [15, Section III.3]),

| ℙ⁢(inf0≤t≤T⁢|x|4[M0+Bt]≤0)=ℙ⁢(sup0≤t≤T⁢|x|4Bt≥M0)=2⁢ℙ⁢(BT⁢|x|4≥M0).ℙsubscriptinfimum0𝑡𝑇superscript𝑥4delimited-[]subscript𝑀0subscript𝐵𝑡0ℙsubscriptsupremum0𝑡𝑇superscript𝑥4subscript𝐵𝑡subscript𝑀02ℙsubscript𝐵𝑇superscript𝑥4subscript𝑀0\mathbb{P}\left(\inf_{0\leq t\leq T|x|^{4}}[M_{0}+B_{t}]\leq 0\right)=\mathbb{% P}\left(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T|x|^{4}}B_{t}\geq M_{0}\right)=2\mathbb{P}\left(B_{% T|x|^{4}}\geq M_{0}\right).blackboard_P ( roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_T | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ≤ 0 ) = blackboard_P ( roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_T | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 2 blackboard_P ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

The law of BT⁢|x|4subscript𝐵𝑇superscript𝑥4B_{T|x|^{4}}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the same as the law of T⁢|x|2⋅Z⋅𝑇superscript𝑥2𝑍\sqrt{T}|x|^{2}\cdot Zsquare-root start_ARG italic_T end_ARG | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_Z. Therefore,

| ℙ⁢(x∈∂ℰT)≤2⁢ℙ⁢(T⁢|x|2⋅Z≥M0)=2⁢ℙ⁢(Z≥1T⁢(a0−1|x|2)).ℙ𝑥subscriptℰ𝑇2ℙ⋅𝑇superscript𝑥2𝑍subscript𝑀02ℙ𝑍1𝑇subscript𝑎01superscript𝑥2\mathbb{P}(x\in\partial\mathcal{E}_{T})\leq 2\mathbb{P}\left(\sqrt{T}|x|^{2}% \cdot Z\geq M_{0}\right)=2\mathbb{P}\left(Z\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\left(a_{0}-% \frac{1}{|x|^{2}}\right)\right).blackboard_P ( italic_x ∈ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ 2 blackboard_P ( square-root start_ARG italic_T end_ARG | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_Z ≥ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 2 blackboard_P ( italic_Z ≥ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_T end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ) . | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ |

For r≥0𝑟0r\geq 0italic_r ≥ 0 denote

with Φ⁢(0)=min⁡{1/2,+∞}=1/2Φ01212\Phi(0)=\min\{1/2,+\infty\}=1/2roman_Φ ( 0 ) = roman_min { 1 / 2 , + ∞ } = 1 / 2. It is well-known that if Z𝑍Zitalic_Z is a standard Gaussian random variable, then for r≥0𝑟0r\geq 0italic_r ≥ 0,

In the remainder of this paper we will no longer refer to Brownian motion, let alone any denoted by (Bt)t≥0subscriptsubscript𝐵𝑡𝑡0(B_{t})_{t\geq 0}( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as in the previous proposition. In fact, from now on, for t≥0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0 we define

| Bt={x∈ℝn;(a0−C0⁢t⁢n)⁢|x|2<1},subscript𝐵𝑡formulae-sequence𝑥superscriptℝ𝑛subscript𝑎0subscript𝐶0𝑡𝑛superscript𝑥21B_{t}=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\,;\,(a_{0}-C_{0}\sqrt{tn})|x|^{2}<1\},italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_t italic_n end_ARG ) | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < 1 } , | (55) | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ---- |

whereC0>0subscript𝐶00C_{0}>0italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 is the universal constant from Corollary 3.2. For t>0𝑡0t>0italic_t > 0 we consider the non-negative number

| Kt⁢(L)=∑0≠x∈L∩BtΦ⁢(1t⁢(a0−1|x|2))∈[0,+∞].subscript𝐾𝑡𝐿subscript0𝑥𝐿subscript𝐵𝑡Φ1𝑡subscript𝑎01superscript𝑥20K_{t}(L)=\sum_{0\neq x\in L\cap B_{t}}\Phi\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(a_{0}-% \frac{1}{|x|^{2}}\right)\right)\,\in\,[0,+\infty].italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≠ italic_x ∈ italic_L ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ) ∈ [ 0 , + ∞ ] . | (56) | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |

Proposition 4.2.

For any t>0𝑡0t>0italic_t > 0,

| 𝔼⁢|∂ℰt∩L|≤2⁢Kt⁢(L)+C⁢e−c⁢n,𝔼subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿2subscript𝐾𝑡𝐿𝐶superscript𝑒𝑐𝑛\mathbb{E}|\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L|\leq 2K_{t}(L)+Ce^{-cn},blackboard_E | ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L | ≤ 2 italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L ) + italic_C italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_c italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

where C,c>0𝐶𝑐0C,c>0italic_C , italic_c > 0 are universal constants.

Proof.

By the linearity of expectation and Proposition4.1,

| 𝔼⁢|∂ℰt∩L∩Bt|=∑0≠x∈L∩Btℙ⁢(x∈∂ℰt)≤2⁢∑0≠x∈L∩Btℙ⁢(Z≥1t⁢(a0−1|x|2)),𝔼subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿subscript𝐵𝑡subscript0𝑥𝐿subscript𝐵𝑡ℙ𝑥subscriptℰ𝑡2subscript0𝑥𝐿subscript𝐵𝑡ℙ𝑍1𝑡subscript𝑎01superscript𝑥2\mathbb{E}|\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L\cap B_{t}|=\sum_{0\neq x\in L\cap B_{% t}}\mathbb{P}(x\in\partial\mathcal{E}_{t})\leq 2\sum_{0\neq x\in L\cap B_{t}}% \mathbb{P}\left(Z\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(a_{0}-\frac{1}{|x|^{2}}\right)% \right),blackboard_E | ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≠ italic_x ∈ italic_L ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_P ( italic_x ∈ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ 2 ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≠ italic_x ∈ italic_L ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_P ( italic_Z ≥ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ) , | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ |

where Z𝑍Zitalic_Z is a standard Gaussian random variable. The matrix a0⋅Id⋅subscript𝑎0Ida_{0}\cdot{\rm Id}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Id is L𝐿Litalic_L-free. Thus a0−1/|x|2≥0subscript𝑎01superscript𝑥20a_{0}-1/|x|^{2}\geq 0italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 / | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ 0 for x∈L𝑥𝐿x\in Litalic_x ∈ italic_L, and we may use the standard bound (54) and the definition (56) of Kt⁢(L)subscript𝐾𝑡𝐿K_{t}(L)italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L ) to conclude that

| 𝔼⁢|∂ℰt∩L∩Bt|≤2⁢Kt⁢(L).𝔼subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿subscript𝐵𝑡2subscript𝐾𝑡𝐿\mathbb{E}|\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L\cap B_{t}|\leq 2K_{t}(L).blackboard_E | ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ≤ 2 italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L ) . | (57) | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |

We claim that

Indeed, it suffices to prove that

where ℰt¯⊂ℝn¯subscriptℰ𝑡superscriptℝ𝑛\overline{\mathcal{E}_{t}}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the closure of the ellipsoid ℰt=ℰAt⊂ℝnsubscriptℰ𝑡subscriptℰsubscript𝐴𝑡superscriptℝ𝑛\mathcal{E}_{t}=\mathcal{E}_{A_{t}}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Equivalently, we need to show that

This follows from Corollary 3.2, proving (58). Recall from (6) that |∂ℰt∩L|≤2⋅(2n−1)subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿⋅2superscript2𝑛1|\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L|\leq 2\cdot(2^{n}-1)| ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L | ≤ 2 ⋅ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) as ℰtsubscriptℰ𝑡\mathcal{E}_{t}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an L𝐿Litalic_L-free ellipsoid and L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a lattice. Thus, from (57) and (58),

| 𝔼⁢|∂ℰt∩L|𝔼subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿\displaystyle\mathbb{E}|\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L|blackboard_E | ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L | | ≤ℙ⁢(∂ℰt∩L∩Bt≠∂ℰt∩L)⋅2⋅(2n−1)+𝔼⁢|∂ℰt∩L∩Bt|absent⋅ℙsubscriptℰ𝑡𝐿subscript𝐵𝑡subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿2superscript2𝑛1𝔼subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿subscript𝐵𝑡\displaystyle\leq\mathbb{P}\left(\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L\cap B_{t}\neq% \partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L\right)\cdot 2\cdot(2^{n}-1)+\mathbb{E}|\partial% \mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L\cap B_{t}|≤ blackboard_P ( ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L ) ⋅ 2 ⋅ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) + blackboard_E | ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | ≤C⁢(2/e)n+2⁢Kt⁢(L),absent𝐶superscript2𝑒𝑛2subscript𝐾𝑡𝐿\displaystyle\leq C(2/e)^{n}+2K_{t}(L),≤ italic_C ( 2 / italic_e ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2 italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L ) , | | | | | |

completing the proof.

In view of Proposition 3.4 and Proposition 4.2, it is desirable to understand how large Kt⁢(L)subscript𝐾𝑡𝐿K_{t}(L)italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L ) is for a typical lattice L𝐿Litalic_L. Recall that for small t>0𝑡0t>0italic_t > 0, the parameter Kt⁢(L)subscript𝐾𝑡𝐿K_{t}(L)italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L ) is the sum of the function

| x↦Φ⁢(1t⁢(a0−1|x|2))maps-to𝑥Φ1𝑡subscript𝑎01superscript𝑥2x\mapsto\Phi\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(a_{0}-\frac{1}{|x|^{2}}\right)\right)italic_x ↦ roman_Φ ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ) | (59) | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |

over all non-zero lattice points in a certain Euclidean ball. In the following lemma we analyze the integral of the function from (59) over a spherical shell approximating this ball.

Lemma 4.3.

Let t>0𝑡0t>0italic_t > 0. Assume that 0<t≤20⁢n−2⋅log⁡n0𝑡⋅20superscript𝑛2𝑛0<t\leq 20n^{-2}\cdot\log n0 < italic_t ≤ 20 italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ roman_log italic_nand 1≤a0≤1+10/n1subscript𝑎0110𝑛1\leq a_{0}\leq 1+10/n1 ≤ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 + 10 / italic_n. Consider the spherical shell

| R=Rt={x∈ℝn;1a0≤|x|2<1a0−C0⁢t⁢n},𝑅subscript𝑅𝑡formulae-sequence𝑥superscriptℝ𝑛1subscript𝑎0superscript𝑥21subscript𝑎0subscript𝐶0𝑡𝑛R=R_{t}=\left\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\,;\,\frac{1}{a_{0}}\leq|x|^{2}<\frac{1}{a_{0% }-C_{0}\sqrt{tn}}\right\},italic_R = italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_t italic_n end_ARG end_ARG } , | (60) | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---- |

whereC0>0subscript𝐶00C_{0}>0italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 is the universal constant from Corollary 3.2. Then,

| ∫RΦ⁢(1t⁢(a0−1|x|2))⁢𝑑x≤C⁢en2⁢t/8⋅V⁢o⁢ln⁢(Bn),subscript𝑅Φ1𝑡subscript𝑎01superscript𝑥2differential-d𝑥⋅𝐶superscript𝑒superscript𝑛2𝑡8𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛superscript𝐵𝑛\int_{R}\Phi\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(a_{0}-\frac{1}{|x|^{2}}\right)\right% )dx\leq Ce^{n^{2}t/8}\cdot Vol_{n}(B^{n}),∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ) italic_d italic_x ≤ italic_C italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t / 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

where C>0𝐶0C>0italic_C > 0 is a universal constant.

Proof.

Denote κn=V⁢o⁢ln⁢(Bn)subscript𝜅𝑛𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛superscript𝐵𝑛\kappa_{n}=Vol_{n}(B^{n})italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and a1=a0−C0⁢t⁢nsubscript𝑎1subscript𝑎0subscript𝐶0𝑡𝑛a_{1}=a_{0}-C_{0}\sqrt{tn}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_t italic_n end_ARG. Integrating in polar coordinates,

| I:=∫RΦ⁢(1t⁢(a0−1|x|2))assign𝐼subscript𝑅Φ1𝑡subscript𝑎01superscript𝑥2\displaystyle I:=\int_{R}\Phi\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(a_{0}-\frac{1}{|x|^% {2}}\right)\right)italic_I := ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ) | d⁢x=n⁢κn⁢∫1/a01/a1Φ⁢(a0−1/r2t)⁢rn−1⁢𝑑r.𝑑𝑥𝑛subscript𝜅𝑛superscriptsubscript1subscript𝑎01subscript𝑎1Φsubscript𝑎01superscript𝑟2𝑡superscript𝑟𝑛1differential-d𝑟\displaystyle dx=n\kappa_{n}\int_{1/\sqrt{a_{0}}}^{1/\sqrt{a_{1}}}\Phi\left(% \frac{a_{0}-1/r^{2}}{\sqrt{t}}\right)r^{n-1}dr.italic_d italic_x = italic_n italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 / square-root start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / square-root start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Φ ( divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 / italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG end_ARG ) italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_r . | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Changing variables y=t−1/2⁢(a0−1/r2)𝑦superscript𝑡12subscript𝑎01superscript𝑟2y=t^{-1/2}(a_{0}-1/r^{2})italic_y = italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 / italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) we see that

Recall that a0≥1subscript𝑎01a_{0}\geq 1italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 1 while t≤20⁢n−2⋅log⁡n𝑡⋅20superscript𝑛2𝑛t\leq 20n^{-2}\cdot\log nitalic_t ≤ 20 italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ roman_log italic_n. Thus y⁢t/a0≤y⁢t<1𝑦𝑡subscript𝑎0𝑦𝑡1y\sqrt{t}/a_{0}\leq y\sqrt{t}<1italic_y square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG / italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_y square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG < 1 for all y∈(0,C0⁢n)𝑦0subscript𝐶0𝑛y\in(0,C_{0}\sqrt{n})italic_y ∈ ( 0 , italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ), assuming that n𝑛nitalic_n exceeds a certain given universal constant. Consequently,

where I1subscript𝐼1I_{1}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the integral from 00 to 1111, where I2subscript𝐼2I_{2}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the integral from 1111 to log⁡n𝑛\log nroman_log italic_n and where I3subscript𝐼3I_{3}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the integral from log⁡n𝑛\log nroman_log italic_n till C0⁢nsubscript𝐶0𝑛C_{0}\sqrt{n}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG. Begin by bounding I1subscript𝐼1I_{1}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. To this end we will use the elementary inequality 1−x≥exp⁡(−2⁢x)1𝑥2𝑥1-x\geq\exp(-2x)1 - italic_x ≥ roman_exp ( - 2 italic_x ) for 0<x≤1/20𝑥120<x\leq 1/20 < italic_x ≤ 1 / 2. Since Φ⁢(y)≤1/2Φ𝑦12\Phi(y)\leq 1/2roman_Φ ( italic_y ) ≤ 1 / 2 and t≤20⁢n−2⋅log⁡n𝑡⋅20superscript𝑛2𝑛t\leq 20n^{-2}\cdot\log nitalic_t ≤ 20 italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ roman_log italic_n,

where we used the bound ex≤C⁢x−1⋅ex2/8superscript𝑒𝑥⋅𝐶superscript𝑥1superscript𝑒superscript𝑥28e^{x}\leq Cx^{-1}\cdot e^{x^{2}/8}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_C italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for x>0𝑥0x>0italic_x > 0, as well as our standing assumption that n𝑛nitalic_n is sufficiently large. Next, we bound I3subscript𝐼3I_{3}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT using the same elementary inequality. Since t≤5⁢n−1⋅log⁡n𝑡⋅5superscript𝑛1𝑛\sqrt{t}\leq 5n^{-1}\cdot\sqrt{\log n}square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ≤ 5 italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ square-root start_ARG roman_log italic_n end_ARG,

The last integral is at most C′⁢e−c′⁢log2⁡nsuperscript𝐶′superscript𝑒superscript𝑐′superscript2𝑛C^{\prime}e^{-c^{\prime}\log^{2}n}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_log start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPTby a standard bound for the Gaussian tail such as (54) above. Consequently,

as c≤x−1⋅ex2/8𝑐⋅superscript𝑥1superscript𝑒superscript𝑥28c\leq x^{-1}\cdot e^{x^{2}/8}italic_c ≤ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for x>0𝑥0x>0italic_x > 0. For the estimation of the integral I2subscript𝐼2I_{2}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we use the elementary inequality1−x≥exp⁡(−x−x2)1𝑥𝑥superscript𝑥21-x\geq\exp(-x-x^{2})1 - italic_x ≥ roman_exp ( - italic_x - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for 0<x<1/20𝑥120<x<1/20 < italic_x < 1 / 2, as well as the bound t≤5⁢n−1⋅log⁡n𝑡⋅5superscript𝑛1𝑛\sqrt{t}\leq 5n^{-1}\cdot\sqrt{\log n}square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ≤ 5 italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ square-root start_ARG roman_log italic_n end_ARG. This yields

Therefore,

| I2subscript𝐼2\displaystyle I_{2}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ≤C′⁢en2⁢t/8⁢[|∫1n⁢t/4e−(y−n⁢t/2)2/2⁢𝑑y|+∫n⁢t/4∞e−(y−n⁢t/2)2/2y⁢𝑑y]absentsuperscript𝐶′superscript𝑒superscript𝑛2𝑡8delimited-[]superscriptsubscript1𝑛𝑡4superscript𝑒superscript𝑦𝑛𝑡222differential-d𝑦superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑡4superscript𝑒superscript𝑦𝑛𝑡222𝑦differential-d𝑦\displaystyle\leq C^{\prime}e^{n^{2}t/8}\left[\left|\int_{1}^{n\sqrt{t}/4}e^{-% (y-n\sqrt{t}/2)^{2}/2}dy\right|+\int_{n\sqrt{t}/4}^{\infty}\frac{e^{-(y-n\sqrt% {t}/2)^{2}/2}}{y}dy\right]≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t / 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ | ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_y - italic_n square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG / 2 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_y | + ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG / 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_y - italic_n square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG / 2 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_y end_ARG italic_d italic_y ] | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ≤C¯⁢en2⁢t/8⁢[ℙ⁢(Z≥n⁢t/4)+4n⁢t⋅2⁢π]≤C~⁢en2⁢t/8n⁢t,absent¯𝐶superscript𝑒superscript𝑛2𝑡8delimited-[]ℙ𝑍𝑛𝑡4⋅4𝑛𝑡2𝜋~𝐶superscript𝑒superscript𝑛2𝑡8𝑛𝑡\displaystyle\leq\bar{C}e^{n^{2}t/8}\left[\mathbb{P}(Z\geq n\sqrt{t}/4)+\frac{% 4}{n\sqrt{t}}\cdot\sqrt{2\pi}\right]\leq\tilde{C}\frac{e^{n^{2}t/8}}{n\sqrt{t}},≤ over¯ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t / 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ blackboard_P ( italic_Z ≥ italic_n square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG / 4 ) + divide start_ARG 4 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG end_ARG ⋅ square-root start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG ] ≤ over~ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t / 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG end_ARG , | (64) | | |

where Z𝑍Zitalic_Z is a standard Gaussian random variable, and we used a standard tail estimate such as (54) which givesℙ⁢(Z≥n⁢t/4)≤C/(n⁢t)ℙ𝑍𝑛𝑡4𝐶𝑛𝑡\mathbb{P}(Z\geq n\sqrt{t}/4)\leq C/(n\sqrt{t})blackboard_P ( italic_Z ≥ italic_n square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG / 4 ) ≤ italic_C / ( italic_n square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ). To summarize, by (61), (62), (63) and (64),

completing the proof.

5 Random lattices

Write 𝒳nsubscript𝒳𝑛\mathscr{X}_{n}script_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for the space of all lattices L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with

We emphasize that our normalization is not that of covolume one lattices, but rather we consider lattices whose covolume is the volume of the Euclidean unit ball. The space 𝒳nsubscript𝒳𝑛\mathscr{X}_{n}script_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a homogenous space under the action of the group S⁢Ln⁢(ℝ)={g∈ℝn×n;det(g)=1}𝑆subscript𝐿𝑛ℝformulae-sequence𝑔superscriptℝ𝑛𝑛𝑔1SL_{n}(\mathbb{R})=\left\{g\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\,;\,\det(g)=1\right\}italic_S italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) = { italic_g ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; roman_det ( italic_g ) = 1 }, where the action of g∈S⁢Ln⁢(ℝ)𝑔𝑆subscript𝐿𝑛ℝg\in SL_{n}(\mathbb{R})italic_g ∈ italic_S italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) on the lattice L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPTis the lattice

Minkowski and Siegel [16] discovered that there is a unique Haar probability measure on 𝒳nsubscript𝒳𝑛\mathscr{X}_{n}script_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT which is invariant under the action of S⁢Ln⁢(ℝ)𝑆subscript𝐿𝑛ℝSL_{n}(\mathbb{R})italic_S italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ). When we say that L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a random lattice distributed uniformly in 𝒳nsubscript𝒳𝑛\mathscr{X}_{n}script_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we refer to the Haar probability measure on 𝒳nsubscript𝒳𝑛\mathscr{X}_{n}script_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For more information on random lattices we refer the reader e.g. to Gruber and Lekkerkerker [9, Section 19.3] or to Marklof [13]. Throughout this section we set

Clearly 1≤a0≤1+10/n1subscript𝑎0110𝑛1\leq a_{0}\leq 1+10/n1 ≤ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 + 10 / italic_n, as required in order to apply Proposition 3.4 and Lemma 4.3. Recall the parameter Kt⁢(L)≥0subscript𝐾𝑡𝐿0K_{t}(L)\geq 0italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L ) ≥ 0 that is defined in (56) for any lattice L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and any time t>0𝑡0t>0italic_t > 0.

Proposition 5.1.

Let 0<T≤20⁢n−2⋅log⁡n0𝑇⋅20superscript𝑛2𝑛0<T\leq 20n^{-2}\cdot\log n0 < italic_T ≤ 20 italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ roman_log italic_n. Then there exists a lattice L∈𝒳n𝐿subscript𝒳𝑛L\in\mathscr{X}_{n}italic_L ∈ script_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that a0⁢|x|2>1subscript𝑎0superscript𝑥21a_{0}|x|^{2}>1italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > 1 for any 0≠x∈L0𝑥𝐿0\neq x\in L0 ≠ italic_x ∈ italic_L and

where C>0𝐶0C>0italic_C > 0 is a universal constant.

Proof.

Let L∈𝒳n𝐿subscript𝒳𝑛L\in\mathscr{X}_{n}italic_L ∈ script_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a random, uniformly distributed lattice. The Siegel summation formula [16] states that for any measurable function φ:ℝn→(0,+∞):𝜑→superscriptℝ𝑛0\varphi:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow(0,+\infty)italic_φ : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ( 0 , + ∞ ),

Write f⁢(x)=1𝑓𝑥1f(x)=1italic_f ( italic_x ) = 1 if |x|≤1−1/n𝑥11𝑛|x|\leq 1-1/n| italic_x | ≤ 1 - 1 / italic_n and f⁢(x)=0𝑓𝑥0f(x)=0italic_f ( italic_x ) = 0 otherwise. By (68),

Hence, by the Markov inequality,

| ℙ(∃0≠x∈L;|x|≤1−1/n)≤1e.\mathbb{P}\left(\exists 0\neq x\in L\,;\,|x|\leq 1-1/n\right)\leq\frac{1}{e}.blackboard_P ( ∃ 0 ≠ italic_x ∈ italic_L ; | italic_x | ≤ 1 - 1 / italic_n ) ≤ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_e end_ARG . | (69) | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---- |

Let 0<t≤T0𝑡𝑇0<t\leq T0 < italic_t ≤ italic_T, and let R=Rt⊆ℝn𝑅subscript𝑅𝑡superscriptℝ𝑛R=R_{t}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_R = italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the spherical shell defined in (60). Denote

| K~t⁢(L)=∑0≠x∈L∩RtΦ⁢(1t⁢(a0−1|x|2)),subscript~𝐾𝑡𝐿subscript0𝑥𝐿subscript𝑅𝑡Φ1𝑡subscript𝑎01superscript𝑥2\tilde{K}_{t}(L)=\sum_{0\neq x\in L\cap R_{t}}\Phi\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}% \left(a_{0}-\frac{1}{|x|^{2}}\right)\right),over~ start_ARG italic_K end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≠ italic_x ∈ italic_L ∩ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ) , | (70) | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ---- |

i.e., the difference between K~t⁢(L)subscript~𝐾𝑡𝐿\tilde{K}_{t}(L)over~ start_ARG italic_K end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L ) and Kt⁢(L)subscript𝐾𝑡𝐿K_{t}(L)italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L ) is that we sum over the spherical shell Rtsubscript𝑅𝑡R_{t}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT rather than over the ball Btsubscript𝐵𝑡B_{t}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. According to (68) and Lemma 4.3,

| 𝔼⁢K~t⁢(L)𝔼subscript~𝐾𝑡𝐿\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\tilde{K}_{t}(L)blackboard_E over~ start_ARG italic_K end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L ) | =𝔼⁢∑0≠x∈L∩RtΦ⁢(1t⁢(a0−1|x|2))absent𝔼subscript0𝑥𝐿subscript𝑅𝑡Φ1𝑡subscript𝑎01superscript𝑥2\displaystyle=\mathbb{E}\sum_{0\neq x\in L\cap R_{t}}\Phi\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{% t}}\left(a_{0}-\frac{1}{|x|^{2}}\right)\right)= blackboard_E ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≠ italic_x ∈ italic_L ∩ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ) | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------- | | =1V⁢o⁢ln⁢(Bn)⋅∫RtΦ⁢(1t⁢(a0−1|x|2))⁢𝑑x≤C1⁢en2⁢t/8.absent⋅1𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛superscript𝐵𝑛subscriptsubscript𝑅𝑡Φ1𝑡subscript𝑎01superscript𝑥2differential-d𝑥subscript𝐶1superscript𝑒superscript𝑛2𝑡8\displaystyle=\frac{1}{Vol_{n}(B^{n})}\cdot\int_{R_{t}}\Phi\left(\frac{1}{% \sqrt{t}}\left(a_{0}-\frac{1}{|x|^{2}}\right)\right)dx\leq C_{1}e^{n^{2}t/8}.= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG ⋅ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_t end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ) italic_d italic_x ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t / 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . | |

Since K~t⁢(L)subscript~𝐾𝑡𝐿\tilde{K}_{t}(L)over~ start_ARG italic_K end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L ) is non-negative, we may apply Fubini’s theorem and conclude that

By the Markov inequality,

Since 1/2+1/e<1121𝑒11/2+1/e<11 / 2 + 1 / italic_e < 1, we conclude from (69) and (71) that there exists a lattice L∈𝒳n𝐿subscript𝒳𝑛L\in\mathscr{X}_{n}italic_L ∈ script_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPTsuch that |x|>1−1/n𝑥11𝑛|x|>1-1/n| italic_x | > 1 - 1 / italic_n for all 0≠x∈L0𝑥𝐿0\neq x\in L0 ≠ italic_x ∈ italic_L and such that

From (66) we thus see that a0⁢|x|2>1subscript𝑎0superscript𝑥21a_{0}|x|^{2}>1italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > 1for any 0≠x∈L0𝑥𝐿0\neq x\in L0 ≠ italic_x ∈ italic_L. Therefore the matrix a0⋅Id⋅subscript𝑎0Ida_{0}\cdot{\rm Id}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Id is L𝐿Litalic_L-free, and from (55) and (60) we see that

Consequently, from (56) and (70),

The desired conclusion (67) thus follows from (72).

Let L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the lattice whose existence is guaranteed by Proposition 5.1. Thus the matrix a0⋅Id⋅subscript𝑎0Ida_{0}\cdot{\rm Id}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Idis L𝐿Litalic_L-free. We may therefore apply Proposition 2.3, and consider the stochastic process

of positive-definite, symmetric n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n matrices. Recall that almost surely, for any t>0𝑡0t>0italic_t > 0 the ellipsoid ℰt=ℰAtsubscriptℰ𝑡subscriptℰsubscript𝐴𝑡\mathcal{E}_{t}=\mathcal{E}_{A_{t}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is L𝐿Litalic_L-free.

Lemma 5.2.

Set T=16⁢n−2⋅log⁡n𝑇⋅16superscript𝑛2𝑛T=16n^{-2}\cdot\log nitalic_T = 16 italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ roman_log italic_n. Then with positive probability,

for a universal constant C>0𝐶0C>0italic_C > 0.

Proof.

From Proposition 4.2 and Proposition 5.1, for any t>0𝑡0t>0italic_t > 0,

| ∫0T𝔼⁢|∂ℰt∩L|⁢𝑑t≤∫0T(2⁢Kt⁢(L)+C′⁢e−c′⁢n)⁢𝑑t≤2⁢Cn2⋅en2⁢T/8+C′⁢T⁢e−c′⁢n≤C~,superscriptsubscript0𝑇𝔼subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿differential-d𝑡superscriptsubscript0𝑇2subscript𝐾𝑡𝐿superscript𝐶′superscript𝑒superscript𝑐′𝑛differential-d𝑡⋅2𝐶superscript𝑛2superscript𝑒superscript𝑛2𝑇8superscript𝐶′𝑇superscript𝑒superscript𝑐′𝑛~𝐶\int_{0}^{T}\mathbb{E}|\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L|dt\leq\int_{0}^{T}\left(2% K_{t}(L)+C^{\prime}e^{-c^{\prime}n}\right)dt\leq\frac{2C}{n^{2}}\cdot e^{n^{2}% T/8}+C^{\prime}Te^{-c^{\prime}n}\leq\tilde{C},∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E | ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L | italic_d italic_t ≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L ) + italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_t ≤ divide start_ARG 2 italic_C end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ⋅ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T / 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ over~ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG , | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

since n2⁢T/8=2⁢log⁡nsuperscript𝑛2𝑇82𝑛n^{2}T/8=2\log nitalic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T / 8 = 2 roman_log italic_n. By our standing assumption that n𝑛nitalic_n is sufficiently large, we haveT≤20⋅n−5/3𝑇⋅20superscript𝑛53T\leq 20\cdot n^{-5/3}italic_T ≤ 20 ⋅ italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 / 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We may therefore apply Proposition 3.4, and conclude that

| 𝔼⁢log⁢detAT≤C−n2⁢T4+14⁢∫0T𝔼⁢|∂ℰt∩L|⁢𝑑t≤C′−n2⁢T4=C′−4⁢log⁡n.𝔼subscript𝐴𝑇𝐶superscript𝑛2𝑇414superscriptsubscript0𝑇𝔼subscriptℰ𝑡𝐿differential-d𝑡superscript𝐶′superscript𝑛2𝑇4superscript𝐶′4𝑛\mathbb{E}\log\det A_{T}\leq C-\frac{n^{2}T}{4}+\frac{1}{4}\int_{0}^{T}\mathbb% {E}|\partial\mathcal{E}_{t}\cap L|dt\leq C^{\prime}-\frac{n^{2}T}{4}=C^{\prime% }-4\log n.blackboard_E roman_log roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_C - divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E | ∂ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_L | italic_d italic_t ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG = italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 roman_log italic_n . | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

In particular, with positive probability, log⁢detAT≤C′−4⁢log⁡nsubscript𝐴𝑇superscript𝐶′4𝑛\log\det A_{T}\leq C^{\prime}-4\log nroman_log roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 roman_log italic_n. The lemma follows by exponentiation.

Proof of Theorem 1.2.

Since the matrix ATsubscript𝐴𝑇A_{T}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is almost surely L𝐿Litalic_L-free, Lemma 5.2 guarantees the existence of an L𝐿Litalic_L-free matrix A∈ℝ+n×n𝐴subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{+}italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with

According to (8),

The ellipsoid ℰAsubscriptℰ𝐴\mathcal{E}_{A}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is L𝐿Litalic_L-free, thus L∩ℰA={0}𝐿subscriptℰ𝐴0L\cap\mathcal{E}_{A}=\{0\}italic_L ∩ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 0 }. All that remains is to normalize. Write κn=V⁢o⁢ln⁢(Bn)subscript𝜅𝑛𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛superscript𝐵𝑛\kappa_{n}=Vol_{n}(B^{n})italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and consider the matrix

where A∈ℝ+n×n𝐴subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛\sqrt{A}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{+}square-root start_ARG italic_A end_ARG ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the positive-definite square root of the matrix A∈ℝ+n×n𝐴subscriptsuperscriptℝ𝑛𝑛A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}_{+}italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Note that ℰA=(A)−1⁢(Bn)subscriptℰ𝐴superscript𝐴1superscript𝐵𝑛\mathcal{E}_{A}=(\sqrt{A})^{-1}(B^{n})caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( square-root start_ARG italic_A end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), where we view an n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n matrix as a linear map on ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Denote

The lattice L~⊂ℝn~𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛\tilde{L}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}over~ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has covolume one, since L∈𝒳n𝐿subscript𝒳𝑛L\in\mathscr{X}_{n}italic_L ∈ script_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If K⊆ℝn𝐾superscriptℝ𝑛K\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_K ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is an open Euclidean ball centered at the origin with V⁢o⁢ln⁢(K)=c0⁢n2𝑉𝑜subscript𝑙𝑛𝐾subscript𝑐0superscript𝑛2Vol_{n}(K)=c_{0}n^{2}italic_V italic_o italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K ) = italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then S−1⁢(K)⊆ℰAsuperscript𝑆1𝐾subscriptℰ𝐴S^{-1}(K)\subseteq\mathcal{E}_{A}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_K ) ⊆ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by (73) and hence

Appendix A Appendix

Lemma A.1.

Let L⊂ℝn𝐿superscriptℝ𝑛L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_L ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a lattice and let ℰ⊆ℝnℰsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathcal{E}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}caligraphic_E ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a non-empty, open, origin-symmetric, bounded, strictly-convex set (e.g., an origin-symmetric ellipsoid) with ℰ∩L={0}ℰ𝐿0\mathcal{E}\cap L=\{0\}caligraphic_E ∩ italic_L = { 0 }. Then,

| |∂ℰ∩L|≤2⋅(2n−1).ℰ𝐿⋅2superscript2𝑛1|\partial\mathcal{E}\cap L|\leq 2\cdot(2^{n}-1).| ∂ caligraphic_E ∩ italic_L | ≤ 2 ⋅ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) . | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Proof.

We follow Minkowski’s classical proof that the Voronoi cell of a lattice contains at most 2⋅(2n−1)⋅2superscript2𝑛12\cdot(2^{n}-1)2 ⋅ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) facets. Since ℰ∩L={0}ℰ𝐿0\mathcal{E}\cap L=\{0\}caligraphic_E ∩ italic_L = { 0 }, no point of ∂ℰℰ\partial\mathcal{E}∂ caligraphic_E can belong to 2⁢L2𝐿2L2 italic_L. Moreover, we claim that for any x,y∈∂ℰ∩L𝑥𝑦ℰ𝐿x,y\in\partial\mathcal{E}\cap Litalic_x , italic_y ∈ ∂ caligraphic_E ∩ italic_L with x≠y𝑥𝑦x\neq yitalic_x ≠ italic_y and x≠−y𝑥𝑦x\neq-yitalic_x ≠ - italic_y, necessarilyx−y∉2⁢L𝑥𝑦2𝐿x-y\not\in 2Litalic_x - italic_y ∉ 2 italic_L. Indeed, otherwise 0≠x−y∈2⁢L0𝑥𝑦2𝐿0\neq x-y\in 2L0 ≠ italic_x - italic_y ∈ 2 italic_L while

Thus (x−y)/2𝑥𝑦2(x-y)/2( italic_x - italic_y ) / 2 is a non-zero point belonging both to L𝐿Litalic_L and to ℰℰ\mathcal{E}caligraphic_E, in contradiction to ℰ∩L={0}ℰ𝐿0\mathcal{E}\cap L=\{0\}caligraphic_E ∩ italic_L = { 0 }. Consequently each coset of the subgroup of 2⁢L2𝐿2L2 italic_L of the lattice L𝐿Litalic_L, either contains no points from ∂ℰℰ\partial\mathcal{E}∂ caligraphic_E, or else contains a pair of antipodal points from ∂ℰℰ\partial\mathcal{E}∂ caligraphic_E. There are 2n−1superscript2𝑛12^{n}-12 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 such cosets, excluding the subgroup 2⁢L2𝐿2L2 italic_L itself which contains no points from ∂ℰℰ\partial\mathcal{E}∂ caligraphic_E, and the union of these cosets covers L∖(2⁢L)𝐿2𝐿L\setminus(2L)italic_L ∖ ( 2 italic_L ). Hence the cardinality of ∂ℰ∩Lℰ𝐿\partial\mathcal{E}\cap L∂ caligraphic_E ∩ italic_Lis at most 2⋅(2n−1)⋅2superscript2𝑛12\cdot(2^{n}-1)2 ⋅ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ).

References

• [1] Ajtai, M., Random lattices and a conjectured 0 - 1 law about their polynomial time computable properties. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, (2002), 733–742.
• [2] Ball, K., A lower bound for the optimal density of lattice packings.Internat. Math. Res. Notices (IMRN), no. 10, (1992), 217–221.
• [3] Blichfeldt, H. F., The minimum value of quadratic forms, and the closest packing of spheres.Math. Ann., Vol. 101, no. 1, (1929), 605–608.
• [4] Campos, M., Jenssen, M., Michelen, M., Sahasrabudhe, J.,A new lower bound for sphere packing. Preprint, arXiv:2312.10026
• [5] Cohn, H., A conceptual breakthrough in sphere packing. Notices Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 64, no. 2, (2017), 102–115.
• [6] Cohn, H., Zhao, Y., Sphere packing bounds via spherical codes.Duke Math. J., Vol. 163, no. 10, (2014), 1965–2002.
• [7] Davenport, H., Rogers, C. A., Hlawka’s theorem in the geometry of numbers.Duke Math. J., Vol. 14, (1947), 367–375.
• [8] Eldan, R., Lehec, J., Bounding the norm of a log-concave vector via thin-shell estimates.Geometric Aspects of Functional Analysis, Israel Seminar (2011–2013), Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 2116, Springer, (2014), 107–122.
• [9] Gruber, P. M., Lekkerkerker, C. G.,Geometry of numbers. Second edition. North-Holland Publishing Co., 1987.
• [10] Kabatjanskiĭ, G. A., Levenšteĭn, V. I.,Bounds for packings on the sphere and in space. Problemy Peredači Informacii 14, no. 1, (1978), 3–25. In Russian. English translation in: Problems of Information Transmission, Vol. 14, no. 1, (1978), 1–17.
• [11] Klartag, B., Eldan’s stochastic localization and tubular neighborhoods of complex-analytic sets.J. Geom. Anal., Vol. 28, no. 3, (2018), 2008–2027.
• [12] Krivelevich, M., Litsyn, S., Vardy, A., A lower bound on the density of sphere packings via graph theory. Internat. Math. Res. Notices (IMRN), no. 43, (2004), 2271–2279.
• [13] Marklof, J., Random lattices in the wild: from Pólya’s orchard to quantum oscillators.Lond. Math. Soc. Newsl., No. 493, (2021), 42–49.
• [14] Øksendal, B., Stochastic differential equations. An introduction with applications. Sixth edition. Springer, 2003.
• [15] Revuz, D., Yor, M., Continuous martingales and Brownian motion.Third edition. Springer, 1999.
• [16] Siegel, C. L., A mean value theorem in geometry of numbers.Ann. of Math., Vol. 46, (1945), 340–347.
• [17] Rankin, R. A., On the closest packing of spheres in n𝑛nitalic_n dimensions.Ann. of Math., Vol. 48, (1947), 1062–1081.
• [18] Rogers, C. A., Existence Theorems in the Geometry of Numbers.Ann. of Math., Vol. 48, (1947), 994–1002.
• [19] Rogers, C. A., The number of lattice points in a set.Proc. London Math. Soc., Vol. s3-6, (1956), 305–320.
• [20] Sardari, N. T., Zargar, M., New upper bounds for spherical codes and packings.Math. Ann., Vol. 389, no. 4, (2024), 3653–3703.
• [21] Schmidt, W. M., The measure of the set of admissible lattices.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 9, No. 3, (1958), 390–403.
• [22] Schmidt, W. M., On the Minkowski-Hlawka theorem.Illinois J. Math., Vol. 7, (1963), 18–23.
• [23] Schmidt, W. M., Correction to my paper, “On the Minkowski-Hlawka theorem”.Illinois J. Math., Vol. 7, (1963), 714.
• [24] Vance, S., Improved sphere packing lower bounds from Hurwitz lattices.Adv. Math., Vol. 227, no. 5, (2011), 2144–2156.
• [25] Venkatesh, A., A note on sphere packings in high dimension.Internat. Math. Res. Notices (IMRN), no. 7, (2013), 1628–1642.
• [26] Vershynin, R., High-dimensional probability.Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Department of Mathematics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 7610001, Israel.
e-mail: boaz.klartag@weizmann.ac.il