## EDGE UNIVERSALITY FOR NON-HERMITIAN RANDOM MATRICES

## GIORGIO CIPOLLONI †‡ ANDLÁSZLÓ ERDŐS

## †

IST Austria, Am Campus 1, A-3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria

## DOMINIK SCHRÖDER †

Institute for Theoretical Studies, ETH Zurich, Clausiusstr. 47, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland

Abstract. We consider large non-Hermitian real or complex random matrices X with independent, identically distributed centred entries. We prove that their local eigenvalue statistics near the spectral edge, the unit circle, coincide with those of the Ginibre ensemble, i.e. when the matrix elements of X are Gaussian. This result is the non-Hermitian counterpart of the universality of the Tracy-Widom distribution at the spectral edges of the Wigner ensemble.

## 1. Introduction

F ollowing Wigner's motivation from physics, most universality results on the local eigenvalue statistics for large random matrices concern the Hermitian case. In particular, the celebrated Wigner-Dyson statistics in the bulk spectrum [44], the TracyWidom statistics [56, 57] at the spectral edge and the Pearcey statistics [47, 58] at the possible cusps of the eigenvalue density pro/uniFB01le all describe eigenvalue statistics of a large Hermitian random matrix. In the last decade there has been a spectacular progress in verifying Wigner's original vision, formalized as the Wigner-DysonMehta conjecture, for Hermitian ensembles with increasing generality, see e.g. [35, 45, 24, 52, 25, 37, 40, 42, 52, 2, 26, 23, 48, 15] for the bulk, [46, 50, 53, 13, 39, 34, 12, 38, 5] for the edge and more recently [22, 33, 17] at the cusps.

Much less is known about the spectral universality for non-Hermitian models. In the simplest case of the Ginibre ensemble, i.e. random matrices with i.i.d. standard Gaussian entries without any symmetry condition, explicit formulas for all correlation functions have been computed /uniFB01rst for the complex case [31] and later for the morecomplicated real case [10, 49, 36] (with special cases solved earlier [43, 20, 21]). Beyondtheexplicitly computable Ginibre case only the method of four moment matching by Tao and Vu has been available. Their main universality result in [54] states that the local correlation functions of the eigenvalues of a random matrix X with i.i.d. matrix

E-mail addresses : dschroeder@ethz.ch, gcipollo@ist.ac.at, lerdos@ist.ac.at .

Date : September 10, 2020.

2010 Mathematics Subject Classi/uniFB01cation. 60B20, 15B52.

Key words and phrases. Ginibre ensemble, Circular law, Girko's formula.

† Partially supported by ERC Advanced Grant No. 338804.

‡

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 665385.

elements coincide with those of the Ginibre ensemble as long as the /uniFB01rst four moments of the common distribution of the entries of X (almost) match the /uniFB01rst four moments of the standard Gaussian. This result holds for both real and complex cases as well as throughout the spectrum, including the edge regime.

In the current paper we prove the edge universality for any n × n random matrix X with centred i.i.d. entries in the edge regime, in particular we remove the four moment matching condition from [54]. More precisely, under the normalization E | x ab | 2 = 1 n , the spectrum of X converges to the unit disc with a uniform spectral density according to the circular law [32, 6, 51, 30, 7, 8]. The typical distance between nearest eigenvalues is of order n -1 2 / . Wepick a reference point z on the boundary of the limiting spectrum, | z | = 1 , and rescale correlation functions by a factor of n -1 2 / to detect the correlation of individual eigenvalues. We show that these rescaled correlation functions converge to those of the Ginibre ensemble as n →∞ . This result is the non-Hermitian analogue of the Tracy-Widom edge universality in the Hermitian case. A similar result is expected to hold in the bulk regime, i.e. for any reference point | z | &lt; 1 , but our method is currently restricted to the edge.

Investigating spectral statistics of non-Hermitian random matrices is considerably morechallenging than Hermitian ones. We give two fundamental reasons for this: the /uniFB01rst one is already present in the proof of the circular law on the global scale. The second one is speci/uniFB01c to the most powerful existing method to prove universality of eigenvalue /uniFB02uctuations.

The /uniFB01rst issue a general one; it is well known that non-Hermitian, especially nonnormal spectral analysis is di/uniFB03cult because, unlike in the Hermitian case, the resolvent ( X -z ) -1 of a non-normal matrix is not e/uniFB00ective to study eigenvalues near z . Indeed, ( X -z ) -1 can be very large even if z is away from the spectrum, a fact that is closely related to the instability of the non-Hermitian eigenvalues under perturbations. The only useful expression to grasp non-Hermitian eigenvalues is Girko's celebrated formula, see (14) later, expressing linear statistics of eigenvalues of X in terms of the log-determinant of the symmetrized matrix

Girko's formula is much more subtle and harder to analyse than the analogous expression for the Hermitian case involving the boundary value of the resolvent on the real line. In particular, it requires a good lower bound on the smallest singular value of X -z , a notorious di/uniFB03culty behind the proof of the circular law. Furthermore, any conceivable universality proof would rely on a local version of the circular law as an a priori control. Local laws on optimal scale assert that the eigenvalue density on a scale n -1 2+ / /epsilon1 is deterministic with high probability, i.e. it is a law of large number type result and is not su/uniFB03ciently re/uniFB01ned to detect correlations of individual eigenvalues. The proof of the local circular law requires a careful analysis of H z that has an additional structural instability due to its block symmetry. A speci/uniFB01c estimate, tailored to Girko's formula, on the trace of the resolvent of ( H z ) 2 was the main ingredient behind the proof of the local circular law on optimal scale [14, 16, 59], see also [54] under three moment matching condition. Very recently the optimal local circular law was even proven for ensembles with inhomogeneous variance pro/uniFB01les in the bulk [3] and at the edge [4], the latter result also gives an optimal control on the spectral radius. An optimal local law for H z in the edge regime previously had not been available, even in the i.i.d. case.

$$\text{eterminant of the symmetrized matrix} \\ H ^ { z } & = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & X - z \\ X ^ { * } - \overline { z } & 0 \end{pmatrix}.$$

The second major obstacle to prove universality of /uniFB02uctuations of non-Hermitian eigenvalues is the lack of a good analogue of the Dyson Brownian motion. The essential ingredient behind the strongest universality results in the Hermitian case is the Dyson Brownian motion (DBM) [19], a system of coupled stochastic di/uniFB00erential equations (SDE) that the eigenvalues of a natural stochastic /uniFB02ow of random matrices satisfy, see [27] for a pedagogical summary. The corresponding SDE in the nonHermitian case involves not only eigenvalues but overlaps of eigenvectors as well, see e.g. [11, Appendix A]. Since overlaps themselves have strong correlation whose proofs are highly nontrivial even in the Ginibre case [29, 11], the analysis of this SDE is currently beyond reach.

Our proof of the edge universality circumvents DBM and it has two key ingredients. The /uniFB01rst main input is an optimal local law for the resolvent of H z both in isotropic and averaged sense, see (13) later, that allows for a concise and transparent comparison of the joint distribution of several resolvents of H z with their Gaussian counterparts by following their evolution under the natural Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU). We are able to control this /uniFB02ow for a long time, similarly to an earlier proof of the Tracy-Widom law at the spectral edge of a Hermitian ensemble [41]. Note that the density of eigenvalues of H z develops a cusp as | z | passes through 1, the spectral radius of X . The optimal local law for very general Hermitian ensembles in the cusp regimehas recently been proven [22], strengthening the non-optimal result in [2]. This optimality was essential in the proof of the universality of the Pearcey statistics for both the complex Hermitian [22] and real symmetric [17] matrices with a cusp in their density of states. The matrix H z , however, does not satisfy the key /uniFB02atness condition required [22] due its large zero blocks. A very delicate analysis of the underlying matrix Dyson equation was necessary to overcome the /uniFB02atness condition and prove the optimal local law for H z in [3, 4].

Our second key input is a lower tail estimate on the lowest singular value of X -z when | z | ≈ 1 . Avery mild regularity assumption on the distribution of the matrix elements of X , see (4) later, guarantees that there is no singular value below n -100 , say. Cruder bounds guarantee that there cannot be more than n /epsilon1 singular values below n -3 4 / ; note that this natural scaling re/uniFB02ects the cusp at zero in the density of states of H z . Such information on the possible singular values in the regime [ n -100 , n -3 4 / ] is su/uniFB03cient for the optimal local law since it is insensitive to n /epsilon1 -eigenvalues, but for universality every eigenvalue must be accounted for. We therefore need a stronger lower tail bound on the lowest eigenvalue λ 1 of ( X -z )( X -z ) ∗ . With supersymmetric methods we recently proved [18] a precise bound of the form

$$& \text{ metric methods we recently proved } \left [ \imath 8 \right ] a \text{ precise bound of the form} \\ & \text{ P } \left ( \lambda _ { 1 } ( ( X - z ) ( X - z ) ^ { * } ) \leq \frac { x } { n ^ { 3 / 2 } } \right ) \lesssim \begin{cases} x + \sqrt { x } e ^ { - n ( \Im z ) ^ { 2 } }, & X \sim \text{Sign} ( \mathbf R ) \\ x, & X \sim \text{Sign} ( \mathbf C ), \end{cases} ( \mathbf z ) \\ & \text{modulo algorithm corrections, for the Ginibre ensemble whenever } | z | \ = \ 1 +$$

modulo logarithmic corrections, for the Ginibre ensemble whenever | z | = 1 + O ( n -1 2 / ) . Most importantly, (2) controls λ 1 on the optimal n -3 2 / scale and thus excluding singular values in the intermediate regime [ n -100 , n -3 4 / -/epsilon1 ] that was inaccessible with other methods. We extend this control to X with i.i.d. entries from the Ginibre ensemble with Green function comparison argument using again the optimal local law for H z .

Notations and conventions. We introduce some notations we use throughout the paper. We write H for the upper half-plane H := { z ∈ C | /Ifractur z &gt; 0 } , and for any

z ∈ C we use the notation d z := 2 -1 i(d z ∧ d ) z for the two dimensional volume form on C . For any 2 n × 2 n matrix A we use the notation 〈 A 〉 := (2 n ) -1 Tr A to denote the normalized trace of A . For positive quantities f, g we write f /lessorsimilar g and f ∼ g if f ≤ Cg or cg ≤ f ≤ Cg , respectively, for some constants c, C &gt; 0 which depends only on the constants appearing in (3). We denote vectors by bold-faced lower case Roman letters x y , ∈ C k , for some k ∈ N . Vector and matrix norms, ‖ x ‖ and ‖ A ‖ , indicate the usual Euclidean norm and the corresponding induced matrix norm. Moreover, for a vector x ∈ C k , we use the notation d x := d x 1 . . . d x k .

Wewill use the concept of 'with very high probability' meaning that for any /uniFB01xed D &gt; 0 the probability of the event is bigger than 1 -n -D if n ≥ n 0 ( D ) . Moreover, we use the convention that ξ &gt; 0 denotes an arbitrary small constant.

We use the convention that quantities without tilde refer to a general matrix with i.i.d. entries, whilst any quantity with tilde refers to the Ginibre ensemble, e.g. we use X , { σ i } n i =1 to denote a non-Hermitian matrix with i.i.d. entries and its eigenvalues, respectively, and ˜ X , { ˜ σ i } n i =1 to denote their Ginibre counterparts. 2. Mod el and main results

We consider real or complex i.i.d. matrices X , i.e. matrices whose entries are independent and identically distributed as x ab d = n -1 2 / χ for a random variable χ . We formulate two assumptions on the random variable χ :

Assumption (A). In the real case we assume that E χ = 0 and E χ 2 = 1 , while in the complex case we assume E χ = E χ 2 = 0 and E | χ | 2 = 1 . In addition, we assume the existence of high moments, i.e. that there exist constants C p &gt; 0 for each p ∈ N , such that

$$\mathbf E | \chi | ^ { p } \leq C _ { p }. \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

Assumption (B). There exist α, β &gt; 0 such that the probability density g : F → [0 , ∞ ) of the random variable χ satis/uniFB01es

$$g \in L ^ { 1 + \alpha } ( \mathbf F ), \quad \| g \| _ { 1 + \alpha } \leq n ^ { \beta }, \\ \sim \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

where F = R C , in the real and complex case, respectively.

Remark 1. We remark that we use Assumption (B) only to control the probability of a very small singular value of X -z . Alternatively, one may use the statement

$$\mathbf P ( \text{Spec} ( H ^ { z } ) \cap [ - n ^ { - l }, n ^ { - l } ] = \emptyset ) \leq C _ { l } n ^ { - l / 2 }, \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

for any l ≥ 1 , uniformly in | z | ≤ 2 , that follows directly from [55, Theorem 3.2] without Assumption (B). Using (5) makes Assumption (B) super/uniFB02uous in the entire paper, albeit at the expense of a quite sophisticated proof.

We denote the eigenvalues of X by σ , . . . , σ 1 n ∈ C , and de/uniFB01ne the k -point correlation function p ( n ) k of X implicitly such that

$$\text{unction } p _ { k } ^ { ( n ) } & \text{ of } X \text{ implicitly such that} \\ \int _ { C ^ { k } } & F ( z _ { 1 }, \dots, z _ { k } ) p _ { k } ^ { ( n ) } ( z _ { 1 }, \dots, z _ { k } ) \text{ d} z _ { 1 } \dots \text{d} z _ { k } \\ & = \binom { n } { k } ^ { - 1 } \text{E} \sum _ { i _ { 1 }, \dots, i _ { k } } F ( \sigma _ { i _ { 1 } }, \dots, \sigma _ { i _ { k } } ),$$

for any smooth compactly supported test function F : C k → C , with i j ∈ { 1 , . . . , n } for j ∈ { 1 , . . . , k } all distinct. For the important special case when χ follows a standard real or complex Gaussian distribution, we denote the k -point function of the Ginibre matrix X by p ( n, Gin( F )) k for F = R C , . The circular law implies that the 1 -point function converges

$$\lim _ { n \to \infty } p _ { 1 } ^ { ( n ) } ( z ) = \frac { 1 } { \pi } \mathbf 1 ( z \in \mathbf D ) = \frac { 1 } { \pi } \mathbf 1 ( | z | \leq 1 ) \\.$$

to the uniform distribution on the unit disk. On the scale n -1 2 / of individual eigenvalues the scaling limit of the k -point function has been explicitly computed in the case of complex and real Ginibre matrices, X ∼ Gin( R ) , Gin( C ) , i.e. for any /uniFB01xed z , . . . , z 1 k , w 1 , . . . , w k ∈ C there exist scaling limits p ( ∞ ) z 1 ,...,z k = p ( ∞ , Gin( F )) z 1 ,...,z k for F = R C , such that

Remark2. The k -point correlation function p ( ∞ , Gin( F )) z 1 ,...,z k of the Ginibre ensemble in both the complex and real cases F = C R , is explicitly known; see [31] and [44] for the complex case, and [10, 20, 28] for the real case, where the appearance of ∼ n 1 2 / real eigenvalues causes a singularity in the density. In the complex case p ( ∞ , Gin( C )) z 1 ,...,z k is determinantal, i.e. for any w , . . . , w 1 k ∈ C it holds

$$& \mathbf F ^ { \prime } = \mathbf K, \mathbf C \text{ such that} \\ & \quad \lim _ { n \to \infty } p _ { k } ^ { ( n, \text{Gin} ( \mathbf F ) ) } \Big ( z _ { 1 } + \frac { w _ { 1 } } { n ^ { 1 / 2 } }, \dots, z _ { k } + \frac { w _ { k } } { n ^ { 1 / 2 } } \Big ) = p _ { z _ { 1 }, \dots, z _ { k } } ^ { ( \infty, \text{Gin} ( \mathbf F ) ) } ( w _ { 1 }, \dots, w _ { k } ). \quad \gamma ) \\ & \text{Remark z. The $k$-noint correlation function $n$} _ { \kappa. } ^ { ( \infty, \text{Gin} ( \mathbf F ) ) } of the \text{Ginhre ensemble in both}$$

$$& \text{for any $w_{1},\dots,w_{k}\in\mathbb{C}$ it holds} \\ & \quad p _ { z _ { 1 }, \dots, z _ { k } } ^ { ( \infty, \text{Gin} ( \mathbb{C} ) ) } ( w _ { 1 }, \dots, w _ { k } ) = \det \left ( K _ { z _ { i }, z _ { j } } ^ { ( \infty, \text{Gin} ( \mathbb{C} ) ) } ( w _ { i }, w _ { j } ) \right ) _ { 1 \leq i, j \leq k } \\ & \text{where for any comllex numbers $z_{1}$. $z_{2}$. $w_{1}$. $w_{2}$ the kernel $K_{2}$} _ { \tau$} _ { \tau$} _ { \tau$} } ^ { ( \infty, \text{Gin} ( \mathbb{C} ) ) } ( w _ { 1 }. w _ { \tau } ) \text{ is de-}$$

where for any complex numbers z 1 , z 2 , w 1 , w 2 the kernel K ( ∞ , Gin( C )) z 1 ,z 2 ( w , w 1 2 ) is de/uniFB01ned by

/negationslash

$$K _ { z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } } ^ { ( \infty, \text{Gin} ( \mathbf C ) ) } ( w _ { 1 }, w _ { 2 } ) = \frac { 1 } { \pi } e ^ { - \frac { | w _ { 1 } | ^ { 2 } } { 2 } - \frac { | w _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { 2 } + w _ { 1 } \overline { w _ { 2 } } }.$$

$$\P m a { \ v y } _ { \L } ( i ) \ F o r \ z _ { 1 } & \neq z _ { 2 }, K _ { z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } } ^ { ( \infty, \text{Gin} ( \text{C})}) } ( w _ { 1 }, w _ { 2 } ) = 0. \\ ( i i ) \ F o r \ z _ { 1 } & = z _ { 2 } \ a n d \ | z _ { 1 } | > 1, \, K _ { z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } } ^ { ( \infty, \text{Gin} ( \text{C})}) } ( w _ { 1 }, w _ { 2 } ) = 0. \\ ( i i i ) \ F o r \ z _ { 1 } & = z _ { 2 } \ a n d \ | z _ { 1 } | < 1, \\ & \quad \ r z ( \infty \, \text{Gin} ( \text{C} ) \, \mathcal { M } / \quad \ \ 1 \quad - \frac { | w _ { 1 } | ^ { 2 } } { 2 } - \frac { | w _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { 2 } + w _ { 2 } \frac { | w _ { 2 } } { w _ { 2 } }.$$

$$( i \nu ) \ F o r \ z _ { 1 } = z _ { 2 } \ a n d \ | z _ { 1 } | = 1, \\ 1 \quad \ r$$

where

$$& \{ \nu \nu _ { 1 } \, \ v v _ { 2 } \, - \, z _ { 2 } \, \ u n u _ { 1 } \, | \varepsilon _ { 1 } | - 1, \\ K ^ { ( \infty, \text{Gin} ( \text{C})}) } _ { z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } } ( w _ { 1 }, w _ { 2 } ) = \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \left [ 1 + \text{erf} \left ( - \sqrt { 2 } ( z _ { 1 } \overline { w _ { 2 } } + w _ { 1 } \overline { z _ { 2 } } ) \right ) \right ] e ^ { - \frac { | w _ { 1 } | ^ { 2 } } { 2 } - \frac { | w _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { 2 } + w _ { 1 } \overline { w _ { 2 } } }, \\ & \quad \text{where}$$

for any z ∈ C , with γ z any contour from 0 to z .

$$\text{erf} ( z ) & \coloneqq \frac { 2 } { \sqrt { \pi } } \int _ { \gamma _ { z } } e ^ { - t ^ { 2 } } \, \text{d} t, \\ \text{ir} i t h & \gamma _ { \searrow } \, a n v \, c o n t o u r \, f r o m \, 0 \, t o \, z.$$

For the corresponding much more involved formulas for p ( ∞ , Gin( R )) k we refer the reader to [10].

Our main result is the universality of p ( ∞ , Gin( R C , )) z 1 ,...,z k at the edge. In particular we show, that the edge-scaling limit of p ( n ) k agrees with the known scaling limit of the corresponding real or complex Ginibre ensemble.

Theorem 1 (Edge universality) . Let X be an i.i.d. n × n matrix, whose entries satisfy Assumption (A). Then, for any /uniFB01xed integer k ≥ 1 , and complex spectral parameters

z , . . . , z 1 k such that | z j | 2 = 1 , j = 1 , . . . , k , and for any compactly supported smooth function F : C k → C , we have the bound

$$\ J u n c { n o n } \, & \Gamma \, \colon \mathbb { M } \to \mathfrak { M }, w e n a v e \ n e \ v o u n a \\ & \int _ { \mathbb { C } ^ { k } } F ( \mathbf w ) \left [ p _ { k } ^ { ( n ) } \left ( \mathbf z + \frac { \mathbf w } { \sqrt { n } } \right ) - p _ { \mathbf z } ^ { ( \infty, \text{Gin} ( \mathbf F ) ) } ( \mathbf w ) \right ] \, \mathbf d \mathbf w = \mathcal { O } ( n ^ { - c } ), \quad \ \ ( 8 ) \\ \intertext { s h a v e t h a c o n c t a t i e t } \mathcal { M } ( \mathcal { M } ) \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \end{array}$$

where the constant in O · ( ) may depend on k and the C 2 k +1 norm of F , and c &gt; 0 is a small constant depending on k .

2.1. Proof strategy. For the proof of Theorem 1 it is essential to study the linearized 2 n × 2 n matrix H z de/uniFB01ned in (1) with eigenvalues λ z 1 ≤ · · · ≤ λ z 2 n and resolvent G w ( ) = G z ( w ) := ( H z -w ) -1 . We note that the block structure of H z induces a spectrum symmetric around 0 , i.e. λ z i = -λ z 2 n -i +1 for i = 1 , . . . , n . The resolvent becomes approximately deterministic as n →∞ and its limit can be found by solving the simple scalar equation

$$\cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \\ \quad \quad \quad$$

$$n ^ { - 1 / z } & \text{ we have the scaling } [ 4, \text{ Lemma } 3. 3 ] \\ & \Im \widehat { m } ( i \eta ) \sim \begin{cases} \left | 1 - | z | ^ { 2 } \right | ^ { 1 / 2 } + \eta ^ { 1 / 3 }, & | z | \leq 1, \\ \frac { \eta } { | 1 - | z | ^ { 2 } | + \eta ^ { 2 / 3 } }, & | z | > 1 \end{cases} \right \} \lesssim n ^ { - 1 / 4 } + \eta ^ { 1 / 3 }. \quad \text{ (io) } \\ \text{For } \eta > 0 \text{ we define } \quad \text{$\sim \iota$} \quad \text{$/\sim \iota$} \quad \text$$

̂ ̂ which is a special case of the matrix Dyson equation (MDE) , see e.g. [1]. In the following wemayoftenomitthe z -dependence of ̂ m G w ... z , z ( ) , , in the notation. We note that onthe imaginary axis we have ̂ m η (i ) = i /Ifractur ̂ m η (i ) , and in the edge regime ∣ ∣ 1 -| | z 2 ∣ ∣ /lessorsimilar n -1 2 / we have the scaling [4, Lemma 3.3]

For η &gt; 0 we de/uniFB01ne

̂ ̂ where M should be understood as a 2 n × 2 n whose four n × n blocks are all multiples of the identity matrix, and we note that [4, Eq. (3.62)]

$$& \text{For } \eta > 0 \, \text{we define} \\ & u = u ^ { z } ( \text{i} \eta ) \coloneqq \frac { \Im \widehat { m } ( \text{i} \eta ) } { \eta + \Im \widehat { m } ( \text{i} \eta ) }, \quad M = M ^ { z } ( \text{i} \eta ) \coloneqq \begin{pmatrix} \widehat { m } ( \text{i} \eta ) & - z u ( \text{i} \eta ) \\ - \overline { z } u ( \text{i} \eta ) & \widehat { m } ( \text{i} \eta ) \end{pmatrix}, \ ( \text{i} ) \\ & \text{where } M \text{should be understood as a 2n} \times 2 n$$

$$u ( \mathbf i \eta ) \lesssim 1, \quad \| M ( \mathbf i \eta ) \| \lesssim 1, \quad \| M ^ { \prime } ( \mathbf i \eta ) \| \lesssim \frac { 1 } { \eta ^ { 2 / 3 } }$$

Throughout the proof we shall make use of the following optimal local law which is a direct consequence of [4, Theorem 5.2] (extending [3, Theorem 5.2] to the edge regime). Compared to [4] we require the local law simultaneously in all the spectral parameters z, η and for η slightly below the /uniFB02uctuation scale n -3 4 / . We defer the proofs for both extensions to Appendix A.

Proposition 1 (Local law for H z ) . Let X be an i.i.d. n × n matrix, whose entries satisfy Assumption (A) and (B), and let H z be as in (1) . Then for any deterministic vectors x y , and matrix R and any ξ &gt; 0 the following holds true with very high probability: Simultaneously for any z with for | 1 -| || z /lessorsimilar n -1 2 / and all η such that n -1 ≤ η ≤ n 100 we have the bounds

$$\ w e \, h a v e \, t h e \, b o u n d s \\ | \langle & x, ( G ^ { z } ( \mathbf i \eta ) - M ^ { z } ( \mathbf i \eta ) ) \mathbf y \rangle | \leq n ^ { \xi } \| x \| \| \mathbf y \| \left ( \frac { 1 } { n ^ { 1 / 2 } \eta ^ { 1 / 3 } } + \frac { 1 } { n \eta } \right ), \\ | \langle & R ( G ^ { z } ( \mathbf i \eta ) - M ^ { z } ( \mathbf i \eta ) ) \rangle | \leq \frac { n ^ { \xi } \| R \| } { n \eta }.$$

For the application of Proposition 1 towards the proof of Theorem 1 the special case of R being the identity matrix, and x y , being either the standard basis vectors, or the vectors 1 ± of zeros and ones de/uniFB01ned later in (58).

$$\Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \sum _ { i } f _ { z _ { 0 } } ( \sigma _ { i } ) & = \frac { 1 } { 4 \pi n } \int _ { \mathrm C } \Delta f _ { z _ { 0 } } ( z ) \log | \det H _ { z } | \, d z \\ & = - \frac { 1 } { 4 \pi n } \int _ { \mathrm C } \Delta f _ { z _ { 0 } } ( z ) \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } \Im \, \text{Tr} \, G ^ { z } ( \text{i} \eta ) \, d \eta \, d z \\ \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tilde { n } } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau } \Phi _ { \tau }$$

The linearized matrix H z can be related to the eigenvalues σ i of X via Girko's Hermitization formula [32, 54]

for rescaled test functions f z 0 ( z ) := nf ( √ n z ( -z 0 )) , where f : C → C is smooth and compactly supported. When using (14) the small η regime requires additional bounds on the number of small eigenvalues λ z i of H z , or equivalently small singular values of X -z . For very small η , say η ≤ n -100 , the absence of eigenvalues below η , can easily be ensured by Assumption (B). For η just below the critical scale of n -3 4 / , however, we need to prove an additional bound on the number of eigenvalues, as stated below.

$$\text{$nowcvd, we need to prove an auxiliary you, as $s$} \\ \text{stated below.} \\ \text{Proposition $2$. For any $n^{-1}\leq \eta\leq n^{-3/4}$ and $\left|z|^{2}-1\right|\lesssim n^{-1/2}$ we have the bound} \\ \text{E} | \{ i \, | \, | \lambda _ { i } ^ { z } | \leq \eta \} | \lesssim \begin{cases} n ^ { 3 / 2 } \eta ^ { 2 } ( 1 + | \log ( n \eta ^ { 4 / 3 } ) | ), & X \text{ complex} \\ n ^ { 3 / 4 } \eta, & X \text{ real} \end{cases} \\ + \mathcal { O } ( \frac { n ^ { \xi } } { n ^ { 5 / 2 } \eta ^ { 3 } } ), \\ \text{on the number of small eigenvalues, for any $\xi>0$.}$$

on the number of small eigenvalues, for any ξ &gt; 0 .

We remark that the precise asymptotics of (15) are of no importance for the proof of Theorem 1. Instead it would be su/uniFB03cient to establish that for any /epsilon1 &gt; 0 there exists δ &gt; 0 such that we have E |{ i | | λ z i | ≤ n -3 4 / -/epsilon1 }| /lessorsimilar n -δ .

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 3 we will prove Proposition 2 by a Green function comparison argument, using the analogous bound for the Gaussian case, as recently obtained in [18]. In Section 4 we will then present the proof of our main result, Theorem 1, which follows from combining the local law (13), Girko's Hermitization identity (14), the bound on small singular values (15) and another long-time Green function comparison argument.

## 3. Estimate on the lower tail of the smallest singular value of X -z

The main result of this section is an estimate of the lower tail of the density of the smallest | λ z i | in Proposition 2. For this purpose we introduce the following /uniFB02ow

$$\mathrm d X _ { t } = - \frac { 1 } { 2 } X _ { t } \mathrm d t + \frac { \mathrm d B _ { t } } { \sqrt { n } },$$

with initial data X 0 = X , where B t is the real or complex matrix valued standard Brownian motion, i.e. B t ∈ R n × n or B t ∈ √ C n × n , accordingly with X being real or complex, where ( b t ) ab in the real case, and 2 /Rfractur [( b t ) ab ] , √ 2 /Ifractur [( b t ) ab ] in the complex case, are independent standard real Brownian motions for a, b ∈ [ n ] . The /uniFB02ow (16) induces a /uniFB02ow d χ t = -χ t d t/ 2 + d b t on the entry distribution χ with solution

$$\text{induces a flow } d \chi _ { t } = - \chi _ { t } \, \text{d} t / 2 + \text{db} _ { t } \text{ on the entry distribution } \chi \text{ with solution} \\ \chi _ { t } = e ^ { - t / 2 } \chi + \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } e ^ { - ( t - s ) / 2 } \, \text{d} b _ { s }, \quad \text{i.e. } \quad \chi _ { t } \stackrel { d } { = } e ^ { - t / 2 } \chi + \sqrt { 1 - e ^ { - t } } g, \quad \text{(1)}$$

where g ∼ N (0 1) , is a standard real or complex Gaussian, independent of χ , with E g 2 = 0 in the complex case. By linearity of cumulants we /uniFB01nd

$$\mathcal { E } \, g ^ { \ast } = 0 & \text{ in the complex case. By linearity of cumulants we find} \\ \kappa _ { i, j } ( \chi _ { t } ) = e ^ { - ( i + j ) t / 2 } \kappa _ { i, j } ( \chi ) + \begin{cases} ( 1 - e ^ { - t } ) \kappa _ { i, j } ( g ), & i + j = 2 \\ 0, & \text{else,} \end{cases}$$

where κ i,j ( x ) denotes the joint cumulant of i copies of x and j copies of x , in particular κ 2 0 , ( x ) = κ 0 2 , ( x ) = κ 1 1 , ( x ) = 1 for x = χ, g in the real case, and κ 0 2 , ( x ) = κ 2 0 , ( x ) = 0 = κ 1 1 , ( x ) = 1 for x = χ, g in the complex case.

Thus (17) implies that, in distribution,

/negationslash

X t d = e -t/ 2 X 0 + √ 1 -e -t ˜ X, (19) where ˜ X is a real or complex Ginibre matrix independent of X 0 = X . Then, we de/uniFB01ne the 2 n × 2 n matrix H t = H z t as in (1) replacing X by X t , and its resolvent G w t ( ) = G z t ( w ) := ( H t -w ) -1 , for any w ∈ H . We remark that we de/uniFB01ned the /uniFB02ow in (16) with initial data X and not H z in order to preserve the shape of the self consistent density of states of the matrix H t along the /uniFB02ow. In particular, by (16) it follows that H t is the solution of the /uniFB02ow

$$\mathrm d H _ { t } = - \frac { 1 } { 2 } ( H _$$

with where I denotes the n × n identity matrix.

$$Z \coloneqq \begin{pmatrix} 0 & z I \\ \overline { z$$

Proposition 3. Let R t := 〈 G t (i η ) 〉 = i 〈/Ifractur G t (i η ) 〉 , then for any n -1 ≤ η ≤ n -3 4 / it holds that

$$\begin{array} {$$

for any arbitrary small ξ &gt; 0 and any 0 ≤ t 1 &lt; t 2 ≤ + ∞ , with the convention that e -∞ = 0 .

Proof. Denote W t := H t + Z . By (20) and Ito's Lemma it follows that where α, β ∈ [2 n ] 2 are double indices, w α ( ) t are the entries of W t and

$$\text{Proof.} \text{ Denote } W _ { t } \coloneqq H$$

$$\kappa _ { t } ( \alpha, \beta,, \dots ) \colone$$

denotes the joint cumulant of w ,w ,... α β , and ∂ α := ∂ w α . By (18) and the independence of χ and g it follows that κ t ( α, β ) = κ 0 ( α, β ) for all α, β and

/negationslash

$$& \quad \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \\ & \quad \kappa _ { t } ( \alpha, \beta _ { 1 }, \dots, \beta _ { j } ) \\ & \quad = \begin{cases} e ^ { - t \frac { j + 1 } { 2 } } n ^ { - \frac { j + 1 } { 2 } } \kappa _ { l, k } ( \chi ) & \text{if} \, \alpha \not \in [ n ] ^ { 2 } \cup [ n + 1, 2 n ] ^ { 2 }, \, \beta _ { i } \in \{ \alpha, \alpha ^ { \prime } \} \, \forall i \in [ j ] \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}, \end{cases} \\ & \quad \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \end{cases}$$

for j &gt; 1 , where for a double index α = ( a, b ) , we use the notation α ′ := ( b, a ) , and l, k with l + k = j + 1 denote the number of double indices among α, β 1 , . . . , β j which correspond to the upper-right, or respectively lower-left corner of the matrix

H . In the sequel the value of κ k,l ( χ ) is of no importance, but we note that Assumption (A) ensures the bound | κ k,l ( χ ) | /lessorsimilar ∑ j ≤ k + l C &lt; j ∞ for any k, l , with C j being the constants from Assumption (A).

We will use the cumulant expansion that holds for any smooth function f :

$$\mathbf E \, w _ { \alpha } f ( w ) = \sum _ { m = 0 } ^ { K } \sum _ { \beta _ { 1 }, \dots, \beta _ { m } \in [ 2 n ] ^ { 2 } } \frac { \kappa ( \alpha, \beta _ { 1 }, \dots, \beta _ { m } ) } { m! } \, \mathbf E \, \partial _ { \beta _ { 1 } } \dots \partial _ { \beta _ { m } } f ( w ) + \Omega ( K, f ),$$

(25)

where the error term Ω( K,f ) goes to zero as the expansion order K goes to in/uniFB01nity. In our application the error is negligible for, say, K = 100 since with each derivative we gain an additional factor of n -1 2 / and due to the independence (24) the sums of any order have e/uniFB00ectively only n 2 terms. Applying (25) to (22) with f = ∂ α R t , the /uniFB01rst order term is zero due to the assumption E x α = 0 , and the second order term cancels. The third order term is given by

$$\cdots \sum _ { \alpha \beta _ { 1 } \beta _ { 2 } } \kappa _ { t } ( \alpha, \beta _ { 1 }, \beta _ { 2 } ) \, \mathbf E [ \partial _ { \alpha } \partial _ { \beta _ { 1 } } \partial _ { \beta _ { 2 } } R _ { t } ] \Big | \lesssim e ^ { - 3 t / 2 } \frac { n ^ { \xi } } { n ^ { 7 / 2 } \eta ^ { 4 } }. \quad \ ( 2 6 ) \\ \intertext { r o o f of (26). } \, \text{ It follows from the resolvent identity that } \partial _ { \alpha } G = - G \Delta ^ { \alpha } G, \, \text{where } \Delta ^ { \alpha }$$

Proof of (26) . It follows from the resolvent identity that ∂ α G = -G ∆ α G , where ∆ α is the matrix of all zeros except for a 1 in the α -th entry . Thus, neglecting minuses 1 and irrelevant constant factors, for any /uniFB01xed α , the sum (26) is given by a sum of terms of the form

$$\langle G _ { t } \Delta ^ { \gamma _ { 1 } } G _ { t } \Delta ^ { \gamma _ { 2 } } G _ { t } \Delta ^ { \gamma _ { 3 } } G _ { t } \rangle, \quad \gamma _ { 1 }, \gamma _ { 2 }, \gamma _ { 3 } \in \{ \alpha, \alpha ^ { \prime } \}.$$

Hence, considering all possible choices of γ , γ 1 2 , γ 3 and using independence to conclude that κ t ( α, β 1 , β 2 ) can only be non-zero if β , β 1 2 ∈ { α, α ′ } we arrive at where the sums are taken over ( a, b ) ∈ [2 n ] 2 \ ([ n ] 2 ∪ [ n +1 2 ] ) , n 2 and c ∈ [2 n ] , and we dropped the time dependence of G = G t for notational convenience.

$$\dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \, \dots \,, \,.$$

We estimate the three sums in (27) using that, by (10), (12), it follows

$$| G _ { a b } | \lesssim n ^ { \xi }, \quad | G _ { a a } | \leq \Im \widehat { m } + | ( G - M ) _ { a a } | \lesssim n ^ { - 1 / 4 } + \eta ^ { 1 / 3 } + \frac { n ^ { \xi } } { n \eta } \lesssim \frac { n ^ { \xi } } { n \eta },$$

1 The matrix ∆ α is not to be confused with the Laplacian ∆ f in Girko's formula (14)

from Proposition 1, and Cauchy-Schwarz estimates by

$$\text{from Proposition 1, and Cauchy-Schwarz estimates by} \\ \sum _ { a b c } | G _ { c a } G _ { b a } G _ { b c } | & \leq \sum _ { a b } | G _ { b a } | ^ { 2 } \sqrt { \sum _ { c } | G _ { c a } | ^ { 2 } } \sqrt { \sum _ { c } | G _ { b c } | ^ { 2 } } \\ & = \sum _ { a b } | G _ { b a } | ^ { 2 } \sqrt { ( G ^ { * } G ) _ { a a } } \sqrt { ( G G ^ { * } ) _ { b b } } \\ & = \frac { 1 } { \eta } \sum _ { a b } | G _ { b a } | ^ { 2 } \sqrt { ( \Im G ) _ { a a } } \sqrt { ( \Im G ) _ { b b } } \lesssim \frac { n ^ { \xi } } { n \eta ^ { 2 } } \sum _ { b } ( G G ^ { * } ) _ { b b } \\ & = \frac { n ^ { \xi } } { n \eta ^ { 3 } } \sum _ { b } ( \Im G ) _ { b b } \lesssim \frac { n ^ { 2 \xi } } { n \eta ^ { 4 } }, \\ \text{and similarly}$$

and similarly

$$\sum _ { a b c } | G _ { c a } G _ { b a } G _ { b b } G _ { a c } | & \lesssim \frac { n ^ { \xi } } { n \eta ^ { 2 } } \sum _ { a b } | G _ { b a } | ( \Im G ) _ { a a } \\ & \leq \frac { n ^ { \xi } } { n ^ { 1 / 2 } \eta ^ { 5 / 2 } } \sum _ { a } ( \Im G ) _ { a a } \sqrt { ( \Im G ) _ { a a } } \lesssim \frac { n ^ { 5 \xi / 2 } } { n \eta ^ { 4 } } \\ \text{and}$$

and

$$\sum _ { a b c } | G _ { c a } G _ { b b } G _ { a a } G _ { b c } | & \lesssim \frac { n ^ { 2 \xi } } { n ^ { 2 } \eta ^ { 3 } } \sum _ { a b } \sqrt { ( \Im G ) _ { a a } } \sqrt { ( \Im G ) _ { b b } } \lesssim \frac { n ^ { 3 \xi } } { n \eta ^ { 4 } }. \\ \text{This can also the non-of $f$} \, ( \mathcal { H } v \, \text{choose\in} \alpha \, \xi \, \text{ in production} \, \colon \, \text{second} \, \text{in} \, \mathcal { H } v$$

This concludes the proof of (26) by choosing ξ in Proposition 1 accordingly.

/square

Finally, in the cumulant expansion of (22) we are able to bound the terms of order at least four trivially. Indeed, for the fourth order, the trivial bound is e -2 t since the n 3 from the summation is compensated by the n -2 from the cumulants and the n -1 from the normalization of the trace. Morever, we can always perform at least two Ward-estimates on the /uniFB01rst and last G with respect to the trace index. Thus we can estimate any fourth-order term by e -2 t ( nη ) -2 ≤ e -3 t/ 2 n -7 2 / η -4 , and we note that the power-counting for higher order terms is even better than that. Whence we have shown that E | d R / t d t | /lessorsimilar e -3 t/ 2 n -7 2 / η -4 and the proof of Proposition 3 is complete after integrating (22) in t from t 1 to t 2 . /square

Let ˜ X be a real or complex n × n Ginibre matrix and let ˜ H z be the linearized matrix de/uniFB01ned as in (1) replacing X by ˜ X . Let ˜ λ i = ˜ λ z i , with i ∈ { 1 , . . . , 2 n } , be the eigenvalues of ˜ H z . We de/uniFB01ne the non negative Hermitian matrix ˜ Y = ˜ Y z := ( ˜ X -z )( ˜ X -z ) ∗ , then, by [18, Eq. (13c)-(14)] it follows that for any η ≤ n -3 4 / we have

˜ for ˜ X distributed according to the complex, or respective, real Ginibre ensemble. Combining (28) and Proposition 3 we now present the proof of Proposition 2.

$$\text{have} \\ \text{E Tr} \left [ \widetilde { Y } + \eta ^ { 2 } \right ] ^ { - 1 } = \text{E} \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { 2 n } \frac { 1 } { \widetilde { \lambda } _ { i } ^ { 2 } + \eta ^ { 2 } } \lesssim \begin{cases} n ^ { 3 / 2 } ( 1 + | \log ( n \eta ^ { 4 / 3 } ) | ), & \text{Gin} ( \text{C} ), \\ n ^ { 3 / 4 } \eta ^ { - 1 }, & \text{Gin} ( \text{R} ), \end{cases} \\ \text{for} \ \widetilde { X } \text{ distributed according to the complex, or respective, real Ginibre ensemble.}$$

Proof of Proposition 2. Let λ i ( ) t , with i ∈ { 1 , . . . , 2 n } , be the eigenvalues of H t for any t ≥ 0 . Note that λ i (0) = λ i , since H 0 = H z . By (21), choosing t 1 = 0 , t 2 = + ∞ it follows that

$$\text{it follows that} \\ \mathbf E _ { H _ { t } } | \{ i \, | \, | \lambda _ { i } | \leq \eta \} | & \leq \eta \cdot \mathbf E _ { H _ { t } } \left ( \Im \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { 2 n } \frac { 1 } { \lambda _ { i } - i \eta } \right ) \\ & = \eta ^ { 2 } \cdot \mathbf E _ { H _ { \infty } } \left ( \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { 2 n } \frac { 1 } { \lambda _ { i } ^ { 2 } + \eta ^ { 2 } } \right ) + \mathcal { O } \left ( \frac { n ^ { \xi } } { n ^ { 5 / 2 } \eta ^ { 3 } } \right ), \\ \text{for any} \, \xi > 0. \, \text{Since the distribution of} \, H _ { \sim } \text{ is the same as} \, \widetilde { H } ^ { z } \text{ it follows that}$$

for any ξ &gt; 0 . Since the distribution of H ∞ is the same as H z it follows that and combining (28) with (29), we immediately conclude the bound in (15). /square

$$> 0. \, \text{Since the distribution of } H _ { \infty } & \text{ is the same as } \widetilde { H } ^ { z } \text{ it follows th} \\ \mathbf E _ { \widetilde { H } ^ { z } } \left ( \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { 2 n } \frac { 1 } { \mu _ { i } ^ { 2 } + \eta ^ { 2 } } \right ) = 2 \, \mathbf E _ { \widetilde { X } } \, \text{Tr} \left [ \widetilde { Y } + \eta ^ { 2 } \right ] ^ { - 1 }, \\ \text{ining} \, ( 2 8 ) \, \text{with} \, ( 2 9 ), \, \text{we immediately conclude the bound in } ( 1 5 ).$$

## 4. Edge universality for non-Hermitian random matrices

In this section we prove our main edge universality result, as stated in Theorem 1. In the following of this section without loss of generality we can assume that the test function F is of the form

$$F ( w _ { 1 }, \dots, w _ { k } ) = f ^ { ( 1 ) } ( w _ { 1 } ) \cdots f ^ { ( k ) } ( w _ { k } ),$$

with f (1) , . . . , f ( k ) : C → C being smooth and compactly supported functions. Indeed, any smooth function F can be e/uniFB00ectively approximated by its truncated Fourier series (multiplied by smooth cuto/uniFB00 function of product form); see also [54, Remark 3]. Using the e/uniFB00ective decay of the Fourier coe/uniFB03cients of F controlled by its C 2 k +1 norm, a standard approximation argument shows that if (8) holds for F in the product form (30) with an error O ( n -c k ( ) ) , then it also holds for a general smooth function with an error O ( n -c ) , where the implicit constant in O · ( ) depends on k and on the C 2 k +1 -norm of F , and the constant c &gt; 0 depends on k .

To resolve eigenvalues on their natural scale we consider the rescaling f z 0 ( z ) := nf ( √ n z ( -z 0 )) andcomparethelinear statistics n -1 ∑ i f z 0 ( σ i ) and n -1 ∑ i f z 0 ( ˜ σ i ) , with σ , σ i ˜ i being the eigenvalues of X and of the comparison Ginibre ensemble ˜ X , respectively. For convenience we may normalize both linear statistics by their deterministic approximation from the local law (13) which, according to (14) is given by

$$\frac { 1 } { n } \sum _ { i } f _ { z _ { 0 } } ( \sigma _ { i } ) \approx \frac { 1 } { \pi } \int _ { \mathbf D } f _ { z _ { 0 } } ( z ) \, \mathrm d z, \\ \text{teq} \, & \, \text{th unit} \, \text{dick of the main} \, \text{lana}$$

where D denotes the unit disk of the complex plane.

Proposition 4. Let k ∈ N and z , . . . , z 1 k ∈ C be such that | z j | 2 = 1 for all j ∈ [ k ] , and let f (1) , . . . , f ( k ) be smooth compactly supported test functions. Denote the eigenvalues of an i.i.d. matrix X satisfying Assumptions (A)-(B) and a corresponding real or

$$& \text{EDGE UNIVERSALITY FOR NON-HERMITIAN RANDOM MATRICES} \quad \text{$12$} \\ \text{complex Ginibre matrix $\widetilde{X}$ by $\{\sigma_{i}\}_{i=1}^{n}$, $\{\widetilde{\sigma}_{i}\}_{i=1}^{n}$, Then we have the bound} \\ & \text{E} \left [ \prod _ { j = 1 } ^ { k } \left ( \frac { 1 } { n } \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { n } f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( \sigma _ { i } ) - \frac { 1 } { \pi } \int _ { \mathrm D } f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( z ) \, d z \right ) \\ & \text{-} \prod _ { j = 1 } ^ { k } \left ( \frac { 1 } { n } \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { n } f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( \widetilde { \sigma } _ { i } ) - \frac { 1 } { \pi } \int _ { \mathrm D } f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( z ) \, d z \right ) \right ] = \mathcal { O } ( n ^ { - c ( k ) } ), \\ \text{for some small constant $c(k)$ > 0, where the implicit multiplicative constant in $\mathcal{O}(\cdot)$} \\ \text{depends on the norms $\|\Delta f^{(j)}\|_{1}, j = 1, 2, \dots, k.$}$$

for some small constant c k ( ) &gt; 0 , where the implicit multiplicative constant in O · ( ) depends on the norms ‖ ∆ f ( j ) ‖ 1 , j = 1 2 , , . . . , k .

Proof of Theorem 1. Theorem 1 follows directly from Proposition 4 by the de/uniFB01nition of the k -point correlation function in (6), the exclusion-inclusion principle and the bound

The remainder of this section is devoted to the proof of Proposition 4. We now /uniFB01x some k ∈ N and some z , . . . , z 1 k , f (1) , . . . , f ( k ) as in Proposition 4. All subsequent estimates in this section, also if not explicitly stated, hold true uniformly for any z in an order n -1 2 / -neighborhood of z , . . . , z 1 k . In order to prove (32), we use Girko's formula (14) to write

$$\left | \frac { 1 } { \pi } \int _ { D } f _ { z _ { 0 } } ( z ) \, d z \right | \lesssim 1. \quad \right \rangle \\ \text{this section is devoted to the proof of Proposition 4. We now fix} \\ \text{e} \, z _ { 1 }, \dots, \, z _ { k }, \, f ^ { ( 1 ) }, \dots, \, f ^ { ( k ) } \text{ as in Proposition 4. All subsequent}$$

$$\begin{array} { c } \cdot \cdot \cdot \\ \frac { 1 } { n } \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { n } f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( \sigma _ { i } ) - \frac { 1 } { \pi } \int _ { \mathbf D } f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( z ) \, \mathrm d z = I _ { 1 } ^ { ( j ) } + I _ { 2 } ^ { ( j ) } + I _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) } + I _ { 4 } ^ { ( j ) }, \end{array}$$

where

$$\text{where} \\ I _ { 1 } ^ { ( j ) } \coloneqq \frac { 1 } { 4 \pi n } \int _ { C } \Delta f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( z ) \log | \det ( H ^ { z } - i T ) | \, d z \\ I _ { 2 } ^ { ( j ) } \coloneqq - \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int _ { C } \Delta f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( z ) \int _ { 0 } ^ { \eta _ { 0 } } \left [ \langle \Im G ^ { z } ( i \eta ) \rangle - \Im \widehat { m } ^ { z } ( i \eta ) \right ] \, d \eta \, d z \\ I _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) } \coloneqq - \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int _ { C } \Delta f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( z ) \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \left [ \langle \Im G ^ { z } ( i \eta ) \rangle - \Im \widehat { m } ^ { z } ( i \eta ) \right ] \, d \eta \, d z \\ I _ { 4 } ^ { ( j ) } \coloneqq + \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int _ { C } \Delta f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( z ) \int _ { T } ^ { + \infty } \left ( \Im \widehat { m } ^ { z } ( i \eta ) - \frac { 1 } { \eta + 1 } \right ) d \eta \, d z, \\ \text{with } \eta _ { 0 } \coloneqq n ^ { - 3 / 4 - \delta }, \, \text{for some small fixed } \delta > 0, \, \text{and for some very large } T > 0, \, \text{say} \\ T \coloneqq n ^ { 1 0 0 } \text{.} \, \text{We define } \tilde { I } _ { 1 } ^ { ( j ) }, \, \tilde { I } _ { 2 } ^ { ( j ) }, \, \tilde { I } _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) }, \, \tilde { I } _ { 4 } ^ { ( j ) } \text{ analogously for the Ginibre ensemble by} \\ \text{$\lambda \colon \infty \infty $} \, H ^ { z } \coloneqq \tilde { I } ^ { z } \coloneqq \tilde { I } ^ { z } \coloneqq \tilde { I } ^ { z } \coloneqq \tilde { I } ^ { z }$$

Proof of Proposition 4. The /uniFB01rst step in the proof of Proposition 4 is the reduction to a corresponding statement about the I 3 -part in (33), as summarized in the following lemma.

with η 0 := n -3 4 / -δ , for some small /uniFB01xed δ &gt; 0 , and for some very large T &gt; 0 , say T := n 100 . We de/uniFB01ne ˜ I ( j ) 1 , ˜ I ( j ) 2 , ˜ I ( j ) 3 , ˜ I ( j ) 4 analogously for the Ginibre ensemble by replacing H z by ˜ H z and G z by ˜ G z .

Lemma 1. Let k ≥ 1 , let I (1) 3 , . . . , I ( k ) 3 be the integrals de/uniFB01ned in (33) , with η 0 = n -3 4 / -δ , for some small /uniFB01xed δ &gt; 0 , and let ˜ I (1) 3 , . . . , I ˜ ( k ) 3 be de/uniFB01ned as in (33) replacing

$$& \quad \text{EDGE UNIVERSALITY FOR NON-HERMITIAN RANDOM MATTICES} \\ m ^ { z } & \text{ with } \widetilde { m } ^ { z }. \text{ Then}, \\ \mathfrak { E } & \left [ \prod _ { j = 1 } ^ { k } \left ( \frac { 1 } { n } \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { n } f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( \sigma _ { i } ) - \frac { 1 } { \pi } \int _ { \mathbf D } f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( z ) \, \mathrm d z \right ) - \prod _ { j = 1 } ^ { k } \left ( \frac { 1 } { n } \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { n } f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( \widetilde { \sigma } _ { i } ) - \frac { 1 } { \pi } \int _ { \mathbf D } f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( z ) \, \mathrm d z \right ) \right ] \\ & = \mathfrak { E } \left [ \prod _ { j = 1 } ^ { k } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) } - \prod _ { j = 1 } ^ { k } \widetilde { I } _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) } \right ] + \mathcal { O } \left ( n ^ { - c _ { 2 } ( k, \delta ) } \right ), \\ & \text{for some small constant } c _ { 2 } ( k, \delta ) > 0.$$

for some small constant c 2 ( k, δ ) &gt; 0 .

In order to conclude the proof of Proposition 4, due to Lemma 1, it only remains to prove that for any /uniFB01xed k with some small constant c k ( ) &gt; 0 , where we recall the de/uniFB01nition of I 3 and the corresponding ˜ I 3 for Ginibre from (33). The proof of (35) is similar to the Green function comparison proof in Proposition 3 but more involved due to the fact that we compare products of resolvents and that we have an additional η -integration. Here we de/uniFB01ne the observable

$$\intertext { a v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p o v o n u e n p h o u e n p o v o n u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u e n p h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u v o n u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h u e n t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o v o n u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o v o n o t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h ou t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o { o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t i t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t ho u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h O u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h o u t h }$$

$$& \text{Here we define the observable} \\ & Z _ { t } \coloneqq \prod _ { j \in [ k ] } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) } ( t ) \coloneqq \prod _ { j \in [ k ] } \left ( - \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int _ { C } \Delta f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( z ) \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \Im \langle G _ { t } ^ { z } ( \imath \eta ) - M ^ { z } ( \imath \eta ) \rangle \, d \eta \, \text{d} z \right ), \\ & \text{where we recall that } G _ { z } ^ { z } ( u ) \coloneqq ( H _ { z } ^ { z } - u ) ^ { - 1 } \, \text{with } H _ { z } ^ { z } = H _ { \L } \, \text{as in } L _ { \L } \in L _ { \L } ).$$

where we recall that G z t ( w ) := ( H z t -w ) -1 with H z t = H t as in (20).

$$\ t h a t & & \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \\ & | \mathbf E [ Z _ { t _ { 2 } } - Z _ { t _ { 1 } } ] | \lesssim \left ( e ^ { - 3 t _ { 0 } / 2 } - e ^ { - 3 t _ { 1 } / 2 } \right ) \frac { n ^ { \xi } } { n ^ { 5 / 2 } \eta _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } } \prod _ { j } \| \Delta f ^ { ( j ) } \| _ { 1 } \\ \ u n i f o r m l y \ i n \ 0 \leq t _ { 1 } < t _ { 2 } \leq + \infty \ \text{with the convention that } e ^ { - \infty } = 0.$$

Lemma 2. For any n -1 ≤ η 0 ≤ n -3 4 / and T = n 100 and any small ξ &gt; 0 it holds that uniformly in 0 ≤ t 1 &lt; t 2 ≤ + ∞ with the convention that e -∞ = 0 .

Since Z 0 = ∏ j I ( j ) 3 and Z ∞ = ∏ ˜ j I ( j ) 3 , the proof of Proposition 4 follows directly from (35), modulo the proofs of Lemmata 1-2 that will be given in the next two subsections. /square

4.1. Proof of Lemma 1. In order to estimate the probability that there exists an eigenvalue of H z very close to zero, we use the following proposition that has been proven in [3, Prop. 5.7] adapting the proof of [9, Lemma 4.12].

Proposition 5. Under Assumption (B) there exists a constant C &gt; 0 , depending only on

α , such that for all u &gt; 0 and z ∈ C .

$$\ell _ { \quad \ \ } \cdots \quad \Phi \left ( \min _ { i \in [ 2 n ] } | \lambda _ { i } ^ { z } | \leq \frac { u } { n } \right ) \leq C u ^ { \frac { 2 \alpha } { 1 + \alpha } } n ^ { \beta + 1 }, \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
 \quad \text{and} \, z \in \mathbf C.$$

In the following lemma we prove a very high probability bound for I ( j ) 1 , I ( j ) 2 , I ( j ) 3 , I ( j ) 4 . The same bounds hold true for ˜ I ( j ) 1 , ˜ I ( j ) 2 , ˜ I ( j ) 3 , ˜ I ( j ) 4 as well. These bounds in the bulk regime were already proven in [3, Proof of Theorem 2.5], the current edge regime is analogous, so we only provide a sketch of the proof for completeness.

## Lemma 3. For any j ∈ [ k ] the bounds

$$| I _ { 1 } ^ { ( j ) } | & \leq \frac { n ^ { 1 + \xi } \| \Delta f ^ { ( j ) } \| _ { 1 } } { T ^ { 2 } }, \quad | I _ { 2 } ^ { ( j ) } | + | I _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) } | \leq n ^ { \xi } \| \Delta f ^ { ( j ) } \| _ { 1 }, \quad | I _ { 4 } ^ { ( j ) } | \leq \frac { n \| \Delta f ^ { ( j ) } \| _ { 1 } } { T }, \\ \underset { \underset { \underset { \text{$i\lambda$} } { \text{$the$by$ high probability for any $\xi$ > 0. The bounds analogous to $(39)$ also hold for} } }$$

Proof. For notational convenience we do not carry the j -dependence of I ( j ) l and f ( j ) , and the dependence of λ , H, G, M, m i ̂ on z within this proof. Using that hold with very high probability for any ξ &gt; 0 . The bounds analogous to (39) also hold for ˜ I ( j ) l .

$$\log | \det ( H - i T ) | = 2 n \log T + \sum _ { j \in [ n ] } \log \left ( 1 + \frac { \lambda _ { j } ^ { 2 } } { T ^ { 2 } } \right ),$$

we easily estimate | I 1 | as follows

$$| I _ { 1 } | & =$$

for any ξ &gt; 0 with very high probability owing to the high moment bound (3). By (9) it follows that |/Ifractur ̂ m z (i η ) -( η +1) -1 | ∼ η -2 for large η , proving also the bound on I 4 in (39). The bound for I 3 follows immediately from the averaged local law in (13). For the I estimate we split the η -integral of /Ifractur m z (i η ) -/Ifractur m z (i η ) in I as follows

$$& \quad \quad \quad$$

2 ̂ 2

where l ∈ N is a large /uniFB01xed integer. Using (10) we /uniFB01nd that the third term in (40) is bounded by n - -1 δ . Choosing l large enough, it follows, as in [3, Eq. (5.35)], using the bound (38) that

$$\frac { 1 } { n } \$$

with very high probability for any ξ &gt; 0 . Alternatively, this bound also follows from (5) without Assumption (B), circumventing Proposition 5, see Remark 1. For the second term in (40) we de/uniFB01ne η 1 := n -3 4+ / ξ with some very small ξ &gt; 0 and using

log(1 + x ) ≤ x we write

$$\log ( 1 + x ) \le$$

by the averaged local law in (13), and 〈/Ifractur M z (i η 1 ) 〉 /lessorsimilar η 1 3 / 1 from (10). Here from the second to third line in (42) we used that

$$| \{ i \, |$$

again by the local law. By rede/uniFB01ning ξ , this concludes the high probability bound on I 2 in (39), and thereby the proof of the lemma. /square

In the following lemma we prove an improved bound for I ( j ) 2 , compared with (39), which holds true only in expectation. The main input of the following lemma is the stronger lower tail estimate on λ i , in the regime | λ i | ≥ n -l , from (15) instead of (43).

Lemma 4. Let I ( j ) 2 be de/uniFB01ned in (33) , then for any j ∈ { 1 , . . . , k } .

$$\ v e \ u e { J u n e a n v s }, \, \ n e$$

Proof. We split the η -integral of /Ifractur m z (i η ) - /Ifractur ̂ m z (i η ) as in (40). The third term in the r.h.s. of (40) is of order n - -1 4 δ/ 3 . Then, we estimate the /uniFB01rst term in the r.h.s. of (40) as

$$\intertext { e r. m. o u } & \text{$u$}, \$$

where in the last inequality we use (38) with u = e -t n . Note that by (15) it follows that

Hence, by (46), using similar computations to (42), we conclude that

$$\Gamma ( 4 6 ), \, \text{using similar computations to } ( 4 2$$

$$\begin{array} {$$

Note that the only di/uniFB00erence to prove (47) respect to (42) is that the /uniFB01rst term in the /uniFB01rst line of the r.h.s. of (42) is estimated using (46) instead of (43). Finally, choosing l ≥ α -1 (3 + β )(1 + α ) + 2 , and combining (45), (47) we conclude (44). /square

Equipped with Lemmata 3-4, we now present the proof of Lemma 1.

Proof of Lemma 1. Using the de/uniFB01nitions for I ( j ) 1 , I ( j ) 2 , I ( j ) 3 , I ( j ) 4 in (33), and similar de/uniFB01nitions for I ( j ) 1 , I ( j ) 2 , I ( j ) 3 , I ( j ) 4 , we conclude that

Then, if j 2 ≥ 1 , by Lemma 3 and Lemma 4, using that T = n 100 in the de/uniFB01nition of I ( j ) 1 , . . . , I ( j ) 4 in (33), it follows that

$$\text{Pow for Lemma } 1. \, \text{Using the definitions for } I$$

$$& \iota _ { 1 } ^ { - } \cdot, \dots, \iota _ { 4 } ^ { - } \text{ in } 3 3 h, \i t o l o w s \ t n a r \\ & \mathbf E \prod _ { \substack { i _ { l } = 1, \\ l = 1, 2, 3, 4 } } ^ { j _ { l } } I _ { 1 } ^ { ( i _ { 1 } ) } I _ { 2 } ^ { ( i _ { 2 } ) } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( i _ { 3 } ) } I _ { 4 } ^ { ( i _ { 4 } ) } \lesssim \frac { n ^ { j _ { 1 } + j _ { 4 } } n ^ { ( k - j _ { 4 } - 1 ) \xi } \prod _ { j = 1 } ^ { k } \| \Delta f ^ { ( j ) } \| _ { 1 } } { n ^ { \delta / 3 } T ^ { 2 j _ { 1 } + j _ { 4 } } } \leq n ^ { - c _ { 2 } ( k, \delta ) }, \\ & \cdot \quad \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \end{$$

for any j 1 , j 3 , j 4 ≥ 0 , and a small constant c ( 2 k, δ ) &gt; 0 which only depends on k, δ . If, instead, j 2 = 0 , then at least one among j 1 and j 4 is not zero, since 0 ≤ j 3 ≤ k -1 and j 1 + j 2 + j 3 + j 4 = k . Assume j 1 ≥ 1 , the case j 4 ≥ 1 is completely analogous, then

$$\text{then} \quad \text{E} \, \prod _ { \substack { i _ { l } = 1, \\ l = 1, 2, 3, 4 } } ^ { j _ { l } } I _ { 1 } ^ { ( i _ { 1 } ) } I _ { 2 } ^ { ( i _ { 2 } ) } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( i _ { 3 } ) } I _ { 4 } ^ { ( i _ { 4 } ) } \lesssim \frac { n ^ { j _ { 1 } + j _ { 4 } } n ^ { ( k - j _ { 4 } ) \xi } \prod _ { j = 1 } ^ { k } \| \Delta f ^ { ( j ) } \| _ { 1 } } { T ^ { 2 j _ { 1 } + j _ { 4 } } } \leq n ^ { - c _ { 2 } ( k, \delta ) }.$$

Since similar bounds hold true for ˜ I ( i 1 ) 1 , I ˜ ( i 2 ) 2 , I ˜ ( i 3 ) 3 , I ˜ ( i 4 ) 4 as well, the above inequalities conclude the proof of (34). /square

4.2. Proof of Lemma 2. We begin with a lemma generalizing the bound in (39) to derivatives of I ( j ) 3 .

/negationslash

$$& \text{have the bounds} \\ & \quad | \partial _ { \gamma } ^ { l } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) } ( t ) | \lesssim \left \| \Delta f ^ { ( j ) } \right \| _ { 1 } n ^ { \xi } \left ( \frac { 1 } { ( n \eta _ { 0 } ) ^ { \min \{ l, 2 \} } } + 1 \left ( a \equiv b + n \pmod { 2 n } \right ) \right ), \\ & \text{where } \partial _ { \gamma } ^ { l } \colon = \partial _ { \gamma _ { 1 } } \dots \partial _ { \gamma _ { l } }, \, \text{with very high probability uniformly in $t\geq 0$}.$$

Lemma 5. Assume n -1 ≤ η 0 ≤ n -3 4 / and /uniFB01x l ≥ 0 , j ∈ [ k ] and a double index α = ( a, b ) such that a = b . Then, for any choice of γ i ∈ { α, α ′ } and any ξ &gt; 0 we have the bounds where ∂ l γ := ∂ γ 1 . . . ∂ γ l , with very high probability uniformly in t ≥ 0 .

Proof. Weomit the t - and z -dependence of G z t , ̂ m z within this proof since all bounds hold uniformly in t ≥ 0 and | z -z j | /lessorsimilar n -1 2 / . We also omit the η -argument from these functions, but the η -dependence of all estimates will explicitly be indicated. Note that the l = 0 case was already proven in (39). We now separately consider the remaining cases l = 1 and l ≥ 2 . For notational simplicity we neglect the n ξ multiplicative error factors (with arbitrarily small exponents ξ &gt; 0 ) applications of the local law (13) within the proof. In particular we will repeatedly use (13) in the form

/negationslash

$$& \text{the local law } ( \mathfrak { I } ) \text{ with in the proof. In particular we will repeatedly use } ( \mathfrak { I } ) \text{ in the form} \\ & \quad | G _ { b a } | \lesssim \begin{cases} 1, & a \equiv b + n \pmod { 2 n }, \\ \psi, & a \not \equiv b + n \pmod { 2 n }, \end{cases} \quad G _ { b b } = \widehat { m } + \mathcal { O } ( \psi ), \\ & \quad | \widehat { m } | \lesssim \min \{ 1, \eta ^ { 1 / 3 } + n ^ { - 1 / 4 } \}, \end{cases}$$

where we de/uniFB01ned the parameter

$$\psi \coloneqq \frac { 1 } { n \eta } + \frac { 1 } { n ^ { 1 / 2 } \eta ^ { 1 / 3 } }.$$

$$| \widehat { m } | & \lesssim \min \{ 1, \eta ^ { 1 / 3 } + n ^ { - 1 / 4 } \}, \\ \text{we defined the parameter} \\ & \psi \coloneqq \frac { 1 } { } + \frac { 1 } { }$$

Case l = 1 . This follows directly from where in the last step we used ‖ G T (i ) ‖ ≤ T -1 = n -100 and (49). Since this bound is uniform in z we may bound the remaining integral by n ‖ ∆ f ( j ) ‖ 1 , proving (48).

$$Case l = 1. \text{   This follows directly from} \\ \left | \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \langle G \Delta ^ { a b } G \rangle \, d \eta \right | & = | * \frac { 1 } { n } \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } G _ { b a } ^ { 2 } \, d \eta | = \frac { | G ( i T ) _ { a b } - G ( i \eta _ { 0 } ) _ { a b } | } { n } \\ & \lesssim \frac { 1 } { n ^ { 2 } \eta _ { 0 } } + \frac { 1 } { n } 1 \left ( a \equiv b + n \pmod { 2 n } \right ), \\ \text{where in the last step we used } \| G ( i T ) \| \leq T ^ { - 1 } = n ^ { - 1 0 0 } \text{ and } ( 4 9 ). \text{ Since this bound} \\ \text{is uniform in } z \, \text{ we may bound the remaining} \text{ interval } h v \, n \| \Lambda \, f ^ { ( j ) } \|.. \text{ nrovision } ( 4 8 ).$$

Case l ≥ 2 . For the case l ≥ 2 there are many assignments of γ i 's to consider, e.g.

but all are of the form that there are two G -factors carrying the independent summation index c . In the case that a ≡ b + n (mod 2 n ) wesimply bound all remaining G -factors by 1 using (49) and use a simple Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to obtain

$$& \text{Case } l \geq 2. \text{ } \text{ for the case } l \geq 2 \text{ there are many assignments of } \gamma _ { i } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } ^ { \cdot } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{\ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text
 & \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{  \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{} \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{
 & \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \end{ \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{\} \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{\{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \end{}$$

$$& G { - t a c t o r s } \, by 1 \, \text{ using } ( 4 9 ) \, \text{ and use a simple Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to obtain } \\ & \quad | \partial _ { \gamma } ^ { l } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) } | \lesssim \int _ { \mathbb { C } } | \Delta f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( z ) | \frac { 1 } { n } \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \sum _ { c } \left ( | G _ { c b } | ^ { 2 } + | G _ { c a } | ^ { 2 } \right ) \, \mathrm d \eta \, \mathrm d z. \quad \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \ \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \ \,\quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \,
Now \, \text{ it follows from the Ward-identity }$$

Now it follows from the Ward-identity

$$G G ^ { * } = G ^ { * } G = \frac { \Im G } { \eta }$$

$$& \text{and the very crude bound } | G _ { a a } | \lesssim 1 \, \text{from} \, ( 4 9 ) \, \text{and} \, | \widehat { m } | \lesssim 1, \text{that} \\ & \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \sum _ { c } \left ( | G _ { c b } | ^ { 2 } + | G _ { c a } | ^ { 2 } \right ) \text{d} \eta = \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \frac { | ( \Im G ) _ { a a } | + | ( \Im G ) _ { b b } | } { \eta } \, \text{d} \eta \lesssim \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \frac { 1 } { \eta } \, \text{d} \eta \lesssim \log n. \\ & \text{By estimating the remaining $z$-integral in $(\sigma)$ by $n$} \| \Delta f ^ { ( j ) } \| \text{ the claimed bound in $(48)$} )$$

By estimating the remaining z -integral in (50) by n ∥ ∥ ∆ f ( j ) ∥ ∥ the claimed bound in (48) for a = b + n (mod 2 n ) follows.

/negationslash

G ca G G bb aa G bc = ̂ m G 2 ca G bc + ̂ mG G ca bc O ( ψ ) + G ca G bc O ( ψ 2 ) , where in all but the /uniFB01rst term we gained at least a factor of ψ . Using Cauchy-Schwarz as before we thus have the bound

In the case a ≡ b + n (mod 2 n ) we can use (49) to gain a factor of ψ for some G ab or G bb -̂ m in all assignments except for the one in which all but two G -factors are diagonal, and those G aa , G bb -factors are replaced by ̂ m . For example, we would expand

$$\text{as before we thus have the bound} \\ | \partial _ { \gamma } ^ { l } | _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) } | & \lesssim \int _ { \mathrm C } \frac { | \Delta f _ { z _ { j } } ^ { ( j ) } ( z ) | } { n } \left ( \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \psi \sum _ { \mathrm c } \left ( | G _ { c b } | ^ { 2 } + | G _ { c a } | ^ { 2 } \right ) \mathrm d \eta \\ & \quad + \left | \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } ( \widehat { m } ) ^ { l - 1 } ( G ^ { 2 } ) _ { a a } \mathrm d \eta \right | + \left | \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } ( \widehat { m } ) ^ { l - 1 } ( G ^ { 2 } ) _ { a b } \mathrm d \eta \right | \right ) \mathrm d z, \\ \text{where, strictly speaking, the second and third terms are only present for even, or} \\ \text{respectively odd, $l$. For the first term in $(s_{2}$ we again proceed by applying the Ward} \\ \colon \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots$$

∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ where, strictly speaking, the second and third terms are only present for even, or respectively odd, l . For the /uniFB01rst term in (52) we again proceed by applying the Ward identity (51), and (49) to obtain the bound

$$\text{identity} \left ( \mathfrak { s } \right ), \text{and} \left ( \mathfrak { m } { 9 } \right ) \text{ to obtain the bound} \\ \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \psi \sum _ { c } \left ( | G _ { c b } | ^ { 2 } + | G _ { c a } | ^ { 2 } \right ) \mathrm d \eta & = \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \psi \frac { | ( \Im G ) _ { a a } | + | ( \Im G ) _ { b b } | } { \eta } \, \mathrm d \eta \\ & \lesssim \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \frac { \psi ( \psi + \eta ^ { 1 / 3 } ) } { \eta } \, \mathrm d \eta \lesssim \frac { \log n } { ( n \eta _ { 0 } ) ^ { 2 } }. \\ \text{For the second and third terms in} \left ( \mathfrak { s } \right ) \text{ we use} \, \mathfrak { i } G ^ { 2 } = G ^ { \prime }, \text{ where prime denotes} \, \partial _ { \eta }, \text{ and}$$

For the second and third terms in (52) we use i G 2 = G ′ , where prime denotes ∂ η , and integration by parts, | m ′ | /lessorsimilar η -2 3 / from (12), and (49) to obtain the bounds

$$& \text{for the second and third terms in $(2)$ we use i} G ^ { 2 } = G ^ { \prime }, \text{where prime denotes $\partial_{\eta}$, and} \\ & \text{integration by parts, | \widehat { m } ^ { \prime } | \lesssim \eta ^ { - 2 / 3 } \text{ from (12), and (49) to obtain the bounds} \\ & \left | \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } ( \widehat { m } ) ^ { l - 1 } ( G ^ { 2 } ) _ { a a } \, d \eta \right | \lesssim \left | \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \widehat { m } ^ { \prime } ( \widehat { m } ) ^ { l - 2 } G _ { a a } \, d \eta \right | \\ & \quad + | ( \widehat { m } ( \eta _ { 0 } ) ) ^ { l - 1 } G ( \eta _ { 0 } ) _ { a a } | + | ( \widehat { m } ( \i T ) ) ^ { l - 1 } G ( \i T ) _ { a a } | \\ & \lesssim \left | \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \widehat { m } ^ { \prime } ( \widehat { m } ) ^ { l - 1 } \, d \eta \right | + \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } | \widehat { m } ^ { \prime } | \psi \, d \eta + \frac { 1 } { n ^ { 1 / 4 } ( \eta _ { 0 } ) } \\ & \lesssim \frac { \log n } { n ^ { 1 / 4 } ( \eta _ { 0 } ) } \\ & \text{and} \\ & \quad \text{--}$$

and

$$& \ln the \text{explicit deterministic term we performed an integration and estimated} \\ & \left | \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \widehat { m } ^ { \prime } ( \widehat { m } ) ^ { l - 1 } \, \mathrm d \eta \right | \lesssim | \widehat { m } ( \mathrm i \eta _ { 0 } ) | ^ { l } + | \widehat { m } ( \mathrm i T ) | ^ { l } \lesssim n ^ { - l / 4 } + n ^ { - 1 0 0 } \leq n ^ { - 1 / 2 }. \\ & \text{The claim } ( 4 8 ) \, \text{for } l \geq 2 \text{ and } a \not \equiv b + n \text{ (mod } 2 n ) \text{ now follows from estimating the} \\ & \text{remaining } z \text{-integral in } ( \mathrm s _ { 2 } ) \, \text{by } n \| \Delta f ^ { ( j ) } \|, \quad \square$$

$$& u \quad \ v \quad \ v \quad \\ \text{and} \\ & \left$$

/negationslash

∣ ∣ The claim (48) for l ≥ 2 and a ≡ b + n (mod 2 n ) now follows from estimating the remaining z -integral in (52) by n ∥ ∥ ∆ f ( j ) ∥ ∥ 1 . /square

Proof of Lemma 2. By (20) and Ito's Lemma it follows that where we recall the de/uniFB01nition of κ t in (23). In fact, the point-wise estimate from Lemma5 gives a su/uniFB03ciently strong bound for most terms in the cumulant expansion, the few remaining terms will be computed more carefully.

$$\text{Proof of Lemma 2. By (2o) and Ito's Lemma it$$

In the cumulant expansion (25) of (53) the second order terms cancel exactly and we now separately estimate the third-, fourth- and higher order terms.

Order three terms. For the third order, when computing ∂ α ∂ β 1 ∂ β 2 Z t through the Leibniz rule we have to consider all possible assignments of derivatives ∂ α , ∂ β 1 , ∂ β 2 to the factors I (1) 3 , . . . , I ( k ) 3 . Since the particular functions f ( j ) and complex parameters z j play no role in the argument, there is no loss in generality in considering only the assignments

$$\begin{array} {$$

for the second and third term of which we obtain a bound of

/negationslash

/negationslash

$$& \text{for the second and third term of which we obtain a bound of} \\ & \text$$

using Lemma 5 and the cumulant scaling (24). Note that the condition a = b in the lemma is ensured by the fact that for a = b the cumulants κ t ( α, β 1 , . . . ) vanish.

The /uniFB01rst term in (54) requires an additional argument. We write out all possible index allocations and claim that ultimately we obtain the same bound, as for the other two terms in (54), i.e.

where

$$\text{two terms in (54), i.e.} \\ & | \sum _ { \alpha$$

∣ ∣ Proof of (55) . Compared to the previous bound in Lemma 5 we now exploit the a, b summation via the isotropic structure of the bound in the local law (59). We have the

$$\begin{array} {$$

simple bounds

$$\text{simpleDouglas} \frac { | \langle x, \Im G x \r$$

$$s \, a \, \text{consequence of the Ward identity} \, ( s _ {$$

as a consequence of the Ward identity (51) and using (13) and (10). For the /uniFB01rst term in (56) we can thus use (57) and (51) to obtain

$$\lesssim n ^ { \xi } \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ {$$

where e a denotes the a -th standard basis vector,

$$\mathbf 1 _ { + } \coloneqq ( 1, \dots, 1, 0$$

$$\text{cnav} z \text{ inequality for } \L o s \text{-sumau} \text{in } \L o n \text{ integras after esumating } \L n \, \rightharpoonup \text{-s-s-s} \\ \text{terms using } \L ( \text{$57$} ). \text{Finally, for the third term in } \L ( \text{$5$} ) \, \text{we split both } G _ { a a } = \widehat { m } + \mathcal { O } ( \psi ) \text{ to estimate} \\ \left | \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \sum _ { a b } ( G ^ { 2 } ) _ { a b } G _ { a a } G _ { b b } \, \text{d} \eta \right | \\ \lesssim \, & n ^ { \xi } \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } n ^ { 3 } \psi ^ { 4 } \, \text{d} \eta + \sum _ { a } \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } | \widehat { m } \langle e _ { a }, G ^ { 2 } 1 _ { s ( a ) } \rangle \psi | \, \text{d} \eta + \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } | \widehat { m } ^ { 2 } \langle 1 _ { + }, G ^ { 2 } 1 _ { - } \rangle | \, \text{d} \eta \\ \lesssim \, & \frac { n ^ { \xi } } { n \eta _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } } + n ^ { \xi } \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } n ^ { 5 / 2 } \psi ^ { 3 } \, \text{d} \eta + n ^ { \xi } \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { T } \frac { n ^ { 2 } \psi ^ { 2 } } { 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } } \, \text{d} \eta \lesssim \frac { n ^ { \xi } } { n \eta _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } }, \\ \text{using} ( \text{$57$} ). \text{In the last integral we used that } | \widehat { m } | \lesssim ( 1 + \eta ) ^ { - 1 } \text{ to ensure the integrability} \\ \text{in the large } n \text{-regime. } \text{Inserting these estimates on } \L ( \text{$5$} ) \text{ into } \L ( \text{$5$} ) \text{ and estimating} \text{ the}$$

are vectors of n ones and zeros, respectively, of norm ‖ 1 ± ‖ = √ n and s a ( ) := -for a ≤ n , and s a ( ) := + for a &gt; n . Here in the second step we used a CauchySchwarz inequality for the a -summation in both integrals after estimating the G 2 -terms using (57). Finally, for the third term in (56) we split both G aa = ̂ m + O ( ψ ) and G bb = m + O ( ψ ) to estimate using (57). In the last integral we used that | ̂ m | /lessorsimilar (1+ η ) -1 to ensure the integrability in the large η -regime. Inserting these estimates on (56) into (55) and estimating the remaining integral by n ∥ ∥ ∆ f (1) ∥ ∥ 1 completes the proof of (55). /square

Order four terms. For the fourth-order Leibniz rule we have to consider the assignments for all of which we obtain a bound of

$$& \text{Order four terms.   For the fourth-order Leibniz rule we have to consider the assign-} \\ & \text{ments} \\ & \left ( \partial _ { \alpha, \beta _ { 1 }, \beta _ { 2 }, \beta _ { 3 } } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( 1 ) } \right ) \prod _ { j > 1 } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) }, \ \left ( \partial _ { \alpha, \beta _ { 1 }, \beta _ { 2 } } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( 1 ) } \right ) \left ( \partial _ { \beta _ { 3 } } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( 2 ) } \right ) \prod _ { j > 2 } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) }, \\ & \left ( \partial _ { \alpha, \beta _ { 1 } } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( 1 ) } \right ) \left ( \partial _ { \beta _ { 2 }, \beta _ { 3 } } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( 2 ) } \right ) \prod _ { j > 2 } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) }, \ \left ( \partial _ { \alpha, \beta _ { 1 } } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( 1 ) } \right ) \left ( \partial _ { \beta _ { 2 } } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( 2 ) } \right ) \left ( \partial _ { \beta _ { 3 } } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( 3 ) } \right ) \prod _ { j > 3 } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) }, \\ & \left ( \partial _ { \alpha, \beta _ { 1 } } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( 1 ) } \right ) \left ( \partial _ { \beta _ { 2 } } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( 2 ) } \right ) \left ( \partial _ { \beta _ { 2 } } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( 3 ) } \right ) \left ( \partial _ { \beta _ { 3 } } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( 4 ) } \right ) \prod _ { j > 4 } I _ { 3 } ^ { ( j ) }, \\ & \text{for all of which we obtain a bound of} \\ & \_ \varepsilon _ { \_ - 2 t }$$

again using Lemma 5 and (24).

$$\Gamma \text{ou} _ { \substack { n ^ { \xi } e ^ { - 2 t } \\ \frac { n ^ { 2 } \eta _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } } { n ^ { 2 } \eta _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } } } } \prod _ { j } \| \Delta f ^ { ( j ) } \| _ { 1 }, \\ 4 ).$$

Higher order terms. For terms order at least 5 , there is no need to additionally gain from any of the factors of I 3 and we simply bound all those, and their derivatives, by n ξ using Lemma 5. This results in a bound of n ξ - -( l 4) / 2 e -lt/ 2 ∏ ∥ j ∥ ∆ f ( j ) ∥ ∥ 1 for the terms of order l .

By combining the estimates on the terms of order three, four and higher order derivatives, and integrating in t we obtain the bound (37). This completes the proof of Lemma 2. /square

## Appendix A. Extension of the local law

Proof of Proposition 1. The statement follows directly from [4, Theorem 5.2] if η ≥ η 0 := n -3 4+ / /epsilon1 . For smaller η 1 , using ∂ G η (i η ) = i G 2 (i η ) , we write

$$\omega & \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \omega \quad \ome } \quad \langle x, [ G ( i \eta _ { 1 } ) - M ( i \eta _ { 1 } ) ] y \rangle & = \langle x, [ G ( i \eta _ { 0 } ) - M ( i \eta _ { 0 } ) ] y \rangle \\ & \quad + i \int _ { \eta _ { 0 } } ^ { \eta _ { 1 } } \langle x, [ G ^ { 2 } ( i \eta ) - M ^ { \prime } ( i \eta ) ] y \rangle \, \mathrm d \eta \\ \text{and estimate the first term using} \, \text{$the local law} \, \text{$hv} \, n ^ { - 1 / 4 + \xi$} \, \text{ For the second term} \, \text{we}$$

$$( 5 9 )$$

and estimate the /uniFB01rst term using the local law by n -1 4+ / ξ . For the second term we bound

$$\text{bound} & \\ & | \langle x, G ^ { 2 } y \rangle | \leq \sqrt { \langle x, G ^ { * } G x \rangle \langle y, G ^ { * } G y \rangle } = \frac { 1 } { \eta } \sqrt { \langle x, \Im G x \rangle \langle y, \Im G y \rangle }, \\ & | \langle x, M ^ { \prime } y \rangle | \lesssim \| x \| \| y \| \frac { 1 } { \alpha / \alpha }$$

$$| \langle x, M ^ { \prime } y \rangle | \lesssim \| x \| \| y \| \frac { 1 } { \eta ^ { 2 / 3 } }$$

↦

$$\int \nolimits ( x, G ( i \eta ) x ) & \leq \frac { \eta _ { 0 } } { \eta } \langle x, \Im G ( i \eta _ { 0 } ) x \rangle \prec \| x \| ^ { 2 } \Big ( \frac { \eta _ { 0 } ^ { 4 / 3 } } { \eta } + \frac { \eta _ { 0 } ^ { 2 / 3 } } { \eta n ^ { 1 / 2 } } \Big ) \lesssim \| x \| ^ { 2 } \frac { n ^ { 4 \epsilon / 3 } } { n \eta }. \\ \text{After integration we thus obtain a bound of } \| x \| \| \boldsymbol y \| n ^ { 4 \epsilon / 3 } / ( n \eta _ { 1 } ) \text{ which proves the}$$

from ‖ M ′ ‖ /lessorsimilar ( /Ifractur ̂ m ) -2 and (10), and use monotonicity of η → 〈 η x , /Ifractur G η (i ) x 〉 in the form

After integration we thus obtain a bound of ‖ x ‖‖ y ‖ n 4 /epsilon1/ 3 / nη ( 1 ) which proves the /uniFB01rst bound in (13). The second, averaged, bound in (13) follows directly from the /uniFB01rst one since below the scale η ≤ n -3 4 / there is no additional gain from the averaging, as compared to the isotropic bound.

In order to conclude the local law simultaneously in all z, η we use a standard grid argument . To do so, we choose a regular grid of z 's and η 's at a distance of, say, n -3

↦

and use Lipschitz continuity (with Lipschitz constant n 2 ) of ( η, z ) → G z (i η ) and a union bound over the exceptional events at each grid point. /square

## References

- 1 O. H. Ajanki, L. Erdős, and T. Krüger, Stability of the matrix Dyson equation and random matrices with correlations , Probab. Theory Related Fields 173 , 293-373 (2019), MR3916109 .
- 2 O. H. Ajanki, L. Erdős, and T. Krüger, Universality for general Wigner-type matrices , Probab. Theory Related Fields 169 , 667-727 (2017), MR3719056 .
- 3 J. Alt, L. Erdős, and T. Krüger, Local inhomogeneous circular law , Ann. Appl. Probab. 28 , 148-203 (2018), MR3770875 .
- 4 J. Alt, L. Erdős, and T. Krüger, Spectral radius of random matrices with independent entries , preprint (2019), arXiv:1907.13631 .
- 5 J. Alt, L. Erdős, T. Krüger, and D. Schröder, Correlated random matrices: Band rigidity and edge universality , Ann. Probab. 48 , 963-1001 (2020), MR4089499 .
- 6 Z. D. Bai, Circular law , Ann. Probab. 25 , 494-529 (1997), MR1428519 .
- 7 Z. D. Bai and Y. Q. Yin, Limiting behavior of the norm of products of random matrices and two problems of Geman-Hwang , Probab. Theory Related Fields 73 , 555-569 (1986), MR863545 .
- 8 C. Bordenave, P. Caputo, D. Chafaï, and K. Tikhomirov, On the spectral radius of a random matrix: An upper bound without fourth moment , Ann. Probab. 46 , 2268-2286 (2018), MR3813992 .
- 9 C. Bordenave and D. Chafaï, Around the circular law , Probab. Surv. 9 , 1-89 (2012), MR2908617 .
- 10 A. Borodin and C. D. Sinclair, The Ginibre ensemble of real random matrices and its scaling limits , Comm. Math. Phys. 291 , 177-224 (2009), MR2530159 .
- 11 P. Bourgade and G. Dubach, The distribution of overlaps between eigenvectors of Ginibre matrices , Probab. Theory Related Fields 177 , 397-464 (2020), MR4095019 .
- 12 P. Bourgade, L. Erdős, and H.-T. Yau, Edge universality of beta ensembles , Comm. Math. Phys. 332 , 261-353 (2014), MR3253704 .
- 13 P. Bourgade, L. Erdős, H.-T. Yau, and J. Yin, Universality for a class of random band matrices , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 21 , 739-800 (2017), MR3695802 .
- 14 P. Bourgade, H.-T. Yau, and J. Yin, Local circular law for random matrices , Probab. Theory Related Fields 159 , 545-595 (2014), MR3230002 .
- 15 P. Bourgade, H.-T. Yau, and J. Yin, Random band matrices in the delocalized phase, I: Quantum unique ergodicity and universality , preprint (2018), arXiv:1807.01559 .
- 16 P. Bourgade, H.-T. Yau, and J. Yin, The local circular law II: The edge case , Probab. Theory Related Fields 159 , 619-660 (2014), MR3230004 .
- 17 G. Cipolloni, L. Erdős, T. Krüger, and D. Schröder, Cusp universality for random matrices, II: The real symmetric case , Pure Appl. Anal. 1 , 615-707 (2019), MR4026551 .
- 18 G. Cipolloni, L. Erdős, and D. Schröder, Optimal lower bound on the least singular value of the shifted Ginibre ensemble , preprint (2019), arXiv:1908.01653 .
- 19 F. J. Dyson, A Brownian-motion model for the eigenvalues of a random matrix , J. Mathematical Phys. 3 , 1191-1198 (1962), MR148397 .
- 20 A. Edelman, The probability that a random real Gaussian matrix has k real eigenvalues, related distributions, and the circular law , J. Multivariate Anal. 60 , 203-232 (1997), MR1437734 .

- 21 A. Edelman, E. Kostlan, and M. Shub, How many eigenvalues of a random matrix are real? , J. Amer. Math. Soc. 7 , 247-267 (1994), MR1231689 .
- 22 L. Erdős, T. Krüger, and D. Schröder, Cusp universality for random matrices I: Local law and the complex Hermitian case , Comm. Math. Phys. 378 , 1203-1278 (2020), MR4134946 .
- 23 L. Erdős, T. Krüger, and D. Schröder, Random matrices with slow correlation decay , Forum Math. Sigma 7 , Paper No. e8, 89 (2019), MR3941370 .
- 24 L. Erdős, S. Péché, J. A. Ramírez, B. Schlein, and H.-T. Yau, Bulk universality for Wigner matrices , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 63 , 895-925 (2010), MR2662426 .
- 25 L. Erdős, B. Schlein, and H.-T. Yau, Universality of random matrices and local relaxation /uniFB02ow , Invent. Math. 185 , 75-119 (2011), MR2810797 .
- 26 L. Erdős and K. Schnelli, Universality for random matrix /uniFB02ows with time-dependent density , Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat. 53 , 1606-1656 (2017), MR3729630 .
- 27 L. Erdős and H.-T. Yau, A dynamical approach to random matrix theory , Vol. 28, Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics (Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York; American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2017), pp. ix+226, MR3699468 .
- 28 P. Forrester and T. Nagao, Eigenvalue statistics of the real Ginibre ensemble , Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 , 050603 (2007), PMID17930739 .
- 29 Y. V. Fyodorov, On statistics of bi-orthogonal eigenvectors in real and complex Ginibre ensembles: combining partial Schur decomposition with supersymmetry , Comm. Math. Phys. 363 , 579-603 (2018), MR3851824 .
- 30 S. Geman, The spectral radius of large random matrices , Ann. Probab. 14 , 1318-1328 (1986), MR866352 .
- 31 J. Ginibre, Statistical ensembles of complex, quaternion, and real matrices , J. Mathematical Phys. 6 , 440-449 (1965), MR173726 .
- 32 V. L. Girko, The circular law , Teor. Veroyatnost. i Primenen. 29 , 669-679 (1984), MR773436 .
- 33 W. Hachem, A. Hardy, and J. Najim, Large complex correlated Wishart matrices: The Pearcey kernel and expansion at the hard edge , Electron. J. Probab. 21 , Paper No. 1, 36 (2016), MR3485343 .
- 34 J. Huang, B. Landon, and H.-T. Yau, Bulk universality of sparse random matrices , J. Math. Phys. 56 , 123301, 19 (2015), MR3429490 .
- 35 K. Johansson, Universality of the local spacing distribution in certain ensembles of Hermitian Wigner matrices , Comm. Math. Phys. 215 , 683-705 (2001), MR1810949 .
- 36 E. Kanzieper and G. Akemann, Statistics of real eigenvalues in Ginibre's ensemble of random real matrices , Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 , 230201, 4 (2005), MR2185860 .
- 37 B. Landon and H.-T. Yau, Convergence of local statistics of Dyson Brownian motion , Comm. Math. Phys. 355 , 949-1000 (2017), MR3687212 .
- 38 B. Landon and H.-T. Yau, Edge statistics of Dyson Brownian motion , preprint (2017), arXiv:1712.03881 .
- 39 J. O. Lee and K. Schnelli, Edge universality for deformed Wigner matrices , Rev. Math. Phys. 27 , 1550018, 94 (2015), MR3405746 .
- 40 J. O. Lee and K. Schnelli, Local law and Tracy-Widom limit for sparse random matrices , Probab. Theory Related Fields 171 , 543-616 (2018), MR3800840 .
- 41 J. O. Lee and K. Schnelli, Tracy-Widom distribution for the largest eigenvalue of real sample covariance matrices with general population , Ann. Appl. Probab. 26 , 3786-3839 (2016), MR3582818 .

- 42 J. O. Lee, K. Schnelli, B. Stetler, and H.-T. Yau, Bulk universality for deformed Wigner matrices , Ann. Probab. 44 , 2349-2425 (2016), MR3502606 .
- 43 N. Lehmann and H.-J. Sommers, Eigenvalue statistics of random real matrices , Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 , 941-944 (1991), MR1121461 .
- 44 M. L. Mehta, Random matrices and the statistical theory of energy levels (Academic Press, New York-London, 1967), pp. x+259, MR0220494 .
- 45 L. Pastur and M. Shcherbina, Bulk universality and related properties of Hermitian matrix models , J. Stat. Phys. 130 , 205-250 (2008), MR2375744 .
- 46 L. Pastur and M. Shcherbina, On the edge universality of the local eigenvalue statistics of matrix models , Mat. Fiz. Anal. Geom. 10 , 335-365 (2003), MR2012268 .
- 47 T. Pearcey, The structure of an electromagnetic /uniFB01eld in the neighbourhood of a cusp of a caustic , Philos. Mag. (7) 37 , 311-317 (1946), MR0020857 .
- 48 S. Sodin, The spectral edge of some random band matrices , Ann. of Math. (2) 172 , 2223-2251 (2010), MR2726110 .
- 49 H.-J. Sommers and W. Wieczorek, General eigenvalue correlations for the real Ginibre ensemble , J. Phys. A 41 , 405003, 24 (2008), MR2439268 .
- 50 A. Soshnikov, Universality at the edge of the spectrum in Wigner random matrices , Comm. Math. Phys. 207 , 697-733 (1999), MR1727234 .
- 51 T. Tao and V. Vu, Random matrices: The circular law , Commun. Contemp. Math. 10 , 261-307 (2008), MR2409368 .
- 52 T. Tao and V. Vu, Random matrices: Universality of local eigenvalue statistics , Acta Math. 206 , 127-204 (2011), MR2784665 .
- 53 T. Tao and V. Vu, Random matrices: Universality of local eigenvalue statistics up to the edge , Comm. Math. Phys. 298 , 549-572 (2010), MR2669449 .
- 54 T. Tao and V. Vu, Random matrices: universality of local spectral statistics of nonHermitian matrices , Ann. Probab. 43 , 782-874 (2015), MR3306005 .
- 55 T. Tao and V. Vu, Smooth analysis of the condition number and the least singular value , Math. Comp. 79 , 2333-2352 (2010), MR2684367 .
- 56 C. A. Tracy and H. Widom, Level-spacing distributions and the Airy kernel , Comm. Math. Phys. 159 , 151-174 (1994), MR1257246 .
- 57 C. A. Tracy and H. Widom, On orthogonal and symplectic matrix ensembles , Comm. Math. Phys. 177 , 727-754 (1996), MR1385083 .
- 58 C. A. Tracy and H. Widom, The Pearcey process , Comm. Math. Phys. 263 , 381-400 (2006), MR2207649 .
- 59 J. Yin, The local circular law III: General case , Probab. Theory Related Fields 160 , 679-732 (2014), MR3278919 .
Giorgio Cipolloni László Erdős Dominik Schröder
Edge Universality for non-Hermitian Random Matrices
We consider large non-Hermitian real or complex random matrices $X$ with
independent, identically distributed centred entries. We prove that their local
eigenvalue statistics near the spectral edge, the unit circle, coincide with
those of the Ginibre ensemble, i.e. when the matrix elements of $X$ are
Gaussian. This result is the non-Hermitian counterpart of the universality of
the Tracy-Widom distribution at the spectral edges of the Wigner ensemble.