Freeness and The Partial Transposes of Wishart Random Matrices
James A. Mingo (1), Mihai Popa (2) ((1) Queen's University (2), University of Texas at San Antonio)

TL;DR
This paper demonstrates that partial transposes of complex Wishart matrices become asymptotically free, explores regimes with fixed block numbers, and examines real Wishart matrices, revealing new insights into their operator-level freeness.
Contribution
It introduces the asymptotic freeness of partial transposes of Wishart matrices and analyzes different regimes, including real matrices, at the operator level.
Findings
Partial transposes of complex Wishart matrices are asymptotically free.
Freeness persists when the number of blocks is fixed and block size increases.
Real Wishart matrices also exhibit similar freeness properties.
Abstract
We show that the partial transposes of complex Wishart random matrices are asymptotically free. We also investigate regimes where the number of blocks is fixed but the size of the blocks increases. This gives a example where the partial transpose produces freeness at the operator level. Finally we investigate the case of real Wishart matrices.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Freeness and
The Partial Transposes of Wishart Random Matrices
James A. Mingo*(∗)*
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Queen’s University, Jeffery Hall, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada
and
Mihai Popa*(∗)(∗∗)*
The University of Texas at San Antonio, Department of Mathematics, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, Texas 78249, and
Institute of Mathematics “Simion Stoilow” of the Romanian Academy, P.O. Box 1-764, Bucharest, RO-70700, Romania
Abstract.
We show that the partial transposes of complex Wishart random matrices are asymptotically free. We also investigate regimes where the number of blocks is fixed but the size of the blocks increases. This gives a example where the partial transpose produces freeness at the operator level. Finally we investigate the case of real Wishart matrices.
∗ Research supported by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
∗∗ Research supported by the Simons Foundation grant No. 360242.
1. Introduction
Suppose we have a matrix in . We can write this as a block matrix.
[TABLE]
with each . We can form two partial transposes of this matrix.
\kern-15.00002ptA^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}=\left(\begin{array}[]{c|c|c}A(1,1)&\ \cdots&A(d_{1},1)\\ \hline\cr\vdots&&\vdots\\ \hline\cr A(1,d_{1})&\ \cdots&A(d_{1},d_{1}).\\ \end{array}\right),A^{\Gamma}=\left(\begin{array}[]{c|c|c}A(1,1)^{\mathrm{T}}&\ \cdots&A(1,d_{1})^{\mathrm{T}}\\ \hline\cr\vdots&&\vdots\\ \hline\cr A(d_{1},1)^{\mathrm{T}}&\ \cdots&A(d_{1},d_{1})^{\mathrm{T}}.\\ \end{array}\right).
In quantum information theory the partial transpose has been used as an entanglement detector. Suppose that is a positive matrix in . Recall that is entangled if we cannot find positive matrices and such that . If a positive matrix fails to have a positive partial transpose then the matrix must be entangled. It was shown by Aubrun [2] that in a particular regime of the Wishart distribution, the partial transpose of a positive matrix is typically entangled. He also showed that the limiting distribution of a partially transposed Wishart matrix is semi-circular. This was quite unexpected. We revisit his theorem and show that the conclusion can be explained by the requirement that the non-crossing partitions that survive in the limit, have to remain non-crossing when the order of elements is reversed.
In this paper we show that in addition to transforming a Marchenko-Pastur into a semi-circular distribution, the partial transpose also produces freeness — in two different regimes. The first is when both and tend to ; we show that when is a Wishart matrix, , W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}, and are asymptotically free in the complex case and that and W^{\Gamma}=W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} are asymptotically free in the real case.
The second regime is the one considered by Banica and Nechita [3] where we fix and let tend to . In this case we show that and are asymptotically free. As (W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}})^{\mathrm{T}}=W^{\Gamma}, one can has that W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} and have the same limit distributions. Banica and Nechita showed that the limit distribution of d_{1}W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} could be written as the free difference of two Marchenko-Pastur distributions. We can show that in the same regime and when , one can write the limit distribution of d_{1}W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} as the sum of two free operators and coming from the diagonal and off-diagonal parts of d_{1}W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}. More precisely if we write a Marchenko-Pastur random variable as a block matrix
[TABLE]
then d_{1}w^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}=X_{1}+X_{2} and and are free. Moreover is a Marchenko-Pastur random variable with the same distribution as and is an even operator whose even cumulants are the same as those of . So by writing d_{1}w^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} as a sum as opposed to a difference we get a natural representation for the two operators.
The connection of the transpose to freeness goes back to the work of Emily Redelmeier on real second order freeness [13]. She showed that the fluctuation moments of real Gaussian and Wishart matrices require the transpose to taken into account. Later in [9] the authors showed that the transpose can also appear at the first order level. Namely, that for many complex ensembles a random matrix could be asymptotically free from its transpose. Before this the known examples of asymptotic freeness required independence of the entries, see [10, Ch. 4] and [11, Lect. 23, 24] for examples.
Our main tool here is the explicit evaluation mixed moments of the four matrices , W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}, and and then to show that mixed cumulants must vanish, thus demonstrating freeness. In order to achieve this we use the technique of doubling of indices which already appeared in the work of Redelmeier [12, 13].
Besides the transpose one can consider the action of other positive linear maps on the blocks of matrices and the effect on the limit eigenvalue distribution. This was considered in considerable generality in the recent paper of Arizmendi, Nechita, and Vargas [1]. A third regime was considered by Fukuda and Śniady in [6] and a connection to meander polynomials was found.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we establish the notation needed for our calculations. The main method for computing mixed moments is to expand the expression as a sum over the symmetric group. This part is presented in Theorem 9 of Section 3. In Section 4 we determine which permutations contribute to the limit. The main result in this section is Proposition 16. In Section 5 we consider the limit distributions of our partially transposed operators in the two regimes. In particular we shall show that the operators and mentioned above are free. In Section 7 we present our main results, the asymptotic freeness of our partially transposed Wishart matrices. In Section 8 we consider the situation for real Wishart matrices.
2. Notation and statement of results
Suppose are random matrices where and are complex Gaussian random variables with mean 0 and (complex) variance 1, i.e. . Moreover suppose that the random variables are independent.
[TABLE]
is a complex Wishart matrix. We write as block matrix with each entry the matrix . From this we get four matrices \{W,W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}},W^{\Gamma},W^{\mathrm{T}}\} defined as follows:
is the “full” transpose
W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}=\frac{1}{d_{1}}(W(j,i))_{ij} is the “left” partial transpose
is the “right” partial transpose
Note that the notation conceals the dependence on and . Thus as the size of the matrix grows these operators might be expected to behave differently, depending on the way and grow.
If the random variables are real Gaussian random variables with mean 0 and variance 1 then is a real Wishart matrix. For many eigenvalue results there is no distinction between the real and complex case. In [9] we showed that when it comes to freeness there is a difference, in particular with respect to the behaviour of the transpose. In this paper we show that with the partial transpose we continue to see a difference between the real and complex cases.
If we assume that and that , , then the eigenvalue distributions of and converge to Marchenko-Pastur with parameter . This is the distribution on that has density on and an atom of weight at [math] if ; we set and .
Note that we are using what one might call the free probabilist’s Marchenko-Pastur law. In our normalization all the cumulants are equal to . For the relation between the two see [10, Ch. 2 Remark 12]. With this normalization we can restate Aubrun’s theorem.
*Suppose , then the eigenvalue distributions of W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} and converge to a shifted semi-circular operator with mean and variance . *
Our main results are the following.
Theorem 1**.**
Suppose , then the family \{W,W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}},W^{\Gamma},\allowbreak W^{\mathrm{T}}\} is asymptotically free in the complex case and the family is asymptotically free in the real case.
Theorem 2**.**
Suppose is fixed and, then the family is asymptotically free in the complex case.
In let be the standard matrix units. For convenience of notation we shall write for .
Theorem 3**.**
Suppose , and . Then \{W,W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}},E_{ij}\}_{i,=1}^{2} has a limit joint distribution, \{w,w^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}},e_{ij}\}_{i,j=1}^{2}, in a non-commutative -probability space . Relative to the matrix units we write
[TABLE]
Then and are free. has a Marchenko-Pastur distribution with parameter and is an even operator with all even cumulants equal to .
3. A general formula for mixed moments
Let be matrices, then
[TABLE]
where the sum runs over all such that , , …, .
We wish to use the symmetric group of permutations on to keep track of the partial transposes. So we shall introduce the following notation. Given a permutation in we extend to be a permutation on be setting for . We let be the permutation of given by for all and be the permutation with one cycle: . With our conventions we have . The condition in (1) now becomes .
To show that the family \{W,W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}},W^{\Gamma},W^{\mathrm{T}}\} is asymptotically free we shall have to compute the expectation of the trace of arbitrary words in \{W,W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}},W^{\Gamma},W^{\mathrm{T}}\}. For this we use the following notation.
Let .
We set W^{(\epsilon,\eta)}=\left\{\begin{array}[]{cl}W&\mbox{\ if\ }(\epsilon,\eta)=(1,1)\\ W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}&\mbox{\ if\ }(\epsilon,\eta)=(-1,1)\\ W^{\Gamma}&\mbox{\ if\ }(\epsilon,\eta)=(1,-1)\\ W^{\mathrm{T}}&\mbox{\ if\ }(\epsilon,\eta)=(-1,-1)\\ \end{array}\right.
Let , then an arbitrary word in \{W,W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}},W^{\Gamma},\allowbreak W^{\mathrm{T}}\} is and we seek to write as a sum of free cumulants.
To achieve this we need to introduce still more notation. We shall suppose that , the length of the word, is fixed for the moment. Now given we denote by the permutation of given by ; here , but , so means the element of our vector . Similarly given we get the permutation of . Note that , and all commute with each other.
We shall think of , W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}, , and as random elements of . On this algebra we have a trace ; we also have the normalized trace .
Remark 4*.*
With the notations above, we have that
[TABLE]
where the summation is subject to the conditions that , .
Proof.
[TABLE]
To achieve the last step we let . Also we have adopted the convention that for a matrix in we let and .
Next we must expand \operatorname{Tr}\Big{(}W(j_{1},j_{-1})^{(\eta_{1})}\cdots W(j_{n},j_{-n})^{(\eta_{n})}\Big{)}.
[TABLE]
hence the conclusion. ∎
Next we need to compute . We shall use the complex form of Wick’s rule that says that if are independent Gaussian random variables and then is the number of permutations such that for all we have ; see Janson [7, page 13].
Thus we let and . So if and we have
[TABLE]
We wish to write the first two conditions as an equation involving functions on .
Lemma 5**.**
Let and . We have for all if and only if .
Proof.
Suppose that for we have . Then for we have where . Also . Thus .
Now suppose that . For we have that as claimed. ∎
Lemma 6**.**
, , and .
Proof.
By Lemma 5 and Equation (3) we have to count the number of permutations such that on the set , on the set , and on the set . ∎
Remark 7*.*
In the proposition below we use the notation to denote the number of cycles in the cycle decomposition of . If and are permutations we let be the partition obtained by regarding and as partitions where the blocks of the partition are the cycles of the permutation. Now denotes the supremum of the two partitions in the lattice of partitions. Recall that the function is a central function on , so for all and .
Proposition 8**.**
Subject to the conditions and ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
According to Lemma 6, subject to the conditions and ,
[TABLE]
To get the last equality we recall that the condition on is that it must simultaneously satisfy and . So must be constant on the cycles of and of ; so must be constant on the blocks of . The same argument applies to . The only condition on is that . ∎
Theorem 9**.**
[TABLE]
where and
Proof.
According to Equation (2) and Proposition 8 we have
[TABLE]
∎
4. Asymptotics of Permutations
Theorem 9 gave us an expansion of mixed moments of \{W,W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}},W^{\Gamma},\allowbreak W^{\mathrm{T}}\} as a sum over the symmetric group. We now have to determine which permutations contribute to the limit. We shall show that for all and all , and determine for which equality is achieved. Our first goal is to show that unless is constant on the cycles of . Since is arbitrary, whatever we show for will apply to .
There is a fundamental equation that we shall frequently use in what follows. Given a subgroup, , of the group of permutations of , we shall say that the subgroup acts transitively on if given we can find such that .
Given two permutations and of such that the subgroup generated and acts transitively there is a non-negative integer such that
[TABLE]
Recall that a pairing of is a partition of with all blocks of size 2; note this implies that is even. The set of all pairings of is denoted . We shall also regard such a as the permutation whose cycles are the blocks of . In this case has no fixed points and . In [8, Lemma 2] we proved the following.
Lemma 10**.**
Let be pairings and a cycle of . Let . Then is also a cycle of , and these two cycles are distinct; is a block of and all are of this form; . The cycle decomposition of can be written where . With this notation the blocks of are .
Lemma 11**.**
Let and be given, then is constant on the cycles of if and only if .
Proof.
We begin by noting that for
[TABLE]
Suppose is constant on the cycles of . Then
[TABLE]
Conversely suppose that . Then for by Equation (5)
[TABLE]
and thus and have the same sign. ∎
Lemma 12**.**
Let and be given then unless is constant on the cycles of .
Proof.
Suppose is not constant on the cycles of , then by Lemma 11 we have that meets . Both and are pairings and as permutations and commute. Thus by Lemma 10
[TABLE]
Now and . Hence by Equation (4) there is such that
[TABLE]
and thus
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 13**.**
Suppose that and and is constant on the cycles of . Then there is a permutation such that . Moreover if is the cycle decomposition of then where is the (constant) value of on the cycle .
Proof.
In the proof of Lemma 11 we showed that when is constant on the cycles of we have that for
[TABLE]
Thus on a cycle of on which we have and agree and on a cycle on which we have and agree. ∎
Definition 14**.**
Let be a permutation of and . We say that is a non-crossing permutation if . We shall denote by the non-crossing permutations of .
Remark 15*.*
We have already used the idea of taking a permutation of and regard it as a partition of by using the decomposition of the permutation into disjoint cycles and making these the blocks of a partition. Biane [4] showed that the permutations that satisfy i.e. in Equation (4), are exactly those whose cycles form a non-crossing partition of .
Proposition 16**.**
Let and . Suppose that is constant on the cycles of . Then with equality only if is a non-crossing permutation.
Proof.
Let as in Lemma 13. As in the proof of Lemma 12 we have that
[TABLE]
By Equation (4) we have ; and, according to Definition 14, is a non-crossing permutation if and only if ∎
Remark 17*.*
As an illustration let us consider two examples: and . First suppose , then , so and only if is non-crossing. When we have that , so and only if is non-crossing.
5. Limit Distributions
We assume that and that , for some . Since and are Wishart matrices, their eigenvalue distributions converge to the Marchenko-Pastur law with parameter . Setting and , this is the distribution on that has density on and an atom of weight at [math] if .
The asymptotic eigenvalue distributions of W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} and were described by G. Auburn (see [2]) for the case when , respectively by T. Banica and I. Nechita for the case when (see [3]). The calculations below give another proof of these results and give some more insight on the limit distributions.
Lemma 18**.**
Let and suppose that both and are non-crossing in the sense of Definition 14. Then can have only cycles of size 1 or 2.
Before proving Lemma 18 we need to recall some standard facts about permutations and pairings. We let . If is a permutation of then is a pairing of ; moreover if is a pair in this pairing then and have opposite signs. We let be the set of pairings of that only pair a positive number to a negative number. There is a standard bijection from to that we shall use. For we have . If then leaves invariant and so . These two maps are inverses of each other.
For example consider . Then and . Also the permutation has the one cycle .
Inside we have the non-crossing pairings of which only connect a positive number to a negative number; we shall denote this subset by .
Lemma 19**.**
The map is a bijection from to .
Proof.
We have to check that if and only if . Note that is a pairing so that . Also because acts trivially on and acts trivially on . Thus . By Remark 15 we have that is non-crossing if and only if is non-crossing. ∎
Proof of Lemma 18. Suppose that and are distinct with and . Then visits and and are pairs of . Thus is not in and hence by Lemma 19 . Thus the only permutations for which are those where , i.e. all cycles are singletons or pairs. ∎
Theorem 20**.**
[2, Thm. 1]** If , then the limit distributions of W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} and are semi-circular with mean and variance .
Proof.
We have just shown that the only non-vanishing cumulants of the limiting distribution are . Thus the limiting distribution is semi-circular. ∎
Remark 21*.*
The measure on whose free cumulants are and for is the shifted semi-circle law. It has density on the interval . We have used a different normalization for than Aubrun, (we used and he used ), the advantage of ours is that the free cumulants are very simple with this normalization.
Next, we shall discuss the case when only one of the parameters , approaches infinity and the other one is fixed.
The following remarkable result is due to T. Banica and I. Nechita [3, Lemma 1.1].
Lemma 22**.**
Suppose that is a non-crossing permutation and that is a cycle of length in . Then
[TABLE]
where is the number of cycles of of even length.
Let us recall the main result of [3, Theorem 3.1], which computes the free cumulants of the limit distribution of d_{1}W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} as but keeping fixed.
Theorem 23**.**
Suppose that is a fixed positive integer, and with . The free cumulants of the limit distribution of d_{1}W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} are for even and for odd. This limit distribution is the free difference of two Marchenko-Pastur laws one with parameter and the other .
Proof.
Let and in Theorem 9. By Remark 17, unless . For and we have by Remark 17 and Lemma 22, . Hence Theorem 9 gives
[TABLE]
Note that if we set for even and for odd then . This shows that the limit distribution of d_{1}W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} has the claimed cumulants. Since , we have the claim about the distribution being a free difference of Marchenko-Pastur laws. ∎
Remark 24*.*
If in Theorem 9 we let and , the coefficients and switch roles, hence the argument above also gives an analogous statement for holding fixed. More precisely, if is fixed and , then the free cumulants of the limit distribution of are given by for even and for odd. This distribution is also the free difference of two Marchenko-Pastur distributions one of parameter and one of .
Remark 25*.*
Since taking transposes preserves eigenvalue distributions Theorem 23 and Remark 24 also gives us the free cumulants of the limit distribution of and d_{2}W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}.
6. A natural free decomposition of d_{1}W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} when
In [3] it was shown that the limit distribution of d_{1}W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} can be written as the free difference of two Marchenko-Pastur laws. The operators so obtained are not related to the operator d_{1}W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} though. In this section we shall show that there is a natural decomposition of d_{1}W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} when , namely the diagonal and off diagonal blocks, into free summands. More precisely, we let be the limit distribution of , which we can write as a matrix
[TABLE]
Relative to this block decomposition 2W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} converges to
[TABLE]
We consider the two operators
[TABLE]
The diagonal summand has the Marchenko-Pastur distribution and the off diagonal summand is even and has the same even cumulants as the diagonal summand. Our main result in this section is that and are free.
Notation 26*.*
Let , and suppose converges to with . Let be the standard matrix units in , but viewed as elements of .
Lemma 27**.**
There is a -non-commutative probability space with elements such that has the Marchenko-Pastur distribution with parameter and are matrix units in free from . Moreover the joint distribution of converges to that of
Proof.
As , our Wishart matrix, is unitarily invariant, it is asymptotically free from our matrix units (see [10, Theorem 4.9]). This is exactly the claim of the lemma. ∎
Notation 28*.*
Thus we may write the matrix of with respect to the matrix units as
[TABLE]
We will let be the state on given by . The elements are in so their cumulants must be computed relative to the state . When necessary we will denote these relative cumulants by .
Lemma 29**.**
Each of and have the Marchenko-Pastur distribution with parameter .
Proof.
By construction . By [11, Theorem 14.18]
[TABLE]
∎
Remark 30*.*
Elements in a non-commutative probability space , they are called -cyclic if whenever we have unless and . By [11, Example 20.4] the elements are -cyclic. Moreover . So by [11, Example 20.4], we have , when and .
Let and . Then 2w^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}=X_{1}+X_{2}.
Lemma 31**.**
* and are self-adjoint. The cumulants of are all equal to , i.e. is a Marchenko-Pastur operator with parameter . is an even operator in that it is self-adjoint and all of its odd moments are [math]. The even cumulants of are all equal to .*
Proof.
We have so and have the same cumulants, which by Remark 30 are all . Because is off diagonal and self-adjoint, it is an even operator. By [11, Proposition 15.12] the cumulants of are the -cumulants of . In Remark 30 we observed that these are all . ∎
Our next goal is to show that and are free in . This is somewhat surprising in that and X_{2}^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} are not free. By X_{2}^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} we mean the matrix . To see this note that \varphi(X_{1}X_{2}^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}X_{2}^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}X_{1})=2c+3(2c)^{2}+(2c)^{3} whereas if and were free we would have \varphi(X_{1}X_{2}^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}X_{2}^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}X_{1})=(2c)^{2}+(2c)^{3}. This gives another unexpected instance where a partial transpose produces freeness, but this time at the level of operators.
Now let us turn to the freeness of and . Let
[TABLE]
Then . Let be such that . Let be the number of times , and . Then there are such that
[TABLE]
We now apply the formula for cumulants with products as entries [11, Theorem 11.12]. Then
[TABLE]
where the sum runs over all non-crossing partitions in such that and is the non-crossing partition whose blocks are have either 1 or 2 elements, and the singletons are where appears in the string , and the pairs are where and . Since there must both singletons and pairs. Let us consider a which is such that and we shall show that by the -cyclicity of we have . Summing over all such we get that . This shows that all mixed cumulants vanish and hence that and are free as claimed.
Lemma 32**.**
Given we have unless appears an even number of times.
Proof.
and are diagonal so will be 0 on the diagonal unless appears an even number of times. ∎
Lemma 33**.**
Given we have unless appears an even number of times.
Proof.
We write
[TABLE]
Given , we have by Lemma 32, that each block of must contain an even number of ’s, or else . Summing over all blocks of we get that the number of ’s is even. ∎
Definition 34**.**
Let we say that the -tuple has the property (nvc) if each non-zero entry of is of the form
[TABLE]
where . Note that we do not require as in -cyclicity. We say that the string has property (vc) if it does not have property (ncv).
Remark 35*.*
We now describe the generic sequences with property (nvc). First we have any power of . The product of two or more ’s does not have property (nvc). No power of has property (nvc), because all its entries are either 0 or 1.
Now suppose we start with a . We can only follow with a or a . So our basic reduced sequence is (with the possibility that )
[TABLE]
We can enhance this by putting an even power of between any two letters above. Note that there cannot be an odd number of ’s between two ’s as
[TABLE]
So the most general string starting and ending with a is
[TABLE]
with even and odd.
Lemma 36**.**
Let be a string with property (nvc) which starts and ends with and has no other ’s. Then the number of ’s is odd.
Proof.
We just observed that the number of ’s is which is odd. ∎
Lemma 37**.**
If and and then each block of must contain the same number of ’s as , and both numbers are even.
Proof.
We have just observed that the number of ’s between ’s is odd. Thus to go all the way round a cycle the number of ’s is equal to the number of plus an even number which might be 0. However in our whole string the number of ’s and ’s is the same. If one cycle had an excess of ’s then another cycle would have a deficit. Thus all cycles must be balanced. Since we already know that each cycle has an even number of ’s it also has an equal even number of ’s. ∎
Lemma 38**.**
Let be such that and be such that . Then .
Proof.
Let be a block of that contains a such that . Then is a block of . Since we are assuming that there must be with . If the contribution of this block to is not 0 then there must be a followed by a . So we may assume that we have a and such that , and follows in . We have that restricts to a non-crossing partition of . Each block in this restriction contains the same number of ’s as ’s by Lemma 37. However this impossible because in the original string a is always followed by a and we have removed one . Thus . ∎
Theorem 39**.**
* and are free in .*
Proof.
We have just shown that by the formula for cumulants with products for entries we have that mixed cumulants vanish. Thus and are free. ∎
Remark 40*.*
The distribution of w^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} in is the limit distribution of W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} which is the same as . Thus the distribution of is the same as that of d_{1}w^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}.
Theorem 41**.**
For and the limit distribution of 2W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} is the free additive convolution of a Marchenko-Pastur law with parameter and an even operator with all even cumulants equal to .
7. Asymptotic Freeness
Since is unitarily invariant, a consequence of the results from [9] is that and are asymptotically free if . In this section we will present the main results of the paper, which, using the relation form Theorem 9, gives an improvement of the result mentioned above.
Theorem 42**.**
If and then the family \{W,W^{T},W^{\Gamma},\allowbreak W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}\} is asymptotically free.
Proof.
By Theorem 9 we have that
[TABLE]
and by Lemma 12 and Proposition 16 we have that
for all , and ;
unless and are constant on the cycles of ;
unless is non-crossing.
Thus when and we need only consider ’s for which
- i)
and are constant on the cycles of ; 2. ii)
both and are non-crossing.
Note that as partitions , , and are the same, as the only possible difference between them is whether we reverse the order of elements in a cycle of . Thus we have shown that the limit when of an arbitrary mixed moment can be written as a sum over non-crossing partitions; that means that the terms that appear are the free cumulants of the mixed moment we are considering. However, by (i), the blocks of only connect to if . This means we have shown that mixed cumulants vanish and this implies the conclusion.
∎
Theorem 43**.**
(i)* If and is fixed, then the family is asymptotically free from the family \{W^{T},W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}\}, but is not asymptotically free from , nor is from W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}.*
(ii) If is fixed and , then the family \{W,W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}\} is asymptotically free from the family but is not asymptotically free from , nor is from .
Proof.
Suppose first that and is fixed. Hence in the summation from Theorem 9 only the terms where will contribute to the limit. As in the proof of Theorem 42, the last condition is equivalent to is non-crossing and is constant on the cycles of . Since the partitions and are the same, it follows that the limit as of an arbitrary mixed moment is written as a sum over non-crossing partitions, so the terms in the right-hand side are in fact free cumulants. The condition that is constant on the cycles of gives that only free cumulants in elements from only one of the families from part (i) do not vanish, hence the asymptotic freeness is proved.
For the second part of (i), we will use the expansion of from Theorem 9 in the case and . Note that contains only two permutations, and , both non-crossing. Also, since is constant, it is constant on the cycles of and . It follows that Moreover, is constant on the cycles of and is non-crossing, hence . Therefore, Theorem 8 gives that
[TABLE]
As , the first moment of approaches , and from Theorem 23, so does the first moment of , hence
[TABLE]
The same argument also shows that and W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}} are not asymptotically free, since W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}=\big{(}W^{\Gamma}\big{)}^{T}.
Finally, part (ii) also follows from the argument for part (i), since the relation from Theorem 9 is symmetric in and .
∎
8. The Case of Real Wishart Matrices
In this section we examine the case of real Wishart matrices. More precisely, will denote now the symmetric random matrix
[TABLE]
where is a family of random matrices whose entries are independent Gaussian random variables of mean 0 and variance 1.
Since and W^{\reflectbox{\tiny\Gamma}}=W^{\Gamma} we shall only work with and . For this reason we shall use slightly different notation that in the previous sections. For we let
[TABLE]
Thus our goal will be to consider, , an arbitrary word in and and find its limiting expectation.
Theorem 44**.**
With the notations from above, we have that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and is, as before, given by
[TABLE]
Proof.
[TABLE]
In line 3 we momentarily break with our previous convention about indicating whether or not we take a partial transpose; in this case means take the transpose of the matrix . In passing from line 3 to line 4 above we let .
Now
[TABLE]
On the right hand side in the expression above we are extending as a function from to to a function on by requiring . This means . Now unless , , and , in which case it is 1. Thus
[TABLE]
Since we require and we must have . Now as noted in Lemma 10 the cycles of appear in pairs where one part of a pair is the conjugate by of the other. Since is a function on , double counts the degrees of freedom. Hence the exponent of is . Thus
[TABLE]
Finally, note that
[TABLE]
hence the conclusion. ∎
Next we shall show that and for all and , and to find for which pairings we have equality.
Lemma 45**.**
Let be a pairing such that there is with the same sign. Then .
Proof.
Since connects two elements with the same sign, connects two elements with opposite signs. Then the subgroup generated by and acts transitively on . Thus
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
Thus . ∎
Lemma 46**.**
Suppose and only connects elements of opposite sign. Then leaves invariant and with equality only if is a non-crossing permutation.
Proof.
Since both and switch signs, preserves signs. Thus leaves invariant. By Lemma 10 we have . Also . Hence
[TABLE]
with equality only if is a non-crossing permutation. ∎
Lemma 47**.**
Let and . Then unless leaves invariant. If leaves invariant then with equality only if is a non-crossing permutation.
Proof.
By Lemma 46 we have unless leaves invariant. If leaves invariant then again by Lemma 46 we have with equality only if is a non-crossing permutation. ∎
Lemma 48**.**
Let and . Suppose leaves invariant. Then leaves invariant if and only if is constant on the cycles of .
Proof.
Suppose is a cycle of . All these elements must have the same sign. The the corresponding cycle of is . The elements of is have the same sign if and only if is constant on is . ∎
The following theorem is the main result of this section. Recall from Lemma 13 that if is constant on the cycles of , then we obtain from by reversing the cycles on which .
Theorem 49**.**
[TABLE]
where the sum runs over all non-crossing permutations such that is constant on the cycles of and is also non-crossing.
Proof.
In the formula from Theorem 44, only the pairings such that will contribute to the summation when .
Recall that denotes the pairings of such that leaves invariant. For such a we let be the corresponding permutation. We already noted that this is a bijection from to and . From Lemma 46, the condition implies that is noncrossing.
According to Lemmas 47 and 48, the condition implies that is constant on the cycles of . As in Lemma 13, . Therefore
[TABLE]
which gives
[TABLE]
hence the formula (4) gives that with equality if and only if is non-crossing.
∎
An immediate consequence of Theorem 49 is part (1) of the following result.
Theorem 50**.**
Suppose .
(1)* If , then is asymptotically a shifted semi-circular operator with .*
(2)* If and is fixed then the asymptotic distribution of , equals the distribution of the difference of two free variables with Marchenko-Pastur laws, the first of parameter and the second of parameter .*
(3)* If is fixed and then the asymptotic distribution of , equals the distribution of the difference of two free variables with Marchenko-Pastur laws, the first of parameter and the second of parameter .*
Proof.
Letting for all in Theorem 44, we obtain that
[TABLE]
Suppose first that . Then, in the summation from (6), only terms with will contribute to the limit. From Theorem 49, this is equivalent to both and be noncrossing. But so Lemma 18 implies that has only cycles of length 1 or 2, hence part (1) is proved.
Suppose now that and is fixed. Then only such that will contribute to the limit in the summation (6). Applying again Lemma 46, this is equivalent to , for a non-crossing permutation on . In this case, we have that
Also, and, if , we have that
[TABLE]
Moreover,
[TABLE]
hence, Lemma 22 gives that
[TABLE]
so equation (6) becomes
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
where for odd and for even. The conclusion follows because (see the proof of Theorem 23). The case fixed and is similar.
∎
Theorem 51**.**
If both , then is an asymptotically free family.
Proof.
The result is a consequence of Theorems 49 and 50.
∎
Remark 52*.*
For a real Wishart random matrix, is not asymptotically free from if is fixed or if is fixed.
Indeed, for and and , the formula from Theorem 44 gives
[TABLE]
There are only 3 pairings in : , and . Direct calculations give that , and .
Moreover, , while and ; also, for , we have that Therefore and , so
[TABLE]
and the second term in the equation above does not cancel asymptotically unless both .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] O. Arizmendi, I. Nechita, and C. Vargas, On the asymptotic distribution of block-modified random matrices, J. Math. Phys. 57 (2016), no. 1, 015216, 25 pp.
- 2[2] G. Aubrun, Partial Transposition Of Random States And Non-Centered Semicircular Distributions, Random Matrix Theory and Applications , 1 (2012), no. 2, 1250001, 29 pp.
- 3[3] T. Banica and I. Nechita, Asymptotic Eigenvalue Distributions of Block-Transposed Wishart Matrices, J. Theor. Probab. 26 (2013), 855–869.
- 4[4] P. Biane, Some properties of crossings and partitions, Discrete Mathematics , 175 (1997), 41–53.
- 5[5] R. Cori, Un code pour les graphes planaires et ses applications , Astérisque, No. 27., Société Mathématique de France, 1975.
- 6[6] M. Fukuda and P. Śniady, Partial Transpose Of Random Quantum States: Exact Formulas And Meanders, J. Math. Phys. 54 (2013), no. 4, 042202, 23 pp.
- 7[7] S. Janson, Gaussian Hilbert Spaces , Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 129, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
- 8[8] J. A. Mingo, M. Popa, Real second order freeness and Haar orthogonal matrices, J. Math. Phys. 54 (2013), no. 5, 051701, 35 pp.
