Skip to content

neusebio11/Random_Matrix_Theory

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Latest commit

 

History

1 Commit
 
 
 
 
 
 

Repository files navigation

Random Matrix Theory: Spectral Statistics of Gaussian and Cauchy Ensembles

A computational study of Random Matrix Theory (RMT), exploring eigenvalue densities and level spacing statistics across five classical random matrix ensembles.


Background

Random Matrix Theory was introduced by Eugene Wigner in the 1950s to model the energy spectra of heavy atomic nuclei whose Hamiltonians were too complex to write down explicitly. The key insight is that the statistical properties of eigenvalues depend only on the global symmetries of the matrix ensemble, not on the precise form of the entries — a form of universality with broad applications in quantum chaos, condensed matter physics, number theory, and wireless communications.

This project studies five ensembles:

Ensemble Entries Structure Physical interpretation
GUE Gaussian Complex Hermitian Systems without time-reversal symmetry
GOE Gaussian Real symmetric Systems with time-reversal symmetry
CUE Cauchy Complex Hermitian Heavy-tailed Gaussian analogue
COE Cauchy Real symmetric Heavy-tailed GOE analogue
UUE Uniform [-1,1] Complex Hermitian CLT and trace statistics study

Results

Section 1 — Gaussian Ensembles (GUE & GOE)

1.1 Gaussian Random Number Generator

The acceptance-rejection sampler uses a double-exponential proposal P_α(x) = (α/2) exp(−α|x|). The optimal α is found analytically by maximising the acceptance probability √(π/2) · α · exp(−α²/2).

Double-exponential proposal generator verification The proposal distribution matches the analytic curve exactly, confirming the inversion sampler is correct.

Gaussian generator verification The acceptance-rejection output agrees with N(0,1) across the full range, validating the generator.

Efficiency vs. proposal parameter alpha The measured efficiency peaks at α = 1 (~76%), matching the analytic optimum. This is the parameter used throughout.

1.2 GUE and GOE Matrix Constructors

Both constructors fill the upper triangle with the Gaussian generator and reflect to enforce Hermitian (GUE) or real-symmetric (GOE) symmetry.

1.3 Histogram Function

Histogram function verification The custom density estimator reproduces the analytic N(0,1) curve accurately, confirming it is suitable for spectral density estimation.

1.4 GUE Eigenvalue Density — Wigner Semicircle Law

For large N, the spectral density of GUE converges to:

ρ(ε) = (2/πR²) √(R² − ε²),   R = √(8N)

GUE eigenvalue density vs. semicircle law Already at N = 32 the empirical density is indistinguishable from the semicircle. By N = 128 convergence is complete, confirming Wigner's law with radius R = √(8N).

1.5 GUE Level Spacing Statistics — Wigner Surmise

ϱ_GUE(s) = (32s²/π²) exp(−4s²/π)

GUE spacing distribution N=4 Even at N = 4, the quadratic vanishing at s = 0 (level repulsion, β = 2) and the Gaussian tail are clearly observed.

GUE spacing distribution N=32 At N = 32 the empirical distribution overlaps the Wigner surmise almost perfectly.

GUE spacing distribution N=64 N = 64: the agreement is essentially exact across the full range of s.

GUE spacing distribution N=128 N = 128: the Wigner surmise is confirmed to high precision. No finite-N correction is visible.

GUE spacing tails — log scale On a log scale the tail decays as exp(−4s²/π) — faster than exponential. This Gaussian tail is a hallmark of Gaussian ensembles and contrasts sharply with Cauchy power-law tails.

1.6 GOE Eigenvalue Density

GOE eigenvalue density vs. semicircle law The GOE follows the same semicircle law but with radius R = √(4N) — half the GUE variance, because only real entries contribute. Convergence quality with N is identical to GUE.

1.7 GOE Level Spacings — Wigner Surmise

ϱ_GOE(s) = (π s/2) exp(−π s²/4)

GOE spacing distribution N=4 The repulsion is linear (~s, β = 1), weaker than GUE's quadratic repulsion. The peak of the distribution is shifted to larger s compared to GUE.

GOE spacing distribution N=64 At N = 64 the empirical curve converges to the GOE surmise with the same quality as GUE. Tails remain Gaussian.


Section 2 — Cauchy Ensembles (CUE & COE)

2.1 Cauchy Random Number Generator

Exact inversion: x = γ · tan(π u − π/2), u ~ Uniform(0,1). No rejection needed.

Cauchy generator verification The generator reproduces the Cauchy density exactly over four decades of magnitude. The heavy tails extending to |x| ~ 50 are visible even at γ = 0.1, confirming the distribution has no finite variance.

2.2 CUE and COE Matrix Constructors

Same structure as GUE/GOE but with Cauchy entries (γ = 0.1).

2.3 CUE/COE Eigenvalue Density — No Semicircle Convergence

Cauchy entries have divergent variance, so the semicircle law does not apply.

CUE/COE eigenvalue density — heavy tails Even at N = 64 the spectral densities remain broad and heavy-tailed with no sign of convergence to a bounded support. The Wigner semicircle law breaks down entirely.

CUE spectral density tails — log-log The tail follows ρ(ε) ~ ε⁻² over two decades — an algebraic decay, fundamentally different from the semicircle's sharp cutoff at R.

2.4 CUE/COE Level Spacing Statistics

COE spacing distribution N=32 ϱ(0) > 0: level repulsion is absent. Eigenvalues can be arbitrarily close, unlike in GOE where ϱ(0) = 0.

COE spacing distribution N=64 The finite ϱ(0) is robust with N, confirming it is a genuine property of Cauchy ensembles, not a finite-size effect.

CUE spacing distribution N=32 CUE shows the same absence of level repulsion as COE. The heavy tails of the entry distribution wash out the repulsion mechanism.

CUE spacing distribution N=64 N = 64: the distribution is broader than GUE and the flat behaviour near s = 0 persists.

CUE spacing tails — log-log The spacing tail decays as ~s⁻⁴ — a power law. This is a direct consequence of Cauchy entries having infinite variance, and contrasts sharply with the Gaussian tails of GUE/GOE.


Section 3 — Uniform Unitary Ensemble (UUE) and the Central Limit Theorem

3.1 UUE Trace Distribution

Each diagonal entry is Uniform(−1, 1) with variance 1/3. The trace sums N independent entries, so by the CLT: Tr[M] → N(0, N/3).

UUE trace distribution — CLT convergence The trace distributions for N = 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 progressively converge to the Gaussian limit. At N = 16 the CLT is already very well satisfied.

3.2 Individual Eigenvalue Distributions

UUE individual eigenvalues N=2 The two eigenvalues are symmetric and repel each other — the two distributions are mirror images with equal variance.

UUE individual eigenvalues N=4 The edge eigenvalues (ε₀, ε₃) have significantly larger variance than the central ones (ε₁, ε₂). The eigenvalues are not identically distributed.

UUE individual eigenvalues N=8 The gradient in variance from edge to centre grows with N. Interior eigenvalues are increasingly concentrated near zero.

UUE individual eigenvalues N=16 At N = 16 the contrast is clear: the edge eigenvalues span a wide range while the central ones cluster tightly, reflecting bulk spectrum rigidity.

3.3 Eigenvalue Covariance Matrix

Covariance matrix N=2 The off-diagonal entry is negative: ε₀ and ε₁ anti-correlate. When one shifts up, the other shifts down to conserve the trace.

Covariance matrix N=4 Anti-correlations exist at all pairs. The sum of all entries v_4 ≈ 1.33 ≈ 4/3, confirming the analytic prediction v_N = N/3.

Covariance matrix N=8 The strongest anti-correlations are between adjacent eigenvalues; correlations decay with distance in the spectrum.

Covariance matrix N=16 At N = 16 the structure is rich, but v_16 ≈ 16/3 is still satisfied — the total variance is determined by the entry distribution alone, not the correlations.

3.4 Distribution of T_N = Σ εᵢ

T_N distribution histogram The distributions of T_N are identical to those of Tr[M], confirming T_N = Tr[M] exactly — basis-independence of the trace holds numerically.

3.5 Mean and Variance of T_N

Mean and variance of T_N vs N Mean is zero for all N. Variance grows exactly as N/3, in perfect agreement with the analytic result. The eigenvalue anti-correlations do not affect the total variance.

3.6 Reduced Variable T_N / √N — CLT Collapse

CLT collapse of T_N/sqrt(N) All four curves collapse onto N(0, 1/3). The CLT holds for the sum of eigenvalues despite their pairwise anti-correlations — the correlations are not strong enough to violate the CLT.

3.7 CUE Contrast — Breakdown of the CLT

The Cauchy distribution has no finite variance. It is stable under addition with scaling 1/N instead of 1/√N.

CUE T_N/N — Cauchy stable law Under the T_N/N rescaling, all curves collapse onto the Cauchy density ρ_{0.1}. The ordinary CLT fails: there is no Gaussian limit. Instead the Generalised CLT applies, with the Cauchy distribution as the stable attractor.


Key Results

  1. Wigner semicircle law holds for GUE and GOE with radii √(8N) and √(4N), with visible convergence already at N = 32.
  2. Level repulsion is quadratic (β = 2) for GUE and linear (β = 1) for GOE; the Wigner surmise is accurate already at N = 4.
  3. Cauchy ensembles break the semicircle: spectral tails ~ε⁻², spacing tails ~s⁻⁴, and no level repulsion (ϱ(0) > 0).
  4. UUE eigenvalues are pairwise anti-correlated, but Var(T_N) = N/3 and the CLT collapse T_N/√N → N(0, 1/3) hold exactly.
  5. CUE trace obeys the Generalised CLT: T_N/N → Cauchy(0.1) — Cauchy stability replaces Gaussian universality when entries have infinite variance.

About

A computational study of Random Matrix Theory (RMT), exploring eigenvalue densities and level spacing statistics across five classical random matrix ensembles.: GUE, GOE, COE, CUE, UUE

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

No releases published

Packages

 
 
 

Contributors