Tail Profile of Bulk Gaussian Multiplicative Chaos Measures I: Bulk/Boundary Quotients

Yichao Huang

arXiv: 2502.09121v1 · PDF · 13 February 2025
Categories: math.PR, math-ph, math.MP
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

This is the first part of a series of papers devoted to studying the right tail profile of a bulk Gaussian multiplicative chaos measure with uniform singularity on the boundary. We investigate the bulk/boundary quotients of Gaussian multiplicative chaos measures appearing in boundary Liouville conformal field theory, for which we establish preliminary joint moment bounds. These moment bounds will be a crucial ingredient in establishing the right tail profile of the bulk Gaussian multiplicative chaos measure in subsequent papers. The main idea is to implement the so-called localization trick at the boundary, and we also record a useful generalization of Kahane’s convexity inequality, which is of independent interest. The study of the universal tail profiles of general bulk measures and bulk/boundary quotients as well as connections to integrability results of boundary Liouville conformal field theory will be pursued in subsequent papers.

Items 32

Theorem

Theorem 1 (Finiteness of moments for bulk/boundary quotients, case q=1)

6FJL

Suppose that Q is a Carleson cube of the upper half-plane near the origin, say [-r,r]\times[0,r]\subset\overline{\mathbb{H}} for some small r>0, and I is its intersection with \mathbb{R} (in this case [-r,r]\subset\mathbb{R}). With the notations in the previous section and q=1, the (p,q)-th moment of bulk/boundary quotient of Gaussian multiplicative chaos measures is finite, i.e.

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(I)}\right]<\infty

if p<\min(\frac{2}{\gamma^2}+\frac{1}{2},\frac{4}{\gamma^2}). In particular, p can be strictly greater than \frac{2}{\gamma^2} with this condition.

Theorem

Theorem 2 (Finiteness of joint moments for bulk/boundary quotients)

GG5B

Suppose that Q is a Carleson cube of the upper half-plane \overline{\mathbb{H}} near the origin, and I its intersection with \mathbb{R}. Suppose that p,q\geq 0. Then

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(I)^{q}}\right]<\infty

if p<\min(\frac{2}{\gamma^2}+\frac{q}{2},\frac{4}{\gamma^2}).

Used by Remark 17

Remark

Remark 3

ZGVG

Although the rigorous treatment of the Gaussian multiplicative chaos measure always requires passing by a regularization procedure (with for instance the mollifier approach above), this will be mostly a technical issue which is quite standard in our setting. We will thus omit details about this regularization and refer the readers to [robert2010gaussian, Berestycki:2024aa, huang2018liouville, Huang:2023aa] for justifications, and we will choose to write down directly unregularized versions in the estimates below with pointers to similar proofs in the existing literature, in order not to distract the readers from the key ideas of the proof.

Lemma

Lemma 4 (Kahane’s convexity inequality)

3R3T

Let \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{d} be a bounded domain, and X,Y are log-correlated Gaussian fields on \Omega with the following covariance comparison inequality:

\forall x,y\in\Omega,\quad \mathbb{E}[X(x)X(y)]\leq\mathbb{E}[Y(x)Y(y)].

Then for any convex functional F:\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}\to\mathbb{R} with at most polynomial growth at the boundaries,

\mathbb{E}\left[F\left(\int_{\Omega}e^{X(z)-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}[X(z)^2]}d\sigma(z)\right)\right]\leq\mathbb{E}\left[F\left(\int_{\Omega}e^{Y(z)-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}[Y(z)^2]}d\sigma(z)\right)\right],

where \sigma is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure on \Omega.

Lemma

Lemma 5

W9RQ

If G is any smooth functional with subgaussian growth at infinity as well as in its first and second derivatives, and if we define

\varphi(t)\coloneqq\mathbb{E}[G(W_1(t),\dots,W_n(t))],

then

\varphi'(t)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{1\leq i,j\leq n}\mathbb{E}[\partial_{ij}G(W_1(t),\dots,W_n(t))W_i(t)W_j(t)](\mathbb{E}[B_iB_j]-\mathbb{E}[A_iA_j]).

Used by Proof

Proof

V716

Deriving with respect to t, with the chain rule we get

\varphi'(t)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\mathbb{E}[W'_i(t)\cdot \partial_i G(W_1(t),\dots,W_n(t))].

Since

W'_i(t)=(Z'_i(t)-\mathbb{E}[Z_i(t)Z'_i(t)])W_i(t),

we have

\varphi'(t)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\mathbb{E}[(Z'_i(t)-\mathbb{E}[Z_i(t)Z'_i(t)])W_i(t)\cdot \partial_i G(W_1(t),\dots,W_n(t))].

We now fix 1\leq i\leq n and apply the Gaussian integration by parts formula to the term Z'_i(t). When performing the Gaussian integration by parts, the Gaussian variable Z'_i(t) should contract with all other Gaussians in the expression above.

\bullet When the other Gaussian variable in the Gaussian integration by parts formula is W_i(t), for each fixed index 1\leq i\leq n we get the following contribution:

\mathbb{E}[W_i(t)\cdot \partial_i G(W_1(t),\dots,W_n(t))]\mathbb{E}[Z'_i(t)Z_i(t)].

This cancels with the linear part in \varphi'(t) with fixed i, namely

\mathbb{E}[-\mathbb{E}[Z_i(t)Z'_i(t)]W_i(t)\cdot \partial_i G(W_1(t),\dots,W_n(t))].

\bullet It remains to consider the case where the other Gaussian variable in the Gaussian integration by parts formula is in G(W_1(t),\dots,W_n(t)). For fixed 1\leq i\leq n, their contribution amounts to

\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}\mathbb{E}[W_i(t)W_j(t)\partial_{ij} G(W_1(t),\dots,W_n(t))]\mathbb{E}[Z'_i(t)Z_j(t)].

Recalling that

\mathbb{E}[Z_i(t)Z'_j(t)]=\frac{1}{2}(\mathbb{E}[B_iB_j]-\mathbb{E}[A_iA_j])

and summing over all 1\leq i\leq n, we have proven that

\varphi'(t)=\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{1\leq i,j\leq n}\mathbb{E}[\partial_{ij}G(W_1(t),\dots,W_n(t))W_i(t)W_j(t)](\mathbb{E}[B_iB_j]-\mathbb{E}[A_iA_j]).

This finished the proof of (5).

Uses Lemma 5

Theorem

Theorem 6 (Non-convex Kahane’s inequality for normalized exponentials of Gaussian fields)

QKT6

Let T=\{1,\dots,n\} be a discrete index space and \textbf{A},\textbf{B} two centered Gaussian vectors indexed by T. Let G(x_1,\dots,x_n) be some real-valued function with subgaussian growth at infinity as well as in all its first and second partial derivatives, and such that for any (i,j)\in T^2, we have

(\mathbb{E}[B_iB_j]-\mathbb{E}[A_iA_j])\partial_{ij}G(x_1,\dots,x_n)\geq 0.

Then with

W^{A}_i\coloneqq W_i(0)=\exp\left(A_i-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}[A_i^2]\right),\quad W^{B}_i\coloneqq W_i(1)=\exp\left(B_i-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}[B_i^2]\right),

we have

\mathbb{E}[G(W^{A}_1,\dots,W^{A}_n)]\leq\mathbb{E}[G(W^{B}_1,\dots,W^{B}_n)].

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof

Proof of Theorem 6

We recall identity (5). When the sign condition (6) is satisfied, for any (i,j)\in T^2, the term

\mathbb{E}[\partial_{ij}G(W_1(t),\dots,W_n(t))W_i(t)W_j(t)](\mathbb{E}[B_iB_j]-\mathbb{E}[A_iA_j])

is positive since W_i(t),W_j(t) are positive quantities. Summing up over all (i,j)\in T^2 yields the proof of the theorem.

Lemma

Lemma 7 (Decorrelating bulk/boundary quotients: an upper bound)

O79L

\mathbb{E}[\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q)^{p}]<\infty\quad\text{and}\quad\mathbb{E}[\mu^{\partial}(I)^{-q}]<\infty.

Then for some constant C depending only on \gamma,Q,I and ||g||_{\infty},

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(I)^{q}}\right]\leq C\mathbb{E}[\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q)^{p}]\mathbb{E}[\mu^{\partial}(I)^{-q}].

Used by Proof

Proof

TEHF

By the boundedness assumptions on Q,I and g, we know that there exists some constant K>0 depending only on Q,I and ||g||_{\infty} such that

\forall x\in Q, \forall y\in I,\quad\mathbb{E}[X(x)X(y)]\geq -K.

Therefore, the field \widetilde{X}=X+\sqrt{K}N, where N is an independent standard Gaussian variable, has positive covariance on Q\times I. Consequently, if \widetilde{X_Q} and \widetilde{X_I} are independent copies of \widetilde{X} restricted to Q and I, we have that

\forall x\in Q, \forall y\in I,\quad\mathbb{E}[\widetilde{X_Q}(x)\widetilde{X_I}(y)]\leq\mathbb{E}[\widetilde{X}(x)\widetilde{X}(y)]

while all the other covariances on (Q\cup I)^2 are equal. Applying Theorem 6 yields

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\widetilde{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}}(Q)^{p}}{\widetilde{\mu^{\partial}}(I)^{q}}\right]\leq \mathbb{E}[\widetilde{\mu_Q^{\mathrm{H}}}(Q)^{p}]\mathbb{E}[\widetilde{\mu^{\partial}_I}(I)^{-q}],

where \widetilde{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}} and \widetilde{\mu^{\partial}} are the respective bulk and boundary Gaussian multiplicative chaos measures associated to the field \widetilde{X}, and \widetilde{\mu_Q^{\mathrm{H}}} and \widetilde{\mu^{\partial}_I} are the respective bulk and boundary Gaussian multiplicative chaos measures associated to the fields \widetilde{X_Q} and \widetilde{X_I}. Factorizing out the independent Gaussian factors in all the measures on the left and right hand side in the above display yields the result.

Uses Theorem 6

Lemma

Lemma 8 (Comparison of joint moments of bulk/boundary quotient for general covariance kernels)

SSOG

Suppose that Q is a bounded region in \overline{\mathbb{H}} and I\subset\mathbb{R} is a bounded interval on the boundary. Consider the log-correlated Gaussian field X defined with the general covariance kernel (?) with smooth bounded correction term g, and the exact scale-invariant log-correlated Gaussian field X_\mathrm{C} with covariance (?) without the correction term. Then for any p>1,q>0, the finiteness of the following expectations are equivalent (in the sense that they differ at most by some positive multiplicative constant)

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(I)^{q}}\right]\quad\text{and}\quad\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}_{\mathrm{C}}(Q)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}_{\mathrm{C}}(I)^{q}}\right],

where \mu^{\mathrm{H}}_{\mathrm{C}} and \mu^{\partial}_{\mathrm{C}} are the respective bulk and boundary Gaussian multiplicative chaos measure associated to the exact scaling field X_{\mathrm{C}}.

In fact, these two expectations are comparable up to a multiplicative constant C that only depends on \gamma,Q,I and ||g||_{\infty}.

Proof

CE5N

The proof is similar to the one above: we will modify the log-correlated Gaussian fields by adding independent global Gaussian constants.

Consider the following upper bounds of the differences in covariance between X and X_{\mathrm{C}} on different domains:

\begin{split} K_Q&=\sup\{z,w\in Q~;~|K(z,w)-K_{\mathrm{C}}(z,w)|\};\\ K_I&=\sup\{z,w\in I~;~|K(z,w)-K_{\mathrm{C}}(z,w)|\};\\ K&=\sup\{z,w\in Q\cup I~;~|K(z,w)-K_{\mathrm{C}}(z,w)|\}. \end{split}

Notice that these constants are finite by our boundedness assumptions, and only depend on Q,I and ||g||_{\infty}.

In view of applying the generalized Kahane’s inequality of Theorem 6, we should make the covariance of X smaller than that of X_{\mathrm{C}} on Q\times Q and I\times I, but greater than that of X_{\mathrm{C}} on Q\times I. Take then three independent standard Gaussian random variables (also independent of X and X_{\mathrm{C}}) denoted N_Q,N_I,N and modify the fields X and X_{\mathrm{C}} in the following manner. Define

\begin{split} \widetilde{X}(z)&=X(z)+\sqrt{K}N\mathbf{1}_{\{z\in Q\cup I\}},\\ \widehat{X_\mathrm{C}}(z)&=X_{\mathrm{C}}(z)+\sqrt{K+K_Q}N_Q\mathbf{1}_{\{z\in Q\}}+\sqrt{K+K_I}N_I\mathbf{1}_{\{z\in I\}}. \end{split}

One verifies that \widetilde{X} and \widehat{X_{\mathrm{C}}} satisfies the comparison of covariances we describe above. Then applying Theorem 6 yields

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\widetilde{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}}(Q)^{p}}{\widetilde{\mu^{\partial}}(I)^{q}}\right]\leq\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\widehat{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}_{\mathrm{C}}}(Q)^{p}}{\widehat{\mu^{\partial}_{\mathrm{C}}}(I)^{q}}\right],

where \widetilde{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}},\widetilde{\mu^{\partial}} are associated to \widetilde{X} and \widehat{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}_{\mathrm{C}}},\widehat{\mu^{\partial}_{\mathrm{C}}} are associated to \widehat{X_{\mathrm{C}}}. Factorizing out the independent global Gaussian constant (notice that this only depends on \gamma,Q,I and ||g||_{\infty}) yields one side of the inequality; the other side is similar.

Uses Theorem 6

Lemma

Lemma 9 (Finiteness of quotients with positive distance)

CIFU

If a bounded region A of the upper-half plane \mathbb{H} is of some positive distance to \mathbb{R}, then

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(A)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\delta A)^{q}}\right]<\infty

if and only if p<\frac{4}{\gamma^2} and -q<\frac{4}{\gamma^2}.

Used by Remark 15, Proof

Proof

GZYX

We can use the generalized Kahane’s inequality of Theorem 6 to decorrelate the log-correlated field X_\mathrm{N} restricted to A and to \delta A, and this results in

\frac{1}{C}\mathbb{E}[\mu(A)^{p}]\mathbb{E}\left[\mu^{\partial}(\delta A)^{-q}\right]\leq \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu(A)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\delta A)}\right]\leq C\mathbb{E}[\mu(A)^{p}]\mathbb{E}\left[\mu^{\partial}(\delta A)^{-q}\right]

for some finite positive constant C. The second inequality is due to Lemma 7, and the first inequality follows from similar considerations. More precisely, the positive distance assumption implies that there exists some K>0 such that for all x\in A and y\in I, we have \mathbb{E}[X(x)X(y)]\leq K. Consider independent copies X_A and X_I respectively on A and I of the field X, and modify them to \widetilde{X_A}=X_A+\sqrt{K}N and \widetilde{X_I}=X_I+\sqrt{K}N with the same but independent Gaussian N. For the field X, we also modify it in the following way: let N_A,N_I be other independent Gaussians, if x\in A, we define \widehat{X}(x)=X(x)+\sqrt{K}N_A, and if x\in I, \widehat{X}(y)=X(y)+\sqrt{K}N_I. We have this time \mathbb{E}[\widehat{X}(x)\widehat{X}(y)]\leq\mathbb{E}[\widetilde{X_A}(x)\widetilde{X_I}(y)] if (x,y)\in (A\times I)\cup (I\times A) and equal otherwise. Therefore, we get the reversed inequality via the generalized Kahane’s inequality of Theorem 6, following the same lines as in the proof of Lemma 7. The lemma follows from classical moment bounds on Gaussian multiplicative chaos measures (for the boundary measure, the parameter is \frac{\gamma}{2} but the covariance is -2\ln, resulting in the moment bound \frac{4}{\gamma^2} instead of \frac{2}{\gamma^2}).

Uses Theorem 6, Lemma 7

Lemma

Lemma 10 (Exact scaling relation for the bulk measure)

YK0R

Denote by

\overline{\zeta}(p;0)=\left(2+\frac{\gamma^2}{2}\right)p-\gamma^2p^2.

Then for any A\subset Q_r and p\in\mathbb{R},

\mathbb{E}[\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(rA)^{p}]=r^{\overline{\zeta}(p)}\mathbb{E}[\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(A)^{p}].

Lemma

Lemma 11 (Exact scaling relation for bulk/boundary quotients)

OD2Z

For any A\subset Q_r and p,q\in\mathbb{R},

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(rA)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\delta(rA))^{q}}\right]=r^{\overline{\zeta}(p-\frac{q}{2};0)}\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(A)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\delta A)^{q}}\right].

Used by Proof, Proof

Proof

2PTD

The proof is a straightforward adaptation of the proof of the previous lemma. We include a brief proof since this is not written elsewhere, and refer to [Huang:2023aa, Lemma 4] for the details with the \epsilon-mollifier and the infinite expectation case.

Recall the following equality in law, consequence of the exact scaling kernel (?):

\{X_\epsilon(z)+\sqrt{-2\ln r}N\}_{z\in Q_r}=\{X_{r\epsilon}(rz)\}_{z\in Q_r}

where N is an independent standard Gaussian variable. Applying this to the lemma, we have the following equality in law:

\begin{split} \frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(rA)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\delta(rA))^{q}}&=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\frac{\left(\int_{rA}e^{\gamma X_{r\epsilon}(z)-\frac{\gamma^2}{2}\mathbb{E}[X_{r\epsilon}(z)^2]}\text{Im}(z)^{-\frac{\gamma^2}{2}}d^2z\right)^{p}}{\left(\int_{\delta (rA)}e^{\frac{\gamma}{2}X_{r\epsilon}(w)-\frac{\gamma^2}{8}\mathbb{E}[X_{r\epsilon}(w)^2]}dw\right)^{q}}\\ &=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\frac{(e^{\gamma\sqrt{-2\ln r}N-\frac{\gamma^2}{2}(-2\ln r)}r^{-\frac{\gamma^2}{2}}r^2)^{p}\cdot\left(\int_{A}e^{\gamma X_{\epsilon}(z)-\frac{\gamma^2}{2}\mathbb{E}[X_\epsilon(z)^2]}\text{Im}(z)^{-\frac{\gamma^2}{2}}d^2z\right)^{p}}{(e^{\frac{\gamma}{2}\sqrt{-2\ln r}N-\frac{\gamma^2}{8}(-2\ln r)}r)^{q}\cdot\left(\int_{\delta A}e^{\frac{\gamma}{2}X_\epsilon(w)-\frac{\gamma^2}{8}\mathbb{E}[X_\epsilon(w)^2]}dw\right)^{q}}\\ &=e^{\gamma\sqrt{-2\ln r}(p-\frac{q}{2})}\cdot r^{(2+\frac{\gamma^2}{2})(p-\frac{q}{2})}\cdot\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(A)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\delta A)^{q}}. \end{split}

The claim follows from taking the expectation

\mathbb{E}\left[e^{\gamma\sqrt{-2\ln r}(p-\frac{q}{2})}\right]=r^{-\gamma^2(p-\frac{q}{2})^2},

and the fact that the random variable N is independent of the rest.

Uses Lemma 11

Remark

Remark 12

WVZB

Notice that the choice of \text{Im}(z)^{-\frac{\gamma^2}{2}} in the background singularity for the bulk measure (?) is important to have this nice shift relation by -\frac{q}{2}. This special choice (which appears naturally in boundary Liouville conformal field theory) makes the scaling factor in the bulk region exactly a multiple of the scaling factor on the boundary. Indeed, our method is general and any other singularity strength can be similarly treated, but the results would not be as nice and simple as the ones in our main theorems. The shift -\frac{q}{2} in the scaling exponent function corresponds to our heuristics that “the boundary measure behaves like the square root of the bulk measure”, and is responsible for the shift +\frac{q}{2} in the moment bounds in Theorem 2.

Lemma

Lemma 13 (Exact scaling relation for localized bulk/boundary quotients)

585Z

For simplicity, we suppose that the measures are localized at v=0 (the general case is similar by translation along \mathbb{R}). Then for any A\subset Q_r and p\in\mathbb{R},

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}_{v=0}(rA)^{p}}{\mu_{v=0}^{\partial}(\delta(rA))^{q}}\right]=r^{\widetilde{\zeta}(p;q)}\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}_{v=0}(A)^{p}}{\mu_{v=0}^{\partial}(\delta A)^{q}}\right],

where we define the localized boundary scaling exponent by

\widetilde{\zeta}(p;q)=\overline{\zeta}(p-\frac{q}{2};0)-\gamma^2(p-\frac{q}{2})=(2-\frac{\gamma^2}{2})(p-\frac{q}{2})-\gamma^2(p-\frac{q}{2})^2.

Proof of Lemma 13

The proof is similar to the one above and details are omitted. By an exact scaling calculation as the previous one we get

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}_{v=0}(rA)^{p}}{\mu_{v=0}^{\partial}(\delta(rA))^{q}}\right]=e^{\gamma\sqrt{-2\ln r}(p-\frac{q}{2})}\cdot r^{(2-\frac{\gamma^2}{2})(p-\frac{q}{2})}\cdot \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}_{v=0}(A)^{p}}{\mu_{v=0}^{\partial}(\delta A)^{q}}\right].

and the claim follows from the independence of the Gaussian factor N.

Remark

Remark 14 (Sign-change of the scaling exponent functions)

KANI

Notice that the unlocalized/localized scaling exponent functions \overline{\zeta}(p;q) and \widetilde{\zeta}(p;q) are both trivial when q=2p. It is also useful to observe the sign-change of \widetilde{\zeta}(p;q):

When 2p>q, the function \widetilde{\zeta}(p;q) is positive if and only if p-\frac{q}{2}<\frac{2}{\gamma^2}-\frac{1}{2};
When 2p<q, the function \widetilde{\zeta}(p;q) is positive if and only if p-\frac{q}{2}>\frac{2}{\gamma^2}-\frac{1}{2}.

We will also need the following sign-change of the unlocalized scaling exponent function \overline{\zeta}(p;q)-1: this quantity is positive if and only if p-\frac{q}{2}\in(\frac{1}{2},\frac{2}{\gamma^2}), with \gamma\in(0,2).

Remark

Remark 15 (Explosion of the joint bulk/boundary moment at the critical threshold for large q)

SVVM

Notice that we have also proven the explosion at the critical threshold p_c=\frac{4}{\gamma^2} in this case. Indeed, first observe that

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(I)^{q}}\right]\geq \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q^{\mathrm{U}})^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(I)^{q}}\right]\geq C\mathbb{E}\left[\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q^{\mathrm{U}})^{p}\right]\mathbb{E}\left[\mu^{\partial}(I)^{-q}\right]

by Lemma 9. But \mathbb{E}\left[\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q^{\mathrm{U}})^{p}\right] explodes when p\geq \frac{4}{\gamma^2} (and the negative moment of the boundary measure is always non-trivial [Rhodes_2014, Theorem 2.12]).

Uses Lemma 9

Remark

Remark 16

FD96

One might wonder we take a snake path towards proving Theorem 2 in the case for q\in[2p-1,2p] (especially say with q=2p). This can be explained by analogy to [Huang:2023aa] in the q=0 case. Indeed, due to the shift -\frac{q}{2} induced by the boundary measure denominator, the bulk/boundary quotient term with q\in[2p-1,2p] behaves similarly to the p'-th moment of the bulk measure for p'\in[0,\frac{1}{2}). One can inspect the proof of [Huang:2023aa, Lemma 8] and observe that, the proof is first done in the case p'\in(\frac{1}{2},\frac{2}{\gamma^2}) and the argument of this part is not possible if p'\in(0,\frac{1}{2}) due to the sign-change in the scaling exponent, and we only get the case p'\in(0,\frac{1}{2}) afterwards by Hölder’s inequality and the trivialness of the 0-th moment of the bulk measure. However, the case of the 0-th moment for the bulk measure problem corresponds to the problematic critical case p=2q for the joint (p,q)-moment, and our solution in this subsection is to first go to the (0,q')-joint moment for some higher values of q', which rougly corresponds to using some negative moment (instead of the 0-th moment) of the bulk measure in the context of [Huang:2023aa].

Remark

Remark 17

1A7F

By symmetry, suppose that v\in[0,r] and denote by \rho=r-v the distance from v to the nearest end point r. To show Theorem 2, it suffices to prove that, under the corresponding conditions of Theorem 2,

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu_v^{\mathrm{H}}(Q)^{p}}{\mu_v^{\partial}(I)^{q+1}}\right]\leq C_1+C_2 \rho^{-\eta_{(p;q+1)}}

for some coefficient \eta_{(p;q+1)}>-1, and C_1,C_2 independent of \rho, i.e. independent of the position of v. Indeed, plugging this bound in the integral (?) yields the finiteness of \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(I)^{q}}\right].

Uses Theorem 2

Lemma

Lemma 18 (Finiteness of the localized joint moment from the unlocalized joint moment)

DY46

Suppose that the unlocalized (p,q+1)-joint moment of the bulk/boundary quotient

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(I)^{q+1}}\right]<\infty

is finite and q<2p-1, p<\frac{4}{\gamma^2}, p<\frac{2}{\gamma^2}+\frac{q}{2}. Then the integrand above, i.e.

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu_v^{\mathrm{H}}(Q)^{p}}{\mu_v^{\partial}(I)^{q+1}}\right]

is uniformly bounded in v\in[-r,r].

Used by Proof

Proposition

Proposition 19 (Finiteness of joint moments of \Gamma-shaped regions)

O9M4

Suppose that p<\frac{4}{\gamma^2} and (18) holds. Then

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(\Gamma_{2^{-1}r})^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\partial \Gamma_{2^{-1}r})^{q+1}}\right]<\infty.

Used by Proof

Proof of Proposition 19

Notice that \Gamma_{2^{-1}r} is the union of Q^{\mathrm{U}} and Q^{\mathrm{L}}, the “upper” and “lower left” part of the Carleson cube Q_r. Suppose that 0\leq p\leq 1, then by the subadditivity inequality,

\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(\Gamma_{2^{-1}r})^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\partial \Gamma_{2^{-1}r})^{q+1}}\right]\leq \left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q^{\mathrm{L}})^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\partial \Gamma_{2^{-1}r})^{q+1}}\right]+\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q^{\mathrm{U}})^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\partial \Gamma_{2^{-1}r})^{q+1}}\right].

But Lemma 11 implies that the first term is

\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q^{\mathrm{L}})^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\delta Q^{\mathrm{L}})^{q}}\right]=2^{-\overline{\zeta}(p;q+1)}\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(I)^{q+1}}\right]<\infty

by assumption (18), and the second term is finite when p<\frac{4}{\gamma^2} by Lemma 9.

When p>1, replace the subadditivity inequality by Minkowski’s inequality for the L_p-norm which yields

\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(\Gamma_{2^{-1}r})^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\partial \Gamma_{2^{-1}r})^{q+1}}\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}\leq \left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q^{\mathrm{L}})^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\partial \Gamma_{2^{-1}r})^{q+1}}\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}+\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(Q^{\mathrm{U}})^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\partial \Gamma_{2^{-1}r})^{q+1}}\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}.

The same conclusion thus follows.

Uses Lemma 11, Lemma 18, Lemma 9

Proposition

Proposition 20 (Finiteness of joint moments of \Pi-shaped regions)

JFT9

If p<\frac{4}{\gamma^2} and (18) holds. Then

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(\Pi_r)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(\delta\Pi_r)^{q+1}}\right]<\infty

Proof of Proposition 20

The proof is similar to Proposition 19 (by decomposing the \Pi-shaped region into Q^{\mathrm{U}} and two Carleson cubes) and is omitted.

Proposition

Proposition 21

1BC8

Suppose that (18) holds. Then following supremum over the the localized (p,q+1)-joint moments is finite:

\sup_{d\in[\frac{r}{4},\frac{r}{2}]}\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu_r^{\mathrm{H}}(Q_r\setminus Q'_{d})^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}_r(\partial (Q_r\setminus Q'_{d}))^{q+1}}\right]<\infty

if q<2p-1, p<\frac{4}{\gamma^2}, p<\frac{2}{\gamma^2}+\frac{q}{2}.

Proof of Proposition 21

The proof is almost identical to that of Proposition 19. Notice that (see Figure ?)

Q_r\setminus Q'_{d}\subset \left([-r,2r-2d]\times [0,r-2d]\right)\cup \left([-r,r]\times [\frac{r}{2},2r]\right).

The paper has a figure here, which this page does not show.

Call the first set in the above union S_1(d) and the second S_2 (corresponding respectively to the purple and the yellow regions in Figure ?). Repeating the proof of Proposition 21 shows that both

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu_r^{\mathrm{H}}(S_1)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}_r([-r,2r-2d])^{q+1}}\right]\quad\text{and}\quad\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu_r^{\mathrm{H}}(S_2)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}_r([-r,0])^{q+1}}\right]

are finite under the conditions q<2p-1, p<\frac{4}{\gamma^2}, p<\frac{2}{\gamma^2}+\frac{q}{2} and with an upper bound independent of d. This implies (21) for 0\leq p\leq 1 with the subadditivity inequality, and p>1 with Minkowski’s inequality.

Uses Proposition 19

Proposition

Proposition 22 (Joint bulk/boundary moment bounds for non-tangential trapezoids)

7Y29

Let T be a small enough non-tangential trapezoid near the origin of \mathbb{H} and I its intersection with \mathbb{R}. Suppose that p,q\geq 0. Then

\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mu^{\mathrm{H}}(T)^{p}}{\mu^{\partial}(I)^{q}}\right]<\infty

if p<\min(\frac{2}{\gamma^2}+\frac{q}{2},\frac{4}{\gamma^2}).

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2502.09121v1 by Yichao Huang, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2502/2502.09121.jsonl.