<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" ><generator uri="https://jekyllrb.com/" version="4.4.1">Jekyll</generator><link href="https://oakleafwarrior.github.io/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" /><link href="https://oakleafwarrior.github.io/" rel="alternate" type="text/html" /><updated>2026-08-16T17:27:05+00:00</updated><id>https://oakleafwarrior.github.io/feed.xml</id><title type="html">Alex Olhava</title><subtitle>Personal site of Alex Olhava — research, writing, and notes.</subtitle><author><name>Alex Olhava</name></author><entry><title type="html">Steepest Descent II: The Local Central Limit Theorem</title><link href="https://oakleafwarrior.github.io/posts/2026/08/steepest-descent-ii-local-clt/" rel="alternate" type="text/html" title="Steepest Descent II: The Local Central Limit Theorem" /><published>2026-08-06T00:00:00+00:00</published><updated>2026-08-06T00:00:00+00:00</updated><id>https://oakleafwarrior.github.io/posts/2026/08/steepest-descent-ii-local-clt</id><content type="html" xml:base="https://oakleafwarrior.github.io/posts/2026/08/steepest-descent-ii-local-clt/"><![CDATA[<h2 id="introduction">Introduction</h2>

<p>In <a href="/posts/2026/08/steepest-descent-i-laplace-stirling/">Steepest Descent I</a> we introduced Laplace’s method (the real integral version) and used it to prove Stirling’s formula. There, all we needed to do was localize near the maximum of $f$. In this post, we do proper steepest descent, which becomes significantly more complicated as you have to choose a contour. This was the second example in Vadim Gorin’s course, but treated with substantially more rigor.</p>

<p>The general formula in $\CC$ we wrote down but didn’t yet need is</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
\begin{equation}
    \int_\gamma e^{nf(z)}dz = e^{nf(z_0)} \sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{n|f''(z_0)|}} e^{i\alpha}(1 + o(1))
\label{eq:steepest_descent_general}
\end{equation}
$$</div>

<p>The complication is that $\gamma$ is now a contour we have to choose. On a bad contour, $e^{nf(z)}$ oscillates instead of decaying, and Laplace’s argument falls apart. The method is called “steepest descent” because we choose a contour such that $\Re f$ decreases as fast as possible away from $z_0$ and does not oscillate. We take $\gamma$ through the critical point $z_0$ along the direction where $\Im f$ stays constant so there is no oscillation and $\Re f$ decays. We will prove the local central limit theorem using steepest descent and walk through the construction of such a contour.</p>

<p>So, the steps are similar to those in <a href="/posts/2026/08/steepest-descent-i-laplace-stirling/">Steepest Descent I</a>, but with the addition of choosing a contour.</p>

<ol>
  <li>Express the desired formula as an integral.</li>
  <li>Find an adequate $f$ to to transform the integrand into $\exp(nf(z))$.</li>
  <li>Find an appropriate contour.</li>
  <li>Localize near the critical point of $f$ with only $o(1)$ loss.</li>
  <li>Bound the tails.</li>
</ol>

<h2 id="local-clt-for-binomial-random-variables">Local CLT for Binomial Random Variables</h2>

<p><strong>Theorem (Local Central Limit Theorem).</strong> Let $p \in (0,1)$ and $x \in \RR$. For $n \in \ZZ_+$, let $k$ be the nearest integer to $pn + x\sqrt{n}$. Then</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
\begin{equation}
    p^k(1-p)^{n-k} {n \choose k} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi n p(1-p)}} \exp \lp -\frac{x^2}{2p(1-p)} \rp (1 + o(1)).
\label{eq:local_clt}
\end{equation}
$$</div>

<p>This theorem predates the more familiar Central Limit Theorem — De Moivre proved it for $p=1/2$, and Laplace in general. It says something sharper than the CLT: not just that a properly-normalized binomial random variable converges in distribution to a Gaussian, but that its individual point masses converge to the values of the Gaussian density itself, at scale $n^{-1/2}$. Hence “local.”</p>

<p><strong>Proof.</strong></p>

<p><strong>Step 1:</strong>
We observe that $p^k(1-p)^{n-k}{n \choose k}$ is the coefficient of $z^k$ in</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
(pz+(1-p))^n = \sum_{j=0}^n {n \choose j} (pz)^j (1-p)^{n-j}.
$$</div>

<p>Dividing by $z^{k+1}$ turns this into the coefficient of $z^{-1}$, i.e. a residue, and the Residue Theorem lets us write it as a contour integral around $0$:</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
p^k(1-p)^{n-k}{n \choose k} = \frac{1}{2\pi \ii} \oint_{\{0\}} \frac{(pz+(1-p))^n}{z^{k+1}} dz.
$$</div>

<p>We recast this as</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
\begin{equation}
    I(n) = \frac{1}{2\pi \ii}\oint_{\{0\}} \exp(n f(z)) z^{np-k-1}dz
\label{eq:clt_int}
\end{equation}
$$</div>

<p>where $f(z) = \log(pz + (1 - p)) - p \log(z)$. We’ll treat $z^{np-k-1}$ separately — its exponent grows only like $O(\sqrt{n})$, far slower than the $nf(z)$ term that will dominate everything.</p>

<p><strong>Step 2:</strong>
As with Laplace’s method, we want to localize near a critical point of $f$. But we’re now integrating over a closed contour in $\CC$ rather than an interval in $\RR$, so we also have to choose that contour, and worry about the geometry and oscillation of the integrand along it. We first fix a branch of $\log$: cut along the negative real axis, so $\log(re^{\ii\theta}) = \log r + \ii\theta$ for $\theta \in (-\pi,\pi)$.</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
f'(z) = \frac{p}{pz + (1 - p)} - \frac{p}{z},
$$</div>

<p>which vanishes exactly when $p(1-p)(z-1) = 0$, i.e. at $z_c = 1$. Furthermore,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
f''(z_c) = \left. -\frac{p^2}{(pz + (1 - p))^2} + \frac{p}{z^2} \right|_{z = 1} = p(1-p) > 0.
$$</div>

<p>Since $f(1) = \log(1) - p\log(1) = 0$, Taylor expanding gives</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
f(z) = \frac{p(1 - p)}{2} (z-1)^2 + O\lp (z-1)^3 \rp.
$$</div>

<p>Because $f$ is holomorphic, the Cauchy–Riemann equations force this critical point to be a saddle: $f’‘(z_c)$ is real and positive, so $\Re f$ falls off in the imaginary direction and rises in the real direction near $z_c$. The figure below shows the local picture.</p>

<figure class="figure">
  <img src="/assets/img/posts/steepest-descent/fig04-clt-saddle.png" alt="A saddle point at z=1 in the complex plane, with hyperbolic level curves of Re f, shaded ascent and descent sectors, a vertical steepest-descent path, and the real axis marked a..." style="width: 78%;" />
  <figcaption>The Cauchy–Riemann equations ensure that critical points of any holomorphic function are saddle points. Here $f’‘(1)=p(1-p)&gt;0$ is real, so near $z_c=1$ one has $\Re(f(z)-f(z_c)) \approx \tfrac{p(1-p)}{2}((x-1)^2-y^2)$. The light grey curves are level curves of $\Re f$; the dashed diagonals are the degenerate level curve $\Re f=\Re f(z_c)$ through the saddle itself. $\Re f$ falls fastest in the imaginary direction and rises fastest in the real one — so to localize near $z_c$, our contour must pass through it vertically. Claude helped generate the tikz.
</figcaption>
</figure>

<p><strong>Step 3:</strong>
We want a contour through $z_c=1$ on which $\Im f$ stays constant (so the integrand doesn’t oscillate) and $\Re f$ is maximized at $z_c$ (so Laplace’s argument applies once we’re on it). Consider the level set $\Im f(z) = \Im f(z_c) = 0$. The positive real ray $(0,\infty)$ trivially lies in it, since $f$ is real there, but we claim it also contains a loop around $0$, which we’ll take as our contour.</p>

<p>$\Im f(z) = 0$ is equivalent to $g(z) := (pz + (1 - p))z^{-p} \in (0, \infty)$, a form that’s easier to work with. Writing $z = re^{\ii \theta}$,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
g(z) = r^{-p} \lp p re^{\ii (1-p) \theta} + (1 - p)e^{-\ii p \theta} \rp,
$$</div>

<p>so</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
\Im g(z) = r^{-p}\lp pr \sin((1-p)\theta) - (1 - p) \sin(p \theta) \rp.
$$</div>

<p>Setting $\Im g(z) = 0$ (and $r^{-p}\ne 0$) requires the two terms to balance:</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
pr\sin((1-p)\theta) = (1-p)\sin(p\theta).
$$</div>

<p>At $\theta=0$ both sides vanish trivially which is the ray we already found. For $\theta \ne 0$: since $\theta \in (-\pi,\pi)$ forces $(1-p)\theta \in (-\pi,\pi)$ too, $\sin((1-p)\theta) \ne 0$, so we can solve for $r$:</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
R(\theta) = \frac{(1 - p) \sin(p \theta)}{p\sin((1-p)\theta)}.
$$</div>

<p>$R(\theta) &gt; 0$ for all $\theta$, so $\gamma(\theta) = R(\theta)e^{\ii \theta}$ is injective and winds once around $0$, and $R(0)=1$ (by L’Hôpital), so $\gamma$ passes through $z_c$ exactly as required. The figure below draws $\gamma$ for a few values of $p$.</p>

<figure class="figure">
  <img src="/assets/img/posts/steepest-descent/fig05-clt-contour.png" alt="Three closed contours in the complex plane through z=1, for p=0.4, p=0.8, and the degenerate p=1/2 case which is exactly the unit circle, each pinched shut on the negative real ..." style="width: 78%;" />
  <figcaption>The level set ${\Im f=0}$ contains, besides the ray $(0,\infty)$, a closed loop $\gamma(\theta)=R(\theta)e^{\ii\theta}$ around the pole at the origin. It passes vertically through the saddle at $z_c=1$, matching the figure above, and closes at $\theta=\pm\pi$, i.e. at $z=-\tfrac{1-p}{p}$: the zero of $pz+(1-p)$, where the true integrand vanishes and $\Re f\to-\infty$, pinching the loop shut. Claude helped generate the tikz.
</figcaption>
</figure>

<p>It remains to check $\Re g$ (i.e. $g$ itself, since it’s real on $\gamma$) is positive rather than negative there. Substituting $r=R(\theta)$ and using the sine addition formula $\sin(p\theta)\cos((1-p)\theta) + \cos(p\theta)\sin((1-p)\theta) = \sin\theta$,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
g(\gamma(\theta)) = R(\theta)^{-p}(1-p)\frac{\sin\theta}{\sin((1-p)\theta)},
$$</div>

<p>which is positive because $\sin\theta$ and $\sin((1-p)\theta)$ always share a sign for $\lvert\theta\rvert&lt;\pi$. So $\gamma(\theta)$ genuinely lies in ${\Im f = 0}$.</p>

<!-- *A remark on the branch cut: writing $f = \log(pz+(1-p)) - p\log z$ makes it look like there are two places for something to go wrong, but the actual integrand $(pz+(1-p))^n z^{-(k+1)}$ from Step 1 is single-valued, since $k+1$ is an integer — nothing is really broken. Still, it's worth noticing that $\gamma$ closes exactly at the point $z=-(1-p)/p$ on our cut, and that this is also the zero of $pz+(1-p)$. That's not a coincidence: it's precisely where the singular bookkeeping in $f$ stops mattering, because the true integrand vanishes there.* -->

<p>We appeal to a general fact: along a level set of $\Im f$, $\Re f$ is monotonic. Write $f = u + \ii v$ with $z = x+\ii y$. The Cauchy–Riemann equations $u_x = v_y$, $u_y=-v_x$ give $\nabla v = (-u_y, u_x)$, so $\nabla u \cdot \nabla v = 0$ and $\lvert\nabla u\rvert = \lvert\nabla v\rvert = \lvert f’\rvert$. The tangent to a level curve of $v$ is orthogonal to $\nabla v$, hence parallel to $\nabla u$, so along $\gamma$,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
\frac{d}{d\theta}u(\gamma(\theta)) = \nabla u \cdot \gamma'(\theta) = \pm |\nabla u||\gamma'(\theta)|,
$$</div>

<p>which is nonzero away from the critical point. So $\Re f$ is monotonic on $(-\pi,0)$ and on $(0,\pi)$ separately. Since $\Re f(\gamma(\theta)) \to -\infty$ as $\theta \to \pm\pi$ (the pinch point from Step 3), $\Re f$ must rise from $-\infty$ up to $\theta=0$ and fall back to $-\infty$ past it. $\Re f$ attains its maximum exactly at $z_c$. The figure below plots this profile, together with the zones we’ll use to bound the tail below.</p>

<figure class="figure">
  <img src="/assets/img/posts/steepest-descent/fig06-clt-profile.png" alt="A plot of Re f along the descent contour against theta, showing a single hump maximized at theta=0, decaying to negative infinity at plus or minus pi, with a dashed quadratic mo..." style="width: 95%;" />
  <figcaption>$\Re f$ restricted to the contour above, at $p=0.4$. Because $\Re f$ is monotone along either branch of ${\Im f=0}\setminus{z_c}$, the profile has a single maximum at $\theta=0$, agreeing with $-\tfrac{p(1-p)}{2}\theta^2$ to third order there, and decaying to $-\infty$ at $\theta=\pm\pi$. The shading is the decomposition used to bound the tail: the localized integral $I_{\mathrm{loc}}$ over $\lvert \theta \rvert&lt;\vep(n)=n^{-2/5}$, a middle zone where $\Re f&lt;-\theta^2/4\cdot p(1-p)$, and an edge zone bounded away from $0$. Claude helped generate the tikz.
</figcaption>
</figure>

<p><strong>Step 4:</strong>
Write $u(\theta) = f(\gamma(\theta))$. Since $f(1)=0$, $f’(1)=0$, $f’‘(1) = p(1-p)$, and $\gamma’(0) = (R’(0)+\ii R(0))e^{\ii \cdot 0} = \ii$ (using that $R$ is even since it’s a ratio of two odd functions, so $R’(0)=0$), we have $\gamma(\theta) = 1+\ii\theta + O(\theta^2)$ and</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
\begin{equation}
    u(\theta) = \frac{p(1-p)}{2}(\gamma(\theta) - 1)^2 + O((\gamma(\theta) - 1)^3) = - \frac{p(1-p)}{2} \theta^2 + O(\theta^3).
\label{eq:clt_u_taylor}
\end{equation}
$$</div>

<p>As in the Stirling proof, we split at $\vep(n) = n^{-2/5}$ — the same balance survives unchanged, since the error term here is cubic exactly as it was there. Write $I(n) = I_{\mathrm{loc}}(n) + I_{\mathrm{tail}}(n)$, the integral \eqref{eq:clt_int} restricted to $\lvert\theta\rvert&lt;\vep(n)$ and its complement.</p>

<p>For $I_{\mathrm{loc}}$, substitute $t = \theta\sqrt{n}$, so $\lvert t\rvert &lt; \sqrt{n}\,\vep(n) = n^{1/10}$. Equation \eqref{eq:clt_u_taylor} gives</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
n u \lp \frac{t}{\sqrt{n}} \rp = - \frac{p(1-p)}{2} t^2 + O \lp n^{-1/5} \rp,
$$</div>

<p>and, writing $np-k-1 = -x\sqrt{n} + \delta_n$ with $\lvert\delta_n\rvert&lt;2$ (from the choice of $k$) and $\log\gamma(\theta) = \log R(\theta) + \ii \theta$,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
(np-k-1) \log \gamma \lp \frac{t}{\sqrt{n}} \rp = - \ii x t + O \lp n^{-1/10} \rp,
$$</div>

<p>while the Jacobian is $\gamma’(t/\sqrt{n}) = \ii(1+O(n^{-2/5}))$. Together,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
I_{\mathrm{loc}}(n) = \frac{1+O(n^{-1/5})}{\sqrt{n}} \int_{-n^{1/10}}^{n^{1/10}} \exp \lp - \frac{p(1-p)}{2}t^2 - \ii x t \rp dt.
$$</div>

<p>Extending the domain of integration to all of $\RR$ costs $O\lp e^{-p(1-p)n^{1/5}/2} \rp$, and evaluating the Fourier transform of the resulting Gaussian,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
\begin{equation}
    I_{\mathrm{loc}}(n) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi n p(1-p)}} \exp \lp -\frac{x^2}{2p(1-p)}\rp (1 + o(1)).
\label{eq:clt_center}
\end{equation}
$$</div>

<p><strong>Step 5:</strong>
For the tail, uniformly bound the Jacobian $\lvert\gamma’(\theta)\rvert \le M$ (continuous on a compact set), and set $F(n,\theta) = nu(\theta) + (np-k-1)\log R(\theta)$, so</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
|I_{\mathrm{tail}}(n)| \le M \sup_{\vep(n) < |\theta| < \pi} \exp(F(n,\theta)).
$$</div>

<p>In the middle zone $\vep(n)&lt;\lvert\theta\rvert&lt;\theta_0$, \eqref{eq:clt_u_taylor} gives $u(\theta) &lt; -\tfrac{p(1-p)}{4}\theta^2$, and since $\lvert\log R(\theta)\rvert \le C_1\theta^2$ and $\lvert np-k-1\rvert \le (\lvert x\rvert+1)\sqrt{n}$, for $n$ sufficiently large</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
|(np-k-1)\log R(\theta)| \le C_1(|x|+1)\sqrt{n}\,\theta^2 \le \frac{p(1-p)}{8}n\theta^2,
$$</div>

<p>so, using $\theta^2 \ge \vep(n)^2 = n^{-4/5}$ on this range,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
\sup_{\vep(n) < |\theta| < \theta_0} \exp(F(n,\theta)) \le \exp \lp -\frac{p(1-p)}{4}n\theta^2 + \frac{p(1-p)}{8}n\theta^2 \rp \le \exp \lp -\frac{p(1-p)}{8}n^{1/5} \rp.
$$</div>

<p>In the edge zone $\theta_0 &lt; \lvert\theta\rvert &lt; \pi$, there is $c&lt;0$ with $u(\theta) &lt; c$, and $R(\theta)$ is bounded away from $0$ and $\infty$, so $\lvert\log R(\theta)\rvert \le C_2$. Hence $F(n,\theta) \le cn + C_2(\lvert x\rvert+1)\sqrt{n} \le \tfrac{c}{2}n$ for $n$ large, and</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
\sup_{\theta_0 < |\theta| < \pi} \exp(F(n,\theta)) \le e^{cn/2}.
$$</div>

<p>Both bounds decay faster than any power of $n$, so absorbing constants and prefactors into a single $c^*&gt;0$,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
|I_{\mathrm{tail}}(n)| \le e^{-c^*n^{1/5}} = o(n^{-1/2}).
$$</div>

<p>Combining with \eqref{eq:clt_center}, whose leading term is already $\Theta(n^{-1/2})$, the tail is absorbed into the multiplicative error and</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
I(n) = I_{\mathrm{loc}}(n) + I_{\mathrm{tail}}(n) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi n p(1-p)}} \exp \lp -\frac{x^2}{2p(1-p)}\rp (1 + o(1)),
$$</div>

<p>which is exactly \eqref{eq:local_clt}. $\blacksquare$</p>]]></content><author><name>Alex Olhava</name></author><category term="math" /><category term="random matrix theory" /><summary type="html"><![CDATA[Introduction]]></summary></entry><entry><title type="html">Steepest Descent I: Laplace’s Method and Stirling’s Formula</title><link href="https://oakleafwarrior.github.io/posts/2026/08/steepest-descent-i-laplace-stirling/" rel="alternate" type="text/html" title="Steepest Descent I: Laplace’s Method and Stirling’s Formula" /><published>2026-08-04T00:00:00+00:00</published><updated>2026-08-04T00:00:00+00:00</updated><id>https://oakleafwarrior.github.io/posts/2026/08/steepest-descent-i-laplace-stirling</id><content type="html" xml:base="https://oakleafwarrior.github.io/posts/2026/08/steepest-descent-i-laplace-stirling/"><![CDATA[<h2 id="introduction">Introduction</h2>

<p>In random matrix theory, we are often confronted with contour integrals of the form $\oiint e^{nf(z)}dz$ where we would like to take $N \to \infty$ to understand local correlation structure of eigenvalues.
Often the integrals are quite formidable, so in this note we will walk through how to solve integrals like these using the method of steepest descent.
This will be the first of a series of posts on using the method of steepest descent.
In this series, we will go through a few examples increasing in difficulty, starting with integrals on $\RR$ to double contour integrals on $\CC^2$. 
We will build up to a result on the correlation structure of the largest eigenvalues as $N \to \infty$.
It is quite a fun way of computing integrals and I hope to showcase that. 
The exposition of steepest descent here follows how Vadim Gorin introduced it in his courses on Random Matrix Theory and Integrable Probability.</p>

<p>This post covers Laplace’s method, the $\RR$ analog of steepest descent, and we prove Stirling’s approximation.</p>

<p>Generally, the formula for steepest descent in $\RR$ is</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
\begin{equation}
    \int_a^b e^{nf(x)}dx = e^{nf(x_0)} \sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{n|f''(x_0)|}}(1 + o(1)).
\label{eq:laplace_general}
\end{equation}
$$</div>

<p>and in $\CC$,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
\begin{equation}
    \int_\gamma e^{nf(z)}dz = e^{nf(x_0)} \sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{n|f''(z_0)}} e^{i\alpha}(1 + o(1))
\label{eq:steepest_descent_general}
\end{equation}
$$</div>

<p>and if the critical point is of order $m$, we get $n^{-1/(m+1)}$ instead of $n^{-1/2}$.</p>

<p>When applying steepest descent we generally follow these steps.</p>

<ol>
  <li>Express the desired formula as an integral.</li>
  <li>Find an adequate $f$ to to transform the integrand into $\exp(nf(z))$.</li>
  <li>Localize near the critical point of $f$ with only $o(1)$ loss.</li>
  <li>Bound the tails.</li>
</ol>

<p>While proving Stirling’s formula, we will apply Equation $\eqref{eq:laplace_general}$.
In future posts, we will see the standard form of Equation $\eqref{eq:steepest_descent_general}$ applied for the LCLT, and the order $2$ critical point for edge limits of GUE.</p>

<h2 id="stirlings-formula">Stirling’s Formula</h2>

<p><strong>Theorem (Stirling’s Approximation).</strong> For $n$ large,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
\begin{equation}
    n! = \sqrt{2\pi n} \lp \frac{n}{e} \rp^n \lp 1 + o\lp 1 \rp \rp. 
    \label{eq:stirling}
\end{equation}
$$</div>

<p>Laplace’s method is used when solving a real integral of the form $\int e^{nf(x)}dx$.
Heuristically, as $n \to \infty$, any contribution of $f(x)$ outside of a maximum, $x_0$ becomes vanishingly small, as we see in $\eqref{eq:laplace_general}$.
In the proof of $\eqref{eq:stirling}$ $f$ will be constructed from the Gamma function $\Gamma(x) = \int_0^\infty t^{x-1}e^{-t}dt$.
The figure below shows this concentration happening.</p>

<figure class="figure">
  <img src="/assets/img/posts/steepest-descent/fig01-laplace-concentration.png" alt="Plot of the normalized Laplace integrand concentrating at y=1 as n grows from 5 to 100, compared against its Gaussian approximation." style="width: 85%;" />
  <figcaption>The integrand of $I(n)$ after normalising by its maximum, $e^{\,n(f(y)-f(1))}$ with $f(y)=\log y-y$. As $n$ grows the mass collapses onto the global maximum $y_0=1$ at scale $n^{-1/2}$ with Gaussian profile, $e^{-n(y-1)^2/2}$, from $f(y)=-1-\tfrac{(y-1)^2}{2}+O((y-1)^3)$. We see that the integrand is exponentially small outside of a fixed neighborhood of $y_0$. Claude helped generate the tikz.
</figcaption>
</figure>

<p><strong>Proof.</strong></p>

<p><strong>Step 1:</strong>
We take for granted that $\Gamma(n+1) = n!$.
We want to find the $f$, so that</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
n! = \Gamma(n+1) = \int_0^\infty x^{n}e^{-x}dx.
$$</div>

<p>$x^{n}e^{-x} = e^{n\log(x)-x}$.</p>

<p><strong>Step 2:</strong>
We will want to change variables $x = ny$ so that $n\log(x)-x = n \log(ny) - ny = n (\log (n) + \log(y) - y)$.
Because we are interested in a maximum of $f$, we can ignore the $n \log(n)$ and our candidate is $f(y) = \log(y) - y$.
The integral we study is thus,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
I(n) = \int_0^\infty (yn)^{n}e^{-ny}ndy = n^{n+1} \int_0^\infty e^{n (\log(y) - y)}dy.
$$</div>

<p>We note $f’(y) = \tfrac{1}{y} - 1$ and $f’‘(y) = - \tfrac{1}{y^2}$, so $f$ has a global maximum at $y_0 = 1$.</p>

<p>We Taylor expand $f$:</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
f(y) = -1 - \frac{(y-1)^2}{2} + O \lp (y-1)^3\rp.
$$</div>

<p><strong>Step 2:</strong>
Let $\vep &gt; 0$.
We split the integral up</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
\begin{align}
    I(n) &= 
    \underbrace{n^{n}\int_{1-\vep}^{1+\vep} e^{\lp n \lp -1 - \frac{(y-1)^2}{2} + O \lp (y-1)^3 \rp \rp \rp}dy}_{\text{The mass of the integral:}\ I_1(n)} + \\
    &\underbrace{n^{n}\int_{0}^{1-\vep} e^{n(\log y - y)} dy}_{\text{Negligble as }n \to \infty: \ I_2(n)} + \underbrace{n^{n}\int_{1 + \vep}^\infty e^{n(\log y - y)} dy}_{\text{Negligible as } n \to \infty: \ I_3(n)}.
\label{eq:int_split}
\end{align}
$$</div>

<p>The figure below shows this split and the two scales that make it work.</p>

<figure class="figure">
  <img src="/assets/img/posts/steepest-descent/fig02-laplace-split.png" alt="Two panels: the split of the Laplace integral into center and tail regions at n=40, and the same window rescaled to show the Gaussian profile." style="width: 95%;" />
  <figcaption>The decomposition of the integral. The left shows each window. $I_1$ in $[1-\vep,1+\vep]$ and carrying the mass is shaded while the tails $I_2,I_3$ are in grey. The exponent $\vep=n^{-2/5}$ is chosen to sit between the two scales. The cubic error $nO(\vep^3)=O(n^{-1/5})$ decays, but $\vep$ outpaces the Gaussian width of $n^{-1/2}$. On the right, after the substitution $y=1+z\sqrt{n}$, the window becomes $\vert z \vert&lt;n^{1/10}$, which has growth just fast enough to make the tail negligble. Claude helped generate the tikz.
</figcaption>
</figure>

<p>The first term, under the substitution  $y = 1 + \frac{z}{\sqrt{n}}$ is</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
I_1(n) = n^{n+1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\int_{-\vep \sqrt{n}}^{\vep \sqrt{n}} e^{-n - \frac{z^2}{2} + n O(\vep^3)}dz.
$$</div>

<p>We need to take $\vep \to 0$, and we have $O(\vep^3)$ in the exponent, so lets set $\vep = n^{-2/5}$.
We make this choice in order that $n \vep^3 = n^{-1/5} \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$.
Then,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
I_1(n) = \sqrt{n} \lp \frac{n}{e} \rp^n \lp \int_{-n^{1/10}}^{n^{1/10}} e^{-\frac{z^2}{2}} dz + o(1) \rp.
$$</div>

<p>Using the Gaussian integral we get the desired approximation</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
\begin{equation}
    I_1(n) = \sqrt{2\pi n} \lp \frac{n}{e} \rp^n \lp 1 + o(1) \rp.
\label{eq:stirling_center}
\end{equation}
$$</div>

<p><strong>Step 4:</strong>
However, we must also show that $I_2(n)$ and $I_3(n) \to 0$.
To do so, we use the fact that $f(1) = -1$ is a global maximum and $f(y)$ is strictly increasing on $(0,1)$ and strictly decreasing on $(1, \infty)$.
Set $\delta = \min(-1-f(1-\vep), -1-f(1+\vep)) &gt; 0$ so that $f(y) &lt; -1 - \delta$ for all $y \in (0,1 - \vep) \cup (1 + \vep,\infty)$.
Note that,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
e^{nf(y)} = e^{f(y)} \cdot e^{(n-1)f(y)} \leq e^{f(y)} \cdot e^{(n-1)(-1-\delta)}.
$$</div>

<p>So,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
I_2(n) \leq \int_{0}^{1-\vep} e^{f(y)} \cdot e^{(n-1)(-1-\delta)} dy = e^{(n-1)(-1-\delta)} \int_0^{1-\vep} ye^{-y} dy \leq e^{(n-1)(-1-\delta)}
$$</div>

<p>where we have used the fact that $\int_0^\infty ye^{-y} dy = 1$ and the integrand is strictly positive.
Similarly, $I_3(n) \leq e^{(n-1)(-1-\delta)}$.
Now, we must achieve a bound solely in $n$.
Using the Taylor expansion of $\log(1+\vep)$</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
-1 - f(1+\vep) = \vep - \log(1+\vep) = \frac{\vep^2}{2} - \frac{\vep^3}{3} + \cdots
$$</div>

<p>whereas,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
-1 - f(1-\vep) = -\vep - \log(1-\vep) = \frac{\vep^2}{2} + \frac{\vep^3}{3} + \cdots
$$</div>

<p>so actually $\delta = \vep - \log(1+\vep)$.
We then bound, $g(t) = t - \log(1+t)$.</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
t - \log(1+t) = t - \int_0^t \frac{1}{1+u} du = \int_0^t \frac{u}{1+u} du.
$$</div>

<p>Since $\frac{u}{1+u} \leq u$, $t - \log(1+t) \leq \frac{t^2}{2}$.
Additionally, since $\frac{u}{1+u} \geq \frac{u}{1+t}$, $t - \log(1+t) \geq \frac{t^2}{2(1+t)}$.
Plugging in $\vep = n^{-2/5}$ we have, $\delta \geq \frac{n^{-4/5}}{4}$.
So,</p>

<div class="kdmath">$$
I_2(n) \leq e^{(n-1)(-1 - n^{-4/5}/4)} \leq e \lp \frac{n}{e} \rp^n \cdot e^{-n^{1/5}/4} \cdot e^{-n^{-4/5}/4}
$$</div>

<p>and similarly with $I_3(n)$.
These both can be absorbed into the the $o(1)$ term in Equation $\eqref{eq:stirling_center}$ and we are done. $\blacksquare$</p>]]></content><author><name>Alex Olhava</name></author><category term="math" /><category term="random matrix theory" /><summary type="html"><![CDATA[Introduction]]></summary></entry></feed>