EIGENVALUE FLUCTUATIONS FOR LATTICE ANDERSON HAMILTONIANS:
UNBOUNDED POTENTIALS

arXiv:1710.06592v1 [math.PR] 18 Oct 2017

MAREK BISKUP1,2 , RYOKI FUKUSHIMA3 AND WOLFGANG KÖNIG4,5
1 Department

of Mathematics, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
for Theoretical Study, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
3 Research Institute in Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
4 Weierstraß-Institut für Angewandte Analysis und Stochastik, Berlin, Germany
5 Institut für Mathematik, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
2 Center

A BSTRACT. We consider random Schrödinger operators with Dirichlet boundary conditions outside lattice approximations of a smooth Euclidean domain and study the behavior of its lowestlying eigenvalues in the limit when the lattice spacing tends to zero. Under a suitable moment
assumption on the random potential and regularity of the spatial dependence of its mean, we prove
that the eigenvalues of the random operator converge to those of a deterministic Schrödinger operator. Assuming also regularity of the variance, the fluctuation of the random eigenvalues around
their mean are shown to obey a multivariate central limit theorem. This extends the authors’ recent
work where similar conclusions have been obtained for bounded random potentials.

1. I NTRODUCTION

AND RESULTS

This note is a continuation of our recent paper [3] where we studied the statistics of low-lying
eigenvalues of Anderson Hamiltonians in the “homogenization” regime, i.e., under the conditions
when a non-trivial continuum limit can be taken. The derivations of [3] were restricted to the class
of bounded potentials; here we extend the main conclusions — namely, the convergence of the
individual eigenvalues to their continuum (and deterministic) counterparts as well as a proof of
Gaussian fluctuations around their mean — to a class of unbounded random potentials satisfying
suitable, and essentially sharp, moment conditions.
Our setting is as follows: Let D be a bounded open subset of Rd whose boundary is C1,α for
some α > 0. For any ε > 0, we define the discretized version of D as

(1.1)
Dε := x ∈ Zd : dist∞ (ε x, Dc ) > ε ,
where dist∞ is the ℓ∞ -distance in Rd . Given any potential ξ : Dε → R, we now consider the
linear operator (a matrix) HDε ,ξ acting on the linear space of functions f : Zd → R that vanish
outside Dε via
x ∈ Zd ,
(1.2)
(HDε ,ξ f )(x) := −ε −2 (∆(d) f )(x) + ξ (x) f (x),

c 2017 by M. Biskup, R. Fukushima and W. König. Reproduction, by any means, of the entire article for
non-commercial purposes is permitted without charge.
This research has been partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1712632, GAČR project P201/16-15238S, DFG
Forschergruppe 718 “Analysis and Stochastics in Complex Physical Systems,” JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number
24740055&16K05200 and JSPS and DFG under the Japan-Germany Research Cooperative Program.
1

2

BISKUP, FUKUSHIMA, KÖNIG

where ∆(d) is the lattice Laplacian
(∆(d) f )(x) :=

∑

y: |x−y|=1




f (y) − f (x)

(1.3)

with | · | denoting the Euclidean distance. Throughout we will take the potential ξ = ξ (ε ) random,
defined on some probability space (Ω, F, P), with an ε -dependent law satisfying one or both of
the following requirements (depending on the context):
Assumption 1.1 For each ε > 0, {ξ (ε ) (x) : x ∈ Dε } are independent with


∃K > 1 ∨ d/2 :
sup max E |ξ (ε ) (x)|K < ∞.
ε ∈(0,1) x∈Dε

(1.4)

Moreover, there is U ∈ Cb (D, R) such that

Eξ (ε )(x) = U (xε ),

x ∈ Dε .

(1.5)

Assumption 1.2 The bound (1.4) holds for some K > 2∨d/2. Moreover, there is V ∈ Cb (D, [0, ∞))
such that

Var ξ (ε ) (x) = V (xε ),
x ∈ Dε .
(1.6)

To ease our notations, we will often omit marking the ε -dependence of ξ . We are interested in
the behavior of the eigenvalues λD(1)ε ,ξ < λD(2)ε ,ξ ≤ λD(3)ε ,ξ ≤ . . . of HDε ,ξ in the limit as ε ↓ 0.
Let ∆ denote the continuum Laplacian with Dirichlet boundary conditions outside D. As it
turns out, the continuum (homogenized) counterpart of HDε ,ξ is the operator
HD,U := −∆ +U (x)

H10 (D)

C0∞ (D)

(1.7)
[k f k2L2 (D) + k∇ f k2L2 (D) ]1/2 ,

where ∇
acting on the space
:= closure of
in the norm
denotes the continuum gradient. The operator HD,U is self-adjoint and, thanks to our conditions
on D and U , of compact resolvent. In particular, its spectrum is real-valued and discrete with
no eigenvalue more than finitely degenerate — we will thus write λD(k) to denote the k-th smallest
eigenvalue of HD,U . Our first conclusion is as follows:
Theorem 1.3 Under Assumption 1.1, for each k ∈ N,
P

λD(k)ε ,ξ −→ λD(k) .
ε ↓0

(1.8)

Remark 1.4 As we will show in the Appendix, the moment condition (1.4) is more or less
optimal for (1.8) to hold. More precisely, if the negative part of ξ fails to have d/2-nd moment
in d ≥ 3, we get λD(k)ε ,ξ → −∞ as ε ↓ 0. We expect (although have not addressed mathematically)
this to be a result of appearance of localized states.
The formula (1.8) determines the leading-order deterministic behavior of the spectrum of HDε ,ξ .
The control of the subleading orders (or even an expansion in powers of ε ) is a challenging task
which we will not tackle here. We will content ourself with a description of the asymptotic behavior of the leading random correction. For reasons to be explained later, we will do this only
for any collection of (asymptotically) simple eigenvalues. In order to state the result, we need to
fix κ ∈ (d/K, 2 ∧ d/2) and define the truncated potential

ξ (x) := ξ (x)1{|ξ (x)|≤ε −κ } .

(1.9)

EIGENVALUE FLUCTUATIONS

3

Our second main result is then:
Theorem 1.5 Suppose Assumptions 1.1–1.2 hold, fix n ∈ N and let k1 , . . . , kn ∈ N be distinct
(k )
indices such that the eigenvalues λD 1 , . . . , λD(kn ) of HD,U are simple. Then, in the limit as ε ↓ 0, the
law of the random vector
!
(k )
(k )
λDε1,ξ − Eλ 1
λD(kεn,)ξ − Eλ (kn )
Dε ,ξ
Dε ,ξ
(1.10)
,...,
ε d/2
ε d/2
tends weakly to a multivariate normal with mean zero and covariance matrix σD2 = {σi2j }ni, j=1
given by

σi2j :=

Z

D

(k )

(k )

ϕDi (x)2 ϕD j (x)2 V (x) dx,

(1.11)

(k )

where {ϕDi : i = 1, . . . , n} is a collection of L2 -normalized eigenfunctions of HD,U for indices
k1 , . . . , kn and V (x) is the function from (1.5).
We note that, for simple eigenvalues, the eigenfunctions are determined up to an overall sign
(they can always be chosen real valued). In particular, all choices of the eigenfunctions lead to
the same value of the integral (1.11). A deeper, albeit related, reason for excluding degenerate
eigenvalues is the fact that we work directly with ordered eigenvalues (and not, e.g., the resolvent
or some other symmetric function thereof). We expect that, for degenerate eigenvalues, the individual fluctuations are still Gaussian but the order is decided by combining the fluctuation with
the expected value (which we control only to the leading order). We do not find this restriction
much of a loss as, for generic D and U , all eigenvalues of HD,U will be non-degenerate.
Remark 1.6 Under Assumption 1.1, we will see in (2.1) below that the truncation (1.9) has no
effect, with probability tending to 1 as ε ↓ 0. However, it turns out that the truncation does affect
the mean value EλD(1)ε ,ξ for small K, see again the Appendix. Therefore it is necessary to retain
the truncated potential inside the expectations in (1.10).
We refer the reader to our earlier paper [3] for a thorough discussion of the above problem as
well as related references. We will only mention to papers where we feel an update is necessary.
First, an earlier work of Bal [2] derived very similar homogenization and fluctuation results for
the eigenvalues of a continuum Anderson Hamiltonian. However, there are a number of important
differences:
(1) the weak convergence in [2] is proved around the homogenized eigenvalues rather than
mean values,
(2) the results hold also for sufficiently fast mixing random potentials,
(3) the spatial dimension is assumed to be less than or equal to three, d ≤ 3, and
(4) stronger moment assumption than ours are required.
In particular, if one applies the method of [2] to discrete independent potentials, it requires boundedness of the fourth moments. We believe this is because we use a completely different, mostly
probabilistic approach.
Second, related results concerning the low-lying eigenvalues of a random Laplacian arising
from random conductances have recently been obtained by Flegel, Haida and Slowik [8]. Also

4

BISKUP, FUKUSHIMA, KÖNIG

there homogenization of the individual eigenvalues to those of a continuum (albeit “homogenized”) Laplacian is obtained under more or less optimal moment condition on the random conductances.
Notations.
Let us collect the notations that will be needed throughout this work. We write k f k p for the
canonical ℓ p -norm of R- or Rd -valued functions f on Zd . When p = 2, we use h f , hi to denote
the associated inner product in ℓ2 (Zd ). All functions defined a priori only on Dε will be regarded
as extended by zero to Zd r Dε . In order to control convergence to the continuum problem, it will
sometimes be convenient to work with the scaled ℓ p -norm,


k f kε ,p := ε

d

∑ | f (x)|
x∈Zd

p

1/p

.

(1.12)

For p = 2, we will write h f , giε ,2 to denote the inner product associated with k · kε ,2 . For
functions f , g of a continuum variable, we write the norms as k f kL p (Rd ) and the inner product
in L2 (Rd ) as h f , giL2 (Rd ) . The discrete gradient ∇(d) f (x) is defined as the vector in Rd whose i-th
component is f (x + êi ) − f (x), where {êi }di=1 is the canonical basis of Rd .
Some of our computations in the proofs below will require suitable block averaging. For L ∈ N
and x ∈ Zd , let BL (x) := Lx + {0, . . . , L − 1}d and for any f : Zd → R, define
fL (x) :=

∑ 1B (y) (x) ∑
L

y∈Zd

L−d f (z).

(1.13)

z∈BL (y)

Note that, for each given x, exactly one y contributes to the first sum; the resulting function is
then constant on square blocks of side L and it equals to the average of f on each of them.
Recall that we assumed D to be a bounded open set in Rd with C1,α -boundary for some α > 0.
This ensures a corresponding level of regularity of the eigenfunction. Indeed, by, e.g., Corollary 8.36 of Gilbarg and Trudinger [6], the eigenfunctions ϕD(k) of HD,U obey

ϕD(k) ∈ C1,α (D),

(1.14)

that is, they are continuously differentiable in D with the gradient uniformly α -Hölder continuous.
(In particular, the integral (1.11) is convergent.) Concerning the discrete problem, we denote by
an (real-valued) eigenfunction of HDε ,ξ normalized in ℓ2 (Zd ); this is again determined up
g(k)
Dε ,ξ
to a sign whenever the k-th eigenvalue is non-degenerate.
Finally, throughout the paper c denotes a constant depending only on d, D, K and k whose value
may change from line to line. We write ε 0− (ε 0+ ) for a negative (resp. positive) power of ε for
simplicity.
2. C ONVERGENCE

TO HOMOGENIZED EIGENVALUES

We are now in a position to start the exposition of the proofs. Here we will prove Theorem 1.3
dealing with the convergence of the random eigenvalues to those of the continuum problem.

EIGENVALUE FLUCTUATIONS

5

2.1 Truncation.
As is common whenever unbounded random variables get involved, we will deal with large values
of the potential via a suitable truncation. We begin by noting:
Lemma 2.1 Under Assumption 1.1, for each κ ∈ (d/K, d ∧ 2) we have


P max |ξ (x)| > ε −κ −→ 0.
ε ↓0

x∈Dε

(2.1)

Proof. This follows from a union bound, Chebyshev’s inequality, the bound (1.4) and the fact that

definition (1.1) implies that |Dε | is order ε −d .
We henceforth fix a κ ∈ (d/K, d ∧ 2) so that (2.1) holds, pick r satisfying
1 ∨ d/2 < r < d/κ

(2.2)

max |ξ (x)| ≤ ε −κ .

(2.3)

and assume
x∈Dε

This is tantamount to working with the truncated potential ξ in place of ξ , which we will however
ignore notationally; thanks Lemma 2.1, it suffices to prove Theorem 1.3 under this additional
assumption.
Given any choice of the normalized eigenfunctions {ϕD( j) } j≥1 of the operator (1.7), for each
γ > 0 and each ε ∈ (0, 1) define the event


max hξ −U (ε ·), ϕD( j) (ε ·)2 iε ,2 < γ 

1≤ j≤k
.
(2.4)
Ek,ε ,γ := ξ :

 kξ kε ,r < 4|D| max E[|ξ (x)|r ]
x∈Dε

Remark 2.2 The constant 4 above plays no special role in the proof. Any larger constant would
work as well. We will make use of this observation (only) in the proof of Lemma 3.4 below.
Then we observe:
Lemma 2.3 Under Assumption 1.1 and (2.3), for all k ∈ N and all γ > 0, and all ε > 0 sufficiently small,
(2.5)
P(Ek,c ε ,γ ) ≤ exp{−ε 0− } .
Proof. The proof is based on a number of elementary concentration-of-measure arguments. Let
us fix a0 < a1 < · · · < aN := κ < d/r such that
0 < a0 <

d
2

and

an−1
1
> ,
an
K

n = 1, . . . , N.

(2.6)

Using this sequence, we write
N

ξ (x) −U (ε x) = (ξ (x) −U (ε x))1{|ξ (x)|<ε −a0 } + ∑ (ξ (x) −U (ε x))1{ε −an−1 ≤|ξ (x)|<ε −an }
n=1

N

=: η (x) + ∑ ζn (x)
n=1

(2.7)

6

BISKUP, FUKUSHIMA, KÖNIG

so that


P hξ −U (ε ·), ϕD( j) (ε ·)2 iε ,2 ≥ γ

 N 

γ
γ
( j)
( j)
2
2
d
d
+ ∑ P ∑ ε |ζn (x)|ϕD (ε x) ≥
.
≤ P ∑ ε η (x)ϕD (ε x) ≥
2
2N
x∈Dε
x∈Dε
n=1

(2.8)

First, the Azuma-Hoeffding inequality shows
P

γ
∑ ε η (x)ϕD (ε x) ≥ 2
x∈Dε
d

2

( j)

!


≤ 2 exp −cε −d+2a0

(2.9)


≤ exp −ε 0−

for all sufficiently small ε . Note that due to our use of the truncated potential, a proper use of
Azuma-Hoeffding requires an additional intermediate step reflecting on the fact that E[η (x)] may
not be zero. This is handled by replacing γ /2 above with γ /4 and noting that the difference
E[η (x)] converges to zero uniformly in x. Our implicit truncation (2.3) also sometimes requires
this type of considerations and they will be done implicitly in what follows.
Next, we deal with the second term in (2.8). When ε is sufficiently small, we can bound each
summand by




γ
γ
−d+an
1
ε
P ∑ ε d |ζn (x)| ≥
≥
≤
P
.
(2.10)
∑ {ζn (x)6=0}
2NkϕD( j) k2∞
4NkϕD( j) k2∞
x∈Dε
x∈Dε
Since {1{ζn (x)6=0} }x∈Dε are stochastically dominated by independent Bernoulli variables with success probability

P(ζn (x) 6= 0) ≤ P |ξ (x)| > ε −an−1 ≤ ε an−1 K sup sup E[|ξ (x)|K ]
(2.11)
ε ∈(0,1) x∈Dε

and an−1 K > an , a simple application of the Bernstein inequality tells us that the right-hand side
of (2.10) is bounded by exp{−ε 0− } for sufficiently small ε .
The argument for kξ kε ,r is almost the same. We write M := |D| maxx∈Dε E[|ξ (x)|r ] and, using
the above sequence,
N

|ξ (x)|r = |ξ (x)|r 1{|ξ (x)|<ε −a0 } + ∑ |ξ (x)|r 1{ε −an−1 ≤|ξ (x)|<ε −an }
n=1

(2.12)

N

=: η (x) + ∑ ζn (x)
n=1

so that

P

∑

x∈Dε



ε d |ξ (x)|r ≥ 4M ≤ P

∑

x∈Dε

 N 
ε d η (x) ≥ 3M + ∑ P
n=1

∑

x∈Dε

ε d ζn (x) ≥


M
.
N

(2.13)

When ε is sufficiently small, we have

∑

x∈Dε

ε d E[η (x)] ≤ 2M

(2.14)

EIGENVALUE FLUCTUATIONS

7

and we can again appeal to the Azuma-Hoeffding inequality to get




P ∑ ε d η (x) ≥ 3M ≤ P ∑ ε d (η (x) − E[η (x)]) ≥ M
x∈Dε

x∈Dε


≤ 2 exp −cε −d+2a0 .

The rest of the argument is very similar to above and we omit further details.

(2.15)



2.2 Upper bound by homogenized eigenvalue.
We will now prove the upper bound in Theorem 1.3. Instead of individual eigenvalues, we will
work with their sums
k

Λεk (ξ ) := ∑ λD(i)ε ,ξ
i=1

k

and

Λk := ∑ λD(i) .

(2.16)

i=1

These quantities are better suited for dealing with degeneracy because they admit a variational
characterization (a.k.a. the Ky Fan Maximum Principle KyFan) of the form
Λεk (ξ ) = inf

k

∑

h1 ,...,hk i=1
ONS


ε −2 k∇(d) hi k22 + hξ , h2i i

(2.17)

and
k

Λk =

inf

∑

ψ1 ,...,ψk
ONS i=1


k∇ψi k2L2 (Rd ) + hU, ψi2 iL2 (Rd ) ,

(2.18)

where the acronym “ONS” imposes that the k-tuple of functions (all assumed in the domain of
the gradient in the latter case) forms an orthonormal system in the subspace corresponding to
Dirichlet boundary conditions.
The infima in (2.17–2.18) are both achieved by a collection of lowest-k eigenfunctions of
operators HDε ,ξ , resp., HD,U . This offers a strategy for comparing the two quantities: Take the
eigenfunctions of one problem and use them, after discretizing/undiscretizing, as trial functions
in the other variational problem. Starting from the continuum problem, this strategy is relatively
easy to implement as attested by:
Proposition 2.4 For any k ∈ N and any γ > 0,

Ek,ε ,γ ⊆ Λεk (ξ ) ≤ Λk + 3γ

(2.19)

holds for all sufficiently small ε > 0. In particular, under Assumption 1.1, for any δ > 0,

(2.20)
lim P Λεk (ξ ) ≤ Λk + δ = 1.
ε ↓0

Proof. Consider (a choice of) an ONS of the first k eigenfunctions ϕD(1) , . . . , ϕD(k) of HD,U . Recall
that all of these are in C1,α (D). Now define
(
ϕD(i) (xε ),
if x ∈ Dε ,
(2.21)
fi (x) :=
0,
otherwise.

8

BISKUP, FUKUSHIMA, KÖNIG

Thanks to uniform continuity of the eigenfunctions, we then have
h fi , f j iε ,2 −→ hϕD(i) , ϕD( j) iL2 (D) = δi j

(2.22)

ε ↓0

and so for ε small the functions f1 , . . . , fk are nearly mutually orthogonal. Applying the GramSchmidt orthogonalization procedure, we conclude that there are functions hε1 , . . . , hεk and coefficients ai j (ε ), 1 ≤ i, j ≤ k, such that
hεi =

k


δi j + ai j (ε ) f j ,

∑

j=1

with

hhεi , hεj iε ,2 = δi j

i = 1, . . . , k,

max |ai j (ε )| −→ 0.

and

i, j

ε ↓0

(2.23)

(2.24)

Moreover, the definition of fi and the C1,α -regularity of the eigenfunctions imply
sup
y∈D
dist∞ (y,Dc )>2ε

∇ϕD(i) (y) − ε −1 (∇(d) fi )(⌊y/ε ⌋) −→ 0
ε ↓0

(2.25)

and the same applies to hεi instead of fi as well. Since ∇ϕD(i) and ε −1 (∇(d) fi ) are also bounded, we
thus get
ε −1 k∇(d) hεi kε ,2 −→ k∇ϕD(i) kL2 (Rd ) .
(2.26)
ε ↓0

The continuity of U shows that, also
U (ε ·), (hεi )2

−→ U, (ϕD(i) )2

ε ,2 ε ↓0

L2 (Rd )

.

(2.27)

Therefore, given any γ > 0, as soon as ε > 0 is sufficiently small (independent of ξ ) the variational
characterization (2.17) yields
k

Λεk (ξ ) ≤ Λk + γ + ∑ ξ −U (ε ·), (hεi )2
i=1

ε ,2

.

(2.28)

The summands on the right-hand side are bounded as

ξ −U (ε ·), (hεi )2
≤

ε ,2

ξ −U (ε ·), fi2

ε ,2

+


max |ai j (ε )|

i, j=1,...,k


 (2.29)
max kϕD(ℓ) k2∞ kξ kε ,1 + kU (ε ·)kε ,1 .

ℓ=1,...,k

Noting that the first term is at most γ and kξ kε ,1 is bounded on Ek,ε ,γ , this will be less than 2γ as
soon as ε is sufficiently small (again, independent of ξ ).

Corollary 2.5 For each k ∈ N and each γ > 0 there is ck,γ such that for all ε ∈ (0, 1),

Ek,ε ,γ ⊆ Λεk (ξ ) ≤ ck,γ

(2.30)

Proof. For small-enough ε , this follows from (2.19) and the fact that Λk is deterministic. In
the complementary range of ε ∈ (0, 1), we note that (2.3) gives hξ , (hi )2 i ≤ ε −κ for each i =
1, . . . , k. This reduces the problem to bounding the sum of the first k eigenvalues of ε −2 -times the
(negative) Dirichlet Laplacian in square-domains of side-length proportional to ε −1 , for which
the spectrum is explicitly computable (and the eigenvalues are bounded uniformly in ε ).


EIGENVALUE FLUCTUATIONS

9

2.3 Elliptic regularity for eigenfunctions.
For the corresponding lower bound of Λεk by Λk , we will start with the collection of the eigenfunctions of HDε ,ξ and turn these into functions over the continuum domain D. The main technical
obstacle is that the discrete eigenfunctions are random and so the derivation of the needed regularity estimates (which for the upper bound were supplied by the fact that the eigenfunctions
of HD,U are C1,α ) require a non-trivial use of elliptic regularity theory. As usual, a starting point
for these is a suitable functional inequality:
Lemma 2.6 (Sobolev inequality) Let q ∈ [2, ∞) obey q < 2d/(d − 2) in d ≥ 3. Then there is
c(D, q) > 0 such that

ε −2 ∇(d) f

2
+
ε ,2

f

2
ε ,2

≥ c(D, q) f

2
ε ,q

(2.31)

holds for all ε ∈ (0, 1) and all f : Zd → R with supp f ⊆ Dε .
Although this is quite standard, we provide a (short) proof in the Appendix (this will also make
it clear that our normalizations are legitimate). A considerably deeper use of elliptic regularity
theory is required to control the individual eigenfunctions of HDε ,ξ . In order to state our first such
estimate, pick ρ ∈ (0, 1 − κ r/d), where r is as in (2.2), set L := ε −ρ and, recalling the definition
of block-averaged function (1.13), define

ξ L (x) := U (ε ·) − ξ (·) L (x)
(2.32)

Consider the event


Fε ,γ := ξ : kξ L kε ,r < γ .

Then we have:

(2.33)

Proposition 2.7 Suppose Assumption 1.1. For all p > 1, all k ∈ N, and any choice of the k-th
of HDε ,ξ , we have
eigenfunction g(k)
Dε ,ξ
sup

sup

0<ε <1 ξ ∈Ek,ε ,γ ∩Fε ,γ

ε −d/2 g(k)
Dε ,ξ

ε ,p

<∞

(2.34)

uniformly in sufficiently small γ > 0.
Remark 2.8 In Lemma 2.3 we showed that Ek,ε ,γ will occur with overwhelming probability for
small enough γ and ε , and a similar statement will be shown for Fε ,γ in Lemma 2.11. The reason
why event Fε ,γ needs to be included in the statement above is that it ensures, via Proposition 2.12
with k = 1 below, a lower bound on the principal eigenvalue (uniform in ξ ∈ Ek,ε ,γ ∩ Fε ,γ ). Combining with Corollary 2.5 we then get an upper bound on the individual eigenvalues for each
k ≥ 2, which then feeds into the proof of (2.34) for k ≥ 2. Since, for k = 1, Corollary 2.5 bounds
the principal eigenvalue directly, the inclusion of event Fε ,γ in (2.34) is redundant and no logical
conflict arises.
Proof of Proposition 2.7. The proof is based on the Moser iteration scheme for solutions of
elliptic PDEs. This technique needs to be adapted to the discrete setting which has fortunately
already been done in a recent paper of Andres, Deuschel and Slowik [1] on homogenization of the
random conductance model with general ergodic random conductances subject (only) to suitable
moment conditions. We cite both notation and conclusions at liberty from there.

10

BISKUP, FUKUSHIMA, KÖNIG

Given s ≥ 1, let us write a[s] := |a|s sign(a) for the signed-power function and f [s] (x) for
( f (x))[s] . By equation (40) of [1], there is a constant c(s) depending only on s such that for
any function φ : Zd → R with finite support

∑

2

∇(d) φ [s] (x) ≤ c(s)

d

∑∑

x∈Zd i=1

x∈Zd

2
2
φ [s−1] (x) + φ [s−1] (x + êi ) ∇(d)
i φ (x) ,

(2.35)

where ∇(d)
i is the i-th component of the discrete gradient. We further use equation (42) of [1] —
with the specific choices α := 2s − 2 and β := 1— to get

2
2s−2
φ [s−1] (x) + φ [s−1] (x + êi ) ∇(d)
+ |φ (x + êi )|2s−2 |∇(d)
i φ (x)|
i φ (x) ≤ 2 |φ (x)|
(2.36)
(d) [2s−1]
≤ 2 ∇i φ
(x) .
(d) [2s−1]
(x) are of the
The key point of using the signed-power function is that ∇(d)
i φ (x) and ∇i φ
same sign. This permits us to wrap (2.35) as

∑

2

∇(d) φ [s] (x) ≤ 2c(s)

(d)

∑ ∑ |∇i

φ [2s−1] (x)||∇(d)
i φ (x)|

x∈Dε i

x∈Zd

(d)

= 2c(s) ∇ φ

(2.37)
[2s−1]

(d)

,∇ φ .

where we recall that the brackets stand for the usual inner product in ℓ2 (Zd ).
Now let us assume that φ solves the equation (−ε −2 ∆(d) + ξ )φ = λ φ in Dε and vanishes outside
Dε . Then we have

ε d ∇(d) φ [2s−1] , ∇(d) φ = ε d φ [2s−1] , −∆(d) φ = ε 2+d φ [2s−1] , (λ − ξ )φ .
Since φ [2s−1] and φ have the same sign, the right-hand side is bounded by
!1/r

ε

2+d

2s

|φ | , (λ+ − ξ ) ≤ ε

2

∑

d

r

ε |λ+ − ξ (x)|

x∈Dε

∑

x∈Dε

d

2sr ′

ε |φ (x)|

!1/r′

(2.38)

(2.39)

= ε 2 kλ+ − ξ kε ,r kφ k2s
ε ,2sr ′ ,
where λ+ stands for the positive part of λ and r′ is the Hölder conjugate of r. On the other hand,
by Lemma 2.6, for any q satisfying 2 ≤ q < 2d/(d − 2) (with the right-hand inequality dropped
in d = 1, 2) we have
!2/q

q
,
(2.40)
∑ ε d ε −2|∇(d) φ [s] (x)|2 + |φ [s](x)|2 ≥ c(D, q) ∑ ε d φ [s] (x)
x∈Dε

x∈Dε

for some constant c(D, q) > 0. The right-hand side is a multiple of kφ k2s
ε ,sq while, in light of
2s
(2.37–2.39), the left-hand side is bounded by a term involving kφ kε ,2sr′ . This turns (2.40) into a
recursion relation
kφ kε ,sq ≤ ĉkφ kε ,2sr′
(2.41)
1

for ĉ := [2c(s)c(D, q)−1 (λ+ + kξ kε ,r )] 2s . For r as in (2.2) we get r′ < d/(d − 2) in d ≥ 3 and so,
in all d ≥ 1, we can find q with 2r′ < q < 2d/(d − 2) and get an improvement in regularity.
Now pick s > 1 and let φ (x) := ε −d/2 g(k)
(x) and λ := λD(k)ε ,ξ and invoke the argument alluded
Dε ,ξ
to in Remark 2.8: For k = 1, both kξ kε ,r and (λD(1)ε ,ξ )+ are bounded on Ek,ε ,γ uniformly in ε by
definition and Corollary 2.5, and so ĉ is bounded by an absolute constant. Moreover, kφ kε ,2 = 1

EIGENVALUE FLUCTUATIONS

11

by definition and, since sr′ ∈ (1, sq/2), for α̃ ∈ (0, 1) such that 2α̃ + sq(1 − α̃ ) = 2sr′ , Hölder’s
inequality yields
α̃
1−α̃
α̃
(2.42)
kφ kα̃ε ,2 kφ kε1−
kφ kε ,2sr′ ≤ kφ kα̃ε ,2 kφ kε1−
,sq ≤ ĉ
,2sr ′ ,
−1

where the second inequality follows from (2.41). This bounds kφ kε ,2sr′ by ĉα̃ −1 ; an iterative
use of (2.41) then yields (2.34), as desired.
For k ≥ 2, we first use the conclusion for k = 1 to complete the proof of Proposition 2.12, which
shows that λD(1)ε ,ξ is bounded from below on Ek,ε ,γ ∩ Fε ,γ . Then combining with Corollary 2.5, we
obtain the boundedness of (λD(k)ε ,ξ )+ on Ek,ε ,γ ∩ Fε ,γ and the rest of the computation is the same as
before.

As a corollary, we get a regularity result for gradients of eigenfunctions as well:
Corollary 2.9 Under Assumption 1.1, for all k ∈ N, and any choice of the k-th eigenfunction
g(k)
of HDε ,ξ ,
Dε ,ξ
sup

sup

0<ε <1 ξ ∈Ek,ε ,γ ∩Fε ,γ

ε −2 ∇(d) g(k)
Dε ,ξ

2
2

< ∞,

(2.43)

uniformly in γ ∈ (0, 1).


Proof. Just plug (2.34) in (2.37–2.39) with s := 1.

Our final regularity lemma addresses approximations of functions by their piecewise-constant
counterparts. Recall the definition of fL from (1.13). Then we have:
Lemma 2.10 There is C(d) < ∞ such that, for any p ∈ (1, 2), any L ∈ N and any f : Zd → R
with finite support,
k f 2 − fL2 k p < C(d)Lk∇(d) f k2 k f k 2p .
(2.44)
2−p

Proof. For any 1 ≤ p < 2, Hölder’s inequality shows
k f 2 − fL2 k p ≤ k f − fL k2 k f + fL k

2p
2−p

.

(2.45)

The first term on the right is bounded by cLk∇(d) f k2 due to the Poincaré inequality and our
definition of fL , while the second terms is at most 2k f k 2p since f 7→ fL is a contraction.

2−p

2.4 Lower bound by homogenized eigenvalue.
We are now ready to tackle the lower bound in Theorem 1.3. We start by showing that the event
Fε ,γ from (2.33) occurs with overwhelming probability when ε is sufficiently small:
Lemma 2.11 Under Assumption 1.1 and (2.3), for any γ > 0 and all ε > 0 sufficiently small,
P(Fεc,γ ) ≤ exp{−ε 0− }.

(2.46)

Proof. Recall that L := ε −ρ for ρ ∈ (0, 1 − κ r/d) with r as in (2.2). Introducing
ΞL (y) :=

∑
y∈LZd

d

(ε L)

∑
z∈BL (y)

L

−d


U (zε ) − ξ (z)

r

(2.47)

12

BISKUP, FUKUSHIMA, KÖNIG

we may write
kξ L krε ,r =

(ε L)d ΞL (y).

∑

(2.48)

y∈LZd

Note that (ε L)d is the reciprocal of the number of y’s with ΞL (y) 6= 0 up to a multiplicative
constant. In addition, note also that limε ↓0 ΞL (y) = 0 in probability for each y ∈ Zd (by the Law
of Large Numbers and the fact that the truncated-field expectations converge to U ), supy ΞL (y) ≤
2ε −κ r by (2.3) and
i
h


(2.49)
sup sup E ΞL (y)K/r ≤ L−d ∑ E |U (zε ) − ξ (z)|K < ∞
ε ∈(0,1) y∈Zd

z∈BL (y)

by Assumption 1.1. Given these inputs, we will now prove
!
P

∑

(ε L)d ΞL (y) > γ

≤ exp{−ε 0− }

(2.50)

y∈LZd

for sufficiently small ε > 0, which by (2.48) (and redefinition of γ ) yields the desired claim.
To get (2.50), we proceed very much in the same way as in the proof of Lemma 2.3. For r
and ρ as above, fix real numbers a0 < a1 < · · · < aJ L := κ r < d satisfying
0 < a0 <

d(1 − ρ )
2

and

a j−1
r
>
aj
K

(2.51)

and write
J

ΞL (y) = ΞL (y)1{ΞL (y)<ε −a0 } + ∑ ΞL (y)1{ε −a j−1 ≤ΞL (y)<ε −a j }
j=1

(2.52)

J

=: η (y) + ∑ ζ j (y).
j=1

The union bound then shows



P ∑ ε d |ΞL (y)|r ≥ γ ≤ P
y∈LZd

∑

y∈LZd

(ε L)d η (y) ≥

 J 

γ
γ
+ ∑ P ∑ (ε L)d ζ j (y) ≥
. (2.53)
2
2J
j=1
y∈LZd

Since the above “inputs” yield supy E[η (y)] = o(1) as ε ↓ 0, the Azuma-Hoeffding inequality
implies



γ
P ∑ (ε L)d η (y) ≥
(2.54)
≤ 2 exp −cε −d(1−ρ )+2a0
2
d
y∈LZ

for any γ > 0. On the other hand, by definition of ζ j (x) we have




γ
γ −d(1−ρ )+a j
d
≤ P ∑ 1{ζ j (y)6=0} ≥ ε
.
P ∑ (ε L) ζ j (y) ≥
2J
2J
y∈LZd
y∈LZd

(2.55)

Noting that −d(1 − ρ ) + aJ < 0 and that {1{ζ j (y)6=0} }y∈LZd are stochastically dominated by independent Bernoulli variables with success probability bounded by
i
h

P(ζ j (y) 6= 0) ≤ P ΞL (y) > ε −a j−1 ≤ ε a j−1 K/r sup sup E ΞL (y)K/r
(2.56)
ε ∈(0,1) y∈LZd

EIGENVALUE FLUCTUATIONS

13

an application of the Bernstein inequality along with a j−1 K/r > a j again bounds the right-hand

side of (2.55) by exp{−ε 0− } for sufficiently small ε .
The key estimate in this section is again encapsulated into:
Proposition 2.12 For all k ∈ N there is c > 0 such that for all sufficiently small γ > 0 and all
sufficiently small ε > 0,

(2.57)
Ek,ε ,γ ∩ Fε ,γ ⊆ Λεk (ξ ) ≥ Λk − ckγ .
In particular, under Assumption 1.1, for any δ > 0,


P Λεk (ξ ) ≤ Λk − δ −→ 0.
ε ↓0

(2.58)

In light of our general strategy of playing the variational problems (2.17–2.18) against each
other, the proof starts with a conversion of discrete eigenfunctions to functions over Rd . This
following lemma will be quite useful in this vain:
Lemma 2.13 There is a constant C = C(d) for which the following holds: For any function
f : Zd → R and any ε ∈ (0, 1), there is a function e
f : Rd → R such that
(1) the map f 7→ fe is linear,
(2) fe is continuous on Rd and fe(xε ) = f (x) for all x ∈ Zd ,
(3) for any x ∈ Zd and any y ∈ ε x + [0, ε )d we have
e
f (y) ≤

and

max

z∈x+{0,1}d

fe(y) − f (x) ≤ d

max

f (z) ,

z∈x+{0,1}d

∇(d) f (z) ,

(2.59)

(2.60)

(4) for all p ∈ [1, ∞] we have

and

∑
x∈Zd

Z

ke
f kL p (Rd ) ≤ C(d)k f kε ,p ,

ε x+[0,ε )d

|e
f (y) − f (x)|2 dy ≤ C(d)k∇(d) f kε2,2 ,

(5) e
f is piece-wise linear and thus almost everywhere differentiable with
k∇ e
f kL2 (Rd ) = ε −1 k∇(d) f kε ,2 .

(2.61)
(2.62)

(2.63)

Proof. This is a restatement of Lemma 3.3 of [3] (with a history of similar statements described
there).

With this in hand, we are ready to give:
Proof of Proposition 2.12. The proof will be based on Corollary 2.9 derived along with Proposition 2.7 whose k ≥ 2-part is in turn proved using the k = 1-part of the statement under consideration. This poses no logical conflict since (as described in Remark 2.8), we first use Corollary 2.9
for k = 1, where no reference to the present statement is required, in the argument below to
establish the present statement for k = 1. This then validates the proof of Proposition 2.7 and
Corollary 2.9 for k ≥ 2 which subsequently validates also the k ≥ 2-version of the proof below.

14

BISKUP, FUKUSHIMA, KÖNIG
(k)
Let g(1)
Dε ,ξ , . . . , gDε ,ξ be (a choice of) an ONS of the first k eigenfunctions of HDε ,ξ and let

, . . . , ε −d/2 g(k)
, respectively, as dege1,ε ξ , . . . , gek,ε ξ be functions on Rd associated with ε −d/2 g(1)
Dε ,ξ
Dε ,ξ
scribed in Lemma 2.13. Corollary 2.9 ensures
sup

sup

0<ε <1 ξ ∈Ek,ε ,γ ∩Fε ,γ

ε −2 k∇(d) g(i)
k2 < ∞
Dε ,ξ 2

(2.64)

and so, in light of parts (1) and (4) of Lemma 2.13,
sup
ξ ∈Ek,ε ,γ ∩Fε ,γ

he
gi,εξ , geεj,ξ iL2 (Rd ) − δi j −→ 0.

(2.65)

ε ↓0

Invoking again the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization, we can thus find functions e
hε1,ξ , . . . , e
hεk,ξ and
coefficients ai j (ξ , ε ), 1 ≤ i, j ≤ k, such that
e
hεi,ξ =

and
e
hεi,ξ , e
hεj,ξ

L2 (Rd )

k

∑

j=1


δi j + ai j (ξ , ε ) geεj,ξ ,

= δi j

and

max

i = 1, . . . , k,

sup

i, j ξ ∈E
k,ε ,γ ∩Fε ,γ

(2.66)

ai j (ξ , ε ) −→ 0.
ε ↓0

(2.67)

Thanks to the definition of Dε , Lemma 2.13(3) and (2.66), both gei,εξ and e
hεi,ξ are supported in D.
Lemma 2.13(5) along with (2.64) and (2.66–2.67) in turn guarantee
sup

ξ ∈Ek,ε ,γ ∩Fε ,γ

while (2.62) ensures
sup
ξ ∈Ek,ε ,γ ∩Fε ,γ

k2 −→ 0
k∇e
hεi,ξ k2L2 (Rd ) − ε −2 k∇(d) g(i)
Dε ,ξ 2

U, (e
hεi,ξ )2

(2.68)

ε ↓0

L2 (Rd )

)2
− U (ε ·), (g(i)
Dε ,ξ

−→ 0.

(2.69)

ε ↓0

Using e
hεi,ξ as the ψi ’s in (2.18) and noting that the g(i)
’s achieve the infimum in (2.17), we find
Dε ,ξ
k

Λk ≤ Λεk (ξ ) + γ + ∑ U (ε ·) − ξ , (g(i)
)2
Dε ,ξ

(2.70)

i=1

when ε is sufficiently small. Now we apply the piece-wise constant approximation defined
in (1.13) to the function g(i)
and invoke Hölder’s inequality with conjugate exponents (r, r′ ),
Dε ,ξ
where r is as in (2.2), to obtain
)2 ≤ U (ε ·) − ξ , ((g(i)
) )2
U (ε ·) − ξ , (g(i)
Dε ,ξ
Dε ,ξ L
+ ε −d/r kU (ε ·) − ξ kε ,r (g(i)
)2 − ((g(i)
) )2
Dε ,ξ
Dε ,ξ L

r′

.

(2.71)

Using Lemma 2.10, Corollary 2.9 and Proposition 2.7, we find
(g(i)
)2 − ((g(i)
) )2
Dε ,ξ
Dε ,ξ L

r′

≤ cLε kg(i)
k
Dε ,ξ

2r′
2−r′

= cLε 1+d/r kε −d/2 g(i)
Dε ,ξ kε ,
≤ cL ε 1+d/r .

2r′
2−r′

(2.72)

EIGENVALUE FLUCTUATIONS

15

Since L = o(ε −1 ), the second term on the right-hand side of (2.71) is negligible. On the event
Ek,ε ,γ ∩ Fε ,γ , the first term on the right-hand side of (2.71) is also bounded as
) )2
U (ε ·) − ξ , ((g(i)
Dε ,ξ L

) k2 ≤ cγ ,
≤ kξ L kε ,r kε −d/2 (g(i)
Dε ,ξ L ε ,2r ′

(2.73)

again by Lemma 2.10. We thus get Λεk (ξ ) ≥ Λk − cγ on Ek,ε ,γ ∩ Fε ,γ for sufficiently small ε , as
desired.

Proof of Theorem 1.3. By Propositions 2.4 and 2.12, for any δ > 0 and k ∈ N we have

P |Λεk (ξ ) − Λk | > δ −→ 0.
ε ↓0

(2.74)

Since

λD(k)ε ,ξ = Λεk (ξ ) − Λεk−1 (ξ ) and λD(k) = Λk − Λk−1 ,

(2.75)


the convergence of the individual eigenvalue follows.
The proof of Proposition 2.12 gives us the following additional fact:

Corollary 2.14 Given any choice of ξ 7→ g(1)
, . . . , g(k)
, let ge1,ε ξ , . . . , gek,ε ξ denote the continuum
Dε ,ξ
Dε ,ξ
interpolations of ε −d/2 g(1)
, . . . , ε −d/2 g(k)
as constructed in Lemma 2.13. Assume λD(k+1) > λD(k)
Dε ,ξ
Dε ,ξ

and let Π̂k denote the orthogonal projection on {ϕD(1) , . . . , ϕD(k) }⊥ . Then, for any δ > 0, whenever
γ > 0 and ε > 0 are sufficiently small,


k

ξ : ∑ kΠ̂k gei,εξ kL2 (Rd ) > δ
i=1



⊆ (Ek,ε ,γ ∩ Fε ,γ )c .

Proof. This is proved in the same way as Corollary 3.8 of [3].

(2.76)


We close this subsection with an ℓ∞ -bound for the eigenfunction. Compared with the case
of bounded ξ (cf. Lemma 3.2 of [3]), the bound is weaker but it is still useful in the proof of
Theorem 1.5.
Lemma 2.15 For all p > 1, all k ∈ N and all sufficiently small γ > 0 there is ck,p,γ such that for
all ε ∈ (0, 1),

Ek,ε ,γ ∩ Fε ,γ ⊆ kg(k)
(2.77)
k2 ≤ ck,p,γ ε d/p .
Dε ,ξ ∞
Proof. Let {Xt : t ≥ 0} denote the (constant speed) continuous-time simple symmetric random
walk on Zd killed upon exiting from Dε . The eigenvalue equation and the Feynman-Kac formula
imply

e−tHDε ,ξ g(k)
(x)
Dε ,ξ
 n Z t ε −2

o
(k)
t λDε ,ξ x
(k)
2
E exp −
ε ξ (Xs )ds gDε ,ξ (Xt ε −2 ) ,
=e
(k)

t λDε ,ξ

(x) = e
g(k)
Dε ,ξ

0

(2.78)

16

BISKUP, FUKUSHIMA, KÖNIG

where E x denotes the expectation over the walk started at x. Writing pt (x, y) for the probability
that the walk started at x is at y at time t, Hölder’s inequality with conjugate indices (p, q) yields
 n Z t ε −2
o1/q 

(k)
p 1/p
t λDε ,ξ x
(k)
2
E exp −
E x g(k)
(X
gDε ,ξ (x) ≤ e
)
qε ξ (Xs )ds
−2
Dε ,ξ t ε
0

(k)
ε ,ξ

t λD

≤e

D
E1/q
δx , e−tHDε ,qξ 1

(k)

∑

y∈Dε

pt ε −2 (x, y) gDε ,ξ (y)

p

!1/p

(2.79)

.

The (1/q-th power of the) inner product on the right-hand side is bounded by
(1)
1/q
−t λ
/q
≤ ce Dε ,qξ ε −d/2q .
kδx k2 e−tHDε ,qξ ℓ2 →ℓ2 k1k2

(2.80)

On the other hand, invoking the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and using Proposition 2.7 we get
!2

∑

y∈Dε

pt ε −2 (x, y) g(k)
(y)
Dε ,ξ

p

≤

∑

pt ε −2 (x, y)2

∑

y∈Dε

y∈Dε

≤ cp2t ε −2 (x, x)ε d(p−1) ,

|g(k)
(x)|2p
Dε ,ξ

(2.81)

on Ek,ε ,γ ,

where in the second inequality we have used the fact that pt ε −2 (·, ·) is symmetric. Since p· is
bounded by the transition kernel of the random walk without killing, the local central limit theorem yields p2t ε −2 (x, x) ≤ ct −d/2 ε d . Summarizing the above bounds, we arrive at
 (k)
(1)
2
−d/2p d(1−1/q)
|g(k)
.
(2.82)
ε
Dε ,ξ (x)| ≤ c exp t λDε ,ξ − t λDε ,qξ /q t

The desired bound follows by taking t := 1 and noting that, by Corollary 2.5 and Proposition 2.12,
the eigenvalues are bounded on Ek,ε ,γ ∩ Fε ,γ uniformly in ε .

Remark 2.16 For d = 1, the bound (2.77) holds (with a finite constant) even for p = 1. This
follows from Corollary 2.9 and a discrete version of Morrey’s inequality.

3. G AUSSIAN

LIMIT LAW

We are now finally ready to address the second main aspect of this work, which is the limit
theorem for fluctuations of asymptotically non-degenerate eigenvalues. Just as Lemma 2.1, we
have the following fact that allows us to work with a truncated potential.
Lemma 3.1 Under Assumption 1.2, for each κ ∈ (d/K, 2 ∧ d/2) we have


P max |ξ (x)| > ε −κ −→ 0.
x∈Dε

ε ↓0

(3.1)

We fix κ ∈ (d/K, 2 ∧ d/2) and assume

max |ξ (x)| ≤ ε −κ
x∈Dε

(3.2)

in what follows.
As in our earlier work [3] (and drawing inspiration from [4]), the main idea is to use a martingale central limit theorem. Consider an ordering of the vertices in Dε into a sequence x1 , . . . , x|Dε |

EIGENVALUE FLUCTUATIONS

17

and let Fm := σ (ξ (x1 ), . . . , ξ (xm )). Then
|Dε |

λD(k)ε ,ξ − EλD(k)ε ,ξ =

∑ Zm ,
(k)



Zm(k) := E λD(k)ε ,ξ Fm − E λD(k)ε ,ξ Fm−1 ,

where

m=1

(3.3)

represents the fluctuation of the k-th eigenvalue as a martingale. We shall appeal to the Martingale Central Limit Theorem due to Brown [5] which yields Theorem 1.5 under the following
conditions:
(1) if λD(i) and λD( j) are simple, then
|Dε |

ε −d

∑E

m=1

(2) for each δ > 0 and each i ≥ 1,

ε

−d

|Dε |

∑E

m=1

 P
Zm(i) Zm( j) Fm−1 −→ σi2j ,
ε ↓0

 P
(Zm(i) )2 1{|Z (i) |>δ ε d/2 } Fm−1 −→ 0.
ε ↓0

m

(3.4)

(3.5)

In order to control the limits in (1) and (2), we rewrite the martingale difference by using an
independent copy ξb of ξ as


(i)
b λ (i)
λ
Zm(i) = E
(3.6)
−
b(m)
b(m−1) ,
Dε ,ξ

Dε ,ξ

b is the expectation corresponding to ξb and ξb(m) denotes the configuration
where E
(
ξ (xi ),
if i ≤ m,
(m)
ξb (xi ) := b
ξ (xi ),
if i > m.

(3.7)

Lemma 3.2 The function ξ 7→ λD(k)ε ,ξ is everywhere right and left differentiable with respect to
each ξ (x). For each ξ , the set of values of ξ (x) where the right and left partial derivatives with
respect to ξ (x) disagree is finite; else the derivative exists and is continuous in ξ (x). At the point
of differentiability, the partial derivative ∂ ξ∂(x) λD(k)ε ,ξ obeys

∂
λ (k) = g(k)
(x)2
Dε ,ξ
∂ ξ (x) Dε ,ξ

(3.8)

. (I.e., all choices give the same result.)
for any possible choice of g(k)
Dε ,ξ
Proof. This is a classical result in the matrix analysis called Hadamard’s first variation formula.
In the analytic perturbation theory of self-adjoint operators, it is also called Feynman-Herman
formula. See, for example, Reed and Simon [9], Theorem XII.3 and the computation of the
Rayleigh–Schrödinger coefficients presented on pages 5–8 thereof. An elementary proof of a
slightly weaker assertion can be found in [3].

This lemma allows us to further rewrite the martingale difference, by using the fundamental
theorem of calculus, as
Z ξ (x )



m
(i)
(i)
(i)
2
b
b
E λ b(m) − λ b(m−1) = E
g e(m) (xm ) dξ̃ ,
(3.9)
Dε ,ξ

Dε ,ξ

ξb(xm )

Dε ,ξ

18

BISKUP, FUKUSHIMA, KÖNIG

where ξe(m) is the configuration that equals ξ on {x1 , . . . , xm−1 }, coincides with ξb on {xm+1 , . . . , x|Dε | }
and takes value ξ̃ at xm . The integral is to be understood in the Riemann sense, meaning in particular that the sign changes upon exchanging the limits of integration.
For condition (1), we will proceed by replacing the square of the discrete eigenfunction by its
corresponding continuum counterpart. As in [3], the main task is to get rid of the dummy variable
ξ̃ by showing that changing the value of ξ at one point causes little effect on the eigenfunction.
Lemma 3.3 Given k ∈ N and a configuration ξ , suppose that λD(k)ε ,ξ remains simple as ξ (x)
varies in [−ε −κ , ε −κ ]. Then for any ξ ′ satisfying ξ (y) = ξ ′ (y) for y 6= x and for any ξ (x) and
ξ ′ (x),
Z ξ ′ (x)

(k)
(k)
(k)
(3.10)
gDε ,ξ ′ (x) = gDε ,ξ (x) exp
GDε (x, x; ξ̃ ) d ξ̃ (x) ,
ξ (x)

where ξ̃ is the configuration that agrees with ξ (and ξ ′ ) outside x where it equals ξ̃ (x) and
(k)
−1
b
G(k)
Dε (x, y; ξ ) := δx , (HDε ,ξ − λDε ,ξ ) (1 − Pk )δy

ℓ2 (Zd )

(3.11)

with Pbk denoting the orthogonal projection on Ker(λD(k)ε ,ξ − HDε ,ξ ).

Proof. This follows from the so-called Hadamard’s second variation formula. See Lemma 5.2
of [3] for a direct proof.

Our next lemma shows that when λD(k) is simple, the random eigenvalue λD(k)ε ,ξ indeed remains
simple as ξ (x) varies in [−ε −κ , ε −κ ] and also the term in the exponent of (3.10) tends to zero
as ε ↓ 0 with very high probability. Let us fix p > 1 such that
d/p − κ > d/2

and

d/p − κ + 2 ∧ d > d,

(3.12)

recalling (3.2). Further, we set

δ :=
and define the events
A1k,ε :=

\n

x∈Dε

A2k,ε :=

\n

x∈Dε

1
min{λD(k) − λD(k−1) , λD(k+1) − λD(k) }
3

o
ξ : sup |λD(i)ε ,ξ − λD(i) | < δ for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k + 1 ,

(3.13)

(3.14)

ξ (x)

o
ξ : sup G(k)
(x,
x;
ξ
)
ε
)
≤
G(
Dε

(3.15)

ξ (x)

with the suprema over ξ (x) over [−ε −κ , ε −κ ] and


ε ,
G(ε ) := cG × ε 2 log ε1 ,

 2
ε ,

d = 1,
d = 2,
d ≥ 3.

(3.16)

Ak,ε ,γ := A1k,ε ∩ A2k,ε ∩ Ek,ε ,γ ∩ Fε ,γ .

(3.17)

where cG is to be determined momentarily. Abbreviate

We then have:

EIGENVALUE FLUCTUATIONS

19

Lemma 3.4 If λD(k) is simple and cG in (3.16) is chosen sufficiently large, then for all γ > 0
and ε > 0 sufficiently small,
(3.18)
P(Ak,ε ,γ ) ≥ 1 − exp{−ε 0− }.
Proof. It readily follows from Propositions 2.4 and 2.12 that, for some constant c > 0,
sup
ξ ∈Ek,ε ,γ ∩Fε ,γ

max |λD(i)ε ,ξ − λD(i) | < cγ

1≤i≤k+1

(3.19)

holds for sufficiently small γ > 0 and ε > 0. Now for any η which differs from ξ ∈ Ek,ε ,γ ∩ Fε ,γ
only at x, one can easily check that η ∈ Ek,ε ,2γ ∩ Fε ,2γ up to a change of the constant explained in
Remark 2.2. For instance, if kξ kε ,r < 4|D| maxx∈Dε E[|ξ (x)|r ], then for small enough ε > 0,
sup kξ kε ,r ≤ kξ kε ,r + ε d/r−κ ≤ 5|D| max E[|ξ (x)|r ]
x∈Dε

ξ (x)

(3.20)

follows from our choice r < d/κ . Therefore, by Lemmas 2.3 and 2.11, for each x ∈ Dε and with
the supremum over ξ (x) restricted to [−ε −κ , ε −κ ],


(i)
(i)
P sup |λDε ,ξ − λD | < δ for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k + 1 ≥ 1 − exp{−ε 0− }.
(3.21)
ξ (x)

Since |Dε | = O(ε −d ), the union bound yields
P(A1k,ε ) ≥ 1 − exp{−ε 0− }

(3.22)

for all γ > 0 and ε > 0 sufficiently small.
Next, we estimate the probability of A2k,ε . Hereafter, we assume that ξ ∈ A1k,ε . Then mini∈N\{k} |λD(i)ε ,ξ − λD(k)ε ,ξ |
is at least δ and if we choose λ so that λ + λD(1) > δ , then for some constant c > 0 depending only
on λ and k,
1
1
g(i)
G(k)
(x)2 ≤ c ∑
g(i)
(x)2 , ξ ∈ A1k,ε . (3.23)
Dε (x, x; ξ ) ≤ ∑
(i)
(k)
(i)
Dε ,ξ
Dε ,ξ
i≥1 |λDε ,ξ − λDε ,ξ |
i≥1 λ + λDε ,ξ
i6=k

The sum on the right-hand side is nothing but the λ -Green kernel of HDε ,ξ evaluated at (x, x). Let
us define


It,z (ξ ) := E z

Z t ε −2
0

ε 2 |ξ |(Xs )ds = ε 2

Z t ε −2
0

∑

pt (z, y)|ξ |(y)ds,

(3.24)

y∈Dε

where p and X are the same as in the proof of Lemma 2.15. Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
and a standard heat kernel bound, we obtain
1/2 
1/2
Z t ε −2 
2
2
2
It,z (ξ ) − It,z (η ) ≤ ε
ds
∑ pt (z, y)
∑ |ξ (y) − η (y)|
0

Z

y∈Dε

y∈Dε


2
1/2
p2t (z, z) ds kξ − η k2
=ε
0

1−d/4 ε d/2 ,

d ≤ 3,
t
≤ ckξ − η k2 × ε 2 log(t ε −2 ), d = 4,

 2
ε ,
d ≥ 5.
t ε −2

(3.25)

20

BISKUP, FUKUSHIMA, KÖNIG

Noting also that It,z (·) is linear and |It,z | ≤ t ε −κ thanks to (3.2), we may use Talagrand’s concentration inequality (Theorem 6.6 of Talagrand [11]) and (3.2) to get


max P |It,z (ξ ) − med(It,z )| > R ≤ 4 exp −cR2 ε 2κ −4∧d / log(ε −1 )
z∈Dε
(3.26)
≤ exp{−cR2 ε 0− }
for all R > 0, where c is a constant depending only on t and the bound holds for all ε > 0
sufficiently small. By integrating this bound, we first find |E(It,z ) − med(It,z )| < 1/16 for ε > 0
small. Then for t = (16 maxx∈Dε E(|ξ (x)|))−1 , we have |E(It,z )| ≤ 1/16 and hence |med(It,z )| <
1/8. By using this in (3.26) and choosing R = 1/8, we obtain the bound


1
max P It,z (ξ ) >
≤ exp{−ε 0− }
(3.27)
z∈Dε
4
for all sufficiently small ε > 0. Since (3.25) ensures that varying ξ (x) over [−ε κ , ε κ ] brings only
o(1) change to It,z (ξ ) and since |Dε | = O(ε −d ), the union bound yields



[
1
P
(3.28)
sup sup It,z (ξ ) >
≤ exp{−ε 0− }
3
z∈D
ξ (x)
ε
x∈D
ε

for ε > 0 sufficiently small. Now if supz∈Dε |It,z (ξ )| ≤ 1/3, a standard argument using Khas’minskii’s
lemma (see, e.g., Proposition 3.1 in Chapter 1 of Sznitman [10]) tells us that
e−sHDε ,ξ (x, x) ≤ ζ −1 eζ s p2sε −2 (x, x)

(3.29)
e−λ s

for some universal constant ζ > 0. Multiplying both sides of this inequality by
2ζ ∨ (δ − λD(1)ε ,ξ ) and integrating over s ∈ (0, ∞), we obtain


d = 1,
ε ,
c
−2 (d) −1
−1
1
2
(λ − HDε ,ξ ) (x, x) ≤ (ζ − ε ∆ ) (x, x) ≍ ε log ε , d = 2,

ζ
 2
ε ,
d ≥ 3.
Using this in (3.23) then yields a corresponding bound on P(A2k,ε ).

with λ >

(3.30)


Now we are in position to check the conditions of the Martingale Central Limit Theorem. Let
us first check the condition (2).
Proposition 3.5 For each δ > 0 and i ≥ 1,

ε −d

|Dε |

∑E

m=1

 P
(Zm(i) )2 1{|Z (i) |>δ ε d/2 } Fm−1 −→ 0.
m

ε ↓0

(3.31)

Proof. On the event Ak,ε ,γ , by using Lemma 2.15 in (3.9), we have
sup |Zm(i) | ≤ cε d/p−κ .

(3.32)

ξ ∈Ak,ε ,γ

Thanks to (3.12), the right-hand side is o(ε d/2 ). On the other hand, supξ |Zm(k) |∞ ≤ 2ε −κ due to the
truncation. From these bounds and Lemma 3.4, we obtain

ε −d

|Dε |

∑E

m=1

|Dε |


(Zm(k) )2 1{|Z (k) |>δ ε d/2 } ≤ ε −d ∑ E (Zm(k) )2 1Ack,ε ,γ ≤ exp{−ε 0− }
m

m=1

(3.33)

EIGENVALUE FLUCTUATIONS

21

for sufficiently small ε . This shows that the desired convergence holds in L1 (P), and thus also in
probability.

Next we address condition (1) of the Martingale Central Limit Theorem:
Proposition 3.6 Suppose λD(i) and λD( j) are simple. Abbreviate Bε (x) := ε x + [0, ε )d . Then
|Dε | 

∑

E

E (ε

−d

(i)

Zm )(ε

−d

Z



( j)

Zm ) Fm−1 −

m=1

2

(i)

2

( j)

dy V (y)ϕD (y) ϕD (y)

Bε (xm )



−→ 0.
ε ↓0

(3.34)

The proof of this proposition will be done in several steps. Recall the definition of event Ak,ε ,γ
and note that, on Ak,ε ,γ the eigenfunction g(k)
is unique up to a sign and, in particular, there is a
Dε ,ξ
unique measurable version of ξ 7→ g(k)
(x)2 for each x. We first eliminate the dummy variable ξ̃ .
Dε ,ξ
Lemma 3.7 Suppose λD(k) is simple. Then

ε

−d


 
2
Zm − ξ (xm ) −U (ε xm ) E g(k)
(x
)
1
F
Ak,ε ,γ
m
Dε ,ξ m

|Dε |

∑

(k)

E

m=1

2

!

−→ 0.
ε ↓0

(3.35)

Proof. Inserting the indicator of {ξb(m) ∈ Ak,ε ,γ } and/or its complement into the right-hand side of
k ≤ 1, we get
(3.9) and using the obvious bound supξ kg(k)
Dε ,ξ ∞

b
Zm − E 1{ξb(m) ∈A
(k)

k,ε ,γ }

Abbreviate temporarily

Z ξ (xm )
ξb(xm )

2

(k)

(xm )
Dε ,ξe(m)

g

 Z
Fm (ξ̃ ) := exp 2

ξ̃

(m)

dξ̃



≤ 2ε −κ E(1Ack,ε ,γ |Fm ).


GDε (xm , xm ; ξ̃ )dξ̃ .
′

(k)

ξ (xm )

On the event {ξb(m) ∈ Ak,ε ,γ }, Lemmas 3.3 yields
Z

ξ (xm )

ξb(xm )

g(k)


2
b(xm )g(k)
(x
)
d
ξ̃
−
ξ
(x
)
−
ξ
m
m
e(m)

Dε ,ξb(m)

Dε ,ξ

=

Z ξ (xm ) 
ξb(xm )

= g(k)

g(k)

Dε ,ξ


2
dξ̃
(x
)
m
b(m)

Dε ,ξ

Z ξ (xm )
ξb(xm )

(3.37)

(xm )2

(k)
2
e(m) (xm ) − g

2
b(m) (xm )

Dε ,ξ

′

(3.36)

(3.38)


Fm (ξ̃ (m) ) − 1 dξ̃

and the last integral is estimated by using Lemma 3.4 as
Z ξ (xm )
ξb(xm )


Fm (ξ̃ (m) ) − 1 dξ̃ ≤ 4|ξ (xm ) − ξb(xm )|ε −κ G(ε ).

(3.39)

22

BISKUP, FUKUSHIMA, KÖNIG

This and (3.36), together with Lemma 2.15, yield

b
Zm − E 1{ξb(m) ∈A
(k)

k,ε ,γ }


ξ (xm ) − ξb(xm ) g(k)

Dε ,ξb(m)

2

(xm )



2


b ξ (xm ) − ξb(xm )|2 ) .
≤ c ε −κ E(1Ack,ε ,γ |Fm )2 + ε 2d/p−2κ G(ε )2 E(|
(3.40)

As the configuration ξb(m) does not depend on ξb(xm ), we may take expectation with respect
to ξb(xm ) and effectively replace it by U (ε x). Taking the expectation over ξ and summing over
x ∈ Dε , we find that the left-hand side of (3.35) is bounded by

|Dε | 
1
−d
−κ
2(d/p−κ +2∧d)
c
log
(3.41)
ε ∑ c ε P(Ak,ε ,γ ) + ε
≤ ε −2d−2κ exp{−ε 0− } + ε 0+
ε
m=1


by Lemma 3.4 and (3.12).

Next we bound the difference between the continuum eigenfunction and the discrete random
eigenfunction without the dummy variable.
Lemma 3.8 Suppose λD(k) is simple. Then

|Dε | Z
lim lim sup ∑
dy E ξ (xm ) −U (ε xm )
γ ↓0

ε ↓0

m=1 Bε (xm )

2

(k)

2

ϕD (y) − ε

−d

(k)

2

gDε ,ξ (xm ) 1Ak,ε ,γ

2



= 0. (3.42)

Proof. Recall the setting of Corollary 2.14 and, in particular, given (a choice of) the scaled
, . . . , ε −d/2 g(k)
, let ge1,ε ξ , . . . , gek,ε ξ denote their continuum interdiscrete eigenfunctions ε −d/2 g(1)
Dε ,ξ
Dε ,ξ
polations. Then (2.60) gives


|Dε | Z


2
2
ε
−d/2 (k)
(d) (k)
, (3.43)
(y)
−
ε
(x
)
1
k
1
g
e
dy
E
g
≤
C(d)E
k∇
g
Ak,ε ,γ
∑
k,ξ
Dε ,ξ m
Dε ,ξ 2 Ak,ε ,γ
m=1 Bε (xm )

which tends to zero proportionally to ε 2 , due to Corollary 2.9. Thus it suffices to show that the
following tends to zero as ε ↓ 0 and γ ↓ 0:


Z
2
2
(k)
2
2
ε
dy E ξ (xm ) −U (ε xm ) ϕD (y) − gek,ξ (y) 1Ak,ε ,γ
D

≤ ε −2κ P(Ack,ε ,γ )kϕD(k) (y)k4L4
r

+ E kξ −U (ε ·) ε ,r 1Ak,ε ,γ

ϕD(k) + gek,ε ξ
×E

2/r 
E

ϕD(k) − gek,ε ξ
1/r′
2r ′
.
′ 1Ak,ε ,γ
2r
L

2/r
r
1
A
k,ε ,γ
Lr

(3.44)
The first term on the right-hand side tends to zero as ε ↓ 0 because of Lemma 3.4 and the boundedness of ϕD(k) . As for the second term, the definition of Ak,ε ,γ and Proposition 2.7 imply that
the all the random variables in the expectations are bounded. As λD(k) is simple, Corollary 2.14
guarantees that when ξ ∈ Ak,ε ,γ and γ and ε are small, {e
g εj,ξ }ℓj=1 projects almost entirely onto the

EIGENVALUE FLUCTUATIONS

23

closed linear span of {ϕD( j) }ℓj=1 for both ℓ = k − 1 and ℓ = k. This implies that we can make
|e
gk,ε ξ | − |ϕD(k) | kL2 (D) 1Ak,ε ,γ

(3.45)

as small as we wish by making γ and ε small. Since the Hölder inequality yields
|e
gk,ε ξ | − |ϕD(k) |

r
Lr

≤ |e
gk,ε ξ | − |ϕD(k) |

1/2
L2

|e
gk,ε ξ | − |ϕD(k) |

1/2
L2(r−1)

(3.46)

and L2(r−1) -norm above is bounded due to Lemma 2.7, we are done.



Proof of Proposition 3.6. Combining Lemmas 3.7 and 3.8, and using that the conditional expectation is a contraction in L2 (P), we get


|Dε | Z
 (k) 2 2
−d (k)
dy E ε Zm − ξ (xm ) −U (ε xm ) ϕD (y)
(3.47)
−→ 0
∑
ε ↓0

m=1 Bε (xm )

for both k = i, j. The claim now reduces to
|Dε | Z

∑

m=1 Bε (xm )

dy V (y) −V (ε xm ) ϕD(i) (y)2 ϕD( j) (y)2 −→ 0,
ε ↓0

(3.48)

which follows by uniform continuity of y 7→ V (y) and the boundedness of the eigenfunctions.



Proof of Theorem 1.5. The condition (2) of the Martingale Central Limit Theorem is verified in
Proposition 3.5. Thanks to Proposition 3.6 and the fact that |Bε (xm )| = ε d ,

ε −d

|Dε |

∑

m=1

Z

(k )
(k )
(k )
E Zm(ki ) Zm j Fm−1 −→ V (y)ϕDi (y)2 ϕD j (y)2 dy
ε ↓0

(3.49)

D

in L1 (P) and thus in probability. This verifies the condition (1) of the Martingale Central Limit
Theorem and the result follows.


A. A PPENDIX
Here we collect some proofs from earlier parts of this paper. We begin by the proof of the Sobolev
inequality.
Proof of Lemma 2.6. Since D is bounded we may regard Dε as a subset of the torus Tε :=
Zd /(LZ)d , where L is an integer at most twice the ℓ∞ -diameter of Dε . This makes the discrete
Fourier transform conveniently available. Writing
fˆ(k) := |Tε |−1/2

∑ e2π ik·x/L f (x),

k ∈ Tε ,

(A.1)

x∈Tε

we get k fˆkTε ,2 = k f kTε ,2 and k fˆkTε ,∞ ≤ c(D)ε −d/2 k f kTε ,1 . The Riesz-Thorin Interpolation Theorem then shows
q−2
c̃(D, q)k fˆkTε ,q ≤ (ε −d/2 ) q k f kTε ,p ,
(A.2)
where c̃(D, q) > 0 and every q ∈ [2, ∞] and p such that
freely interchange fˆ with f in (A.2).

1/ + 1/
p
q

= 1. As fˆˆ(x) = f (−x), we may

24

BISKUP, FUKUSHIMA, KÖNIG

Let âε (k) := ε −2 ∑dj=1 2 sin(π k j /L)2 be the eigenvalue of −ε −2 ∆(d) on Tε associated with the
k-th Fourier mode. Applying (A.2) and the Hölder inequality, for any q ≥ 2 we get
c̃(D, q)(ε d/2 )

q−2
q

q
k f kTε ,q ≤ k fˆkTε , q−1

≤ k(1 + âε )−1/2 k

q−2
2q

Tε , 2q−2
q−2

= k(1 + âε )−1/2 k

q−2
2q

Tε , 2q−2
q−2

k(1 + âε )1/2 fˆkTε ,2

(A.3)

k f k2Tε ,2 + ε −2k∇(d) f k2Tε ,2

Comparing with (2.31), it thus suffices to show that

∑
0<ε <1
sup

k∈Tε

1/2

 q−1
1 + âε (k) q−2 < ∞.

(A.4)
q−1

As ε L is bounded between two positive numbers, this is equivalent to summability of |k|−2 q−2
q−1
2d
> d which in d ≥ 3 needs q < d−2
.

on k ∈ Zd \ {0}. This requires 2 q−2
Our next item of business is optimality of the moment condition and the effect of the truncation.
Let us first check that our moment assumption is nearly optimal for Theorem 1.3. For the cases
d = 1 and 2, it is only a little more than the natural integrability assumption. Let d ≥ 3 and
suppose that the distributions of ξ (ε ) (x) (x ∈ Dε ) depend neither on x ∈ Dε nor on ε > 0. If we
assume E[ξ (x)K− ] = ∞ for some K < d/2 in addition, then
Z ∞
0

t K−1 P(ξ− (x) > t) dt = ∞

⇒

′

lim sup t −K P(ξ− (x) > t) > 0

for any K ′ > K. Taking K ′ < d/2, we find


−κ
lim sup P min ξ (x) ≤ −ε
= 1 − lim inf
ε ↓0

ε ↓0

x∈Dε

(A.5)

t→∞

∏P

ξ− (x) ≤ ε −κ

x∈Dε



′ |Dε |
≥ 1 − lim inf 1 − ε κ K
>0



(A.6)

ε ↓0

d/K ′ .

for 2 < κ <
Suppose ξ (x) ≤
with k = 1, we obtain

−ε −κ

at x ∈ Dε . Then, by simply taking h1 = 1{x} in (2.17)

λD(1)ε ,ξ ≤ ε −2 k∇(d) 1{x} k22 − h1{x} , ξ 1{x} i ≤ −ε −κ /2.

(A.7)

This and (A.6) implies that Theorem 1.3 fails to hold.
Next, we shall show that the truncation may affect the mean value E[λD(1)ε ,ξ ]. Suppose for
simplicity that {ξ (x)}x∈Zd are identically distributed and
P(ξ (x) ≤ −r) = |r|−K ∧ 1

(A.8)

for some K > 1 ∨ d/2. This distribution clearly satisfies Assumption 1.1 with U being a constant
function and


(A.9)
P min ξ (x) ≤ −r = (1 − |r|−K ∧ 1)#Dε ≥ cε d |r|−K
x∈Dε

provided that the last line is much smaller than 1. As is seen in the above argument, if ξ (x) ≤
−M ε −2 for some large M > 0 and x ∈ Dε , then h1 = 1{x} is almost the optimal choice in (2.17)

EIGENVALUE FLUCTUATIONS

and λD(1)ε ,ξ ≤ −ξ (x)/2.

25



 1

E λD(1)ε ,ξ ≤ E min ξ (x) : min ξ (x) ≤ −M ε −2
x∈Dε
2 x∈Dε

Z −Mε −2 
P min ξ (x) ≤ −r d r
=−
−∞

. −ε

−d

Z ∞

Mε −2

(A.10)

x∈Dε

r−K d r ≍ −ε −d+2(K−1) .

If K < d/2 + 1 (this is possible when d ≥ 3), the right-hand side goes to −∞.

R EFERENCES
[1] S. Andres, J.-D. Deuschel and M. Slowik (2015), Invariance principle for the random conductance model in a
degenerate ergodic environment, Ann. Probab., 43(4):1866-1891.
[2] G. Bal. Central limits and homogenization in random media. Multiscale Model. Simul., 7(2):677–702, 2008.
[3] M. Biskup, R. Fukushima, W. König (2016). Eigenvalue fluctuations for lattice Anderson Hamiltonians, SIAM
journal on Math. Anal., 48(4):2674–2700.
[4] M. Biskup, M. Salvi and T. Wolff (2014). A central limit theorem for the effective conductance: Linear boundary
data and small ellipticity contrasts. Commun. Math. Phys. 328, no. 2, 701–731.
[5] R.M. Brown (1971). Martingale central limit theorems. Ann. Math. Statist. 42 59–66.
[6] D. Gilbarg, N.S. Trudinger (2001). Elliptic partial differential equations of second order. Classics in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
[7] K. Fan (1949). On a theorem of Weyl concerning eigenvalues of linear transformations I. Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sciences 35, no. 11, 652–655.
[8] F. Flegel, M. Haida and M. Slowik (2017). Homogenization theory for the random conductance model with
degenerate ergodic weights and unbounded-range jumps. arXiv:1702.02860
[9] M. Reed, B. Simon (1978), Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics, Volume 4 : Analysis of Operators.
Academic Press, New-York.
[10] A.-S. Sznitman (1998). Brownian motion, obstacles and random media. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
[11] M. Talagrand (1996). A new look at independence. Ann. Probab. 24 (1996), no. 1, 1–34.

