Cholesky decompositions of integral operators and the Fredholm determinant

Niels Lundtorp Olsen

This paper presents an operator version of the well-known and popular tool for calculating the determinant of matrix using its Cholesky decomposition:

logdetM=2i=1nlogLii𝑀2superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝐿𝑖𝑖\log\det M=2\sum_{i=1}^{n}\log L_{ii}roman_log roman_det italic_M = 2 ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_log italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

where LL=M𝐿superscript𝐿top𝑀LL^{\top}\!=Mitalic_L italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊤ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_M is the Cholesky decomposition of M𝑀Mitalic_M.

The equivalent result for operators in L2[0,1]superscript��201L^{2}[0,1]italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ 0 , 1 ] is

logdet(𝐈+M):=log(Fredholm determinant of M)=01T(t,t)dt.assign𝐈𝑀Fredholm determinant of 𝑀superscriptsubscript01𝑇𝑡𝑡differential-d𝑡\log\det(\mathbf{I}+M):=\log(\text{Fredholm determinant of }M)=\int_{0}^{1}\!T% (t,t)\>\mathrm{d}{t}.roman_log roman_det ( bold_I + italic_M ) := roman_log ( Fredholm determinant of italic_M ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) roman_d italic_t .

where M𝑀Mitalic_M is an integral operator, and (𝐈+T)(𝐈+T)=(𝐈+M)𝐈𝑇𝐈superscript𝑇𝐈𝑀(\mathbf{I}+T)(\mathbf{I}+T^{*})=(\mathbf{I}+M)( bold_I + italic_T ) ( bold_I + italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = ( bold_I + italic_M ) is the Cholesky decomposition of M𝑀Mitalic_M.

Background

Consider the Hilbert space \mathbb{H}blackboard_H of square-integrable functions on [0,1]01[0,1][ 0 , 1 ], =(L2[0,1];)superscript𝐿201\mathbb{H}=\mathcal{B}(L^{2}[0,1];\mathbb{R})blackboard_H = caligraphic_B ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ 0 , 1 ] ; blackboard_R ). Let K𝐾Kitalic_K be an integral operator in ()\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{H})caligraphic_B ( blackboard_H ). We shall use the same symbol for an integral operator and its kernel, ie.:

Kf(t)=01K(t,s)f(s)ds,fL2[0,1]formulae-sequence𝐾𝑓𝑡superscriptsubscript01𝐾𝑡𝑠𝑓𝑠differential-d𝑠𝑓superscript𝐿201Kf(t)=\int_{0}^{1}\!K(t,s)f(s)\>\mathrm{d}{s},\quad f\in L^{2}[0,1]italic_K italic_f ( italic_t ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K ( italic_t , italic_s ) italic_f ( italic_s ) roman_d italic_s , italic_f ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ 0 , 1 ]

Furthermore, we shall denote the identify operator by 𝐈𝐈\mathbf{I}bold_I and use to denote the adjoint of an operator.

We define the Fredholm determinant for an integral operator K(L2[0,1];)𝐾superscript𝐿201K\in\mathcal{B}(L^{2}[0,1];\mathbb{R})italic_K ∈ caligraphic_B ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ 0 , 1 ] ; blackboard_R ) by:

Fd(K)=k=01n!0101det[K(xp,xq)]p,q=1ndx1dxn,𝐹𝑑𝐾superscriptsubscript𝑘01𝑛superscriptsubscript01superscriptsubscript01superscriptsubscriptdelimited-[]𝐾subscript𝑥𝑝subscript𝑥𝑞𝑝𝑞1𝑛dsubscript𝑥1dsubscript𝑥𝑛Fd(K)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}\int_{0}^{1}\dots\int_{0}^{1}\det[K(x_{p}% ,x_{q})]_{p,q=1}^{n}\>\mathrm{d}x_{1}\dots\>\mathrm{d}x_{n},italic_F italic_d ( italic_K ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_det [ italic_K ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_d italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … roman_d italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (1)

Here the function zFd(zK)maps-to𝑧𝐹𝑑𝑧𝐾z\mapsto Fd(zK)italic_z ↦ italic_F italic_d ( italic_z italic_K ) is an entire function on the complex plane (Fredholm, 1903). Fd(K)𝐹𝑑𝐾Fd(K)italic_F italic_d ( italic_K ) is well-defined if K𝐾Kitalic_K is block-continuous, but not for triangular operators (as the integral along the diagonal is ambiguous if K𝐾Kitalic_K is discontinuous across the diagonal). We refer to the discussion in Bornemann (2010) regarding different definitions of the Fredholm determinant.

The Fredholm determinant is the equivalent of the ”usual” determinant for operators on nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (ie. matrices) and was introduced in Fredholm (1903) to solve integral equations on the form ϕ=f+zKϕitalic-ϕ𝑓𝑧𝐾italic-ϕ\phi=f+zK\phiitalic_ϕ = italic_f + italic_z italic_K italic_ϕ for unknown ϕL2[0,1]italic-ϕsuperscript𝐿201\phi\in L^{2}[0,1]italic_ϕ ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ 0 , 1 ].

Cholesky decomposition for matrices

One of the most appreciated computational tools for positive definite matrices is the Cholesky decomposition: Let Mn×n𝑀superscript𝑛𝑛M\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}italic_M ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be positive definite. Then there exists a unique decomposition M=LL𝑀𝐿superscript𝐿topM=LL^{\top}\!italic_M = italic_L italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊤ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where L𝐿Litalic_L is a lower triangular matrix. There exist specialised algorithms for computing the Cholesky decomposition, something which many programming languages implements; the Wikipedia entry on the Cholesky decomposition 111https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesky_decomposition has a good overview.

The Cholesky decomposition may aid in various computations involving M𝑀Mitalic_M. Assume M𝑀Mitalic_M has the Cholesky decomposition M=LL𝑀𝐿superscript𝐿topM=LL^{\top}\!italic_M = italic_L italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊤ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and assume yn𝑦superscript𝑛y\in\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_y ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT:

  • Inner product using M𝑀Mitalic_M or M1superscript𝑀1M^{-1}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT: yMy=Ly2superscript𝑦top𝑀𝑦superscriptnormsuperscript𝐿top𝑦2y^{\top}\!My=||L^{\top}\!y||^{2}italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊤ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M italic_y = | | italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊤ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y | | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, yM1y=L1y2superscript𝑦topsuperscript𝑀1𝑦superscriptnormsuperscript𝐿1𝑦2y^{\top}\!M^{-1}y=||L^{-1}y||^{2}italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊤ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y = | | italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y | | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

  • Inversion of M𝑀Mitalic_M: M1=L1,L1superscript𝑀1superscript𝐿1topsuperscript𝐿1M^{-1}=L^{-1,\top}L^{-1}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 , ⊤ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

  • Log-determinant of M𝑀Mitalic_M: logdetM=2i=1nlogLii𝑀2superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝐿𝑖𝑖\log\det M=2\sum_{i=1}^{n}\log L_{ii}roman_log roman_det italic_M = 2 ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_log italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

where the triangular structure furthermore can be used for fast calculations of L1superscript𝐿1L^{-1}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and L1ysuperscript𝐿1𝑦L^{-1}yitalic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y.

Cholesky decomposition for operators on L2[0,1]superscript𝐿201L^{2}[0,1]italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ 0 , 1 ]

We can also define Cholesky decompostions for integral operators on \mathbb{H}blackboard_H, though some care needs to be taken as integral operators are not generally invertible.

Let A()𝐴A\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{H})italic_A ∈ caligraphic_B ( blackboard_H ) be a positive definite integral operator. We define the cholesky decomposition of 𝐈+A𝐈𝐴\mathbf{I}+Abold_I + italic_A as (𝐈+T)(𝐈+T)𝐈𝑇𝐈superscript𝑇(\mathbf{I}+T)(\mathbf{I}+T^{*})( bold_I + italic_T ) ( bold_I + italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), where T𝑇Titalic_T is a triangular operator (ie. an integral operator where T(x,y)=0𝑇𝑥𝑦0T(x,y)=0italic_T ( italic_x , italic_y ) = 0 for x>y𝑥𝑦x>yitalic_x > italic_y).

The Cholesky decomposition of 𝐈+A𝐈𝐴\mathbf{I}+Abold_I + italic_A satisfy inversion and inner product properties similar to matrices:

(I+A)1=(𝐈+T1,)(𝐈+T1)superscript𝐼𝐴1𝐈superscript𝑇1𝐈superscript𝑇1(I+A)^{-1}=(\mathbf{I}+T^{-1,\ast})(\mathbf{I}+T^{-1})( italic_I + italic_A ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( bold_I + italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 , ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( bold_I + italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

and

f,(I+A)1f=(𝐈+T1)f2𝑓superscript𝐼𝐴1𝑓superscriptnorm𝐈superscript𝑇1𝑓2\langle f,(I+A)^{-1}f\rangle=||(\mathbf{I}+T^{-1})f||^{2}⟨ italic_f , ( italic_I + italic_A ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ⟩ = | | ( bold_I + italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_f | | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

We refer to (Gohberg et al., 1993, chap. XXII) for a general discussion on LU decompositions of operators on L2[0,1]superscript𝐿201L^{2}[0,1]italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ 0 , 1 ].

The Cholesky decomposition and the determinant

The determinant is not well-defined for operators on L2[0,1]superscript𝐿201L^{2}[0,1]italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ 0 , 1 ], so it is not obvious if or how one could have a statement similar to logdetM=i=1nlogLii𝑀superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝐿𝑖𝑖\log\det M=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\log L_{ii}roman_log roman_det italic_M = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_log italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. However, knowing that the Fredholm determinant plays a role with many similarities to the ordinary determinant, we could hope for a statement along these lines.

This is indeed the case if we define det(𝐈+M)=Fd(M)𝐈𝑀𝐹𝑑𝑀\det(\mathbf{I}+M)=Fd(M)roman_det ( bold_I + italic_M ) = italic_F italic_d ( italic_M ). The theorem is the following:

Theorem 1.

Let A𝐴Aitalic_A be an integral operator on [0,1]01[0,1][ 0 , 1 ] with continuous kernel. Suppose 𝐈+A𝐈𝐴\mathbf{I}+Abold_I + italic_A decomposes 𝐈+A=(𝐈+T)(𝐈+T)𝐈𝐴𝐈𝑇𝐈superscript𝑇\mathbf{I}+A=(\mathbf{I}+T)(\mathbf{I}+T^{*})bold_I + italic_A = ( bold_I + italic_T ) ( bold_I + italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) where T𝑇Titalic_T is a triangular operator.

Assume that T𝑇Titalic_T is continuous on the closed lower triangle {(x,y)|0x1,0yx}conditional-set𝑥𝑦formulae-sequence0𝑥10𝑦𝑥\{(x,y)|0\leq x\leq 1,0\leq y\leq x\}{ ( italic_x , italic_y ) | 0 ≤ italic_x ≤ 1 , 0 ≤ italic_y ≤ italic_x } (in general, T𝑇Titalic_T is not continuous as a function on [0,1]2superscript012[0,1]^{2}[ 0 , 1 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT). We then have

logdet(𝐈+A)=01T(t,t)dt.𝐈𝐴superscriptsubscript01𝑇𝑡𝑡differential-d𝑡\log\det(\mathbf{I}+A)=\int_{0}^{1}\!T(t,t)\>\mathrm{d}{t}.roman_log roman_det ( bold_I + italic_A ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) roman_d italic_t .

The theorem can be justified heuristically from the ’matrix-like’ approximation of 𝐈+A𝐈𝐴\mathbf{I}+Abold_I + italic_A: 1+T(t,t)1𝑇𝑡𝑡1+T(t,t)1 + italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) corresponds to the diagonal elements, and log(1+T(t,t))T(t,t)1𝑇𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑡𝑡\log(1+T(t,t))\approx T(t,t)roman_log ( 1 + italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) ) ≈ italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) when T(t,t)𝑇𝑡𝑡T(t,t)italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) is small.

Proof.

In the following, we define det(𝐈+M)=Fd(M)𝐈𝑀𝐹𝑑𝑀\det(\mathbf{I}+M)=Fd(M)roman_det ( bold_I + italic_M ) = italic_F italic_d ( italic_M ) whenever Fd(M)𝐹𝑑𝑀Fd(M)italic_F italic_d ( italic_M ) is well-defined.

It can easily be proved that the Fredholm determinant has the block-property of ordinary matrices; ie.:

det(𝐈+U0V𝐈+X)=det(𝐈+UV0𝐈+X)=det(𝐈+U)det(𝐈+X)matrix𝐈𝑈0𝑉𝐈𝑋matrix𝐈𝑈𝑉0𝐈𝑋𝐈𝑈𝐈𝑋\det\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{I}+U&0\\ V&\mathbf{I}+X\end{pmatrix}=\det\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{I}+U&V\\ 0&\mathbf{I}+X\end{pmatrix}=\det(\mathbf{I}+U)\det(\mathbf{I}+X)roman_det ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_I + italic_U end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_V end_CELL start_CELL bold_I + italic_X end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) = roman_det ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_I + italic_U end_CELL start_CELL italic_V end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL bold_I + italic_X end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) = roman_det ( bold_I + italic_U ) roman_det ( bold_I + italic_X )

for continuous integral operators U,V,X𝑈𝑉𝑋U,V,Xitalic_U , italic_V , italic_X of appropriate sizes.

Define Atsubscript𝐴𝑡A_{t}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Ttsubscript𝑇𝑡T_{t}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to be the restrictions of A𝐴Aitalic_A and T𝑇Titalic_T to [0,t]0𝑡[0,t][ 0 , italic_t ] for 0t<10𝑡10\leq t<10 ≤ italic_t < 1. By construction, 𝐈+At=(𝐈+Tt)(𝐈+Tt)𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡𝐈subscript𝑇𝑡𝐈superscriptsubscript𝑇𝑡\mathbf{I}+A_{t}=(\mathbf{I}+T_{t})(\mathbf{I}+T_{t}^{*})bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( bold_I + italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( bold_I + italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

Fix t𝑡titalic_t, and let s>0𝑠0s>0italic_s > 0 s.t. t+s<1𝑡𝑠1t+s<1italic_t + italic_s < 1. Suppose 𝐈+Tt+s𝐈subscript𝑇𝑡𝑠\mathbf{I}+T_{t+s}bold_I + italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 𝐈+At+s𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡𝑠\mathbf{I}+A_{t+s}bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT admit the following decompositions:

𝐈+Tt+s=(𝐈+Tt0Ks𝐈+Xs)𝐈subscript𝑇𝑡𝑠matrix𝐈subscript𝑇𝑡0subscript𝐾𝑠𝐈subscript𝑋𝑠\mathbf{I}+T_{t+s}=\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{I}+T_{t}&0\\ K_{s}&\mathbf{I}+X_{s}\end{pmatrix}bold_I + italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_I + italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL bold_I + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG )

and

𝐈+At+s=(𝐈+AtBsBs𝐈+Cs)𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡𝑠matrix𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡superscriptsubscript𝐵𝑠subscript𝐵𝑠𝐈subscript𝐶𝑠\mathbf{I}+A_{t+s}=\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{I}+A_{t}&B_{s}^{*}\\ B_{s}&\mathbf{I}+C_{s}\end{pmatrix}bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL bold_I + italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG )

Using the Schur complement, we get

(𝐈+AtBsBs𝐈+Cs)=(𝐈0Bs(1+At)1𝐈)(𝐈+AtBs0𝐈+CsBs(I+At)1Bs)matrix𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡superscriptsubscript𝐵𝑠subscript𝐵𝑠𝐈subscript𝐶𝑠matrix𝐈0subscript𝐵𝑠superscript1subscript𝐴𝑡1𝐈matrix𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡superscriptsubscript𝐵𝑠0𝐈subscript𝐶𝑠subscript𝐵𝑠superscript𝐼subscript𝐴𝑡1superscriptsubscript𝐵𝑠\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{I}+A_{t}&B_{s}^{*}\\ B_{s}&\mathbf{I}+C_{s}\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{I}&0\\ B_{s}(1+A_{t})^{-1}&\mathbf{I}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{I}+A_{t}&B_{% s}^{*}\\ 0&\mathbf{I}+C_{s}-B_{s}(I+A_{t})^{-1}B_{s}^{*}\end{pmatrix}( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL bold_I + italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_I end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL bold_I end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL bold_I + italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG )

which is valid since 𝐈+At+s𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡𝑠\mathbf{I}+A_{t+s}bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is positive definite. By expanding the relation (𝐈+Tt+s)(𝐈+Tt+s)=𝐈+At+s𝐈subscript𝑇𝑡𝑠𝐈subscript𝑇𝑡𝑠𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡𝑠(\mathbf{I}+T_{t+s})(\mathbf{I}+T_{t+s})=\mathbf{I}+A_{t+s}( bold_I + italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( bold_I + italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, one can show that that (𝐈+Xs)(𝐈+Xs)=𝐈+CsBs(𝐈+At)1Bs𝐈subscript𝑋𝑠𝐈superscriptsubscript𝑋𝑠𝐈subscript𝐶𝑠subscript𝐵𝑠superscript𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡1superscriptsubscript𝐵𝑠(\mathbf{I}+X_{s})(\mathbf{I}+X_{s}^{*})=\mathbf{I}+C_{s}-B_{s}(\mathbf{I}+A_{% t})^{-1}B_{s}^{*}( bold_I + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( bold_I + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = bold_I + italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and therefore

det(𝐈+AtBsBs𝐈+Cs)=det(𝐈+At)det(𝐈+Xs+Xs+XsXs).matrix𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡superscriptsubscript𝐵𝑠subscript𝐵𝑠𝐈subscript𝐶𝑠matrix𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡matrix𝐈subscript𝑋𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑋𝑠subscript𝑋𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑋𝑠\det\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{I}+A_{t}&B_{s}^{*}\\ B_{s}&\mathbf{I}+C_{s}\end{pmatrix}=\det\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{I}+A_{t}\end{% pmatrix}\det\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{I}+X_{s}+X_{s}^{*}+X_{s}X_{s}^{*}\end{% pmatrix}.roman_det ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL bold_I + italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) = roman_det ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) roman_det ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_I + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) . (2)
Lemma 1.

Assume T𝑇Titalic_T is continuous in a neighbourhood around (t,t)𝑡𝑡(t,t)( italic_t , italic_t ) as a function on the closed lower triangle. Then

lims0det(I+Xs+Xs+XsXs)1s=M(t,t).subscript𝑠0𝐼subscript𝑋𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑋𝑠subscript𝑋𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑋𝑠1𝑠𝑀𝑡𝑡\lim_{s\rightarrow 0}\frac{\det(I+X_{s}+X_{s}^{*}+X_{s}X_{s}^{*})-1}{s}=M(t,t).roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s → 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_det ( italic_I + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_s end_ARG = italic_M ( italic_t , italic_t ) . (3)

ie.

ddsdet(I+Xs+Xs+XsXs)|s=0=M(t,t)evaluated-at𝑑𝑑𝑠𝐼subscript𝑋𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑋𝑠subscript𝑋𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑋𝑠𝑠0𝑀𝑡𝑡\frac{d}{ds}\det(I+X_{s}+X_{s}^{*}+X_{s}X_{s}^{*})\Big{|}_{s=0}=M(t,t)divide start_ARG italic_d end_ARG start_ARG italic_d italic_s end_ARG roman_det ( italic_I + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_M ( italic_t , italic_t )
Proof.

Define Ys:=Xs+Xs+XsXsassignsubscript𝑌𝑠subscript𝑋𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑋𝑠subscript𝑋𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑋𝑠Y_{s}:=X_{s}+X_{s}^{*}+X_{s}X_{s}^{*}italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Since T𝑇Titalic_T is continuous, Xssubscript𝑋𝑠X_{s}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is bounded and hence the kernel for XsXssubscript𝑋𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑋𝑠X_{s}X_{s}^{*}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT decreases rapidly towards zero for s0𝑠0s\rightarrow 0italic_s → 0. Using continuity of T𝑇Titalic_T in (t,t)𝑡𝑡(t,t)( italic_t , italic_t ), we conclude that the kernel of Yssubscript𝑌𝑠Y_{s}italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT deviate from T(t,t)𝑇𝑡𝑡T(t,t)italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) by less than ϵssubscriptitalic-ϵ𝑠\epsilon_{s}italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT where ϵs0subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑠0\epsilon_{s}\rightarrow 0italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 for s0𝑠0s\rightarrow 0italic_s → 0.

Using dominated convergence on the terms of the Fredholm determinant (indexed by n𝑛nitalic_n starting from zero), we will show that all higher-order terms of eq. (3) vanish in the limit, leaving an expression resembling a first-order Taylor expansion.

Let n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2. The corresponding entry in the Fredholm determinant of Yssubscript𝑌𝑠Y_{s}italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is:

1n!���[0,s]ndet[(Ys)(xp,xq)]p,q=1ndx1dxn<sn(T(t,t)+ϵs)n1𝑛subscriptsuperscript0𝑠𝑛superscriptsubscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝑌𝑠subscript𝑥𝑝subscript𝑥𝑞𝑝𝑞1𝑛dsubscript𝑥1dsubscript𝑥𝑛superscript𝑠𝑛superscript𝑇𝑡𝑡subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑠𝑛\frac{1}{n!}\int_{[0,s]^{n}}\det[(Y_{s})(x_{p},x_{q})]_{p,q=1}^{n}\>\mathrm{d}% x_{1}\dots\>\mathrm{d}x_{n}<\\ s^{n}(T(t,t)+\epsilon_{s})^{n}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 0 , italic_s ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_det [ ( italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_d italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … roman_d italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) + italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

which tend to zero for s0𝑠0s\rightarrow 0italic_s → 0 when multiplied by s1superscript𝑠1s^{-1}italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The entry for n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1 is

0sYs(x,x)dxsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript𝑌𝑠𝑥𝑥differential-d𝑥\int_{0}^{s}\!Y_{s}(x,x)\>\mathrm{d}{x}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_x ) roman_d italic_x

which multiplied by s1superscript𝑠1s^{-1}italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT converges to T(t,t)𝑇𝑡𝑡T(t,t)italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) for s0𝑠0s\rightarrow 0italic_s → 0. The entry for n=0𝑛0n=0italic_n = 0 is trivially 1.

Now select s~>0~𝑠0\tilde{s}>0over~ start_ARG italic_s end_ARG > 0 such that ϵs~<1subscriptitalic-ϵ~𝑠1\epsilon_{\tilde{s}}<1italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_s end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < 1 and s~(T(t,t)+1)<12~𝑠𝑇𝑡𝑡112\tilde{s}(T(t,t)+1)<\tfrac{1}{2}over~ start_ARG italic_s end_ARG ( italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) + 1 ) < divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG. Then

s1(d(Ys)1)<s10sYs(x,x)dx+n=2sn1(T(t,t)+ϵs)n<s10s(T(t,t)+1)dx+n=2s~n1(T(t,t)+1)n<(T(t,t)+1)+(T(t,t)+1)n=2(1/2)n1superscript𝑠1𝑑subscript𝑌𝑠1superscript𝑠1superscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript𝑌𝑠𝑥𝑥differential-d𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑛2superscript𝑠𝑛1superscript𝑇𝑡𝑡subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑠𝑛superscript𝑠1superscriptsubscript0𝑠𝑇𝑡𝑡1differential-d𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑛2superscript~𝑠𝑛1superscript𝑇𝑡𝑡1𝑛𝑇𝑡𝑡1𝑇𝑡𝑡1superscriptsubscript𝑛2superscript12𝑛1s^{-1}(d(Y_{s})-1)<s^{-1}\int_{0}^{s}\!Y_{s}(x,x)\>\mathrm{d}{x}+\sum_{n=2}^{% \infty}s^{n-1}(T(t,t)+\epsilon_{s})^{n}<\\ s^{-1}\int_{0}^{s}\!(T(t,t)+1)\>\mathrm{d}{x}+\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\tilde{s}^{n-% 1}(T(t,t)+1)^{n}<\\ {(T(t,t)+1)}+(T(t,t)+1)\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}(1/2)^{n-1}start_ROW start_CELL italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_d ( italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - 1 ) < italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_x ) roman_d italic_x + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) + italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) + 1 ) roman_d italic_x + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_s end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) + 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ( italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) + 1 ) + ( italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) + 1 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 / 2 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW

for 0<s<s~0𝑠~𝑠0<s<\tilde{s}0 < italic_s < over~ start_ARG italic_s end_ARG. Hence we may apply the dominated convergence theorem and conclude

lims0s1(Fd(Ys)1)=lims0(s1+n=01s(n!)[0,s]ndet[(Ys)(xp,xq)]p,q=1ndx1dxn)=n=1lims01s(n!)[0,s]ndet[(Ys)(xp,xq)]p,q=1ndx1dxn=T(t,t)subscript𝑠0superscript𝑠1𝐹𝑑subscript𝑌𝑠1subscript𝑠0superscript𝑠1superscriptsubscript𝑛01𝑠𝑛subscriptsuperscript0𝑠𝑛superscriptsubscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝑌𝑠subscript𝑥𝑝subscript𝑥𝑞𝑝𝑞1𝑛dsubscript𝑥1dsubscript𝑥𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑛1subscript𝑠01𝑠𝑛subscriptsuperscript0𝑠𝑛superscriptsubscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝑌𝑠subscript𝑥𝑝subscript𝑥𝑞𝑝𝑞1𝑛dsubscript𝑥1dsubscript𝑥𝑛𝑇𝑡𝑡\lim_{s\rightarrow 0}s^{-1}(Fd(Y_{s})-1)=\lim_{s\rightarrow 0}\left(-s^{-1}+% \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{s(n!)}\int_{[0,s]^{n}}\det[(Y_{s})(x_{p},x_{q})]_{% p,q=1}^{n}\>\mathrm{d}x_{1}\dots\>\mathrm{d}x_{n}\right)=\\ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\lim_{s\rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{s(n!)}\int_{[0,s]^{n}}\det[(Y% _{s})(x_{p},x_{q})]_{p,q=1}^{n}\>\mathrm{d}x_{1}\dots\>\mathrm{d}x_{n}=T(t,t)start_ROW start_CELL roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s → 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_F italic_d ( italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - 1 ) = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s → 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_s ( italic_n ! ) end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 0 , italic_s ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_det [ ( italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_d italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … roman_d italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s → 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_s ( italic_n ! ) end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 0 , italic_s ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_det [ ( italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_d italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … roman_d italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) end_CELL end_ROW

This proves the result. ∎

Now, returning to At+ssubscript𝐴𝑡𝑠A_{t+s}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT,

ddtdet(𝐈+At)=lims0det(𝐈+At+s)det(𝐈+At)s=det(𝐈+At)lims0det(𝐈+Xs+Xs+XsXs)s=det(𝐈+At)M(t,t)𝑑𝑑𝑡𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡subscript𝑠0𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡𝑠𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡𝑠𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡subscript𝑠0𝐈subscript𝑋𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑋𝑠subscript𝑋𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑋𝑠𝑠𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡𝑀𝑡𝑡\frac{d}{dt}\det(\mathbf{I}+A_{t})=\lim_{s\rightarrow 0}\frac{\det(\mathbf{I}+% A_{t+s})-\det(\mathbf{I}+A_{t})}{s}=\\ \det(\mathbf{I}+A_{t})\lim_{s\rightarrow 0}\frac{\det(\mathbf{I}+X_{s}+X_{s}^{% *}+X_{s}X_{s}^{*})}{s}=\det(\mathbf{I}+A_{t})M(t,t)start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG italic_d end_ARG start_ARG italic_d italic_t end_ARG roman_det ( bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s → 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_det ( bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - roman_det ( bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_s end_ARG = end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL roman_det ( bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s → 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_det ( bold_I + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_s end_ARG = roman_det ( bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_M ( italic_t , italic_t ) end_CELL end_ROW

using Eq (2) and Lemma 1. Therefore,

ddtlogdet(𝐈+At)=T(t,t)𝑑𝑑𝑡𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡𝑇𝑡𝑡\frac{d}{dt}\log\det(\mathbf{I}+A_{t})=T(t,t)divide start_ARG italic_d end_ARG start_ARG italic_d italic_t end_ARG roman_log roman_det ( bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_T ( italic_t , italic_t ) (4)

Using that det(𝐈+A0)=1𝐈subscript𝐴01\det(\mathbf{I}+A_{0})=1roman_det ( bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 1 and integrating (4), we get

logdet(𝐈+At)=0tT(s,s)ds,0t1formulae-sequence𝐈subscript𝐴𝑡superscriptsubscript0𝑡𝑇𝑠𝑠differential-d𝑠0𝑡1\log\det(\mathbf{I}+A_{t})=\int_{0}^{t}\!T(s,s)\>\mathrm{d}{s},\quad 0\leq t\leq 1roman_log roman_det ( bold_I + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T ( italic_s , italic_s ) roman_d italic_s , 0 ≤ italic_t ≤ 1

Discussion

The Fredholm determinant has a definition (Eq. 1) which makes it very hard to evaluate by direct calculation. This work presents a simple and elegant solution to this problem using the Cholesky decomposition. Naturally, applications of Theorem 1 rely on knowing the Cholesky decomposition of the operator 𝐈+A𝐈𝐴\mathbf{I}+Abold_I + italic_A. One approach is to do applications with triangular matrices as the building block: we design or propose a triangular operator T𝑇Titalic_T (or a class of triangular operators), and then construct the positive definite matrix 𝐈+A=(𝐈+T)(𝐈+T)𝐈𝐴𝐈𝑇𝐈superscript𝑇\mathbf{I}+A=(\mathbf{I}+T)(\mathbf{I}+T^{*})bold_I + italic_A = ( bold_I + italic_T ) ( bold_I + italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Associate Professor Bo Markussen (Univeristy of Copenhagen) and Professor Folkmar Bornemann (TU München) for comments to the theorem and proof. In particular I would like to thank Professor Bornemann for pointing out an alternative proof using the theory of resolvent kernels.

References

  • (1)
  • Bornemann (2010) Bornemann, F. (2010), ‘On the numerical evaluation of fredholm determinants’, Mathematics of Computation 79(270), 871–915.
  • Fredholm (1903) Fredholm, I. (1903), ‘Sur une classe d’équations fonctionnelles’, Acta mathematica 27(1), 365–390.
  • Gohberg et al. (1993) Gohberg, I., Goldberg, S. & Kaashoek, M. A. (1993), Classes of linear operators Vol. II, Springer.