GOE Dyson Brownian motion conjecture for the Airy one process

About 20 years old · traced to

Let λmax⁡(N)(t)\lambda_{\max}^{(N)}(t) be the largest eigenvalue of an N×NN\times N matrix undergoing Dyson's Brownian motion with parameter β=1\beta=1. Let A1{\cal A}_{\rm 1} denote the Airy one process. GOE Dyson Brownian motion conjecture. The evolution of the largest eigenvalue of N×NN\times N matrices for β=1\beta=1 Dyson's Brownian Motion converges, in the limit N→∞N\to\infty and properly rescaled, to the process A1{\cal A}_{\rm 1}. The conjecture is motivated by the established correspondence between GOE one-point statistics and the top layers of the multilayer flat PNG model, while the full process-level correspondence remains open.

References

Primary source

Alexei Borodin, Patrik L. Ferrari, Michael Prähofer and Tomohiro Sasamoto, “Fluctuation properties of the TASEP with periodic initial configuration”, arXiv:math-ph/0608056 (2006).

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed progress

Numerical evidence from 2008 indicates that the conjectured limiting process is not the one originally proposed, but no rigorous proof settles the matter.

The conjecture asserts that the properly rescaled largest eigenvalue in 4β=14\beta=1 Dyson Brownian motion converges to the 4Airy14\mathrm{Airy}_1 process. Ferrari and Prähofer recorded the process-level question as open in 2005.

Known results

  • Ferrari (2005): fixed-time multilayer point processes converge to the edge-scaled 4β=14\beta=1 Dyson Brownian-motion point process.
  • The corresponding 4β=24\beta=2 matrix-diffusion limit is the 4Airy24\mathrm{Airy}_2 process, unlike the unresolved 4β=14\beta=1 process-level case.

2008 numerical evidence against the conjecture

Bornemann, Ferrari, and Prähofer compared the 4Airy14\mathrm{Airy}_1 covariance with large-NN GOE matrix-diffusion simulations and found a mismatch. They concluded that 4Airy14\mathrm{Airy}_1 is not the limit, but explicitly presented this as numerical evidence rather than an analytic proof.

Current status (as of August 2026): The conjecture has strong numerical evidence against it, but no rigorous proof of falsity or alternative process-level limit is recorded.

Sources

Solutions 0

No solutions have been posted yet.