1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{amsmath,a4wide,amssymb,amsthm}

4: \usepackage{graphicx}

5: 

6: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

7: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

8: \newtheorem{prop}[theorem]{Proposition}

9: \newtheorem{cor}[theorem]{Corollary}

10: \newtheorem{defi}[theorem]{Definition}

11: \newtheorem{ass}[theorem]{Assumption}

12: 

13: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

14: \numberwithin{theorem}{section}

15: 

16: \newcommand{\bs}{\boldsymbol}

17: 

18: \title{\bf On $q$-functional equations\\

19: and excursion moments

20: }

21: 

22: \author{\sc Christoph~Richard\\

23: \\

24: {\it Fakult\"at f\"ur Mathematik, Universit\"at Bielefeld,}\\

25: {\it Postfach 10 01 31, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany}}        

26: 

27: \begin{document}

28: 

29: \maketitle

30: 

31: \begin{abstract}

32: We analyse $q$-functional equations arising from tree-like combinatorial 

33: structures, which are counted by size, internal path length, and certain 

34: generalisations thereof. The corresponding counting parameters are labelled

35: by a positive integer $k$. We show the existence of a joint limit distribution 

36: for these parameters in the limit of infinite size, if the size generating 

37: function has a square root as dominant singularity. The limit distribution 

38: coincides with that of integrals of $k$-th powers of the standard Brownian 

39: excursion. Our approach yields a recursion for the moments of the limit

40: distribution. It can be used to analyse asymptotic expansions of the 

41: moments, and it admits an extension to other types of singularity.

42: \end{abstract}

43: 

44: Keywords: simply generated trees, $q$-difference equation, Brownian excursion, 

45: limit distribution

46: 

47: \section{Introduction and main results}

48: 

49: \subsection{A combinatorial motivation}

50: 

51: When studying combinatorial classes, a functional equation of the form

52: %

53: \begin{equation}\label{form:geneq}

54: G(x)=P(x,G(x))

55: \end{equation}

56: %

57: frequently arises, where $G(x)$ is the generating function of the

58: class, and $P(x,y)$ is a formal power series in two variables with real

59: coefficients.

60: Prominent examples are classes of simply generated trees, counted by 

61: number of vertices \cite{MM78}, classes of directed square lattice paths 

62: counted by length \cite{BF02}, and classes of square

63: lattice polygons, counted by perimeter \cite{Bou96}. Indeed, there exist 

64: combinatorial bijections between corresponding models of trees, paths, 

65: and polygons, see e.g.~\cite{S99} for Catalan trees, Dyck paths, 

66: and staircase polygons. Eqn.~\eqref{form:geneq} reflects a combinatorial 

67: decomposition of the given class. If $P(0,y)\equiv0$ and $\frac{\partial P}{\partial y}

68: (0,y)\not\equiv1$, then eqn.~\eqref{form:geneq} admits a unique solution 

69: $G(x)\in\mathbb R[[x]]$ such that $G(0)=0$. Here, $\mathbb R[[x]]$ denotes the 

70: ring of formal power series in $x$ with coefficients in $\mathbb R$. Often, the 

71: coefficients of $P(x,y)$ are non-negative real numbers. Then, the series $G(x)$ is a power 

72: series with non-negative coefficients, typically analytic at $x=0$ with a

73: square root as dominant singularity, see e.g.~\cite[Thm.~10.6]{O95}, \cite{D97},

74: or \cite[Ch.~VII.4]{FS07}, and references therein.

75: 

76: \smallskip

77: 

78: We are interested in certain deformations of the above equation. This is done by 

79: introducing a new variable $q$, such that the limit $q\to1$ reduces to

80: the original equation. For example, the functional equation 

81: %

82: \begin{equation}\label{form:geneq2}

83: G(x,q)=P(x,G(qx,q))

84: \end{equation}

85: %

86: defines a formal power series in $x$ with polynomial coefficients, i.e., 

87: $G(x,q)\in\mathbb R[q][[x]]$, if eqn.~\eqref{form:geneq} defines a power series 

88: $G(x)\in\mathbb R[[x]]$. The above equation is a \emph{$q$-difference equation},

89: see e.g.~\cite{VRSZ03} and references therein. It appears 

90: in classes of simply generated trees, counted by number of vertices and internal 

91: path length (i.e., the sum of the vertex distances to the root), 

92: in classes of directed square lattice paths, counted 

93: by length and area under the path, and in classes of square

94: lattice polygons, counted by perimeter and area. For some models, 

95: an explicit expression for its generating function $G(x,q)$ is known, see 

96: e.g.~\cite{Bou96,PB95a,PO95} and references therein. Such an expression 

97: typically contains $q$-products and has a natural boundary $|q|=1$. 

98: An interesting question concerns the statistics of the additional 

99: counting parameter, e.g., in a uniform ensemble in the limit of large system size. 

100: It is known (\cite{T91, D99}, see also \cite{R02}) that eqn.~\eqref{form:geneq2} leads, for certain 

101: $q$-difference equations and after appropriate normalisation, to the \emph{Airy 

102: distribution} as the limit distribution for the 

103: additional parameter. This distribution is known to also describe the area under a 

104: Brownian excursion, see the following subsection. Note that generalisations 

105: of eqn.~\eqref{form:geneq} other than eqn.~\eqref{form:geneq2} have also been 

106: studied previously. A class of equations, 

107: which leads to Gaussian limit laws, is discussed in \cite{D97}. 

108: 

109: 

110: \smallskip

111: 

112: The idea of iterating the above deformations has been considered by Duchon 

113: \cite{D98,D99}. The deformation variables may be denoted by $q_k$, where 

114: $k\in\{1,\ldots,M\}$, and the associated counting parameters 

115: are called \emph{parameters of rank $k+1$}. For eqn.~\eqref{form:geneq2}, 

116: an example is given by

117: %

118: \begin{equation}\label{form:geneq3}

119: G(x,q_1,\ldots,q_M)=P(x,G(xq_1\cdot\ldots\cdot q_M,q_1q_2\cdot\ldots\cdot q_M,

120: q_2q_3\cdot\ldots\cdot q_M,\ldots,q_M)).

121: \end{equation}

122: %

123: Here, $G(x,q_1,\ldots, q_M)=\sum_n p_n(q_1,\ldots, q_M) x^n$ is a formal power

124: series in $x$, with polynomial coefficients $p_n(q_1,\ldots, q_M)\in\mathbb 

125: R[q_1,\ldots, q_M]$. The name ``parameter of rank $k+1$'' reflects that 

126: $k$ is the smallest integer $r$, such that the degree of the polynomial 

127: $p_n(q_1,\ldots, q_M)$ in $q_k$ is bounded by 

128: $c\,n^{r+1}$ for some constant $c$ (see \cite[Lemma~1]{D99} and \cite{D98}). 

129: We will call an equation like eqn.~\eqref{form:geneq3} a \emph{$q$-functional equation} 

130: (Definition \ref{defi:qfunc}). 

131: Again the question arises, under which conditions a limit distribution for the additional

132: counting parameters exists. 

133: In this paper, we shall show this for a class of deformations 

134: which we call \emph{$q$-shift} (Definition \ref{def:qshift}), the main assumption 

135: on the $q$-functional equation being that the solution of the undeformed equation, 

136: eqn.~\eqref{form:geneq}, is analytic at the origin, with a square root as dominant singularity 

137: (Assumption \ref{ass}). See Theorem~\ref{theo:probdist} for a precise statement. The 

138: resulting limit distributions appear to be related to distributions of integrals of $k$-th 

139: powers of the standard Brownian excursion. We will obtain a recursion for the moments 

140: of the joint distribution.  Our approach is based on the multivariate \emph{moment method}

141: (see e.g.~\cite{JLR00, Bill95}). The univariate case 

142: $M=1$ has been studied previously \cite{T91, FPV98, D99, R02}, and recursions for $M=2$ have been 

143: studied in \cite{NT03b}.

144: 

145: \smallskip

146: 

147: Before we consider general $q$-functional equations in Section~\ref{sec:qfunc}, let us 

148: first discuss the above questions in more detail for the simple example of Dyck paths.

149: 

150: \subsection{Dyck paths and Brownian excursions}\label{sec:Dyck}

151: 

152: We review the connection between Dyck paths and Brownian excursions.

153: This relates, in particular, the moments of height

154: of a random Dyck path to Brownian excursion moments.

155: Since the generating function of Dyck paths, counted by length and moments 

156: of their height, provides a simple example of a solution of a  $q$-functional 

157: equation, this also motivates the appearance of excursion moments in 

158: $q$-functional equations. We will state a central result of the paper in 

159: Theorem~\ref{theo:excmom}, which characterises the Brownian excursion random 

160: variables by a recursion for their moments.

161: 

162: \medskip

163: 

164: Let $\mathbb N_0=\mathbb N \cup \{0\}$ and $\mathbb R_{\ge0}=\{x\in\mathbb 

165: R: x\ge0\}$. A {\it Dyck path of length $2n$}, where $n\in \mathbb N_0$, is a map 

166: $y:[0,2n]\to\mathbb R_{\ge0}$, where $y(0)=y(2n)=0$ and $|y(i)-y(i+1)|=1$ 

167: for $i\in\mathbb N_0$ and $i<2n$. For non-integral argument, $y(s)$ is 

168: defined by linear interpolation. The values $y(s)$ are called the \emph{heights} 

169: of the path. An {\it arch of length $2n$} is a Dyck path of length $2n$, where $n>0$ and 

170: $y(s)>0$ for $s\in (0,2n)$. An example is given in Figure \ref{fig:dyck}.

171: %

172: \begin{figure}[htb]

173: \begin{center}

174: \begin{minipage}[b]{0.65\textwidth}

175: \center{\includegraphics[width=8cm]{dyck}}

176: \end{minipage}

177: \end{center}

178: \caption{\label{fig:dyck}

179: \small A Dyck path of length $2n=10$. It is a sequence of two arches of lengths 8 and 2.}

180: \end{figure}

181: %

182: 

183: \medskip

184: 

185: We are interested in a probabilistic interpretation of Dyck paths in a uniform

186: ensemble where, for fixed length, each of the finitely many Dyck paths occurs with 

187: the same probability. For $0\le s\le 2n$, let $\widetilde Y_{n}(s)$ denote the height 

188: of a random Dyck path of length $2n$. It is well known, see e.g.~\cite{BKR72}, that 

189: the average maximal height $\widetilde h(n)$ of a random Dyck path of length $2n$ has 

190: the asymptotic form $\widetilde h(n)\sim \sqrt{\pi n}$ as $n\to\infty$. 

191: In order to obtain a finite positive limit as $n$ approaches infinity, 

192: and in order to normalise the domain, we introduce the normalised height 

193: $Y_{n}(t)=(2n)^{-1/2}\widetilde Y_{n}(2nt)$, where $0\le t\le 1$. 

194: 

195: The sequence $\{Y_{n}(t)\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is a sequence of stochastic 

196: processes defined on $(C[0,1],{||\cdot ||_{\infty}})$ with the Borel 

197: $\sigma$-algebra, which converges in distribution to the standard Brownian 

198: excursion $e(t)$ of duration $1$, see \cite{Bel72,A93, MM03}. 

199: This implies convergence in distribution of sequences of continuous bounded 

200: functionals of $Y_n(t)$ towards the corresponding excursion functionals. 

201: (We refer to \cite{B99} for background about convergence of probability measures.)

202: There 

203: is a more recent result \cite[Thm.~9]{D03} that also

204: %

205: \begin{equation*}

206: \lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb E_n[F(Y_{n}(t))] = \mathbb E[F(e(t))]

207: \end{equation*}

208: %

209: for continuous functionals $F:C[0,1]\to\mathbb R$ of \emph{polynomial} growth, 

210: i.e., for functionals such that there exists an $r\ge0$ with $|F(y)|\le 

211: ||y||_\infty^r$ for all $y\in C[0,1]$. The above property is called \emph{polynomial 

212: convergence}. In particular, polynomial convergence implies

213: \emph{moment convergence} for such a functional, i.e., convergence of the

214: sequence of moments of order $l$, $\{\mathbb E_n[F(Y_{n}(t))^l]\}_{n\in

215: \mathbb N}$, for every $l\in\mathbb N_0$.  

216: For the functional of polynomial growth $F(y)=\int_0^1 y^k(t) {\rm d}t$, 

217: $k\in\mathbb N$, we call the random variable $\int_0^1e^k(t){\rm d}t$ 

218: the \emph{$k$-th excursion moment}.

219: 

220: \medskip

221: 

222: As counting parameters for Dyck paths of length $2n$, we consider the parameters 

223: %

224: \begin{equation}\label{form:dyckpara}

225: x_{k,n}=\sum_{i=0}^{2n} y^k(i) \qquad (k=1,\ldots,M).

226: \end{equation}

227: %

228: These are sums of $k$-th powers of heights, which we call \emph{$k$-th moments of 

229: height}. The parameter $x_{1,n}$ is the area under the Dyck path, the parameter 

230: $x_{2,n}$ is called the \emph{moment of inertia} of the Dyck path \cite{NT03b}.

231: Let $\widetilde X_{k,n}$ denote the $k$-th moment of height of a random Dyck

232: path of length $2n$. In terms of $\widetilde Y_{n}(s)$, 

233: the random variables  $\widetilde X_{k,n}$ are expressed as

234: %

235: \begin{equation*}

236: \widetilde X_{k,n}=\sum_{i=0}^{2n} \widetilde Y_{n}^k(i).

237: \end{equation*}

238: %

239: The scaling of the average height of a random Dyck path with its length 

240: suggests considering normalised random variables $X_{k,n}$, defined by

241: %

242: \begin{equation}\label{form:DyckRV}

243: (X_{1,n},X_{2,n},\ldots, X_{M,n})= \left(\frac{\widetilde X_{1,n}}{n^{(1+2)/2}},

244: \frac{\widetilde X_{2,n}}{n^{(2+2)/2}},\ldots, 

245: \frac{\widetilde X_{M,n}}{n^{(M+2)/2}}\right).

246: \end{equation}

247: %

248: Then, in terms of $Y_{n}(t)$, the normalised random variables 

249: $X_{k,n}$ are given by

250: %

251: \begin{equation}\label{form:Dyckran}

252: X_{k,n}=2^{(k+2)/2}\sum_{i=0}^{2n} Y^k_{n}\left(\frac{i}{2n}\right)\cdot 

253: \frac{1}{2n}.

254: \end{equation}

255: %

256: Since the above sum is a Riemann sum, one is led to expect convergence

257: in distribution and moment convergence of the sequence $\{X_{k,n}\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ to 

258: $2^{(k+2)/2}\int_0^1 e^k(t){\rm d}t$, due to the convergence properties of 

259: $\{Y_{n}(t)\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$. This is the statement of the following proposition.

260: 

261: \begin{prop}\label{prop:reldyckexc}

262: For $k\in \{1,\ldots,M\}$, let $X_k=\int_{0}^1 e^k(t)\,{\rm d}t$ denote the $k$-th 

263: excursion moment. The sequence of Dyck path random variables eqn.~\eqref{form:DyckRV} 

264: converges to the normalised excursion moments $(2^{(1+2)/2}X_1,\ldots,2^{(M+2)/2}X_M)$ 

265: in distribution,

266: %

267: \begin{equation}\label{form:DyEx}

268: (X_{1,n},X_{2,n},\ldots, X_{M,n}) \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} 

269: (2^{(1+2)/2}X_1,2^{(2+2)/2}X_2,\ldots,2^{(M+2)/2}X_M) \qquad (n\to\infty).

270: \end{equation}

271: %

272: We also have moment convergence.

273: \end{prop}

274: 

275: \begin{proof}

276: 

277: For $k\in\{1,\ldots,M\}$, define $Y_{k,n}=\int_0^1 Y^k_n(t){\rm d}t$. As stated

278: above, convergence in distribution and moment convergence holds for the 

279: sequence $\left\{(Y_{1,n},\ldots,Y_{M,n})\right\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$, 

280: see \cite{Bel72,A93} and \cite[Thm.~9]{D03}. We argue that the sequences 

281: $\{(X_{1,n},\ldots,X_{M,n})\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ and $\{(2^{(1+2)/2}Y_{1,n},

282: \ldots,2^{(M+2)/2}Y_{M,n})\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ converge in distribution and for 

283: moments to the same limit.

284: 

285: Fix $k\in\{1,\ldots,M\}$ and consider, for a Dyck path $y$ of length $2n$ 

286: and for $m\in\{0,1,\ldots,2n-1\}$, the elementary estimate $(\max\{0,y(m)-1\})^k

287: \le \int_m^{m+1}y^k(s){\rm d}s\le(y(m)+1)^k$. Summing over $m$ yields, together 

288: with the binomial theorem, the estimate

289: %

290: \begin{equation}\label{form:estmom}

291: \sum_{l=0}^k \binom{k}{l}(-1)^l x_{l,n}\le\int_0^{2n} y^k(s){\rm d}s

292: \le \sum_{l=0}^k \binom{k}{l} x_{l,n}.

293: \end{equation}

294: %

295: This estimate translates to the distribution functions of the corresponding 

296: random variables. In terms of the random variables $X_{k,n}$ and 

297: $Y_{n}(t)$, we get

298: %

299: \begin{equation}\label{form:cdis}

300: \sum_{l=0}^k \binom{k}{l}(-1)^l \frac{X_{l,n}}{n^{(k-l)/2}}\stackrel{d}{\le}

301: 2^{(k+2)/2}\int_0^{1} Y_{n}^k(t){\rm d}t \stackrel{d}{\le} \sum_{l=0}^k 

302: \binom{k}{l}\frac{X_{l,n}}{n^{(k-l)/2}},

303: \end{equation}

304: %

305: where the superscript $\stackrel{d}{}$ indicates that the relation is to be 

306: understood via distribution functions. Since the sequence of random variables 

307: $\{X_{l,n}/n^{(l-k)/2}\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ converges in probability to zero, 

308: for $l=0,\ldots,k-1$, the random variables on the l.h.s.~and on the r.h.s.~of 

309: eqn.~\eqref{form:cdis} converge in distribution to the same limit. We conclude 

310: that the sequences $\{X_{k,n}\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ and $\{2^{(k+2)/2}\int_0^1 Y_{n}^k (t)

311: {\rm d}t\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ converge in distribution to the same limit. 

312: Moment convergence follows similarly from eqn.~\eqref{form:estmom}. 

313: 

314: Since the above estimates also hold jointly in $k\in\{1,\ldots,M\}$, the 

315: statement of the proposition follows.

316: \end{proof}

317: 

318: \noindent \textbf{Remark.} 

319: The above statement concerns Dyck paths in a uniform ensemble. The same 

320: argument as above leads to analogous results for more general ensembles of 

321: Dyck paths, which arise from the depth first process of simply generated trees 

322: \cite{A93, MM03}. Compare Theorem~\ref{theo:probdist} for a further generalisation.

323: 

324: \medskip

325: 

326: Due to the above result, Brownian excursion functionals may be

327: studied via their discrete Dyck path counterparts. Below, we will analyse the 

328: asymptotic behaviour of the moments of the random variables 

329: $(X_{1,n},\ldots,X_{M,n})$ eqn.~\eqref{form:DyckRV}, using the $q$-functional 

330: equation which the generating function of Dyck paths obeys. This implies a 

331: certain recursion for the moments of the joint distribution of the 

332: excursion moments $(X_1,\ldots,X_M)$.

333: We have the following result, which is obtained by combining the statements of 

334: Proposition~\ref{prop:reldyckexc} and Proposition~\ref{prop:dyckmom} below.

335: For $M$-dimensional vectors, we use the abbreviation $\bs k=(k_1,\ldots,k_M)$ 

336: and write $\bs0=(0,\ldots,0)$. For $i\in\{1,\ldots,M\}$, the unit vector $\bs e_i$ is 

337: defined by $(\bs e_i)_j=\delta_{i,j}$ for $j=1,\ldots,M$, and $\bs l\le\bs k$ for 

338: vectors $\bs l=(l_1,\ldots,l_M)$ and $\bs k=(k_1,\ldots,k_M)$ means that $l_i\le k_i$ 

339: for $i=1,\ldots,M$. A multivariate power series with complex coefficients is called 

340: \emph{entire}, if it converges for arbitrary complex arguments.

341: 

342: \begin{theorem}[Excursion moments]\label{theo:excmom}

343: 

344: For $k\in\{1,\ldots, M\}$, let $X_k=\int_{0}^1 e^k(t)\,{\rm d}t$ denote the $k$-th 

345: excursion moment. The moments of the joint distribution of $(X_1,\ldots,X_M)$ 

346: are given by 

347: %

348: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:exmomexpl}

349: \frac{\mathbb E[X_1^{k_1}\cdot\ldots\cdot X_M^{k_M}]}{k_1!\cdot\ldots\cdot k_M!}

350: =\frac{\sqrt{2\pi}}{\Gamma(\gamma_{k_1,\ldots,k_M})}2^{\gamma_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}}

351: \frac{f_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}}{2},

352: \end{equation}

353: %

354: where $\gamma_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}=\gamma_{\bs k}=-1/2+\sum_{i=1}^M(1+i/2)k_i$,

355: and where $\Gamma(z)$ is the Gamma function. 

356: For ${\bs k}\ne {\bf 0}$, the numbers $f_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}=f_{\bs k}$ are characterised 

357: by the recursion

358: %

359: \begin{equation}\label{form:exc2}

360: \gamma_{{\bs k}-{\bs e}_1}

361: f_{{\bs k}-{\bs e}_1}+\sum_{i=1}^{M-1}2(i+1)(k_i+1)

362: f_{{\bs k}-{\bs e}_{i+1}+{\bs e}_i}+

363: \sum_{{\bf 0}\le{\bs l}\le{\bs k}}f_{\bs l}

364: f_{{\bs k}-{\bs l}}=0,

365: \end{equation}

366: %

367: with boundary conditions $f_{\bf 0}=-4$ and $f_{\bs k}=0$, if $k_j<0$ for 

368: some $j\in\{1,\ldots, M\}$. 

369: The moment generating function $\mathbb E[\mathrm{e}^{t_1 X_1+\ldots+t_M X_M}]$ 

370: is entire. Hence, the joint distribution is uniquely defined by its moments. \qed

371: \end{theorem}

372: 

373: \noindent \textbf{Remarks.} \textit{i)} The theorem asserts that the numbers 

374: $f_{\bs k}$ can be recursively computed from eqn.~\eqref{form:exc2}. To 

375: see this, we remark that the above equation has $-f_{\bs k}=2f_{\bs k}

376: f_{\bs 0}/8$ as a term, and that all other numbers $f_{\bs l}$ in the equation 

377: satisfy $\bs l\prec \bs k$ for a suitable total order $\prec$, which is 

378: specified below in Definition~\ref{def:totord}. \\

379: \textit{ii)} In probability theory, Louchard's theorem \cite{L84} leads

380: to a characterisation of a certain Laplace transform of the moment generating 

381: function, for some excursion functionals including excursion moments. It 

382: is however difficult to extract moment values or moment recursions from 

383: these expressions.  For $M=1$, this has been done in \cite{L85}.

384: The moment generating function of the marginal distribution for $M=2$ has been

385: obtained in \cite[Thm.~2.4]{NT03b}. Moment values or recursions for $M>2$ 

386: have apparently not been derived.\\

387: \textit{iii)} 

388: We obtain Theorem~\ref{theo:excmom} by studying the corresponding Dyck

389: path functionals. Our discrete approach has been used previously \cite{NT03b}.

390: It led to a combinatorial derivation \cite[Thm.~3.1]{NT03b} of Louchard's formula 

391: for integrals over Brownian excursion polynomials. It also led to the values 

392: $\mathbb E[(X_1)^{k_1} (X_2)^{k_2}]$, see \cite[Table~2]{NT03b}.

393: For arbitrary $M$, our result is announced in \cite{R04}. 

394: [A factor 1/2 is missing on the r.h.s.~of eqn.~(6) in \cite{R04}].\\

395: \textit{iv)} Assuming only convergence in distribution of $(X_{1,n},\ldots,X_{M,n})$, 

396: the above result can be used to provide an alternative proof of moment

397: convergence.

398: 

399: \medskip

400: 

401: Let us briefly discuss the moments of the marginal distributions for $M\le4$.

402: For $M=1$, the first few coefficients $\mathbb E[(X_1)^k]$ are $1$, 

403: $\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{2\pi}$, $\frac{5}{12}$, $\frac{15}{128}\sqrt{2\pi}$, 

404: $\frac{221}{1008}$, $\frac{565}{8192}\sqrt{2\pi}$. These are related to the 

405: \emph{Airy distribution} \cite{FL01,J07,KMM07}, i.e., the distribution of area under the 

406: Brownian excursion $\sqrt{8} \, e(t)$. Explicit expressions are 

407: known for the moment generating function, for the density of the distribution,

408: and for the moments.

409: 

410: For $M=2$, the first few moments $\mathbb E[(X_2)^k]$

411: are $1$, $\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{19}{60}$, $\frac{631}{2520}$, 

412: $\frac{1219}{5040}$, $\frac{92723}{332640}$, $\frac{1513891}{4036032}$. 

413: An explicit expression for the corresponding moment generating function 

414: \cite{NT03b} is

415: %

416: \begin{equation*}

417: \mathbb E[\mathrm{e}^{tX_2}]=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{\mathbb E[(X_2)^k]}{k!} t^k=

418: \left( \frac{\sqrt{2t}}{\sin(\sqrt{2t})}\right)^{3/2}.

419: \end{equation*}

420: %

421: The first few moments $\mathbb E[(X_3)^k]$ are $1$, 

422: $\frac{3\sqrt{2\pi}}{16}$, $\frac{207}{560}$, $\frac{11907\sqrt{2\pi}}{65536}$, 

423: $\frac{88655283}{108908800}$, $\frac{1165359069\sqrt{2\pi}}{1476395008}$, and 

424: for the first few moments $\mathbb E[(X_4)^k]$ we have  $1$, $\frac{1}{2}$, 

425: $\frac{251}{840}$, $\frac{288751}{1201200}$, $\frac{19093793}{76236160}$, 

426: $\frac{105169404203}{3259095840000}$. It remains an open problem to find

427: explicit expressions for the moment generating functions.

428: 

429: \subsection{Dyck paths and $q$-functional equations}

430: 

431: We discuss the functional equation which the generating function of Dyck 

432: paths obeys, when counted by length and $k$-th moments of height,

433: $k=1,\ldots,M$. We then state in Theorem~\ref{theo:probdist} a convergence 

434: result for the limit distribution of counting parameters related to general 

435: $q$-functional equations. This is the main result of our paper.

436: 

437: \medskip

438: 

439: Let $\bs u=(u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_M)$ denote formal (commutative) variables. For a Dyck 

440: path $p$ of length $2n$, its \emph{weight} $w(p)$ is given by $w(p)=

441: u_0^{n_{}} u_1^{x_{1,n}}\cdot\ldots\cdot u_M^{x_{M,n}}$, where $x_{k,n}$

442: is the $k$-th moment of height eqn.~\eqref{form:dyckpara}. For the set $\cal D$ 

443: of Dyck paths, its generating function is the formal power 

444: series $D({\bs u})=\sum_{p\in\cal D} w(p)$. For the set $\cal A$ of 

445: arches, its generating function is the formal power series $A({\bs 

446: u})=\sum_{p\in\cal A} w(p)$. The variables $u_1,\ldots, u_M$ are interpreted 

447: as deformation variables. They may all be set equal to unity, in which case 

448: the generating function reduces to that of Dyck paths (arches), counted by length only.

449: The generating functions satisfy the following functional

450: equation.

451: 

452: \begin{theorem}[Dyck path generating function, cf.~\cite{NT03b}]\label{theo:dyck}

453: The generating functions of Dyck paths $D({\bs u})$ and of arches 

454: $A({\bs u})$ satisfy

455: %

456: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:dyckfeq}

457: \begin{split}

458: D(u_0,\ldots,u_M)&=1+D(u_0,\ldots,u_M)A(u_0,\ldots,u_M),\\

459: A(u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_M)&=u_0 u_1\cdot\ldots\cdot u_M D(v_0,\ldots,v_M),

460: \end{split}

461: \end{equation}

462: %

463: where the monomials $v_k=v_k({\bs u})$ are given by

464: %

465: \begin{equation*}

466: v_0({\bs u})=u_0u_1^2u_2^2\cdot\ldots\cdot u_M^2, \qquad v_k({\bs u})

467: =\prod_{l=k}^M u_l^{\binom{l}{k}} \qquad (k=1,\ldots,M).

468: \end{equation*}

469: %

470: \qed

471: \end{theorem}

472: 

473: \noindent \textbf{Remarks.} \textit{i)} For $M=2$, the above theorem appears in 

474: \cite[Sec.~3.1]{NT03b}. For arbitrary $M$, it is (incorrectly) stated in \cite[p.~713]{NT03b}.

475: The proof for $M=2$ given in \cite{NT03b} generalises to arbitrary $M$. It uses

476: a last passage decomposition argument and the additivity of the counting parameters with

477: respect to the sequence construction, yielding the first equation in the theorem. 

478: Note that the arch decomposition of Dyck paths, as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:dyck},

479: implies the equivalent equation $D(\bs u)=1/(1-A(\bs u))$. 

480: For $n\in\mathbb N$, there is a bijection between the set of arches of length $2n$ and 

481: the set of Dyck paths of length $2n-2$, by identifying an arch, where the bottom layer 

482: has been removed, with the corresponding Dyck path. This implies, after a short calculation 

483: (see also \cite[Thm.~1]{R06}), the second equation in Theorem \ref{theo:dyck}.\\

484: \textit{ii)} The induced functional equation for the generating function $E(\bs u)=

485: D(\bs u)-1$ is an example of a $q$-functional equation as in Definition \ref{defi:qfunc},

486: with a square-root singularity in the generating function in the ``undeformed'' case 

487: $(u_1,\ldots,u_M)=(1,\ldots,1)$. See the following section and Section~\ref{sec:Dyckrev}.

488: 

489: \medskip

490: 

491: For a probabilistic interpretation of the counting parameters, as in the previous subsection,

492: let $p_{n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_M}$ denote the number of Dyck 

493: paths of length $2n_0$, where the $k$-th moment of height has the value $n_k$, 

494: for $k=1,\ldots,M$. We clearly have $0<\sum_{n_1,\ldots, n_M}p_{n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_M}<\infty$

495: for $n_0>0$. In the uniform ensemble, the random variables $\widetilde X_{k,n_0}$, which assign 

496: the $k$-th moment of height to a random Dyck path of length $2n_0$, have the joint distribution

497: 

498: \begin{equation}\label{eq:pxt}

499: \mathbb P(\widetilde X_{1,n_0}=n_1, \ldots, \widetilde X_{M,n_0}=n_M)=

500: \frac{p_{n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_M}}{\sum_{n_1,\ldots, n_M}p_{n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_M}}.

501: \end{equation}

502: %

503: The moments $\widetilde m_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}(n_0)$ of the joint distribution are given by

504: 

505: \begin{equation*}

506: \widetilde m_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}(n_0)=\frac{\sum_{n_1,\ldots, n_M} n_1^{k_1}

507: \cdot\ldots\cdot n_M^{k_M}p_{n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_M}}{\sum_{n_1,\ldots, n_M}

508: p_{n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_M}}.

509: \end{equation*}

510: %

511: In the previous subsection, we introduced the normalised

512: random variable eqn.~\eqref{form:DyckRV},

513: %

514: \begin{equation}\label{form:DyckRV2}

515: (X_{1,n_0},X_{2,n_0},\ldots, X_{M,n_0})= \left(\frac{\widetilde X_{1,n_0}}{n_0^{(1+2)/2}},

516: \frac{\widetilde X_{2,n_0}}{n_0^{(2+2)/2}},\ldots, 

517: \frac{\widetilde X_{M,n_0}}{n_0^{(M+2)/2}}\right).

518: \end{equation}

519: %

520: The normalised random variable $(X_{1,n_0},\ldots,X_{M,n_0})$ has moments 

521: $m_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}(n_0)$, given by

522: %

523: \begin{equation*}

524: m_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}(n_0)=\frac{\widetilde m_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}(n_0)}{

525: n_0^{(1+2)k_1/2+(2+2)k_2/2+\ldots+(M+2)k_M/2}}.

526: \end{equation*}

527: We argued above that these numbers should tend to a finite limit, as 

528: $n_0$ approaches infinity. As we will see below, this is indeed the 

529: case. Hence we may define

530: %

531: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:momlim}

532: m_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}=\lim_{n_0\to\infty}m_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}(n_0).

533: \end{equation}

534: 

535: A careful analysis of the functional equation eqn.~\eqref{eqn:dyckfeq}, which 

536: will be performed in the general case from Section \ref{sec:ana} onwards, 

537: yields the following result for the numbers $m_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}$. Its proof 

538: is deferred until Section~\ref{sec:Dyckrev}.

539: 

540: \begin{prop}\label{prop:dyckmom}

541: The normalised moments $m_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}$ of Dyck paths eqn.~\eqref{eqn:momlim}

542: are given by

543: %

544: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:dyckres}

545: \frac{m_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}}{k_1!\cdot\ldots\cdot k_M!}=

546: \frac{1}{f_{\bs0} u_c^{\gamma_{\bs k}-\gamma_{\bs 0}}}

547: \frac{\Gamma(\gamma_{\bs 0})}{\Gamma(\gamma_{\bs k})}

548: f_{\bs k},

549: \end{equation}

550: %

551: where $u_c=1/4$, where $\Gamma(z)$ denotes the Gamma function, and where the numbers 

552: $\gamma_{\bs k}$ and $f_{\bs k}$ are defined in eqn.~\eqref{form:exc2}. 

553: The moments have an entire exponential generating function. Hence, they define 

554: a unique random variable with moments $m_{\bs k}$.

555: \end{prop}

556: 

557: \noindent \textbf{Remarks.}

558: \textit{i)} Proposition~\ref{prop:dyckmom} implies convergence in distribution

559: and moment convergence of the normalised random variables eqn.~\eqref{form:DyckRV2}. 

560: This yields an alternative

561: proof of the convergence statement of Proposition~\ref{prop:reldyckexc}. However,

562: it does not establish a connection between the limit random variable and

563: the excursion moments, as in Proposition~\ref{prop:reldyckexc}.\\

564: \textit{ii)} Since the moments $m_{\bs k}$ define a unique random variable, the 

565: result for the excursion moments eqn.~\eqref{eqn:exmomexpl} follows from 

566: Proposition~\ref{prop:dyckmom} by Proposition \ref{prop:reldyckexc}. \\

567: 

568: 

569: \medskip

570: 

571: For the solution of a general $q$-functional equation (Definition \ref{defi:qfunc}), 

572: we obtain a similar result. Write $G(\bs u)=\sum_{n_1,\ldots,n_M}p_{n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_M}

573: u_0^{n_0}u_1^{n_1}\cdot\ldots\cdot u_M^{n_M}$ for such a solution. Under mild assumptions, 

574: the corresponding random variables in eqn.~\eqref{eq:pxt} are well-defined, and the same 

575: asymptotic analysis as above can be performed. We have the following theorem which is, 

576: in conjunction with Theorem \ref{theo:excmom}, the main result of our paper. Its proof is 

577: deferred until Section~\ref{sec:mom} and Section~\ref{sec:Dyckrev}.

578: %

579: \begin{theorem}[Limit distribution for $q$-functional equations]\label{theo:probdist}

580: Let a $q$-functional equation Definition \ref{defi:qfunc} with solution 

581: %

582: \begin{equation*}

583: G(u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_M)=\sum_{n_1,\ldots,n_M}p_{n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_M}u_0^{n_0}u_1^{n_1}

584: \cdot\ldots\cdot u_M^{n_M}

585: \end{equation*}

586: as in Proposition~\ref{prop:uni} be given, and let Assumption~\ref{ass} be satisfied.

587: Assume that the numbers $A_i$ in Proposition \ref{prop:rek} are

588: positive, i.e., $A_i>0$ for $i=0,\ldots,M-1$. Then, the random variables 

589: $(\widetilde X_{1,n_0},\ldots,\widetilde X_{M,n_0})$ eqn.~\eqref{eq:pxt} are

590: well-defined for almost all $n_0$. The following conclusions hold.

591: 

592: \begin{itemize}

593: \item[i)]

594: The numbers $m_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}$ eqn.~\eqref{eqn:momlim}, which are derived from the

595: moments of the normalised random variables $(X_{1,n_0},\ldots,X_{M,n_0})$ 

596: eqn.~\eqref{form:DyckRV2}, define a unique random variable

597: $(Y_1,\ldots,Y_M)$ with moments $m_{k_1,\ldots,k_M}$. We have convergence in distribution,

598: \begin{equation*}

599: (X_{1,n_0},\ldots, X_{M,n_0}) \stackrel{d}{\to} (Y_1,\ldots,Y_M)\qquad (n_0\to\infty),

600: \end{equation*}

601: and we have moment convergence.

602: 

603: \item[ii)]

604: The limiting random variable $(Y_1,\ldots,Y_M)$ is explicitly given by

605: %

606: \begin{equation*}

607: (Y_1,\ldots,Y_k)=(c_1X_1,\ldots,c_MX_M),

608: \end{equation*}

609: % 

610: where the constants $c_k>0$ and the random variables $X_k$ are

611: %

612: \begin{equation*}

613: c_k =2^{\frac{k+2}{2}}\frac{2\mu_0\cdot\ldots\cdot \mu_{k-1}}{4^k k!}, \qquad

614: X_k=\int_{0}^1 e^k(t)\,{\rm d}t \qquad (k=1,\ldots,M).

615: \end{equation*} 

616: %

617: Here, the numbers $\mu_i>0$ are defined in Proposition \ref{prop:rek}, and $e(t)$ 

618: denotes a standard Brownian excursion of duration 1.

619: 

620: \end{itemize}

621: \end{theorem}

622: 

623: \noindent \textbf{Remarks.} \textit{i)} A recursion for the moments of the limit distribution

624: appears in Theorem~\ref{theo:excmom} above, see also Proposition \ref{prop:rek} below.\\

625: \textit{ii)} For Dyck paths counted by length and $k$-th moments of height, the 

626: above statements follow already from Proposition~\ref{prop:reldyckexc}. More 

627: generally, as was argued in the remark following 

628: Proposition~\ref{prop:reldyckexc}, the above result can be shown to hold for models 

629: of simply generated trees \cite{MM78}, counted by number of vertices and $k$-th moments 

630: of internal path length. This follows from the polynomial convergence of the 

631: depth first process derived from simply generated trees towards the Brownian excursion 

632: \cite{Bel72, A93, MM03, D03}. For a general $q$-functional equation, such a connection 

633: is not known to exist.\\

634: \textit{iii)} Our method of proof also allows to study corrections to the asymptotic behaviour, 

635: compare the discussion in Section~\ref{sec:dom}, and \cite{R02} for the case $M=1$. These 

636: cannot be obtained by the methods of \cite{MM03}. 

637: 

638: \subsection{Structure of the paper}

639: 

640: The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:qfunc}, we 

641: introduce $q$-shifts (Definition~\ref{def:qshift}) and $q$-functional equations 

642: (Definition~\ref{defi:qfunc}). Our results rely on an application of the 

643: multivariate moment method (see e.g.~\cite[Ch.~6.1.]{JLR00} or \cite[Sec.~30]{Bill95}). 

644: Hence in Section~\ref{sec:gk}, eqn.~\eqref{form:facarmom}, we introduce 

645: \emph{factorial moment generating functions}, which are derivatives of the solution 

646: of the functional equation, evaluated at $u_1=\ldots=u_M=1$. We study their properties 

647: by a combinatorial analysis of derivatives of the functional equation, using a 

648: multivariate generalisation of Faa di Bruno's formula \cite{CS96}. In Section 

649: \ref{sec:ana}, we study the singular behaviour of the factorial moment generating 

650: functions, in the case of a square root singularity as the dominant singularity 

651: of the size generating function. Proposition~\ref{prop:rek} gives a recursion for 

652: the amplitudes, which describe the leading singular behaviour of the factorial moment 

653: generating functions.  Our method is also called \emph{moment pumping} \cite{FPV98}. 

654: We employ in Section~\ref{sec:dom} an alternative 

655: (rigorous) method to obtain the recursion, which originates from the 

656: \emph{method of dominant balance} of statistical mechanics \cite{PB95a, R02}. 

657: This method is generally easier to apply than an analysis of the functional equation 

658: via Faa di Bruno's formula, and yields an algorithm for obtaining the amplitude recursion.

659: In addition, the method allows to analyse corrections to the limiting behaviour. 

660: The behaviour of the moments follows then by standard methods 

661: from singularity analysis of generating functions \cite{FO90,FS07}.

662: In Proposition~\ref{theo:pde}, we give a quasi-linear partial differential equation 

663: for the generating function of the amplitudes. Growth estimates for the amplitudes 

664: (and hence for the moments) are obtained in Section~\ref{sec:growth}, by an analysis 

665: of the (singular) partial differential equation. Existence and uniqueness of a limit distribution 

666: is then guaranted by L\'evy's continuity theorem, see Section~\ref{sec:mom}. The connection 

667: to Brownian excursions follows in Section~\ref{sec:Dyckrev}, by a comparison with 

668: Dyck paths. Possible applications of our method are discussed in a concluding section.

669: 

670: \section{$q$-functional equations}\label{sec:qfunc}

671: 

672: Let $\mathbb C [[\bs u]]$ denote the ring of formal power series with complex coefficients 

673: in the (commutative) variables ${\bs u}=(u_0,u_1,\ldots, u_M)$. Let $\mathbb C [\bs u]$ 

674: denote the ring of polynomials with complex coefficients in the variables ${\bs u}$. We 

675: set ${\bs u}_0=(u_0,1,\ldots,1)$. For ${\bs u}=(u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_M)$ and ${\bs n}\in

676: \mathbb N_0^{1+M}$, we define $\bs u^{\bs n}$ to be the monomial ${{\bs u}^{\bs n}}=

677: u_0^{n_0}\cdot\ldots\cdot u_M^{n_M}$. We employ the notation ${\bs u}_+=(u_1,\ldots,u_M)$, 

678: the plus sign indicating that the first component of $\bs u$ is omitted. For $n\in\mathbb 

679: N$ and $r>0$, let $D^n_r$ denote the open polydisc 

680: %

681: \begin{equation*}

682: D^n_r=\{ (x_1,\ldots, x_n)\in\mathbb C^n: |x_k|<r \;\mbox{for all}\; k=1,\ldots, n\}.

683: \end{equation*}

684: % 

685: Let $\mathcal{H}_r(\bs x)$ denote the ring of power series in $\bs x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ 

686: with complex coefficients, which are convergent in $D^n_r$. 

687: 

688: \begin{defi}[$q$-shift]\label{def:qshift}

689: Fix $M\in\mathbb N$. Let for $k=0,\ldots,M$ formal power series 

690: $v_k(\bs u)\in\mathbb C[[\bs u]]$ be given, and write

691: $\bs v=\bs v(\bs u)=(v_0(\bs u),

692: v_1(\bs u),\ldots,v_M(\bs u))$. Assume that there is a

693: number $d=d(\bs v)$ satisfying $1<d\le\infty$, such that

694: %

695: \begin{equation*}

696: v_0(\bs u)\in \mathcal{H}_d(u_1,\ldots,u_M)[[u_0]],\qquad

697: v_k(\bs u)\in \mathcal{H}_d(u_k,\ldots,u_M) \qquad (k=1,\ldots, M).

698: \end{equation*}

699: %

700: Assume that $\bs v(\bs u)$ satisfies

701: %

702: \begin{equation*}

703: {\bs v({\bs u}_0)={\bs u}_0}, \qquad

704: v_0(0,{\bs u}_+)\equiv0, \qquad \frac{\partial v_k}

705: {\partial u_k}({\bs u}_0)\equiv1 \qquad (k=0,\ldots, M).

706: \end{equation*} 

707: %

708: Let $r=r(\bs v)$ be a number $0<r\le\infty$ such that

709: %

710: \begin{equation*}

711: \left\{(v_1(\bs u_+),\ldots, v_M(\bs u_+) ): \bs u_+\in D_d^M\right\}\subseteq D_r^M.

712: \end{equation*}

713: %

714: Then, $\bs v$ is called a \emph{$q$-shift}, $d(\bs v)$ is called

715: the \emph{domain of $\bs v$}, and $r(\bs v)$ is called the 

716: \emph{range of $\bs v$}.

717: 

718: \end{defi}

719: 

720: \noindent \textbf{Remarks.}

721: \textit{i)} For $M=1$, a simple example of $q$-shift appears in 

722: the $q$-difference equation eqn.~\eqref{form:geneq2}, with

723: $v_0(u_0,u_1)=u_0u_1$ and $v_1(u_1)=u_1$. This motivates 

724: the name for the generalisation. \\

725: \textit{ii)} For a $q$-shift ${\bs v}$, its $k$-th component 

726: $v_k(\bs u)$ does not depend on $u_l$, where $l=0,\ldots,k-1$,

727: and it does depend on $u_k$. Since ${\bs v({\bs u}_0)={\bs u}_0}$,

728: one may interpret $\bs v(\bs u)$ for $\bs u\ne\bs u_0$

729: as a ``deformation'' of $\bs u_0$. The condition $v_0(0,{\bs u}_+)\equiv0$

730: is imposed to ensure that composition of formal power series is well-defined, 

731: see below.\\

732: \textit{iii)}

733: The identity $id: {\bs u}\mapsto {\bs u}$ is a $q$-shift with infinite domain and 

734: range. For two $q$-shifts ${\bs v}$ and ${\bs w}$, their composition 

735: ${\bs v}\circ {\bs w}$ is well-defined if $r(\bs w)\le d(\bs v)$. As is readily checked, 

736: ${\bs v}\circ {\bs w}$ is a $q$-shift in that case, with domain $d({\bs v}\circ {\bs w})=d(\bs w)$ 

737: and range $r({\bs v}\circ {\bs w})=r(\bs v)$. If for a $q$-shift ${\bs v}$  we have 

738: $r(\bs v)\le d(\bs v)$, we can thus consider \emph{iterated} $q$-shifts ${\bs v}^{[n]}$, where

739: %

740: \begin{equation*}

741: {\bs v}^{[0]}=id, \qquad {\bs v}^{[n]}={\bs v}\circ{\bs v}^{[n-1]} \qquad (n\in\mathbb N).

742: \end{equation*}

743: %

744: The power series ${\bs v}^{[n]}$ is a $q$-shift for $n\in \mathbb N_0$.\\

745: \textit{iv)} An important subclass (with infinite domain and range) are \emph{polynomial} 

746: $q$-shifts, i.e., $q$-shifts $\bs v$ satisfying $v_k(\bs u) \in 

747: \mathbb C[\bs u]$ for $k=0,\ldots, M$. Examples are given by 

748: the monomial $q$-shifts

749: %

750: \begin{equation*}

751: v_k({\bs u}) = {\bs u}^{{\bs n}_k},

752: \end{equation*}

753: %

754: where ${\bs n}_k\in\mathbb N_0^{1+M}$, $({\bs n}_k)_k=1$ 

755: and $({\bs n}_k)_l=0$ for $l=0,\ldots,k-1$ and $k=0,\ldots,M$. These

756: appear in eqns.~\eqref{form:geneq2} and \eqref{form:geneq3}, and for 

757: Dyck paths in eqn.~\eqref{eqn:dyckfeq}. In these examples, 

758: we have $({\bs n}_l)_{l+1}\ne 0$ for $l=0,\ldots, M-1$.

759: 

760: \medskip

761: 

762: For a formal power series $G({\bs u})\in \mathcal{H}_d(\bs u_+)[[u_0]]

763: \subseteq\mathbb C [[\bs u]]$ and a $q$-shift ${\bs v}$ satisfying

764: $r(\bs v)\le d$, we define $H({\bs u}) \in \mathcal{H}_{d(\bs v)}(\bs u_+)[[u_0]]$ by

765: %

766: \begin{equation*}

767: H({\bs u})= G({\bs v}({\bs u})).

768: \end{equation*}

769: %

770: This is well-defined since $\mathcal{H}_d({\bs v}_+({\bs u}))\subseteq 

771: \mathcal{H}_{d(\bs v)}(\bs u_+)$ and $\mathbb C[[v_0({\bs u})]]\subseteq

772: \mathcal{H}_{d(\bs v)}(\bs u_+)[[u_0]]$, due to $v_0(0,{\bs u}_+)\equiv0$. 

773: We are interested in derivatives of $H({\bs u)}$. For 

774: clarity of presentation, we will use the multi-index notation, and 

775: Greek indices $\bs\mu, \bs\nu,\bs\rho$ will denote vectors with 

776: non-negative integer entries. For $F({\bs u}) \in\mathbb C [[\bs u]]$ and 

777: $\bs\nu=(\nu_0,\ldots,\nu_M)\in

778: \mathbb N_0^{1+M}$, we write the derivative $F_{\bs \nu}({\bs u}) 

779: \in\mathbb C [[\bs u]]$ of $F(\bs u)$ of order $\bs\nu$ as

780: %

781: \begin{equation*}

782: F_{\bs\nu}({\bs u}) = \partial_0^{\nu_0}\cdots 

783: \partial_M^{\nu_M}F({\bs u}),\qquad \partial_k^{\nu_k}=

784: \frac{\partial^{\nu_k}}{\partial u_k^{\nu_k}}\qquad (k=0,\ldots,M),

785: \end{equation*}

786: %

787: where we use the convention that $F_{\bs 0}(\bs u)=F(\bs u)$.

788: If $G({\bs u}) \in \mathcal{H}_d(\bs u_+)[[u_0]]\subset\mathbb 

789: C[[\bs u]]$, we also have $G_{\bs\nu}({\bs u})\in\mathcal{H}_d(\bs u_+)

790: [[u_0]]$. Set $|\bs\nu|=\nu_0+\ldots+\nu_M$ and $\bs\nu!=\nu_0!

791: \cdot\ldots\cdot \nu_M!$. We define a total order in $\mathbb N_0^{1+M}$

792: as follows.

793:  

794: \begin{defi}[total order $\prec$]\label{def:totord}

795: For $\bs\mu =(\mu_0,\ldots,\mu_M)\in\mathbb N_0^{1+M}$ and 

796: $\bs\nu=(\nu_0,\ldots,\nu_M)\in\mathbb N_0^{1+M}$, we write 

797: $\bs\mu \prec\bs\nu$ if either $|\bs\mu |<|\bs\nu|$, or if $|\bs\mu |=|\bs\nu|$, 

798: there exists an index  $k\in\{0,\ldots,M\}$, such that

799: $\mu_k>\nu_k$ and $\mu_i=\nu_i$ for $i=0,\ldots,k-1$.

800: \end{defi}

801: 

802: The total order introduced above will be used to label terms appearing

803: in derivatives of $H({\bs u)}$. We have the following lemma.  For 

804: $i\in\{0,\ldots,M\}$, let ${\bs e}_i\in\mathbb C^{1+M}$ denote the 

805: unit vector in direction $i$, given by $({\bs e}_i)_k=\delta_{i,k}$ for $k=0,\ldots,M$.

806: 

807: \begin{lemma}\label{lemma:H}

808: Let $G({\bs u}) \in \mathcal{H}_d(\bs u_+)[[u_0]]$, and let a 

809: $q$-shift $\bs v$ with domain $d(\bs v)$ and range $r(\bs v)\le d$ be given. 

810: Set $H({\bs u)}=G({\bs v(\bs u)})\in \mathcal{H}_{d(\bs v)}(\bs u_+)[[u_0]]$ 

811: and fix $\bs\nu\ne {\bf 0}$.

812: %

813: \begin{itemize}

814: 

815: \item[i)] 

816: We have $H_{\bs\nu}({\bs u})\in\mathcal{H}_{d(\bs v)}(\bs u_+)[[u_0]]$.

817: For every $\bs \mu$ satisfying $\mathbf{0}\ne\bs\mu \preceq\bs\nu$, there

818: exists a coefficient $A(\bs\mu,\bs u)\in\mathcal{H}_{d(\bs v)}(\bs u_+)[[u_0]]$, 

819: independent of the choice of $G({\bs u})$, such that

820: %

821: \begin{equation}\label{form:chain}

822: H_{\bs\nu}({\bs u}) = 

823: \sum_{{\bf 0}\ne\bs\mu \preceq\bs\nu}

824: G_{\bs\mu }({\bs v}({\bs u})) \cdot A(\bs\mu ,{\bs u}).

825: \end{equation}

826: 

827: \item[ii)] The coefficient $A(\bs\mu,{\bs u})$ in eqn.~\eqref{form:chain}

828: is, for $\bs\mu=\bs\nu$, given by

829: %

830: \begin{equation}\label{form:anuu}

831: A(\bs\nu,{\bs u})=\prod_{k=0}^M \left( \frac{\partial v_k}{\partial u_k}

832: ({\bs u}) \right)^{\nu_k}.

833: \end{equation}

834: %

835: In particular, we have $A(\bs\nu,{\bs u_0})=1$. 

836: 

837: \item[iii)]

838: Fix $i\in\{0,\ldots,M-1\}$. If $\nu_{i+1}>0$, 

839: we have $\bs\nu-{\bs e}_{i+1}+{\bs e}_i \prec \bs\nu$.

840: The coefficient $A(\bs\mu,{\bs u})$ in eqn.~\eqref{form:chain}

841: is, for $\bs\mu=\bs\nu-{\bs e}_{i+1}+{\bs e}_i$ and 

842: $\bs u=\bs u_0$, given by

843: %

844: \begin{equation*}

845: A(\bs\nu-{\bs e}_{i+1}+{\bs e}_i,{\bs u_0})= 

846: \nu_{i+1}\frac{\partial v_i}{\partial u_{i+1}}({\bs u_0}).

847: \end{equation*}

848: 

849: \item[iv)] 

850: For real numbers $r,r_0,\ldots,r_M$, where $r_{k+1}>r_k$ for 

851: $k=0,\ldots,M-1$, define $\alpha_{\bs\mu }=r+\sum_{k=0}^M r_k\mu_k$. 

852: Then, for indices $\bs\mu \prec\bs\nu$ in eqn.~\eqref{form:chain} 

853: satisfying $A(\bs\mu ,{\bs u})\not\equiv0$, we have

854: $\alpha_{\bs\mu }<\alpha_{\bs\nu}$.

855: \end{itemize}

856: \end{lemma}

857: 

858: \noindent {\bf Remarks.} \textit{i)} The coefficient $A(\bs\mu ,{\bs u})$ 

859: in eqn.~\eqref{form:chain} might be chosen to vanish. E.g., fix $\bs\nu=(1,1)$ 

860: and consider $\bs\mu =(0,1)$. We have $\bs\mu\prec\bs

861: \nu$ but might choose $A(\bs\mu ,{\bs u})\equiv0$, as is readily verified by an 

862: explicit calculation, using the $q$-shift property $v_k({\bs u}) \in 

863: \mathbb C[[u_k,\ldots,u_M]]$. \\

864: \textit{ii)} The property \textit{iv)} will be used for exponent estimates

865: in Proposition~\ref{prop:est} below.

866: 

867: \begin{proof}

868: {\it i)} This is an application of the chain rule. Successive differentiation leads to

869: %

870: \begin{equation}\label{form:succ}

871: H_{\bs\nu}({\bs u}) = 

872: \sum_{0\le|\bs\mu |\le|\bs\nu|}

873: G_{\bs\mu }({\bs v}({\bs u})) \cdot A(\bs\mu ,{\bs u}),

874: \end{equation}

875: %

876: where $A(\bs\mu ,{\bs u})$ is independent of $G({\bs u})$. To analyse the 

877: effect of the $q$-shift property $v_k({\bs u})\in\mathbb {\cal H}_{d(\bs v)}(u_k,\ldots, u_M)$, 

878: consider for $k\in\{0,\ldots, M\}$ the equation

879: %

880: \begin{equation}\label{form:d1}

881: \frac{\partial H}{\partial u_k}({\bs u}) =

882: \sum_{l=0}^M \frac{\partial G}{\partial v_l}({\bs v}({\bs u}))\frac{\partial v_l}

883: {\partial u_k}({\bs u})=\sum_{l=0}^k \frac{\partial G}{\partial v_l}({\bs v}

884: ({\bs u}))\frac{\partial v_l}{\partial u_k}({\bs u}).

885: \end{equation}

886: %

887: It shows that derivatives of $H({\bs u})$ w.r.t.~$u_k$ do not contribute to derivatives of 

888: $G({\bs v}({\bs u}))$ w.r.t.~$v_{k+1},\ldots,v_M$. A similar statement holds for 

889: higher derivatives. This implies that the numbers $\nu_k$ in eqn.~\eqref{form:succ}

890: can contribute to the numbers $\mu_0,\ldots,\mu_k$ only. If $|\bs\mu |=|\bs\nu|$, we thus 

891: have  $\nu_k\le \mu_0+\ldots+\mu_k$ for $k\in\{0,\ldots,M\}$. We show that $\bs\mu 

892: \preceq\bs\nu$. Assume w.l.o.g. that $|\bs\mu |=|\bs\nu|$. If $\mu_0>\nu_0$, we have  

893: $\bs\mu \prec \bs\nu$, and the claim follows. Otherwise, we have $\mu_0=\nu_0$. 

894: Thus, $\nu_k$ does not contribute to $\mu_0$ for $k\in\{1,\ldots,M\}$. The previous 

895: argument yields that $\nu_k\le \mu_1+\ldots+\mu_k$ for $k\in\{1,\ldots,M\}$. Now repeat 

896: the above argument until $\mu_0=\ldots=\mu_{M-1}=\nu_0=\ldots=\nu_{M-1}$. Then 

897: $\mu_M=\nu_M$ since $|\bs\mu |=|\bs\nu|$. Thus $\bs\mu =\bs\nu$, and the statement 

898: is shown. 

899: 

900: \noindent {\it ii)}

901: This is seen by an explicit calculation using eqn.~\eqref{form:d1}. Successively applying 

902: derivatives w.r.t. $u_0$, $u_1$, $\ldots,u_M$ yields eqn.~\eqref{form:anuu}. Together 

903: with the $q$-shift property ${\partial v_k}/{\partial u_k}({\bs u_0})=1$, it follows that 

904: $A(\bs\nu,{\bs u_0})=1$. Statement \textit{iii)} is shown by an analogous calculation.

905: 

906: \noindent {\it iv)} Consider first the case $|\bs\mu |=|\bs\nu|$. Note that, by differentiation, 

907: the numbers $\nu_k$ do not contribute to $\mu_{k+1},\ldots,\mu_M$, for $k\in\{0,\ldots,M\}$. 

908: Thus, the contribution of $\nu_k$ to $\alpha_{\bs\mu }$ is maximal if $\mu_k=\nu_k$ for 

909: $k=0,\ldots,M$.  We get $\bs\mu =\bs\nu$ and $\alpha_{\bs\mu }=\alpha_{\bs\nu}$. Since 

910: this maximum is unique, $\bs\mu \prec \bs\nu$ implies $\alpha_{\bs\mu }<\alpha_{\bs\nu}$.

911: Let now $|\bs\mu |<|\bs\nu|$. For $k\in\{0,\ldots,M\}$, denote by ${\widetilde \nu}_k$ the 

912: number of derivatives w.r.t.~$u_k$, which contribute to $\bs\mu $. Set $\widetilde{\bs\nu}=

913: ({\widetilde \nu}_0, \ldots, {\widetilde \nu}_M)$. Then clearly $|\bs\mu |=|\widetilde{\bs\nu}|$ 

914: and $\alpha_{\widetilde{\bs\nu}}<\alpha_{\bs\nu}$. The reasoning for the case $|\bs\mu |=

915: |\bs\nu|$ can now be applied to the present case, with $\bs\nu$ replaced by $\widetilde{\bs\nu}$.

916: This yields $\alpha_{\bs\mu }\le\alpha_{\widetilde{\bs\nu}}$. Thus $\alpha_{\bs\mu }<

917: \alpha_{\bs\nu}$, and the statement is shown.

918: \end{proof}

919: 

920: \begin{defi}[$q$-functional equation]\label{defi:qfunc}

921: Let $P(\bs u, y_1,\ldots, y_N)$ be a formal power series $P(\bs u,

922: \bs y)\in\mathcal{H}_{d}(\bs u_+)[[u_0,\bs y]]$, for

923: a number $d$ satisfying $1<d\le\infty$. Assume that 

924: $P(0, {\bs u}_+, \bs 0)\equiv 0$, and that $\frac{\partial P}{\partial y_j}(0, 

925: {\bs u}_+,\bs 0) \equiv0$ for $j=1,\ldots,N$. Let ${\bs v^{(\it j)}}$ be a $q$-shift

926: with domain $d(\bs v^{(j)})$ and range $r(\bs v^{(j)})\le d$, for $j=1,\ldots,N$.

927: 

928: \begin{itemize}

929: 

930: \item[i)]

931: 

932: If the above assumptions are satisfied, the equation

933: %

934: \begin{equation}\label{form:funceq}

935: G({\bs u})=P(\bs u, H^{(1)}({\bs u)},\ldots, H^{(N)}

936: ({\bs u)}),

937: \end{equation}

938: %

939: where $H^{(j)}({\bs u)}=G({\bs v^{(\it j)}(\bs u)})$ for $j=1,\ldots, N$,

940: is called a {\em $q$-functional equation}.

941: \item[ii)]

942: Let the above assumptions be satisfied. If there is a number $d(G)$ such that

943: %

944: \begin{equation*}

945: 1< d(G)\le \min_{1\le j\le N}\{d(\bs v^{(j)})\},

946: \end{equation*}

947: %

948: and a formal power series $G(\bs u)\in\mathcal{H}_{d(G)}(\bs 

949: u_+)[[u_0]]$ satisfying eqn.~\eqref{form:funceq}, then $G(\bs u)$ 

950: is called a \emph{solution} of the $q$-functional equation.

951: \end{itemize}

952: \end{defi}

953: 

954: \noindent \textbf{Remarks.} 

955: \textit{i)} An example of a $q$-functional equation for $M=1$ is 

956: given by the $q$-difference equation eqn.~\eqref{form:geneq2}. 

957: This motivates the name for the generalisation. Examples for $M>1$ 

958: appear in eqn.~\eqref{form:geneq3}. Examples of $q$-functional equations 

959: frequently satisfy $P(\bs u, \bs y)\in\mathbb C[\bs u, \bs y]$ 

960: with $d=\infty$, and with monomial $q$-shifts. We infer from the 

961: functional equation eqn.~\eqref{eqn:dyckfeq} for Dyck paths that 

962: the power series $E({\bs u})=D({\bs u})-1$ satisfies the 

963: $q$-functional equation

964: %

965: \begin{equation}\label{form:exfunc}

966: E({\bs u}) = u_0u_1\cdot\ldots\cdot u_M\left( E({\bs u})+1\right)

967: \left( E({\bs v(\bs u)})+1\right).

968: \end{equation}

969: %

970: Specialising to ${\bs u}={\bs u_0}$ yields a quadratic equation, which

971: can be explicitly solved for $E({\bs u_0})$. We get the well-known

972: result

973: %

974: \begin{equation*}

975: E({\bs u_0})=\frac{1-2u_0-\sqrt{1-4u_0}}{2u_0}.

976: \end{equation*}

977: 

978: \noindent \textit{ii)} If $Q(u,y)\in\mathbb 

979: C[[u,y]]$ satisfies $Q(0,0)=0$ and $\frac{\partial Q}{\partial y}(0,y)

980: \not\equiv1$, a formal power series $G(u)\in\mathbb C[[u]]$ such that 

981: $G(0)=0$ is uniquely defined as the solution of the equation 

982: $G(u)=Q(u,G(u))$. When studying such 

983: equations, we may assume without loss of generality that $\frac{\partial Q}

984: {\partial y}(0,y)\equiv0$. The above definition reduces to this setup, when 

985: restricting to $\bs u=\bs u_0$. \\

986: 

987: 

988: \medskip

989: 

990: A result about solutions of $q$-functional equations is given by the following proposition.

991: We use the vector notation ${\bs H(\bs u)}=(H^{(1)}({\bs 

992: u)},\ldots, H^{(N)}({\bs u)})$. 

993: 

994: \begin{prop}\label{prop:uni}

995: The $q$-functional equation of Definition~\ref{defi:qfunc},

996: %

997: \begin{equation}\label{form:func}

998: G({\bs u})=P(\bs u, \bs H(\bs u)),

999: \end{equation}

1000: %

1001: has a unique solution $G({\bs u}) \in \mathcal{H}_{d(P)}(\bs u_+)[[u_0]]$

1002: satisfying $G(0,\bs u_+)\equiv0$, where $d(P)=\min_{1\le j\le N}\{d(\bs v^{(j)})\}$.

1003: \end{prop}

1004: 

1005: \begin{proof}

1006: If $G({\bs u})=\sum_{n_0\ge1} p_{n_0}({\bs u}_+)u_0^{n_0}$, then

1007: $G({\bs v}^{(\it j)}({\bs u}))=\sum_{n_0\ge1} p_{n_0}({\bs v}_+^{(\it j)}

1008: ({\bs u}))\left(v_0^{(\it j)}({\bs u})\right)^{n_0}$. For $n_0\ge1$ fixed, we take the coefficient 

1009: of $u_0^{n_0}$ in eqn.~\eqref{form:func}. Due to $v_0^{(j)}(0,{\bs u}_+)

1010: \equiv0$ for $j=1,\ldots,N$ and the assumptions on the derivatives of $P({\bs y},{\bs u})$, we 

1011: get the expression

1012: %

1013: \begin{equation}\label{form:Wr}

1014: p_{n_0}({\bs u}_+)=W_{n_0}\left({\bs u}_+, \left\{ p_1({\bs v}_+^{(\it j)}

1015: ({\bs u})), \ldots,p_{n_0-1}({\bs v}_+^{(\it j)}({\bs u}) )\right\}_{j=1}^N

1016: \right),

1017: \end{equation}

1018: %

1019: for a power series $W_{n_0}\left({\bs u}_+, \bs p\right)\in\mathcal{H}_{d(P)}

1020: (\bs u_+)\left[\bs p\right]$ in $M+N(n_0-1)$ variables. Thus $p_{n_0}

1021: ({\bs u}_+)$ is determined recursively in terms of $p_l({\bs u}_+)$, 

1022: where $l=1,\ldots, n_0-1$. The recursion also shows that $p_{n_0}({\bs 

1023: u}_+)\in \mathcal{H}_{d(P)}(\bs u_+)$. Thus $G({\bs u}) \in \mathcal{H}_{d(P)}

1024: (\bs u_+)[[u_0]]$, and the proposition is proved.

1025: \end{proof}

1026: 

1027: \noindent \textbf{Remarks.} 

1028: \noindent \textit{i)} For a solution $G(\bs u)$ of a $q$-functional 

1029: equation satisfying $G(\bs0)=0$, we will always assume $d(G)=d(P)$ in the following.\\

1030: \textit{ii)} For the solution of a simple $q$-functional 

1031: equation, an explicit expression may be given. This is e.g. the

1032: case for some $q$-difference equations eqn.~\eqref{form:geneq2}, with $P(x,y)$

1033: linear in $y$, see e.g.~\cite{Bou96}, or with $P(x,y)$ quadratic in $y$, see \cite{PB95a}. \\

1034: \textit{iii)} It follows from $G({\bs u}) \in \mathcal{H}_{d(P)}

1035: (\bs u_+)[[u_0]]$ that $G({\bs u_0})\in\mathbb C[[u_0]]$. For derivatives of 

1036: $G({\bs u})$, which are also elements of $\mathcal{H}_{d(P)}(\bs u_+)[[u_0]]$, the 

1037: same conclusion holds. Thus, the derivatives

1038: %

1039: \begin{equation}\label{form:facarmom}

1040: g_{\bs\nu}(u_0) :=\left.\frac{1}{\bs\nu!}

1041: G_{\bs\nu}({\bs u})\right|_{\bs u=\bs u_0}

1042: \end{equation}

1043: %

1044: are formal power series, i.e., $g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)\in\mathbb C[[u_0]]$. They 

1045: are called \emph{factorial moment generating functions}, for reasons to 

1046: be explained in section \ref{sec:mom}.

1047: 

1048: \section{Factorial moment generating functions}\label{sec:gk}

1049: 

1050: Due to the following proposition, the factorial moment generating functions 

1051: can be computed recursively, by successively differentiating the $q$-functional 

1052: equation.

1053: 

1054: \begin{prop}\label{prop:solv}

1055: Let a $q$-functional equation eqn.~\eqref{form:funceq} with solution 

1056: $G(\bs u)$ as in Proposition~\ref{prop:uni} be given. Consider the derivative of order

1057: $\bs\nu\ne {\bf 0}$ of the $q$-functional equation, 

1058: evaluated at $\bs u=\bs u_0$. It is linear in 

1059: $g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)$. Its r.h.s.~is a polynomial in 

1060: $\{g_{\bs\mu }(u_0):\mathbf{0}\neq\bs

1061: \mu \preceq \bs\nu\}$, with coefficients in 

1062: $\mathbb C[[u_0,g_{\bs 0}(u_0)]]$.

1063: \end{prop}

1064: 

1065: In order to prove Proposition \ref{prop:solv}, we analyse partial 

1066: derivatives of eqn.~\eqref{form:funceq}. To this end, we employ a generalization 

1067: of Faa di Bruno's formula \cite{CS96}, adapted to our situation. The following 

1068: lemma will also be used for exponent estimates in the next section. For 

1069: $k\in\{1,\ldots,K\}$, let $f_k(\bs u)\in\mathbb C[[\bs u]]$, and 

1070: define ${\bs f(\bs u)}=(f_1({\bs u}), \ldots,

1071: f_K({\bs u}))$. For $\bs\mu \in\mathbb N_0^{1+M}$, we 

1072: use the notation ${\bs f(\bs u)}_{\bs\mu} =

1073: ((f_1)_{\bs\mu}({\bs u}),\ldots,(f_K)_{\bs\mu}

1074: ({\bs u}))$ for the derivative of $\bs f(\bs u)$ of order $\bs \mu$.

1075: 

1076: \begin{lemma}{\rm (cf.~\cite[Thm.~2.1]{CS96})}\label{lemma:faa}

1077: Let a $q$-functional equation eqn.~\eqref{form:funceq} with solution 

1078: $G(\bs u)$ as in Proposition~\ref{prop:uni} be given.

1079: Its derivative of order $\bs\nu\ne\bs0$ satisfies

1080: %

1081: \begin{equation}\label{form:faa}

1082: G_{\bs\nu}({\bs u})=\sum_{1\le|\bs\lambda|\le |\bs\nu|}

1083: P_{\bs\lambda}(\bs u, \bs H(\bs u))\sum_{s=1}^{|\bs\nu|}

1084: \sum_{p_s(\bs\nu,\bs\lambda)}

1085: (\bs\nu!) \prod_{j=1}^s\frac{[(\bs u, \bs H(\bs u))_{\bs\mu _j}]^{\bs\kappa_j}}

1086: {(\bs\kappa_j!)[\bs\mu _j!]^{|\bs\kappa_j|}},

1087: \end{equation}

1088: %

1089: where the vectors $\bs\lambda$ and $\bs\kappa_j$ are $1+M+N$-dimensional, 

1090: the vectors $\bs\mu _j$ are $1+M$-dimensional, for $j\in\{1,\ldots,s\}$, 

1091: and the summation ranges over

1092: %

1093: \begin{equation*}

1094: \begin{split}

1095: p_s(\bs\nu,\bs\lambda)=\{&(\bs\kappa_1,\ldots, \bs\kappa_s; 

1096: \bs\mu _1,\ldots, \bs\mu _s): |\bs\kappa_i|>0,\\

1097: &{\bf 0}\lhd \bs\mu _1\lhd \ldots \lhd \bs\mu _s, 

1098: \sum_{i=1}^s \bs\kappa_i=\bs\lambda \mbox{ and } \sum_{i=1}^s |\bs\kappa_i| 

1099: \bs\mu _i= \bs\nu \}.

1100: \end{split}

1101: \end{equation*}

1102: %

1103: In the above equation, the total order $\lhd$ is defined as 

1104: $\bs\mu \lhd\bs\nu$ if either $|\bs\mu |<|\bs\nu|$, or

1105: if $|\bs\mu |=|\bs\nu|$, there exists an index $k\in\{0,\ldots,M\}$ such that

1106: $\mu_k<\nu_k$ and $\mu_i=\nu_i$ for $i=0,\ldots,k-1$. 

1107: \qed

1108: \end{lemma}

1109: 

1110: \noindent \textbf{Remark.} If $M=1$, we have $(\mu_0,\mu_1)\lhd(\nu_0,\nu_1)$

1111: if and only if $(\mu_1,\mu_0)\prec(\nu_1,\nu_0)$. The analogous statement for

1112: higher values of $M$ is not true.

1113: 

1114: \begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:solv}.]

1115: For given $\bs\nu\neq\bs0$, we analyse the values $\bs\mu _j$ appearing in

1116: Lemma \ref{lemma:faa}. We show that $|\bs\mu _j|\ge|\bs\nu|$ for

1117: some value $j$, where $1\le j\le s \le |\bs\nu|$, implies $s=1$ and 

1118: $\bs\mu _1=\bs\nu$. Together with Lemma \ref{lemma:H}, this implies that 

1119: $\bs\mu \preceq \bs\nu$. The linearity will follow from an explicit 

1120: calculation of the term containing $\bs\mu _1=\bs\nu$.

1121: 

1122: \smallskip

1123: 

1124: Assume that $|\bs\mu _j|\ge|\bs\nu|$ for some $j$, where 

1125: $1\le j\le s\le |\bs\nu|$. The explicit form of 

1126: $p_s(\bs\nu,\bs\lambda)$ in Lemma \ref{lemma:faa}

1127: states that $\bs\nu=\sum_{i=1}^s |\bs\kappa_i| \bs\mu _i$. This implies 

1128: that $|\bs\nu|=\sum_{i=1}^s |\bs\kappa_i| |\bs\mu _i|$. According 

1129: to the assumption, this leads to $s=1$,  $|\bs\kappa_1|=1$ and 

1130: $|\bs\mu _1|=|\bs\nu|$. This, in turn, implies that $\bs\mu _1=\bs\nu$.

1131: 

1132: Clearly, the r.h.s.~of eqn.~\eqref{form:faa}, when specialised to $\bs u=\bs u_0$,

1133: is a polynomial in $g_{\bs\mu }(u_0)$ for $\mathbf{0}\neq\bs\mu\preceq\bs\nu$,

1134: with coefficients in $\mathbb C[[u_0,g_{\bs 0}(u_0)]]$. 

1135: To show linearity in $G_{\bs\nu}({\bs u_0})$, we note that 

1136: the possible values of $\bs\kappa_1$ are $\bs\kappa_1={\bs e}_j$, 

1137: where $j\in\{1,\ldots,1+M+N\}$. The sum of the terms with $|\bs\mu _1|=|\bs\nu|$

1138: in the r.h.s.~of eqn.~\eqref{form:faa} is given by

1139: %

1140: \begin{equation*}

1141: \sum_{j=1}^{1+M+N} P_{{\bs e}_j}({\bs u, \bs H(\bs u)})

1142: [({\bs u, \bs H(\bs u)})_{\bs\nu}]^{{\bs e}_j}.

1143: \end{equation*}

1144: %

1145: We now extract terms containing $G_{\bs\nu}({\bs u})$ from this 

1146: expression, using Lemma \ref{lemma:H}, and group them to the l.h.s.~of 

1147: eqn.~\eqref{form:faa}. In the resulting equation, the l.h.s.~$L(\bs u)$, 

1148: when specialised to $\bs u=\bs u_0$, is given by

1149: %

1150: \begin{equation}\label{form:pref}

1151: L(\bs u_0) =\left(1- \sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{\partial P}{\partial y_j}

1152: ({\bs u_0, \bs G(\bs u_0)})\right) G_{\bs\nu}({\bs u_0}).

1153: \end{equation}

1154: %

1155: Due to the assumptions on $P(\bs u,\bs y)$, the prefactor

1156: of $G_{\bs\nu}({\bs u_0})$ in the above equation is not

1157: identically vanishing. Thus, $G_{\bs\nu}({\bs u_0})$ is contained linearly in 

1158: eqn.~\eqref{form:faa}, specialised to $\bs u=\bs u_0$.

1159: \end{proof}

1160: 

1161: \section{Analytic generating functions}\label{sec:ana}

1162: 

1163: Let $Q(u,y)=P(u,1,\ldots,1,y,\ldots,y)$. The power series $G({\bs u}_0)$

1164: satisfies the equation

1165: %

1166: \begin{equation}\label{pgfeqn}

1167: G({\bs u}_0)=Q(u_0,G({\bs u}_0)).

1168: \end{equation}

1169: %

1170: In the following, we specialise the class of $q$-functional equations. We are 

1171: interested in the case  where $G({\bs u}_0)$ is analytic at $u_0=0$, with 

1172: a square root as dominant singularity. This situation is generic for 

1173: combinatorial constructions, see \cite[Thm.~10.6]{O95}, \cite[Prop.~1]{D97}, or

1174: \cite[Sec.~7.4]{FS07}. Throughout the remainder of the article, we employ 

1175: the following assumption.

1176: 

1177: \begin{ass}\label{ass}

1178: Let a $q$-functional equation \eqref{form:funceq} as in Definition~\ref{defi:qfunc} 

1179: be given. Let numbers $r,s$ such that $0<r,s\le\infty$ be given. Denote by

1180: $\mathcal{H}_{r,d,s}(\bs u,\bs y)$ the ring of power series in 

1181: $(\bs u,\bs y)=(u_0,\bs u_+,\bs y)$, which

1182: are convergent if  $|u_0|<r$, if $|u_k|<d$ for $k=1,\ldots, M$, and if $|y_k|<s$ for 

1183: $k=1,\ldots,N$. In addition to the assumptions in Definition~\ref{defi:qfunc},

1184: we assume the following properties.

1185: %

1186: \begin{itemize}

1187: \item[{\it i)}] $P({\bs u},{\bs y})\in\mathcal{H}_{r,d,s}(\bs u, 

1188: \bs y)$, and its Taylor coefficients are non-negative real numbers,

1189: when expanded about $(\bs u,\bs y)=(\bs 0,\bs 0)$.

1190: For $j=1,\ldots,N$, each coordinate series of the $q$-shift 

1191: ${\bs v}^{(j)}({\bs u})$ has non-negative

1192: coefficients only, if expanded about $\bs u=\bs 0$.

1193: 

1194: \item[{\it ii)}] Let $Q(u,y)=P(u,1,\ldots,1,y,\ldots,y)$. There exist numbers $(u_c,y_c)$

1195: satisfying $0<u_c<r$ and $0<y_c<s$, such that 

1196: %

1197: \begin{equation}\label{form:lett}

1198: \begin{split}

1199: Q(u_c,y_c)=&y_c, \qquad \left.\frac{\partial Q}{\partial y}(u_c,y)\right|_{y=y_c}=1, \\

1200: B:=\frac{1}{2}\left.\frac{\partial ^2 Q}{\partial y^2}(u_c,y)\right|_{y=y_c}&>0, \qquad 

1201: C:=\left.\frac{\partial Q}{\partial u}(u,y_c)\right|_{u=u_c}>0.

1202: \end{split}

1203: \end{equation}

1204: %

1205: \item[{\it iii)}] The solution $G(\bs u)$ of the $q$-functional equation as in 

1206: Proposition~\ref{prop:uni} has the property that $G({\bs u_0})=\sum_{n\ge 1} 

1207: p_n u_0^n$ is \emph{aperiodic}, i.e., there exist indices $1\le i<j<k$ such that 

1208: $p_ip_jp_k\ne0$, while $\gcd(j-i,k-i)=1$.

1209: \end{itemize}

1210: \end{ass}

1211: 

1212: \noindent {\bf Remarks.} \textit{i)} When restricting to $\bs u=\bs u_0$,

1213: the above assumptions (together with the assumptions in Definition~\ref{defi:qfunc}) 

1214: reduce to the setup for implicitly defined power series which is usual in enumerative 

1215: combinatorics, see \cite[Thm.~10.6]{O95}, \cite[Prop.~1]{D97}, and \cite[Sec.~7.4]{FS07}. \\

1216: \textit{ii)} Assumption \ref{ass} {\it i)} implies that the coefficients $p_{\bs n}$ in 

1217: $G({\bs u})= \sum_{\bs n\ge 0} p_{\bs n}{\bs u^{\bs n}}$ 

1218: are non-negative. For combinatorial constructions, such positivity assumptions are common. 

1219: However, systems of functional equations, arising from a combinatorial construction 

1220: with positive coefficients, might be reduced to an equation of the above form 

1221: having \emph{negative} coefficients. In that situation, other types of singularity might 

1222: appear. This is, e.g., the case for discrete meanders \cite{NT03}. The methods used in 

1223: this paper can be adapted to treat such cases. $P({\bs u},

1224: {\bs y})\in\mathcal{H}_{r,d,s}(\bs u, \bs y)$ implies that,

1225: for each $(\bs u, \bs y)\in D_r^1\times D_d^M\times D_s^N$, the 

1226: function $P({\bs u}, {\bs y})$ has a convergent series expansion

1227: about $(\bs u, \bs y)$.\\

1228: \textit{iii)} Assumption \ref{ass} {\it ii)} implies that the dominant singularity of 

1229: $G({\bs u}_0)$ is a square root. This type of singularity is generic for

1230: functional equations with positive coefficients. If $P({\bs u},

1231: {\bs y})$ is a \emph{polynomial} in $\bs u$ and $\bs y$, it

1232: can be shown that Assumption \ref{ass} {\it ii)} follows from Assumption \ref{ass} 

1233: {\it i)}, if $Q(u,y)$ is of degree $\ge2$ in $y$ and if $Q(u,0)\not\equiv0$.

1234: By the closure properties of algebraic functions, it then follows, with an adaption

1235: of Proposition \ref{prop:solv}, that all factorial moment generating functions are algebraic.\\

1236: \textit{iv)} Assumption \ref{ass} {\it iii)} ensures that $G({\bs u_0})$ 

1237: has exactly one singularity on its circle of convergence. The case of periodic

1238: $G(\bs u_0)$ may be treated by a slight extension of this setup.

1239: 

1240: \medskip

1241: 

1242: We investigate analytic properties of $g_{\bf 0}(u_0)$. A function 

1243: $f(u)$ is called \emph{$\Delta$-regular} \cite{FFK04} if it is analytic in the 

1244: \emph{indented disc} $\Delta=\Delta(u_c,\eta,\phi)=\{u:|u|\le u_c+\eta, |\mbox{arg}

1245: (u-u_c)|\ge\phi\}$ for some real numbers $u_c>0$, $\eta>0$ and $\phi$, 

1246: where $0<\phi<\pi/2$. Note that $u_c\notin\Delta$, where we employ the 

1247: convention $\mbox{arg}(0)=0$. The set of $\Delta$-regular functions is 

1248: closed under addition, multiplication, differentiation, and integration. Moreover, 

1249: if $f(u)\ne0$ in $\Delta$, then $1/f(u)$ exists in $\Delta$ and is $\Delta$-regular. The following

1250: proposition is a straightforward extension of a well-known result, see 

1251: e.g.~\cite[Thm.~10.6]{O95}, \cite[Prop.~1]{D97}, or \cite[Sec.~7.4]{FS07}.

1252:  

1253: \begin{prop}[cf.~\cite{O95,D97,FS07}]\label{prop:g0}

1254: Given Assumption \ref{ass}, the power series $g_{\bf 0}(u_0)$ is analytic at $u_0=0$, 

1255: with radius of convergence $0<u_c<\infty$. Its analytic continuation is $\Delta$-regular, 

1256: with a square root singularity at $u_0=u_c$, and a local Puiseux expansion

1257: %

1258: \begin{equation}\label{form:genex0}

1259: g_{\bf 0}(u_0) = g_{\bf 0}(u_c) + \sum_{l=0}^\infty f_{{\bf 0},l}

1260: (u_c-u_0)^{-\gamma_{\bs0}+l/2},

1261: \end{equation}

1262: %

1263: where $\gamma_{\bs0}=-1/2$, $f_{\bs 0,0}=-\sqrt{C/B}$, and $g_{\bf 0}(u_c)=

1264: \lim_{u_0\to u_c^-} g_{\bs0}(u_0)<\infty$.

1265: \qed

1266: \end{prop}

1267: 

1268: \noindent \textbf{Remark.} The coefficients $f_{\bs 0,l}$, also called \emph{amplitudes},

1269: can be computed recursively from the functional equation eqn.~\eqref{pgfeqn}, by inserting 

1270: the representation eqn.~\eqref{form:genex0} into

1271: eqn.~\eqref{pgfeqn} and then expanding the resulting equation in $s=\sqrt{u_c-u_0}$.

1272: This technique will be exploited below, when using the method of dominant balance.

1273: 

1274: \medskip

1275: 

1276: The properties of $G({\bs u_0})$ carry over to the factorial moment generating functions 

1277: $g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)$. We will first analyse the general form of the factorial moment generating 

1278: functions, and later provide explicit values for exponents and leading amplitudes.

1279: 

1280: \begin{prop}\label{prop:pui}

1281: Let Assumption \ref{ass} be satisfied. For $\bs\nu\neq\bs0$ arbitrary, the factorial moment 

1282: generating function $g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)$ is analytic at $u_0=0$, 

1283: with radius of convergence $0<u_c<\infty$. Its analytic continuation is $\Delta$-regular.

1284: It has a local Puiseux expansion

1285: %

1286: \begin{equation}\label{form:genex}

1287: g_{\bs\nu}(u_0) = \sum_{l=0}^\infty f_{{\bs\nu},l}(u_c-u_0)^{-\gamma_{\bs\nu}+l/2},

1288: \end{equation}

1289: %

1290: with non-vanishing leading amplitude $f_{{\bs\nu},0}\ne0$ and exponent 

1291: $\gamma_{\bs\nu}\in \frac{1}{2}\mathbb Z$.

1292: \end{prop}

1293: 

1294: \begin{proof}

1295: We prove the proposition by induction on $\bs\nu$ w.r.t.~the total order 

1296: $\prec$ in Definition~\ref{def:totord}. Note that the proof of Proposition 

1297: \ref{prop:solv} yields

1298: %

1299: \begin{equation}\label{form:gl1}

1300: g_{\bs\nu}(u_0) Q_1(u_0,g_{\bf 0}(u_0))=Q_{\bs\nu}( 

1301: u_0, g_{\bf 0}(u_0),\{ g_{\bs\mu}(u_0)\}_{\bs 0 \ne\bs\mu \prec\bs\nu}),

1302: \end{equation}

1303: %

1304: where $Q_1(u,y)=1-\frac{\partial Q}{\partial y}(u,y)$ is analytic for 

1305: $|u|<r$, $|y|<s$. The function $Q_{\bs\nu}( u,y,\widetilde 

1306: {\bs y})$ is a polynomial in $\widetilde {\bs y}$ and 

1307: analytic for $|u|<r$, $|y|<s$. Due to the closure properties of $\Delta$-regular and 

1308: analytic functions, both $Q_1(u_0,g_{\bf 0}(u_0))$ and $Q_{\bs\nu}( 

1309: u_0,g_{\bf 0}(u_0), \{ g_{\bs\mu}(u_0)\}_{\bs 0 \ne\bs\mu 

1310: \prec\bs\nu})$ are $\Delta$-regular. Due to Proposition \ref{prop:g0}, we 

1311: have $Q_1(u_0, g_{\bf 0}(u_0))\ne0$ in $\Delta$, thus its inverse is $\Delta$-regular. 

1312: This implies that $g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)$ is $\Delta$-regular. 

1313: 

1314: Due to Proposition \ref{prop:g0}, the series $h(s)=y_c+\sum_{l=0}^\infty 

1315: f_{{\bf 0},l}s^{(l+1)}$ is holomorphic at $s=0$ and equals $g_{\bf 0}(u_0)$ 

1316: about $u_0=u_c$, if $s=\sqrt{u_c-u_0}$. We show that eqn.~\eqref{form:gl1} 

1317: leads to local expansions of $g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)$ in terms of 

1318: $s=\sqrt{u_c-u_0}$, which are meromorphic at $s=0$. Consider first the term 

1319: $Q_1(u_0,g_{\bf 0}(u_0))$. The function $Q_1(u,y)$ is holomorphic at $(u,y)=

1320: (u_c,y_c)$. Thus, as composition of holomorphic functions, $\widetilde 

1321: Q_1(s):=Q_1(u_c-s^2,h(s))$ is holomorphic at $s=0$. We have $\widetilde 

1322: Q_1(0)=0$ and $\widetilde Q'_1(0)=-\frac{\partial Q_1}{\partial y}(u_c,y_c) h'(0)

1323: \ne0$. Thus, its inverse  $1/\widetilde Q_1(s)$ is meromorphic at $s=0$, 

1324: with a simple pole. Consider finally the function $Q_{\bs\nu}

1325: (u,y,\widetilde {\bs y})$. It is a polynomial in $\widetilde 

1326: {\bs y}$ and analytic at $(u,y)=(u_c,y_c)$. Thus, after inserting 

1327: the expansions of $g_{\bs\mu}(u_0)$, where we use Proposition 

1328: \ref{prop:g0} and the induction hypothesis, we conclude that 

1329: it is meromorphic in $s$ at $s=0$. 

1330: It follows that $g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)$ is meromorphic in $s$ at $s=0$. 

1331: Since $G(\bs u)$ is non-negative and $g_{\bs0}(u_0)$ 

1332: does not vanish identically, $g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)$ does not vanish identically.  

1333: We thus have local expansions \eqref{form:genex} of $g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)$.

1334: \end{proof}

1335: 

1336: \noindent {\bf Remarks.} \textit{i)} 

1337: It was argued in the preceding proof that $1-\sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{\partial P}{\partial y_j}

1338: (\bs u_0,{\bs G(\bs u_0)})=\widetilde Q_1(s)$ satisfies $\widetilde Q_1(s)\sim A

1339: \sqrt{u_c-u_0}$ as $u_0\to u_c^{-}$, for some constant $A\ne0$, see also 

1340: eqn.~\eqref{form:pref}. This will be used in the proof of the following proposition. \\

1341: \textit{ii)} The exponents $\gamma_{\bs\nu}$ and, in principle,

1342: all amplitudes $f_{\bs \nu,l}$ in the Puiseux expansion \eqref{form:genex} of 

1343: $g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)$ can be computed recursively from the functional equation 

1344: eqn.~\eqref{pgfeqn}, compare the argument above for the case $\bs\nu=0$. 

1345: Our aim in this section is to determine the exponent $\gamma_{\bs\nu}$ and 

1346: the amplitudes $f_{{\bs\nu},0}$. The method of Section \ref{sec:dom} will allow to 

1347: also obtain information about the amplitudes $f_{{\bs\nu},l}$ for higher values of $l$,

1348: with reasonable effort.

1349: 

1350: \medskip

1351: 

1352: We will first give an estimate of $\gamma_{\bs\nu}$.

1353: 

1354: \begin{prop}\label{prop:est}

1355: Let Assumption \ref{ass} be satisfied. The exponent $\gamma_{\bs\nu}$ in 

1356: the Puiseux expansion of $g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)$ eqns.~\eqref{form:genex0}, \eqref{form:genex},

1357: satisfies the estimate

1358: \begin{equation}

1359: \gamma_{\bs\nu}\le -\frac{1}{2}+\sum_{i=0}^M \left( 1+\frac{i}{2}\right)\nu_i.

1360: \end{equation}

1361: \end{prop}

1362: 

1363: \noindent {\bf Remark.} Under mild additional assumptions, the above estimate

1364: is sharp, i.e., we have $\gamma_{\bs\nu}= -\frac{1}{2}+\sum_{i=0}^M 

1365: \left( 1+\frac{i}{2}\right)\nu_i$. This follows from Proposition \ref{prop:rek}, 

1366: where we show that the amplitudes $f_{{\bs\nu},0}$, for the special choice of 

1367: $\gamma_{\bs\nu}$ as above, have non-zero values. 

1368: Similar estimates can be obtained in situations different from a square root 

1369: singularity. The proof below can be adapted to treat these situations.

1370: 

1371: \begin{proof}

1372: Set ${\widetilde\gamma_{\bs\nu}}

1373: =-r+\sum_{i=0}^M r_i\nu_i$, where $r=1/2$, and $r_i=(1+i/2)$ for $i=0,\ldots,M$.

1374: We have $r_{k+1}>r_k$ for $k=0,\ldots,M-1$. For 

1375: $\bs\nu=\bf0$ and $\bs\nu={\bs e}_0$, we get 

1376: from Proposition \ref{prop:g0} that $\gamma_{\bs\nu}=

1377: {\widetilde\gamma_{\bs\nu}}$.

1378: We prove the proposition by induction on $\bs\nu$ w.r.t.~the total order 

1379: $\prec$ of Definition~\ref{def:totord}, using Proposition \ref{prop:pui}.   

1380: For the remaining induction step, it suffices to show that $\gamma_{\bs\nu}

1381: \le{\widetilde\gamma_{\bs\nu}}$.

1382: 

1383: \smallskip

1384: 

1385: Assume that $\gamma_{\bs\mu }\le{\widetilde\gamma_{\bs\mu }}$ 

1386: holds for $\bs\mu \prec\bs\nu$. We group all terms in 

1387: eqn.~\eqref{form:faa}, evaluated at $\bs u=\bs u_0$, 

1388: which contain $g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)$, to the l.h.s. In the

1389: resulting equation, its l.h.s.~$L(s)$ satisfies asymptotically, 

1390: with $c_L$ a non-zero constant, $L(s)\sim c_L(u_c-u_0)^{-\gamma_{\bs

1391: \nu}+1/2}$ as $u_0\to u_c^-$, see the remark following the proof of 

1392: Proposition \ref{prop:pui}. By the reasoning in the proof of Proposition 

1393: \ref{prop:pui}, the r.h.s.~$R(s)$ of the equation satisfies asymptotically, 

1394: with $c_R$ a nonzero constant, $R(s)\sim c_R(u_c-u_0)^{-\gamma}$ as $u_0\to 

1395: u_c^-$. Using the induction assumption, the exponent $\gamma$ can be estimated by

1396: %

1397: \begin{equation*}

1398: \gamma \le \sum_{i=1}^s \gamma_{\bs\mu _i} |\bs\kappa_i|

1399: \le \sum_{i=1}^s \left( -\frac{1}{2} + \sum_{j=0}^M r_j (\bs\mu _{i})_j\right)|

1400: \bs\kappa_i|=  -\frac{|\bs\lambda|}{2}+\sum_{j=0}^M r_j\nu_j = 

1401: - \frac{(|\bs\lambda|-1)}{2}+\widetilde\gamma_{\bs\nu}.

1402: \end{equation*}

1403: %

1404: In the above expression, we used Lemma \ref{lemma:H} and the properties of 

1405: $p_s(\bs\nu,\bs\lambda)$ in Lemma \ref{lemma:faa}.  Since 

1406: $L(s)$ equals $R(s)$, we have $\gamma_{

1407: \bs\nu}-1/2=\gamma$. Thus, the estimate $\gamma_{\bs\nu}\le

1408: {\widetilde\gamma_{\bs\nu}}$ is satisfied for $|\bs\lambda |\ge2$. 

1409: Let us analyse the terms contributing to $|\bs\lambda|=1$ in Lemma 

1410: \ref{lemma:faa}. We have $s=1$, $|\bs\kappa_1|=1$ and $\bs\mu _1

1411: =\bs\nu$. Now, use Lemma \ref{lemma:H}. If in eqn.~\eqref{form:chain} 

1412: we have $|\bs\mu |=|\bs\nu|-l$ for some $l\in\{1,\ldots, |\bs\nu|\}$, 

1413: it follows that $\widetilde\gamma_{\bs\mu }\le \widetilde\gamma_{\bs\nu}

1414: -l\min_{0\le k\le M}\{r_k\}=\widetilde\gamma_{\bs\nu}-l$. Thus, terms with 

1415: exponent larger than $\widetilde\gamma_{\bs\nu}-1/2$ must have $l=0$. 

1416: If $|\bs\mu |=|\bs\nu|$ but $\bs\mu \ne \bs\nu$, 

1417: we have $\widetilde\gamma_{\bs\mu }\le \widetilde\gamma_{\bs\nu}-

1418: |r_j-r_k|$ for some indices $j, k\in\{0,\ldots, M\}$ satisfying $j\ne k$. 

1419: This means that the exponent estimate $\gamma_{\bs\nu}-1/2\le-1/2+

1420: \widetilde\gamma_{\bs\nu}$ is 

1421: satisfied as long as $|r_j-r_k|\ge 1/2$ for $j, k\in\{0,\ldots,M\}$ and $j\ne k$. This 

1422: condition is satisfied for the particular choice of exponents $r_i=(1+i/2)$ of 

1423: the proposition. Thus, the proposition has been proved.

1424: \end{proof}

1425: 

1426: The reasoning in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:est} can be refined in 

1427: order to obtain a recursion for the amplitudes $f_{{\bs\nu},0}$. 

1428: For vectors $\bs x=(x_1,\ldots, x_K)\in\mathbb R^K$ and

1429: $\bs y=(y_1,\ldots,y_K)\in\mathbb R^K$, we write 

1430: ${\bs x}\le {\bs y}$ if $x_i\le y_i$

1431: for $i=1,\ldots,K$. In the proof, we will use the ``large oh'' symbol:

1432: For functions $f(x)$ and $h(x)$, we write $f(x)={\cal O}(h(x))$ as 

1433: $x\to x_0$ in a domain $D$, if there exists a positive constant $C$ and 

1434: a neighbourhood $N(x_0)$ of $x_0$ such that $|f(x)|\le C |h(x)|$ for 

1435: all $x\in N(x_0)\cap D$.  

1436: 

1437: \begin{prop}\label{prop:rek}

1438: Let Assumption \ref{ass} be satisfied and fix $\bs\nu\in\mathbb N_0^{1+M}$.

1439: Then, the amplitudes $f_{\bs\nu,0}=f_{\bs\nu}$ of the

1440: Puiseux expansion eqn.~\eqref{form:genex} are, if ${\bs\nu}\ne {\bf 0}$ and 

1441: ${\bs\nu}\ne {\bs e}_0$, determined by the recursion

1442: %

1443: \begin{equation}\label{form:coefrek}

1444: f_{\bs\nu} = \mu_0 \gamma_{{\bs\nu}-{\bs e}_1}

1445: f_{{\bs\nu}-{\bs e}_1}+\sum_{i=1}^{M-1}\mu_i(\nu_i+1)

1446: f_{{\bs\nu}-{\bs e}_{i+1}+{\bs e}_i}-\frac{1}

1447: {2f_{\bf 0}}\sum_{\substack{{\bs\rho}\ne {\bf 0},{\bs\rho}

1448: \ne {\bs\nu}\\ {\bf 0}\le{\bs\rho}\le{\bs\nu}}}

1449: f_{\bs\rho}f_{{\bs\nu}-{\bs\rho}},

1450: \end{equation}

1451: %

1452: with boundary conditions $f_{\bf 0}=-\sqrt{C/B}<0$, $f_{{\bs e}_0}

1453: =-f_{\bf 0}/2>0$, and $f_{\bs\nu}=0$ if $\nu_j<0$ for some 

1454: $j\in\{1,\ldots,M\}$. We have 

1455: %

1456: \begin{equation*}

1457: \gamma_{\bs\nu}=-\frac{1}{2}+\sum_{i=0}^M \left(1+\frac{i}{2}\right)\nu_i.

1458: \end{equation*}

1459: % 

1460: For $i\in\{0,\ldots,M-1\}$, we have $\mu_i=-A_{i}/

1461: (2Bf_{\bf 0})\ge0$, and the number $A_i\ge0$ is given by

1462: %

1463: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:Ai}

1464: A_i=\sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{\partial v_i^{(j)}}{\partial u_{i+1}}({\bs u}_c)

1465: \frac{\partial P}{\partial y_j}({\bs u_c, \bs G(\bs u_c)}),

1466: \end{equation}

1467: %

1468: where $\bs u_c=(u_c,1,\ldots,1)$. If $\bs\nu\ne {\bf 0}$, the amplitudes 

1469: satisfy $f_{\bs\nu}\ge0$. This inequality is strict, if $A_i>0$ for $i=0,\ldots,M-1$.

1470: \end{prop}

1471: 

1472: \begin{proof}

1473: The amplitude $f_{\bs0}$ has been determined in Proposition \ref{prop:g0}.

1474: Assume that ${\bs\nu}\ne {\bf 0}$ and ${\bs\nu}\ne {\bs e}_0$.

1475: We group all terms in eqn.~\eqref{form:faa}, evaluated at $\bs u=\bs u_0$,

1476: which contain $g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)$, to the l.h.s.

1477: Using eqns.~\eqref{form:pref} and \eqref{form:facarmom}, the l.h.s.~$L(\bs u_0)$

1478: of the resulting equation is given by

1479: %

1480: \begin{equation*}

1481: L(\bs u_0)=\bs\nu! g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)P_{\bs e_1}({\bs u_0, \bs G(\bs u_0)})/

1482: \left(\frac{{\rm d}G}{{\rm d} u_0}({\bs u}_0)\right).

1483: \end{equation*}

1484: %

1485: Here, we used the identity

1486: %

1487: \begin{equation*}

1488: \frac{{\rm d}G}{{\rm d}u_0}({\bs u}_0)=

1489: \left(\sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{\partial P}{\partial y_j}({\bs u_0, \bs G(\bs u_0)})

1490: \right)\frac{{\rm d}G}{{\rm d}u_0}({\bs u}_0)+

1491: P_{\bs e_1}({\bs u_0, \bs G(\bs u_0)}),

1492: \end{equation*}

1493: %

1494: which is obtained from differentiating eqn.~\eqref{pgfeqn}.

1495: By the reasoning in the proof of Proposition 

1496: \ref{prop:est}, the r.h.s.~$R(u_0)$ of the resulting equation satisfies asymptotically, 

1497: with $c_R$ a nonzero constant, $R(u_0)\sim c_R(u_c-u_0)^{-(\gamma_{\bs\nu}-1/2)}$ as $u_0\to 

1498: u_c^-$. We collect all terms with exponents $\gamma_{\bs\nu}-1/2$. Due to 

1499: the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:est}, they arise from terms where $|\bs\lambda|=1$ 

1500: or $|\bs\lambda|=2$ in eqn.~\eqref{form:faa}. An explicit analysis using Lemma 

1501: \ref{lemma:H}, whose details we omit, leads to the following expressions. The 

1502: contribution arising from terms where $|\bs\lambda|=2$ is given by

1503: %

1504: \begin{equation*}

1505: \frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{j,k=1}^{N} \frac{\partial^2P}{\partial y_j\partial y_k}({\bs u_0, \bs 

1506: G(\bs u_0)})\right)\bs\nu!

1507: \sum_{\substack{\bs\rho\ne {\bf 0}, \bs\rho\ne \bs\nu\\{\bf 0}\le 

1508: \bs\rho\le \bs\nu}}g_{\bs\rho}(u_0)g_{\bs\nu-\bs\rho}

1509: (u_0).

1510: \end{equation*}

1511: %

1512: The contribution from terms where $|\bs\lambda|=1$ is given by

1513: %

1514: \begin{equation*}

1515: \sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{\partial P}{\partial y_j}({\bs u_0, \bs G(\bs u_0)})

1516: \sum_{i=0}^{M-1} (\bs\nu+{\bs e}_i)!

1517: \frac{\partial v_i^{(j)}}{\partial u_{i+1}}({\bs u}_0)

1518: g_{\bs\nu+{\bs e}_i-{\bs e}_{i+1}}(u_0).

1519: \end{equation*}

1520: %

1521: Omitting arguments and normalising the l.h.s., we arrive at the equation

1522: %

1523: \begin{equation*}

1524: \begin{split}

1525: g_{\bs\nu}=&\frac{\sum \frac{\partial^2P}{\partial y_j\partial y_k}}{2P_{\bs e_1}}G'

1526: \left( \sum g_{\bs\rho}g_{\bs\nu-\bs\rho}\right)

1527: +\frac{G'}{P_{\bs e_1}}\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{\partial P}{\partial y_j}

1528: \frac{\partial v_0^{(j)}}{\partial u_1}g_{\bs\nu-{\bs e}_1}'\\

1529: &+\frac{G'}{P_{\bs e_1}}\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{\partial P}{\partial y_j} \sum_{i=1}^M (\nu_i+1)

1530: \frac{\partial v_i^{(j)}}{\partial u_{i+1}} g_{\bs\nu+{\bs e}_i-{\bs e}_{i+1}}

1531: +{\cal O}\left((u_c-u_0)^{-\gamma_{\bs\nu}+1/2}\right)

1532: \end{split}

1533: \end{equation*}

1534: %

1535: as $u_0\to u_c^-$, where $()'$ denotes differentiation w.r.t. $u_0$. We have $G'=g_{{\bs e}_1}$ 

1536: and $f_{{\bs e}_1}=-f_{\bf 0}/2>0$. The implied recursion for the amplitudes $f_{{\bs\nu},0}$

1537: is given by

1538: %

1539: \begin{equation*}

1540: \begin{split}

1541: f_{\bs\nu}=&\frac{\sum  \frac{\partial^2P}{\partial y_j\partial y_k}}{2P_{\bs e_1}}

1542: \left(-\frac{f_{{\bf 0}}}{2}\right)\left( \sum f_{\bs\rho}f_{\bs\nu-\bs\rho}\right)

1543: -\frac{f_{\bf 0}}{2P_{\bs e_1}}\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{\partial P}{\partial y_j}

1544: \frac{\partial v_0^{(j)}}{\partial u_1}\gamma_{\bs\nu-{\bs e}_1} f_{\bs\nu-{\bs e}_1}\\

1545: &-\frac{f_{{\bf 0}}}{2P_{\bs e_1}}\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{\partial P}{\partial y_j}

1546: \sum_{i=1}^M (\nu_i+1)\frac{\partial v_i^{(j)}}{\partial u_{i+1}} f_{\bs\nu+{\bs e}_i-{\bs e}_{i+1}}.

1547: \end{split}

1548: \end{equation*}

1549: %

1550: After rewriting prefactors, using eqn.~\eqref{form:lett} and Proposition 

1551: \ref{prop:pui}, we arrive at eqn.~\eqref{form:coefrek}.

1552: 

1553: We show strict positivity of the amplitudes, if $A_i>0$ for $i=0,\ldots,M-1$. 

1554: For $|{\bs\nu}|\ge2$, all prefactors of $f_{\bs\mu }$ in eqn.~\eqref{form:coefrek} are

1555: non-negative. For the first term, this follows from the estimate

1556: %

1557: \begin{equation*}

1558: \gamma_{{\bs\nu}-{\bs e}_1}

1559: = \left(-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{3}{2}+\sum_{i=0}^M\frac{i+2}{2} \nu_i \right)

1560: \ge -2+|{\bs\nu}|\ge0.

1561: \end{equation*}

1562: %

1563: Moreover, the last sum in eqn.~\eqref{form:coefrek} is over a nonempty set of 

1564: indices $\bs\rho$ and has a strictly positive prefactor. For $|{\bs\nu}|=1$ and 

1565: ${\bs\nu}\ne {\bs e}_1$, the first term in eqn.~\eqref{form:coefrek} is zero, 

1566: whereas the prefactors of $f_{\bs\mu }$ in the second term are strictly positive. 

1567: Note finally that $f_{{\bs e}_1}=\mu_0\gamma_{\bf0}f_{\bf0}>0$, as is readily inferred from 

1568: eqn.~\eqref{form:coefrek}. This leads, by induction, to strictly positive 

1569: amplitudes $f_{\bs\nu}$. The same argument shows that $f_{\bs\nu}\ge{\bf 0}$

1570: for $\bs\nu\ne\bf0$.

1571: \end{proof}

1572: 

1573: \section{Method of dominant balance}\label{sec:dom}

1574: 

1575: We now discuss an altervative method to obtain the recursion for the 

1576: amplitudes $f_{\bs\nu}$ in eqn.~\eqref{form:coefrek}, if 

1577: $\nu_0=0$. It is based on a generating function approach, and generally 

1578: easier to apply than the combinatorial approach in the proof of 

1579: Proposition \ref{prop:rek}, which was based on an application of Faa 

1580: di Bruno's formula. It also allows to analyse corrections to the 

1581: leading singular behaviour of the factorial moment generating functions. 

1582: Introduce parameters $\delta_i=1-u_i$, where $i\in\{1,\ldots,M\}$, and 

1583: set $\bs\delta =(\delta_1, \ldots, \delta_M)$. From now on, we 

1584: consider factorial moment generating functions $g_{\bs\nu}(u_0)$ 

1585: for $\nu_0=0$ only. For ${\bs k}=(k_1,\ldots, k_M)\in\mathbb 

1586: N_0^M$, set $g_{\bs k}(u_0)=g_{(0, \bs k)}(u_0)$, 

1587: $f_{\bs k}(u_0)=f_{(0,\bs k)}(u_0)$, and $\gamma_{

1588: \bs k}(u_0)=\gamma_{(0,\bs k)}(u_0)$.

1589: 

1590: \begin{prop}\label{prop:db1}

1591: Assume that the $q$-functional equation~\eqref{form:funceq} has the solution 

1592: $G(u_0,\bs u_+)\in{\cal H}_{d(P)}(\bs u_+)[[u_0]]$ such that $G(0,\bs u_+)=0$. 

1593: Then ${\widetilde G}(u_0, \bs\delta):=G(u_0,1-\delta_1, \ldots, 1-\delta_M)\in

1594: \mathbb C[[u_0,\bs\delta]]$ is a formal power series, given by

1595: %

1596: \begin{equation*}

1597: {\widetilde G}(u_0,\bs\delta) = 

1598: \sum_{{\bs k} \ge \bs 0} (-1)^{\bs k} 

1599: g_{\bs k}(u_0) {\bs\delta}^{\bs k},

1600: \end{equation*}

1601: %

1602: where $g_{\bs k}(u_0)=g_{(0, \bs k)}(u_0)\in\mathbb C[[u_0]]$ 

1603: are the factorial moment generating functions \eqref{form:facarmom}.

1604: \end{prop}

1605: 

1606: \begin{proof}

1607: Proposition \ref{prop:uni} states that $G({\bs u})\in\mathcal{H}_{d(P)}(\bs u_+)[[u_0]]$.

1608: Thus ${\widetilde G}(u_0,\bs\delta)\in\mathcal{H}_{d(P)-1}(\bs \delta)[[u_0]]\subset\mathbb 

1609: C[[\bs\delta]][[u_0]]=\mathbb C[[u_0,\bs\delta]]$. We thus have

1610: %

1611: \begin{equation*}

1612: {\widetilde G}(u_0,\bs\delta) = 

1613: \sum_{\bs k\ge\bf 0} 

1614: h_{\bs k}(u_0) {\bs\delta}^{\bs k},

1615: \end{equation*}

1616: %

1617: for some $h_{\bs k}(u_0)\in\mathbb C[[u_0]]$. By Taylor's formula, we have

1618: %

1619: \begin{equation*}

1620: h_{\bs k}(u_0)=\left.\frac{1}{\bs k!}

1621: {\widetilde G}_{(0,\bs k)}

1622: (u_0,\bs\delta)\right|_{\bs\delta={\bf  0}}=

1623: \left.\frac{(-1)^{\bs k}}{\bs k!}

1624: G_{(0,\bs k)}({\bs u})\right|_{\bs u= \bs u_0}=

1625: (-1)^{\bs k}

1626: g_{\bs k}(u_0),

1627: \end{equation*}

1628: %

1629: and the proposition is proved.

1630: \end{proof}

1631: 

1632: Let $\mathbb C((s))$ denote the field of formal Laurent series $f(s)=

1633: \sum_{l\ge l_0}f_l s^l$, where $l_0\in\mathbb Z$ and $f_l\in\mathbb C$ 

1634: for $l\ge l_0$. Employing the Puiseux expansions of the factorial moment 

1635: generating functions, we have an alternative representation of the 

1636: generating function $G({\bs u})$.

1637: 

1638: \begin{prop}\label{prop:scalbeh}

1639: Let Assumption \ref{ass} be satisfied.

1640: Replace the coefficients $g_{\bs k}(u_0)$ of ${\widetilde G}

1641: (u_0, \bs\delta)\in\mathbb C[[u_0,\bs\delta]]$ in 

1642: Proposition \ref{prop:db1} by their Puiseux expansions of Propositions 

1643: \ref{prop:g0} and \ref{prop:pui}, and denote the resulting series by 

1644: ${\widetilde G}(s, \bs\delta)\in\mathbb C((s))[[\bs \delta]]$.

1645: It is explicitly given by

1646: %

1647: \begin{equation*}

1648: {\widetilde G}(s, \bs\delta)=G({\bs u_c})+

1649: \sum_{\bs k\ge\bf0}\left(\sum_{l=0}^\infty

1650: (-1)^{\bs k}f_{{\bs k},l}s^{-\gamma_{\bs k}+l/2}

1651: \right) \bs\delta^{\bs k},

1652: \end{equation*}

1653: %

1654: where $\gamma_{\bs k}=-1/2+\sum_{i=1}^M(1+i/2)k_i$,

1655: where the numbers $f_{{\bs k},l}=f_{(0,{\bs k}),l}$ are 

1656: defined in eqn.~\eqref{form:genex0} and in eqn.~\eqref{form:genex},

1657: and where $\bs u_c=(u_c,1,\ldots,1)$.

1658: 

1659: \smallskip

1660: 

1661: Then, the rescaled series $G({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))=

1662: {\widetilde G}(s,\epsilon_1s^3,\epsilon_2s^4,\ldots,\epsilon_Ms^{M+2})

1663: \in\mathbb C[[s,\bs \epsilon]]$ is a \emph{formal power series},

1664: %

1665: \begin{equation}\label{form:scaling}

1666: G({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon)) = G({\bs u_c}) + s F\left(s,

1667: \bs\epsilon\right),

1668: \end{equation}

1669: %

1670: where $F(s,\bs\epsilon)\in\mathbb C[[s, \bs\epsilon]]$ is 

1671: given by

1672: %

1673: \begin{equation}\label{form:Fl}

1674: F(s, \bs\epsilon)=\sum_{l=0}^\infty F_l({\bs\epsilon}) s^l,

1675: \qquad F_l(\bs\epsilon)=\sum_{\bs k\ge\bf0} 

1676: (-1)^{\bs k}f_{{\bs k},l}

1677: {\bs\epsilon}^{\bs k}.

1678: \end{equation}

1679: %

1680: \end{prop}

1681: 

1682: \begin{proof}

1683: Due to Propositions \ref{prop:g0} and \ref{prop:pui}, we have 

1684: $g_{\bs k}(u_0)\in\mathbb C((s))$, where $s=\sqrt{u_c-u_0}$. The 

1685: explicit form \eqref{form:scaling} follows immediately from the Puiseux expansions 

1686: in Propositions \ref{prop:g0} and \ref{prop:pui}, together with

1687: the exponent estimate in Proposition \ref{prop:est}. 

1688: \end{proof}

1689: 

1690: \noindent {\bf Remarks.}

1691: $i)$ Equations like eqn.~\eqref{form:scaling} appear in statistical mechanics as

1692: a so-called \emph{scaling Ansatz}, being an assumption on the behaviour of a generating

1693: function near a multicritical point singularity \cite{J00}, see also \cite{BFG03,KS05}. Its validity 

1694: has been proved only in a limited number of examples. Here, we employ the 

1695: different framework of formal power series.\\

1696: $ii)$ Proposition \ref{prop:scalbeh} suggests an alternative strategy to compute the 

1697: singular behaviour of the factorial moment generating functions. We consider the

1698: functional equation for $F(s,\bs\epsilon)\in\mathbb C[[s, \bs\epsilon]]$,

1699: which is induced by the $q$-functional equation for $G(\bs u)$. Writing

1700: $F(s, \bs\epsilon)=\sum_{l\ge0} F_l({\bs\epsilon}) s^l$,

1701: where $F_l({\bs\epsilon}) \in\mathbb C[[\bs\epsilon]]$, then

1702: leads to a partial differential equation for $F_l({\bs\epsilon})$, upon 

1703: expanding the induced functional equation in powers of $s$. Note that this algorithm,

1704: which is computationally involved, can be easily implemented in a computer algebra 

1705: system. The above method is called in statistical mechanics the method of {\em dominant 

1706: balance}, see \cite{PB95a,R02}. It can be applied in our framework, if an exponent 

1707: bound like that of Proposition \ref{prop:est} is known. Such bounds are generally 

1708: easier to obtain than explicit recursions for amplitudes, see the above proofs.

1709: 

1710: \begin{prop}\label{prop:newfeqn}

1711: Let Assumption \ref{ass} be satisfied.

1712: Define the power series ${\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon)=(u_0(s,\bs\epsilon), 

1713: \ldots, u_M(s,\bs\epsilon))$, where

1714: %

1715: \begin{equation*}

1716: u_0(s,\bs\epsilon)=u_c-s^2, \qquad 

1717: u_i(s,\bs\epsilon)=1-\epsilon_is^{i+2} \qquad (i=1,\ldots,M).

1718: \end{equation*}

1719: %

1720: For a $q$-shift $\bs v$, define the induced $q$-shift $s_{{\bs v}}$ of $s$ and the 

1721: induced $q$-shift $\bs\epsilon_{{\bs v}}=(\epsilon_{1,{\bs v}}, \ldots, 

1722: \epsilon_{M,{\bs v}})$ of $\bs\epsilon$ by

1723: %

1724: \begin{equation*}

1725: \begin{split}

1726: s_{{\bs v}}&=s_{{\bs v}}(s,\bs\epsilon)=

1727: \sqrt{u_c-v_0({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))},\\

1728: \epsilon_{i,{\bs v}}

1729: &=\epsilon_{i,{\bs v}}(s,\bs\epsilon)=

1730: \frac{1-v_i({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))}{s_{{\bs v}}

1731: (s,\bs\epsilon)^{i+2}} \qquad (i=1,\ldots,M).

1732: \end{split}

1733: \end{equation*}

1734: %

1735: We then have $s_{{\bs v}}\in\mathbb C[[s, \bs\epsilon]]$ and 

1736: $\epsilon_{i,{\bs v}}\in\mathbb C[[s, \bs\epsilon]]$ for $i=1,\ldots,M$.

1737: The functional equation for $F(s, \bs\epsilon)\in\mathbb C[[s, 

1738: \bs\epsilon]]$ of Proposition \ref{prop:scalbeh}, induced by 

1739: eqn.~\eqref{form:funceq}, is given by

1740: %

1741: \begin{equation}\label{form:funcind}

1742: G({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))=P( {\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon),

1743: {\bs H}({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))).

1744: \end{equation}

1745: %

1746: In the above equation, $G({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))$ is given by 

1747: eqn.~\eqref{form:scaling}, and the power series $H^{(j)}({\bs u}

1748: (s,\bs\epsilon))$ are given by

1749: %

1750: \begin{equation*}

1751: H^{(j)}({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon)) = G({\bs u_c})+s_{{\bs v}^{(j)}}

1752: F(s_{{\bs v}^{(j)}},\bs\epsilon_{{\bs v}^{(j)}}) \qquad (1\le j\le N).

1753: \end{equation*}

1754: \end{prop}

1755: 

1756: \begin{proof}

1757: This follows from direct computation. Note first that the Taylor expansions 

1758: of the power series $v_k({\bs u})$ about ${\bs u}={\bs u}_0$ 

1759: are of the form

1760: %

1761: \begin{equation}\label{form:taylvk}

1762: v_k({\bs u})= v_k({\bs u}_0) +

1763: \sum_{\substack{\bs l\ne 0\\ \bs l\ge 0}}

1764: \frac{(-1)^{\bs l}}{\bs l !} v_{k,\bs l}

1765: ({\bs u}_0)(1-u_1)^{l_1}\cdot\ldots\cdot(1-u_M)^{l_M} \qquad (k=0,\ldots,M).

1766: \end{equation}

1767: %

1768: Now insert the parametrisations $u_k(s,\bs\epsilon)\in \mathbb 

1769: C[s,\bs\epsilon]$, where $k=0,\ldots,M$. We get $v_k({\bs u}

1770: (s,\bs\epsilon))\in\mathbb C[[{s,\bs\epsilon}]]$. Due to the 

1771: $q$-shift properties, we have

1772: %

1773: \begin{equation*}

1774: \begin{split}

1775: &v_0({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))=u_c-s^2-\frac{\partial v_0}{\partial u_1}

1776: ({\bs u}_c) \epsilon_1s^3+{\cal O}(s^4),\\

1777: &v_k({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))= 1-\epsilon_ks^{k+2}-

1778: \frac{\partial v_k}{\partial u_{k+1}}({\bs u}_c)\epsilon_{k+1}s^{k+3} + 

1779: {\cal O}(s^{k+4}) \qquad (k=1,\ldots,M-1),\\

1780: &v_M({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))= 1-\epsilon_Ms^{M+2}+ {\cal O}(s^{M+3}).

1781: \end{split}

1782: \end{equation*}

1783: %

1784: We thus have $v_0({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))=u_c-s^2-s^3R_0(s,\bs

1785: \epsilon)$ and $v_k({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))=1-s^{k+2}R_k(s,\bs

1786: \epsilon)$ for $k=1,\ldots,M$, where $R_i(s,\bs\epsilon)\in\mathbb 

1787: C[[s, \bs\epsilon]]$ for $i=0,\ldots,M$. For $s_{{\bs v}}$, we get

1788: %

1789: \begin{equation*}

1790: s_{{\bs v}}=\sqrt{u_c-v_0({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))}=

1791: s\sqrt{1-sR_0(s,\bs\epsilon)}.

1792: \end{equation*}

1793: %

1794: We thus have $s_{{\bs v}}\in\mathbb C[[s, \bs\epsilon]]$ 

1795: and $s_{{\bs v}}(0,\bs\epsilon)=0$. We get

1796: %

1797: \begin{equation*}

1798: \epsilon_{i,{\bs v}}=\frac{1-v_i({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))}

1799: {s_{{\bs v}}^{i+2}}=\frac{R_i(s,\bs\epsilon)}{\sqrt{1-sR(s,

1800: \bs\epsilon)}^{i+2}} \qquad (i=1,\ldots,M).

1801: \end{equation*}

1802: %

1803: It follows that $\epsilon_{i,{\bs v}}\in\mathbb C[[s, \bs\epsilon]]$, 

1804: where $i=1,\ldots,M$. Furthermore, we get from eqn.~\eqref{form:taylvk}

1805: %

1806: \begin{equation*}

1807: \epsilon_{i,{\bs v}}(0,\bs\epsilon)=R_i(0,\bs\epsilon)=

1808: \epsilon_i,

1809: \end{equation*}

1810: % 

1811: such that $\bs\epsilon_{{\bs v}}(0,\bs\epsilon)=\bs\epsilon$. 

1812: This ensures that eqn.~\eqref{form:funcind} is well-defined for  

1813: $F(s, \bs\epsilon)\in\mathbb C[[s, \bs\epsilon]]$.

1814: \end{proof}

1815: 

1816: \begin{prop}\label{theo:pde}

1817: Let Assumption \ref{ass} be satisfied. The formal power series

1818: $F_0(\bs\epsilon)\in\mathbb C[[\bs\epsilon]]$

1819: satisfies the singular, quasi-linear partial differential equation of first order

1820: %

1821: \begin{equation}\label{form:res}

1822: \sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{\partial P}{\partial y_j}(\bs u_c, \bs G(\bs u_c)) \left( \frac{1}{2}

1823: \frac{\partial v_0^{(j)}}{\partial u_1}({\bs u}_c)\epsilon_1 F_0(\bs\epsilon) +

1824: \sum_{i=1}^M h_i^{(j)}(\bs\epsilon) \frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon_i}

1825: F_0(\bs\epsilon) \right) +B F_0^2(\bs\epsilon)-C=0,

1826: \end{equation}

1827: %

1828: where the numbers $B$, $C$ are defined in eqn.~\eqref{form:lett}, and the 

1829: formal power series $h_i^{(j)}(\bs\epsilon)$ are given by

1830: %

1831: \begin{equation}\label{form:hi}

1832: \begin{split}

1833: &h_i^{(j)}(\bs\epsilon)=\frac{\partial v_i^{(j)}}{\partial u_{i+1}}({\bs u}_c)

1834: \epsilon_{i+1}-\frac{i+2}{2}\frac{\partial v_0^{(j)}}{\partial u_{1}}({\bs u}_c)

1835: \epsilon_1\epsilon_i \qquad (i=1,\ldots, M-1),\\

1836: &h_M^{(j)}(\bs\epsilon)=-\frac{M+2}{2}\frac{\partial v_0^{(j)}}

1837: {\partial u_{1}}({\bs u}_c)\epsilon_1\epsilon_M.

1838: \end{split}

1839: \end{equation}

1840: %

1841: \end{prop}

1842: 

1843: \begin{proof}

1844: Using the expansions in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:newfeqn}, it 

1845: is readily inferred that the power series $s_{{\bs v}}$ and $\bs

1846: \epsilon_{{\bs v}}$ are, to leading orders in $s$, given by

1847: %

1848: \begin{equation*}

1849: \begin{split}

1850: &s_{{\bs v}^{(j)}}= s+ \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial v_0^{(j)}}

1851: {\partial u_{1}}({\bs u}_c)\epsilon_1 s^2 +{\cal O}(s^3),\\

1852: &\epsilon_{i,{\bs v}^{(j)}}= \epsilon_i+h_i^{(j)}(\bs\epsilon)s

1853: +{\cal O}(s^2) \qquad (i=1,\ldots, M-1),

1854: \end{split}

1855: \end{equation*}

1856: %

1857: with $h_i^{(j)}(\bs\epsilon)$ as defined in eqn.~\eqref{form:hi}.

1858: Using this result, we compute the expansion of $H^{(j)}({\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))$

1859: up to order $s^2$. This yields

1860: %

1861: \begin{equation*}

1862: \begin{split}

1863: H^{(j)}(&{\bs u}(s,\bs\epsilon))  = G({\bs u_c})+

1864: s_{{\bs v}^{(j)}}F(s_{{\bs v}^{(j)}},\bs

1865: \epsilon_{{\bs v}^{(j)}})\\

1866: &= G({\bs u_c}) + F_0(\bs\epsilon)s +

1867: \left( F_1(\bs\epsilon)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial v_0^{(j)}}

1868: {\partial u_{1}}({\bs u}_c)\epsilon_1 F_0(\bs\epsilon)

1869: + \sum_{i=1}^M h_i^{(j)}(\bs\epsilon) \frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon_i}

1870: F_0(\bs\epsilon)\right)s^2 +{\cal O}(s^3).

1871: \end{split}

1872: \end{equation*}

1873: %

1874: Now expand the functional equation \eqref{form:funcind} to leading orders in 

1875: $s$. Terms of order $s^0$ vanish due to eqn.~\eqref{pgfeqn}, evaluated at 

1876: ${\bs u_0}={\bs u_c}$. Terms of order $s^1$ vanish due the 

1877: condition $\sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{\partial P}{\partial y_j}(\bs u_c, \bs 

1878: G(\bs u_c))=1$. Terms of order $s^2$ lead to the partial differential 

1879: equation given above.

1880: \end{proof}

1881: 

1882: \noindent {\bf Remarks.}

1883: {\it i)} For $M>2$, it is an open question whether closed form solutions 

1884: for $F_0(\bs\epsilon)$ exist. See \cite{NT03b} for a discussion of the cases

1885: $M=1$ and $M=2$.\\

1886: {\it ii)} The above method can also be used to derive 

1887: partial differential equations characterising the generating functions 

1888: $F_l(s,\bs\epsilon)$ of the amplitudes $f_{{\bs k},l}$ 

1889: for $l>0$. These equations arise in the expansion of the $q$-functional 

1890: equation in $s$ at order $l+2$, see \cite{R02} for examples where $M=1$.

1891: 

1892: \medskip

1893: 

1894: The above theorem leads to an alternative derivation of the recursion 

1895: eqn.~\eqref{form:coefrek} of Proposition \ref{prop:rek} in the case 

1896: $\nu_0=0$.

1897: 

1898: \begin{proof}[Alternative proof of eqn.~\eqref{form:coefrek}]

1899: We set $F_0(\bs\epsilon)=K(-\bs\epsilon)+f_{{\bf 0},0}$ 

1900: and rewrite eqn.~\eqref{form:res} in the form

1901: %

1902: \begin{equation}\label{form:ee1}

1903: K(\bs\epsilon)=\sum_{i=1}^M \frac{i+2}{2}\mu_0\epsilon_1\epsilon_i

1904: \frac{\partial K(\bs\epsilon)}{\partial \epsilon_i}+\sum_{i=1}^{M-1} 

1905: \mu_i\epsilon_{i+1}\frac{\partial K(\bs\epsilon)}{\partial \epsilon_i}

1906: -\frac{\mu_0}{2}\epsilon_1(K(\bs\epsilon)+f_{{\bf 0},0})-\frac{1}

1907: {2f_{{\bf 0},0}}K(\bs\epsilon)^2,

1908: \end{equation}

1909: %

1910: where $K({\bf 0})=0$, and the constants $\mu_i$ are, for $i\in\{0,\ldots,M-1\}$, 

1911: given by $\mu_i=-A_i/(2Bf_{{\bf 0},0})$, with $A_i$ defined in eqn.~\eqref{eqn:Ai}.

1912: This leads to the recursion eqn.~\eqref{form:coefrek} for the coeffients 

1913: $f_{\bs\nu}$ in Proposition \ref{prop:rek}, if we set $\bs

1914: \nu=(0,{\bs k})$.

1915: \end{proof}

1916: 

1917: 

1918: \section{Growth of amplitudes}\label{sec:growth}

1919: 

1920: We are interested in the growth of the coefficents $f_{\bs\nu,0}$,

1921: which appear in Proposition \ref{prop:rek} and in Proposition \ref{theo:pde}, 

1922: in the case $\nu_0=0$. To this end, we study properties of the partial 

1923: differential equation of the associated generating function $F_0(\bs

1924: \epsilon)$ of eqn.~\eqref{form:Fl}, given by

1925: %

1926: \begin{equation*}

1927: F_0(\bs\epsilon)=\sum_{\bs k\ge\bf0} (-1)^{\bs k}

1928: f_{{\bs k},0}{\bs\epsilon}^{\bs k}.

1929: \end{equation*}

1930: 

1931: \begin{prop}\label{theo:gr}

1932: For a $q$-functional equation, let Assumption \ref{ass} be satisfied.

1933: There exist positive real numbers $D, R_1,\ldots,R_M$, such that

1934: %

1935: \begin{equation*}

1936: |f_{{\bs k},0}| \le D (k_1+\ldots+k_M)! \, (R_1)^{k_1}\cdot\ldots

1937: \cdot(R_M)^{k_M}

1938: \end{equation*}

1939: %

1940: for all $\bs k\ge\bf0$.

1941: \end{prop}

1942: 

1943: For the proof of the proposition, we apply the technique of majorising series.

1944: A formal power series $g=\sum_{\bs k} g_{\bs k} 

1945: {\bs x}^{\bs k}$ majorises a formal power series $h=

1946: \sum_{\bs k} h_{\bs k} {\bs x}^{\bs k}$ if 

1947: $|g_{\bs k}|\le |{\bs k}|!h_{\bs k}$ for all 

1948: ${\bs k}\ge{\bf 0}$. We then write $g\ll h$. We have the following relations.

1949: 

1950: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:maj}

1951: Let $g\ll h$. Then 

1952: \begin{equation}

1953: g^2\ll h^2, \qquad x_1g\ll x_1h, \qquad

1954: x_1x_i\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_i}\ll x_1 h, \qquad

1955: x_{j+1}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_j}\ll x_{j+1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial x_j},

1956: \end{equation}

1957: for $i=1,\ldots,M$ and $j=1,\ldots, M-1$.

1958: \end{lemma}

1959: 

1960: \begin{proof}[Sketch of proof]

1961: These relations are checked by direct computation. If $i=2,\ldots,M$, we have

1962: $x_1x_i\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_i}=\sum k_ig_{{\bs k}-

1963: {\bs e}_1}{\bs x}^{\bs k}$. Thus $|k_ig_{{\bs k}-

1964: {\bs e}_1}|\le (|{\bs k}|-1)! k_ih_{{\bs k}-

1965: {\bs e}_1}\le |{\bs k}|!h_{{\bs k}-{\bs e}_1}$, 

1966: and the statement follows. The remaining assertations are proved similarly.

1967: \end{proof}

1968: 

1969: \begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{theo:gr}]

1970: Starting with $K(\bs\epsilon)$, defined in eqn.~\eqref{form:ee1}, 

1971: we introduce the majorant equation

1972: %

1973: \begin{equation}\label{form:ee2}

1974: L(\bs\epsilon)=\mu_0\left(\sum_{i=1}^M \frac{i+2}{2}\right) \epsilon_1 

1975: L(\bs\epsilon)

1976: +\frac{\mu_0}{2}\epsilon_1(L(\bs\epsilon)+|f_{{\bf 0},0}|)

1977: +\frac{1}{2|f_{{\bf 0},0}|}

1978: L(\bs\epsilon)^2

1979: + \sum_{i=1}^{M-1} \mu_i\epsilon_{i+1}

1980: \frac{\partial L(\bs\epsilon)}{\partial \epsilon_i}.

1981: \end{equation}

1982: %

1983: The last equation uniquely defines a power series with non-negative 

1984: coefficients and positive radius of convergence, satisfying $L({\bf 0})=0$. 

1985: It belongs to a class of singular partial differential equations with regular 

1986: solutions, which is discussed in 

1987: \cite[Thm.~2.8.2.1 and Sec.~2.9.5]{GT96}. To prove that 

1988: $K(\bs\epsilon)\ll L(\bs\epsilon)$, denote the 

1989: r.h.s. of eqn.~\eqref{form:ee1} by $RK$ and the r.h.s.~of eqn.~\eqref{form:ee2} by 

1990: $\widehat RL$. By construction, $g\ll h$ implies $Rg \ll \widehat R h$. We use 

1991: an iteration argument. Set $K_0=L_0=0$. Clearly $K_0\ll L_0$. Define 

1992: $K_n=RK_{n-1}$ and $L_n=\widehat R L_{n-1}$ for $n\in\mathbb N$. We have 

1993: $K_n\ll L_n$ for $n\in\mathbb N_0$, due to Lemma \ref{lem:maj}. Thus 

1994: $K(\bs\epsilon)\ll L(\bs\epsilon)$ for the 

1995: formal solutions $K(\bs\epsilon)$ of eqn.~\eqref{form:ee1} and 

1996: $L(\bs\epsilon)$ of eqn.~\eqref{form:ee2}. Since 

1997: $L(\bs\epsilon)$ is regular, we have the estimate

1998: %

1999: \begin{equation*}

2000: |f_{{\bs k},0}| \le |{\bs k}|! [\bs\epsilon^{\bs k}]

2001: L(\bs\epsilon)\le D |{\bs k}|! {\bs R}^{\bs k}

2002: \end{equation*}

2003: %

2004: for some real constants $D>0$ and $R_i>0$, where $i=1,\ldots,M$.

2005: \end{proof}

2006: 

2007: 

2008: \section{Moments and limit distributions}\label{sec:mom}

2009: 

2010: In the following, we give a probabilistic interpretation of the obtained results.

2011: This generalises the discussion of Dyck paths in the introduction, before 

2012: Proposition~\ref{prop:dyckmom}, to the case of a general $q$-functional equation,

2013: and will prove part \textit{i)} of Theorem~\ref{theo:probdist}. For technical reasons 

2014: (Lemma~\ref{lem:Levy}), we will not use random variables below, but rather argue

2015: with the associated probability measures.

2016: 

2017: \smallskip

2018: 

2019: For a $q$-functional equation, let Assumption \ref{ass} be satisfied. Then, 

2020: the coefficients $p_{\bs n}$ in a solution $G({\bs u})= \sum_{\bs 

2021: n\ge 0} p_{\bs n}{\bs u^n}$, such that $G(\bs0)=0$, are non-negative. Assume that the 

2022: numbers $A_i$ of Proposition \ref{prop:rek} satisfy $A_i>0$ for $i=0,\ldots, M-1$. 

2023: We then have $f_{{\bs k},0}>0$ for all ${\bs k}\ge {\bf 0}$ and 

2024: ${\bs k}\neq {\bf 0}$. This implies that $\sum_{n_1,\ldots,n_M}

2025: p_{n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_M}>0$ for almost all $n_0$, see eqn.~\eqref{form:coefas} below. 

2026: Fix $N_0\in\mathbb N$ such that strict positivity holds for all $n_0\ge N_0$. 

2027: For $n_0\ge N_0$, we define discrete Borel probability measures $\widetilde\mu_{n_0}$ 

2028: by

2029: %

2030: \begin{equation*}

2031: \widetilde\mu_{n_0}=\sum_{n_1,\ldots,n_M} \frac{p_{n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_M}}{\sum_{m_1,

2032: \ldots,m_M} p_{n_0,m_1,\ldots,m_M}} \delta_{(n_1,\ldots,n_M)} ,

2033: \end{equation*}

2034: %

2035: compare eqn.~\eqref{eq:pxt} in the introduction.

2036: Their corresponding moments are, for ${\bs k}\in\mathbb N_0^M$, given by

2037: %

2038: \begin{equation}\label{form:tilmom}

2039: \widetilde m_{\bs k}(n_0) = \frac{\sum_{n_1,\ldots,n_M} n_1^{k_1}\cdot\ldots

2040: \cdot n_M^{k_M} p_{n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_M}}{\sum_{n_1,\ldots,n_M} p_{n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_M}}.

2041: \end{equation}

2042: 

2043: We are interested in the asymptotic behaviour of the moments $\widetilde 

2044: m_{\bs k}(n_0)$, as $n_0$ tends to infinity. This will be obtained by an 

2045: analysis of the coefficients of the factorial moment generating functions, 

2046: which relies on a transfer lemma \cite[Thm.~1]{FO90}.

2047: 

2048: \begin{lemma}[Transfer lemma \cite{FO90}]

2049: Suppose that $F(z)=\sum_{n\ge0}f_nz^n$ has a singularity at $z=z_c$ and is

2050: $\Delta$-regular, i.e., it is analytic in the domain

2051: %

2052: \begin{equation*}

2053: \Delta=\{z:|z|\le z_c+\eta, |{\rm arg}(z-z_c)|\ge\phi\}

2054: \end{equation*}

2055: %

2056: for some $\eta>0$ and $0<\phi<\pi/2$. Assume that, as $z\to z_c$ in $\Delta$,

2057: %

2058: \begin{equation*}

2059: F(z) = {\cal O} \left( (z_c-z)^\alpha \right)

2060: \end{equation*}

2061: %

2062: for some real $\alpha$. Then, the $n$-th Taylor coefficient $f_n$ of $F(z)$ satisfies

2063: %

2064: \begin{equation*}

2065: f_n={\cal O}(z_c^{-n} n^{-1-\alpha}) \qquad (n\to\infty).

2066: \end{equation*}

2067: \qed

2068: \end{lemma}

2069: 

2070: The following lemma characterises the asymptotic behaviour

2071: of the moments $\widetilde m_{\bs k}(n_0)$, as $n_0$ tends to infinity.

2072: 

2073: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:pos}

2074: Let Assumption \ref{ass} be satisfied. Assume that the 

2075: numbers $A_i$ of Proposition \ref{prop:rek} satisfy $A_i>0$ for 

2076: $i=0,\ldots, M-1$. Then the  moments $\widetilde m_{\bs k}(n_0)$ 

2077: eqn.~\eqref{form:tilmom} are well-defined for almost all $n_0$. They  

2078: are for ${\bs k}\in\mathbb N_0^M$ asymptotically given by

2079: %

2080: \begin{equation*}

2081: \widetilde m_{\bs k}(n_0)= \frac{{\bs k}!}{f_{{\bf 0},0}

2082: u_c^{\gamma_{\bs k}-\gamma_{\bf 0}}}

2083: \frac{\Gamma(\gamma_{\bf 0})}{\Gamma(\gamma_{\bs k})}f_{{\bs k},0}

2084: n_0^{\gamma_{\bs k}-\gamma_{\bf 0}}+{\cal O}(n_0^{\gamma_{\bs k}-

2085: \gamma_{\bf 0}-1/2}) \qquad (n_0\to\infty),

2086: \end{equation*}

2087: %

2088: where $\Gamma(z)$ denotes the Gamma function, and where the numbers 

2089: $f_{{\bs k},0}$ and $\gamma_{\bs k}$ are defined in 

2090: Proposition \ref{prop:rek}.

2091: \end{lemma}

2092: 

2093: \begin{proof}

2094: The functions $g_{\bs k}(u_0)$ are $\Delta$-regular due to 

2095: Proposition \ref{prop:pui}. We infer from eqn.~\eqref{form:genex} that 

2096: $g_{\bs k}(u_0)=f_{{\bs k},0}(u_c-u_0)^{-\gamma_{\bs k}}+

2097: {\cal O}((u_c-u_0)^{-\gamma_{\bs k}+1/2})$ as $u_0\to u_c^-$, where 

2098: $\gamma_{\bf 0}=-1/2$ and $\gamma_{\bs k}>0$ otherwise. The 

2099: coefficient asymptotics of $(u_c-u_0)^{-\gamma_{\bs k}}$ and 

2100: the transfer lemma yield

2101: %

2102: \begin{equation}\label{form:coefas}

2103: [u_0^{n_0}] g_{\bs k}(u_0)=\frac{f_{{\bs k},0}}

2104: {u_c^{\gamma_{\bs k}}\Gamma(\gamma_{\bs k})}u_c^{-n_0}

2105: n_0^{\gamma_{\bs k}-1}\left(1+{\cal O}(n_0^{-1/2})\right) \qquad

2106: (n_0\to\infty),

2107: \end{equation}

2108: %

2109: where $[x^n]f(x)$ denotes the coefficient of $x^n$ in the power 

2110: series $f(x)$. The error term implies that asymptotically 

2111: factorial moments coincide with ordinary moments. The numbers 

2112: $\widetilde m_{\bs k}(n_0)$ are thus well-defined for $n_0$ 

2113: large enough, and asymptotically given by

2114: %

2115: \begin{equation*}

2116: \begin{split}

2117: \widetilde m_{\bs k}(n_0)&=

2118: \frac{\sum_{{\bs n}_+\ge0} {\bs n}_+^{{\bs k}} 

2119: p_{n_0,{\bs n}_+}}{\sum_{{\bs n}_+\ge0} 

2120: p_{n_0,{\bs n}_+}}=\frac{[u_0^{n_0}]g_{\bs k}(u_0)}

2121: {[u_0^{n_0}]g_{\bf 0}(u_0)}{\bs k}!\left( 1+{\cal O}(n_0^{-1/2}) 

2122: \right)\\

2123: &= \frac{{\bs k}!}{f_{{\bf 0},0}u_c^{\gamma_{\bs k}-

2124: \gamma_{\bf 0}}}\frac{\Gamma(\gamma_{\bf 0})}{\Gamma(\gamma_{\bs k})}

2125: f_{{\bs k},0}n_0^{\gamma_{\bs k}-\gamma_{\bf 0}}\left( 1+

2126: {\cal O}(n_0^{-1/2}) \right) \qquad (n_0\to\infty).

2127: \end{split}

2128: \end{equation*}

2129: %

2130: This concludes the proof of the lemma.

2131: \end{proof}

2132: %

2133: The moments $\widetilde m_{\bs k}(n_0)$ diverge as $n_0\to\infty$,

2134: as may be inferred from Lemma \ref{lem:pos}. Introduce normalised Borel

2135: probability measures $\mu_{n_0}$ by

2136: %

2137: \begin{equation}\label{form:normrv}

2138: \mu_{n_0}=\sum_{n_1,\ldots,n_M} \frac{p_{n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_M}}{\sum_{m_1,\ldots,m_M} 

2139: p_{n_0,m_1,\ldots,m_M}} \delta_{(\widetilde n_1,\ldots,\widetilde n_M)},

2140: \end{equation}

2141: %

2142: where $\widetilde n_k=n_kn_0^{-(k+2)/2}$ for $k=1,\ldots,M$. For ${\bs k}

2143: \in\mathbb N_0^M$, denote the corresponding moments by $m_{\bs k}(n_0)$.

2144: We now show that the limits

2145: %

2146: \begin{equation}\label{form:normmom}

2147: m_{\bs k}=\lim_{n_0\to\infty} m_{\bs k}(n_0)=\lim_{n_0\to\infty} 

2148: \frac{\widetilde m_{\bs k}(n_0)}{n_0^{\gamma_{\bs k}-\gamma_{\bf 0}}}

2149: = \frac{{\bs k}!}{f_{{\bf 0},0}u_c^{\gamma_{\bs k}-\gamma_{\bf 0}}}

2150: \frac{\Gamma(\gamma_{\bf 0})}{\Gamma(\gamma_{\bs k})}f_{{\bs k},0}

2151: \end{equation}

2152: %

2153: exist and define a unique Borel probability measure $\mu$, with finite moments 

2154: $m_{\bs k}>0$ at all orders. This will be achieved using L\'evy's 

2155: continuity theorem. We first prove the following lemma.

2156: 

2157: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:momcon}

2158: Let Assumption \ref{ass} be satisfied. Assume that the 

2159: numbers $A_i$ of Proposition \ref{prop:rek} satisfy $A_i>0$ for $i=0,\ldots, M-1$. 

2160: Consider for ${\bs k}\in \mathbb N_0^M$

2161: the numbers $m_{\bs k}\ge0$, defined in eqn.~\eqref{form:normmom} and

2162: eqn.~\eqref{form:tilmom}.

2163: For ${\bs t}\in \mathbb R^M$, we have

2164: %

2165: \begin{equation*}

2166: \lim_{|{\bs k}|\to\infty} \frac{m_{\bs k}

2167: {\bs t}^{\bs k}}{{\bs k}!}=0.

2168: \end{equation*}

2169: %

2170: Equivalently, the exponential generating function of the

2171: numbers $m_{\bs k}$ is entire.

2172: \end{lemma}

2173: 

2174: \begin{proof}

2175: The limit $m_{\bs k}$ eqn.~\eqref{form:normmom} exists for ${\bs k}\in 

2176: \mathbb N_0^M$, due to Lemma~\ref{lem:pos}. Note that

2177: %

2178: \begin{equation*}

2179: \gamma_{\bs k}=-\frac{1}{2}+\sum_{i=1}^M \left(1+\frac{i}{2}\right)k_i\ge

2180: -\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3}{2}|{\bs k}|\ge |{\bs k}|+1+ \lfloor \frac{|{\bs k}|-3}{2}\rfloor.

2181: \end{equation*}

2182: %

2183: Thus $|{\bs k}|\to\infty$ implies $\gamma_{\bs k}\to\infty$. Furthermore, since

2184: $e(n/e)^n\le n!\le e n (n/e)^n$ for $n\in\mathbb N$, we have the estimate

2185: %

2186: \begin{equation*}

2187: \frac{n!}{(n+n_0)!}\le \frac{n (n/e)^n}{((n+n_0)/e)^{n+n_0}}\le \frac{e^{n_0}}{n^{n_0-1}}

2188: \end{equation*}

2189: %

2190: for $n,n_0\in\mathbb N$. Now fix ${\bs t}\in \mathbb R^M$. We estimate

2191: %

2192: \begin{equation*}

2193: \begin{split}

2194: \left|\frac{m_{\bs k}{\bs t}^{\bs k}}{{\bs k}!} \right|&=

2195: \frac{\Gamma(\gamma_0)}{\Gamma(\gamma_{\bs k})}

2196: \frac{|f_{{\bs k},0}|}{f_{{\bf 0},0}u_c^{\gamma_{\bs k}-\gamma_{\bf 0}}} |{\bs t}^{\bs k}|

2197: \le

2198: \frac{\Gamma(\gamma_0)}{(|{\bs k}|+\lfloor \frac{|{\bs k}|-3}{2}\rfloor)!}

2199: \frac{D |{\bs k}|! {\bs R}^{\bs k}}{f_{{\bf 0},0}} |{\bs t}^{\bs k}|

2200: \max (u_c,u_c^{-1})^{\gamma_{\bs k}-\gamma_{\bf 0}}\\

2201: &\le \frac{D\Gamma(\gamma_0)}{f_{{\bf 0},0}} e^{|\bs k|}{\bs R}^{\bs k}

2202: |{\bs t}^{\bs k}|\frac{1}{|{\bs k}|^{\lfloor \frac{|{\bs k}|-5}{2}\rfloor}}

2203: \max (u_c,u_c^{-1})^{\frac{M+2}{2}|{\bs k}|}.

2204: \end{split}

2205: \end{equation*}

2206: %

2207: The r.h.s. vanishes as $|{\bs k}|\to\infty$, which implies the assertion.

2208: The equivalent statement is obvious.

2209: \end{proof}

2210: 

2211: Our proof of claim \textit{i)} in Theorem~\ref{theo:probdist} relies

2212: on an application of L\'evy's continuity theorem \cite[Thm.~23.8]{B96},

2213: which we cite in the following lemma.

2214: 

2215: \begin{lemma}[L\'evy's continuity theorem \cite{B96}]\label{lem:Levy}

2216: For $n\in\mathbb N$, let probability measures $\mu_n$ on the Borel $\sigma$-algebra 

2217: of $\mathbb R^M$ be given. If the sequence $\{\widehat \mu_n\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ of 

2218: their characteristic functions $\widehat \mu_n$ converges pointwise to a complex 

2219: function $\phi$ which is continuous at the origin, then $\phi$ is the characteristic 

2220: function of a uniquely determined Borel probability measure $\mu$. Moreover, 

2221: $\{\mu_n\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ converges to $\mu$ weakly. \qed 

2222: \end{lemma}

2223: 

2224: \begin{proof}[Proof of claim \textit{i)} in Theorem~\ref{theo:probdist}.]

2225: Lemma \ref{lem:pos} implies that the Borel probability measures

2226: $\mu_{n_0}$ eqn.~\eqref{form:normrv} are well-defined for almost all 

2227: $n_0\in\mathbb N$. The estimate in Lemma \ref{lem:momcon} implies uniform 

2228: convergence of the sequence of Fourier transforms $\widehat \mu_{n_0}:\mathbb 

2229: R^M\to\mathbb C$ of $\mu_{n_0}$, in every ball of finite radius centred 

2230: at the origin. In particular, we have pointwise convergence of the sequence 

2231: $\{\widehat \mu_{n_0}\}_{n_0\in\mathbb N}$. For $M=1$, 

2232: the corresponding argument is given in the proof of \cite[Thm~6.4.5]{C74}. 

2233: It can be directly extended to arbitrary $M$. Since the functions 

2234: $\widehat \mu_{n_0}$ are continuous, we conclude that the limit function 

2235: $\phi:\mathbb R^M\to\mathbb C$ is continuous at the origin.

2236: Now apply L\'evy's continuity theorem. The limit probability measure $\mu$ 

2237: has moments $m_{\bs k}$ eqn.~\eqref{form:normmom}. The claimed statement 

2238: of the theorem follows, when phrasing the result in terms of the associated 

2239: random variables.

2240: \end{proof}

2241: 

2242: The connection to Brownian motion, which is claimed in part \textit{ii)} of 

2243: Theorem~\ref{theo:probdist}, will be established in the following section.

2244: 

2245: \section{Dyck paths revisited}\label{sec:Dyckrev}

2246: 

2247: We apply our results to the example of Dyck paths of Section \ref{sec:Dyck}. 

2248: The power series solution $E({\bs u_0})$ of eqn.~\eqref{form:exfunc}, specialised to 

2249: $\bs u=\bs u_0$, has radius of convergence $u_c=1/4$, with a square root 

2250: singularity at $u=u_c$, and $E({\bs u_c})=1$. The $q$-functional equation 

2251: eqn.~\eqref{form:exfunc} satisfies Assumption \ref{ass}. Since the random variables 

2252: $(X_{1,n_0},\ldots,X_{M,n_0})$ of eqn.~\eqref{form:DyckRV} have the distribution of 

2253: $\mu_{n_0}$, as defined in eqn.~\eqref{form:normrv}, Proposition 

2254: \ref{prop:dyckmom} follows from the results of the previous section.

2255: 

2256: \begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:dyckmom}]

2257: The generating function $E({\bs u})$ of Dyck paths satisfies the 

2258: $q$-functional equation eqn.~\eqref{form:exfunc}. Assumption \ref{ass} holds with 

2259: $u_c=1/4$ and $y_c=1$. We have $f_{{\bf 0},0}=-4$, $\gamma_{\bf 0}=-1/2$, 

2260: $\mu_i=(i+1)/4$ for $i=1,\ldots,M-1$ and $\mu_0=1/8$. Thus, Proposition 

2261: \ref{prop:rek} yields eqn.~\eqref{form:exc2}. The distribution of the 

2262: random variables $(X_{1,n_0},\ldots,X_{M,n_0})$ of eqn.~\eqref{form:DyckRV} is that of 

2263: the probability measures $\mu_{n_0}$ in eqn.~\eqref{form:normrv}. By 

2264: part \textit{i)} of Theorem \ref{theo:probdist}, there exists a unique limit probability 

2265: measure $\mu$. We thus get eqn.~\eqref{eqn:dyckres} from 

2266: eqn.~\eqref{form:normmom}.

2267: \end{proof}

2268: 

2269: The connection between Dyck paths and Brownian excursions in 

2270: Proposition~\ref{prop:reldyckexc} leads, for a general 

2271: $q$-functional equation, to an explicit characterisation of the 

2272: limit probability measure $\mu$, resp.~of the associated limit random variable 

2273: $(Y_1,\ldots,Y_M)$.

2274: 

2275: \begin{proof}[Proof of claim \textit{ii)} in Theorem~\ref{theo:probdist}.]

2276: For the given $q$-functional equation, let $F_0(\bs\epsilon)$ be the 

2277: generating function of the leading amplitudes $f_{\bs k,0}$. For $k=1,\ldots,M$ 

2278: and $d_k\in\mathbb R$, define 

2279: $G_0(\bs\epsilon)=F_0(\epsilon_1 d_1,\ldots, \epsilon_M d_M)$.

2280: An explicit calculation using eqn.~\eqref{form:ee1} shows that the power series 

2281: $G_0(\bs\epsilon)$ satisfies the same type of differential equation 

2282: as $F_0(\bs\epsilon)$ does, with $\mu_0$ replaced by $\mu_0 d_1$ and 

2283: $\mu_i$ replaced by $\mu_i d_{i+1}/d_i$, where $i=1,\ldots,M-1$. Now choose 

2284: the values $d_k$, such that the equation for $G_0(\bs\epsilon)$ is 

2285: that of Dyck paths. Noting the relation between Dyck paths and Brownian 

2286: excursions eqn.~\eqref{form:DyEx}, we arrive at the values $c_k=2^{(k+2)/2}

2287: /d_k$, for numbers $c_k$ as in the claim of Theorem~\ref{theo:probdist}.

2288: \end{proof}

2289: 

2290: \section{Concluding remarks}\label{sec:con}

2291: 

2292: We finally stress three central aspects of our approach.

2293: Firstly, the approach yields a \emph{universal} limit distribution -- loosely

2294: spoken, it appears for all models, whose underlying functional equation 

2295: has the same singularity structure. Such a result may be compared to a 

2296: central limit theorem in probability 

2297: theory. For example, models other than Dyck paths, which display a square root 

2298: as dominant singularity of their size generating function, are certain models of 

2299: trees or polygons. For simply generated trees, $q$-functional equations appear when counting 

2300: by number of vertices and by internal path length \cite{T91}. Using the 

2301: above setup, moment recursions for the parameter ``sum of $k$-th 

2302: powers of the vertex distances to the root'' are obtained. For polygon 

2303: models, $q$-functional equations appear when counting by perimeter 

2304: and area \cite{D99,R02}, which is, for column-convex polygons, the 

2305: sum of the column heights. The above setup gives moment recursions

2306: for the parameter ``sums of $k$-th powers of the column heights'', in the 

2307: limit of infinite (horizontal) perimeter.

2308: 

2309: Secondly, our approach is \emph{algorithmic} -- the moment recursion can

2310: finally be deduced from a straightforward calculation, by the method of

2311: dominant balance. Our approach also allows to obtain corrections to the 

2312: asymptotic behaviour, which cannot (easily) be deduced by other methods.

2313: 

2314: Thirdly, the approach is \emph{flexible} -- it may be applied to other classes 

2315: to obtain a universal limit distribution, which only depends on the singularity 

2316: structure of the functional equation. Our generating function approach is particularly

2317: suited for counting parameters, which decompose linearly under the 

2318: cartesian product construction. Examples of such models with a 

2319: rational generating function appear in \cite{R02}. Examples with an inverse 

2320: square root appear in \cite{NT03}. In particular, the discrete counterparts of 

2321: Brownian motion, Brownian bridges, and Brownian meanders can be studied, 

2322: see \cite{NT03,R06}. Also, universality questions for parameters related 

2323: to left and right path lengths in trees \cite{J06,KS06,P06,Bou06} can be studied 

2324: by our methods, compare the discussion in \cite{BJ06}.

2325: 

2326: Within the framework of simply generated trees, an alternative derivation of 

2327: the above moment recursion could be obtained with the techniques of 

2328: \cite{J03}, where the different problem of the (generalised) Wiener index of 

2329: trees was analysed. It would be interesting to 

2330: consider how our methods can be adapted to this problem.

2331: 

2332: \section*{Acknowledgements}

2333: 

2334: The author thanks Philippe Duchon, Philippe Flajolet and Michel 

2335: Nguy$\tilde{\mbox{\rm \^e}}$n Th$\acute{\mbox{\rm \^e}}$ for helpful 

2336: discussions, and Svante Janson for comments on the manuscript. 

2337: He thanks the department LaBRI (Bordeaux) for hospitality 

2338: in autumn 2003, where parts of the problem have been analysed. The

2339: author thanks the referees for suggestions, which improved the presentation 

2340: of the article. Financial support by the German Research Council (DFG) 

2341: is gratefully acknowledged.

2342: 

2343: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2344: 

2345: \bibitem{A91}

2346: D.J.~Aldous, 

2347: The continuum random tree I,

2348: \textit{Ann.~Prob.~\bf 19} (1991), 1--28.

2349: 

2350: \bibitem{A92}

2351: D.J.~Aldous, 

2352: The continuum random tree II: an overview,

2353: {\it Stochastic Analysis}, eds. M.T.~Barlow and N.H.~Bingham,

2354: Cambridge University Press (1991), 23--70.

2355: 

2356: \bibitem{A93}

2357: D.J.~Aldous, 

2358: The continuum random tree III,

2359: \textit{Ann.~Prob.~\bf 21} (1993), 248--289.

2360: 

2361: \bibitem{BF02}

2362: C.~Banderier and P.~Flajolet,

2363: Basic analytic combinatorics of directed lattice paths,

2364: \textit{Theoret.~Comput.~Sci. \bf 281} (2002), 37--80.

2365: 

2366: \bibitem{B96}

2367: H.~Bauer,

2368: \textit{Probability Theory},

2369: de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, vol.~23,

2370: de Gruyter, Berlin (1996).

2371: 

2372: \bibitem{Bel72}

2373: B.~Belkin,

2374: An invariance principle for conditioned recurrent random walk

2375: attracted to a stable law,

2376: \textit{Z.~Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verw.~Gebiete \bf 21} (1972), 45--64.

2377: 

2378: \bibitem{Bill95}

2379: P.~Billingsley, 

2380: \textit{Probability and Measure}, 

2381: 3rd ed., Wiley, New York (1995).

2382: 

2383: \bibitem{B99}

2384: P.~Billingsley, 

2385: \textit{Convergence of Probability Measures},

2386: 2nd ed., Wiley, New York (1999).

2387: 

2388: \bibitem{Bou96}

2389: M.~Bousquet-M\'elou,

2390: A method for the enumeration of various classes of column-convex polygons,

2391: \textit{Discr.~Math. \bf 154} (1996), 1--25.

2392: 

2393: \bibitem{Bou06}

2394: M.~Bousquet-M\'elou, 

2395: Limit laws for embedded trees: applications to the integrated 

2396: superBrownian excursion,

2397: \textit{Random Structures Algorithms \bf 29} (2006), 475--523.

2398: 

2399: \bibitem{BJ06} 

2400: M.~Bousquet-M\'elou and S.~Janson,

2401: The density of the ISE and local limit laws for embedded trees,

2402: \textit{Ann.~Appl.~Probab. \bf 16} (2006), 1597--1632. 

2403: 

2404: \bibitem{BFG03}

2405: J.~Bouttier, P.~Di Francesco and E.~Guitter,

2406: Geodesic distance in planar graphs,

2407: \textit{Nuclear Phys. B \bf 663} (2003), 535--567. 

2408: 

2409: \bibitem{BKR72}

2410: N.G.~de Bruijn, D.E.~Knuth, and S.O.~Rice, 

2411: The average height of planted plane trees, in:

2412: \textit{Graph Theory and Computing},  

2413: pp. 15--22, Academic Press, New York (1972).

2414: 

2415: \bibitem{C74}

2416: K.L.~Chung,

2417: A Course in Probability Theory,

2418: Academic Press, New York (1974).

2419: 

2420: \bibitem{CS96}

2421: G.M.~Constantine and T.H.~Savits,

2422: A multivariate Faa di Bruno formula with applications,

2423: \textit{Trans.~Amer.~Math.~Soc. \bf 348} (1996), 503--520. 

2424: 

2425: \bibitem{D97}

2426: M.~Drmota, 

2427: Systems of functional equations,  

2428: \textit{Random Struct.~Algorithms  \bf 10}  

2429: (1997), 103--124.

2430: 

2431: \bibitem{D03}

2432: M.~Drmota,

2433: Stochastic analysis of tree-like data structures,

2434: \textit{Proc.~Royal~Soc.~Lond.~A \bf 460} (2004), 271--307.

2435: 

2436: \bibitem{D98}

2437: P.~Duchon,

2438: $Q$-grammaires: un outil pour l'\`enumeration,

2439: PhD thesis, Bordeaux University (1998).

2440: 

2441: \bibitem{D99}

2442: P.~Duchon,

2443: $Q$-grammars and wall polyominoes,

2444: {\it Ann.~Comb. \bf 3} (1999), 311--321.

2445: 

2446: \bibitem{FFK04}

2447: J.A.~Fill, P.~Flajolet and N.~Kapur,

2448: Singularity analysis, Hadamard products, and tree recurrences,

2449: \textit{J.~Comput.~Appl.~Math. \bf 174} (2005), 271--313.

2450: 

2451: \bibitem{FL01}

2452: P.~Flajolet and G.~Louchard,

2453: Analytic variations on the Airy distribution,

2454: \textit{Algorithmica \bf 31} (2001), 361--377.

2455: 

2456: \bibitem{FO90}

2457: P.~Flajolet and A.M.~Odlyzko,

2458: Singularity analysis of generating functions,

2459: \textit{SIAM J.~Discr.~Math.~\bf 3} (1990), 216--240.

2460: 

2461: \bibitem{FPV98}

2462: P.~Flajolet, P.~Poblete and A.~Viola,

2463: On the analysis of linear probing hashing,

2464: \textit{Algorithmica \bf 22} (1998), 37--71.

2465: 

2466: \bibitem{FS07}

2467: P.~Flajolet and R.~Sedgewick,

2468: \textit{Analytic Combinatorics},

2469: book in preparation (2007).

2470: 

2471: \bibitem{GT96}

2472: R.~G\'erard and H.~Tahara,

2473: \textit{Singular Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations}, 

2474: Aspects of Mathematics, vol.~E 28, Vieweg, Braunschweig (1996).

2475: 

2476: \bibitem{J00}

2477: E.J.~Janse van Rensburg,

2478: \textit{The Statistical Mechanics of Interacting Walks, Polygons, Animals and 

2479: Vesicles}, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000).

2480: 

2481: \bibitem{JLR00}

2482: S.~Janson, T.~Luczak and A.~Rucinski,

2483: \textit{Random graphs},

2484: Wiley, New York (2000).

2485: 

2486: \bibitem{J03}

2487: S.~Janson,

2488: The Wiener index of simply generated random trees,

2489: \textit{Random Struct.~Algorithms \bf 22} (2003), 337--358.

2490: 

2491: \bibitem{J06}

2492: S.~Janson,

2493: Left and right pathlengths in random binary trees,

2494: \textit{Algorithmica \bf 46} (2006), 419--429.

2495: 

2496: \bibitem{J07}

2497: S.~Janson,

2498: Brownian excursion area, Wright's constants in graph enumeration, 

2499: and other Brownian areas,

2500: \textit{Probab.~Surv. \bf 4} (2007), 80--145.

2501: 

2502: \bibitem{KMM07}

2503: M.J.~Kearney, S.N.~Majumdar and R.J.~Martin,

2504: The first-paasage area for drifted Brownian motion and the moments of

2505: the Airy distribution,

2506: \textit{preprint} (2007); \texttt{arXiv:0706.2038}.

2507: 

2508: \bibitem{KS05}

2509: C.~Knessl and W.~Szpankowski,

2510: Enumeration of binary trees and universal types,

2511: \textit{Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci. \bf 7} (2005), 313--400.

2512: 

2513: \bibitem{KS06}

2514: C.~Knessl and W.~Szpankowski, 

2515: On the joint path length distribution in random binary trees,

2516: \textit{Stud. Appl. Math. \bf 117} (2006), 109--147.

2517: 

2518: \bibitem{L84}

2519: G.~Louchard,

2520: Kac's formula, L\'evy's local time and Brownian excursion,

2521: \textit{J.~Appl.~Prob. \bf 21} (1984), 479--499.

2522: 

2523: \bibitem{L85}

2524: G.~Louchard,

2525: The {B}rownian excursion area: a numerical analysis,

2526: \textit{Comput.~Math.~Appl. \bf 10} (1985), 413--417;

2527: Erratum, 

2528: \textit{Comput.~Math.~Appl. \bf 12} (1986), 375.

2529: 

2530: \bibitem{MM03}

2531: J.-F.~Marckert and A.~Mokkadem,

2532: The depth first processes of Galton-Watson trees converge 

2533: to the same Brownian excursion,

2534: \textit{Ann. Probab. \bf 31} (2003), 1655--1678.

2535: 

2536: \bibitem{MM78}

2537: A.~Meir and J.W.~Moon,

2538: On the altitude of nodes in random trees,

2539: \textit{Canad.~J.~Math. \bf 30} (1978), 997--1015.

2540: 

2541: \bibitem{NT03c}

2542: M.~Nguy$\tilde{\mbox{\rm \^e}}$n 

2543: Th$\acute{\mbox{\rm \^e}}$,

2544: Distributions de valuations sur les arbres,

2545: PhD thesis, L'\'Ecole Polytechnique, Paris (2003).

2546: 

2547: \bibitem{NT03}

2548: M.~Nguy$\tilde{\mbox{\rm \^e}}$n 

2549: Th$\acute{\mbox{\rm \^e}}$,

2550: Area of Brownian Motion with Generatingfunctionology, in: 

2551: {\em Discrete Random Walks, DRW'03}, 

2552: eds. C.~Banderier and C.~Krattenthaler, 

2553: \textit{Discr.~Math.~and Theoret.~Comput.~Sci. Proceedings AC} (2003), 

2554: 229--242.

2555: 

2556: \bibitem{NT03b}

2557: M.~Nguy$\tilde{\mbox{\rm \^e}}$n 

2558: Th$\acute{\mbox{\rm \^e}}$,

2559: Area and inertial moment of Dyck paths, 

2560: \textit{Combin.~Probab.~Comput. \bf 13} (2004), 697--716.

2561: 

2562: \bibitem{O95}

2563: A.M.~Odlyzko,

2564: Asymptotic enumeration methods,

2565: in: \textit{Handbook of Combinatorics}, vol. 2, 

2566: eds. R.L.~Graham, M.~Gr\"otschel and L.~Lov\'asz,

2567: Elsevier, Amsterdam (1995), 1063--1229.

2568: 

2569: \bibitem{P06}

2570: A.~Panholzer,

2571: Left and right length of paths in binary trees or

2572: on a question of Knuth, 

2573: \textit{Discr.~Math.~and Theoret.~Comput.~Sci. Proceedings AG} (2006), 

2574: 415--418.

2575: 

2576: \bibitem{P95}

2577: T.~Prellberg,

2578: Uniform $q$-series asymptotics for staircase polygons,

2579: \textit{J.~Phys.~A: Math.~Gen. \bf 28} (1995), 1289--1304.

2580: 

2581: \bibitem{PB95a}

2582: T.~Prellberg and R.~Brak,

2583: Critical exponents from non-linear functional equations for

2584: partially directed cluster models,

2585: \textit{J.~Stat.~Phys. \bf 78} (1995), 701--730.

2586: 

2587: \bibitem{PO95}

2588: T.~Prellberg and A.L.~Owczarek,

2589: Stacking models of vesicles and compact clusters,

2590: \textit{J.~Stat.~Phys. \bf 80} (1995), 755--779.

2591: 

2592: \bibitem{R02}

2593: C.~Richard,

2594: Scaling behaviour of two-dimensional polygon models,

2595: \textit{J.~Stat.~Phys. \bf 108} (2002), 459--493.

2596: 

2597: \bibitem{R04}

2598: C.~Richard,

2599: Limit distributions for models of exactly solvable walks,

2600: in: \textit{Oberwolfach reports \bf 1}, Report No. 22/2004, 

2601: Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach (2004), 1189--1191.

2602: 

2603: \bibitem{R06}

2604: C.\ Richard,

2605: Staircase polygons: moments of diagonal lengths and column heights,

2606: \textit{J.~Phys.: Conf.~Ser. \bf 42} (2006), 239--257.

2607: 

2608: \bibitem{S99}

2609: R.P.~Stanley,

2610: \textit{Enumerative Combinatorics},

2611: vol.~2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999).

2612: 

2613: \bibitem{T91}

2614: L.~Tak\'acs,

2615: A Bernoulli excursion and its various applications,

2616: \textit{Adv.~Appl.~Prob. \bf 23} (1991), 557--585.

2617: 

2618: \bibitem{VRSZ03}

2619: L.~Di Vizio, J.-P.~Ramis, J.~Sauloy and C.~Zhang,

2620: \'Equations aux $q$-diff\'erences,

2621: \textit{Gaz.~Math. \bf 96} (2003), 20---49.

2622: 

2623: \end{thebibliography}

2624: 

2625: \end{document}

2626: 

2627: 

2628: 

2629: 

2630: 

2631: 

2632: