Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 40 references

On breadth-first constructions of scaling limits of random graphs and random unicellular maps

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Uniform connected graphs with a fixed surplus admit a breadth-first scaling limit built from a tilted Brownian tree by gluing leaves at random heights.

desk verdict A genuinely new breadth-first construction with two load-bearing technical gaps that deserve a careful referee. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04403 v3 pith:DILITEI3 submitted 2019-08-12 math.PR math.CO

Grégory Miermont , Sanchayan Sen This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath.CO MSC 60C0505C80
keywords Erdős-Rényirandomgraphcriticalgraphsscalinglimitcontinuumtreebreadth-firstconstructiondepth-firstunicellularmapsGromov-Hausdorffdistance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Every connected graph with n vertices and s extra edges is a tree plus s cycles, and this paper proves that the scaling limit of a uniformly random such graph, including the critical Erdős-Rényi component scaling limit, can be built by a breadth-first rule. The rule starts from a Brownian excursion tilted by the s-th power of its total squared local time, samples s heights according to that squared local time, and glues pairs of leaves sitting at each sampled height. The same style of construction gives the continuum random unicellular map of genus g by gluing leaves in pairs according to a random permutation. If the main theorems hold, the radius, the distance between two uniform points, and the distance profile of these limiting random spaces are read off directly as explicit functionals of the tilted excursion. The paper's central distributional equalities are $H(s) \stackrel{d}{=} H^{\mathrm{BF}}_{(s)}$ and $\mathrm{CRUM}(g) \stackrel{d}{=} \mathrm{CRUM}^{\mathrm{BF}}_{(g)}$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery pairs a discrete exploration with a continuum convergence statement. On the discrete side, the breadth-first exploration of a uniformly random map with fixed surplus produces a uniform plane tree together with admissible corner pairs, counted by the breadth-first weight $B(f)=\sum_i B(f;i)$, where $B(f;i)$ is the number of later corners at height equal to or one below the current height. The continuum limit of this weight is $2\int_0^\infty \eta(e;1,y)^2\,dy$, exactly the tilt used in Construction 2.2. The passage to the limit rests on Proposition 5.5, the joint convergence in $C([0,1]\times\mathbb{R})$ of the rescaled contour process $(2n)^{-1/2}C_n(2nt)$ and the two-parameter local-time field $(2n)^{-1/2}L_n(2nt,y\sqrt{2n})$ to $(e,\eta(e;\cdot,\cdot))$, together with Gaussian tail bounds that make the tilted discrete weights uniformly integrable. Jeulin's local-time identity $\int_0^\infty \eta(e;1,y)^2\,dy \stackrel{d}{=} 2\int_0^1 e(t)\,dt$ connects this breadth-first tilt to the area tilt of the depth-first Construction 2.1, which is why the two constructions can describe the same space.

What would settle it

Compute the joint limit in $C([0,1]\times\mathbb{R})$ of $((2n)^{-1/2}C_n(2nt), (2n)^{-1/2}L_n(2nt,y\sqrt{2n}))$ for uniform plane trees; if this pair fails to converge to $(e,\eta(e;\cdot,\cdot))$ along some subsequence, Proposition 5.5—and with it the convergence of the gluing heights and times—is false. A simpler check: simulate large critical Erdős-Rényi components, measure the distance profile around a uniformly chosen vertex, and compare with the claimed limit $\tfrac12\eta(e^{\mathrm{BF}}_{(s)};1,r/2)$; a systematic mismatch would refute Corollary 3.2(iii) and Theorem 3.4.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 3.1 asserts that for every $s \ge 0$, the scaling limit $H(s)$ of uniform connected labeled graphs with $s$ surplus edges has the same distribution as a space $H^{\mathrm{BF}}_{(s)}$ built as follows: sample a Brownian excursion $e^{\mathrm{BF}}_{(s)}$ tilted by the $s$-th power of $\int_0^\infty \eta(e;1,y)^2\,dy$, sample heights $H_1,\dots,H_s$ with density proportional to squared local time, and at each sampled height identify two independent leaves of the encoded tree, then double all distances. Theorem 3.5 proves the analogous statement for the continuum random unicellular map $\mathrm{CRUM}(g)$: it equals the space obtained by gluing together $4g$ leaves in pairs dictated by a random transposition structure. The breadth-first spanning tree of the limiting space is then simply the tilted Brownian tree itself. Consequently the radius of $H(s)$ is $2\|e^{\mathrm{BF}}_{(s)}\|_\infty$, the two-point distance is $2e^{\mathrm{BF}}_{(s)}(U)$ for an independent uniform $U$, and the distance profile is half the local time of the tilted excursion.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the joint convergence of the rescaled contour process and the two-parameter local-time field of uniform plane trees to the Brownian excursion and its local time (Proposition 5.5), a convergence the paper only sketches; if it fails in the required topology, the heights and times of the identifications in Construction 2.2 need not converge to the claimed limit, and the existence of the $\mathrm{CRUM}(g)$ limit is assumed as a separate input.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 3.1 is correct, the scaling limit of critical Erdős-Rényi random graphs—and the wider family of mean-field random graph models it governs—admits a breadth-first construction, answering the question posed in the paper's introduction.
  • The radius of $H(s)$ has the law of $2\|e^{\mathrm{BF}}_{(s)}\|_\infty$; for $s \ge 1$ this also equals $\int_0^1 dt/e^{\mathrm{DF}}_{(s)}(t)$, extending the classical height identity for the Brownian continuum random tree.
  • The two-point function of $H(s)$ is $2e^{\mathrm{BF}}_{(s)}(U)$ with $U$ uniform and independent, and the distance profile around the root is $\tfrac12\eta(e^{\mathrm{BF}}_{(s)};1,r/2)$.
  • The rescaled number of vertices at distance $\lfloor r\sqrt{n}\rfloor$ from the root of $H_{n,s}$ converges in Skorokhod $J_1$ topology to that local-time profile, extending the known height-profile convergence for random trees to graphs with surplus.
  • The same radius, two-point, and distance-profile formulas hold for $\mathrm{CRUM}(g)$ with the tilted excursion $e^{\mathrm{UM}}_{(g)}$ replacing $2e^{\mathrm{BF}}_{(s)}$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the equality $H(s) \stackrel{d}{=} H^{\mathrm{BF}}_{(s)}$ suggests a continuum self-duality between depth-first and breadth-first explorations of the same random metric space; comparing the two codings could yield new identities for Brownian excursion functionals.
  • Because the construction glues only leaves at equal heights, the diameter of $H(s)$ should be expressible as twice the largest height at which two independent local-time samples lie in different branches of the tilted excursion, a quantity the paper does not compute.
  • The assumed convergence (2.9) defining $\mathrm{CRUM}(g)$ is an input to Theorem 3.5; if an independent proof of that convergence appeared, the breadth-first description of $\mathrm{CRUM}(g)$ would follow without further work.
  • The same gluing scheme could be attempted for the $\alpha$-stable analogues of random graphs discussed in the paper's final section, provided a two-parameter local-time convergence of the kind conjectured there holds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes continuum 'breadth-first' constructions for two families of random measured R-graphs: the scaling limits H(s) of uniform connected graphs with fixed surplus s, which include the critical Erdős-Rényi scaling limit, and the continuum random unicellular maps CRUM(g) of fixed genus. In Construction 2.2, a tilted Brownian excursion e^BF_(s) is sampled, s heights are drawn from the squared total local time, and pairs of leaves at those heights are identified using the local-time measure; in Construction 2.3 an analogous procedure is carried out with a random permutation in S(g). The main theorems assert H(s) = H^BF_(s) and CRUM(g) = CRUM^BF_(g). The proof proceeds through discrete breadth-first and depth-first explorations of uniform maps (Section 5.1), the discrete approximations in Propositions 5.1 and 5.2, and a joint convergence of the rescaled contour process with its two-parameter local-time field (Proposition 5.5, with proof outlined in Appendix A). The paper also derives corollaries for the radius, the two-point function, and the distance profile, together with a result on convergence of distance profiles (Theorem 3.4).

Significance. If the main theorems are valid, the paper gives the first breadth-first construction of the critical Erdős-Rényi scaling limit, answering a question raised in [2], and provides explicit descriptions of the radius, two-point function, and distance profile of H(s) and CRUM(g) that are not immediate from the depth-first or core-decomposition constructions. The combinatorial encodings in Section 5.1, the tilted discrete models (5.7)-(5.8), and the uniform-integrability arguments around (5.18)-(5.19) are careful and plausible. The main analytic input, namely the joint convergence of contour process and local-time field, is, however, only sketched, and the convergence (2.9) defining CRUM(g) is assumed without a written proof; consequently the theorems as stated are conditional on completing these parts.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.11) and the Vervaat step] Proposition 5.5 is load-bearing for Proposition 5.1: equations (5.18), (5.21), (5.22), and (5.24) all use the joint convergence (Cbar_n, Lbar_n) to (e, eta(e;.,.)) to identify the limiting heights and times of the identifications in Construction 2.2. The proof in Appendix A is an outline: after (A.9), the passage to the full bridge is deferred to (A.11), which is asserted as immediate from time reversal without proof, and the Vervaat transform step says only that (A.1) follows from (A.10). Please supply a complete proof of (A.11), including control of sup_y (ellbar^br_n(1,y)-ellbar^br_n(1-epsilon,y)), and of the joint convergence of the argmin with the path and the local-time field under the Vervaat transform, or cite a published result containing the full statement.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Theorem 3.5, Eq. (2.9)] The convergence (2.9) that defines CRUM(g) is not proved in the manuscript; the text states that a proof 'seems' not to be in the literature and 'can be deduced' by following [1] or [2]. Since Theorem 3.5 is a statement about this space, the equality CRUM(g) = CRUM^BF(g) is conditional on an unproved existence and identification result. Please either prove (2.9) or restate Theorem 3.5 and Corollary 3.6 explicitly as conditional on (2.9).
  3. [Section 5.7, after (5.71)-(5.72)] The completion of the proof of Theorem 3.5 is omitted with 'We omit the details as no new idea is involved here.' The convergences in (5.71)-(5.72) concern the tilted contour process, the permutation, the heights, and the times, but the theorem is about pointed GHP convergence of the glued metric measure spaces. Please provide the quotient-space convergence argument, including an analogue of the correspondence argument after (5.25) and control of the measure under the identifications.
  4. [Section 5.3, Eq. (5.27)] In the proof of Lemma 5.3, the claim that the pointed GHP distance between (2n)^{-1/2} G^o_{n,s} and Gbar_{n,s} tends to 0 is declared routine and the details are omitted. This step converts the line-measure quotient convergence into the convergence of the vertex-measure graph spaces, and it is part of the proof of Proposition 5.1; please spell it out or refer to an existing lemma that covers it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.6] The display 'We set bf(G)=t and bf(G)=bar{t}' uses the same symbol bf for both the breadth-first tree and its symmetrization; please use distinct notation, for example overline{bf}(G), throughout that argument.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2.11)] The normalization constant in (2.11) is derived only later in (5.70); a forward reference would help the reader understand why the expression defines a probability measure.
  3. [Section 5.5, Eq. (5.49)] In the use of Jeulin's identity, the equality in distribution in (5.50) and the statement 'jointly with' (5.51) should specify the coupling used; the current wording is slightly ambiguous about whether the two identities hold jointly with the same e.
  4. [Section 5.2] In the sentence after (5.4), the symbol M_{n,s} is used both for the uniform map and for the rooted metric measure space with the non-root vertices carrying mass 1/n; please make the passage to the metric measure space explicit, for instance by writing (M_{n,s}, d, root, mu).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: H(s)=H^BF(s) and CRUM(g)=CRUM^BF(g) are proved via independent discrete bijections and external convergence results, not by fitting the target into the construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The spaces H(s) and CRUM(g) are defined by independent GHP limits (2.3) and (2.9), while H^BF(s) and CRUM^BF(g) are defined by explicit tilted Brownian excursion and local-time sampling constructions (Constructions 2.2 and 2.3). Theorem 3.1 proves equality in distribution by passing through two discrete models: the breadth-first and depth-first explorations of uniform maps are bijections (5.4), Proposition 5.1 sends the breadth-first discrete model to H^BF(s), and Proposition 5.2 sends the depth-first discrete model to H(s). The limiting target spaces are not used as parameters in the approximations, and no equation defining one object assumes the equality being proved. Jeulin's local-time identity (5.49)-(5.50) is used as an external classical tool to evaluate constants, not to define either space. The paper is transparent that two convergence inputs are not fully written out: Proposition 5.5's joint contour/local-time convergence is only outlined in Appendix A, and the existence of the CRUM limit in (2.9) is explicitly noted as not proved in the literature. These are completeness and correctness risks, not circularity: the claimed reductions are genuine consequences of the stated convergences and bijections, and filling the gaps would not turn the argument into a definitional identity. There is no self-citation chain invoked to rule out alternative constructions, and the external benchmarks [2,3] provide independent targets rather than assumed conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted numerical parameters and no ad hoc postulates. It relies on prior scaling limit results, on a sketched convergence theorem for local times of plane trees, and on standard enumerative and tail bounds from the literature. The invented entities of the paper are mathematical constructions (breadth-first spanning trees, tilted excursions) with independent combinatorial grounding.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The scaling limits H(s) and CRUM(g) exist and converge as in (2.3) and (2.9), based on [2], [15], [6], and a deduction from [1] or [2].
    The paper does not prove these convergences in detail; (2.9) is explicitly stated to lack a written proof in the literature. These are the target spaces of the paper.
  • domain assumption Proposition 5.5 (equation (5.14)): the joint convergence of the rescaled contour process and local time field of uniform plane trees to a Brownian excursion and its local time holds in C([0,1]×R).
    This is the key technical input for the breadth-first limit; the proof in Appendix A is only a sketch relying on strong invariance and the Vervaat transform.
  • standard math Standard enumeration asymptotics for plane trees and maps, e.g., #Mn,0 ~ ... and #UMn,g ~ ... in (5.62)-(5.63), from [18], [27], [37], [38].
    Used to compute normalization constants in (5.57), (5.63), and (5.70).
  • standard math Sub-Gaussian tail bounds for heights and widths of Galton-Watson trees (Theorem 5.6, from [5]).
    Used to prove uniform integrability and coupling bounds in Sections 5.3 and 5.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On breadth-first constructions of scaling limits of random graphs and random unicellular maps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DILITEI3

@misc{pith2026190804403,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On breadth-first constructions of scaling limits of random graphs and random unicellular maps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DILITEI3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04403}
}
read the original abstract

We give alternate constructions of (i) the scaling limit of the uniform connected graphs with given fixed surplus, and (ii) the continuum random unicellular map (CRUM) of a given genus that start with a suitably tilted Brownian continuum random tree and make `horizontal' point identifications, at random heights, using the local time measures. Consequently, this can be seen as a continuum analogue of the breadth-first construction of a finite connected graph. In particular, this yields a breadth-first construction of the scaling limit of the critical Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graph which answers a question posed in [2]. As a consequence of this breadth-first construction we obtain descriptions of the radii, the distance profiles, and the two point functions of these spaces in terms of functionals of tilted Brownian excursions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Addario-Berry, N

    L. Addario-Berry, N. Broutin, and C. Goldschmidt, The continuum limit of critical random graphs , Probab. Theory Related Fields 152 (2012), no. 3-4, 367–406. MR2892951

    work page 2012

  2. [1]

    Addario-Berry, N

    L. Addario-Berry, N. Broutin, and C. Goldschmidt, Critical random graphs: limiting constructions and distributional properties, Electron. J. Probab. 15 (2010), no. 25, 741–775. MR2650781 (2011d:60025)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Addario-Berry, O

    L. Addario-Berry, O. Angel, G. Chapuy, É. Fusy, and C. Goldschmidt,Voronoi tessellations in the CRT and continuum random maps of finite excess , Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM-SIAM Sympo- sium on Discrete Algorithms, 2018, pp. 933–946

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Addario-Berry, N

    L. Addario-Berry, N. Broutin, C. Goldschmidt, and G. Miermont,The scaling limit of the minimum span- ning tree of the complete graph, The Annals of Probability 45 (2017), no. 5, 3075–3144

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Addario-Berry, L

    L. Addario-Berry, L. Devroye, and S. Janson, Sub-gaussian tail bounds for the width and height of con- ditioned galton–watson trees, The Annals of Probability 41 (2013), no. 2, 1072–1087

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Geometry of the minimal spanning tree of a random $3$-regular graph

    L. Addario-Berry and S. Sen, Geometry of the minimal spanning tree of a random 3-regular graph, arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.03802 (2018)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Aldous, The continuum random tree

    D. Aldous, The continuum random tree. I, Ann. Probab. 19 (1991), 1–28

    work page 1991

  8. [8]

    Aldous, The continuum random tree III, Ann

    D. Aldous, The continuum random tree III, Ann. Probab. 21 (1993), 248–289

    work page 1993

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Aldous, The continuum random tree II: an overview, Stochastic analysis 167 (1991), 23–70

    D. Aldous, The continuum random tree II: an overview, Stochastic analysis 167 (1991), 23–70

    1991

  2. [10]

    Aldous, G

    D. Aldous, G. Miermont, and J. Pitman, The exploration process of inhomogeneous continuum random trees, and an extension of Jeulin’s local time identity , Probab. Theory Related Fields 129 (2004), no. 2, 182–218. MR2063375 (2005f:60023)

    2004

  3. [11]

    F Bass and D

    R. F Bass and D. Khoshnevisan, Rates of convergence to Brownian local time , Stochastic processes and their applications 47 (1993), no. 2, 197–213

    1993

  4. [12]

    Bhamidi, N

    S. Bhamidi, N. Broutin, S. Sen, and X. Wang, Scaling limits of random graph models at criticality: Uni- versality and the basin of attraction of the Erd˝ os-Rényi random graph, arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.3417 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Bhamidi, S

    S. Bhamidi, S. Dhara, R. van der Hofstad, and S. Sen, Universality for critical heavy-tailed network mod- els: metric structure of maximal components, arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07145 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bhamidi, R

    S. Bhamidi, R. v. d. Hofstad, and S. Sen, The multiplicative coalescent, inhomogeneous continuum ran- dom trees, and new universality classes for critical random graphs, Probability Theory and Related Fields 170 (2018), no. 1-2, 387–474

    2018

  7. [15]

    Bhamidi and S

    S. Bhamidi and S. Sen, Geometry of the vacant set left by random walk on random graphs, Wright’s con- stants, and critical random graphs with prescribed degrees , To appear in Random Structures & Algo- rithms (2019+)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Bhamidi, S

    S. Bhamidi, S. Sen, and X. Wang,Continuum limit of critical inhomogeneous random graphs, Probability Theory and Related Fields 169 (2017), no. 1-2, 565–641

    2017

  9. [17]

    Biane, J

    P . Biane, J. Pitman, and M. Yor, Probability laws related to the jacobi theta and riemann zeta functions, and brownian excursions, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 38 (2001), no. 4, 435–465

    2001

  10. [18]

    Chapuy, The structure of unicellular maps, and a connection between maps of positive genus and planar labelled trees, Probability Theory and Related Fields 147 (2010), no

    G. Chapuy, The structure of unicellular maps, and a connection between maps of positive genus and planar labelled trees, Probability Theory and Related Fields 147 (2010), no. 3-4, 415–447

    2010

  11. [19]

    Csáki and P

    E. Csáki and P . Révész,Strong invariance for local times, Zeitschrift f˝ or Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete 62 (1983), no. 2, 263–278

    1983

  12. [20]

    Dembo, A

    A. Dembo, A. Levit, and S. Vadlamani, Component sizes for large quantum erd˝ os–rényi graph near criti- cality, The Annals of Probability 47 (2019), no. 2, 1185–1219

    2019

  13. [21]

    Dhara, R

    S. Dhara, R. v. d. Hofstad, J. v. Leeuwaarden, and S. Sen,Critical configuration models with infinite third- moment degrees, arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.00650 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Drmota and B

    M. Drmota and B. Gittenberger, On the profile of random trees , Random Structures & Algorithms 10 (1997), no. 4, 421–451

    1997

  15. [23]

    Duquesne, The coding of compact real trees by real valued functions, arXiv preprint math (2006)

    T . Duquesne, The coding of compact real trees by real valued functions, arXiv preprint math (2006). 38 MIERMONT AND SEN

    2006

  16. [24]

    S. N. Evans, Probability and real trees, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1920, Springer, Berlin, 2008. Lectures from the 35th Summer School on Probability Theory held in Saint-Flour, July 6–23, 2005. MR2351587 (2009d:60014)

    1920

  17. [25]

    Flajolet and R

    P . Flajolet and R. Sedgewick,Analytic combinatorics, Cambridge University press, 2009

    2009

  18. [26]

    Goldschmidt, B

    C. Goldschmidt, B. Haas, and D. Sénizergues, Stable graphs: distributions and line-breaking construc- tion, arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.06940 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Goupil and G

    A. Goupil and G. Schaeffer, Factoringn-cycles and counting maps of given genus , European Journal of Combinatorics 19 (1998), no. 7, 819–834

    1998

  20. [28]

    Heydenreich and R

    M. Heydenreich and R. v. d. Hofstad, Random graph asymptotics on high-dimensional tori , Comm. Math. Phys. 270 (2007), no. 2, 335–358. MR2276449

    2007

  21. [29]

    Heydenreich and R

    M. Heydenreich and R. v. d. Hofstad, Random graph asymptotics on high-dimensional tori II: volume, diameter and mixing time, Probab. Theory Related Fields 149 (2011), no. 3-4, 397–415. MR2776620

    2011

  22. [30]

    R. v. d. Hofstad and A. Nachmias, Hypercube percolation, Preprint (2012). To appear in Journ. Europ. Math. Soc

    2012

  23. [31]

    R. v. d. Hofstad and A. Sapozhnikov, Cycle structure of percolation on high-dimensional tori , Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat.50 (2014), no. 3, 999–1027. MR3224297

    2014

  24. [32]

    Janson, Brownian excursion area, Wright’s constants in graph enumeration, and other Brownian areas, Probab

    S. Janson, Brownian excursion area, Wright’s constants in graph enumeration, and other Brownian areas, Probab. Surv.4 (2007), 80–145. MR2318402

    2007

  25. [33]

    Jeulin and M

    Th. Jeulin and M. Yor (eds.), Grossissements de filtrations: exemples et applications , Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1118, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985. Papers from the seminar on stochastic calculus held at the Université de Paris VI, Paris, 1982/1983. MR884713

    1985

  26. [34]

    Le Gall,Random trees and applications, Probab

    J.-F . Le Gall,Random trees and applications, Probab. Surv.2 (2005), 245–311. MR2203728 (2007h:60078)

    2005

  27. [35]

    Marckert and A

    J.-F . Marckert and A. Mokkadem, The depth first processes of Galton-Watson trees converge to the same Brownian excursion, Annals of probability (2003), 1655–1678

    2003

  28. [36]

    P Révész, Local time and invariance, Analytical methods in probability theory, 1981, pp. 128–145

    1981

  29. [37]

    Spencer, Enumerating graphs and Brownian motion, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathe- matics 50 (1997), no

    J. Spencer, Enumerating graphs and Brownian motion, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathe- matics 50 (1997), no. 3, 291–294

    1997

  30. [38]

    T . R. S. Walsh and A. B. Lehman, Counting rooted maps by genus. I , J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. B 13 (1972), 192–218. MR314686

    1972

  31. [39]

    Wang, Height and diameter of brownian tree, Electronic Communications in Probability 20 (2015)

    M. Wang, Height and diameter of brownian tree, Electronic Communications in Probability 20 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    M Wright, The number of connected sparsely edged graphs , Journal of Graph Theory 1 (1977), no

    E. M Wright, The number of connected sparsely edged graphs , Journal of Graph Theory 1 (1977), no. 4, 317–330

    1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.