Central limit theorems and the geometry of polynomials

Julian Sahasrabudhe; Marcus Michelen

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 76 references

Central limit theorems and the geometry of polynomials

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 A root-free disk around 1 forces a nearly Gaussian distribution, with optimal error O(log n/(δσ)).

desk verdict Strong, sharp results on two conjectures, but the proof has a real gap in the Brownian motion coupling (Lemma 4.6) that the reader's report missed; fixable, but the write-up as it stands is incomplete. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09020 v2 pith:K4EFLMGD submitted 2019-08-23 math.PR math.CAmath.CO

Marcus Michelen , Julian Sahasrabudhe This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PRmath.CAmath.CO MSC 60F0530C15

keywords centrallimittheoremprobabilitygeneratingfunctionzero-freeregionsreal-stablepolynomialsstrongRayleighdistributionscumulantsBrownianmotionsharpquantitativebounds

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

The paper proves that the geometry of the roots of a probability generating function controls how close a random variable is to Gaussian. If the roots stay a distance δ away from 1, then the normalized variable is within O(log n/(δσ)) of a standard normal, measured by the maximum discrepancy between cumulative distribution functions; if the roots stay away from a whole sector around the positive axis, the sharper O(1/(δσ)) holds. These rates are optimal, resolving a conjecture on root-free disks and sharpening an earlier central limit theorem from statistical physics. The sector version also yields a sharp multivariate central limit theorem for real-stable, strong-Rayleigh distributions.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the logarithmic potential u(z) = log|f_X(z)|, which is harmonic wherever f_X has no roots, symmetric because the coefficients are real, and weakly positive (u(|z|) ≥ u(z)) because the coefficients are non-negative probabilities. The main technical lemma, Lemma 4.1, shows that weak positivity plus harmonicity forces u to be b-decreasing — the value of u along a ray cannot drop by more than b as the angle increases — using a Brownian-motion estimate for the probability of exiting a truncated sector through its ends, which carries the exponential dependence on 1/δ. Once b-decreasing is established, the paper controls the tail of the normalized cumulant sequence, uses weak positivity to dominate all higher cumulants by the variance, and packages the result as a factorized characteristic function exp(−ξ²/2 + R(ξ)) with |R(ξ)| ≤ C|ξ|³/(εσ). A Fourier-inversion lemma converts this into the stated uniform distributional bounds. For the sector version, the same proof runs over an unbounded sector, so the Brownian exit probability decays and no logarithmic factor appears.

What would settle it

Search for a counterexample to the disk theorem: any sequence with σ_n δ_n/log n → ∞, generating polynomial root-free in B(1, δ_n), and sup_t |F_n(t) − Φ(t)| bounded below by a fixed positive constant would refute it; the scaled-Bernoulli-sum family in Section 11 is the natural place to test, since the paper shows it saturates the bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated as Theorems 1.2 and 1.4, is a quantitative central limit theorem in which the only information about the random variable X is its variance σ and the location of the roots of its probability generating function f_X(z) = E[z^X]. When the roots satisfy |ζ − 1| ≥ δ, the normalized variable X* = (X − μ)/σ satisfies sup_t |P(X* ≤ t) − P(Z ≤ t)| = O(log n/(δσ)); when the roots satisfy |arg ζ| ≥ δ, the same discrepancy is O(1/(δσ)). The proof represents the characteristic function of X* as exp(−ξ²/2 + R(ξ)) with |R(ξ)| controlled by ξ³/(δσ), and the logarithmic factor in the first case is shown to be unavoidable. In the multivariate direction, Theorem 1.6 proves that if the generating functions are real-stable and the maximum variance tends to infinity, the normalized random vectors converge to a multivariate normal under no further conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The whole proof leans on Lemma 4.1, which turns weak positivity and harmonicity into a b-decreasing property by a Brownian-motion estimate of the chance that a path exits a thin sector through its ends; if that estimate were materially weaker, the quantitative bounds would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a sequence with σ_n δ_n/log n → ∞ and roots avoiding the disk B(1, δ_n), the normalized variables converge in distribution to a standard normal; the condition is best possible.
For a sequence with σ_n δ_n → ∞ and roots avoiding the sector |arg ζ| < δ_n, normality holds with no logarithmic loss.
Every real-stable strong-Rayleigh sequence whose maximum variance tends to infinity and whose normalized covariance matrices converge converges in distribution to the corresponding multivariate normal.
The same machinery applies to power series and general analytic generating functions satisfying a mild growth condition, and to other classes with a sector zero-free property.
The sharpness examples show the bound cannot be improved: within the stated root-free classes, O(log n/(δσ)) and O(1/(δσ)) are the correct orders.

Reading between the lines

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

The logarithmic factor appears tied to the disk geometry: the Brownian-exit estimate has exponential dependence on 1/δ, and an intermediate zero-free region, such as a curve tangent to 1, might produce rates interpolating between 1/(δσ) and log n/(δσ).
The multivariate theorem is stated as a limit; tracking explicit constants and the dependence on the dimension and on the conditioning of the covariance matrix would yield finite-sample bounds for random spanning trees, matchings, and determinantal measures.
The method is not restricted to real-stable families; any class of polynomials with a known sector zero-free region is a candidate for the same b-decreasing route, so one could test it on independence polynomials or matching polynomials away from the positive axis.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Marcus and Julian have produced the definitive quantitative answer to Pemantle's conjecture and the GLP question. The bounds in Theorems 1.2 and 1.4 are optimal, the sharpness constructions are convincing, and the multivariate theorem falls out cleanly. The method—weak positivity plus harmonicity converted into b-decreasing via Brownian coupling—is genuinely new, and the paper is careful, with explicit constants throughout. This is a major result for probability and combinatorics.

That said, the reader's report is too generous about soundness. The sign typo in Lemma 8.1 (a2 should be σ^2/2, not −σ/2), the wrong cross-reference in Lemma 5.4, and the overbroad statement in Theorem 11.4 are all real but minor. The bigger problem is Lemma 4.6. The path B° is defined as α\bar B_t for t ≤ τ2 and B_t for t ≥ τ2. The proof says the two pieces agree at τ2. They don't. If B exits the small sector through the real axis (event E2), then α\bar B_{τ2} has argument δ while B_{τ2} has argument 0; the trajectory jumps. Same for the circular ends unless the angle is exactly δ/2. So B° is not a continuous Brownian motion, and the appeal to Theorem 4.2 to compute u(z°) = Eu(B°_τ) is unjustified. This is load-bearing: Lemma 4.1, the sole mechanism producing b-decreasing, uses Lemma 4.6. The stress-test note suggests using the reflected path α\bar B for all t. I don't think that fix is immediate: on the event that B hits the intermediate ray δ/2, the reflected path only touches B at that instant and then diverges, so the E1 contribution is not automatically zero. The authors need to supply a correct coupling or a different argument. This is not a typo; it's a gap in a central lemma. My guess is the result is true and the gap is repairable, but as written the proof of Theorems 1.2 and 1.4 is incomplete.

Who is this for: anyone working in negative dependence, stable polynomials, or CLTs from zero-free regions. It deserves a serious referee, but only on condition that Lemma 4.6 is fixed. I would not cite the proof until then, but I'd certainly read a revised version closely.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proves sharp quantitative central limit theorems for integer-valued random variables from zero-free regions of their probability generating functions. Theorem 1.2 bounds the Kolmogorov distance by O(log n/(δσ)) when no root of f_X lies within distance δ of 1; Theorem 1.4 obtains O(1/(δσ)) when no root lies in a sector of angular width δ around the positive real axis. A multivariate CLT for strong Rayleigh distributions (Theorem 1.6) is derived from Theorem 1.4 via a Cramér–Wold type argument, and Section 11 gives explicit constructions showing the rates are sharp. The proof develops a harmonic-analysis framework based on weak positivity and symmetry of u = log|f_X|, a Brownian-motion lemma converting weak positivity plus harmonicity into a 'b-decreasing' property, and a sequence of comparison and cumulant-tail lemmas culminating in a characteristic-function approximation and Fourier inversion.

Significance. If correct, these results resolve Pemantle's conjecture in a strong quantitative form, improve the Lebowitz–Pittel–Ruelle–Speer theorem, and answer the Ghosh–Liggett–Pemantle question on multivariate CLTs for strong Rayleigh variables. The paper is largely self-contained, gives explicit absolute constants, and provides matching lower bounds via explicit constructions. Because the main theorems are quantitative with no fitted parameters, and because the sharpness examples are explicit, the contribution would be a definitive and useful addition to probability and analytic combinatorics. The proof strategy, based on b-decreasing harmonic functions, appears flexible and is already applied to Hurwitz-stable and half-plane-stable generalizations.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.2, proof of Lemma 4.6] The path B° is not a Brownian motion as defined. The definition sets B°_t := α\overline{B_t} for t ≤ τ2 and B°_t := B_t for t ≥ τ2. These two pieces do not agree at τ2 unless B_{τ2} lies on the ray arg = δ/2; in particular, on event E2 (when B hits the real axis at τ2), the value specified for t ≥ τ2 has argument 0, while the value before τ2 has argument δ. Hence B° is discontinuous, is not a continuous path, and Theorem 4.2 cannot be applied to z°. The intended path is presumably B°_t := α\overline{B_t} for all t ≥ 0, which is a Brownian motion and makes the E1/E2/E3 analysis meaningful; with the written definition, equations (22)–(25) do not follow. Since Lemma 4.1 is used in Theorems 1.2, 1.4, and 12.2, this gap must be repaired before the main claims are established.
[Section 4, proof of Lemma 4.1] The step bounding P(Bτ ∈ S*_R(0,φ/2)) by (4/3)(r/R)^{4c/δ} is not justified by the cited application of Lemma 4.3. Lemma 4.3 is stated for symmetric sectors S_R(θ) with |arg| ≤ θ, whereas the event S*_R(0,φ/2) is a one-sided sector of angles [0,φ/2]. This event is contained in S_R(δ/4) only when φ ≤ δ/2, but the proof must handle all θ1,θ2 ∈ (0,δ/2), for which φ = θ1 + θ2 can be arbitrarily close to δ. Thus the displayed exponent 4c/δ is not established by the argument as written; a sharper exit-probability estimate or a genuinely different embedding is needed. This is load-bearing because it is exactly the step that produces the factor log n in Theorem 1.2.
[Section 11, Theorem 11.4] The statement of Theorem 11.4 is too broad as written. The proof sets k := ⌊log n/(100δ)⌋ and defines X := kY; when δ > log n/100, k = 0 and the construction is undefined, since k⌊n/k⌋ involves division by zero. The hypotheses allow such δ (for example, n = 10, δ = 10^9, σ = 1 satisfy log n/(δσ) ≤ 1), so the theorem is not proved for all δ > 0. The statement should either impose a restriction such as δ ≤ c log n or provide a separate construction covering the case k = 0.

minor comments (3)

[Section 2, Eq. (3) and proof of Lemma 8.1] The quantity a2 is stated as −σ/2 in both places; it should be σ²/2. With the stated sign, the displayed identity ψ_{X*}(ξ) = exp(−ξ²/2 + R(ξ)) does not follow from the preceding expansion.
[Proof of Lemma 5.4] The proof cites Lemma 5.4 for the inequality U''(t0) ≥ 0; the correct reference is Lemma 5.2.
[Proof of Lemma 4.6] The event E3 is written as {B_{τ2} ∈ S*_R(δ/2)}, while the statement of Lemma 4.6 and the final inequality use the one-sided set S*_R(0,δ/2). These are different sets (two-sided versus one-sided ends), and the notation should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorems are derived from explicit root-free hypotheses through self-contained lemmas, with no fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained from the stated hypotheses. Theorem 1.2 and Theorem 1.4 are proved by passing from weak positivity and harmonicity of u = log|f_X| to a b-decreasing property (Lemma 4.1), whose proof uses Brownian motion exit probabilities from Mörters and Peres as an external, parameter-free tool. The cumulant control in Lemma 6.1 follows from Harnack inequalities, Parseval's identity, and Lemma 5.1; Lemma 7.5 is proved in the paper from weak positivity and an elementary sequence lemma; Lemma 8.1 combines these ingredients to control the characteristic-function remainder R(ξ). No parameter is fitted to the target normal-approximation quantity, and no prediction reduces by construction to an input value. The paper's citations to the authors' earlier work are contextual (e.g., noting that [50] refuted an earlier conjecture and that Lemma 7.5 is 'a relative' of a lemma there) and are not used as black boxes for the main bounds; the cited external results, such as the Brownian motion theorem, the Harnack inequalities, and the Cuesta-Albertos–Fraiman–Ransford Cramér–Wold sharpening, are standard and independent of the present fitted values. The sharpness constructions in Section 11 are explicit examples and do not enter the proofs of the upper bounds. A possible gap in the concatenation defining B° in Lemma 4.6 would be a correctness or rigor issue, not a circularity, and no circularity claim can be substantiated by the paper's own equations beyond that. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; all constants are explicit. The proofs rely on standard harmonic analysis, Brownian motion, and real-stability facts from the literature. No new physical or probabilistic entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)

standard math Standard harmonic function theory, including Poisson integral representation, Harnack inequalities, and the maximum principle.
Used throughout Sections 4-9 for u=log|f_X|.
standard math Brownian motion exit probabilities for sectors, via conformal invariance (Theorem 4.2 and Lemma 4.3).
Used in Lemma 4.1 to show weakly positive harmonic functions are b-decreasing.
standard math Feller's quantitative Fourier inversion bound (Lemma 9.2).
Converts characteristic function closeness to Kolmogorov distance in Section 9.
standard math The strong Cramer-Wold theorem of Cuesta-Albertos, Fraiman and Ransford (Theorem A.1), including the Carleman condition for the Gaussian.
Lifts one-dimensional projection normality to multivariate normality in Theorem 1.6.
domain assumption Real-stability implies projections have sector zero-free regions (Lemma 10.1, attributed to Ghosh-Liggett-Pemantle [27]).
Key input for the multivariate theorem; this is a theorem from the cited literature, restated and proved in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Central limit theorems and the geometry of polynomials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K4EFLMGD

@misc{pith2026190809020,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Central limit theorems and the geometry of polynomials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K4EFLMGD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09020}
}

abstract

Let $X \in \{0,\ldots,n \}$ be a random variable, with mean $\mu$ and standard deviation $\sigma$ and let \[f_X(z) = \sum_{k} \mathbb{P}(X = k) z^k, \] be its probability generating function. Pemantle conjectured that if $\sigma$ is large and $f_X$ has no roots close to $1\in \mathbb{C}$ then $X$ must be approximately normal. We completely resolve this conjecture in the following strong quantitative form, obtaining sharp bounds. If $\delta = \min_{\zeta}|\zeta-1|$ over the complex roots $\zeta$ of $f_X$, and $X^{\ast} := (X-\mu)/\sigma$, then \[ \sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} \left|\mathbb{P}(X^{\ast} \leq t) - \mathbb{P}( Z \leq t) \, \right| = O\left(\frac{\log n}{\delta\sigma} \right) \] where $Z \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$ is a standard normal. This gives the best possible version of a result of Lebowitz, Pittel, Ruelle and Speer. We also show that if $f_X$ has no roots with small argument, then $X$ must be approximately normal, again in a sharp quantitative form: if we set $\delta = \min_{\zeta}|\arg(\zeta)|$ then \[ \sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} \left|\mathbb{P}(X^{\ast} \leq t) - \mathbb{P}( Z \leq t) \, \right| = O\left(\frac{1}{\delta\sigma} \right). \] Using this result, we answer a question of Ghosh, Liggett and Pemantle by proving a sharp multivariate central limit theorem for random variables with real-stable probability generating functions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

[1]

Amoroso and M

F. Amoroso and M. Mignotte. On the distribution of the roots of p olynomials. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 46(5):1275–1291, 1996

work page 1996
[2]

Anari, S

N. Anari, S. O. Gharan, and A. Rezaei. Monte Carlo Markov chain a lgorithms for sampling strongly Rayleigh distributions and determinantal point processes. In V. Fe ldman, A. Rakhlin, and O. Shamir, editors, 29th Annual Conference on Learning Theory , volume 49 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 103–115, Columbia University, New York, New ...

work page 2016
[3]

Anari, S

N. Anari, S. Oveis Gharan, A. Saberi, and N. Srivastava. Approx imating the largest root and applications to interlacing families. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1015–1028. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2018

work page 2018
[4]

Axler, P

S. Axler, P. Bourdon, and W. Ramey. Harmonic function theory , volume 137 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 2001

work page 2001
[5]

E. A. Bender. Central and local limit theorems applied to asympto tic enumeration. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. A , 15:91–111, 1973

work page 1973
[6]

E. A. Bender and L. B. Richmond. Central and local limit theorems applied to asymptotic enumeration. II. Multivariate generating functions. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , 34(3):255–265, 1983

work page 1983
[7]

Bergweiler and A

W. Bergweiler and A. Eremenko. Distribution of zeros of polynomia ls with positive coeﬃcients. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. , 40(1):375–383, 2015

work page 2015
[8]

Bergweiler, A

W. Bergweiler, A. Eremenko, and A. Sokal. Roots of polynomials wit h positive coeﬃcients, 2013

work page 2013

Show all 76 references

[9]

Y. Bilu. Limit distribution of small points on algebraic tori. Duke Math. J. , 89(3):465–476, 1997

1997
[10]

Bloch and G

A. Bloch and G. P´ olya. On the Roots of Certain Algebraic Equatio ns. Proc. London Math. Soc. (2) , 33(2):102–114, 1931. 38

1931
[11]

Borcea and P

J. Borcea and P. Br¨ and´ en. The Lee-Yang and P´ olya-Schur programs. I. Linear operators preserving stability. Invent. Math. , 177(3):541–569, 2009

2009
[12]

Borcea and P

J. Borcea and P. Br¨ and´ en. The Lee-Yang and P´ olya-Schurprograms. II. Theory of stable polynomials and applications. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 62(12):1595–1631, 2009

2009
[13]

Borcea, P

J. Borcea, P. Br¨ and´ en, and T. M. Liggett. Negative depend ence and the geometry of polynomials. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 22(2):521–567, 2009

2009
[14]

Br¨ and´ en and J

P. Br¨ and´ en and J. Jonasson. Negative dependence in sampling. Scand. J. Stat. , 39(4):830–838, 2012

2012
[15]

A. L. B. Cauchy. Exercises de math´ ematiques, volume 3. Bure fr` eres, 1828. p. 122
[16]

Y.-B. Choe, J. G. Oxley, A. D. Sokal, and D. G. Wagner. Homogen eous multivariate polynomials with the half-plane property. Advances in Applied Mathematics , 32(1-2):88–187, 2004

2004
[17]

J. B. Conway. Functions of one complex variable , volume 11 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer- Verlag, New York-Berlin, second edition, 1978

1978
[18]

Cram´ er and H

H. Cram´ er and H. Wold. Some theorems on distribution functions. J. London Math. Soc. , 11(4):290–294, 1936

1936
[19]

J. A. Cuesta-Albertos, R. Fraiman, and T. Ransford. A sharp form of the Cram´ er-Wold theorem. J. Theoret. Probab., 20(2):201–209, 2007

2007
[20]

De Angelis

V. De Angelis. Asymptotic expansions and positivity of coeﬃcient s for large powers of analytic functions. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. , (16):1003–1025, 2003

2003
[21]

Dobrushin

R. Dobrushin. Estimates of semi-invariants for the ising model a t low temperatures. Translations of the American Mathematical Society-Series 2 , 177:59–82, 1996

1996
[22]

P. Erd˝ os. On the uniform distribution of the roots of certain p olynomials. Ann. of Math. (2) , 43:59–64, 1942

1942
[23]

Erd˝ os and P

P. Erd˝ os and P. Tur´ an. On the distribution of roots of polyno mials. Ann. of Math. (2) , 51:105–119, 1950

1950
[24]

W. Feller. An introduction to probability theory and its applications . Vol. II . Second edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York-London-Sydney, 1971

1971
[25]

Fern´ andez and A

R. Fern´ andez and A. Procacci. Regions without complex zeros for chromatic polynomials on graphs with bounded degree. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing , 17(2):225238, 2008

2008
[26]

Gao and L

Z. Gao and L. B. Richmond. Central and local limit theorems applie d to asymptotic enumeration. IV. Multivariate generating functions. volume 41, pages 177–186. 199 2. Asymptotic methods in analysis and combinatorics
[27]

Ghosh, T

S. Ghosh, T. M. Liggett, and R. Pemantle. Multivariate CLT follow s from strong Rayleigh property. In 2017 Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Analytic Alg orithmics and Combinatorics (ANALCO) , pages 139–147. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2017

2017
[28]

C. D. Godsil. Matching behaviour is asymptotically normal. Combinatorica, 1(4):369–376, 1981

1981
[29]

Granville

A. Granville. The distribution of roots of a polynomial. In Equidistribution in number theory, an in- troduction, volume 237 of NATO Sci. Ser. II Math. Phys. Chem. , pages 93–102. Springer, Dordrecht, 2007

2007
[30]

L. Gurvits. The van der Waerden conjecture for mixed discrimin ants. Adv. Math., 200(2):435–454, 2006

2006
[31]

L. Gurvits. Van der Waerden/Schrijver-valiant like conjectur es and stable (aka hyperbolic) homogeneous polynomials: one theorem for all. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics , 15(1):66, 2008

2008
[32]

L. H. Harper. Stirling behavior is asymptotically normal. Ann. Math. Statist. , 38:410–414, 1967

1967
[33]

O. J. Heilmann and E. H. Lieb. Theory of monomer-dimer systems . Comm. Math. Phys. , 25:190–232, 1972

1972
[34]

A. Hurwitz. On the conditions under which an equation has only ro ots with negative real parts. Selected papers on mathematical trends in control theory , 65:273–284, 1964

1964
[35]

Iagolnitzer and B

D. Iagolnitzer and B. Souillard. Lee-Yang theory and normal ﬂu ctuations. Phys. Rev. B (3) , 19(3):1515– 1518, 1979. 39

1979
[36]

Jackson, A

B. Jackson, A. Procacci, and A. D. Sokal. Complex zero-free r egions at large |q| for multivariate tutte polynomials (alias potts-model partition functions) with general co mplex edge weights. Journal of Com- binatorial Theory, Series B , 103(1):21 – 45, 2013

2013
[37]

J. Kahn. A normal law for matchings. Combinatorica, 20(3):339–391, 2000

2000
[38]

R. Kyng, K. Luh, and Z. Song. Four deviations suﬃce for rank 1 matrices. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06731, 2019

1901 arXiv
[39]

Kyng and Z

R. Kyng and Z. Song. A matrix Chernoﬀ bound for strongly Rayle igh distributions and spectral sparsi- ﬁers from a few random spanning trees. In 59th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science—FOCS 2018 , pages 373–384. IEEE Computer Soc., Los Alamitos, CA, 2018

2018
[40]

J. L. Lebowitz, B. Pittel, D. Ruelle, and E. R. Speer. Central limit theorems, Lee-Yang zeros, and graph-counting polynomials. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , 141:147–183, 2016

2016
[41]

T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang. Statistical theory of equations of st ate and phase transitions. II. Lattice gas and Ising model. Phys. Rev. (2) , 87:410–419, 1952

1952
[42]

C. Li, S. Jegelka, and S. Sra. Polynomial time algorithms for dual volume sampling. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 5038–5047, 2017

2017
[43]

T. M. Liggett and A. Vandenberg-Rodes. Stability on {0, 1, 2, . . . }S: birth-death chains and parti- cle systems. In Notions of positivity and the geometry of polynomials , Trends Math., pages 311–329. Birkh¨ auser/Springer Basel AG, Basel, 2011

2011
[44]

J. E. Littlewood and A. C. Oﬀord. On the number of real roots o f a random algebraic equation. J. London Math. Soc. , 13(4):288–295, 1938

1938
[45]

J. E. Littlewood and A. C. Oﬀord. On the number of real roots o f a random algebraic equation. ii. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical S ociety, volume 35, pages 133–148. Cambridge University Press, 1939

1939
[46]

J. E. Littlewood and A. C. Oﬀord. On the number of real roots o f a random algebraic equation. III. Rec. Math. [Mat. Sbornik] N.S. , 12(54):277–286, 1943

1943
[47]

Marcinkiewicz

J. Marcinkiewicz. Sur une propri´ et´ e de la loi de Gauss. Mathematische Zeitschrift , 44(1):612–618, 1939

1939
[48]

A. W. Marcus, D. A. Spielman, and N. Srivastava. Interlacing fa milies I: Bipartite Ramanujan graphs of all degrees. Ann. of Math. (2) , 182(1):307–325, 2015

2015
[49]

A. W. Marcus, D. A. Spielman, and N. Srivastava. Interlacing fa milies II: Mixed characteristic polyno- mials and the Kadison-Singer problem. Ann. of Math. (2) , 182(1):327–350, 2015

2015
[50]

Michelen and J

M. Michelen and J. Sahasrabudhe. Central limit theorems from t he roots of probability generating functions. To appear, Adv. Math. , 2018

2018
[51]

Michelen and J

M. Michelen and J. Sahasrabudhe. Large variance from zero fr ee regions. 2019. In preperation

2019
[52]

Mignotte

M. Mignotte. Remarque sur une question relative ` a des fonctio ns conjugu´ ees.C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math., 315(8):907–911, 1992

1992
[53]

M¨ orters and Y

P. M¨ orters and Y. Peres.Brownian motion, volume 30 of Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010. With an appendix by Oded Schramm and Wendelin Werner

2010
[54]

Oveis Gharan, A

S. Oveis Gharan, A. Saberi, and M. Singh. A randomized rounding approach to the traveling salesman problem. In 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer S cience—FOCS 2011 , pages 550–559. IEEE Computer Soc., Los Alamitos, CA, 2011

2011
[55]

Pemantle

R. Pemantle. Towards a theory of negative dependence. volum e 41, pages 1371–1390. 2000. Probabilistic techniques in equilibrium and nonequilibrium statistical physics

2000
[56]

Pemantle

R. Pemantle. Hyperbolicity and stable polynomials in combinatorics and probability. In Current devel- opments in mathematics, 2011 , pages 57–123. Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2012

2011
[57]

Pemantle

R. Pemantle. Personal Communication, 2017

2017
[58]

Pemantle and Y

R. Pemantle and Y. Peres. Concentration of Lipschitz function als of determinantal and other strong Rayleigh measures. Combin. Probab. Comput. , 23(1):140–160, 2014. 40

2014
[59]

Pemantle and M

R. Pemantle and M. C. Wilson. Asymptotics of multivariate sequen ces. II. Multiple points of the singular variety. Combin. Probab. Comput. , 13(4-5):735–761, 2004

2004
[60]

Pemantle and M

R. Pemantle and M. C. Wilson. Twenty combinatorial examples of a symptotics derived from multivariate generating functions. SIAM Rev. , 50(2):199–272, 2008

2008
[61]

Peters and G

H. Peters and G. Regts. On a conjecture of Sokal concerning roots of the independence polynomial. The Michigan Mathematical Journal , 68, 01 2017

2017
[62]

G. Regts. Zero-free regions of partition functions with applica tions to algorithms and graph limits. Combinatorica, 38(4):987–1015, 2018

2018
[63]

Rota and D

G.-C. Rota and D. Sharp. Mathematics, philosophy, and artiﬁcia l intelligence: a dialogue with Gian- Carlo Rota and David Sharp. Los Alamos Science , Spring/Summer 1985

1985
[64]

Ruci´ nski

A. Ruci´ nski. The behaviour of ( n k, ···,k,n − ik ) ci/i ! is asymptotically normal. Discrete Math., 49(3):287–290, 1984

1984
[65]

I. Schur. Untersuchungen ¨ uber algebraische gleichungen. Sitz. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phys.- Math. Kl. , pages 403–428, 1933

1933
[66]

A. D. Scott and A. D. Sokal. The repulsive lattice gas, the indepe ndent-set polynomial, and the Lov´ asz local lemma. Journal of Statistical Physics , 118(5-6):1151–1261, 2005

2005
[67]

A. D. Scott and A. D. Sokal. On dependency graphs and the latt ice gas. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 15(1-2):253–279, 2006

2006
[68]

J. B. Shearer. On a problem of spencer. Combinatorica, 5(3):241–245, 1985

1985
[69]

Soundararajan

K. Soundararajan. Equidistribution of zeros of polynomials. Amer. Math. Monthly , 126(3):226–236, 2019

2019
[70]

G. Szeg¨ o. Bemerkungen zu einem Satz von E. Schmidt ¨ uber algebraische Gleichungen. Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Kommission bei Walter de Gruyter u , 1934

1934
[71]

D. G. Wagner. Matroid inequalities from electrical network theo ry. The Electronic Journal of Combi- natorics, 11(2):1, 2005

2005
[72]

D. G. Wagner. Weighted enumeration of spanning subgraphs wit h degree constraints. Journal of Com- binatorial Theory, Series B , 99(2):347 – 357, 2009

2009
[73]

C. N. Yang and T. D. Lee. Statistical theory of equations of st ate and phase transitions. I. Theory of condensation. Phys. Rev. (2) , 87:404–409, 1952

1952
[74]

Yogeshwaran, E

D. Yogeshwaran, E. Subag, and R. J. Adler. Random geometric complexes in the thermodynamic regime. Probab. Theory Related Fields , 167(1-2):107–142, 2017. Appendix A. A few displaced proofs Proof of Lemma 5.5. This follows from iterating (28): we can ﬁnd k = ⌊d/(ε/2)⌋ points y...

2017
[75]

Then each point z ∈ B(1,ε ) satisﬁes |z| ∈ [1 −ε, 1 + ε] and | arg(z)| ⩽ 2ε. Proof. We note that |z| ⩽ 1 +|1 −z| ⩽ 1 +ε and |z| /greaterorequalslant1 − |1 −z| /greaterorequalslant1 −ε, thereby showing the modulus bound. For the argument bound, it is suﬃcient to show that the l...
[76]

Let ε ⩽ 1

□ Corollary B.2. Let ε ⩽ 1. Then each point z ∈ B(1,ε/ 2) satisﬁes |z| ∈ [ 1 1+ε, 1 + ε] and | arg(z)| ⩽ ε. Proof. The bounds on argument as well as the upper bound on modulus follow from Lemma B.1; for the lower bound on modulus, note that the modulus is minimized for z = 1 −...

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Amoroso and M

F. Amoroso and M. Mignotte. On the distribution of the roots of p olynomials. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 46(5):1275–1291, 1996

work page 1996

[2] [2]

Anari, S

N. Anari, S. O. Gharan, and A. Rezaei. Monte Carlo Markov chain a lgorithms for sampling strongly Rayleigh distributions and determinantal point processes. In V. Fe ldman, A. Rakhlin, and O. Shamir, editors, 29th Annual Conference on Learning Theory , volume 49 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 103–115, Columbia University, New York, New ...

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Anari, S

N. Anari, S. Oveis Gharan, A. Saberi, and N. Srivastava. Approx imating the largest root and applications to interlacing families. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1015–1028. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2018

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Axler, P

S. Axler, P. Bourdon, and W. Ramey. Harmonic function theory , volume 137 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 2001

work page 2001

[5] [5]

E. A. Bender. Central and local limit theorems applied to asympto tic enumeration. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. A , 15:91–111, 1973

work page 1973

[6] [6]

E. A. Bender and L. B. Richmond. Central and local limit theorems applied to asymptotic enumeration. II. Multivariate generating functions. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , 34(3):255–265, 1983

work page 1983

[7] [7]

Bergweiler and A

W. Bergweiler and A. Eremenko. Distribution of zeros of polynomia ls with positive coeﬃcients. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. , 40(1):375–383, 2015

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Bergweiler, A

W. Bergweiler, A. Eremenko, and A. Sokal. Roots of polynomials wit h positive coeﬃcients, 2013

work page 2013