Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

A boundary Harnack principle and its application to analyticity of 3D Brownian intersection exponents

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the 3D Brownian intersection exponents $\lambda\mapsto\xi_3(k,\lambda)$ are real analytic for every positive integer $k$, by establishing a boundary Harnack principle for the random slit domain obtained by removing…

desk verdict The new BHP/CSL for 3D Brownian slit domains looks like the real contribution, but the analyticity theorem currently leans on an unproved import from the 2D LSW framework. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14921 v1 pith:ANJSPL6L submitted 2024-11-22 math.PR

Yifan Gao , Xinyi Li , Yifan Li , Runsheng Liu , Xiangyi Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PR MSC 60J6531B0560J45
keywords BrownianmotionintersectionexponentsboundaryHarnackprincipleconditionalseparationlemmaanalyticitytwistedHölderdomainswitchingconstantextremaltotalvariationdistance
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

This paper claims that the 3D Brownian intersection exponents $\xi_3(k,\lambda)$ are real analytic in $\lambda$ on $(0,\infty)$ for every integer $k\ge 1$. The 2D case had been settled using conformal invariance, which is unavailable in 3D; the paper replaces it with a conditional separation lemma, shown equivalent to a boundary Harnack principle for domains with a Brownian trace removed. The BHP is then used to control the switching constant of Poisson kernels across dyadic layers, yielding the exponential couplings needed for the operator-theoretic analyticity argument. If correct, the result closes a long-standing gap and gives a tool that can be used in other 3D non-intersection problems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the switching constant $K(p)$ of a nonnegative kernel $p$ on a product space, together with the related extremal total variation distance $R(p)$, linked by $R(p)=1-\frac{2}{1+\sqrt{K(p)}}$. For a Poisson kernel in a layer, $K(p)$ equals the optimal comparison constant of the BHP, so a bounded switching constant is exactly a good BHP layer. Convolution and averaging inequalities for $R$ and $K$ let the proof pass from one layer to the next, and the identity converts bounded $K$ into a positive coupling probability at each good layer. The conditional separation lemma, whose proof uses uncovered cones and sausage estimates, is what supplies the BHP in the first place.

What would settle it

Simulate or compute the coupling failure probability in Proposition 5.8 for pairs in $X_m(M)$ with large $m$: if $P(X\setminus B_{-m/2}\neq X'\setminus B_{-m/2})$ decays slower than $e^{-v_1 m}$ for every $v_1>0$ at some fixed $M$, then the exponential bound (5.12) is false and the analyticity proof collapses. More directly, the omitted Proposition 5.9 asserts $E|Z_n(\tilde\gamma_n)^\lambda-Z_n(\tilde\gamma'_n)^\lambda|\le a_2 e^{-\xi n-v_2 m}$; a computation exhibiting a pair where this fails for all $v_2>0$ would refute the paper's argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for all integers $k\ge 1$, $\lambda\mapsto \xi_3(k,\lambda)$ is real analytic on $(0,\infty)$. The paper proves this by first establishing Theorem 1.2, a conditional separation lemma for $k$ frozen Brownian motions: $\vec{P}_x$-almost surely, any further Brownian motion conditioned to avoid the frozen trace stays $\delta_1$-away from it with probability at least $\delta_2$, uniformly over closed subsets of the trace. Theorem 1.5 shows this is equivalent to a boundary Harnack principle: on $U\setminus A$, with $A$ a closed subset of the Brownian trace, bounded positive harmonic functions satisfy $u(x_1)v(x_2)\le C u(x_2)v(x_1)$ for $x_1,x_2\in K\setminus A$, with $C$ uniform in $A$. In the analyticity proof the BHP enters through the switching constant of the Poisson kernel: a layer is called good when its switching constant is bounded by a fixed $M$, and paths with many good layers can be coupled with exponentially high probability. This reproduces the 2D operator framework of [39] in 3D, where conformal invariance is replaced by the BHP.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 2D operator-theoretic proof of analyticity transfers to 3D with the sketched modifications; in particular, the exponential decay in Proposition 5.9 and the analyticity of the resolvent in Proposition 5.7(i) are deferred to the planar argument of [39] and must hold in 3D for Theorem 1.1 to follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For all $k\ge 1$ the intersection exponents $\xi_3(k,\lambda)$ are real analytic on $(0,\infty)$, so the generating-type functions built from them are analytic in a neighborhood of every positive $\lambda$.
  • The boundary Harnack principle holds for $U\setminus A$ whenever $A$ is a closed subset of a 3D Brownian trace, with constants uniform in $A$; hence the same principle holds for the 3D loop-erased Brownian path and for finite-intensity Brownian fabrics.
  • The intersection exponents for loop-erased Brownian motion, $\eta(k,\lambda)$, are analytic, and the growth exponent $\beta=2-\eta(1,1)$ is covered by the same framework.
  • $U\setminus W$ is a twisted Hölder domain of every order $\alpha<1$, giving an independent route to the BHP through the known twisted-Hölder theory.
  • A Carleson estimate follows from the BHP via the general equivalence in [2], with the constant depending on $U,K,W,x_0$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the identity $R(p)=1-2/(1+\sqrt{K(p)})$ is stated for arbitrary kernels, so the same switching-constant technology might be applied to other conditioned Markov processes, but the paper only needs Poisson kernels.
  • A natural stress test is whether the BHP constant for a single Brownian trace can be made uniform in the closed subset $A$ in the stronger Carleson estimate; the paper explicitly leaves this open.
  • The claim that $U\setminus W$ is not a twisted Lipschitz domain is left to the reader; if true it would show that the twisted-Hölder route is not merely a special case of a known uniform domain theorem.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a conditional separation lemma (CSL) and a boundary Harnack principle (BHP) for domains in R^3 obtained by removing the trace of finitely many Brownian motions, and then uses these results to claim that the k-point Brownian intersection exponents ξ_3(k,λ) are real analytic in λ>0 for every k≥1. The geometric part is developed in Sections 3 and 4: an uncovered-cone estimate gives a lower bound for conditional non-intersection probabilities, a sausage estimate gives the complementary upper bound, and a deterministic equivalence (Proposition 4.1) converts the resulting CSL into the BHP. The analyticity part in Section 5 follows the operator framework of Lawler–Schramm–Werner [39], replacing conformal invariance by the new BHP. The paper also proves Theorem 1.9, stating that the slit domain is a twisted Hölder domain of every order α<1. The analyticity claim rests on Proposition 5.7, whose proof is only sketched and depends on Proposition 5.9, whose proof is omitted with a reference to [39, Proposition 4.3].

Significance. If the analyticity theorem is fully established, it resolves a long-standing open problem and gives a genuinely new method for three-dimensional Brownian intersection exponents. The new geometric content deserves real credit: the CSL and BHP for Brownian traces are substantial, self-contained results with independent value, and the deterministic equivalence in Proposition 4.1 is cleanly presented. The introduction of the K(p) and R(p) functionals and their identities in Appendix A is also useful. However, the paper as submitted does not contain a complete proof of the main analyticity theorem: the transfer of the LSW operator machinery from 2D to 3D is asserted rather than verified in several load-bearing places. Thus the significance is conditional on filling those gaps; the geometric half appears sound on its own.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3, Proposition 5.9] Proposition 5.9 is load-bearing for the analyticity argument, but its proof is not present. The paper states 'We omit the proof and refer to [39, Proposition 4.3] for details.' The 2D proof in [39] relies on conformal invariance in an essential way, so the reader cannot infer that the exponential decay E|Z_n(γ_n)^λ - Z_n(γ'_n)^λ| ≤ a_2 e^{-ξn - v_2 m} holds in R^3 merely from Proposition 5.8. This decay is needed to make the operator quasi-compact and to isolate the eigenvalue e^{-ξ}. Without a written verification of the remaining steps of the 2D proof in the 3D setting, Theorem 1.1 does not follow from the manuscript alone.
  2. [Section 5.3, Proposition 5.7] Proposition 5.7 is the direct input to Theorem 1.1, but its proof is not completed in the manuscript. Part (i) is deferred with 'the same argument as in the proof of Proposition 2.1 (i) in [39]', and part (ii) is presented only as a sketch in which the first and third steps are 'exactly the same' as in [39] and the details are omitted. The second step is described in more detail, but it relies on Proposition 5.9 and on a sequence of estimates whose constants and uniformities are not fully tracked; for instance, the display near the end of the sketch writes E|f(γ_n)-f(γ_n)| where the second argument should be γ'_n. Since the analyticity conclusion in Theorem 1.1 is derived only from Proposition 5.7, this omission is central rather than cosmetic.
  3. [Section 5.6, proof of Proposition 5.11] The proof of Proposition 5.11 invokes 'Theorem 3.1 of [53]' for the auxiliary sequence X_0,...,X_n. This is another imported result whose hypotheses are not stated in the present paper, and the verification that the constructed sequence satisfies those hypotheses is only asserted. Moreover, the final sentence says 'we conclude the proof by choosing the constants a_4 and v_3 in the statement of Proposition 5.11 sufficiently small,' but this does not specify how the accumulated errors from the O(n) applications of (5.36) are controlled. The claim is plausible, but the manuscript does not supply the argument.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1.4, outline of the proof] In the bullet points labeled (i) and (ii), the displayed expressions 'a1.1n1' and 'a1.2n2' appear to be typesetting errors; the intended probability bounds should be written with properly placed subscripts and superscripts, e.g., a_1^{1.1 n} and a_2^{1.2 n}.
  2. [Section 5.3, sketch of proof of Proposition 5.7] In the estimate for E[|f(γ_n)-f(γ'_n)| Z_n(γ_n)^λ], the last displayed line writes E|f(γ_n)-f(γ_n)|; the second path should be γ'_n. This is a minor typo but should be corrected for readability.
  3. [Section 5.4, proof of Proposition 5.8] The proof uses the maximal coupling and Lemma 5.13, which is fine, but the normalization of the measure μ is never specified. It is stated that the normalization will cancel with the Radon-Nikodym derivatives; this is true, yet the reader would benefit from having the normalization fixed explicitly before the displayed formulas.
  4. [Section 6, proof of Lemma 6.4] The construction of the poly-line γ_x is described with the phrase 'we omit the details and conclude the proof' after the statement that (6.4) can be verified by brute-force computation. Since this lemma is used in the proof of Theorem 1.9, a few more sentences indicating the inductive estimate for l(γ_x(x,x')) would improve verifiability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the BHP/CSL core is proved from independent geometric estimates, and the analyticity transfer cites external LSW results rather than reducing Theorem 1.1 to its own inputs.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. The intersection exponent ξ in (1.1) is defined as a limit from Brownian non-intersection probabilities, and the operator T_λ in (5.7) is defined independently of ξ; the quantity Q_n = e^{nξ} T_n^λ 1 in (5.8) is a normalization, and Proposition 5.7(ii) is precisely the statement that e^{-ξ} is an isolated simple eigenvalue of T_λ, not an assumption of that fact. The analyticity half imports the Lawler–Schramm–Werner operator framework [39] and Lawler's bounds [32] as external published results; these are not by the present authors and are not disguised restatements of Theorem 1.1. The genuinely new inputs used for analyticity are the BHP (Theorem 1.5) and the K(p)/R(p) functionals. The BHP is proved independently in Section 4 from the CSL, which in turn follows from the cone and sausage estimates of Section 3; the CSL–BHP equivalence (Proposition 4.1) is a deterministic argument, not a definitional shortcut. The definition of a 'good layer' via K(p_i) < M and the abundance-of-good-layers estimate (Proposition 5.10) apply the already-proved BHP rather than presupposing the conclusion. The paper does contain explicit omissions—Proposition 5.9 is deferred to [39, Prop. 4.3], Proposition 5.7(i) is deferred to 'the same argument as in [39]', and the final step of Proposition 5.7(ii) is omitted—and these create a genuine completeness gap in the 2D-to-3D transfer. But a proof gap is not circularity: the omitted statements are intermediate estimates borrowed from an external paper, not equivalent to the target theorem by construction. The self-citations to [16,21,22,44] appear only in literature-review remarks and are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Brownian potential theory, several quoted results from Lawler, Lawler-Schramm-Werner, and Vermesi, and the a.s. geometric properties of the Brownian trace. No fitted constants or ad hoc entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard potential theory for 3D Brownian motion: Dirichlet problem, harmonic measure, Green's functions, Harnack inequality (Lemma 2.1 and Section 2.2).
    Invoked throughout; cited from [47] and standard texts.
  • domain assumption Trace of a 3D Brownian motion is a.s. a nowhere-dense closed set whose complement in any domain is connected.
    Used in Section 4.2 to apply Proposition 4.1 and in the final step of Theorem 1.2; stated as an a.s. fact without proof.
  • standard math Bounds on Q_n (Lemma 5.15) from Lawler [32, eq. (10)] and LSW [39, eq. (3.6)]: sup Q_n ≤ b1 and Q_n ≤ b2 Q_{n'}.
    Used to control Radon-Nikodym derivatives in Section 5.6; quoted from prior literature, not reproven.
  • standard math Separation lemma for non-intersecting Brownian motions (Lemma 5.16) from Lawler [32, Lemma 4.2].
    Basis for the set Γ+ and for Lemma 5.19; quoted from [32].
  • standard math Theorem 3.1 of Vermesi [53] on renewal-type sequences, used in the proof of Proposition 5.11 to bound P(X_n ≥ n/2).
    Used without proof in Section 5.6.
  • standard math Theorem 4.4 of Bass-Burdzy [9] that twisted Hölder domains of order α>1/2 satisfy BHP; used only for the alternative route, not the main proof.
    Provides an alternate path to Theorem 1.5 via Theorem 1.9.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A boundary Harnack principle and its application to analyticity of 3D Brownian intersection exponents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ANJSPL6L

@misc{pith2026241114921,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A boundary Harnack principle and its application to analyticity of 3D Brownian intersection exponents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ANJSPL6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14921}
}
abstract

We show that a domain in $\mathbb{R}^3$ with the trace of a 3D Brownian motion removed almost surely satisfies the boundary Harnack principle (BHP). Then, we use it to prove that the intersection exponents for 3D Brownian motion are analytic.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14921 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ), which in fact only needs to use Theorem 1.5 in the case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. The workflow diagram. We mainly follow the solid arrows to arrive at Theorem 1.1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Left: Each group of cones (Ti,j )1≤j≤m is contained in some large cone Si , and there are n groups. Right: Each group contains m cones distributed uniformly in a line. We will set m to be a constant fraction of n; see (3.8). 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2. Figure 3.2: The local ball Be(z). Ti,j fB(z) D(vi,j, 2u −n 1 |z|) D(vi,j, u−n 1 |z|/2) z O [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3_2.png]
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.3. Figure 3.3: Bound cones by cylinders within Be(z). 3.1.2 Transitions between the cones We first introduce some notation. Consider the union of tubes Ti = [m j=1 Ti,j , T = [n i=1 Ti , Te i,j = T \ Ti,j , and for J ⊆ {1, 2, . . . , m}, let Ti,J = [ j∈J Ti,j , Vi,J = [ j∈J Vi,j . …
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Illustration for the proof of Theorem 1.2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4_1.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [53]

    B. Vermesi. Intersection exponents for biased random walks on discrete cylinders.arXiv preprint arXiv:0810.0572, 2008

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  2. [39]

    G. F. Lawler, O. Schramm, and W. Werner. Analyticity of intersection exponents for planar Brownian motion.Acta Math., 189(2):179–201, 2002

    work page 2002

  3. [1]

    H. Aikawa. Boundary Harnack principle and Martin boundary for a uniform domain.J. Math. Soc. Japan, 53(1):119–145, 2001

    work page 2001

  4. [2]

    H. Aikawa. Equivalence between the boundary Harnack principle and the Carleson esti- mate. Math. Scand., 103(1):61–76, 2008

    work page 2008

  5. [3]

    Aikawa, K

    H. Aikawa, K. Hirata, and T. Lundh. Martin boundary points of a John domain and unions of convex sets.J. Math. Soc. Japan, 58(1):247–274, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [4]

    A. Ancona. Principe de Harnack à la frontière et théorème de Fatou pour un opérateur elliptique dans un domaine lipschitzien.Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 28(4):169–213, x, 1978

    work page 1978

  7. [5]

    V. I. Arnold.Ordinary differential equations. Universitext. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006. Translated from the Russian by Roger Cooke, Second printing of the 1992 edition

    work page 2006

  8. [6]

    Bañuelos, R

    R. Bañuelos, R. F. Bass, and K. Burdzy. Hölder domains and the boundary Harnack principle. Duke Math. J., 64(1):195–200, 1991

    work page 1991

Show all 56 references
  1. [7]

    M. T. Barlow and D. Karli. Some boundary Harnack principles with uniform constants. Potential Anal., 57(3):433–446, 2022

    2022

  2. [8]

    R. F. Bass and K. Burdzy. A probabilistic proof of the boundary Harnack principle. In Seminar on Stochastic Processes, 1989 (San Diego, CA, 1989), volume18of Progr. Probab., pages 1–16. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1990

    1989

  3. [9]

    R. F. Bass and K. Burdzy. A boundary Harnack principle in twisted Hölder domains.Ann. of Math. (2), 134(2):253–276, 1991

    1991

  4. [10]

    R. F. Bass and K. Burdzy. Lifetimes of conditioned diffusions.Probab. Theory Related Fields, 91:405–443, 1992

    1992

  5. [11]

    Comets, C

    F. Comets, C. Gallesco, S. Popov, and M. Vachkovskaia. On large deviations for the cover time of two-dimensional torus.Electron. J. Probab., 18(96):1–18, 2013

    2013

  6. [12]

    B. E. J. Dahlberg. Estimates of harmonic measure.Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 65(3):275– 288, 1977. 46

    1977

  7. [13]

    Damron and A

    M. Damron and A. Sapozhnikov. Outlets of 2D invasion percolation and multiple-armed incipient infinite clusters.Probab. Theory Related Fields, 150(1-2):257–294, 2011

    2011

  8. [14]

    De Silva and O

    D. De Silva and O. Savin. A short proof of boundary Harnack principle.J. Differential Equations, 269(3):2419–2429, 2020

    2020

  9. [15]

    Dembo, Y

    A. Dembo, Y. Peres, J. Rosen, and O. Zeitouni. Cover times for Brownian motion and random walks in two dimensions.Ann. of Math. (2), 160(2):433–464, 2004

    2004

  10. [16]

    H. Du, Y. Gao, X. Li, and Z. Zhuang. Sharp asymptotics for arm probabilities in critical planar percolation. Comm. Math. Phys., 405(182):1–51, 2024

    2024

  11. [17]

    Duplantier

    B. Duplantier. Random Walks and Quantum Gravity in Two Dimensions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:5489–5492, 1998

    1998

  12. [18]

    Duplantier

    B. Duplantier. Two-dimensional copolymers and exact conformal multifractality. Phys. Rev. Lett., 82(5):880, 1999

    1999

  13. [19]

    Duplantier and K.-H

    B. Duplantier and K.-H. Kwon. Conformal invariance and intersections of random walks. Phys. Rev. Lett., 61:2514–2517, 1988

    1988

  14. [20]

    F. Ferrari. On boundary behavior of harmonic functions in Hölder domains.J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 4(4-5):447–461, 1998

    1998

  15. [21]

    Y. Gao, X. Li, and W. Qian. Multiple points on the boundaries of Brownian loop-soup clusters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11468, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Y. Gao, P. Nolin, and W. Qian. Percolation of discrete GFF in dimension two I. Arm events in the random walk loop soup.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16230, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Garban, G

    C. Garban, G. Pete, and O. Schramm. Pivotal, cluster, and interface measures for critical planar percolation. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 26(4):939–1024, 2013

    2013

  18. [24]

    D. S. Jerison and C. E. Kenig. Boundary behavior of harmonic functions in nontangentially accessible domains. Adv. in Math., 46(1):80–147, 1982

    1982

  19. [25]

    D. S. Jerison and C. E. Kenig. Boundary value problems on Lipschitz domains. InStudies in partial differential equations, volume 23 ofMAA Stud. Math., pages 1–68. Math. Assoc. America, Washington, DC, 1982

    1982

  20. [26]

    H. Kesten. Scaling relations for2D-percolation. Comm. Math. Phys., 109(1):109–156, 1987

    1987

  21. [27]

    G. Kozma. The scaling limit of loop-erased random walk in three dimensions.Acta Math., 199(1):29–152, 2007

    2007

  22. [28]

    G. F. Lawler. Intersections of random walks with random sets.Israel J. Math., 65(2):113– 132, 1989

    1989

  23. [29]

    G. F. Lawler. Cut times for simple random walk.Electron. J. Probab., 1(13):1–24, 1996

    1996

  24. [30]

    G. F. Lawler. The dimension of the frontier of planar Brownian motion.Electron. Comm. Probab., 1(5):29–47, 1996

    1996

  25. [31]

    G. F. Lawler. Hausdorff dimension of cut points for Brownian motion.Electron. J. Probab., 1(2):1–20, 1996

    1996

  26. [32]

    G. F. Lawler. Strict concavity of the intersection exponent for Brownian motion in two and three dimensions.Math. Phys. Electron. J., 4(5):1–67, 1998. 47

    1998

  27. [33]

    G. F. Lawler. Conformally invariant processes in the plane, volume 114 ofMathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005

    2005

  28. [34]

    G. F. Lawler. The infinite two-sided loop-erased random walk. Electron. J. Probab., 25(87):1–42, 2020

    2020

  29. [35]

    G. F. Lawler and K. Burdzy. Non-intersection exponents for Brownian paths. Part I. Existence and an invariance principle.Probab. Theory Related Fields, 84:393–410, 1990

    1990

  30. [36]

    G. F. Lawler and E. E. Puckette. The intersection exponent for simple random walk. Combin. Probab. Comput., 9(5):441–464, 2000

    2000

  31. [37]

    G. F. Lawler, O. Schramm, and W. Werner. Values of Brownian intersection exponents. I. Half-plane exponents. Acta Math., 187(2):237–273, 2001

    2001

  32. [38]

    G. F. Lawler, O. Schramm, and W. Werner. Values of Brownian intersection exponents. II. Plane exponents.Acta Math., 187(2):275–308, 2001

    2001

  33. [40]

    G. F. Lawler, O. Schramm, and W. Werner. Values of Brownian intersection exponents. III. Two-sided exponents.Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Stat., 38(1):109–123, 2002

    2002

  34. [41]

    G. F. Lawler, O. Schramm, and W. Werner. On the scaling limit of planar self-avoiding walk. In Fractal geometry and applications: a jubilee of Benoît Mandelbrot, Part 2, vol- ume 72 ofProc. Sympos. Pure Math., pages 339–364. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2004

    2004

  35. [42]

    G. F. Lawler and B. Vermesi. Fast convergence to an invariant measure for non-intersecting 3-dimensional Brownian paths.ALEA Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat., 9(2):717–738, 2012

    2012

  36. [43]

    G. F. Lawler and W. Werner. Universality for conformally invariant intersection exponents. J. Eur. Math. Soc., 2(4):291–328, 2000

    2000

  37. [44]

    Li and D

    X. Li and D. Shiraishi. One-point function estimates for loop-erased random walk in three dimensions. Electron. J. Probab., 24(111):1–46, 2019

    2019

  38. [45]

    R. Masson. The growth exponent for planar loop-erased random walk.Electron. J. Probab., 14(36):1012–1073, 2009

    2009

  39. [46]

    Mörters and Y

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

    2010

  40. [47]

    S. C. Port and C. J. Stone.Brownian motion and classical potential theory. Probability andMathematicalStatistics.AcademicPress[HarcourtBraceJovanovich, Publishers], New York-London, 1978

    1978

  41. [48]

    Sapozhnikov and D

    A. Sapozhnikov and D. Shiraishi. On Brownian motion, simple paths, and loops.Probab. Theory Related Fields, 172(3-4):615–662, 2018

    2018

  42. [49]

    Schramm and J

    O. Schramm and J. E. Steif. Quantitative noise sensitivity and exceptional times for percolation. Ann. of Math. (2), 171(2):619–672, 2010

    2010

  43. [50]

    Shiraishi

    D. Shiraishi. Growth exponent for loop-erased random walk in three dimensions. Ann. Probab., 46(2):687–774, 2018. 48

    2018

  44. [51]

    Sznitman

    A.-S. Sznitman. On scaling limits and Brownian interlacements.Bulletin of the Brazilian Mathematical Society, New Series, 44:555–592, 2013

    2013

  45. [52]

    van den Berg and P

    J. van den Berg and P. Nolin. Near-critical 2D percolation with heavy-tailed impurities, forest fires and frozen percolation.Probab. Theory Related Fields, 181(1-3):211–290, 2021

    2021

  46. [54]

    W. Werner. Critical exponents, conformal invariance and planar Brownian motion. In European Congress of Mathematics, Vol. II (Barcelona, 2000), volume 202 ofProgr. Math., pages 87–103. Birkhäuser, Basel, 2001

    2000

  47. [55]

    Wittmann

    R. Wittmann. A uniform boundary Harnack inequality on nontangentially accessible do- mains. J. Reine Angew. Math., 387:69–96, 1988

    1988

  48. [56]

    J. M. G. Wu. Comparisons of kernel functions, boundary Harnack principle and relative Fatou theorem on Lipschitz domains. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 28(4):147–167, vi, 1978. 49

    1978

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.