Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Random polytopes in convex bodies: Bridging the gap between extremal containers

T0 review · 1 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 Random polytopes in products of Euclidean balls are shown to grow at rates that interpolate between the smooth and polytopal regimes, with the rate determined by the largest adjusted block dimension.

desk verdict New interpolating rates for random polytopes in products of balls, but the proof as written has a real gap in the key Laplace lemma. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19163 v1 pith:UXOUEBD2 submitted 2024-11-28 math.PR math.MG

Florian Besau , Anna Gusakova , Christoph Thäle This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath.MG MSC 52A2252A2760D05
keywords randompolytopesblock-betadistributionexpectedfacetnumberproductbodymeta-cubefloatingbodiesaffinesurfaceareainterpolation
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

Random polytopes formed as convex hulls of n independent points behave very differently when the container is smooth, with facets growing like a power of n, and when it is a polytope, with facets growing like a power of log n. This paper aims to establish that one natural family of containers, products of Euclidean balls of possibly different dimensions, interpolates between these two regimes. Its main theorem states that for block-$\beta$ distributed points the expected number of facets is of order $n^{{(kmax-1)/(kmax+1)}}$ (ln n)^{#kmax-1}, where k_i=(d_i+β_i)/(1+β_i) is the adjusted dimension of block i, and kmax and #kmax record the largest value and how many blocks attain it. The content of the formula is that the exponent of n is governed entirely by the dominant block, while an extra logarithmic factor appears exactly when several blocks tie for the maximum.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the meta-cube reduction. Because Z_d is invariant under the product group SO(d_1)×…×SO(d_m), every cap and section of Z_d is, up to a rotation, determined by a cap or section of the m-dimensional cube [-1,1]^m with a transformed block-$\beta$ parameter; this turns a d-dimensional integral-geometry computation into a product of one-dimensional integrals over [0,1]^m. Those integrals are evaluated by an extended product-integral lemma (Lemma 2.4), and a Sylvester-type functional measuring the expected volume of a random simplex in a section is shown to be uniformly bounded away from zero (Lemma 3.5), so that only the cap-volume asymptotics drive the rate.

What would settle it

Numerically evaluate the product integrals in Lemma 2.4(2) for small n and m = 2 with a1 > a2 and c = 1, checking that the leading term's o_n(1) is uniform as the integration variables approach 0 and 1; alternatively, simulate E f_{d-1}(P_{n,d}) for uniform points in Z_{(2,2)} against Z_{(3,1)} and compare log-log slopes to the predicted $n^{{1/3}}$ ln n and $n^{{1/2}}$ rates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for a container Z_d = ∏ B_{d_i}^2 and independent points with block-$\beta$ density of parameter β_i in block i, set k_i = (d_i+β_i)/(1+β_i) ≥ 1. Then the expected number of facets satisfies E f_{d-1}(P^β_{n,d}) ≍ $n^{{(kmax-1)/(kmax+1)}}$ (ln n)^{#kmax-1}, where kmax = max_i k_i and #kmax counts the number of blocks attaining it. For uniform points (β = 0) the same rate holds for the expected number of j-faces for all j, and the expected missing volume satisfies Vold(Z_d) − E Vold(P_{n,d}) ≍ $n^{{-2/(dmax+1)}}$ (ln n)^{#dmax-1}, where dmax and #dmax are defined from the block dimensions. The paper interprets the extra logarithm as the number of surplus facets formed by connecting separate clusters of points that concentrate in the parts of the boundary corresponding to the maximal adjusted dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The proof leans on the claim in Lemma 2.4(2) that the error term in a second-order Laplace expansion is uniform in the integration variables; the paper asserts this uniformity without carrying out the computation, and it is applied after several coordinate substitutions in the proof of Theorem 1.1.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The cylinder B^{d-1} × [-1,1] has kmax = d-1, so E f_{d-1} ≍ n^{(d-2)/d}: a fractional power strictly between the smooth rate n^{(d-1)/(d+1)} and the polytopal rate (ln n)^{d-1}.
  • For a Lagrangian product B^k × B^k, the two blocks tie at kmax = k, producing E f ≍ n^{(k-1)/(k+1)} ln n; the logarithm appears only because of the tie.
  • In the uniform case, the expected volume difference is ≍ n^{-2/(dmax+1)} (ln n)^{#dmax-1}, transferring the facet-rate formula to volume approximation via the floating-body bounds.
  • For general β, a block with d_i = 1 gives k_i = 1 and can never be the dominant block; the polytopal cube regime (all k_i = 1, #kmax = d) is recovered as the extreme case.
  • Corollary 1.2 extends the facet rate to faces of dimension at least floor(d/2) − 1 for arbitrary block-beta distributions; the low-dimensional faces are controlled by the same rate only in the uniform case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable extension is to replace the Euclidean ball factors by general smooth convex bodies: the paper's Conjecture 5.1 predicts the same rates, and the meta-cube argument suggests the mechanism is local cap structure rather than the exact Euclidean geometry.
  • In the β → −1 limit the block-beta density degenerates to the uniform measure on the sphere, and if the paper's Conjecture 5.4 holds the adjusted dimensions k_i exceed d_i, so a lower-dimensional block could dominate the exponent; this regime is currently unproved.
  • The tie-induced logarithm is reminiscent of ridge clustering in polytopal containers; one could probe whether, for B^k × B^k, most facets cluster near the ridge S^{k-1}×S^{k-1}, as the paper suggests, which would be a directly checkable geometric signature.
  • The open constant problem for m ≥ 2 likely requires analyzing non-vertex meta-cube configurations, so numerical evaluation of the constant for B^2 × B^2 could guide future work.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies random polytopes generated as convex hulls of n independent points from block-beta distributions on the product body Z_d = B_{d_1}^2 × ... × B_{d_m}^2. The main result (Theorem 1.1) asserts that the expected number of facets grows as n^{(kmax-1)/(kmax+1)} (log n)^{#kmax-1}, where k_i = (d_i+β_i)/(1+β_i) and kmax, #kmax are the maximum and multiplicity of the beta-adjusted dimensions. This unifies and interpolates the classical smooth case (power law, m=1) and the polytopal case (logarithmic, d_i=1). For the uniform distribution the paper also gives growth rates for all face numbers and for the expected volume difference (Corollary 1.2). The proof uses the Blaschke-Petkantschin formula, a reduction to a 'meta-cube' via polyspherical coordinates, geometric estimates for meta-caps and meta-sections, and an integral asymptotic lemma (Lemma 2.4) extending results of Affentranger-Wieacker.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides the first natural family of convex containers exhibiting the full interpolation between smooth and polytopal random-polytope behavior, with explicit exponents. It recovers known results for the Euclidean ball and the cube, and it gives a new class of bodies for which floating-body asymptotics can be read off from the Bárány-Larman inequalities. The meta-cube reduction is an elegant and potentially reusable idea. The proof is detailed and includes simulation support; the main obstacle is a gap in the proof of the integral-asymptotic lemma, which is repairable.

major comments (1)
  1. [Lemma 2.4(2)] The proof of Lemma 2.4(2) is not complete as written. After the change of variables z = c x_1...x_{ℓ-1}(n-α)y, the inner integral J_2 is expressed as (c x_1...x_{ℓ-1}(n-α))^{a_ℓ+1} ∫_0^1 e^{-n h(y)} φ(y) dy with h(y) = -log(1 - c x_1...x_{ℓ-1} y). The proof invokes [50, Thm. II.1.1] and states that 'computing the second-order term in this expansion shows that the sequence o_n(1) can be chosen independently of x_1,...,x_{ℓ-1}'. This uniformity assertion is not justified and is pointwise false on the full domain: if t := c x_1...x_{ℓ-1} satisfies t n ≤ C, then J_2 is of order (t n)^{a_ℓ+1}, not of order Γ(a_ℓ+1). The paper provides no computation and no splitting of the outer integral over x_1,...,x_{ℓ-1} to show that the region where t n is bounded contributes negligibly after multiplication by the weight ∏ x_i^{a_i-a_ℓ-1}. Since Lemma 2.4(2) is applied in Steps 2 and 3 of the proof of Theorem 1.1 after several variable substitutions, the derivation of the (log n)^{#kmax-1} factor and the threshold in Theorem 1.1 is not established as written. This is a proof gap rather than a demonstrated counterexample; the final rates are plausible and consistent with special cases, but the authors should supply the missing boundary estimate or an alternative proof of the integral asymptotics.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1] In the displayed reduction formula for E f_{d-1}(P^β_{n,d}) after applying Blaschke-Petkantschin and Lemma 3.1, the factor Vol_{m-1}(C(v,s); tilde β) appears without the exponent d. The correct expression, as used consistently in Steps 2 and 3, has Vol_{m-1}(C(v,s); tilde β)^d. Please correct the display.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] There are several typos: 'the the underlying model parameters' in the abstract, 'play significant role' and 'they used to model' in Section 1.1. These should be fixed.
  3. [Figure 1.2] The caption says 'n≤105'; this should read 'n≤10^5'.
  4. [Lemma 2.4(2) proof] The intermediate expression (log(c x_1...x_{ℓ-1}(n-α)))^{m-ℓ} is not positive on the whole domain for small x_i, especially when m-ℓ is odd. The asymptotic notation should be applied to absolute values or to the final integrated quantity, with the sign issue handled explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Theorem 1.1 is derived from Blaschke–Petkantschin, polyspherical coordinates, and new geometric estimates; the classical smooth and polytopal cases are recovered as special cases, not used as inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Theorem 1.1 is proved by expressing the expected facet number through the affine Blaschke–Petkantschin formula (Proposition 2.1), reducing the SO(d)-symmetric product body Z_d to a meta-cube via the explicit coordinate transformation in Lemma 3.1, and bounding the resulting integrals with the new estimates in Lemmas 3.2–3.5. The key asymptotic lemma, Lemma 2.4, is an independent extension of a lemma from Affentranger–Wieacker [2], proved using Laplace's method from Wong [50]; it is not derived from Theorem 1.1 or from any fitted quantity. The exponents kmax and #kmax emerge from the substitutions in Steps 2 and 3 of Section 4, rather than being imposed by definition. The known results for smooth bodies and polytopes, equations (1.1)–(1.4), are cited only as background and are then recovered as special cases m=1 and m=d; they are not load-bearing inputs. Self-citations such as [27], [28], [22], and [25] are contextual (projection property, a previously known special case, Poissonization background, and T-functionals) and do not carry the proof of the main claim. The skeptical concern about the uniformity of the o_n(1) term in Lemma 2.4(2) is a potential proof gap or correctness risk, not circularity: it concerns whether a stated asymptotic estimate is rigorously justified, not whether an input is equivalent to the conclusion. No parameter is fitted to data, no prediction is a renamed fit, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation. The paper is therefore not circular; overall circularity score 0.

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

The central theorem is a pure math result built on standard integral geometry (Blaschke-Petkantschin, polyspherical coordinates), plus cited external theorems (Groemer's simplex bound, Hinman's face inequality, Barany's floating-body bounds). No parameters are fitted to data; d and beta are model inputs. The meta-cube is a proof device, not a new physical entity.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Blaschke-Petkantschin formula (Prop. 2.1) transforms the d-fold integral over point tuples into an integral over hyperplanes, with Jacobian given by the (d-1)-volume of the convex hull.
    Used at the start of Section 4.1 to represent E f_{d-1}.
  • domain assumption Groemer's theorem [19] (with Blaschke [12] for d=2): among convex bodies, the normalized expected volume of a random simplex is minimized by the ball; used to lower-bound the Sylvester functional uniformly (Eq. 3.15).
    External theorem cited in Lemma 3.5; gives the uniform lower bound G >= C_d.
  • domain assumption Hinman's face-number inequality [24, Thm. 3.2]: f_j(P) >= rho(d,j) f_{d-1}(P) for j >= floor(d/2)-1.
    Used in Corollary 1.2(A) to transfer facet asymptotics to face numbers.
  • domain assumption Barany-Larman [7, Thm. 1] and Barany [4, Thm. 1] floating-body inequalities (1.5)-(1.6): E volume difference and E f_j are comparable to n times the floating-body volume.
    Used in Corollary 1.2(B) to obtain volume difference and face numbers for the uniform case.
  • ad hoc to paper The error term in Lemma 2.4(2) is uniform in x_1,...,x_{ell-1}; asserted but not proved in the manuscript.
    This uniformity is necessary for the subsequent integrations in Steps 2 and 3; the paper states it follows from the second-order term without showing it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Random polytopes in convex bodies: Bridging the gap between extremal containers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UXOUEBD2

@misc{pith2026241119163,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Random polytopes in convex bodies: Bridging the gap between extremal containers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UXOUEBD2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19163}
}
abstract

We investigate the asymptotic properties of random polytopes arising as convex hulls of $n$ independent random points sampled from a family of block-beta distributions. Notably, this family includes the uniform distribution on a product of Euclidean balls of varying dimensions as a key example. As $n\to\infty$, we establish explicit growth rates for the expected number of facets, which depend in a subtle way on the the underlying model parameters. For the case of the uniform distribution, we further examine the expected number of faces of arbitrary dimensions as well as the volume difference. Our findings reveal that the family of random polytopes we introduce exhibits novel interpolative properties, bridging the gap between the classical extremal cases observed in the behavior of random polytopes within smooth versus polytopal convex containers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19163 by the authors.

Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. Simulations of uniform random polytopes generated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2. Numerical simulation for f0(Pn,d) with n ≤ 105 and with 10 repetitions for each step for the five different containers cases that can occur in R 4 from top to bottom: the ball Z(4) = B4 2 in purple with growth rate n 3/5 , the cylinder Z(3,1) = B3 2 × B1 ∞ in blue with growth rate n 1/2 , the Lagrangian product Z(2,2) = B2 2 ×B2 2 in green with growth rate n 1/3 ln n, Z(2,1,1) = B2 2 ×B2 ∞ in yellow with growth rate… view at source ↗
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. In the left figure we see a cap Z(2,1) ∩ H+(w, s) (in orange) of the cylinder Z(2,1) ⊂ R 3 (in blue) and on the right we see the corresponding meta-cap C +(v, s) ⊂ [−1, 1]2 . where x is a point in R d , d := d1 + . . . + dm, with block coordinates y1 ∈ R d1 , . . . , ym ∈ R dm. The β-content of a Borel set A ⊆ R d will be denoted by Pd(A; β, d) := Z A fβ,d(x) dx. In the notation we use, the lower index d will always… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Floating bodies for ball-convex bodies

    math.MG 2025-04 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    For R-ball convex bodies, the volume lost by the R-ball floating body at scale δ behaves like δ^{2/(n+1)} times an integral of (κ_i - 1/R)^{1/(n+1)} over the boundary, defining a rigid-motion invariant valuation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Affentranger

    F. Affentranger. The convex hull of random points with spherically symmetric distributions. Rend. Semin. Mat., Torino, 49(3):359–383, 1991

    work page 1991

  2. [2]

    Affentranger and J

    F. Affentranger and J. A. Wieacker. On the convex hull of uniform random points in a simple d-polytope. Discrete Comput. Geom., 6(4):291–305, 1991

    work page 1991

  3. [3]

    Artstein-Avidan, A

    S. Artstein-Avidan, A. Giannopoulos, and V. D. Milman. Asymptotic geometric analysis. I, volume 202 of Math. Surv. Monogr. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    I. Bárány. Intrinsic volumes andf-vectors of random polytopes. Math. Ann., 285(4):671–699, 1989

    work page 1989

  5. [5]

    I. Bárány. Random polytopes, convex bodies, and approximation. InStochastic geometry, volume 1892 ofLecture Notes in Math., pages 77–118. Springer, Berlin, 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Bárány and C

    I. Bárány and C. Buchta. Random polytopes in a convex polytope, independence of shape, and concentration of vertices.Math. Ann., 297(3):467–497, 1993

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Bárány and D

    I. Bárány and D. G. Larman. Convex bodies, economic cap coverings, random polytopes.Math- ematika, 35(2):274–291, 1988

    work page 1988

  8. [8]

    Besau and S

    F. Besau and S. Hoehner. An intrinsic volume metric for the class of convex bodies in Rn. Commun. Contemp. Math., 26(3):30, 2024. Id/No 2350006

    work page 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Besau, S

    F. Besau, S. Hoehner, and G. Kur. Intrinsic and dual volume deviations of convex bodies and polytopes. Int. Math. Res. Not., 2021(22):17456–17513, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Besau, M

    F. Besau, M. Ludwig, and E. M. Werner. Weighted floating bodies and polytopal approximation. Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 370(10):7129–7148, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Besau, C

    F. Besau, C. Schütt, and E. M. Werner. Flag numbers and floating bodies.Adv. Math., 338:912– 952, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Blaschke

    W. Blaschke. Über affine Geometrie XI: Lösung des Vierpunktproblems von Sylvester aus der Theorie der geometrischen Wahrscheinlichkeiten.Leipziger Berichte, 69:436–453, 1917

    1917

  5. [13]

    Böröczky, F

    K. Böröczky, F. Fodor, and D. Hug. The mean width of random polytopes circumscribed around a convex body.J. Lond. Math. Soc., II. Ser., 81(2):499–523, 2010

    2010

  6. [14]

    Buchta and J

    C. Buchta and J. Müller. Random polytopes in a ball.J. Appl. Probab., 21:753–762, 1984

    1984

  7. [15]

    Chakraborti, T

    D. Chakraborti, T. Tkocz, and B.-H. Vritsiou. A note on volume thresholds for random polytopes. Geom. Dedicata, 213:423–431, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    B. Efron. The convex hull of a random set of points.Biometrika, 52:331–343, 1965

    1965

  9. [17]

    R. J. Gardner.Geometric tomography, volume 58 ofEncycl. Math. Appl.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed. edition, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    R. J. Gardner, D. Hug, and W. Weil. Operations between sets in geometry.J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 15(6):2297–2352, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    H. Groemer. On some mean values associated with a randomly selected simplex in a convex set. Pacific J. Math., 45:525–533, 1973. 36

    1973

  12. [20]

    Grote and E

    J. Grote and E. M. Werner. Approximation of smooth convex bodies by random polytopes. Electron. J. Probab., 23:21, 2018. Id/No 9

    2018

  13. [21]

    Guédon, A

    O. Guédon, A. E. Litvak, and K. Tatarko. Random polytopes obtained by matrices with heavy- tailed entries. Commun. Contemp. Math., 22(4):28, 2020. Id/No 1950027

    2020

  14. [22]

    Gusakova, M

    A. Gusakova, M. Reitzner, and C. Thäle. Variance expansion and Berry-Esseen bound for the number of vertices of a random polygon in a polygon.Ann. H. Lebesgue, 6:875–906, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Haim-Kislev and Y

    P. Haim-Kislev and Y. Ostrover. A Counterexample to Viterbo’s Conjecture.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2405.16513, May 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    J. Hinman. A positive answer to Bárány’s question on face numbers of polytopes.Combinatorica, 43(5):953–962, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Hoehner, B

    S. Hoehner, B. Li, M. Roysdon, and C. Thäle. Asymptotic expectedT-functionals of random polytopes with applications toLp surface areas. Math. Nachr., 297(3):914–931, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    D. Hug. Random polytopes. InStochastic geometry, spatial statistics and random fields, volume 2068 ofLecture Notes in Math., pages 205–238. Springer, Heidelberg, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Kabluchko, D

    Z. Kabluchko, D. Temesvari, and C. Thäle. Expected intrinsic volumes and facet numbers of random beta-polytopes. Math. Nachr., 292(1):79–105, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Kabluchko, C

    Z. Kabluchko, C. Thäle, and D. Zaporozhets. Beta polytopes and Poisson polyhedra:f-vectors and angles. Adv. Math., 374:107333, 63, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    G. Kur. Approximation of the Euclidean ball by polytopes with a restricted number of facets. Stud. Math., 251(2):111–133, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Lachièze-Rey, M

    R. Lachièze-Rey, M. Schulte, and J. E. Yukich. Normal approximation for stabilizing functionals. Ann. Appl. Probab., 29(2):931–993, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Ludwig and M

    M. Ludwig and M. Reitzner. A characterization of affine surface area.Adv. Math., 147(1):138–172, 1999

    1999

  24. [32]

    E. Lutwak. Extended affine surface area.Adv. Math., 85(1):39–68, 1991

    1991

  25. [33]

    J. S. Müller. Approximation of a ball by random polytopes.J. Approx. Theory, 63(2):198–209, 1990

    1990

  26. [34]

    Prochno, C

    J. Prochno, C. Schütt, M. Sonnleitner, and E. M. Werner. Random approximation of convex bodies in Hausdorff metric. Preprint, arXiv:2404.02870 [math.MG] (2024), 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Prochno, C

    J. Prochno, C. Schütt, and E. M. Werner. Best and random approximation of a convex body by a polytope. J. Complexity, 71:19, 2022. Id/No 101652

    2022

  28. [36]

    Reitzner

    M. Reitzner. Central limit theorems for random polytopes. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 133(4):483–507, 2005

    2005

  29. [37]

    Reitzner

    M. Reitzner. The combinatorial structure of random polytopes. Adv. Math., 191(1):178–208, 2005

    2005

  30. [38]

    Reitzner

    M. Reitzner. Random polytopes. InNew perspectives in stochastic geometry, pages 45–76. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2010

    2010

  31. [39]

    Reitzner, C

    M. Reitzner, C. Schütt, and E. M. Werner. The convex hull of random points on the boundary of a simple polytope.Discrete Comput. Geom., 69(2):453–504, 2023. 37

    2023

  32. [40]

    Rényi and R

    A. Rényi and R. Sulanke. über die konvexe Hülle vonn zufällig gewählten Punkten. Z. Wahr- scheinlichkeitstheorie und Verw. Gebiete, 2:75–84, 1963

    1963

  33. [41]

    Rényi and R

    A. Rényi and R. Sulanke. über die konvexe Hülle von n zufällig gewählten Punkten. II. Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verw. Gebiete, 3:138–147, 1964

    1964

  34. [42]

    Schneider

    R. Schneider. Recent results on random polytopes.Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. (9), 1(1):17–39, 2008

    2008

  35. [43]

    Schneider

    R. Schneider. Convex bodies: the Brunn-Minkowski theory, volume 151 ofEncycl. Math. Appl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd expanded ed. edition, 2014

    2014

  36. [44]

    Schneider and W

    R. Schneider and W. Weil.Stochastic and integral geometry. Probability and its Applications (New York). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008

    2008

  37. [45]

    Schulte and J

    M. Schulte and J. E. Yukich. Rates of multivariate normal approximation for statistics in geo- metric probability.Ann. Appl. Probab., 33(1):507–548, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    C. Schütt. The convex floating body and polyhedral approximation.Isr. J. Math., 73(1):65–77, 1991

    1991

  39. [47]

    Schütt and E

    C. Schütt and E. M. Werner. The convex floating body.Math. Scand., 66(2):275–290, 1990

    1990

  40. [48]

    Schütt and E

    C. Schütt and E. M. Werner. The convex floating body of almost polygonal bodies. Geom. Dedicata, 44(2):169–188, 1992

    1992

  41. [49]

    Schütt and E

    C. Schütt and E. M. Werner. Affine surface area. InHarmonic analysis and convexity, volume 9 of Adv. Anal. Geom., pages 427–444. De Gruyter, Berlin, [2023]©2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    R. Wong. Asymptotic approximations of integrals. Computer Science and Scientific Computing. Academic Press, Inc., Boston, MA, 1989

    1989

  43. [51]

    G. M. Ziegler. Lectures on polytopes, volume 152 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer- Verlag, New York, 1995. 38

    1995

Pith tools

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