Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Tail Profile of Bulk Gaussian Multiplicative Chaos Measures I: Bulk/Boundary Quotients

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A boundary localization trick proves finiteness of bulk/boundary chaos quotient moments below the curve p = min(2/γ² + q/2, 4/γ²), conjectured optimal.

desk verdict New and likely correct moment threshold for bulk/boundary GMC quotients, but the proof relies on a non-convex Kahane inequality applied to singular functionals without the required truncation argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09121 v1 pith:7UT7YNAM submitted 2025-02-13 math.PR math-phmath.MP

Yichao Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath-phmath.MP MSC 60G5760G6081T40
keywords Gaussianmultiplicativechaosbulk/boundaryquotientjointmomentslocalizationtrickKahaneinequalityboundaryLiouvilleconformalfieldtheoryupperhalf-planemomentthreshold
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 studies the pair of Gaussian multiplicative chaos measures that appears in boundary Liouville conformal field theory: a bulk measure $\mu_H$ on the upper half-plane with a uniform singularity along the boundary, and a boundary measure $\mu_\partial$ on $\mathbb{R}$ built from the same log-correlated field. It seeks the line in the $(p,q)$-plane below which the joint moment $\mathbb{E}[\mu_H(Q)^p/\mu_\partial(I)^q]$ of the bulk/boundary quotient is finite for a Carleson cube $Q$ sitting at the boundary and its projection $I$. The main theorem states the sufficiency threshold $p < \min(2/\gamma^2 + q/2, 4/\gamma^2)$ for $p,q \ge 0$, which in particular allows $p$ to exceed the bulk-only threshold $2/\gamma^2$ once $q > 0$. The proof rests on a boundary version of the localization trick that reduces a $(p,q)$-moment to a $(p,q+1)$-moment, iterated until a classical two-dimensional moment bound takes over, and on a non-convex generalization of the classical convexity comparison inequality that decouples the bulk and boundary fields. If the conjectured optimality holds, the theorem supplies the moment control behind the right tail profile of the bulk measure and the associated reflection coefficient.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the quotient functional $\mu_H(Q)^p/\mu_\partial(I)^q$ and its localized version, obtained by tilting with a Girsanov factor at a boundary point $v$: $\mu_H^v(A)=\int_A |z-v|^{-\gamma^2}\,d\mu_H(z)$ and $\mu_\partial^v(B)=\int_B |w-v|^{-\gamma^2/2}\,d\mu_\partial(w)$. Three tools do the work. The exact-scaling relations of Lemma 11 and Lemma 13 express the $r$-scaling of a $(p,q)$-moment as $r^{\zeta(p,q)}$ with $\zeta(p,q)=(2+\gamma^2/2)(p-q/2)-\gamma^2(p-q/2)^2$, and of a localized moment as $r^{\tilde\zeta(p,q)}$ with $\tilde\zeta(p,q)=\zeta(p,q)-\gamma^2(p-q/2)$; sign changes in these exponents locate the thresholds. The boundary localization trick rewrites $\mathbb{E}[\mu_H(Q)^p/\mu_\partial(I)^q]$ as $\int \mathbb{E}[\mu_H^v(Q)^p/\mu_\partial^v(I)^{q+1}]\,dv$, converting finiteness of an unlocalized $(p,q)$-moment into uniform control of localized $(p,q+1)$-moments. Finally, the non-convex comparison inequality of Theorem 6 compares normalized exponentials of two Gaussian fields under a pointwise covariance sign condition; it is used to decorrelate bulk and boundary fields and to replace any smooth bounded covariance correction by the exact-scaling kernel, reducing the general case to pure-log computations.

What would settle it

Compute the two-sided comparison in Lemma 8 for a sequence of truncated functionals $G_\epsilon(x,y)=x^p(y+\epsilon)^{-q}$ with $\epsilon\to 0$ on a finite Gaussian vector whose covariances satisfy the sign condition of Theorem 6; a limit that reverses the inequality, or a divergent ratio of the two sides, would break the reduction to exact-scaling kernels. Alternatively, simulate the multiplicative cascade analogue of the quotient at parameters just above $p=\min(2/\gamma^2+q/2,4/\gamma^2)$: convergence there would disprove the conjectured optimality, while divergence just below the line would disprove the sufficiency theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 2: for every Carleson cube $Q = [-r,r]\times[0,2r]$ near the origin in the upper half-plane, with $I=[-r,r]$ its boundary projection, and for $p,q \ge 0$, the expectation $\mathbb{E}[\mu_H(Q)^p/\mu_\partial(I)^q]$ is finite whenever $p < \min(2/\gamma^2 + q/2, 4/\gamma^2)$. The first constraint encodes boundary cancellation: near the boundary the denominator behaves like the square root of the numerator, so the effective bulk moment order is $p-q/2$ and the bulk-only threshold $2/\gamma^2$ from the author's earlier work becomes $2/\gamma^2 + q/2$. The second constraint is the classical moment bound $4/\gamma^2$ for two-dimensional Gaussian multiplicative chaos away from the boundary. The paper proves Theorem 1 as the case $q=1$ and settles the critical line $q=2p$, where the scaling exponents are identically zero and a direct scaling analysis is useless; it also proves explosion of the joint moment at $p \ge 4/\gamma^2$ whenever $q > 2p - 4/\gamma^2$, and it conjectures optimality of the full threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the generalized comparison inequality, proved for smooth functionals with subgaussian growth, remains valid for the singular quotient functional $x^p y^{-q}$. The paper applies the inequality to this functional in Lemmas 7 through 9 without supplying a truncation or approximation argument, even though the functional and its derivatives blow up as $y\to 0$. If that extension fails, the decorrelation estimates and the passage to the exact-scaling kernel that support the threshold would not be justified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $q=1$, the theorem gives $\mathbb{E}[\mu_H(Q)^p/\mu_\partial(I)]<\infty$ for $p<\min(2/\gamma^2+1/2,4/\gamma^2)$, so the reflection-coefficient case $(p,q)=(2/\gamma^2,1)$ lies inside the admissible region.
  • The proof covers $q=2p$, the critical case where the scaling exponents vanish identically, using negative moments of the boundary measure together with Hölder's inequality.
  • The moment bound extends to non-tangential trapezoids, which the author anticipates will be needed in later parts of the series.
  • Because Lemma 8 compares general smooth covariance corrections to the exact-scaling kernel, the same threshold holds for every log-correlated field in this class, not only the pure-log kernel.
  • The paper proves explosion of the joint moment at $p\ge 4/\gamma^2$ in the range $q>2p-4/\gamma^2$, and conjectures that the full threshold of Theorem 2 is optimal with explosion at criticality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the conjectured optimality is correct, the right tail of the quotient should decay at the rate $t^{-4/(\gamma^2 \max(2p-q,p))}$ in the non-critical regime; the paper records this as an expected consequence but does not prove it.
  • Beyond the paper: the critical ratio $R=\mu_H(Q)/\mu_\partial(I)^2$ is the natural next object, and a derivation of its exact law would both test the $p<4/\gamma^2$ bound and connect the moment thresholds to boundary Liouville integrability formulas.
  • Beyond the paper: the gap between Theorem 6's smooth-function hypothesis and the singular quotient could be closed by truncating $G_\epsilon(x,y)=x^p(y+\epsilon)^{-q}$ and proving the sign condition uniformly in $\epsilon$, which would convert an assumption into a proved step and is a concrete, testable extension.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies joint moments of the bulk Gaussian multiplicative chaos measure with uniform boundary singularity and its associated boundary measure, proving that for p,q ≥ 0 the quotient moment E[µ_H(Q)^p / µ_∂(I)^q] is finite when p < min(2/γ² + q/2, 4/γ²) (Theorems 1 and 2). The proof strategy combines a non-convex generalization of Kahane's inequality (Theorem 6), a boundary localization trick, and an induction scheme that reduces finiteness for (p,q) to finiteness for (p,q+1), with a base case provided by a Whitney-decomposition analysis. The paper also records exact scaling relations for localized and unlocalized quotients (Lemmas 10, 11, 13) and discusses extensions to trapezoidal domains and connections to boundary Liouville conformal field theory.

Significance. If the main result and its proof strategy are correct, this is a valuable contribution: it gives the first systematic moment bounds for bulk/boundary quotients of GMC measures, identifies the sufficiency threshold 2/γ² + q/2, and supplies the moment control needed for the right tail profile of the bulk measure in the planned sequel. The paper is refreshingly honest about what is proved and what is conjectural, and the exact-scaling computations in Section 5 are transparent and parameter-free. The claimed generalization of Kahane's inequality would be of independent interest if fully established. However, the proof contains load-bearing gaps: Theorem 6 is not applicable as stated to the singular quotient functionals used throughout, Proposition 20's proof is omitted, and the relaxation of Lemma 8 to p>0 is not demonstrated. These issues affect the reduction to the exact-scaling kernel and the induction steps, so the central claim is defensible but not yet rigorously established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Theorem 6; Lemmas 7, 8, 9] Theorem 6 is stated and proved only for functionals G that are smooth with subgaussian growth in G and its first and second derivatives. In contrast, Lemmas 7, 8, and 9 apply Theorem 6 to G(x,y)=x^p y^{-q} with p,q>0, which is singular at y=0: the second derivatives ∂_yy G = q(q+1)x^p y^{-q-2} and ∂_xy G = -pq x^{p-1} y^{-q-1} are unbounded near y=0, and no uniform lower bound on the boundary measure μ_∂(I) is available. The paper does not supply a truncation or approximation argument (e.g., replacing y by y+ε, applying Theorem 6 to the regularized functional, and passing to the limit). This gap is load-bearing because Lemma 7 and Lemma 8 are exactly the comparisons that reduce the general covariance kernel (5) to the exact-scaling kernel (6), and Lemma 9's 'if and only if' relies on the same extension. Without this extension, the exact-scaling computations in Sections 5.2–5.3 do not transfer to the kernel stated in Theorem 2. The statement that the finite-dimensional Theorem 6 generalizes to the continuum is likewise only asserted and does not cover singular functionals.
  2. [Section 5.6.2, Proposition 20] Proposition 20 (Finiteness of joint moments of Π-shaped regions) is a key input in the middle-point case v=0, which in turn is used in the general case v ∈ [−r,r] of Lemma 18. Its proof is omitted entirely, with only 'The proof is similar to Proposition 19 ... and is omitted.' This is not a routine omission: the Π-shaped region decomposes differently from the Γ-shaped region, and the treatment of p in (0,1) versus p>1, as well as the precise role of the boundary projection δΠ_r in the denominator, needs to be checked. Since the induction scheme of Theorem 2 relies on Lemma 18, this missing proof is a load-bearing gap.
  3. [Section 5.1, Lemma 8] Lemma 8 is stated only for p>1, with a parenthetical asserting that the requirement can be relaxed to p>0 because 'this only changes some signs in the proof below (namely the comparison of kernels on Q×Q because of the sign change in the second derivative of the function x↦x^p) and the proof can be modified accordingly.' No such modification is provided. The sign change is substantial: for p<1, ∂_xx x^p is negative, so the covariance ordering on Q×Q in the proof of Lemma 8 must be reversed, and it is not obvious that the two-sided comparability claim still holds with the same construction of auxiliary fields. Since Theorem 2 covers p<1, this gap affects the reduction from the general kernel (5) to the exact-scaling kernel (6) for a non-negligible range of parameters.
  4. [Section 5.4, Remark 15 and use of Lemma 9] The explosion claim at p ≥ 4/γ² in Remark 15 uses Lemma 9's lower bound E[μ_H(A)^p / μ_∂(δA)^q] ≥ C E[μ_H(A)^p] E[μ_∂(δA)^{-q}], which is said to follow from 'similar considerations' and Theorem 6. As noted above, Theorem 6 does not cover the singular quotient functional appearing here without a truncation argument. Because this explosion statement is used to assert optimality of the threshold in the cases treated in Sections 5.4 and 5.5, it should be justified as carefully as the upper bound.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3, after Lemma 4] There is a typo: 'Rougly speaking' should be 'Roughly speaking'.
  2. [Section 5.5, proof of the case q ≥ 2p−1] In the Hölder argument, the choice of (a,η) requires a(q−η) ∈ (2ap−4/γ², 2ap−1) and ap < 4/γ². The existence of such a pair is plausible but should be stated explicitly, since the interval for a(q−η) depends on a.
  3. [Remark 16] The phrase 'to first go to the (0,q')-joint moment for some higher values of q′' is confusing: the marginal (0,q′) moment is never defined for the quotient, and the preceding discussion concerns moments with positive p. The remark should be reworded for clarity.
  4. [Section 5.6.3, Proposition 21] In the proof of Proposition 21, the text says 'Repeating the proof of Proposition 21 shows that both ... are finite'; this should presumably say 'Repeating the proof of Proposition 19'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the moment threshold is computed from exact scaling relations and an induction from above, not from fitting or self-citation; the main caveat is a technical gap in applying Theorem 6 to singular quotients, which is a correctness risk, not circularity.

full rationale

The central theorem is not circular. Theorem 2 is derived by (i) computing exact scaling exponents for bulk/boundary quotients from the change of variables in the covariance kernel (Lemma 11), (ii) using these exponents to prove convergence of dyadic tilings for intermediate q (Section 5.4), (iii) handling large q by Holder's inequality and negative moments of the boundary measure (Section 5.5), and (iv) iterating from large q down to the target q via the localization trick (Lemma 18 and Sections 5.6). No parameter is fitted to the target finiteness statement, and the threshold p < min(2/gamma^2 + q/2, 4/gamma^2) emerges from the sign of the scaling exponent zeta(p;q) rather than being imposed. The comparison Lemma 8 reduces general covariance kernels to the exact-scaling kernel; even if the extension of Theorem 6 to the singular functional x^p y^{-q} is not rigorously justified, the failure is a missing approximation/truncation hypothesis, not an equivalence of input and output. The paper cites the author's prior work [Hua23] for the q=0 bulk moment bound (2) and for the exact scaling relation Lemma 10, but Theorem 2 does not reduce to those results by construction: the q>0 proof uses self-contained scaling computations (Lemma 11 includes the proof), and the induction base does not invoke (2). Thus the self-citations are transparent, parameter-free prior results, not load-bearing circular steps. The technical gap identified in the proof of Lemmas 7-9 is a correctness concern and should be addressed, but it does not make the derivation circular.

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

The central claim rests on standard GMC theory, on the author's prior bulk moment bound, and on the Girsanov localization identity. No free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced; the localized measures are explicit Girsanov tilts. The conjectured optimality of the threshold is explicitly not assumed in the proof.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Existence and moment properties of classical Gaussian multiplicative chaos, including the moment threshold p < 4/γ² in dimension two and finiteness of all negative moments for the one-dimensional boundary measure.
    Invoked throughout Sections 2, 5.1 and 5.5, with references to [RV14, BP24].
  • domain assumption The bulk moment bound from [Hua23]: E[µ_H(Q)^p] is finite if and only if p < 2/γ² for a Carleson cube touching the boundary.
    Used as the q=0 case and as the base for the induction in Section 5.6.
  • standard math The Girsanov localization identity relating E[µ∂(I) F] to an integral over localized measures.
    Central to the localization trick at the boundary in Sections 4 and 5.6.
  • domain assumption The mollifier regularization procedure for log-correlated fields can be omitted from the written estimates.
    Stated in Remark 3; standard in the GMC literature but not expanded in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tail Profile of Bulk Gaussian Multiplicative Chaos Measures I: Bulk/Boundary Quotients." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7UT7YNAM

@misc{pith2026250209121,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tail Profile of Bulk Gaussian Multiplicative Chaos Measures I: Bulk/Boundary Quotients},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7UT7YNAM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09121}
}
read the original abstract

This is the first part of a series of papers devoted to studying the right tail profile of a bulk Gaussian multiplicative chaos measure with uniform singularity on the boundary. We investigate the bulk/boundary quotients of Gaussian multiplicative chaos measures appearing in boundary Liouville conformal field theory, for which we establish preliminary joint moment bounds. These moment bounds will be a crucial ingredient in establishing the right tail profile of the bulk Gaussian multiplicative chaos measure in subsequent papers. The main idea is to implement the so-called localization trick at the boundary, and we also record a useful generalization of Kahane's convexity inequality, which is of independent interest. The study of the universal tail profiles of general bulk measures and bulk/boundary quotients as well as connections to integrability results of boundary Liouville conformal field theory will be pursued in subsequent papers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09121 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dividing a Carleson cube into infinitely many smaller cubes (Q (n) i )n≥0,i=1...,2n . By the exact scaling relation for the unlocalized bulk/boundary quotients of Lemma 11, we have ∀n ≥ 0,∀1 ≤ i ≤ 2 n , E ⎡ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ µ H(Q (n) i ) p µ∂(δQ(n) i ) q ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ = 2 −nζ(p;q)E[ µ H(QU) p µ∂(δQU) q ] . and the last expectation is finite under the condition that p < 4 γ 2 by Lemma 9. On the other hand, ● If 0 < p < 1, the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Tiling a Carleson cube by Γ-shaped regions (with respect to the bottom right end point). Proposition 19 (Finiteness of joint moments of Γ-shaped regions). Suppose that p < 4 γ 2 and (19) holds. Then (22) E[ µ H(Γ2 −1r) p µ∂(∂Γ2 −1r) q+1 ] < ∞. Proof. Notice that Γ2 −1r is the union of QU and QL , the “upper” and “lower left” part of the Carleson cube Qr. Suppose that 0 ≤ p ≤ 1, then by the subadditivity inequality, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Tiling a Carleson cube by Π-shaped regions (with respect to the middle point). Proposition 20 (Finiteness of joint moments of Π-shaped regions). If p < 4 γ 2 and (19) holds. Then (24) E[ µ H(Πr) p µ∂(δΠr) q+1 ] < ∞ Proof. The proof is similar to Proposition 19 (by decomposing the Π-shaped region into QU and two Carleson cubes) and is omitted. □ Recall that (Π2 −nr = Q2 −n+1r ∖ Q2 −nr)n=0,1,... is a tiling of Qr. We … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Superposing a Γ-tiling and a rescaled Π-tiling with respect to any point on the boundary (the Π-tiling starts with the blue regions and converges to the point v at the boundry). Denote by ρ = r − v the distance of v to its closest end point r and suppose that l is the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Covering a Γ-shape region between two dyadic scales by a Carleson cube and a region far from the boundary. Call the first set in the above union S1(d) and the second S2 (corresponding respectively to the purple and the yellow regions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    FZZ formula of boundary Liouville CFT via conformal welding

    Morris Ang, Guillaume Remy, and Xin Sun. FZZ formula of boundary Liouville CFT via conformal welding . To appear in Journal of the European Mathematical Society , 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    An elementary approach to Gaussian multiplicative chaos

    Nathana \"e l Berestycki. An elementary approach to Gaussian multiplicative chaos. Electronic Communications in Probability , 22:1--12, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Extrema of the two-dimensional Discrete Gaussian Free Field

    Marek Biskup. Extrema of the two-dimensional Discrete Gaussian Free Field . In: M. Barlow and G. Slade (eds.): Random Graphs, Phase Transitions, and the Gaussian Free Field. SSPROB 2017. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, , 304:163--407., 2020

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Gaussian free field and Liouville quantum gravity

    Nathana \"e l Berestycki and Ellen Powell. Gaussian free field and Liouville quantum gravity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16642 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Liouville quantum gravity on the Riemann sphere

    Fran c ois David, Antti Kupiainen, R\' e mi Rhodes, and Vincent Vargas. Liouville quantum gravity on the Riemann sphere. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 342(3):869--907, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Critical Gaussian multiplicative chaos: Convergence of the derivative martingale

    Bertrand Duplantier, R \'e mi Rhodes, Scott Sheffield, and Vincent Vargas. Critical Gaussian multiplicative chaos: Convergence of the derivative martingale. The Annals of Probability , 42(5), September 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Renormalization of Critical Gaussian multiplicative chaos and KPZ relation

    Bertrand Duplantier, R \'e mi Rhodes, Scott Sheffield, and Vincent Vargas. Renormalization of Critical Gaussian multiplicative chaos and KPZ relation. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 330(1):283--330, Aug 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Review on the probabilistic construction and Conformal bootstrap in Liouville theory

    Colin Guillarmou, Antti Kupiainen, and R \'e mi Rhodes. Review on the probabilistic construction and Conformal bootstrap in Liouville theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12780 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Conformal bootstrap in Liouville theory

    Colin Guillarmou, Antti Kupiainen, R \'e mi Rhodes, and Vincent Vargas. Conformal bootstrap in Liouville theory. To appear in Acta Mathematica , 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Liouville Quantum Gravity on the unit disk

    Yichao Huang, R \'e mi Rhodes, and Vincent Vargas. Liouville Quantum Gravity on the unit disk . In Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincar \'e , Probabilit \'e s et Statistiques , volume 54, pages 1694--1730. Institut Henri Poincar \'e , 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Moment bounds for Gaussian multiplicative chaos with higher-dimensional singularities

    Yichao Huang. Moment bounds for Gaussian multiplicative chaos with higher-dimensional singularities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06097 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Decompositions of log-correlated fields with applications

    Janne Junnila, Eero Saksman, and Christian Webb. Decompositions of log-correlated fields with applications. The Annals of Applied Probability , 29(6):3786--3820, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Sur le chaos multiplicatif

    Jean-Pierre Kahane. Sur le chaos multiplicatif. Ann. Sci. Math. Qu \'e bec , 9(2):105--150, 1985

    1985

  6. [14]

    Sur certaines martingales de Benoit Mandelbrot

    Jean-Pierre Kahane and Jacques Peyri \`e re. Sur certaines martingales de Benoit Mandelbrot . Advances in Mathematics , 22(2):131--145, 1976

    1976

  7. [15]

    Integrability of Liouville theory: proof of the DOZZ formula

    Antti Kupiainen, R \' e mi Rhodes, and Vincent Vargas. Integrability of Liouville theory: proof of the DOZZ formula. Annals of Mathematics , 191(1):81--166, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Critical Gaussian multiplicative chaos revisited

    Hubert Lacoin. Critical Gaussian multiplicative chaos revisited . Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincar \'e , Probabilit \'e s et Statistiques , 60(4):2328 -- 2351, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Critical Gaussian multiplicative chaos: a review

    Ellen Powell. Critical Gaussian multiplicative chaos: a review . Markov Processes and Related Fields , 27(4):557--606, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    The Fyodorov-Bouchaud formula and Liouville conformal field theory

    Guillaume Remy. The Fyodorov-Bouchaud formula and Liouville conformal field theory . Duke Mathematical Journal , 169(1):177--211, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Gaussian multiplicative chaos revisited

    Raoul Robert and Vincent Vargas. Gaussian multiplicative chaos revisited. The Annals of Probability , 38(2):605--631, 2010

    2010

  12. [20]

    Gaussian multiplicative chaos and applications: A review

    R \'e mi Rhodes and Vincent Vargas. Gaussian multiplicative chaos and applications: A review. Probability Surveys , 11(0):315--392, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    The tail expansion of Gaussian multiplicative chaos and the Liouville reflection coefficient

    R \' e mi Rhodes and Vincent Vargas. The tail expansion of Gaussian multiplicative chaos and the Liouville reflection coefficient . The Annals of Probability , 47(5):3082--3107, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Integrability of boundary Liouville conformal field theory

    Guillaume Remy and Tunan Zhu. Integrability of boundary Liouville conformal field theory . Communications in Mathematical Physics , 395(1):179--268, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Lecture notes on Liouville theory and the DOZZ formula

    Vincent Vargas. Lecture notes on Liouville theory and the DOZZ formula. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.00829 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Tail universality of critical Gaussian multiplicative chaos

    Mo Dick Wong. Tail universality of critical Gaussian multiplicative chaos. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.02755 , 2019

    1912 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Universal tail profile of Gaussian multiplicative chaos

    Mo Dick Wong. Universal tail profile of Gaussian multiplicative chaos . Probability Theory and Related Fields , 177:711--746, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.