Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 36 references

$d$-dimensional spherical ferromagnets in random fields: Metastates, continuous symmetry breaking, and spin-glass features

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For d≥2 spherical ferromagnets in random fields, the asymptotic Gibbs states are explicit random pure states, and with volume-scaled fields the overlap distribution is continuous, non-self-averaging and non-ultrametric.

desk verdict A solid, genuinely new rigorous analysis of metastates and overlaps in a vector-spin model, but two printed cluster-set equalities are false as stated because the proofs themselves produce additional limit points. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16843 v1 pith:YDPEQT3W submitted 2025-05-22 math-ph math.MPmath.PR

Kalle Koskinen , Christof Külske This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MPmath.PR MSC 60K3560G5560G6082B2082B21
keywords Gibbsmeasuresrandomsymmetrybreakingmetastatesoverlapsnonself-averagingchaoticsizedependencesphericalmodelfields
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 aims to give a complete description of how a d-dimensional spherical ferromagnet in a random field chooses its magnetized state as the volume grows, for d≥2. The authors show that, in the ferromagnetic regime, the system exhibits random symmetry breaking: the infinite-volume Gibbs state is random, and the Aizenman–Wehr metastate is supported on a continuum of pure product states \nu^h_\$\Omega$ with an explicit density proportional to \langle\$\Omega$,\$Sigma^{{-1}}$\$\Omega$\$rangle^{{-d/2}}$. In dimension d=2 the set of almost-sure cluster points is larger, containing also exponential tilts over recurrent values of the field-sum random walk, while for d≥3 only pure states occur. When the random fields are scaled by 1/\sqrt n, the model shows spin-glass features: the overlap distribution is non-self-averaging and replica-symmetry-breaking, it is continuous for d≥2 and discrete for d=1, and it oscillates chaotically with volume. A sympathetic reader would care because these results turn qualitative spin-glass phenomena into explicit formulas in a model with continuous symmetry breaking.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the representation of the finite-volume Gibbs state as an integral mixture \mu^h_n=\$\alpha$^h_n[\$nu^{{x,y,h}}$_n] over shifted microcanonical product measures, with the mixing measure \$\alpha$^h_n exponentially tilted by \psi^h_n(x,y)=\frac{\$\beta$}{2}\|x\|^2+\$\beta$\langle m_n,x\rangle+\$\beta$\langle s_n,y\rangle+\frac{d}{2}\ln(1-\|x\|^2-\|y\|^2). Laplace-type concentration forces \$\alpha$^h_n to collapse onto the maximizing sphere r^*$S^{{d-1}}$\times\{s\}, reducing the state to the pure Gaussian product \nu^h_\$\Omega$; the direction \$\Omega$ is selected by the field-sum random walk S_n, whose CLT, functional CLT, and recurrence/transience properties then feed into the metastate and overlap formulas. The pure states have marginal G_j(i)/\sqrt\$\beta$+r^*\Omega_j+h_j(i), and the tilted mixtures \bar\nu^h_z are sphere-averages of these with weight e^{\$\beta$ r^*\langle z,\$\Omega$\rangle}.

What would settle it

Compute, by Monte Carlo, the empirical law of \hat S_n/\|S_n\| for d=2 anisotropic Gaussian fields and compare it with the claimed metastate density \rho_P(\$\Omega$)\propto\langle\$\Omega$,\$Sigma^{{-1}}$\$\Omega$\$rangle^{{-1}}$; a persistent mismatch would rule out Theorem 4.7. For the scaled-field overlap, histogram $R^{{a,b}}$_n for d=2 at large n and check both that it is atomless on (r^*)^2[-1,1] and that its shape tracks \rho_{\|S_n\|/\sqrt n} as the random-walk radius fluctuates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the asymptotic Gibbs states of the d-dimensional spherical model with i.i.d. random fields admit explicit formulas in the ordered regime \|s\|<1, \$\beta$>d/(1-\|s\|^2). For non-scaled fields and d≥2, the finite-volume Gibbs measure is asymptotically \nu^h_{S_n/\|S_n\|}, a product of Gaussians magnetized in the direction of the field-sum S_n; the Aizenman–Wehr metastate is \kappa^h=\int_{$S^{{d-1}}$}d\$\Omega$\,\rho_P(\$\Omega$)\,\delta_{\nu^h_\$\Omega$} with \rho_P(\$\Omega$)\propto\langle\$\Omega$,\$Sigma^{{-1}}$\$\Omega$\$rangle^{{-d/2}}$, so mixtures receive zero metastate weight and only pure states are visible. In d=2 the recurrent level sets of the random walk add tilted mixtures \bar\nu^h_z to the cluster-point set, while in d≥3 transience kills all mixtures. For volume-scaled fields h/\sqrt n, the overlap distribution converges in bounded-Lipschitz distance to \rho_{\|S_n\|/\sqrt n}, defined through \gamma_z-measures on the sphere; this distribution is atomless and supported on all of (r^*)^2[-1,1] for d≥2, giving replica symmetry breaking and non-self-averaging, and it is ultrametric exactly when d=1. The Newman–Stein metastate is \$int_0^{1}$ dt\,\delta_{\nu^h_{\hat B_t}} for non-scaled fields and \$int_0^{1}$ dt\,\delta_{\bar\$nu^{0}$_{B_t/\sqrt t}} for scaled fields, with Brownian motion independent of the local field configuration.

Load-bearing premise

The d=2 Newman–Stein metastate result assumes the random fields have a finite third moment, because the proof needs a rate-of-convergence estimate that is only available under that assumption; without it, the d=2 column of the results is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For d≥2, the almost-sure limit points of finite-volume Gibbs measures are fully classified: pure product states in all dimensions, plus tilted mixtures in d=2 indexed by recurrent values of the random walk.
  • The Aizenman–Wehr metastate assigns zero weight to mixtures, so typical large volumes are pure even when the cluster-point set contains non-product states.
  • For volume-scaled random fields and d≥2, the overlap distribution is atomless on the full interval (r^*)^2[-1,1], establishing replica symmetry breaking and non-self-averaging in a solvable ferromagnetic model.
  • Ultrametricity of the overlap distribution holds exactly in d=1 and fails for d≥2, so continuous spin symmetry is what destroys ultrametricity in this model.
  • The overlap for non-scaled fields is asymptotically trivial, \delta_{1-d/\beta}, in every dimension, despite the metastate being spread over many pure states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the formulas hold, the same Brownian-projection mechanism should appear in other vector spin systems with quadratic spherical constraints, suggesting that continuous random-field symmetry breaking generically produces continuous, non-ultrametric overlap laws.
  • The explicit density \rho_P(\Omega)\propto\langle\Omega,\Sigma^{-1}\Omega\rangle^{-d/2} is testable by Monte Carlo sampling of \hat S_n/\|S_n\| under anisotropic field distributions; deviations would signal missing finite-size corrections.
  • The d=2 third-moment assumption appears to be technical; one could test whether the Newman–Stein limit persists for heavy-tailed fields with finite second moments by numerical evaluation of empirical metastates.
  • The scaled-field construction gives a continuous-spin analogue of spin-glass behavior in which chaotic size dependence and replica symmetry breaking coexist with ferromagnetic order, not with spin-glass disorder.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Curie--Weiss spherical model with $d$-dimensional vector spins and i.i.d. random fields, for both non-scaled and volume-scaled fields. For non-scaled fields it proves chaotic size dependence: for $d\ge 3$ the cluster points of the finite-volume Gibbs measures are pure product states indexed by the sphere, while for $d=2$ the cluster set also contains $z$-tilted mixtures indexed by the recurrent set of the disorder random walk. It derives the Aizenman--Wehr metastate as an explicitly computed sphere average of pure states, identifies the Newman--Stein metastate limit in terms of a sphere-projected Brownian motion, and shows that the overlap distribution converges to a trivial atom. For volume-scaled fields it derives a random overlap approximation governed by $\gamma_{S_n/\sqrt n}$, and from it concludes non-self-averaging, replica-symmetry-breaking, and non-ultrametric overlap behavior for $d\ge 2$, together with explicit metastate formulas. The proofs use a finite-volume mixture representation, uniform convergence of shifted microcanonical measures, Laplace concentration estimates, and random-walk limit theorems.

Significance. If the results stand, the paper provides a rigorous, parameter-free demonstration of random symmetry breaking and spin-glass-like overlap behavior in a solvable mean-field vector spin model. The AW metastate density is derived rather than fitted, the scaled-field overlap limit in Theorem 1.2 is a concrete falsifiable prediction, and the proof strategy via mixture representations and random-walk asymptotics is broadly reusable. The main weaknesses are not in the concentration machinery but in the printed cluster-point equalities: several displayed sets are not closed and omit atoms that the proofs themselves produce. These errors affect the advertised 'complete description' of chaotic size dependence, but they are local and repairable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 5.4; Theorem 5.5; Theorem 5.2] In Theorem 5.4 the displayed equality $\mathrm{clust}(R^{ab}_n\ast(\mu^{h/\sqrt n}_n\otimes\mu^{h/\sqrt n}_n)) = \{R^{ab}_1\ast(r^*\gamma_z\otimes r^*\gamma_z): z\in\mathbb R^d\}$ is not correct as stated because the right-hand side is not closed, while cluster sets are closed by definition (2.11). The proof itself produces the missing atom: for an unbounded subsequence $S_{n_k}/\sqrt{n_k}$, compactness of $S^{d-1}$ gives a direction $\Omega\in S^{d-1}$, and the Laplace estimate in Lemma 5.3 yields convergence to $\delta_{(r^*)^2}$. For finite $z\in\mathbb R^d$ and $d\ge 2$, the measure $R^{ab}_1\ast(r^*\gamma_z\otimes r^*\gamma_z)$ has a density on a non-trivial interval, so $\delta_{(r^*)^2}$ is not in the displayed family. The equality should be replaced by the closure, equivalently by the displayed family together with $\delta_{(r^*)^2}$. The same omission occurs in the first bullet of Theorem 5.5: unbounded subsequences make every pure state $\nu^0_\Omega$ a cluster point, while the finite-$z$ tilt mixtures are non-product measures, so the set must include $\{\nu^0_\Omega: \Omega\in S^{d-1}\}$. Theorem 5.2, $d=2$ case, has the analogous missing atom $\delta_{(r^*)^2+\|y^*\|^2}$, and the Table 2 cluster-point row inherits the defect if the word 'set' is read literally rather than as 'closure'.
  2. [Lemma 4.8; Theorem 4.10; Theorem 4.11] The $d=2$ results on the Newman--Stein metastate are stated under Assumption A alone, but they rely on Lemma 4.8, whose $o(1)$ claim uses multivariate Berry--Esseen bounds with rate $O(n^{-1/2})$. That rate requires the finite absolute third moment $\mathbb E|h_j(i)|^3<\infty$, which is not part of Assumption A. Without this moment assumption, the almost-sure identification of the NS metastate in $d=2$ is not proved. The introduction flags this as a refined assumption, but Theorems 4.10 and 4.11 should state it explicitly, or state the $d=2$ column conditionally. This is load-bearing for the $d=2$ column of Table 1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and abstract] The title contains a spacing typo ('MET AST A TES'), and the abstract's phrase 'continuity of random product states' should read 'continuum of random product states'.
  2. [Table 1 and Remark 4.5] For i.i.d. increments uniform on $\{-1,1\}^2$, the recurrent set $P$ is the parity sublattice $\{(a,b): a+b\text{ even}\}$, not all of $\mathbb Z^2$; the table entry $\{\bar\nu^h_z: z\in\mathbb Z^2\}$ and the wording of Remark 4.5 are therefore inaccurate unless a different lattice choice is intended.
  3. [Lemma 5.3 and Theorem 5.4] Lemma 5.3 has an extra closing parenthesis in the displayed conclusion ('))) = 0'), and the proof of Theorem 5.4 writes $\delta_{r^{*2}}$ where $\delta_{(r^*)^2}$ is meant.
  4. [Section 5.2, paragraph after Lemma 4.2] The sentence 'when we say that $h$ satisfies (A), we mean that Assumption A hold as if the limit ... is vanishing' is confusing, because Assumption A has already been stated for the non-scaled model; this passage should be rewritten to define the scaled-field assumptions explicitly.
  5. [Theorem 1.2] The notation $d_{BL1}$ is used here before it is defined in Section 2.2; a one-line reminder after Theorem 1.2 would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: the AW metastate weight, cluster sets, and overlap laws are derived from the Laplace concentration of the Gibbs mixing measure and CLT limits of the disorder random walk, with no fitted parameters; self-citations to the first author's 1D paper are auxiliary, independently published lemmas and do not smuggle in the d-dimensional conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against the stated inputs (β, the covariance Σ, and the i.i.d. field law). The finite-volume Gibbs states are written as explicit mixtures of shifted microcanonical measures (Eq. 4); the Laplace concentration of the mixing measure α^h_n (Lemmas 3.4, 3.6, 3.8–3.10) and the uniform convergence of the ν-kernels (Lemma 3.1) produce the pure states ν^h_Ω with marginal G/√β + r*Ω + h(i), where r* = sqrt(1 − d/β − E||h||²) and y* = s are explicit functions of the model parameters, not fits. The AW weight ρ_P(Ω) ∝ ⟨Ω,Σ^{−1}Ω⟩^{−d/2} is obtained by projecting N(0,Σ) onto S^{d−1} ('shifting to hyperspherical coordinates and integrating the radial factors away', Theorem 4.7 proof), so it is computed from the disorder law, not posited. The scaled-field overlap 'prediction' ρ_{||S_n||/√n} is, by Eq. (1) and rotational invariance, literally the limit measure R^{ab}_1*(r*γ_{S_n/√n}⊗r*γ_{S_n/√n}) derived in Lemma 5.3, so Theorem 1.2 is an honest convergence statement indexed by the random radius, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to [23] (in the proofs of Lemma 3.3, Lemma 3.9, and Lemma 4.8) supply single-variable maximizer and Laplace-asymptotic lemmas from the first author's separately published 1D paper; these are parameter-free calculus statements whose assumptions do not include the present d-dimensional claims, hence independent support that does not raise the circularity score. Flagged, non-circularity concerns weighed in this verdict: (i) the printed cluster-set equalities in Theorem 5.4 and Theorem 5.5 (and Table 2) omit the closure points their own proofs produce (unbounded subsequences of S_n/√n concentrate γ to δ_Ω, yielding the atom δ_{(r*)²} for overlaps and the product states ν^0_Ω for Gibbs measures, neither of which lies in the displayed finite-z families for d ≥ 2; since clust(·) is closed by Eq. (2.11), the equalities are false as printed — a corrigible correctness bug, not circularity); (ii) Lemma 4.8 and Theorem 4.10 need the extra third-moment assumption E|h_j(i)|³<∞ in d=2, which the paper itself flags in the introduction and in the theorem statements; this limits the d=2 NS-metastate column but is not a reduction of a result to its inputs.

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

The central claim rests on standard probability theorems and on the specific domain assumptions of the mean-field spherical model. No free parameters are fitted to data: the constants r* and y* are computed from beta and the disorder covariance. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The only invented theoretical objects are the metastates and overlap distributions themselves, which are standard tools in the field.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Laplace method and concentration of tilted integrals around global maximizers of the limiting tilting function psi.
    Used throughout Section 3 (Lemmas 3.4, 3.8, 3.9) to identify limits of the mixing measures alpha_n and hence of the finite-volume Gibbs states.
  • standard math Law of large numbers and CLT/functional CLT for the d-dimensional random walk S_n, including transience for d>=3 and recurrence for d=2.
    Used in Lemma 4.2, Theorem 4.3, and Theorem 4.10 to convert random-walk behavior into cluster-point and metastate statements.
  • standard math Hewitt-Savage 0-1 law, Skorokhod representation, Berry-Esseen bounds, and the Brownian support (forgery) theorem.
    Used for almost-sure cluster-point sets (Lemma 4.2, Theorem 4.11) and for convergence in law (Theorems 4.7 and 4.10).
  • domain assumption Assumption A: i.i.d. centered random fields with finite second moments, full-rank covariance, E||h||^2 < 1, and beta > d/(1 - E||h||^2).
    Defines the ferromagnetic regime in which the theorems are stated; the d=2 Newman-Stein results additionally require finite third moments.
  • domain assumption The infinite-range spherical Hamiltonian is taken as the model; all results concern this fully connected mean-field system, not a lattice model.
    The paper's scope is this model, so the relevance of the results is tied to the model choice and to the global spherical constraint.
  • domain assumption The scaled-field Hamiltonian H^{h/sqrt(n)} is a model modification introduced to mimic volume-scaled random fields.
    Introduced in Section 5 and central to the overlap and metastate results for scaled fields; it is not derived from the original model but is the object of study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $d$-dimensional spherical ferromagnets in random fields: Metastates, continuous symmetry breaking, and spin-glass features." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YDPEQT3W

@misc{pith2026250516843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $d$-dimensional spherical ferromagnets in random fields: Metastates, continuous symmetry breaking, and spin-glass features},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YDPEQT3W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16843}
}
abstract

We study the large-volume behavior of the spherical model for $d$-dimensional local spins, in the presence of $d$-dimensional random fields, for $d\geq 2$. We compare two models, one with volume-scaled random fields, and another one with non-scaled random fields, on the level of Aizenman-Wehr metastates, Newman-Stein metastates, as well as overlap distributions. We show that in $d\geq 2$ the metastates are fully supported on a continuity of random product states, with weights which we describe, for both models. For the non-scaled random fields, the set of a.s. cluster points of Gibbs measures contains these product states, but behaves differently in the 'recurrent' spin dimension $d=2$ where it also contains non-trivial mixtures of tilted measures. For the scaled model, moreover the overlap distribution displays spin-glass characteristics, as it is non-self averaging, and shows replica symmetry breaking, although it is ultrametric if and only if $d=1$. For $d\geq 2$ it oscillates chaotically on a set of continuous distributions for large volumes, while the limiting set contains only discrete distributions in $d=1$. Our results are based on concentration estimates, analysis of Gibbs measures in finite but large volumes, and the asymptotics of $d$-dimensional random walks and their spherical projections.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rounding effects of quenched randomness on first-order phase transitions

    M. Aizenman and J. Wehr, “Rounding effects of quenched randomness on first-order phase transitions”, Communications in Mathematical Physics , vol. 130, no. 3, pp. 489–528, 1990. doi: 10.1007/bf02096933

    doi:10.1007/bf02096933 1990

  2. [2]

    On the number of ground states of the edwards–anderson spin glass model

    L.-P. Arguin and M. Damron, “On the number of ground states of the edwards–anderson spin glass model”, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, vol. 50, no. 1, Feb. 2014, issn: 0246-0203. doi: 10.1214/12-aihp499

    work page doi:10.1214/12-aihp499 2014

  3. [3]

    Uniqueness of ground states for short-range spin glasses in the half-plane

    L.-P. Arguin, M. Damron, C. M. Newman, and D. L. Stein, “Uniqueness of ground states for short-range spin glasses in the half-plane”, Communications in Mathematical Physics , vol. 300, no. 3, pp. 641–657, Sep. 2010, issn: 1432-0916. doi: 10.1007/s00220-010-1130-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-010-1130-8 2010

  4. [4]

    On properties of parisi measures

    A. Auffinger and W.-K. Chen, “On properties of parisi measures”, Probability Theory and Related Fields, vol. 161, no. 3–4, pp. 817–850, Apr. 2014, issn: 1432-2064. doi: 10.1007/s00440-014-0563-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s00440-014-0563-y 2014

  5. [5]

    Upper and Lower Bounds for the Correlation Length of the Two-Dimensional Random-Field Ising Model

    Y. Bar-Nir, Upper and lower bounds for the correlation length of the two-dimensional random-field ising model, 2022. arXiv: 2205.01522 [math.PR]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.01522

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Bovier, Statistical Mechanics of Disordered Systems

    A. Bovier, Statistical Mechanics of Disordered Systems. Cambridge University Press, 2006. doi: 10.1017/ cbo9780511616808. 54 REFERENCES

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    The two-dimensional continuum random field Ising model

    A. Bowditch and R. Sun, The two-dimensional continuum random field ising model , 2021. arXiv: 2008. 12158 [math.PR]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12158

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Features of a spin glass in the random field ising model

    S. Chatterjee, “Features of a spin glass in the random field ising model”, Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 405, no. 4, Apr. 2024, issn: 1432-0916. doi: 10 . 1007 / s00220 - 024 - 04986 - 9. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-024-04986-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-024-04986-9 2024

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    On the free energy of vector spin glasses with nonconvex interactions

    H.-B. Chen and J.-C. Mourrat, “On the free energy of vector spin glasses with nonconvex interactions”, Probability and Mathematical Physics , vol. 6, no. 1, 1–80, Jan. 2025, issn: 2690-0998. doi: 10.2140/pmp. 2025.6.1. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/pmp.2025.6.1

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    Coquille, C

    L. Coquille, C. K¨ ulske, and A. L. Ny, Non-atomicity of the extremal decomposition of the free state for finite-spin models on cayley trees , to appear in Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e 2025+. arXiv: 2310.11101 [math.PR]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.11101

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Extremal decomposition for random gibbs measures: From general metastates to metastates on extremal random gibbs measures

    C. Cotar, B. Jahnel, and C. K¨ ulske, “Extremal decomposition for random gibbs measures: From general metastates to metastates on extremal random gibbs measures”, Electronic Communications in Probability, vol. 23, no. none, 2018. doi: 10.1214/18-ecp200

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Quantitative disorder effects in low-dimensional spin systems

    P. Dario, M. Harel, and R. Peled, “Quantitative disorder effects in low-dimensional spin systems”, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics , vol. 405, Aug. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s00220-024-05081-9

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Distances of Probability Measures and Random Variables

    R. M. Dudley, “Distances of Probability Measures and Random Variables”, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1563 –1572, 1968. doi: 10 . 1214 / aoms / 1177698137. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177698137

    1968

  6. [14]

    Durrett, Probability

    R. Durrett, Probability. Cambridge University Press, 2019. doi: 10.1017/9781108591034

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Theory of spin glasses

    S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, “Theory of spin glasses”, Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics , vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 965–974, May 1975, issn: 0305-4608. doi: 10.1088/0305-4608/5/5/017

    1975 doi

  8. [16]

    On long range ising models with random boundary conditions

    E. O. Endo, A. C. D. van Enter, and A. L. Ny, “On long range ising models with random boundary conditions”, May 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2405.08374. arXiv: 2405.08374 [math-ph]

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    S. N. Ethier and T. G. Kurtz, Eds., Markov Processes. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1986. doi: 10.1002/ 9780470316658

    1986

  10. [18]

    On the rate of convergence in the multivariate clt

    F. G¨ otze, “On the rate of convergence in the multivariate clt”, The Annals of Probability , vol. 19, no. 2, Apr. 1991, issn: 0091-1798. doi: 10.1214/aop/1176990448

    1991

  11. [19]

    Metastates in finite-type mean-field models: Visibility, invisibility, and random restoration of symmetry

    G. Iacobelli and C. K¨ ulske, “Metastates in finite-type mean-field models: Visibility, invisibility, and random restoration of symmetry”, Journal of Statistical Physics , vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 27–55, 2010. doi: 10.1007/ s10955-010-9979-7

    2010

  12. [20]

    Kallenberg, Random Measures, Theory and Applications

    O. Kallenberg, Random Measures, Theory and Applications. Springer International Publishing, 2017. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-41598-7

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    The Limit Points of a Normalized Random Walk

    H. Kesten, “The Limit Points of a Normalized Random Walk”, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1173 –1205, 1970. doi: 10 . 1214 / aoms / 1177696894. [Online]. Available: https : //doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177696894

    1970

  14. [22]

    Klenke, Probability Theory

    A. Klenke, Probability Theory. Springer International Publishing, 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-56402- 5

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Infinite volume gibbs states and metastates of the random field mean-field spherical model

    K. Koskinen, “Infinite volume gibbs states and metastates of the random field mean-field spherical model”, Journal of Statistical Physics , vol. 190, no. 3, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s10955-023-03076-9

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Metastates in disordered mean-field models: Random field and hopfield models

    C. K¨ ulske, “Metastates in disordered mean-field models: Random field and hopfield models”, Journal of Statistical Physics, vol. 88, no. 5-6, pp. 1257–1293, 1997. doi: 10.1007/bf02732434

    1997 doi

  17. [25]

    A partition of the unit sphere into regions of equal area and small diameter

    P. Leopardi, “A partition of the unit sphere into regions of equal area and small diameter.”, eng, ETNA. Electronic Transactions on Numerical Analysis [electronic only] , vol. 25, pp. 309–327, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://eudml.org/doc/129860

    2006

  18. [26]

    C. H. Lo, J. McRedmond, and C. Wallace, Functional limit theorems for random walks , 2018. arXiv: 1810.06275 [math.PR]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06275

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    WORLD SCIENTIFIC, Nov

    M Mezard, G Parisi, and M Virasoro, Spin Glass Theory and Beyond: An Introduction to the Replica Method and Its Applications . WORLD SCIENTIFIC, Nov. 1986, isbn: 9789812799371. doi: 10.1142/

    1986

  20. [28]

    Metastates and replica symmetry breaking

    C. M. Newman, N. Read, and D. L. Stein, “Metastates and replica symmetry breaking”, Apr. 2022. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2204.10345. arXiv: 2204.10345 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    2022 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Metastate approach to thermodynamic chaos

    C. M. Newman and D. L. Stein, “Metastate approach to thermodynamic chaos”, Physical Review E , vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 5194–5211, 1997. doi: 10.1103/physreve.55.5194. REFERENCES 55

    1997 doi

  22. [30]

    Panchenko, The Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model

    D. Panchenko, The Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model. Springer New York, 2013. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614- 6289-7

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Rudin, Real and complex analysis

    W. Rudin, Real and complex analysis . McGraw-Hill, 1987, p. 416, isbn: 0070542341

    1987

  24. [32]

    Solvable model of a spin-glass

    D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, “Solvable model of a spin-glass”, Physical Review Letters , vol. 35, no. 26, pp. 1792–1796, 1975. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.35.1792

    1975 doi

  25. [33]

    D. L. Stein, Spin Glasses and Complexity (Primers in Complex Systems Ser. v.4), C. M. Newman, Ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013, 1200 pp., Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources., isbn: 9781400845637

    2013

  26. [34]

    The parisi formula

    M. Talagrand, “The parisi formula”, Annals of Mathematics , vol. 163, no. 1, pp. 221–263, Jan. 2006, issn: 0003-486X. doi: 10.4007/annals.2006.163.221

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    Talagrand, Mean Field Models for Spin Glasses

    M. Talagrand, Mean Field Models for Spin Glasses . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011. doi: 10.1007/978- 3-642-15202-3

    2011 doi

  28. [271]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/0271

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/0271

    doi

Pith tools

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