Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 27 references

For a two-group Curie-Weiss model, a plug-in estimator built from the empirical second moments of group voting margins consistently recovers the coupling matrix in the high-temperature regime and the concentration point in the low-temperatu

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 09:19 UTC pith:EGJHIYJS

load-bearing objection A plausible but hinge-on-unproved Proposition 8; worth a referee, not a quick accept. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21662 v1 pith:EGJHIYJS submitted 2026-07-23 physics.soc-ph math.PRmath.STstat.TH

Reconstructing the Probability Measure of a Multi-group Curie-Weiss Model with Interacting Groups

Miguel Ballesteros , Gerardo Franco Cordova , Fedro Guillen , Gabor Toth This is my paper
classification physics.soc-ph math.PRmath.STstat.TH MSC 62F1082B2060F0591B12
keywords Curie-Weiss modelmulti-group mean-field modelstatistical mechanicsGibbs measureslarge population approximationvoting behaviorcoupling parameter estimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper studies statistical reconstruction of a two-group Curie-Weiss (mean-field) model, in which voters in two groups influence each other both within and across groups. It proposes plug-in estimators built from the empirical second moments of each group's voting margin: the high-temperature estimator is I - N T^{-1} N, and the low-temperature estimator is N^{-1}N^{-1} T N^{-1}N^{-1}. The main theorem shows that as the number of ballot samples grows, the high-temperature estimator converges in probability to a finite-population target J-tilde, which itself converges to the true coupling matrix J as group sizes grow, and that a scaled version converges to a centered Gaussian with an explicit covariance. In the low-temperature regime the estimator converges to the product m_lambda m_nu of the coordinates of the model's concentration point, providing information about coupling signs and magnitudes. The paper thus supplies a computationally simple alternative to maximum likelihood, which requires evaluating an intractable partition function.

Core claim

The central object is the statistic T, the sample average of the outer product of the two groups' voting margins. In the high-temperature regime the plug-in J-hat = I - N T^{-1} N converges to J-tilde_{N1,N2} as the number of ballots n grows, and J-tilde converges to J as populations N1,N2 grow; scaled error sqrt(n)(J-hat - J-tilde) converges to a centered Gaussian with covariance C given explicitly by a delta-method sandwich formula. In the low-temperature regime, m-hat = N^{-1}N^{-1} T N^{-1}N^{-1} converges to the rank-one matrix [[m1^2, m1m2],[m1m2, m2^2]] for the model's unique concentration point, identifying the sign of the cross-group coupling because sign(m2) = sign(J12). The engine

What carries the argument

Proposition 8, deferred to prior work for proof, supplies the asymptotic second-moment structure: in the high-temperature regime the normalized margin covariances approach the inverse of I-J, and in the low-temperature regime they approach the rank-one product m_lambda m_nu of the unique concentration point (m1,m2). The plug-in estimators are built from T, the empirical matrix of those second moments; the high-temperature estimator applies the inverse map I - N T^{-1} N, and the low-temperature estimator applies the scaling N^{-1}N^{-1} T N^{-1}N^{-1}. The delta method then turns the multivariate CLT for T into the stated CLTs for the estimators.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Proposition 8, stated with proof deferred to earlier articles: in the low-temperature regime there is a unique point (m1,m2) with m1>0 and m2 != 0 such that the normalized margin covariances converge to m_lambda m_nu; if that uniqueness or the sign-flip mixture structure fails for some admissible coupling matrix J, the low-temperature part of Theorem 11 collapses.

What would settle it

Fix a low-temperature, positive-definite J with negative cross-coupling (for example J11=2.0, J22=1.8, J12=-1.0), simulate the two-group Curie-Weiss model for large N1=N2=N, and compute E[S1S2]/(N1N2). If the limit does not approach m1m2 with sign(m2)=sign(J12), or if two distinct (m1,m2) points both reproduce the observed product limits, Proposition 8 is false and the theorem's low-temperature branch fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In the high-temperature regime, the coupling matrix J is consistently estimated with error of order 1/sqrt(n), and the bias caused by finite group sizes N1,N2 disappears as the groups grow.
  • The estimator is computed in O(n) time from the ballot sample; there is no partition-function evaluation, so it scales to large populations.
  • In the low-temperature regime the sign of the cross-group coupling J12 is recovered from the sign of the off-diagonal estimate, since sign(m2)=sign(J12).
  • Samples can be used to declare which regime is likely: if I - N T^{-1} N fails to be positive definite, the data are classified as low-temperature and the m-estimator is used instead.
  • The simulations indicate that for groups of 100 voters, sample sizes near 500 lead to correct regime classification almost always, and estimates within 0.1 of the true parameters about 95% of the time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: Because the low-temperature limit is the rank-one matrix m m^T, the estimator identifies m only through products; if the model were modified to allow asymmetric coupling, this rank-one structure would break and identifiability would change.
  • Editorial inference: The theorem covers the disjoint high- and low-temperature regimes; at the critical boundary I-J singular, the variance of the moments blows up and the estimator's regime call will be unreliable. A boundary analysis or a critical-regime estimator is a natural next step.
  • Editorial inference: The method assumes complete ballot configurations. In many real settings only the margins of each group are available; adapting the plug-in estimator to margin-only or subsampled data is a direct extension suggested by the present construction.
  • Editorial inference: Proposition 8's low-temperature uniqueness is assumed from earlier articles; a reader can test it numerically for random positive-definite J without waiting for a proof.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies estimation for a two-group Curie-Weiss (block-spin Ising) model with interacting groups, where the full Hamiltonian has coupling matrix J, and one observes n i.i.d. complete ballot configurations. The authors propose a plug-in estimator: in the high-temperature regime (I-J > 0), J-hat_{N1,N2,n} = I - N T(x)^{-1} N, where T is the empirical matrix of squared/ cross group sums; in the low-temperature regime, m-hat = N^{-1} N^{-1} T N^{-1} N^{-1} estimates the matrix of magnetization products. The main theoretical result, Theorem 11, asserts: (1) J-hat converges in probability to a finite-population quantity J-tilde_{N1,N2}; (2) as N1,N2 -> infinity, J-tilde_{N1,N2} -> J in the high-temperature case and m-tilde_{N1,N2} -> [[m1^2, m1 m2],[m1 m2, m2^2]] in the low-temperature case; and (3) a CLT with explicit covariance. The proof of Theorem 11 is largely a combination of the weak law of large numbers, the delta method, and Proposition 8, which supplies the asymptotic behavior of the model moments E[S_lambda S_nu] in both regimes. The paper also includes simulations for one high-temperature and one low-temperature coupling matrix.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides a computationally simple, closed-form estimator for the coupling parameters of a two-group Curie-Weiss model, avoiding the partition-function evaluation needed for maximum likelihood. This is a useful contribution to the growing literature on inverse problems for mean-field spin systems and social-choice applications. The high-temperature estimator and its CLT are natural and the algebraic steps in Section 6 are mostly standard. However, the scientific weight of the paper rests almost entirely on Proposition 8, which is stated without proof or accessible reference. In particular, the low-temperature uniqueness and the convergence of second moments to m_lambda m_nu are asserted rather than established. Because Theorem 11.2 is essentially a restatement of Proposition 8, the paper's central consistency claims are unproven unless Proposition 8 is supplied. The simulations illustrate behavior for two specific matrices but do not substitute for the missing proof.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Proposition 8 and footnote 1] Proposition 8 is the load-bearing block of the paper: Theorem 11.2 follows directly from it, and Theorem 11.1 is only the WLLN plus Definition 7. Yet the proposition is stated without proof, and the only justification is footnote 1, which refers to 'articles' that are not accessible. For the high-temperature part, the limit E[S_lambda S_nu]/sqrt(N_lambda N_nu) -> (I-J)^{-1}_{lambda nu} is standard but not derived. For the low-temperature part, the assertion of a unique (m1,m2) with m1>0 and m2≠0, and the convergence of E[S_lambda S_nu]/(N_lambda N_nu) to m_lambda m_nu, implicitly assumes both uniqueness of the global minimizer modulo spin-flip and concentration of the two-group measure on the two flipped configurations. The remark that 'the sign of m2 is the same as that of J12' does not establish either. If, for some admissible J with I-J not PSD, the mean-field free energy has more tha
  2. [Section 5.1, Theorem 11.3 and proof in Section 6.3] The CLT statements use the notation \sqrt{n}(\hat J - \tilde J) \xrightarrow{p} N(0,C) and \sqrt{n}(\hat m - \tilde m) \xrightarrow{p} N(0,D). Convergence in probability to a normal distribution is not the intended statement; the correct mode is convergence in distribution, \xrightarrow{d}. This appears in both high- and low-temperature statements of Theorem 11.3 and should be corrected. Additionally, for the high-temperature CLT, the proof applies Theorem 14 but never verifies its assumption det(Delta(mu)) \neq 0. The paper asserts that C is non-singular, but that requires checking the determinant. If det(Delta(\tilde J)) = 0 for some admissible J, the delta-method CLT as stated is invalid. This is a checkable linear-algebra condition and should be either proven or the theorem weakened accordingly.
  3. [Section 3 and Definition 7] Definition 7 defines J-tilde_{N1,N2} implicitly by (I - J-tilde)^{-1} = E[diag-style matrix of scaled second moments]. Consequently, Theorem 11.1, asserting \hat J_{N1,N2,n} \xrightarrow{p} J-tilde_{N1,N2}, is an immediate consequence of the WLLN and the continuity of matrix inversion; it is true by construction. This should be stated explicitly to avoid giving the impression that the main content of Theorem 11.1 is a statistical consistency result. The substantive statistical claim is the limit J-tilde -> J as N1,N2 -> infinity, which is exactly Proposition 8. The paper's presentation should separate these two layers, especially since the reader may otherwise mistake Definition 7 for a model assumption rather than a definition.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2.2, Table 2] The text says the estimator for (m1^2, m2^2) was within tolerance 100% of the true value, but Table 2 reports a statistic named '(T(x)_{1,1}, T(x)_{2,2})' within tolerance. The table label does not match the estimator described in the text; clarify whether the table reports T or the m-hat-based estimator.
  2. [Appendix, Theorem 14] The theorem states \Upsilon > 0 and then uses \Sigma in equation (9). This is a typo; also the domain is written as D \subset \mathbb{R} but should be D \subset \mathbb{R}^d for a d-dimensional delta method.
  3. [Section 5.2.1] The sentence 'The estimate \hat J_{N1,N2,n}(x) lay within a tolerance of 0.1 of the true coupling matrix in (4) 20% of the time' is inconsistent with Table 1, which says 27% for the same row. One of the two numbers is wrong.
  4. [Section 5.2.2] The notation (\hat m)^2_1 and (\hat m)^2_2 is misleading because \hat m is a 2x2 matrix. Use explicit entries such as ((\hat m)_{1,1})^2, ((\hat m)_{2,2})^2, and sign((\hat m)_{1,2}).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The central N→∞ consistency of the estimators reduces to Proposition 8, which is stated without proof and pointed only to a chain of same-author 'articles'.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3 (Definition 7 and Proposition 8); Section 6.2 (Proof of Theorem 11, Statement 2)]
    "The above definition is supported by the following limit result. Proposition 8. If I−J >0 holds, then we have, for all λ, ν∈N2, E_{J,N1,N2} SλSν/√(NλNν) → ((I−J)^{−1})_{λ,ν}. If I−J≥0 does not hold and J1,2≠0, then there is a unique point (m1,m2)∈R2 with m1>0 and m2≠0 such that E_{J,N1,N2} SλSν/(NλNν) → mλmν. [footnote:] If J1,2=0, the two groups are independent and we can estimate the coupling constants J1,1,J2,2 separately. See articles."

    The proof of Theorem 11.2 does not establish Proposition 8; it writes 'Proposition 8 states that ... By Definition 7, ... which ... is equivalent to Jtilde → J.' Thus the N→∞ identification of the estimator with J (or with mλmν in the low-temperature regime) is literally the unproved proposition restated through Definition 7. The only pointer is the footnote 'See articles,' and the surrounding reference list is dominated by the authors' own prior work ([3],[4],[5],[19],[20],[24]); no proof, machine check, or independent benchmark is supplied. The central reconstruction claim therefore rests on an imported, unverified result from the authors' own program rather than on a derivation in this paper. The low-temperature uniqueness, the implicit sign structure of the magnetization, and the asser

full rationale

The finite-n parts of Theorem 11 (Jhat → Jtilde, mhat → mtilde, and the CLTs) are WLLN/CLT/delta-method consequences of Definitions 6, 7, 9, and 10; these are not circular, but they are also not the substantive part of 'reconstructing J'. The substantive part is the N→∞ statement (Theorem 11.2 in both regimes), and Section 6.2 proves it by citing Proposition 8. Since Proposition 8 is stated without proof and only footnoted to 'articles' that are predominantly same-author preprints, the derivation chain has a load-bearing self-citation at its core. This is not a fitted-parameter tautology, and no data are reused as predictions, so the score is moderate rather than extreme. If Proposition 8 is accepted as an externally established theorem, the remaining argument is standard and non-circular; as presented, the manuscript does not itself derive the central consistency claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No fitted free parameters appear in the central claim: the three entries of J are the estimation targets, and the normalization N = diag(sqrt(N1), sqrt(N2)) is forced. The low-temperature 'concentration point' (m1,m2) is a function of the model, not an invented entity. The load-bearing assumptions are the unproved limit statement Proposition 8 and its implicit phase-mixing structure, plus the full-observation sampling model.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Proposition 8: for the two-group block spin Ising model with J>0, E[S_lambda S_nu]/sqrt(N_lambda N_nu) -> (I-J)^{-1}_{lambda nu} in high temperature; in low temperature there is a unique (m1,m2) with m1>0 and m2!=0 such that E[S_lambda S_nu]/(N_lambda N_nu) -> m_lambda m_nu.
    Stated without proof in Section 3 (Prop. 8), footnoted 'See articles' with heavy self-citation (refs [3],[4],[5],[19]). The entire Theorem 11.2 and the low-temperature identifiability analysis rest on it. The high-temperature part is a standard mean-field susceptibility result; the low-temperature part includes a non-trivial uniqueness assertion for the magnetization vector that is not argued here.
  • domain assumption Low-temperature mixture structure: the two groups flip sign together, so E[S_lambda S_nu]/(N_lambda N_nu) -> m_lambda m_nu and E[(S_lambda/N_lambda)^2] -> m_lambda^2.
    Implicit in Prop. 8's assertions. If the groups' signs fluctuated independently, the cross-expectation would vanish. The paper never states or proves the joint-sign structure of the low-temperature Gibbs measure.
  • domain assumption Observation model: n i.i.d. complete ballot configurations from the Gibbs measure (Section 3).
    The estimators use full per-sample group sums. If only aggregated margins or partial observations were available, the statistics would differ (the authors cite ref [6] for the partial-observation case).
  • standard math Standard asymptotic toolkit: WLLN, CLT, continuous mapping, delta method (Appendix Theorems 12-14).
    The appendix states these as background. The delta-method condition det(Delta(mu)) != 0 is asserted implicitly by claiming C non-singular, but never verified in Section 6.3.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10580 in / 25136 out tokens · 253923 ms · 2026-08-01T09:19:52.944164+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the problem of reconstructing the probability measure of a multi-group version of the Curie-Weiss or mean-field model of ferromagnetism from a sample of the voting behaviour the population. While originally used to study phase transitions in statistical mechanics, the Curie-Weiss or mean-field model has been applied to study phenomena where many agents interact with each other, in particular in case of a heterogeneous population with identifiable subpopulations. The degree of social cohesion within social groups manifests in the way the members of the group influence each others' decisions as well as how they behave under outside influence from voters belonging to another group. Contrary to single-group Curie-Weiss models, here we have a larger number of coupling parameters which have to be estimated. While the maximum likelihood estimator of the coupling parameters has desirable statistical properties in theory, computational challenges make applications to larger populations impractical. Therefore, we analyse an estimator based on asymptotic approximations to the behaviour of the Curie-Weiss model valid for large populations. Due to the wide applicability of models such as Curie-Weiss, the estimator is potentially useful in disciplines such as political science, sociology, automated voting, and preference aggregation.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alodjants, A

    Alexander P. Alodjants, A. Yu. Bazhenov, A. Yu. Khrennikov, and A. V. Bukhanovsky. Mean-field theory of social laser.Sci. Rep., 12(8566), 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Karpelevich, M

    Fran¸ cois Baccelli, Fridrikh I. Karpelevich, M. Ya. Kelbert, Anatolii A. Puhalskii, A. N. Rybko, and Yuri M. Suhov. A mean-field limit for a class of queueing networks.J. Stat. Phys., 66:803–825, 1992

    1992

  3. [3]

    Mena, Jos´ e Luis P´ erez, and Gabor Toth

    Miguel Ballesteros, Rams´ es H. Mena, Jos´ e Luis P´ erez, and Gabor Toth. Detection of an arbitrary number of communities in a block spin ising model.PLoS One, 21(3), 2026. arXiv:2311.18112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Mena, Arno Siri-J´ egousse, and Gabor Toth

    Miguel Ballesteros, Rams´ es H. Mena, Arno Siri-J´ egousse, and Gabor Toth. Reconstruction of the prob- ability measure and the coupling parameters in a curie-weiss model. 2025. arXiv:2505.21778

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Approximation techniques for the reconstruction of the probability measure and the coupling parameters in a Curie-Weiss model for large populations

    Miguel Ballesteros, Ivan Naumkin, and Gabor Toth. Approximation techniques for the reconstruction of the probability measure and the coupling parameters in a Curie-Weiss model for large populations

  6. [6]

    Reconstructing the probability measure of a Curie- Weiss model observing the realisations of a subset of spins

    Miguel Ballesteros, Ivan Naumkin, and Gabor Toth. Reconstructing the probability measure of a Curie- Weiss model observing the realisations of a subset of spins. 2025. arXiv:2508.03452

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Exact recovery in the ising blockmodel.Ann

    Quentin Berthet, Philippe Rigollet, and Piyush Srivastava. Exact recovery in the ising blockmodel.Ann. Statist., 47(4):1805–1834, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    A generic mean field convergence result for systems of interacting objects

    Jean-Yves Le Boudec, David McDonald, and Jochen Mundinger. A generic mean field convergence result for systems of interacting objects. InFourth International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems (QEST 2007), pages 3–18, 2007

    2007

  9. [9]

    Brock and Steven N

    William A. Brock and Steven N. Durlauf. Discrete choice with social interactions.Rev. Econ. Stud., 68(2):235–260, 2001. 10

    2001

  10. [10]

    Modelling society with statistical mechanics: An application to cultural contact and immigration.Qual

    Pierluigi Contucci and Stefano Ghirlanda. Modelling society with statistical mechanics: An application to cultural contact and immigration.Qual. Quant., 41:569–578, 2007

    2007

  11. [11]

    Diep, Miron Kaufman, and Sanda Kaufman

    Hung T. Diep, Miron Kaufman, and Sanda Kaufman. An agent-based statistical physics model for political polarization: A monte carlo study.Entropy, 25(7), 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    Scaling limits for multi-species statistical mechanics mean-field models.J

    Micaela Fedele and Pierluigi Contucci. Scaling limits for multi-species statistical mechanics mean-field models.J. Stat. Phys., 144:1186–1205, 2011

    2011

  13. [13]

    Inverse problem robustness for multi-species mean-field spin models.J

    Micaela Fedele, Cecilia Vernia, and Pierluigi Contucci. Inverse problem robustness for multi-species mean-field spin models.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 46(6), 2013

    2013

  14. [14]

    Parameter evaluation of a simple mean-field model of social interaction.Math

    Ignacio Gallo, Adriano Barra, and Pierluigi Contucci. Parameter evaluation of a simple mean-field model of social interaction.Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 19(supp01):1427–1439, 2009

    2009

  15. [15]

    Beitrag zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus.Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik, 31:253–258, 1925

    Ernst Ising. Beitrag zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus.Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik, 31:253–258, 1925

    1925

  16. [16]

    Rosenthal

    Boyan Jovanovic and Robert W. Rosenthal. Anonymous sequential games.J. Math. Econ., 17(1):77–87, 1988

    1988

  17. [17]

    Pieter Willem Kasteleijn.Statistical Problems in Ferromagnetism, Antiferromagnetism and Adsorption. 1956

    1956

  18. [18]

    On penrose’s square-root law and beyond.Homo oecon., 24(3/4):357–380, 2007

    Werner Kirsch. On penrose’s square-root law and beyond.Homo oecon., 24(3/4):357–380, 2007

    2007

  19. [19]

    Limit theorems for multi-group Curie-Weiss models via the method of moments.Math

    Werner Kirsch and Gabor Toth. Limit theorems for multi-group Curie-Weiss models via the method of moments.Math. Phys. Anal. Geom., 25(24), 2022

    2022

  20. [20]

    Optimal weights in a two-tier voting system with mean-field voters

    Werner Kirsch and Gabor Toth. Optimal weights in a two-tier voting system with mean-field voters. Soc. Choice Welf., 2025

    2025

  21. [21]

    Fluctuation results for general block spin Ising models.J

    Holger Kn ¨opfel, Matthias L ¨owe, Kristina Schubert, and Arthur Sinulis. Fluctuation results for general block spin Ising models.J. Stat. Phys., 178:1175–1200, 2020

    2020

  22. [22]

    Exact recovery in block spin Ising models at the critical line

    Matthias L ¨owe and Kristina Schubert. Exact recovery in block spin Ising models at the critical line. Electron. J. Stat., 14:1796–1815, 2020

    2020

  23. [23]

    Crystal statistics I

    Lars Onsager. Crystal statistics I. A two-dimensional model with an order-disorder transition.Phys. Rev., 65(3-4):117–149, 1944

    1944

  24. [24]

    PhD Thesis, FernUniversit ¨at in Hagen, April 2020

    Gabor Toth.Correlated Voting in Multipopulation Models, Two-Tier Voting Systems, and the Democracy Deficit. PhD Thesis, FernUniversit ¨at in Hagen, April 2020. doi:10.18445/20200505-103735-0

    work page doi:10.18445/20200505-103735-0 2020

  25. [25]

    Cambridge University Press, 1 edition, 1998

    Adrianus Willem Van der Vaart.Asymptotic Statistics. Cambridge University Press, 1 edition, 1998. 11 Appendix Theorem 12(Continuous Mapping).Let(Y n)n∈N be a sequence of random variables andYa random variable, each of them taking values in some subsetA⊂R, such thatY n p − − − − → n→∞ Y, and letg:A→Rbe a continuous function. Then g(Y n) p − − − − → n→∞ g(Y...

    1998

  26. [26]

    , x(n) : R x(1),

    A law of large numbers holds for the sequenceR x(1), . . . , x(n) : R x(1), . . . , x(n) p − − − − → n→∞ µ

  27. [27]

    , x(n) −µ : √n R x(1),

    A central limit theorem holds for the sequence √n R x(1), . . . , x(n) −µ : √n R x(1), . . . , x(n) −µ d − − − − → n→∞ N 0, σ2 . . Theorem 14(Delta Method).Let(Y n)n∈N be a sequence of random vectors taking values in some open set D⊂R d for fixedd∈Nand assume there areµ∈R d,Υ∈R d×d,Υ>0such that √n(Y n −µ) d − − − − → n→∞ N(0,Σ) (9) holds. Letf:D→R d be a ...