Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 37 references

Correlation decay in area-tilted line ensembles

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For sufficiently large area tilts, the infinite line ensemble has exponential decay of correlations, and every finite n-line version has a spectral gap uniformly bounded away from zero.

desk verdict Genuine advance with a real but patchable gap in Lemma 4.8; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05089 v1 pith:6UZYEQMW submitted 2026-08-05 math.PR math-phmath.MP

Shirshendu Ganguly , Vilas Winstein This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath-phmath.MP MSC 60K3560J6082B2060J70
keywords lineensemblesareatiltcorrelationdecayspectralgapbranchingprocessFKGinequalityFerrari-Spohndiffusionentropicrepulsion
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 infinite stack of non-crossing Brownian lines with geometrically increasing area tilts that is conjectured to describe low-temperature 3D Ising level curves. It proves that for all sufficiently large tilt strength $\lambda$, correlations between any two lines at times $0$ and $t$ decay exponentially in $t$, with a prefactor $\lambda^{-(i+j-2)/3}$; this improves a previous bound that was slower than polynomial. It also shows that the generator of every finite $n$-line version of the process has a spectral gap bounded below by a positive constant independent of $n$. If correct, the model has a well-defined exponential relaxation time even in the infinite-line limit, and the level-curve picture of entropic repulsion becomes quantitatively mixing at low temperature.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a tree-indexed branching process of reversal events. The interval is decomposed into nested intervals whose lengths follow the natural scale $\lambda^{-2k/3}$ of the $k$th line; on each interval one asks that line $k+1$ of the original ensemble $X$ stay below line $k+1$ of an independent pinned ensemble $Y$. Each such event has conditional probability at least a constant $q$ on its own 'on-scale' interval, independent of $\lambda$ and $k$, so under each success the next line receives $b \approx \lambda^{1/3}/(4M)$ independent trials. For large $\lambda$ this binomial branching process is supercritical; an infinite ray of successes gives a time at which every line of $X$ is at or below the corresponding line of $Y$. Combined with stochastic domination and a strong Brownian Gibbs property that permits resampling on random stopping domains, this reverses the domination order at times $0$ and $t$, forcing the joint law of the two times to be close to that of an independent pair. Auxiliary machinery includes a Girsanov-transformation comparison of the top line with the Ferrari–Spohn diffusion, an a priori concentration estimate for the top line, and an FKG inequality proved by discrete approximation.

What would settle it

For a fixed tilt $\lambda$ known to be in the large-tilt regime, compute the Poincaré constant $\gamma_n$ of the stationary $n$-line process from the generator's quadratic form; if $\gamma_n \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$, Theorem 1.8 is false. Equivalently, if a simulation of the infinite stationary ensemble gives $(1/t) \log \operatorname{Cov}[X^1(0), X^1(t)] \to 0$ rather than a negative constant, Theorem 1.7 is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the previously open question of the correlation decay rate for the stationary $\lambda$-tilted line ensemble is settled in the exponential regime for large $\lambda$. Theorem 1.7 states that for all sufficiently large $\lambda$ and all $i,j$, the infinite stationary ensemble satisfies $0 \le \operatorname{Cov}[X^i(0), X^j(t)] \le C e^{-\gamma t} \lambda^{-(i+j-2)/3}$ for all $t > 0$, with the same bound for every finite $n$-line version; the nonnegativity is proved by a new FKG inequality for area-tilted line ensembles. Theorem 1.8 states that the generator of the $n$-line diffusion has spectral gap at least $\gamma$ uniformly in $n$, so the relaxation rate does not deteriorate as more lines are added. The key insight of the proof is to exploit spatial correlations in the ensemble: the top lines, once they reverse order relative to an auxiliary independent ensemble, stay reversed long enough to give lower lines many on-scale chances to reverse, and these chances organize into a supercritical branching process.

Load-bearing premise

The argument collapses if the conditional probability of each on-scale reversal event is not bounded below by a constant independent of the tilt strength $\lambda$ and the line index $k$; without that uniformity the branching tree with about $\lambda^{1/3}$ offspring per node is not guaranteed to be supercritical.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For sufficiently large $\lambda$, the infinite stationary $\lambda$-tilted line ensemble has an exponential relaxation time; the previous best bound, slower than polynomial, is upgraded to a genuine exponential rate.
  • The uniform positive spectral gap means finite-$n$ approximations of the model equilibrate at a rate that does not vanish as $n \to \infty$, supporting the heuristic that the infinite ensemble itself behaves like an infinite-dimensional diffusion with a gap.
  • The covariance bound applies to pairs of different lines and scales as $\lambda^{-(i+j-2)/3}$, so correlations between high-index lines are additionally suppressed by the tilt geometry.
  • Nonnegativity of these covariances, established through a new FKG inequality, gives a monotone positive-association structure for area-tilted line ensembles that can be used in future arguments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $\lambda \to 1$ regime is left open; the paper's own heuristic suggests exponential decay on time scale $\varepsilon^{-1/3}$ for $\lambda = 1+\varepsilon$, by treating blocks of $O(\varepsilon^{-1})$ lines as coarse lines, and this scaling could be tested numerically.
  • The prefactor $\lambda^{-(i+j-2)/3}$ suggests that the effective coupling between line $i$ and line $j$ is governed by the lower-index line; one could try to prove matching lower bounds on fluctuations of order $\lambda^{-(i-1)/3}$, which the paper notes are not in the literature.
  • The branching-point construction may transfer to other non-integrable line ensembles or one-dimensional Gibbsian interfaces with a separation of scales, where reversal events of top curves give lower curves many independent attempts.
  • Because the FKG inequality is proven for general variable area-tilt strengths and floors or ceilings, it may yield further positive correlation and monotonicity results for area-tilted polymer models beyond the specific ensemble.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the λ-tilted Brownian line ensemble, an infinite collection of non-intersecting Brownian curves with geometrically increasing area tilts, conjecturally related to level lines of the low-temperature 3D Ising interface. Its principal results are Theorem 1.7, establishing exponential decay with explicit λ^{-(i+j-2)/3} factor for Cov[X^i(0), X^j(t)] for all sufficiently large λ, and Theorem 1.8, a uniform-in-n spectral gap for the n-line diffusion. The proof compares the stationary ensemble with an auxiliary pinned ensemble with independent blocks, constructs a supercritical branching process of reversal events at the natural 1-2-3 scales, and uses the resulting reversal coupling plus a new FKG inequality to estimate covariances and then the spectral gap.

Significance. If the results stand, they settle the open question of the correlation decay rate in the area-tilted model for large tilts, improving the previous sub-polynomial bound, and they provide the first quantitative uniform-in-n spectral gap. The branching-process construction is a novel tool for non-integrable line ensembles, and the paper also supplies a self-contained FKG inequality for tilted line ensembles and a useful a priori control on the top line. The statements are precise and the λ-dependence in the covariance bound is explicit. However, the proof has a load-bearing gap in the uniform lower bound for a finite-interval bridge, as detailed below.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2, Lemma 4.8 and Eq. (25)] The proof of the uniform lower bound q1 reduces to a finite-interval single-line ensemble Z on [-2Mλ^{1/3}, 2Mλ^{1/3}] with boundary data and ceiling Mλ^{1/3}, and after the coming-down step concludes that P[Z_1(s) ≤ M for all |s| ≤ 1/2] ≥ 2/3 by 'applying Corollary 2.9'. But Corollary 2.9 is an interval upper-tail bound for the stationary infinite-line λ-tilted ensemble; it is not stated or proved for finite bridges with prescribed boundary data and a ceiling. No coupling to the stationary process is supplied at this point, although Lemma 3.2 provides exactly such a coupling for the single-line case after the endpoints are O(1). Without a uniform positive q1, Lemma 4.6 gives no uniform q = q1 q2, and the supercriticality condition qb > 1 with b ≈ λ^{1/3}/(4M) in Proposition 4.4 is not established. This is a load-bearing gap; it appears fixable by inserting the missing coupling step after the coming-down estimate.
  2. [Section 4.2.4, Lemma 4.10] The base case has the same mismatch: after obtaining X_1(±H) ≤ M/2 for the finite-interval ensemble on [-2H, 2H] with arbitrary boundary conditions, the proof invokes Corollary 2.9 to control max_{|s| ≤ 1/2} X_1(s). The finite-interval ensemble has not been coupled to or dominated by the stationary infinite-line ensemble at this stage, so the interval tail bound does not apply as written. Since Lemma 4.10 provides the root probability p in Lemma 4.5, this issue also feeds into Proposition 4.4 and hence the main correlation theorem.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Proof of Lemma 4.8] After the coming-down estimate, the text says 'On the event that Z_1(±Mλ^{1/3}) ≥ M/2'; the inequality appears reversed and should be '≤ M/2' for the subsequent upper-tail argument to make sense.
  2. [Proof of Lemma 3.8] The integration-by-parts display contains the term χ'(t-r)Φ̃(r) - χ'(t-r)Φ̃(r), which cancels identically; this is either a typo or a missing jump correction, and the displayed jump terms should be written explicitly.
  3. [Proposition 4.4] The statement imposes a boundary-condition restriction only on X (X_1(±2H) ≤ H) and is silent on Y; the corresponding condition on Y, if any, should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation is independent of its own conclusions.

full rationale

Theorem 1.7 is proved by comparing the stationary ensemble X with a pinned independent ensemble Y and constructing reversal times through a supercritical branching process. The success probabilities come from independent, parameter-free inputs: upper tail bounds (Theorem 2.8 and Corollary 2.9 from [8]), coming-down estimates (Lemma 2.10, building on [3, Proposition 5.5]), the scaling relation (Lemma 2.5), monotonicity (Lemma 2.2), and the Ferrari–Spohn spectral gap [20]. None of these inputs assumes exponential decay of correlations for the infinite λ-tilted ensemble; in particular the earlier slow bound [8, Theorem 3.5] is quoted only as background and is not used in the proof. Proposition 3.1, the a priori control needed for the branching trials, is proved via the Girsanov transformation and mixing of the Ferrari–Spohn diffusion rather than via Theorem 1.7. Theorem 1.8 is derived from Theorem 1.7, not the other way around. The FKG inequality used for nonnegativity is proved self-containedly in Section 5.3. The paper cites prior work co-authored by one of the present authors ([3], [8], [10]), but these are published, parameter-free theorems whose assumptions do not include the target correlation-decay result, so they are legitimate independent support rather than circular dependencies. A possible concern is that Lemma 4.8 applies the stationary-interval tail bound Corollary 2.9 to a finite-interval bridge without an explicit coupling step; if correct, this would be a proof gap or correctness risk, not a circular reduction, since Corollary 2.9 is an external tail estimate and does not encode the exponential correlation decay being proved. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no result reduces to its own input by construction. The minor score reflects only the presence of self-citations to prior results by the same research group, which are not load-bearing in the circularity sense.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of established results about area-tilted line ensembles (mostly from [3], [8], [10], [13], [20]) rather than new postulated entities. The proof introduces no new physical or mathematical objects beyond the auxiliary comparison ensembles and branching process, which are constructions, not invented entities with independent evidence requirements. No numbers are fitted to data.

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The lambda-tilted line ensemble X exists and is uniquely characterized by the lambda-BG property, asymptotic pinning to zero, and uniform tightness.
    Invoked in Section 1.2.3; taken from [8, Theorem 3.7].
  • domain assumption The strong lambda-BG resampling property holds on stopping domains, possibly depending on external randomness.
    Used throughout Section 4; argued in Section 2.1 via [13, Lemma 2.5].
  • domain assumption Monotonicity of area-tilted line ensembles under boundary, floor, ceiling, and tilt changes (Lemma 2.2).
    From [10, Lemma 1.4]; used in virtually every comparison argument.
  • domain assumption The 1-2-3 scaling relation (Lemma 2.5).
    From [10, Lemma 1.1]; sets the natural scales for the branching process intervals.
  • domain assumption Upper tail bounds for one-point and interval maxima of the top line (Theorem 2.8 and Corollary 2.9).
    From [8, Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 5.5]; used to control boundaries and moments.
  • domain assumption Coming down estimate Proposition 2.11.
    From [3, Proposition 5.5]; used to prove Lemma 2.10 and Lemma 4.8.
  • domain assumption The Ferrari-Spohn diffusion has a positive spectral gap and explicit stationary density.
    From [20]; used in Lemma 3.2 and Section 3.2.
  • standard math Donsker's invariance principle and the classical FKG lattice criterion.
    Used in the discrete approximation proof of Proposition 5.5 in Section 5.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlation decay in area-tilted line ensembles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6UZYEQMW

@misc{pith2026260805089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlation decay in area-tilted line ensembles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6UZYEQMW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05089}
}
read the original abstract

Random surfaces on a hard substrate often exhibit entropic repulsion, wherein the surface is propelled upwards to allow entropically preferable downward fluctuations. A particularly rich class of examples arises from the low-temperature 3D Ising model. A powerful approach to studying such surfaces is through their level curves, which form a family of non-intersecting random curves. In [CIW18, CIW19], an ensemble of Brownian lines with geometrically increasing area tilts was proposed as a putative limiting model in this case. This model falls outside the scope of techniques based on integrable or SDE structures, which have been key ingredients in the study of the Airy line ensemble. A particularly intriguing question about such line ensembles concerns their mixing properties when viewed as a Markov process, and in particular the rate of decay of correlations in time. For the Airy line ensemble, this decay is known to be inverse quadratic. The first quantitative bound on the decay of correlations in the area-tilted model, established in [CG25], was slower than polynomial in time. An earlier result [DLZ24] had established positivity of the spectral gap for the finite-line version of the ensemble, without quantitative bounds. This left open the important question of the true decay rate of correlations for the infinite ensemble. Settling this question for sufficiently large area-tilt strength, corresponding to sufficiently low temperature for the 3D Ising model, we prove exponential decay of correlations for the infinite ensemble and a uniform (in the number of lines) positive spectral gap for the finite ensemble. Our proof is based on establishing a precise form of separation of scales between curves of different indices, using a novel probabilistic approach involving embedding supercritical branching processes in the line ensemble.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05089 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The auxiliary line ensemble Y with pinning which ensures that Y(0) and Y(t) are independent. that Xk (s) ⩾ Y k (s) for all k ∈ N and all s ∈ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: the branching process structure of the reversal events for lines at the correct scales. Here [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We repeat the branching process pictured in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustration of the proof of Proposition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: One iteration of the nested intervals in the construction, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The event Reverseτ (X, Y), where X is drawn in red and Y is drawn in blue. in the definition of the intervals in Section 4.2.1 above, and which will be specified later. Let us first define Lowτ (X) := n X|τ|+1(s) ⩽ Mλ−|τ|/3 for all s ∈ Jτ o and Highτ (Y) := n Y |τ|+1(s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    Characterizing Gibbs states for area-tilted Brownian lines.The Annals of Probability, 53(6):2196–2255, 2025

    Mriganka Basu Roy Chowdhury, Pietro Caputo, and Shirshendu Ganguly. Characterizing Gibbs states for area-tilted Brownian lines.The Annals of Probability, 53(6):2196–2255, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [8]

    Uniqueness, mixing, and optimal tails for Brownian line ensembles with geometric area tilt.Probability and Mathematical Physics, 6(1):195–239, 2025

    Pietro Caputo and Shirshendu Ganguly. Uniqueness, mixing, and optimal tails for Brownian line ensembles with geometric area tilt.Probability and Mathematical Physics, 6(1):195–239, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [1]

    US Government printing office, 1964

    Milton Abramowitz and Irene A Stegun.Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables, volume 55. US Government printing office, 1964

    work page 1964

  4. [2]

    Strong characterization for the Airy line ensemble.Inventiones mathematicae, 243(2):293–605, 2026

    Amol Aggarwal and Jiaoyang Huang. Strong characterization for the Airy line ensemble.Inventiones mathematicae, 243(2):293–605, 2026

    work page 2026

  5. [4]

    Universal cutoff for Dyson Ornstein Uhlenbeck process

    Jeanne Boursier, Djalil Chafa ¨ ı, and Cyril Labb´ e. Universal cutoff for Dyson Ornstein Uhlenbeck process. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 185(1):449–512, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Random surfaces in statistical mechanics: Roughen- ing, rounding, wetting,...Journal of statistical physics, 42:743–798, 1986

    Jean Bricmont, A El Mellouki, and J¨ urg Fr¨ ohlich. Random surfaces in statistical mechanics: Roughen- ing, rounding, wetting,...Journal of statistical physics, 42:743–798, 1986

    work page 1986

  7. [6]

    World Scientific, 2007

    Alexander Bulinski and Alexey Shashkin.Limit theorems for associated random fields and related systems, volume 10. World Scientific, 2007

    2007

  8. [7]

    Asymptotical behaviour for some functionals of pos- itively and negatively dependent random fields.Fundamentalnaya i Prikladnaya Matematika, 4(2):479– 492, 1998

    Alexander Vadimovich Bulinski and E Shabanovich. Asymptotical behaviour for some functionals of pos- itively and negatively dependent random fields.Fundamentalnaya i Prikladnaya Matematika, 4(2):479– 492, 1998. 40

    work page 1998

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Tightness and line ensembles for Brownian poly- mers under geometric area tilts

    Pietro Caputo, Dmitry Ioffe, and Vitali Wachtel. Tightness and line ensembles for Brownian poly- mers under geometric area tilts. InInternational Conference on Statistical Mechanics of Classical and Disordered Systems, pages 241–266. Springer, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Confinement of Brownian polymers under geometric area tilts.Electron

    Pietro Caputo, Dmitry Ioffe, and Vitali Wachtel. Confinement of Brownian polymers under geometric area tilts.Electron. J. Probab., 24, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Scaling limit and cube-root fluctuations in SOS surfaces above a wall.Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 18(5):931–995, 2016

    Pietro Caputo, Eyal Lubetzky, Fabio Martinelli, Allan Sly, and Fabio L Toninelli. Scaling limit and cube-root fluctuations in SOS surfaces above a wall.Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 18(5):931–995, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Entropic repulsion in|∇φ| p surfaces: a large deviation bound for all p⩾1.Bollettino dell’Unione Matematica Italiana, 10(3):451–466, 2017

    Pietro Caputo, Fabio Martinelli, and Fabio Lucio Toninelli. Entropic repulsion in|∇φ| p surfaces: a large deviation bound for all p⩾1.Bollettino dell’Unione Matematica Italiana, 10(3):451–466, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Brownian Gibbs property for Airy line ensembles.Inventiones mathematicae, 195(2):441–508, 2014

    Ivan Corwin and Alan Hammond. Brownian Gibbs property for Airy line ensembles.Inventiones mathematicae, 195(2):441–508, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    On the limiting law of line ensembles of Brownian polymers with geometric area tilts.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probabilites et statistiques, 60(1):113–125, 2024

    Amir Dembo, Eyal Lubetzky, and Ofer Zeitouni. On the limiting law of line ensembles of Brownian polymers with geometric area tilts.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probabilites et statistiques, 60(1):113–125, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Uniform convergence of Dyson Ferrari–Spohn diffusions to the Airy line ensemble.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probabilites et statistiques, 61(1):385–402, 2025

    Evgeni Dimitrov and Christian Serio. Uniform convergence of Dyson Ferrari–Spohn diffusions to the Airy line ensemble.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probabilites et statistiques, 61(1):385–402, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Cambridge university press, 2019

    Rick Durrett.Probability: theory and examples, volume 49. Cambridge university press, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Springer, 2000

    Klaus-Jochen Engel and Rainer Nagel.One-parameter semigroups for linear evolution equations. Springer, 2000

    2000

  10. [18]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    Stewart N Ethier and Thomas G Kurtz.Markov processes: characterization and convergence. John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    2009

  11. [19]

    The Airy 2 process and the 3D Ising model.Journal of Physics A Mathematical General, 56(1):014003, 2023

    Patrik L Ferrari and Senya Shlosman. The Airy 2 process and the 3D Ising model.Journal of Physics A Mathematical General, 56(1):014003, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Constrained brownian motion: fluctuations away from circular and parabolic barriers.The Annals of Probability, 33(4):1302–1325, 2005

    Patrik L Ferrari and Herbert Spohn. Constrained brownian motion: fluctuations away from circular and parabolic barriers.The Annals of Probability, 33(4):1302–1325, 2005

    2005

  13. [21]

    Correlation inequalities on some partially ordered sets.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 22(2):89–103, 1971

    Cees M Fortuin, Pieter W Kasteleyn, and Jean Ginibre. Correlation inequalities on some partially ordered sets.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 22(2):89–103, 1971

    1971

  14. [22]

    Local and global geometry of the 2d Ising interface in critical prewetting.The Annals of Probability, 49(4):2076–2140, 2021

    Shirshendu Ganguly and Reza Gheissari. Local and global geometry of the 2d Ising interface in critical prewetting.The Annals of Probability, 49(4):2076–2140, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Sharp upper tail behavior of line ensembles via the tangent method.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.08922, 2022

    Shirshendu Ganguly and Milind Hegde. Sharp upper tail behavior of line ensembles via the tangent method.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.08922, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    van den Berg-Kesten–type correlation inequali- ties for disjoint polymers in the KPZ universality class.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17823, 2025

    Shirshendu Ganguly, Milind Hegde, and Lingfu Zhang. van den Berg-Kesten–type correlation inequali- ties for disjoint polymers in the KPZ universality class.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17823, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Brownian motion in a weyl chamber, non-colliding particles, and random matrices

    David J Grabiner. Brownian motion in a weyl chamber, non-colliding particles, and random matrices. InAnnales de l’IHP Probabilit´ es et statistiques, volume 35, pages 177–204, 1999

    1999

  18. [26]

    Scaling limit and tail bounds for a random walk model of sos level lines.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10384, 2025

    Milind Hegde, Yujin H Kim, and Christian Serio. Scaling limit and tail bounds for a random walk model of sos level lines.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10384, 2025. 41

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Remarks on the FKG inequalities.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 36(3):227– 231, 1974

    Richard Holley. Remarks on the FKG inequalities.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 36(3):227– 231, 1974

    1974

  20. [28]

    Critical prewetting in the 2D Ising model.The Annals of Probability, 50(3):1127–1172, 2022

    Dmitry Ioffe, S´ ebastien Ott, Senya Shlosman, and Yvan Velenik. Critical prewetting in the 2D Ising model.The Annals of Probability, 50(3):1127–1172, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    An invariance principle to Ferrari–Spohn diffusions

    Dmitry Ioffe, Senya Shlosman, and Yvan Velenik. An invariance principle to Ferrari–Spohn diffusions. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 336(2):905–932, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Dyson Ferrari–Spohn diffusions and ordered walks under area tilts.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 170(1):11–47, 2018

    Dmitry Ioffe, Yvan Velenik, and Vitali Wachtel. Dyson Ferrari–Spohn diffusions and ordered walks under area tilts.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 170(1):11–47, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Discrete orthogonal polynomial ensembles and the Plancherel measure.Annals of Mathematics, 153:259–296, 2001

    Kurt Johansson. Discrete orthogonal polynomial ensembles and the Plancherel measure.Annals of Mathematics, 153:259–296, 2001

    2001

  24. [32]

    Coincidence probabilities.Pacific J

    Samuel Karlin and James McGregor. Coincidence probabilities.Pacific J. Math., 9(4):1141–1164, 1959

    1959

  25. [33]

    Normal fluctuations and the FKG inequalities.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 74(2):119–128, 1980

    Charles M Newman. Normal fluctuations and the FKG inequalities.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 74(2):119–128, 1980

    1980

  26. [34]

    Concentration inequalities for Markov chains by Marton couplings and spectral methods

    Daniel Paulin. Concentration inequalities for Markov chains by Marton couplings and spectral methods. Electronic journal of probability, 20:79, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Scale invariance of the PNG droplet and the Airy process.Journal of statistical physics, 108(5):1071–1106, 2002

    Michael Pr¨ ahofer and Herbert Spohn. Scale invariance of the PNG droplet and the Airy process.Journal of statistical physics, 108(5):1071–1106, 2002

    2002

  28. [36]

    Introduction to KPZ.Current developments in mathematics, 2011:125–194, 2011

    Jeremy Quastel. Introduction to KPZ.Current developments in mathematics, 2011:125–194, 2011

    2011

  29. [37]

    Academic press, 1981

    Michael Reed and Barry Simon.I: Functional analysis, volume 1. Academic press, 1981. 42

    1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.