Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 34 references

Universality for Random $p$-adic Polynomials and Random Matrices Via the Resultant Distribution Method

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Random $p$-adic polynomials have universal root statistics under a mild non-concentration condition.

desk verdict The polynomial universality theorem is strong and self-contained via a genuinely new resultant distribution method; the matrix theorem is a real advance but has a black-box gap over the Cheong-Yu hypotheses that the paper never states. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06576 v1 pith:6KGEXRBG submitted 2026-08-06 math.PR math.NT

Jiahe Shen This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath.NT MSC 60B2011S1511S0515B52
keywords p-adicrandompolynomialuniversalityresultantdistributionmethodHaarmeasurefiniteétalealgebramatrixcokernelcharacteristic
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 claims that the fine root statistics of random $p$-adic polynomials are universal. For polynomials with independent, sufficiently non-concentrated ('$\epsilon$-balanced') coefficients taking values in $\mathbb{Z}_p$, the limiting expected number of root tuples in any clopen region of units inside a finite étale algebra over $\mathbb{Q}_p$ equals the corresponding statistic of the Haar coefficient model, whose stabilized correlation functions were derived in [3]. The proof rests on a new resultant distribution method: instead of tracking roots directly, one studies the $p$-adic valuations of the resultants of the random polynomial against fixed monic test polynomials; the paper shows these distributions determine the law of the polynomial and, together with degree tightness, force convergence of expected root statistics. The same machinery is then applied to characteristic polynomials of random $p$-adic matrices with independent $\epsilon$-balanced entries, proving that the distinguished factors of the characteristic polynomial converge to a universal limit independent of the entry distribution. If the theorems are correct, explicit formulas previously available only for Haar-distributed coefficients -- including the second moment of the number of unit roots and the expected number of roots generating a prescribed quadratic extension -- hold for all $\epsilon$-balanced independent coefficient distributions.

What carries the argument

The resultant distribution method. For a finite set $S$ of lifted subspaces of $\mathbb{Z}_p$, the paper proves (Theorem 3.1) that the law of a random monic polynomial whose roots lie in those subspaces is determined by the distributions of $\mathrm{val}(\mathrm{Res}(P,Z))$ for every test polynomial $Z$ from the same space. Theorem 3.2 upgrades this to weak convergence: if resultant valuations converge for every fixed $Z$ and the degrees are tight, the polynomials converge weakly; Theorem 3.3 adds a moment-tightness condition and squarefreeness of the limit to obtain convergence of expected root statistics. The resultant valuations themselves are accessed by a Fourier argument: on the quotient ring $\mathbb{Z}_p[x]/(Z,p^k)$, $\epsilon$-balancedness forces a uniform character decay bound (equation (4.2)), so $P_n$ modulo $(Z,p^k)$ becomes asymptotically uniform. For matrices the same valuations are logarithms of cokernel sizes through the identity $\mathrm{Res}(P_A,Z)=\det(Z(A))$, so the convergence of resultant distributions follows from the cokernel distribution theorem of [4], while degree tightness in the matrix case is handled via rational canonical forms over $\mathbb{F}_p$.

What would settle it

Simulate or compute, for a fixed prime $p$ and a concrete $\epsilon$-balanced coefficient distribution that is not Haar (for example uniform on $\{1,-1\}$ when $p$ is odd), the limiting expected number of unit roots or of roots generating a fixed quadratic extension. If either limit differs from the formula in Theorem 2.3 or Corollary 1.5 -- equivalently, if the resultant-valuation distribution of $P_n$ against some unit-constant monic test polynomial fails to match the Haar-model distribution -- the main theorem is false. The boundary is also testable: a coefficient distribution supported on a single residue class modulo $p$ violates $\epsilon$-balancedness and should produce different root statistics, as the paper's Remark 1.3 explains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the limiting joint root statistics of a random $p$-adic polynomial are insensitive to the coefficient distribution beyond a mild non-concentration condition. Theorem 1.2 states that for $P_n(x)=\xi_n x^n+\cdots+\xi_0$ with independent $\epsilon$-balanced coefficients, for every finite étale algebra $E=K_1\times\cdots\times K_m$ and every clopen $U\subset \mathcal{O}^{\times,\mathrm{new}}_E$, one has $\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{E}[Z_U(P_n)] = \int_U \rho^{(\infty)}_{K_1,\dots,K_m}(x_1,\dots,x_m)\,dx_1\cdots dx_m$, where $\rho^{(\infty)}$ is the stabilized correlation function of the Haar coefficient model from [3]. This includes joint statistics over arbitrary finite extensions of $\mathbb{Q}_p$ and recovers the first-order universality result of [25] when $m=1$, $K_1=\mathbb{Q}_p$, $U=\mathbb{Z}_p^{\times}$. Separately, Theorem 1.7 shows that the $S$-distinguished factors of characteristic polynomials of random $p$-adic matrices with independent $\epsilon$-balanced entries converge weakly to a universal random polynomial depending only on $p$ and on the finite set $S$ of lifted subspaces, so the eigenvalue structure of such matrices is robust to the entry distribution.

Load-bearing premise

For the matrix theorem, the load-bearing premise is that the external cokernel distribution theorem of [4] applies to polynomial evaluations of matrices whose entries are independent and $\epsilon$-balanced; the paper does not restate the precise hypotheses of that theorem, and if they are stricter the proof of Theorem 1.7 would not go through. For the polynomial theorem alone, the load-bearing estimate is the $\epsilon$-balanced Fourier decay bound (4.2), which the paper proves in full.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every clopen-root-statistic formula derived for the Haar coefficient model -- including the second moment of unit roots (Corollary 1.4) and the expected number of roots generating unramified or ramified quadratic extensions (Corollary 1.5) -- holds verbatim for all independent $\epsilon$-balanced coefficient distributions.
  • The limiting correlation functions of Haar random polynomials over finite étale algebras, once evaluated explicitly, transfer automatically to the whole $\epsilon$-balanced class; this includes general finite configurations of distinct unit roots.
  • For random $p$-adic matrices with independent $\epsilon$-balanced entries, the part of the characteristic polynomial attached to any fixed finite collection of lifted subspaces has a universal weak limit, so the heuristic random-matrix model of $p$-adic L-function distinguished factors is insensitive to the choice of entry distribution.
  • The resultant distribution method gives a reusable, model-independent route to $p$-adic root universality: establish resultant-valuation convergence plus (moment) degree tightness, and root-statistic convergence follows from the three general theorems of Section 3.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same recipe should extend beyond i.i.d. coefficients: any coefficient sequence whose $p$-adic Fourier characters decay as in (4.2) -- including weakly dependent or exchangeable arrays -- should enjoy the same limiting root statistics; the paper's proofs only use the factorized expectation (4.1) and the character bound.
  • A natural next step is a quantitative version: explicit rates for resultant convergence (via the contraction factor $\rho_k$ in (4.2)) and for the moment-tightness bound would convert the qualitative Theorem 1.2 into rates, paralleling the known rate for the first moment in [25].
  • The paper explicitly leaves open a stronger moment-tightness estimate for random matrices; proving such an estimate would upgrade Theorem 1.7 from weak convergence of distinguished factors to universality of expected eigenvalue statistics such as $\mathbb{E}[Z_{\mathbb{Z}_p}(P_A)] = 1$ from the Haar matrix model.
  • The clopen restriction on $U$ is tight: the paper's own counterexample (Remark 4.5) shows that for open-only or closed-only regions even the Rademacher coefficient model separates from the Haar limit, so universality for root statistics is fundamentally a property of compact-open counting windows.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a 'resultant distribution method' for universality of zeros of random p-adic polynomials. For P_n(x)=ξ_n x^n+...+ξ_0 with independent ε-balanced coefficients in Z_p, it proves (Theorem 1.2) that for every finite étale algebra E=K_1×...×K_m and every clopen U⊂O^{×,new}_E, the expected number of tuples of pairwise non-conjugate roots in U converges to the integral over U of the stabilized Caruso Haar correlation function ρ^{(∞)}_{K_1,...,K_m}. The method consists of three structural theorems: resultant valuations against all test polynomials in P^S determine the law (Theorem 3.1); convergence of all resultant distributions plus degree tightness yields weak convergence of the random polynomials (Theorem 3.2); and, with moment tightness and an almost-surely squarefree limit, one obtains convergence of expected root statistics (Theorem 3.3). The required resultant-distribution convergence (Theorem 4.1) and the moment tightness of the distinguished factors (Proposition 4.3) are proved internally via Fourier analysis and exponential tail bounds. Corollaries give the limiting second moment of the number of roots in Z_p^× and the expected number of roots generating a fixed quadratic extension. The paper also states an application to random matrices (Theorem 1.7): the S-distinguished factors of characteristic polynomials of matrices with independent ε-balanced entries converge weakly to a universal limit, using the cokernel distribution theorem of Cheong–Yu [4].

Significance. The polynomial part of the paper is a substantial and largely self-contained advance: it extends Shmueli's first-order universality for Z_p^× to arbitrary finite extensions of Q_p and to joint root statistics, and it introduces a genuinely new proof technique. Theorems 3.1–3.3 are clean and appear correct, the Fourier estimate (4.2) and the exponential tail bound (4.9) are effective, and the explicit formulas in Corollaries 1.4 and 1.5 provide concrete, checkable predictions. If Theorem 1.7 holds, it would be the first universality result for the eigenvalue structure of p-adic random matrices and would strengthen the heuristic of Ellenberg–Jain–Venkatesh. However, the proof of Theorem 1.7 rests entirely on two external theorems from [4] whose hypotheses are never stated, so the matrix theorem cannot currently be verified from the manuscript. The polynomial theorem, by contrast, does not have this dependency and appears to be solidly established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Proposition 5.2] The proof of Proposition 5.2 applies [4, Theorem 1.3] as a black box to conclude that Cok(Z(A_n)) converges weakly to a finite Z_p[t]/(Z)-module G_Z, but the hypotheses of that theorem are not stated anywhere in the paper. Theorem 1.7 assumes only that the entries of A_n are independent and ε-balanced, which is a substantially weaker condition than i.i.d. entries; in particular, the definition of ε-balanced in Definition 1.1 constrains only the mod-p residues and not the laws of the entries themselves. If [4, Theorem 1.3] requires i.i.d. entries or imposes additional restrictions on the test polynomial Z (for example Z(0)∉pZ_p or squarefree reduction), then the asserted convergence of val(Res(P_A,Z)) for all monic Z∈Z_p[x] is not established, and with it the resultant-convergence hypothesis in the proof of Theorem 1.7 collapses. The manuscript must either restate the precise statement of [4, Theorem 1.3] and verify each hypothesis for independent ε-balanced entries, or replace this step with a proof that works under the stated hypotheses.
  2. [Appendix A, Proposition 5.3] The degree-tightness step for the matrix theorem is proved in the appendix by invoking [4, Theorem 1.12] to assert that lim_{n→∞} E[#Sur_{F_p[t]}(Cok(tI_n - B),G)] = 1 for every fixed finite F_p[t]-module G, where B is the reduction of A_n modulo p. As with Proposition 5.2, the hypotheses of [4, Theorem 1.12] are never stated. The entries of B are independent ε-balanced F_p-valued variables, not necessarily uniform or i.i.d., so the applicability of the theorem cannot be checked from the manuscript. This step is directly responsible for the convergence of the joint degrees of the distinguished factors (Proposition 5.3), which is the tightness input for Theorem 3.2 in the proof of Theorem 1.7. The appendix should state the exact theorem used and either prove the surjection-moment convergence under the ε-balanced hypothesis or verify that the theorem is indeed applicable.
minor comments (3)
  1. [General typography] In the typeset version several words are run together without spaces (for example 'randomp-adic', 'independentϵ-balanced', and 'PolynomialsVia' in the title block); please correct the formatting in the final version.
  2. [Proposition 5.3] The object d_S is called a 'random variable' but is an element of Z^s_{≥0}; consider calling it a random vector for clarity.
  3. [References] The reference [23] is cited as 'In preparation'; if its results are used only for motivation, consider stating explicitly in the text that no result of [23] is used in the proofs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the polynomial universality theorem is proved internally against Caruso's external Haar benchmark, and the matrix theorem rests on external Cheong-Yu cokernel results with no fitted-input or definitional circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. For the main polynomial theorem (Theorem 1.2), the limiting object is Caruso's stabilized Haar correlation function, an external benchmark [3, Theorem 5.8], restated as Theorem 2.2 without being derived from the paper's own conclusions. The resultant distribution method (Theorems 3.1, 3.2, 3.3) is self-contained: Theorem 3.1 proves that resultant-valuation distributions determine the law, and the later theorems pass from resultant convergence plus degree control to weak convergence and root-statistic convergence. The key model-specific inputs, Theorem 4.1 and Proposition 4.3, are proved inside the paper: Theorem 4.1 gives Fourier-based convergence of resultant valuations using the internally proved ε-balanced decay estimate (4.2), and Proposition 4.3 gives moment tightness of distinguished factors by an explicit divisibility-counting argument. Lemma 4.4 independently identifies the limiting law of the Haar distinguished factor on each degree component, and squarefreeness is checked directly from Haar measure, not assumed. Thus Theorem 1.2's conclusion is not equivalent by construction to any fitted parameter or to a self-citation. For the matrix theorem (Theorem 1.7), Proposition 5.2 invokes Cheong-Yu's cokernel distribution theorem [4, Theorem 1.3], an external result with no overlap with the present paper; Proposition 5.3 is proved in the appendix using [4, Theorem 1.12] and [21, Lemma 6.3], with the author's earlier work [22] mentioned only as background and not as the sole load-bearing justification. The self-citations [22], [23], and [24] do not define the universal laws, do not supply the resultant convergence, and are not used to forbid alternative limits. The published-reviewer concern that the hypotheses of [4] are not restated is a correctness risk about an unverified external hypothesis, not a circularity: no equation in the paper is shown to equal its own input by construction, and no predicted statistic is a renamed fitted quantity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted in the paper; ε is an assumption bound, not a fitted value, and p and the K_j are inputs. No new physical entities are introduced. The lifted subspaces U_i and S-distinguished factors are internal mathematical definitions, not postulated entities requiring independent evidence.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Strong form of Hensel's lemma (Lemma 2.6) lifts coprime factorizations over F_p to Z_p.
    Used to decompose P_n into its S-distinguished and complementary factors in Section 4, and again for matrix characteristic polynomials.
  • standard math Resultant multiplicativity and the fact that coprime reductions give unit resultants (Propositions 2.7 and 2.8).
    This is what lets the resultant statistics of P_n agree with those of its S-distinguished factor.
  • standard math Additive Haar probability measure on Z_p with the stated normalization.
    Defines the Haar coefficient model and the correlation functions that serve as the universal limits.
  • standard math Prokhorov's theorem and Stone-Weierstrass approximation for moments on [0,1]^r.
    Used in Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 to pass from one-dimensional resultant distributions to weak convergence of random polynomials.
  • domain assumption Cheong-Yu cokernel distribution theorem for polynomial evaluations of random integral matrices [4].
    Black-box input for Proposition 5.2 and the appendix; the paper does not restate its hypotheses.
  • domain assumption Sawin-Wood moment method for random objects in a category [21].
    Used in the appendix to derive the limiting multiplicities of irreducible factors in random matrices over F_p.
  • domain assumption Coefficients and matrix entries are independent and ε-balanced, and U is clopen in O^{×,new}_E.
    These hypotheses define the scope of Theorems 1.2 and 1.7 and are used in the Fourier decay and moment-tightness estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universality for Random $p$-adic Polynomials and Random Matrices Via the Resultant Distribution Method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KGEXRBG

@misc{pith2026260806576,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universality for Random $p$-adic Polynomials and Random Matrices Via the Resultant Distribution Method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KGEXRBG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06576}
}
abstract

We prove universality results for zeros of random $p$-adic polynomials with independent, sufficiently non-concentrated coefficients. We show that when the degree goes to infinity, the limiting joint root statistics in arbitrary finite extensions of $\mathbb{Q}_p$ are universal and coincide with those of the Haar coefficient model, whose limiting root statistics were determined by Caruso (arXiv:2110.03942). In particular, our results extend the Haar-model formulas to a broad class of coefficient distributions and to general joint root statistics over finite extensions of $\mathbb{Q}_p$. Our approach is based on a new method, which we call the resultant distribution method. Instead of studying the roots of a random polynomial directly, we analyze the distributions of the resultant valuations against suitable fixed test polynomials. We prove that these resultant distributions determine the limiting law of the polynomial and, together with suitable degree estimates, yield convergence of general root statistics. As a further application, we apply the same method to characteristic polynomials of random $p$-adic matrices with independent entries. We prove that the distinguished factors of the characteristic polynomials converge to universal limiting distributions independent of the entry distribution, thereby showing that such a random matrix model is remarkably robust.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    The distribution of the cokernel of a polynomial evaluated at a random integral matrix.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.09125, 2023

    Gilyoung Cheong and Myungjun Yu. The distribution of the cokernel of a polynomial evaluated at a random integral matrix.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.09125, 2023. To appear inAmerican Journal of Mathematics. (Cited on pages 8, 9, 34, and 39.)

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 1998

    Nicolas Bourbaki.Commutative algebra: chapters 1-7, volume 1. Springer Science & Business Media, 1998. (Cited on page 9.)

    work page 1998

  3. [2]

    Irreducibility of random polynomials of large degree.Acta Mathe- matica, 2019

    Emmanuel Breuillard and Péter P Varjú. Irreducibility of random polynomials of large degree.Acta Mathe- matica, 2019. (Cited on page 6.)

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Where are the zeroes of a randomp-adic polynomial?Forum Math

    Xavier Caruso. Where are the zeroes of a randomp-adic polynomial?Forum Math. Sigma, 10:Paper No. e55, 41, 2022. (Cited on pages 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, and 13.)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    Henri Cohen.Advanced topics in computational number theory, volume 193. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. (Cited on page 9.)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    How many zeros of a random polynomial are real?Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 32(1):1–37, 1995

    Alan Edelman and Eric Kostlan. How many zeros of a random polynomial are real?Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 32(1):1–37, 1995. (Cited on page 2.)

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Modelingλ-invariants by p-adic random matrices

    Jordan S Ellenberg, Sonal Jain, and Akshay Venkatesh. Modelingλ-invariants by p-adic random matrices. Communications on pure and applied mathematics, 64(9):1243–1262, 2011. (Cited on page 8.)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Bulk universality for generalized Wigner matrices.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 154(1-2):341–407, 2012

    László Erdős, Horng-Tzer Yau, and Jun Yin. Bulk universality for generalized Wigner matrices.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 154(1-2):341–407, 2012. (Cited on page 7.)

    work page 2012

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    On the number of real roots of a random algebraic equation.Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 3(1):139–160, 1956

    Paul Erdös and A Cyril Offord. On the number of real roots of a random algebraic equation.Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 3(1):139–160, 1956. (Cited on page 2.)

    1956

  2. [10]

    A proof of the generalized second-limit theorem in the theory of prob- ability.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 33(2):533–543, 1931

    Maurice Fréchet and James Shohat. A proof of the generalized second-limit theorem in the theory of prob- ability.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 33(2):533–543, 1931. (Cited on page 6.)

    1931

  3. [11]

    The zeros of a random polynomial

    John Michael Hammersley. The zeros of a random polynomial. InProc. Third Berkeley Symposium on Probability and Statistics, volume 2, pages 89–111, 1956. (Cited on page 2.) UNIVERSALITY VIA RESULTANT DISTRIBUTIONS 41

    1956

  4. [12]

    Universality for low-degree factors of random polyno- mials over finite fields.International Mathematics Research Notices, 2023(17):14752–14794, 2023

    Jimmy He, Huy Tuan Pham, and Max Wenqiang Xu. Universality for low-degree factors of random polyno- mials over finite fields.International Mathematics Research Notices, 2023(17):14752–14794, 2023. (Cited on page 5.)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Prentice-Hall Hoboken, NJ, 1971

    Kenneth Hoffman and Ray Alden Kunze.Linear algebra. Prentice-Hall Hoboken, NJ, 1971. (Cited on page 37.)

    1971

  6. [14]

    On the expected number of real zeros of random polynomials i

    Ildar A Ibragimov and Nina B Maslova. On the expected number of real zeros of random polynomials i. coefficients with zero means.Theory of Probability & Its Applications, 16(2):228–248, 1971. (Cited on page 2.)

    1971

  7. [15]

    Asymptotic distribution of complex zeros of random analytic functions.The Annals of Probability, pages 1374–1395, 2014

    Zakhar Kabluchko and Dmitry Zaporozhets. Asymptotic distribution of complex zeros of random analytic functions.The Annals of Probability, pages 1374–1395, 2014. (Cited on page 3.)

    2014

  8. [16]

    On the average number of real roots of a random algebraic equation.Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 1943

    Mark Kac. On the average number of real roots of a random algebraic equation.Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 1943. (Cited on page 2.)

    1943

  9. [17]

    On the first non-universal term in random polynomial real zeros.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.12170, 2025

    Phuc Lam and Oanh Nguyen. On the first non-universal term in random polynomial real zeros.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.12170, 2025. (Cited on page 2.)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    Jürgen Neukirch.Algebraic number theory, volume 322. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. (Cited on page 14.)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Random integral matrices: universality of surjectivity and the cokernel.Inventiones mathematicae, 228(1):1–76, 2022

    Hoi H Nguyen and Melanie Matchett Wood. Random integral matrices: universality of surjectivity and the cokernel.Inventiones mathematicae, 228(1):1–76, 2022. (Cited on page 7.)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Roots of random functions: a framework for local universality.American Journal of Mathematics, 144(1):1–74, 2022

    Oanh Nguyen and Van Vu. Roots of random functions: a framework for local universality.American Journal of Mathematics, 144(1):1–74, 2022. (Cited on pages 2 and 3.)

    2022

  13. [21]

    The moment problem for random objects in a category.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06279, 2022

    Will Sawin and Melanie Matchett Wood. The moment problem for random objects in a category.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06279, 2022. (Cited on pages 6, 8, and 39.)

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Universality of rational canonical form for random matrices over a finite field.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.16225, 2025

    Jiahe Shen. Universality of rational canonical form for random matrices over a finite field.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.16225, 2025. (Cited on pages 35 and 36.)

    2025

  15. [23]

    In preparation

    Jiahe Shen, Asvin G, and Roger Van Peski, 2026. In preparation. (Cited on page 4.)

    2026

  16. [24]

    Eigenvalues ofp-adic random matrices.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.06283,

    Jiahe Shen and Roger Van Peski. Eigenvalues ofp-adic random matrices.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.06283,

  17. [25]

    The expected number of roots over the field ofp-adic numbers.International Mathematics Research Notices, 2023(3):2543–2571, 2023

    Roy Shmueli. The expected number of roots over the field ofp-adic numbers.International Mathematics Research Notices, 2023(3):2543–2571, 2023. (Cited on pages 2, 3, 4, 7, and 31.)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Recherches sur les fractions continues

    T-J Stieltjes. Recherches sur les fractions continues. InAnnales de la Faculté des sciences de Toulouse: Mathématiques, volume 8, pages J1–J122, 1894. (Cited on page 6.)

  19. [27]

    Random matrices: universality of local eigenvalue statistics.Acta Mathematica,

    Terence Tao and Van Vu. Random matrices: universality of local eigenvalue statistics.Acta Mathematica,

  20. [28]

    Local universality of zeroes of random polynomials.International Mathematics Research Notices, 2015(13):5053–5139, 2015

    Terence Tao and Van Vu. Local universality of zeroes of random polynomials.International Mathematics Research Notices, 2015(13):5053–5139, 2015. (Cited on page 2.)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Limits and fluctuations of p-adic random matrix products.Selecta Mathematica, 27:1–71,

    Roger Van Peski. Limits and fluctuations of p-adic random matrix products.Selecta Mathematica, 27:1–71,

  22. [30]

    On the distribution of the roots of certain symmetric matrices.Annals of Mathematics, 67(2):325–327, 1958

    Eugene P Wigner. On the distribution of the roots of certain symmetric matrices.Annals of Mathematics, 67(2):325–327, 1958. (Cited on page 5.)

    1958

  23. [31]

    Characteristic vectors of bordered matrices with infinite dimensions i

    Eugene P Wigner. Characteristic vectors of bordered matrices with infinite dimensions i. InThe Collected Works of Eugene Paul Wigner: Part A: The Scientific Papers, pages 524–540. Springer, 1993. (Cited on page 5.)

    1993

  24. [32]

    Characteristic vectors of bordered matrices with infinite dimensions ii

    Eugene P Wigner. Characteristic vectors of bordered matrices with infinite dimensions ii. InThe Collected Works of Eugene Paul Wigner: Part A: The Scientific Papers, pages 541–545. Springer, 1993. (Cited on page 5.)

    1993

  25. [33]

    The distribution of sandpile groups of random graphs.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 30(4):915–958, 2017

    Melanie Matchett Wood. The distribution of sandpile groups of random graphs.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 30(4):915–958, 2017. (Cited on pages 5 and 7.)

    2017

  26. [2026]

    (Cited on pages 7 and 8.)

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.