Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Functional Central limit theorems for microscopic and macroscopic functionals of inhomogeneous random graphs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One Gaussian SDE governs the √n fluctuations of component densities in inhomogeneous random graphs.

desk verdict Load-bearing gap in the supercritical tightness proof (Prop 6.18) keeps this otherwise strong paper from being fully established as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13672 v2 pith:B64343V6 submitted 2024-12-18 math.PR

Shankar Bhamidi , Amarjit Budhiraja , Akshay Sakanaveeti This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PR MSC 60K3505C80
keywords inhomogeneousrandomgraphsfunctionalcentrallimittheoremsmulti-typebranchingprocessesgiantcomponentsurplusminimumspanningtreegraphonsGaussian
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 seeks to prove that the component census of a sparse inhomogeneous random graph with finitely many vertex types is Gaussian at √n scale, as a process in time. The main object is the vector of densities of connected components of each type-composition, tracked through a dynamic construction where each potential edge has an independent clock. The paper shows that, after centering by the law-of-large-numbers limit and truncating component sizes to O(log n), these fluctuations converge to the unique solution of an infinite-dimensional linear stochastic differential equation in a weighted ℓ¹ space. From that microscopic limit it derives joint functional central limit theorems for macroscopic observables of the giant component—number of components, size, surplus, and type counts—and a central limit theorem for the weight of the minimum spanning tree on dense graphon-modulated random graphs with independent exponential edge weights. A sympathetic reader should read this as a unified second-order fluctuation theory for inhomogeneous random graphs, with explicit Gaussian covariance formulas.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the component type-density vector π_n(t)=(π_n(l,t): l∈T), where π_n(l,t) is the density (number per vertex, divided by ‖l‖) of connected components whose type composition is the vector l∈N^K. The limit is studied in the Banach space ℓ_{1,δ} of infinite vectors with weighted norm ‖z‖_{1,δ}=|z_0|+Σ_{l≠0}‖l‖^δ|z_l|, after truncating to sizes at most M log n; this is exactly the scale at which all non-giant components live. The argument is carried by a semi-martingale representation of π_n: each possible type-composition merge is driven by rate-one clock processes with compensators given by the quadratic forms θ_κ, and the fluctuation process is decomposed into a drift part and a martingale part. Tightness is proved from first- and second-moment bounds that rest on exponential decay of the deterministic densities π(l,t) away from the critical time t_c, obtained by viewing them as probabilities of a dual multi-type branching process; this decay is what makes the infinite sums and operators well behaved. The limit SDE's drift operator Γ(t) is lower-triangular in the ordering by ‖l‖, which gives pathwise uniqueness, and its diffusion coefficient is the square root of an explicit trace-class operator Φ(t), so the Gaussian limit is uniquely characterized and its mean and covariance can be computed in closed form.

What would settle it

Compute, in the single-type random graph with edge probability $1-\exp(-t/n)$, the scaled variance of the number of components over a fixed supercritical interval; the paper's Theorem 3.11 predicts a specific Gaussian covariance, for instance the giant-size variance $\rho(1-\rho)[1-t(1-\rho)]^{-2}$, where $\rho$ is the survival probability of a Poisson($t$) branching process. If a simulation or exact calculation at $\sqrt{n}$ scale shows a different variance or non-Gaussian limits, the SDE characterization fails. More directly, exhibit a sequence of kernels $\kappa_n$ with $\kappa_n\to\kappa$ pointwise but $\sqrt{n}(\kappa_n-\kappa)$ not convergent; under Assumption 3.1(a) alone the paper gives no CLT, so a normal limit of $\sqrt{n}(\pi_n(l,t)-\pi(l,t))$ with covariance depending on the oscillation would refute the claimed universality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.8: for a finite-type inhomogeneous random graph with type measure µ and kernel κ satisfying second-order convergence of √n(µ_n−µ) and √n(κ_n−κ), the scaled microscopic type-density fluctuations $X_n^{{T_{M log n}}$}(t)=√n(π_n(l,t)−π(l,t)), l∈T_{M log n}, converge in the space of right-continuous paths with left limits to the unique solution of the linear SDE dV(t)=[a(t)+Γ(t)V(t)]dt+G(t)dB(t), separately on subcritical intervals [0,T] with T<t_c and on supercritical intervals [T_1,T_2] with t_c<T_1<T_2. Here a(t) encodes the kernel and type-measure fluctuation parameters, Γ(t) is a lower-triangular convolution operator built from the deterministic component densities, and G(t) is the square root of a trace-class covariance operator Φ(t). The limit is conditionally Gaussian given the initial type fluctuation, with explicit mean and covariance formulas given in Proposition 3.7. The paper then uses this limit process to represent, as continuous linear functionals of X, the fluctuations of the number of components, the size and surplus of the giant, and the type counts inside the giant; these yield Theorems 3.9 and 3.10. In the dense-graph setting the same machinery gives Theorem 3.13: for the percolated graphon model, √n(W_n−K_n(κ)) converges to N(0,σ_∞), where K_n(κ) is a data-dependent centering converging to K(κ).

Load-bearing premise

The whole Gaussian picture collapses if the kernel fluctuations √n(κ_n−κ) do not converge pointwise to a symmetric limit matrix while the type-measure fluctuations converge; the theorem's drift, variance, and hence every CLT it derives are all built on that convergence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any fixed supercritical time interval, the size, surplus, number of connected components, and per-type vertex counts of the giant converge jointly, after √n scaling, to continuous linear functionals of one common Gaussian process.
  • In the subcritical regime, the number of components has a functional central limit theorem with limit equal to the weighted sum of the same type-density limit process.
  • Percolation on a dense finite-type graphon, when the underlying graphon sequence has √n-convergent fluctuations, inherits the joint central limit theorems for the giant component and the number of components.
  • For dense random graphs with exponential edge weights, the minimum spanning tree weight fluctuates at √n scale around a data-dependent centering that converges to K(κ), with a finite variance σ_∞ given by integrated covariances of the microscopic limit process.
  • For the classical single-type random graph, the general theorems specialize to a three-dimensional joint functional central limit theorem for component count, giant size, and surplus, recovering and extending fixed-time results.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same infinite-dimensional SDE is likely the correct fluctuation object for bounded-size rule and coalescent models whose laws of large numbers are governed by similar lower-triangular coagulation equations; the paper's operators give a template for those central limit theorems, though this is not established here.
  • The MST central limit theorem should extend to edge-weight distributions beyond exponential, as long as the density near zero is controlled, because the proof uses only the threshold representation of component counts; the paper states this belief but does not prove it.
  • A numerical check of σ_∞ for a two-type kernel would test the rate of convergence of the truncation σ_k→σ_∞, which the branching-process decay suggests should stabilize quickly for moderate k.
  • The finite-type result is likely a stepping stone for infinite type spaces by finite-type approximation, one consequence being functional central limit theorems for degree-corrected or configuration-type graph models, but the current paper only develops the finite-type tools.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the dynamic finite-type inhomogeneous random graph model of Bollobás–Janson–Riordan, in which edges between vertices of types i and j appear at the points of independent Poisson processes of intensity κ_n(i,j)/n. It introduces the vector of component type densities π_n(t), including the edge density as the zero-coordinate l=0, and proves a functional law of large numbers and finite-dimensional functional central limit theorems for the fluctuations X_n^{T_N}(t). These are lifted to an infinite-dimensional FCLT in the Banach space ℓ_{1,δ} for the truncated vectors X_n^{T_{M log n}}, with the limit characterized as the unique solution of an explicit infinite-dimensional linear SDE driven by a cylindrical Brownian motion; the result is stated separately in the subcritical (t<tc) and supercritical (t>tc) regimes. In the supercritical regime the paper derives joint functional CLTs for the number of components, the size and surplus of the giant component, and the type counts in the giant, and it proves a CLT for the weight of the MST on dense graphon-modulated random graphs with exponential edge weights, with a random centering that converges in probability to a deterministic constant.

Significance. If completed, the paper is a substantial contribution to second-order fluctuation theory for inhomogeneous random graphs. It answers the infinite-dimensional FCLT question raised in Janson's MST paper in the Erdős–Rényi case, takes a step toward Aldous's open problem on Gaussian fluctuations for coagulation systems, and provides functional CLTs for macroscopic observables of the giant in the finite-type IRG. The proof strategy is mostly self-contained: the finite-dimensional FCLT is proved via a Poisson-process semimartingale representation and the Ethier–Kurtz martingale CLT, the ℓ_{1,δ} tightness is based on Aldous–Kurtz conditions and moment bounds, and the SDE coefficients are explicit functions of the deterministic limit π(l,t). External results are used mainly as benchmarks: Bollobás–Janson–Riordan for the LLN and phase transition, [10] for branching-process moment bounds, [46] for the moderate-deviation estimate in Lemma 8.8, and [24] for the MST law of large numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.3.2, Proposition 6.18] Proposition 6.18 is the sole tightness input for the supercritical infinite-dimensional FCLT in Theorem 3.8(b), and its proof is omitted ('We omit the details'). The supercritical case is not simply a rerun of Propositions 6.14 and 6.16: the Aldous–Kurtz conditions must be verified on [T1,T2] for the drift A_n^c and martingale M_n^c with the random initial value X_n(T1) at the left endpoint, and only pointwise tightness of X_n(T1) is available from Proposition 6.17. Since Theorems 3.9 and 3.10 both depend on Theorem 3.8(b), this omitted step is load-bearing; the proof must be supplied.
  2. [§6.4, proof of claim (6.66)] The proof of the claim in (6.66) is not correct as printed. The displayed bound in that proof has a factor √n multiplying the linear terms π(k2,t)|X_n(k1,t)| and ‖l‖|X_n(l,t)|; after summation over l these terms are of order √n·O_P(1), so the right side of that display does not vanish. The subsequent inequality, which is the one actually used to conclude (6.66), drops those linear terms and retains only ∑_l ‖l‖^{δ+K+1}|X_n(l,t)|^2/√n together with parameter errors. A correct proof needs an explicit Taylor expansion of √n[F_l(π_n,κ_n,µ_n)−F_l(π,κ,µ)] around (π,κ,µ) showing the cancellation of the first-order X_n terms with the Γ(t)X_n(t) part of H_n(t).
  3. [§6.4, proof of Theorem 3.8(b)] The final paragraph of Section 6.4 says that the proof of part (b) of Theorem 3.8 'follows along similar lines. We omit the details.' Combined with the omission of Proposition 6.18, this means that the supercritical infinite-dimensional FCLT is not fully written out. Since the supercritical FCLT is the basis for the macroscopic results in Theorems 3.9 and 3.10, the manuscript as it stands does not establish those corollaries, even if the subcritical arguments are sound.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§8.2, Lemma 8.6(ii)] The displayed formula for P(|BP(λ)|<∞) appears to have an extra factor e^{-λ}: the k=1 term should be e^{-λ}, not λ e^{-2λ}. The subsequent exponential bound is still true, but the formula should be corrected.
  2. [§8.2, proof of Lemma 8.6(i)] The sentence 'As observed in (6.16)' refers to an unnumbered display in the proof of Lemma 6.11; the cross-reference should be fixed.
  3. [§3.4.2, Theorem 3.13 and Remark 9] Because the centering K_n(κ) is a random function of U_n and only converges in probability to K(κ), the statement 'CLT for the weight of the MST' is weaker than a CLT with deterministic centering; this caveat should be stated in the abstract or introduction, not only in Remark 9.
  4. [§3.1, Proposition 3.3] The proof of Proposition 3.3 is dismissed as immediate via the lower-triangular structure; since this proposition underpins the LLN, a brief verification of uniqueness would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SDE limits are constructed from deterministic LLN limits and external branching-process benchmarks; the only same-author citation is a technical moment bound that is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivations are not circular in the sense defined here. Theorem 3.8's limit process is the unique solution of the SDE (3.25) with coefficients a(t), Gamma(t), and G(t) defined from the deterministic LLN limit pi(l,t) and the model inputs (kappa,mu,Lambda,Psi), not fitted to the fluctuation processes. The finite-dimensional FCLT (Theorem 3.6) is proved from the semimartingale representation (5.11) and the Poisson-driven Markov process theorem A.2, with all rates and jump vectors taken from the graph dynamics; Proposition 3.7 verifies the Gaussian conditional mean and covariance by explicit ODE checks. The infinite-dimensional tightness proof uses moment bounds (Theorems 6.1 and 6.7) built from branching-process approximation (Lemmas 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.12). One of these, Lemma 6.4, is cited from the authors' earlier work [10]; it is a standard exponential-moment estimate for subcritical multitype branching processes, not the target FCLT, so this self-citation is minor and not load-bearing. Macroscopic results (Theorems 3.9, 3.10) are consequences of representing Nn, Ln, Sn as sums of pi_n(l,t) over the logarithmic truncation, with the truncation error controlled by Lemma 7.1, and the MST result (Theorem 3.13) follows from the cut-off identity W = integral(N-1)dt and the FCLT for Nn; no fitted constant is renamed as a prediction. The paper itself flags two proof omissions - Proposition 6.18 ('We omit the details') and the end of Theorem 3.8(b) ('follows along similar lines. We omit the details') - but these are completeness/rigor gaps for the supercritical tightness argument, not reductions of the result to its own inputs, and therefore do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The results introduce no fitted parameters or invented entities. The central claims are conditional on the model inputs (µ, κ) and on several external theorems: the IRG phase transition and branching process representation [13], moment bounds for subcritical branching processes [10], the moderate deviation principle of [46] (unpublished), and the MST LLN of [24]. These are all assumptions from prior literature rather than free parameters.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Phase transition and LLN for IRG (Theorem 2.7) including the dual branching process representation (Proposition 3.5) from Bollobás-Janson-Riordan [13].
    Used throughout to define the limit π(l,t) and the critical time t_c; the paper builds on these results rather than reproving them.
  • domain assumption Moderate deviation principle for the largest component in sparse multitype Erdős-Rényi graphs, [46, Theorem 1].
    Used in Lemma 8.8 to control the probability that the giant component is small, an ingredient for the MST tail analysis. This is an external, unpublished preprint result.
  • domain assumption Moment and exponential decay estimates for subcritical multi-type branching processes, from [10, Corollary 6.16 and Lemma 6.17] (Lemma 6.4 in this paper).
    Used to prove exponential decay of π(l,t) for t ≠ t_c (Lemma 6.5) and the moment bounds in Section 6.
  • domain assumption Theorem 5 of Hladký-Viswanathan [24] on the law of large numbers for MST weight on dense graph sequences.
    Used to prove the second assertion of Theorem 3.13, that the centering Kn(κ) converges to K(κ).
  • standard math Well-posedness and martingale representation for linear SDEs with lower-triangular drift and trace-class diffusion (standard, e.g., Da Prato-Zabczyk [18]).
    Used to prove uniqueness and representation of the limit in Theorem 3.8.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Functional Central limit theorems for microscopic and macroscopic functionals of inhomogeneous random graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B64343V6

@misc{pith2026241213672,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Functional Central limit theorems for microscopic and macroscopic functionals of inhomogeneous random graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B64343V6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13672}
}
read the original abstract

We study inhomogeneous random graphs with a finite type space. For a natural generalization of the model as a dynamic network-valued process, the paper establishes the following results: (a) Functional central limit theorems for the infinite vector of microscopic type-densities and characterizations of the limits as infinite-dimensional conditionally Gaussian processes in a certain Banach space. (b) Functional (joint) central limit theorems for macroscopic observables of the giant component in the supercritical regime including size, surplus and number of vertices of various types in the giant component. As a corollary this provides central limit theorems for the size of the largest connected component, its surplus, and its type vector, for percolation on dense graphs obtained from a finite type Graphon. (c) Central limit theorem for the weight of the minimum spanning tree with random i.i.d. Exponential edge weights on dense graph sequences driven by an underlying finite type graphon.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [46]

    van der Hofstad, Random Graphs and Complex Networks

    R. van der Hofstad, Random Graphs and Complex Networks. Vol. 1 , Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics, vol. [43], Cambridge University Press, Cambr idge, 2017. MR3617364

    work page 2017

  2. [10]

    Bhamidi, A

    S. Bhamidi, A. Budhiraja, and X. Wang, The augmented multiplicative coalescent, bounded size rules and critical dynamics of random graphs, Probability Theory and Related Fields 160 (2014), no. 3, 733–796

    work page 2014

  3. [24]

    Ethier and T

    S. Ethier and T. G. Kurtz, Markov Processes, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 1986

    work page 1986

  4. [1]

    Aldous, Brownian excursions, critical random graphs and the multip licative coalescent , The Annals of Probability (1997), 812–854

    D. Aldous, Brownian excursions, critical random graphs and the multip licative coalescent , The Annals of Probability (1997), 812–854

    work page 1997

  5. [2]

    J Aldous, Deterministic and stochastic models for coalescence (aggr egation and coagulation): a review of the mean-field theory for probabilists, Bernoulli 5 (1999), no

    D. J Aldous, Deterministic and stochastic models for coalescence (aggr egation and coagulation): a review of the mean-field theory for probabilists, Bernoulli 5 (1999), no. 1, 3–48

    work page 1999

  6. [3]

    Andreis, W

    L. Andreis, W. K ¨onig, H. Langhammer, and R. I. Patterson, A large-deviations principle for all the components in a sparse inhomogeneous random graph, Probability Theory and Related Fields 186 (2023), no. 1, 521–620

    work page 2023

  7. [4]

    B Athreya and P

    K. B Athreya and P . E Ney, Branching Processes, Courier Corporation, 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [5]

    Ball and P

    F. Ball and P . Neal, The asymptotic variance of the giant component of configurat ion model random graphs , Annals of Applied Probability 27 (2017), no. 2

    work page 2017

Show all 48 references
  1. [6]

    Barbour and A

    A. Barbour and A. R ¨ollin, Central limit theorems in the configuration model , The Annals of Applied Probability 29 (2019), no. 2, 1046–1069

    2019

  2. [7]

    We begi n with the following lemma

    P/r.sc/o.sc/o.sc/f.sc/s.sc: M/a.sc/c.sc/r.sc/o.sc/s.sc/c.sc/o.sc/p.sc/i.sc/c.sc /f.sc/u.sc/n.sc/c.sc/t.sc/i.sc/o.sc/n.sc/a.sc/l.sc/s.sc /i.sc/n.sc /t.sc/h.sc/e.sc /s.sc/u.sc/p.sc/e.sc/r.sc/c.sc/r.sc/i.sc/t.sc/i.sc/c.sc/a.sc/l.sc /r.sc/e.sc/g.sc/i.sc/m.sc/e.sc In this section, ...

  3. [8]

    k-th level truncation

    P/r.sc/o.sc/o.sc/f.sc/s.sc: W/e.sc/i.sc/g.sc/h.sc/t.sc /o.sc/f.sc /t.sc/h.sc/e.sc MST /o.sc/n.sc /d.sc/e.sc/n.sc/s.sc/e.sc /g.sc/r.sc/a.sc/p.sc/h.sc/s.sc Fix κn, µ and recall the corresponding graphon κn and the model in Definition 3.12. We write W[1] n for the weight of the MS...

    2024

  4. [9]

    Baslingker, S

    J. Baslingker, S. Bhamidi, N. Broutin, S. Sen, and X. Wang, Scaling limits and universality: Critical percolation on weighted graphs converging to an l3 graphon, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10082 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Bhamidi, A

    S. Bhamidi, A. Budhiraja, and X. Wang, Bounded-size rules: The barely subcritical regime , Combinatorics, Probability and Computing 23 (2014), no. 4, 505–538

    2014

  6. [12]

    Bhamidi, A

    S. Bhamidi, A. Budhiraja, and X. Wang, Aggregation models with limited choice and the multiplicative coalescent, Random Structures & Algorithms 46 (2015), no. 1, 55–116

    2015

  7. [13]

    Bollob ´as, Random Graphs, Second, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol

    B. Bollob ´as, Random Graphs, Second, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 7 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001. MR1864966

    2001

  8. [14]

    Bollob ´as, C

    B. Bollob ´as, C. Borgs, J. Chayes, and O. Riordan, Percolation on dense graph sequences , The Annals of Probability 38 (2010), no. 1, 150–183

    2010

  9. [15]

    Bollob ´as, S

    B. Bollob ´as, S. Janson, and O. Riordan, The phase transition in inhomogeneous random graphs , Random Structures & Algorithms 31 (2007), no. 1, 3–122

    2007

  10. [16]

    Bollob ´as and O

    B. Bollob ´as and O. Riordan, Asymptotic normality of the size of the giant component via a random walk, Journal of Com- binatorial Theory , Series B102 (2012), no. 1, 53–61

    2012

  11. [17]

    D. J. Clancy, A central limit theorem for the giant in a stochastic block mo del, Arxiv eprint 2501.01351 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Corujo, S

    J. Corujo, S. Lemaire, and V . Limic, A novel approach to the giant component fluctuations , arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06995 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Corujo, The number of connected components in sub-critical random g raph processes, 2024

    J. Corujo, The number of connected components in sub-critical random g raph processes, 2024

    2024

  14. [20]

    Da Prato and J

    G. Da Prato and J. Zabczyk, Stochastic Equations in Infinite Dimensions, 2nd ed., Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Cambridge University Press, 2014

    2014

  15. [21]

    Durrett, Random graph dynamics , Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathem atics, vol

    R. Durrett, Random graph dynamics , Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathem atics, vol. 20, Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007. MR2271734

    2007

  16. [22]

    Enriquez, G

    N. Enriquez, G. Faraud, and S. Lemaire, The process of fluctuations of the giant component of an Erd ˝os-R´enyi graph, 2024

    2024

  17. [23]

    Erdos, A

    P . Erdos, A. R ´enyi, et al., On the evolution of random graphs , Publ. math. inst. hung. acad. sci 5 (1960), no. 1, 17–60

    1960

  18. [25]

    M Frieze, On the value of a random minimum spanning tree problem , Discrete Applied Mathematics 10 (1985), no

    A. M Frieze, On the value of a random minimum spanning tree problem , Discrete Applied Mathematics 10 (1985), no. 1, 47–56

    1985

  19. [26]

    Hladk `y and G

    J. Hladk `y and G. Viswanathan,Random minimum spanning tree and dense graph limits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11705 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Janson, The minimal spanning tree in a complete graph and a functional limit theorem for trees in a random graph, Random Structures & Algorithms 7 (1995), no

    S. Janson, The minimal spanning tree in a complete graph and a functional limit theorem for trees in a random graph, Random Structures & Algorithms 7 (1995), no. 4, 337–355

    1995

  21. [28]

    Janson, Asymptotic equivalence and contiguity of some random graph s, Random Structures & Algorithms 36 (2010), no

    S. Janson, Asymptotic equivalence and contiguity of some random graph s, Random Structures & Algorithms 36 (2010), no. 1, 26–45

    2010

  22. [29]

    Janson, T

    S. Janson, T. Ł uczak, and A. Rucinski, Random Graphs, Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics and Op - timization, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 2000. MR1782847

    2000

  23. [30]

    M. Kang, W. Perkins, and J. Spencer, The Bohman-Frieze process near criticality , Random Structures & Algorithms 43 (2013), no. 2, 221–250, available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/rsa.20437

    2013 doi

  24. [31]

    Karatzas and S

    I. Karatzas and S. Shreve, Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus , Vol. 113, springer, 2014

    2014

  25. [32]

    J. E. Kennedy and M. P . Quine, The total variation distance between the Binomial and Poiss on distributions, The Annals of Probability 17 (1989), no. 1, 396 –400. FUNCTIONAL CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREMS FOR INHOMOGENEOUS RANDO M GRAPHS 55

    1989

  26. [33]

    Kovchegov and P

    Y. Kovchegov and P . T Otto, Multidimensional Lambert–Euler inversion and vector-mul tiplicative coalescent processes , Journal of Statistical Physics 190 (2023), no. 12, 188

    2023

  27. [34]

    G Kurtz, Approximation of Population Processes, SIAM, 1981

    T. G Kurtz, Approximation of Population Processes, SIAM, 1981

    1981

  28. [35]

    Limic, The eternal multiplicative coalescent encoding via excursions of L ´evy-type processes, Bernoulli 25 (2019), no

    V . Limic, The eternal multiplicative coalescent encoding via excursions of L ´evy-type processes, Bernoulli 25 (2019), no. 4A, 2479–2507

    2019

  29. [36]

    Lov ´asz, Large Networks and Graph Limits, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, vol

    L. Lov ´asz, Large Networks and Graph Limits, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, vol. 60, Amer- ican Mathematical Society , Providence, RI, 2012. MR3012035

    2012

  30. [37]

    Molloy and B

    M. Molloy and B. Reed, A critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence, Random Structures & Algorithms 6 (1995), no. 2-3, 161–180

    1995

  31. [38]

    R Norris, Smoluchowski’s coagulation equation: uniqueness, nonuni queness and a hydrodynamic limit for the stochastic coalescent, The Annals of Applied Probability 9 (1999), no

    J. R Norris, Smoluchowski’s coagulation equation: uniqueness, nonuni queness and a hydrodynamic limit for the stochastic coalescent, The Annals of Applied Probability 9 (1999), no. 1, 78–109

    1999

  32. [39]

    Pittel, On tree census and the giant component in sparse random graph s, Random Structures & Algorithms 1 (1990), no

    B. Pittel, On tree census and the giant component in sparse random graph s, Random Structures & Algorithms 1 (1990), no. 3, 311–342

    1990

  33. [40]

    Pittel and N

    B. Pittel and N. C Wormald, Counting connected graphs inside-out, Journal of Combinatorial Theory , Series B93 (2005), no. 2, 127–172

    2005

  34. [41]

    A. A. Puhalskii, Stochastic processes in random graphs, The Annals of Probability 33 (2005), no. 1, 337 –412

    2005

  35. [42]

    Riordan, The phase transition in the configuration model , Combinatorics, Probability and Computing 21 (2012), no

    O. Riordan, The phase transition in the configuration model , Combinatorics, Probability and Computing 21 (2012), no. 1-2, 265–299

    2012

  36. [43]

    T. G. Seierstad, On the normality of giant components , Random Structures & Algorithms 43 (2013), no. 4, 452–485

    2013

  37. [44]

    Spencer and N

    J. Spencer and N. Wormald, Birth control for giants , Combinatorica 27 (2007), 587–628

    2007

  38. [45]

    Steele, On Frieze’sχ (3) limit for lengths of minimal spanning trees, Discrete Applied Mathematics 18 (1987), no

    J M. Steele, On Frieze’sχ (3) limit for lengths of minimal spanning trees, Discrete Applied Mathematics 18 (1987), no. 1, 99–103

    1987

  39. [47]

    van der Hofstad, Random Graphs and Complex Networks

    R. van der Hofstad, Random Graphs and Complex Networks. Vol. 2 , Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Yu and W

    R. Yu and W. Sun, On the moderate deviation principles in the sparse multi-type Erd˝os-R´enyi random graph, arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.09471 (2024). A/p.sc/p.sc/e.sc/n.sc/d.sc/i.sc/x.scA. C/o.sc/n.sc/d.sc/i.sc/t.sc/i.sc/o.sc/n.sc/s.sc /f.sc/o.sc/r.sc /w.sc/e.sc/a.sc/k.sc /c.sc...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.