SOP$_2$=SOP$_3$

Artem Chernikov

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 30 references

SOP$_2$=SOP$_3$

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every first-order theory with the tree property SOP2 also has the strict order property SOP3, so the two classes of theories coincide.

desk verdict Big result if the repair to Fact 2.6 holds: SOP2 = SOP3, collapsing the top of the SOP hierarchy, but the paper has one clearly identified, load-bearing gap that needs a full proof before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13291 v1 pith:EYILOTJE submitted 2026-08-13 math.LO

Artem Chernikov This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.LO MSC 03C45

keywords SOP2SOP3strictorderpropertytreeclassificationtheorytreetopindiscerniblesfinite-cyclehierarchyultrafilter

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 proves that, for first-order theories, the tree property $\mathrm{SOP}_2$ implies the strict order property $\mathrm{SOP}_3$. Since the reverse implication was already known, the two classes coincide, and with earlier identifications this makes $\mathrm{SOP}_1$, $\mathrm{SOP}_2$, and $\mathrm{SOP}_3$ a single property. The argument takes a formula witnessing $\mathrm{SOP}_2$, bases a treetop-indiscernible array on it, and then splits into two cases according to whether a family of partial types is consistent; in each case a reduction lemma produces a formula witnessing $\mathrm{SOP}_3$. This answers a question that had been open since 2004. On the classification side, the result sharpens the boundary between theories with positive structure theory and those that are maximally non-structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a treetop-indiscernible array: an array $(a_\eta)_{\eta \in \omega^{\leq\omega}}$ in which the type of any finite tuple of entries depends only on the quantifier-free structure of the index tuple in the language of prefix order, meet, lexicographic order, and the leaf predicate. Fact 2.8 lets an $\mathrm{SOP}_2$ witness be assumed to satisfy two symmetry conditions: incomparable indices give inconsistent pairs, while any leaf that extends an internal node has the corresponding formula hold with that node. Fact 2.6 locally bases such an array on any given array; the paper repairs a gap in the earlier proof of this fact. The reduction Lemma 2.3 says that a pair of formulas with a strict alternating inconsistency yields an $\mathrm{SOP}_3$ witness directly. Lemma 3.1 is the combinatorial distributor: for any finite $m,k$ and any pair of indices $a<b$, it places leaves and internal nodes in $\omega^{\leq\omega}$ with prescribed quantifier-free types, which treetop indiscernibility then transfers to the model.

What would settle it

To refute the theorem one would need a complete first-order theory whose formula exhibits the $\mathrm{SOP}_2$ pattern—every branch of parameters consistent, incomparable pairs inconsistent—yet no formula of the theory is cyclically inconsistent; a concrete place to look is whether the partial types $\Gamma_i(y)$ in Theorem 3.2 behave as claimed for a candidate theory, or whether a tree array can be built that cannot be made treetop-indiscernible while preserving the two required symmetry conditions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The theorem is: if any formula of a complete first-order theory $T$ has $\mathrm{SOP}_2$—a tree of parameters in which every branch is consistent while incomparable pairs are inconsistent—then some formula of $T$ has $\mathrm{SOP}_3$: a relation $Q$ that holds forward along an infinite sequence but is cyclically inconsistent. Hence $\mathrm{SOP}_1 = \mathrm{SOP}_2 = \mathrm{SOP}_3$, collapsing the bottom of the finite-cycle hierarchy. The proof chooses a treetop-indiscernible array $(a_\eta)_{\eta \in \omega^{\leq\omega}}$ witnessing $\mathrm{SOP}_2$ in the strong form of Fact 2.8, then distinguishes whether the partial types $\Gamma_i(y)$ are all consistent (Case 1) or one fails (Case 2). In each case the combinatorial Lemma 3.1 supplies configurations of indices with specified meet-and-lex types, and the reduction Lemma 2.3 converts the resulting pair of formulas into the required cyclic relation $Q$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on the lemma that every tree-indexed array of tuples can be replaced by a locally equivalent array whose finite patterns are governed only by tree shape (Fact 2.6); the earlier proof of that lemma has a gap, and the paper's repair must be sound, because both cases of the main theorem use the resulting array.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The classes $\mathrm{SOP}_1$, $\mathrm{SOP}_2$, and $\mathrm{SOP}_3$, previously conjectured to form a strict hierarchy, are one and the same property of first-order theories.
Combined with earlier results, a theory is $\triangleleft^*$-maximal under GCH exactly when it has $\mathrm{SOP}_2$, so the theorem makes this boundary identical with $\mathrm{SOP}_3$.
Every consequence known to follow from $\mathrm{SOP}_3$, such as maximality in the ultrapower-saturation order, now follows from $\mathrm{SOP}_2$ alone.
The repaired treetop-indiscernible lemma is now available as a reusable tool for further analysis of the finite-cycle hierarchy.
The 2004 question is resolved by collapse rather than by separation, so the bottom of the finite-cycle hierarchy is coarser than previously thought.

Reading between the lines

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

One can ask whether the construction can be made explicit enough to compute, for a given input formula, the exact complexity of the produced $\mathrm{SOP}_3$ witness.
A testable extension is whether the repaired treetop-indiscernibility lemma holds for other tree-like partial orders, which would widen the method beyond $\omega^{\leq\omega}$.
A natural next question is whether the GCH assumption in the maximality equivalence can be removed now that $\mathrm{SOP}_2=\mathrm{SOP}_3$.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this paper proves SOP2 ⇒ SOP3, collapsing SOP1 = SOP2 = SOP3 and answering Džamonja–Shelah's 2004 question. The proof is short and mostly clean. The caveat is a real one: the main theorem rides on Fact 2.6, and the published proof of that fact has a gap that the author patches with a sketch in Remark 2.7. The genuinely new work is Theorem 3.2. Given a treetop indiscernible SOP2 witness, the case split into Γi consistent vs inconsistent is a nice idea, and Lemma 3.1 is a carefully verified combinatorial statement about embedding a particular finite configuration into ω^≤ω. I checked Lemma 3.1 and the application of Lemma 2.3; both look right. The reduction to SOP3 via R((v,p);(v',p')) is standard but correctly applied. The paper is honest about the literature, including the gap in [11], and the AI disclosure is transparent and irrelevant to the mathematics. The soft spot: everything depends on Fact 2.8, which is a corollary of Fact 2.6. The proof of Fact 2.6 in [11, Lemma 3.8] has a genuine gap, as the author concedes. The repair in Remark 2.7 is a sketch, not a proof. The key claim—that every L0-embedding of C_- into H extends to an L0,P-embedding into ω^≤ω—is asserted with a plausibility argument about gaps in H, but no detailed verification is given. The stress-test example (∅,⟨0⟩,⟨1,0,0,…⟩,⟨2⟩) shows why the naive approach fails. If that extension property fails for some finite C, Fact 2.6 is false and both cases of Theorem 3.2 collapse. I did not find an independent error in the repair, but the proof as written is incomplete at exactly that point. That is the load-bearing step, not a cosmetic gap. Who this is for: model theorists working on NSOP theories, Keisler's order, and the SOP hierarchy. They will read it immediately. The proof is short enough that a referee can check the missing piece in a reasonable time. Recommendation: send it to a serious referee, not desk reject. The question is significant, the proof structure is sound, and the one fragile step is clearly flagged. The referee should be asked to verify Remark 2.7 in full, or require the author to expand it. If the gap remains, the paper should not be accepted until the repair is complete.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the classes of first-order theories with SOP2 and SOP3 coincide, establishing SOP2 =⇒ SOP3 and hence SOP1 = SOP2 = SOP3 by previous results. The proof starts from a treetop indiscernible array witnessing SOP2 obtained from a cited lemma (Fact 2.6), then constructs, via Lemma 2.3, either a direct SOP3 witness (Case 1 of Theorem 3.2) or a configuration that contradicts an inconsistency obtained from the tree embedding Lemma 3.1 (Case 2). The local combinatorial steps in Section 3 are carefully presented, but the proof depends on Fact 2.6 and Fact 2.8, whose proof is repaired only by a sketch in Remark 2.7.

Significance. If the proof is fully correct, this resolves a prominent open question of Dzamonja and Shelah from 2004 and completes the identification of SOP1, SOP2, and SOP3, a central dividing line in the classification of unstable theories. The author's own contributions—Lemma 2.3's efficient criterion for SOP3, the concrete construction in Lemma 3.1 preserving meet, order, and leaf status, and the clean case split in Theorem 3.2—are elegant and appear sound. The proof is a genuine derivation from the cited background results rather than a circular argument, and it does not fit parameters to the conclusion. However, the unconditional truth of the theorem rests on the unproved repair of Fact 2.6 in Remark 2.7, which is the sole non-black-box input for the central construction.

major comments (1)

[§2.3, Remark 2.7] The proof of the main theorem depends on Fact 2.6 (existence of treetop indiscernibles), and both cases of Theorem 3.2 rely on Fact 2.8, which in turn depends on Fact 2.6. Remark 2.7 explicitly acknowledges that the proof of [11, Lemma 3.8] has a gap and proposes a repair using H = h(ω^{<ω}). The repair is not fully proved: the assertion that every µ ∈ q_{-,i}(H) admits an extension ζ ∈ q_i(ω^{≤ω}) with ζ^- = µ is justified only by a one-sentence spacing argument, and the objects q_i and q_{-,i} are not defined in the present paper. Because the manuscript itself states that the original proof has a gap and the proposed fix is essential yet not demonstrated, the proof of Theorem 1.1 is incomplete as written. A complete proof of the extension property, or a precise reference to a complete proof of Fact 2.6, must be supplied before the main theorem is established.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and throughout] There are numerous typographical spacing errors, such as 'SOP 2 andSOP 3' in the abstract and 'the theoryThasSOP 2' in §2.2, which should be corrected.
[§2.3, Remark 2.7] The role of the finite structure C in the compactness argument of the repair is only implicit; the paper should spell out how C is used and why the choice r > |P(C)| suffices.
[§3, Theorem 3.2] After equation (3.6), the statement that the type equality from Lemma 3.1(3) combined with (3.6) gives exactly the inconsistency of {α(v;p_i), β(v;p_j)} is correct but terse; a brief explanation that the same y satisfies the equivalent conjunction would improve readability.
[§2.2, Definition 2.1] The equivalence of the presented ω^{<ω}-based definition of SOP2 with the original 2^{<ω}-based definition is cited to [14] rather than proved; a short indication of the equivalence would make the paper more self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proof derives SOP3 from SOP2 using independent background results, with no reduction of the central claim to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, SOP2 implies SOP3, is a new logical implication between established tree properties. The proof does not presuppose the conclusion: it starts from an arbitrary SOP2 witness and constructs an SOP3 formula via a series of explicit combinatorial manipulations. No parameter fitting occurs, and no definition is circularly formulated in terms of the target. The main load-bearing inputs are Fact 2.6 (existence of treetop indiscernibles) and Fact 2.8 (SOP2 yields an indiscernible array), cited from Kaplan-Ramsey-Simon [11], and Lemma 2.3, a sufficient condition for SOP3, cited from Mutchnik [22]. These are not the author's own prior results, so there is no self-citation chain doing the work. The author does cite his own work ([1], [2], [4]) in the introduction for context about NSOP1 theories, but nothing in the proof of Theorem 3.2 depends on those citations. Remark 2.7 explicitly identifies a gap in the published proof of Fact 2.6 and supplies a repair using a finite stretched copy H = h(omega^{<omega}). This repair is a self-contained combinatorial argument; it does not appeal to the theorem being proved, nor does it redefine any notion in terms of SOP3. The proof of Theorem 3.2 then uses Fact 2.8 and Lemma 3.1 to construct the required alpha and beta formulas, invoking Lemma 2.3 to conclude SOP3. The reduction is substantive and does not collapse by construction. The identified gap in Fact 2.6 is a mathematical correctness risk, not a circularity, and does not affect the circularity score. The AI disclosure in the introduction is unrelated to circularity. Accordingly, no step in the claimed derivation is equivalent to its inputs by definition, and no fitted or self-cited result is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on imported background results (treetop indiscernibles) rather than on fitted parameters or invented entities. The key external lemma has a gap fixed here; that fix is the main assumption to check.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Fact 2.6: every array (e_eta) admits a treetop indiscernible (a_eta) locally based on it (originally [11, Lemma 3.8]).
Load-bearing: used to turn an SOP2 witness into a homogeneous array in Theorem 3.2. The original proof has a gap; the paper's Remark 2.7 supplies a repair via a stretched copy H = h(omega^{<omega}).
domain assumption Fact 2.8: an SOP2 formula yields a treetop indiscernible array with the incompatibility and extension properties (2.8)(1),(2) ([11, Lemma 7.9]).
Central input to both cases of Theorem 3.2; asserted by citation. Its proof relies on Fact 2.6.
standard math Compactness theorem and Ramsey's theorem are used, e.g. in the finite inconsistency step (Case 2) and in Remark 2.7.
These are standard background tools in model theory; no independence issue.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SOP$_2$=SOP$_3$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYILOTJE

@misc{pith2026260813291,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SOP$_2$=SOP$_3$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYILOTJE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13291}
}

abstract

The classes of SOP$_2$ and SOP$_3$ first-order theories coincide. This answers a question of D\v{z}amonja and Shelah from 2004.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[11]

Generic stability independence and treeless theo- ries.Forum of Mathematics, Sigma, 12:e49, 2024

Itay Kaplan, Nicholas Ramsey, and Pierre Simon. Generic stability independence and treeless theo- ries.Forum of Mathematics, Sigma, 12:e49, 2024

work page 2024
[1]

Transitivity, lowness, and ranks inNSOP1 theories.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 88(3):919–946, 2023

Artem Chernikov, Byunghan Kim, and Nicholas Ramsey. Transitivity, lowness, and ranks inNSOP1 theories.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 88(3):919–946, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

On model-theoretic tree properties.Journal of Mathematical Logic, 16(2):1650009, 2016

Artem Chernikov and Nicholas Ramsey. On model-theoretic tree properties.Journal of Mathematical Logic, 16(2):1650009, 2016

2016
[3]

An axiomatic approach to free amalgamation.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 82(2):648–671, 2017

Gabriel Conant. An axiomatic approach to free amalgamation.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 82(2):648–671, 2017

2017
[4]

Independence over arbitrary sets inNSOP1 theories.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 173(2):103058, 2022

Jan Dobrowolski, Byunghan Kim, and Nicholas Ramsey. Independence over arbitrary sets inNSOP1 theories.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 173(2):103058, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

On◁∗-maximality.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 125(1– 3):119–158, 2004

Mirna Džamonja and Saharon Shelah. On◁∗-maximality.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 125(1– 3):119–158, 2004

work page 2004
[6]

PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 2013

Gwyneth Fae Harrison-Shermoen.Independence relations in theories with the tree property. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 2013

work page 2013
[7]

Pseudo-finite fields and related structures

Ehud Hrushovski. Pseudo-finite fields and related structures. In Luc Bélair, Zoé Chatzidakis, Paola D’Aquino, David Marker, Margarita Otero, Françoise Point, and Alex J. Wilkie, editors,Model Theory and Applications, volume 11 ofQuaderni di Matematica, pages 151–212. Aracne, Rome,

work page

Show all 30 references

[8]

On Kim-independence.Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 22(5):1423–1474, 2020

Itay Kaplan and Nicholas Ramsey. On Kim-independence.Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 22(5):1423–1474, 2020

2020
[9]

Transitivity of Kim-independence.Advances in Mathematics, 379:107573, 2021

Itay Kaplan and Nicholas Ramsey. Transitivity of Kim-independence.Advances in Mathematics, 379:107573, 2021

2021
[10]

Local character of Kim-independence.Proceed- ings of the American Mathematical Society, 147(4):1719–1732, 2019

Itay Kaplan, Nicholas Ramsey, and Saharon Shelah. Local character of Kim-independence.Proceed- ings of the American Mathematical Society, 147(4):1719–1732, 2019

2019
[12]

Forking in simple unstable theories.Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 57(2):257–267, 1998

Byunghan Kim. Forking in simple unstable theories.Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 57(2):257–267, 1998

1998
[13]

Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013

Byunghan Kim.Simplicity Theory, volume 53 ofOxford Logic Guides. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013

2013
[14]

Notions around tree property 1.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 162(9):698–709, 2011

Byunghan Kim and Hyeung-Joon Kim. Notions around tree property 1.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 162(9):698–709, 2011

2011
[15]

Tree indiscernibilities, revisited.Archive for Mathematical Logic, 53(1–2):211–232, 2014

Byunghan Kim, Hyeung-Joon Kim, and Lynn Scow. Tree indiscernibilities, revisited.Archive for Mathematical Logic, 53(1–2):211–232, 2014

2014
[16]

Existence inNSOP 1 theories.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, pages 1–15, 2025

Byunghan Kim, Joonhee Kim, and Hyoyoon Lee. Existence inNSOP 1 theories.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, pages 1–15, 2025. First View

2025
[17]

Simple theories.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 88(2–3):149– 164, 1997

Byunghan Kim and Anand Pillay. Simple theories.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 88(2–3):149– 164, 1997

1997
[18]

Cofinality spectrum theorems in model theory, set theory, and general topology.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 29(1):237–297, 2016

Maryanthe Malliaris and Saharon Shelah. Cofinality spectrum theorems in model theory, set theory, and general topology.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 29(1):237–297, 2016

2016
[19]

Model-theoretic applications of cofinality spectrum prob- lems.Israel Journal of Mathematics, 220(2):947–1014, 2017

Maryanthe Malliaris and Saharon Shelah. Model-theoretic applications of cofinality spectrum prob- lems.Israel Journal of Mathematics, 220(2):947–1014, 2017

2017
[20]

Properties of independence inNSOP3 theories

Scott Mutchnik. Properties of independence inNSOP3 theories. Accepted for publication in Model Theory; arXiv:2305.09908, 2023

2023 arXiv
[21]

Conant-independence and generalized free amalgamation.Journal of Mathematical Logic, 26(1):2450028, 2026

Scott Mutchnik. Conant-independence and generalized free amalgamation.Journal of Mathematical Logic, 26(1):2450028, 2026

2026
[22]

OnNSOP 2 theories.Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 28(8):3475– 3498, 2026

Scott Mutchnik. OnNSOP 2 theories.Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 28(8):3475– 3498, 2026

2026
[23]

Some applications of the real strict order property hierarchy

Scott Mutchnik. Some applications of the real strict order property hierarchy. arXiv:2606.28740, 2026

2026 arXiv
[24]

Stability, the f.c.p., and superstability; model theoretic properties of formulas in first order theory.Annals of Mathematical Logic, 3(3):271–362, 1971

Saharon Shelah. Stability, the f.c.p., and superstability; model theoretic properties of formulas in first order theory.Annals of Mathematical Logic, 3(3):271–362, 1971

1971
[25]

Simple unstable theories.Annals of Mathematical Logic, 19(3):177–203, 1980

Saharon Shelah. Simple unstable theories.Annals of Mathematical Logic, 19(3):177–203, 1980

1980
[26]

Toward classifying unstable theories.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 80(3):229– 255, 1996

Saharon Shelah. Toward classifying unstable theories.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 80(3):229– 255, 1996

1996
[27]

More onSOP1 andSOP 2.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 155(1):16–31, 2008

Saharon Shelah and Alexander Usvyatsov. More onSOP1 andSOP 2.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 155(1):16–31, 2008

2008
[28]

On the existence of indiscernible trees.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 163(12):1891–1902, 2012

Kota Takeuchi and Akito Tsuboi. On the existence of indiscernible trees.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 163(12):1891–1902, 2012

1902
[29]

Wagner.Simple Theories, volume 503 ofMathematics and Its Applications

Frank O. Wagner.Simple Theories, volume 503 ofMathematics and Its Applications. Kluwer Aca- demic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2000

2000
[2002]

Circulated as a manuscript in 1991

1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

Generic stability independence and treeless theo- ries.Forum of Mathematics, Sigma, 12:e49, 2024

Itay Kaplan, Nicholas Ramsey, and Pierre Simon. Generic stability independence and treeless theo- ries.Forum of Mathematics, Sigma, 12:e49, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Transitivity, lowness, and ranks inNSOP1 theories.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 88(3):919–946, 2023

Artem Chernikov, Byunghan Kim, and Nicholas Ramsey. Transitivity, lowness, and ranks inNSOP1 theories.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 88(3):919–946, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [2]

On model-theoretic tree properties.Journal of Mathematical Logic, 16(2):1650009, 2016

Artem Chernikov and Nicholas Ramsey. On model-theoretic tree properties.Journal of Mathematical Logic, 16(2):1650009, 2016

2016

[4] [3]

An axiomatic approach to free amalgamation.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 82(2):648–671, 2017

Gabriel Conant. An axiomatic approach to free amalgamation.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 82(2):648–671, 2017

2017

[5] [4]

Independence over arbitrary sets inNSOP1 theories.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 173(2):103058, 2022

Jan Dobrowolski, Byunghan Kim, and Nicholas Ramsey. Independence over arbitrary sets inNSOP1 theories.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 173(2):103058, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [5]

On◁∗-maximality.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 125(1– 3):119–158, 2004

Mirna Džamonja and Saharon Shelah. On◁∗-maximality.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 125(1– 3):119–158, 2004

work page 2004

[7] [6]

PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 2013

Gwyneth Fae Harrison-Shermoen.Independence relations in theories with the tree property. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 2013

work page 2013

[8] [7]

Pseudo-finite fields and related structures

Ehud Hrushovski. Pseudo-finite fields and related structures. In Luc Bélair, Zoé Chatzidakis, Paola D’Aquino, David Marker, Margarita Otero, Françoise Point, and Alex J. Wilkie, editors,Model Theory and Applications, volume 11 ofQuaderni di Matematica, pages 151–212. Aracne, Rome,

work page