Nesting of double-dimer loops: local fluctuations and convergence to the nesting field of CLE(4)

Konstantin Izyurov; Mikhail Basok

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Nesting of double-dimer loops: local fluctuations and convergence to the nesting field of CLE(4)

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Proven: double-dimer loop counts are Gaussian; field limit CLE(4)

desk verdict Serious new results in double-dimer to CLE(4) convergence, but Lemma 3.7 has a load-bearing gap that needs fixing before I'd fully trust Theorem 1. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01574 v1 pith:H2VYHA22 submitted 2025-01-02 math-ph math.MPmath.PR

Mikhail Basok , Konstantin Izyurov This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phmath.MPmath.PR MSC 60F0582B2060J6760G60

keywords double-dimermodelnestingfieldconformalloopensemblesKasteleynoperatormonodromyGaussianfreecentrallimittheoremSobolevspaces

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

The paper proves that the nesting statistics of the double-dimer model—the loop ensemble formed by superimposing two independent dimer coverings of the square lattice—have a rigid scaling limit. For a fixed point $v$ in the upper half-plane, the number $N_\delta(v)$ of double-dimer loops encircling $v$ has mean $-(1/\pi^2)\log\delta+O(1)$ and variance $-(2/(3\pi^2))\log\delta+O(1)$, and the normalized count $(N_\delta(v)-\mu_\delta)/\sigma_\delta$ converges in distribution to a standard Gaussian as the mesh size $\delta\to 0$. At the field level, the centered random field $\phi_\delta=N_\delta-\mathbb{E}N_\delta$ converges in distribution to the CLE(4) nesting field in the local Sobolev space $H^{-1-\nu}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\mathbb{C}_+)$ for every $\nu>0$. This matters because it gives a rigorous, conformally invariant scaling limit for a loop observable without first proving convergence of the loops themselves, and it identifies the large-scale nesting of double-dimer loops with the universal CLE(4) nesting field.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is $\mathbb{E}e^{ith_\delta(x)}=\mathbb{E}(\cos t)^{N_\delta(x)}$, linking the Laplace transform of the loop count to the Fourier transform of the double-dimer height function $h_\delta$. On the algebraic side, this expectation is a determinant of the Kasteleyn matrix—a weighted adjacency matrix whose inverse encodes dimer correlations—with a scalar monodromy $e^{it}$ around the marked face, and the proof needs a uniform-in-$s$ near-diagonal asymptotic for the inverse Kasteleyn operator with monodromy $e^{2\pi is}$ as $s\to 0$. On the probabilistic side, an approximate Wick rule for the height function controls correlations of the squared height, which encodes the two-point behavior of the nesting field after normal-ordering. The Sobolev-space topology $H^{-1-\nu}_{\mathrm{loc}}$ is used because the unnormalized field has no pointwise limit; convergence is obtained by comparing both the discrete field and the CLE(4) field to their two-point regularizations at small separation $\varepsilon$.

What would settle it

Compute the fourth cumulant of $N_\delta(v)$ from the determinant identity in the paper: Theorem 1 predicts that the normalized fourth cumulant tends to zero, so any nonzero limiting excess kurtosis, or any variance slope differing from $-2/(3\pi^2)$, would refute the single-point claim. For the field claim, evaluate the smoothed covariance $\mathbb{E}[(\phi_\delta, f)(\phi_\delta, g)]$ on compactly supported test functions $f,g$ with supports approaching the diagonal; it should converge to the CLE(4) nesting-field covariance, whose logarithmic diagonal singularity is computable, and a mismatch in that singularity would refute Theorem 2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the double-dimer nesting field has a scaling limit described by CLE(4), the conformal loop ensemble at parameter 4 whose loops are the conjectured scaling limit of double-dimer loops. The authors establish two precise statements. First, for a fixed bulk point $v$, the loop count $N_\delta(v)$ satisfies a central limit theorem with the explicitly universal logarithmic mean and variance given above; the constants match what one obtains from CLE(4) loops with a cutoff at scale $\delta$. Second, the unnormalized field $\phi_\delta=N_\delta(\cdot)-\mathbb{E}N_\delta(\cdot)$, interpreted as a random distribution, converges to the CLE(4) nesting field, the conformally invariant random distribution obtained by subtracting the expected loop count in a regularized construction. The proof does not rely on convergence of individual double-dimer loops; it extracts the limit from algebraic identities relating loop counts to the height function and to determinants of the Kasteleyn operator with monodromy, supplemented by existing results on cylindrical loop events.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the central limit theorem rests on a uniform bound for the inverse Kasteleyn operator with monodromy as the monodromy parameter tends to zero; if that bound degenerates, the Laplace-transform error term in Proposition 3.1 becomes uncontrolled and Gaussian convergence can fail, and the field-level convergence additionally relies on the already-published convergence of cylindrical double-dimer events to CLE(4).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is right, a single-point loop count in any large half-plane double-dimer configuration has fluctuations of order $\sqrt{\log(1/\delta)}$ around a mean of order $\log(1/\delta)$, with a universal Gaussian law once normalized.
The limiting field is conformally invariant, so the distribution of any test-function integral of the centered nesting field does not change under conformal maps of the upper half-plane.
The constants $-(1/\pi^2)$ and $-(2/(3\pi^2))$ would also appear if one counted CLE(4) loops whose conformal radius seen from the point is at least $\delta$, so the double-dimer model and CLE(4) share the same nesting statistics at all scales down to the lattice cutoff.
Convergence of the nesting field provides a well-defined notion of scaling limit for double-dimer loop statistics that does not require convergence of the loops themselves, sidestepping the missing precompactness for curves.
For any test function $f$, $\int \phi_\delta f$ converges in distribution to $\int \phi f$, making the CLE(4) nesting field a computable target for finite-size numerical comparisons.

Reading between the lines

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

The same Laplace-transform/Kasteleyn route could be used to study joint nesting statistics at several points, such as the distribution of the number of loops surrounding both $x$ and $y$, with the two-point monodromy construction in Section 3.2 as the natural tool.
One can test the predicted universality numerically on finite Temperleyan domains: the fitted slope of $\operatorname{Var}N_\delta(v)$ against $\log(1/\delta)$ should converge to $2/(3\pi^2)$, and the empirical covariance of smoothed $\phi_\delta$ should approach the CLE(4) nesting-field covariance with errors governed by the two-scale bound in Proposition 4.3.
A full proof of curve convergence to CLE(4) would make Theorem 2 a corollary; absent that, the nesting-field convergence is the strongest rigorous sense in which double-dimer loop statistics have a CLE(4) scaling limit.
The approximate Wick rule for the height function is likely of independent use for other normal-ordered observables, for example conformal Ward identities or stress-energy-type quantities in the dimer model.

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

Short version: this is a real result, not a rehash. Theorem 1's CLT with the explicit 1/pi^2 and 2/(3pi^2) constants, and Theorem 2's Sobolev convergence of the nesting field, are genuinely new. The paper earns its length by showing the work: explicit error terms, careful separation of what is proven in the half-plane from what is conditional for Temperleyan domains, and honest reliance on published external inputs like Theorem 4.2. The approximate Wick rule in Lemma 2.6 looks like a useful standalone tool.

The soft spot is real, and it is load-bearing. The proof of Theorem 1 rests on Lemma 3.7, the uniformity of the bound (3.6) as s -> 0. In Case 2 of that lemma, the authors cite Lemma 3.6 to claim uniform convergence of F_s(w) = delta_s^{-1} K_{-s}^{-1}(b1, delta_s^{-1} w) to a fixed nonzero function on a contour gamma. But Lemma 3.6 is a pointwise asymptotic in the second argument; here the argument delta_s^{-1} w diverges. The leading term contains (b0 / (delta_s^{-1} w))^s = b0^s delta_s^s w^{-s}. If s log|w_s| -> infinity, delta_s^s = exp(-s log|w_s|) -> 0, so the asserted limit can vanish identically. Then the contour identity (3.22) gives 0 = 0, and the contradiction that proves limsup M_s < infinity collapses. I do not see this subcase handled in the manuscript as written. It may be fixable (multiply (3.22) by delta_s^{-s} before taking the limit, or pass to a subsequence with s log|w_s| bounded), but as written it is a genuine gap in the proof of Theorem 1.

This does not sink the paper's overall value. The CLE-side arguments in Section 4 are independent of Lemma 3.7 and look solid; Theorem 2's proof uses the published Theorem 4.2 and the two-point approximation machinery carefully. The omitted "straightforward computations" are annoying but not disqualifying. The small constant a in Definition 3.1 is a technical choice, not a fitted parameter.

Who should read it: people working on dimers, CLE, and discrete complex analysis. It deserves a serious referee, but I would send it with a specific request to verify Lemma 3.7 before accepting. If the gap is repaired, this is a strong paper; as it stands, Theorem 1 is conditional on a lemma I do not fully trust.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the double-dimer model on the square lattice in the upper half-plane and analyses the random nesting field N_delta(x), the number of double-dimer loops surrounding a point x. Theorem 1 gives the one-point asymptotics E N_delta(x) = -(1/pi^2) log delta + O(1), Var N_delta(x) = -(2/(3pi^2)) log delta + O(1), and the central limit theorem (N_delta(x) - E N_delta(x))/sigma_delta => N(0,1). Theorem 2 states that the unnormalized random field N_delta - E N_delta converges in distribution to the CLE(4) nesting field of Miller-Watson-Wilson with respect to the topology of H^{-1-nu}_{loc}(C_+) for every nu>0. The proofs combine combinatorial identities relating loop counts to the height function, refined asymptotics for the inverse Kasteleyn operator with SL(2,C) monodromy, an approximate Wick rule for the height function, and published cylindrical-event convergence results for double-dimer loops to CLE(4).

Significance. If the proofs are correct, this is a strong and timely contribution: it establishes a CLT for loop nesting counts with the expected logarithmic mean and variance, and it proves field-level convergence to the CLE(4) nesting field without first proving full convergence of the loop ensemble. The constants are derived rather than fitted, the error terms are explicit in the main estimates, and the authors clearly separate what is proved in the upper half-plane from conditional extensions to Temperleyan domains. The reliance on Theorem 4.2 for cylindrical events is appropriate because that input is published and independent of the present conclusions. The main technical risk is concentrated in Lemma 3.7, which supplies the uniformity in s -> 0 of the inverse Kasteleyn estimate (3.6); this uniformity is load-bearing for Proposition 3.1 and hence for Theorem 1(3).

major comments (1)

[Section 3.1, Lemma 3.7, Case 2 (Eq. (3.22))] The proof that limsup_{s->0+} M_s < infinity contains a gap in Case 2. The text asserts that F_s(w) = delta_s^{-1} K_{-s}^{-1}(b_1, delta_s^{-1} w) converges to -1/(2 pi w) - eta_{b_0}^2 eta_w^2/(2 pi \bar w) by Lemma 3.6. However, Lemma 3.6 is an asymptotic in the second argument with the first argument fixed; here the second argument is W = delta_s^{-1} w, so |W| -> infinity. Applying (3.11) with s replaced by -s, the leading terms of F_s have magnitudes delta_s^{-s} |w|^{s-1} and delta_s^s |w|^{-s-1} (up to constants), up to the error term. If s log|w_s| -> infinity, the first magnitude diverges, so the claimed o(1) limit is false unless s log|w_s| -> 0. If one instead normalizes the contour identity (3.22) by delta_s^s before passing to the limit, only the holomorphic term survives; this yields Phi(0)=0 but gives no information about Phi^*(0), so the desired contradiction collapses. Since Lemma 3.7 is the key step that makes the constant C_s in (3.6) uniform as s -> 0, and since (3.6) is the input for Proposition 3.1 and Theorem 1(3), this is a load-bearing gap. The proof needs an additional argument, for example a second contour identity using K_s^{-1} in place of K_{-s}^{-1} to recover Phi^*(0), or a direct uniform estimate showing that the case |w_s| -> infinity cannot occur.

minor comments (3)

[Lemma 3.6] The statement of the asymptotics (3.11) should specify its quantifiers more carefully: it appears to be an asymptotic as |w| -> infinity uniformly in s -> 0+, rather than a pointwise-in-w statement. The notation O(w^{s-2}) is ambiguous and should be accompanied by a sentence explaining the allowed dependence of w on s, especially in the regime s log|w| -> infinity.
[Section 2, Lemmas 3.2 and 3.5] Several technical steps are described as 'straightforward computation' or have details left to the reader, notably Lemma 3.2, the extension of the functions f_s and g_s to white vertices in Lemma 3.5, and part of the proof of Lemma 3.6. Since these computations feed into the uniformity estimates that are central to the paper, spelling out the key cancellations would improve verifiability.
[Throughout] The manuscript contains a number of typographical inconsistencies, such as 'Tempereley/Tempreley' for 'Temperleyan' and some OCR-like artifacts in formulas. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the constants are derived, the main external input is independent published work, and no prediction reduces to a fitted value or to the target conclusion by construction.

full rationale

I walked the two main derivations. Theorem 1's CLT rests on Proposition 3.1, where the logarithmic derivative of the Laplace transform is expressed through the inverse Kasteleyn operator with monodromy (eqs. 3.61–3.63); the constants -1/pi^2 and -2/(3pi^2) are obtained in Lemma 2.9 from the height-function two-point function and the approximate Wick rule (eq. 2.33), not fitted from the quantities being predicted. The uniform-in-s bound of Lemma 3.7 is an internal compactness/maximum-principle estimate; even if the skeptical concern about s-dependent rescaling in Case 2 were a genuine gap, that would be a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. Theorem 2 is assembled from the Miller–Watson–Wilson two-point regularization (Proposition 4.2), the convergence of double-dimer cylindrical events (Theorem 4.2, citing [22,17,4,2]) used in Lemma 4.8, and the comparison of phi_delta with phi^epsilon_delta via the approximate Wick rule (Proposition 4.3). The only author-overlapping input is [4], a published, parameter-free convergence result for cylindrical event probabilities that is not derived from the present target conclusion and does not smuggle in the nesting-field convergence. No equation in the paper is equal to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The CLE(4) nesting field is an external object from [31], not defined through the double-dimer quantities, so importing it is not circular. Finding: no significant circularity; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on previously established Kasteleyn theory, CLE(4) nesting field theory, and cylindrical event convergence, all cited to published independent work. The only hand-chosen parameter, the small constant 'a', is a technical regulator and does not affect the final results. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

small constant a in Definition 3.1 = a < 1/100
Technical regulator for the parametrix radii r1 < r2 < r3; the proof holds for any sufficiently small a, so it is not fitted to data. It does not enter the final constants.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Inverse Kasteleyn operator asymptotic expansions, Lemma 2.3 (from Kenyon), including the full-plane kernel (2.9) from Kenyon.
Used throughout Sections 2 and 3 to derive height function Wick rules and monodromy operator asymptotics. Cited to prior literature, not proved in this paper.
domain assumption Kenyon's convergence of dimer height function correlations to the Gaussian free field and the approximate Wick rule, building on [23].
The approximate Wick rule for the double-dimer height function (Lemma 2.6) and the two-point asymptotics of Lemma 2.8 rest on these results.
domain assumption Theorem 4.2: convergence of probabilities of cylindrical events for double-dimer laminations to CLE(4), from Kenyon, Dubedat, Basok-Chelkak and Bai-Wan.
This is the main external input for Theorem 2, used in Lemma 4.8 to pass from cylindrical event convergence to convergence of the regularized fields. Published in JEMS and IMRN, independent of this paper.
domain assumption Miller-Watson-Wilson construction of the CLE(kappa) nesting field and moment estimates (4.9).
Provides the target field φ and the two-point approximation estimates used in Section 4.2.
standard math Discrete complex analysis precompactness results for discrete holomorphic functions, cited to Chelkak-Laslier-Russkikh.
Used in the proof of Lemma 3.7 to extract convergent subsequences of normalized kernels.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nesting of double-dimer loops: local fluctuations and convergence to the nesting field of CLE(4)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H2VYHA22

@misc{pith2026250101574,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nesting of double-dimer loops: local fluctuations and convergence to the nesting field of CLE(4)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H2VYHA22}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01574}
}

abstract

We consider the double-dimer model in the upper-half plane discretized by the square lattice with mesh size $\delta$. For each point $x$ in the upper half-plane, we consider the random variable $N_\delta(x)$ given by the number of the double-dimer loops surrounding this point. We prove that the normalized fluctuations of $N_\delta(x)$ for a fixed $x$ are asymptotically Gaussian as $\delta\to 0+$. Further, we prove that the double-dimer nesting field $N_\delta(\cdot) - \mathbb{E}\, N_\delta(\cdot)$, viewed as a random distribution in the upper half-plane, converges as $\delta\to 0+$ to the nesting field of CLE(4) constructed by Miller, Watson and Wilson.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

The near critical random bond ising model via embedding deformation
math.PR 2025-09 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

A new embedding-deformation method proves conformal invariance of the near-critical random bond Ising model for coupling fluctuations up to n^-1/3, far beyond the deterministic n^-1 window.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Dimer models and conformal struc- tures

Kari Astala, Erik Duse, Istv´ an Prause, and Xiao Zhong. “Dimer models and conformal struc- tures”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.02599 (2020)

arXiv 2020
[2]

On the crossing estimates for simple co nformal loop ensembles

Tianyi Bai and Yijun Wan. “On the crossing estimates for simple co nformal loop ensembles”. In: International Mathematics Research Notices 2023.13 (2023), pp. 11645–11683

work page 2023
[3]

Does a portion of dimer configuration determines its domain of definition?

Antoine Bannier and Beno ˆ ıt Laslier. “Does a portion of dimer conﬁ guration determines its domain of deﬁnition?” In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13398 (2022)

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[4]

Tau-functions ` a la Dub´ edat and probabilities of cylindrical events for double-dimers and CLE(4)

Mikhail Basok and Dmitry Chelkak. “Tau-functions ` a la Dub´ edat and probabilities of cylindrical events for double-dimers and CLE(4)”. In: Journal of the European Mathematical Society 23.8 (2021), pp. 2787–2832. url: https://hal.science/hal-02936267

work page 2021
[5]

in preparation

Mikhail Basok and Benoit Laslier. “in preparation”. In: (2024)

work page 2024
[6]

Dimers and imaginary geometry

Nathana¨ el Berestycki, Beno ˆ ıt Laslier, and Gourab Ray. “Dimers and imaginary geometry”. In: The Annals of Probability 48.1 (2020), pp. 1–52. doi: 10.1214/18-AOP1326. url: https://doi.org/10.1214/18-AO

work page doi:10.1214/18-aop1326 2020
[7]

Dimers on Riemann surfaces I: Temperleyan forests

Nathana¨ el Berestycki, Beno ˆ ıt Laslier, and Gourab Ray. “Dime rs on Riemann surfaces I: Tem- perleyan forests”. In: ArXiv e-prints (July 2022). arXiv: 1908.00832 [math.PR]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[8]

Dimers on Riemann surfaces II: conformal invariance and scaling limit

Nathana¨ el Berestycki, Beno ˆ ıt Laslier, and Gourab Ray. “Dimers on Riemann surfaces II: confor- mal invariance and scaling limit”. In: ArXiv e-prints (July 2022). arXiv: 2207.09875 [math.PR]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 40 references

[9]

Pe rfect t-embeddings and Lozenge Tilings

Tomas Berggren, Matthew Nicoletti, and Marianna Russkikh. “Pe rfect t-embeddings and Lozenge Tilings”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05441 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[10]

P erfect t-embeddings of uni- formly weighted Aztec diamonds and tower graphs

Tomas Berggren, Matthew Nicoletti, and Marianna Russkikh. “P erfect t-embeddings of uni- formly weighted Aztec diamonds and tower graphs”. In: International Mathematics Research Notices 2024.7 (2024), pp. 5963–6007

2024
[11]

Bipart ite dimer model: perfect t- embeddings and Lorentz-minimal surfaces

Dmitry Chelkak, Beno ˆ ıt Laslier, and Marianna Russkikh. “Bipart ite dimer model: perfect t- embeddings and Lorentz-minimal surfaces”. In: ArXiv e-prints (Nov. 2022). arXiv: 2109.06272 [math.PR]

2022 arXiv
[12]

Dimer m odel and holomorphic func- tions on t-embeddings of planar graphs

Dmitry Chelkak, Beno ˆ ıt Laslier, and Marianna Russkikh. “Dimer m odel and holomorphic func- tions on t-embeddings of planar graphs”. In: ArXiv e-prints (Nov. 2022). arXiv: 2001.11871 [math.PR]

2022 arXiv
[13]

Fluctuations in the Azt ec diamonds via a Lorentz- minimal surface

Dmitry Chelkak and Sanjay Ramassamy. “Fluctuations in the Azt ec diamonds via a Lorentz- minimal surface”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07540 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[14]

A variational principle for domino tilings

Henry Cohn, Richard Kenyon, and James Propp. “A variational principle for domino tilings”. In: Journal of the American Mathematical Society 14.2 (2001), pp. 297–346

2001
[15]

Quadri-tilings of the plane

B´ eatrice De Tili` ere. “Quadri-tilings of the plane”. In: Probability Theory and Related Fields 137.3-4 (2007), pp. 487–518

2007
[16]

Dimers and families of Cauchy-Riemann operat ors I

Julien Dub´ edat. “Dimers and families of Cauchy-Riemann operat ors I”. In: J. Amer. Math. Soc. 28 (2015), pp. 1063–1167

2015
[17]

Double dimers, conformal loop ensembles and isomonodromic deformations

Julien Dub´ edat. “Double dimers, conformal loop ensembles and isomonodromic deformations”. In: Journal of the European Mathematical Society 21.1 (2018), pp. 1–54

2018
[18]

Introduction to the theory of linear nonselfadjoint operators

Israel Gohberg and Mark Grigorevich Krein. Introduction to the theory of linear nonselfadjoint operators. Vol. 18. American Mathematical Soc., 1978

1978
[19]

Dimers and cluste r integrable systems

Alexander B Goncharov and Richard Kenyon. “Dimers and cluste r integrable systems”. In: Annales scientiﬁques de l’ ´Ecole Normale Sup´ erieure. Vol. 46. 5. 2013, pp. 747–813

2013
[20]

Non-intersecting paths, random tilings and random matrices

Kurt Johansson. “Non-intersecting paths, random tilings and random matrices”. In: Probability theory and related ﬁelds 123.2 (2002), pp. 225–280

2002
[21]

Conformal invariance of domino tiling

Richard Kenyon. “Conformal invariance of domino tiling”. In: Ann. Probab. 28.2 (2000), pp. 759– 795

2000
[22]

Conformal invariance of loops in the double-d imer model

Richard Kenyon. “Conformal invariance of loops in the double-d imer model”. In: Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics 326.2 (2014), pp. 477–497

2014
[23]

Dominos and the Gaussian free ﬁeld

Richard Kenyon. “Dominos and the Gaussian free ﬁeld”. In: Ann. Probab. 29.3 (2001), pp. 1128– 1137

2001
[24]

Lectures on dimers

Richard Kenyon. “Lectures on dimers”. In: Statistical mechanics. Vol. 16. IAS/Park City Math- ematics Institute. American Mathematical Soc., 2009

2009
[25]

Local statistics of lattice dimers

Richard Kenyon. “Local statistics of lattice dimers”. In: Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probability and Statistics . Vol. 33. 5. Elsevier. 1997, pp. 591–618. REFERENCES 49

1997
[26]

The Laplacian and Dirac operators on critical planar graphs

Richard Kenyon. “The Laplacian and Dirac operators on critical planar graphs”. In: Invent. math. 150 (2002), pp. 409–439

2002
[27]

Limit shapes and the co mplex Burgers equation

Richard Kenyon and Andrei Okounkov. “Limit shapes and the co mplex Burgers equation”. In: Acta Math 199 (2007), pp. 263–302

2007
[28]

Dimer s and amoebae

Richard Kenyon, Andrei Okounkov, and Scott Sheﬃeld. “Dimer s and amoebae”. In: Annals of mathematics (2006), pp. 1019–1056

2006
[29]

Dimers and cir- cle patterns

Richard Kenyon, Wai Yeung Lam, Sanjay Ramassamy, and Maria nna Russkikh. “Dimers and cir- cle patterns”. In: Annales Scientiﬁques de l’ ´Ecole Normale Sup´ erieure(2021). url: https://hal.archives-ouvert

2021
[30]

Central limit theorem for lozenge tilings with cur ved limit shape. arXiv e-prints, page

Beno ˆ ıt Laslier. “Central limit theorem for lozenge tilings with cur ved limit shape. arXiv e-prints, page”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.05544 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[31]

The conforma l loop ensemble nesting ﬁeld

Jason Miller, Samuel S Watson, and David B Wilson. “The conforma l loop ensemble nesting ﬁeld”. In: Probability theory and related ﬁelds 163.3-4 (2015), pp. 769–801

2015
[32]

Extreme ne sting in the conformal loop ensemble

Jason Miller, Samuel S. Watson, and David B. Wilson. “Extreme ne sting in the conformal loop ensemble”. In: The Annals of Probability 44.2 (2016), pp. 1013–1052. doi: 10.1214/14-AOP995. url: https://doi.org/10.1214/14-AOP995

2016 doi
[33]

Rotational invariance and discrete analyticity in t he 2d dimer model

Haru Pinson. “Rotational invariance and discrete analyticity in t he 2d dimer model”. In: Com- munications in mathematical physics 245 (2004), pp. 355–382

2004
[34]

Basic properties of SLE

Steﬀen Rohde and Oded Schramm. “Basic properties of SLE”. I n: Selected Works of Oded Schramm. Springer, 2011, pp. 989–1030

2011
[35]

Dimers in piecewise Temperleyan domains

Marianna Russkikh. “Dimers in piecewise Temperleyan domains”. I n: Communications in Math- ematical Physics 359.1 (2018), pp. 189–222

2018
[36]

Dominos in hedgehog domains

Marianna Russkikh. “Dominos in hedgehog domains”. In: Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e D 8.1 (2020), pp. 1–33

2020
[37]

Scaling limits of loop-erased random walks and un iform spanning trees

Oded Schramm. “Scaling limits of loop-erased random walks and un iform spanning trees”. In: Israel Journal of Mathematics 118.1 (2000), pp. 221–288

2000
[38]

Conformal r adii for conformal loop ensembles

Oded Schramm, Scott Sheﬃeld, and David B Wilson. “Conformal r adii for conformal loop ensembles”. In: Communications in Mathematical Physics 288.1 (2009), pp. 43–53

2009
[39]

Conformal loop ensembles : the Markovian characteriza- tion and the loop-soup construction

Scott Sheﬃeld and Wendelin Werner. “Conformal loop ensembles : the Markovian characteriza- tion and the loop-soup construction”. In: Annals of Mathematics (2012), pp. 1827–1917

2012
[40]

Partial diﬀerential equations

Michael Eugene Taylor. Partial diﬀerential equations. 1, Basic theory . Springer, 1996

1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Dimer models and conformal struc- tures

Kari Astala, Erik Duse, Istv´ an Prause, and Xiao Zhong. “Dimer models and conformal struc- tures”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.02599 (2020)

arXiv 2020

[2] [2]

On the crossing estimates for simple co nformal loop ensembles

Tianyi Bai and Yijun Wan. “On the crossing estimates for simple co nformal loop ensembles”. In: International Mathematics Research Notices 2023.13 (2023), pp. 11645–11683

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Does a portion of dimer configuration determines its domain of definition?

Antoine Bannier and Beno ˆ ıt Laslier. “Does a portion of dimer conﬁ guration determines its domain of deﬁnition?” In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13398 (2022)

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[4] [4]

Tau-functions ` a la Dub´ edat and probabilities of cylindrical events for double-dimers and CLE(4)

Mikhail Basok and Dmitry Chelkak. “Tau-functions ` a la Dub´ edat and probabilities of cylindrical events for double-dimers and CLE(4)”. In: Journal of the European Mathematical Society 23.8 (2021), pp. 2787–2832. url: https://hal.science/hal-02936267

work page 2021

[5] [5]

in preparation

Mikhail Basok and Benoit Laslier. “in preparation”. In: (2024)

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Dimers and imaginary geometry

Nathana¨ el Berestycki, Beno ˆ ıt Laslier, and Gourab Ray. “Dimers and imaginary geometry”. In: The Annals of Probability 48.1 (2020), pp. 1–52. doi: 10.1214/18-AOP1326. url: https://doi.org/10.1214/18-AO

work page doi:10.1214/18-aop1326 2020

[7] [7]

Dimers on Riemann surfaces I: Temperleyan forests

Nathana¨ el Berestycki, Beno ˆ ıt Laslier, and Gourab Ray. “Dime rs on Riemann surfaces I: Tem- perleyan forests”. In: ArXiv e-prints (July 2022). arXiv: 1908.00832 [math.PR]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[8] [8]

Dimers on Riemann surfaces II: conformal invariance and scaling limit

Nathana¨ el Berestycki, Beno ˆ ıt Laslier, and Gourab Ray. “Dimers on Riemann surfaces II: confor- mal invariance and scaling limit”. In: ArXiv e-prints (July 2022). arXiv: 2207.09875 [math.PR]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022