Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 29 references

A contiguity approach to replica symmetric marginals

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A cavity-contiguity framework proves replica-symmetric single-spin marginals in the high-temperature Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model.

desk verdict A clean modular framework for replica-symmetric marginals, but a circular dependency between Propositions 1 and 2 leaves Theorem 1 unproved as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12309 v1 pith:QXLMOZHM submitted 2026-08-12 math-ph math.MPmath.PRmath.STstat.TH

Ernesto Mordecki , Anas A. Rahman , Manuel Sáenz This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MPmath.PRmath.STstat.TH MSC 82B4460F05
keywords cavitymethodcontiguityreplicasymmetrySherrington-Kirkpatrickmodeltotalvariationconvergencelog-Sobolevinequalityoverlapconcentrationmean-fieldGibbsmeasures
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

At inverse temperature $\beta<1/4$ and nonzero external field $h$, the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick spin glass is in its replica-symmetric phase, and the paper proves that the law of any fixed spin converges in total variation to the effective one-dimensional cavity measure predicted by the replica method, with expected squared total-variation error at most $C/N^{1/8}$. The proof works through a cavity-contiguity framework: remove one coordinate from the Hamiltonian, compare the full Gibbs measure with the cavity measure by a Radon-Nikodym derivative, and control the comparison with Hellinger-type estimates. The authors deliberately separate three ingredients—concentration of overlaps, identification of the asymptotic Gaussian cavity field, and quantitative comparison of measures—so that Gaussianity of the disorder is used only where it is actually needed. This matters because it offers a modular alternative to interpolation-based arguments and a path toward Bayesian inference models with non-Gaussian disorder.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Radon-Nikodym derivative of the full Gibbs measure with respect to the cavity measure, $D_N=\exp\{\Delta H_N(\sigma_{i_0},\Theta_N)\}/\langle\exp\{\Delta H_N(\sigma_{i_0},\Theta_N)\}\rangle_c$, obtained from the cavity decomposition $H_N=H_{N-1}+\Delta H_N+\delta_N$. The proof couples the finite-$N$ Gaussian cavity fields $(\Theta_N^{(l)})$ to limiting fields $(\theta_l)$ through Cholesky decompositions of the overlap matrix, and then converts convergence of logarithmic moments of $D_N$ into total-variation control via Hellinger integrals. Overlap concentration is supplied by a log-Sobolev inequality imported into the two-replica system, which yields the Poincaré inequality that powers Proposition 1.

What would settle it

Take a fixed $\beta<1/4$, $h\neq 0$ (for instance $\beta=0.24$, $h=1$), simulate the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Gibbs measure at moderate $N$, and estimate $E\langle (Q_{12}-q)^2\rangle_c$. If the variance does not decay like $C/N$—or if the Poincaré inequality (9) fails explicitly for a test function under the indefinite two-replica measure—then Proposition 1, and with it Theorem 1, cannot hold as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: for $\beta<1/4$ and $h\neq 0$, there is a constant $C$ such that $\mathbb{E}\|P_{N,i_0}(\cdot|J)-\mu_{i_0}(\cdot)\|^2_{TV}\le C/N^{1/8}$, where $\mu_{i_0}(\sigma)=\exp\{(2\beta\sqrt{q}\,z+h)\sigma\}/(2\cosh(2\beta\sqrt{q}\,z+h))$, $z$ is a standard Gaussian, and $q$ is the unique solution of $q=\mathbb{E}\tanh^2(2\beta\sqrt{q}\,z+h)$. The statement itself is classical; the contribution is the mechanism of proof. The marginal is exhibited as a contiguity limit of the cavity measure through a likelihood-ratio tilt, making transparent that replica-symmetric local convergence does not need interpolation identities. The theorem is derived from overlap concentration, a coupling of the finite-$N$ Gaussian cavity fields to their limiting Gaussian fields, and a five-term decomposition of the log-Hellinger integral, each term controlled by a distinct estimate.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of overlap concentration assumes that the log-Sobolev inequality of [9], stated for positive-semidefinite interaction matrices, applies to the two-replica measure with interaction matrix $\gamma\,\mathrm{diag}(J,J)$ built from the indefinite Wigner matrix $J$; if that transfer fails, the Poincaré inequality (9) and the concentration that supports Theorem 1 collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Averages of local observables over replicas converge to expectations under the effective cavity law; the overlap parameter $q$ is shown to satisfy its replica-symmetric fixed point equation (Corollary 1).
  • The asymptotic free energy at $\beta<1/4$, $h\neq 0$ equals $\mathbb{E}\log 2\cosh(2\beta\sqrt{q}Z+h)+\beta^2(1-q)^2$, with $Z$ standard Gaussian (Corollary 2).
  • Because the framework uses Gaussianity only through concentration and cavity-field identification, the same cavity-contiguity steps should extend to non-Gaussian disorder whenever comparable concentration estimates hold.
  • The three-component structure (concentration, identification, comparison) allows different concentration tools—Poincaré, log-Sobolev, transportation, or related inequalities—to be substituted without altering the measure-comparison part.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The rate $C/N^{1/8}$ is an artifact of balancing the $K=N^{1/4}$ truncation against competing error terms; a sharper handling of the Hellinger logarithm could plausibly push the rate toward the $N^{-1/2}$ scale set by overlap concentration, though the paper does not claim this.
  • If the positivity gap in the log-Sobolev import can be closed, the concentration step should survive for indefinite or non-Gaussian couplings, making the framework a template for leave-one-out proofs in Bayesian inference with mismatch.
  • The Hellinger-based comparison is stated in a way that suggests path-space analogues: replacing Hellinger integrals by Hellinger processes could yield asymptotic scalar descriptions for Langevin dynamics associated with these Gibbs measures.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a probabilistic 'cavity-contiguity' framework for proving replica-symmetric convergence of local marginals in mean-field Gibbs systems, and implements it in the high-temperature Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model. The main result, Theorem 1, states that for beta<1/4 and h not equal to 0, the marginal law of a fixed spin converges in expected total variation to the one-dimensional cavity measure mu_{i0}(sigma)=exp{(2 beta sqrt(q) Z+h) sigma}/(2 cosh(2 beta sqrt(q) Z+h)) at rate O(N^(-1/8)), where q is the unique solution of q=E tanh^2(2 beta sqrt(q) Z+h). The proof separates concentration of the overlaps, identification of the limiting cavity field, and comparison of measures via Radon-Nikodym derivatives and Hellinger integrals. The paper also states corollaries for local functions and the free energy, and discusses extensions to Bayesian inference models.

Significance. The paper's main contribution is methodological: it proposes a modular route to local replica-symmetric results that avoids interpolation and instead uses concentration inequalities plus explicit change-of-measure estimates. The conceptual separation of concentration, identification, and measure comparison is appealing, and the proof is short and readable. The authors are candid that the N^(-1/8) rate is not optimal and that the framework requires strong concentration estimates. If the proof gaps described below are repaired, this cavity-contiguity approach could be a useful addition to the toolbox for mean-field spin systems and Bayesian inference. The theorem itself is classical in the SK model, so the value of the paper rests on the correctness and clarity of the new proof rather than on the novelty of the statement.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B, proof of Proposition 1] The proof of Proposition 1 is incomplete because of a circular dependency. In the final paragraph, the authors take a subsubsequence along which E<Q12> converges to q' and write 'Over this sub-subsequence, Proposition 2 holds.' However, Proposition 2 requires the hypothesis E[(Q12-q')^2]_c <= K/N, and this is not established anywhere: Lemma 9 and inequality (10) give only E[(Q12-<Q12>)^2] <= C/N and Var(<Q12>) <= C/N, which together yield E[(Q12-E<Q12>)^2] <= C/N but no rate for |E<Q12>-q'|; Lemma 11 gives only O(N^(-1/2)) relations between full and cavity means. Thus the hypothesis of Proposition 2 is not verified at the point of invocation, and the identification q'=E tanh^2(2 beta sqrt(q') Z+h) is unsupported. Conversely, the proof of Lemma 4 in Proposition 2 invokes Proposition 1 to control E[(Q_{l,l'}-q)^2]_c; this can be repaired by using the assumption of Proposition 2 together with exchangeability, but as written Proposition 2 is not proved independently of Proposition 1. Consequently, Theorem 1 is not established as written.
  2. [Appendix B, inequality (9) and the use of [9]] The Poincare inequality (9) is derived from the log-Sobolev inequality of [9], but the text states that [9]'s result is for 'positive semidefinite interaction matrices'. The two-replica interaction matrix B = gamma diag(J,J) is not positive semidefinite when the Wigner matrix J has negative eigenvalues, so the cited LSI does not apply in the form used. This affects the concentration bounds (10), Lemma 9, and Lemma 11 that support Proposition 1. If the LSI in [9] in fact holds without the positive-semidefiniteness assumption, the authors should state and prove the needed variant; otherwise a different concentration argument is required.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Lemma 3] The proof of Lemma 3 contains an incorrect identity: the displayed formula E<exp{t1 DeltaH(sigma_i0,Theta_N)}>_c = exp{2 t1^2 beta^2 + t1 |h_i0|} cannot be correct as written because the expectation over sigma_i0 in {+-1} should produce a factor cosh(t1 h) rather than exp(t1 |h|), and the notation h_i0 is not defined. Since only boundedness of the exponential moments is needed, this error is not load-bearing, but it should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.4, Lemma 4] The notation for Q_{l,l'} is inconsistent: in Section 3.1 the overlap is defined as a sum over all N coordinates, while in Lemma 4 and the coupling construction the property Q_{l,l}=(N-1)/N shows that the cavity overlap with i0 removed is being used. The authors should introduce separate notation, for example tilde Q_{l,l'} = N^{-1} sum_{i not equal to i0} sigma_i^{(l)} sigma_i^{(l')}, and state the elementary relation between the two overlaps.
  3. [Proof of Proposition 2, bound for Delta3] The claim that 'as functions of Theta_N^{(1)},...,Theta_N^{(K)}, log Xbar_{N,K} is 1-Lipschitz' is imprecise: the Lipschitz constant with respect to the l1 norm is at most beta, because each derivative has magnitude at most beta. Since beta<1/4, the subsequent bound with constant C is valid, but the statement should state the constant explicitly.
  4. [Lemma 9] The proof of Lemma 9 invokes the 'Gauss-Poincare inequality [10]', but reference [10] is a concentration-inequality survey and does not appear to contain the Gaussian Poincare inequality; a standard textbook reference should be supplied.
  5. [Corollary 1] The proof of Corollary 1 is only sketched for functions of two replicas; since Theorem 1 concerns a single marginal, the extension to joint marginals of two or more spins should either be stated as a separate lemma or proved explicitly rather than asserted in one sentence.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 are mutually load-bearing as written: Proposition 2 is used to identify the fixed point in the proof of Proposition 1, while Proposition 2's proof uses Proposition 1 for the same overlap-concentration bound.

  1. other [Appendix B, proof of Proposition 1, final paragraph (after Lemma 11)]
    "Over this sub-subsequence, Proposition 2 holds and thus we have, by a straightforward adaptation of the proof of Corollary 1, that q′ =E[tanh^2(2β√q′Z+h)]."

    Proposition 2 is a conditional statement whose hypothesis is exactly the overlap-concentration bound E[(Q12−q)^2]_c ≤ K/N, which is the conclusion Proposition 1 is trying to prove. Invoking Proposition 2 to identify the limiting value q therefore uses Proposition 1's own target statement as an ingredient. The argument would only be acyclic if Proposition 2 were proved independently of Proposition 1, but the written proof does not do so.

  2. other [Section 3.4.2, proof of Lemma 4 (inside the proof of Proposition 2)]
    "For the off-diagonal terms, Proposition 1 and exchangeability give E[(Q_{l,l′}−q)^2]_c ≤ C/N."

    This is precisely the hypothesis assumed in Proposition 2. As written, the proof of Proposition 2 uses Proposition 1 to obtain the very same O(1/N) overlap-concentration estimate that Proposition 1's proof later needs Proposition 2 to establish. Lemma 4 could in principle be re-proved directly from Proposition 2's own hypothesis, but the paper does not provide such a proof, so the two propositions are mutually dependent in the written derivation chain.

full rationale

The main theorem is proved by combining Proposition 1 (overlap concentration) with Proposition 2 (marginal convergence conditional on overlap concentration). The problematic step is in Appendix B: after showing concentration around the random mean and variance of the mean, the proof selects a sub-subsequence on which E<Q12> converges to q′ and says 'Over this sub-subsequence, Proposition 2 holds'. The hypothesis of Proposition 2 is the very bound E[(Q12−q)^2]_c ≤ K/N that Proposition 1 is meant to establish, and the written proof does not break the cycle because the proof of Proposition 2 uses Proposition 1 in Lemma 4 for the same off-diagonal overlap bound. The dependency is repairable in principle: under Proposition 2's hypothesis, Lemma 4 could use that hypothesis directly instead of citing Proposition 1, and Proposition 2 would then be a genuinely conditional statement. But the paper as written has a cyclic derivation, so the unconditional N^{−1/8} claim of Theorem 1 is not supported by an acyclic chain. There is no fitted-parameter-called-prediction issue and no load-bearing self-citation: the citations to the companion paper [23] and to [9] are not what makes this step circular; the circularity is internal to the mutual dependence of Propositions 1 and 2.

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

The central claim rests on standard concentration and matrix-analysis results from the cited literature. The most delicate input is the log-Sobolev inequality of [9], whose applicability to the non-positive-definite Wigner interaction is not fully justified in the text. The proof also relies on the unique fixed point of the replica-symmetric equation, which is proved inside the paper.

free parameters (1)
  • K, number of replicas in averaging = N^{1/4}
    Chosen by the authors to balance concentration and Lipschitz error terms in Proposition 2; the resulting rate N^{-1/8} depends on this choice, so the rate is partly a consequence of a hand-picked parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Log-Sobolev inequality for high-temperature Ising spin systems (Bauerschmidt-Bodineau [9])
    Used in Appendix B to derive the Poincaré inequality (9) for the two-replica SK measure.
  • standard math Spectral concentration of Wigner matrices: ||J||_op ≤ 2+ε with high probability (Vershynin [27])
    Used in Appendix B to bound the operator norm of the disorder matrix and ensure the Poincaré inequality applies.
  • standard math Cholesky decomposition consistency and Lipschitz continuity (Golub-Van Loan [14], Osborne [21], Sun [24])
    Used in Section 3.4.1 to construct the coupling between finite-N and limiting Gaussian cavity fields.
  • standard math Gaussian integration by parts
    Used in Corollary 2 and Lemma 10 to relate derivatives of free energy and fixed-point equation.
  • domain assumption High-temperature regime β<1/4 and non-zero magnetic field h≠0
    The theorem and all concentration estimates are stated only in this regime, and the proof uses it to ensure the Poincaré inequality and fixed-point uniqueness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A contiguity approach to replica symmetric marginals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QXLMOZHM

@misc{pith2026260812309,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A contiguity approach to replica symmetric marginals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QXLMOZHM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12309}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a probabilistic cavity-contiguity framework for proving replica-symmetric convergence of local marginals in mean-field Gibbs systems. The approach is based on cavity decompositions of the Hamiltonian together with direct comparison of probability measures through Radon-Nikodym derivatives and Hellinger-type estimates. At a conceptual level, the method separates the concentration of the relevant order parameters from the identification of the asymptotic cavity model and the comparison of the associated Gibbs measures. In contrast with interpolation-based approaches, the argument relies only weakly on the Gaussianity of the disorder and naturally accommodates concentration tools such as Poincar\'e and log-Sobolev inequalities. Rather than pursuing maximal generality, with the aim of making the method transparent, we implement the framework in a canonical example: the high-temperature Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model. In this setting, we prove that the marginal law of a fixed spin converges in total variation toward the effective one-dimensional cavity measure predicted by the replica method. Beyond the specific result for the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model, the paper illustrates a broader cavity-contiguity methodology which is expected to extend naturally to other mean-field Gibbs systems, particularly Bayesian inference models with or without mismatch.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    A very simple proof of the lsi for high temper- ature spin systems.Journal of Functional Analysis, 276(8):2582–2588, 2019

    Roland Bauerschmidt and Thierry Bodineau. A very simple proof of the lsi for high temper- ature spin systems.Journal of Functional Analysis, 276(8):2582–2588, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Bayesian inference in high- dimensional models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.04491, 2021

    Sayantan Banerjee, Ismael Castillo, and Subhashis Ghosal. Bayesian inference in high- dimensional models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.04491, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  3. [2]

    Performance of bayesian linear regression in a model with mismatch.Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 14(3):iaaf019, 2025

    Jean Barbier, Wei-Kuo Chen, Dmitry Panchenko, and Manuel Sáenz. Performance of bayesian linear regression in a model with mismatch.Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 14(3):iaaf019, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [3]

    The Mutual Information in Random Linear Estimation

    Jean Barbier, Mohamad Dia, Nicolas Macris, and Florent Krzakala. The mutual information in random linear estimation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.02335, 2016

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  5. [4]

    Optimal errors and phase transitions in high-dimensional generalized linear models.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(12):5451–5460, 2019

    Jean Barbier, Florent Krzakala, Nicolas Macris, Léo Miolane, and Lenka Zdeborová. Optimal errors and phase transitions in high-dimensional generalized linear models.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(12):5451–5460, 2019

    2019

  6. [5]

    The adaptive interpolation method: a simple scheme to prove replica formulas in bayesian inference.Probability theory and related fields, 174(3):1133– 1185, 2019

    Jean Barbier and Nicolas Macris. The adaptive interpolation method: a simple scheme to prove replica formulas in bayesian inference.Probability theory and related fields, 174(3):1133– 1185, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Mutual information and optimality of approximate message-passing in random linear estimation.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 66(7):4270–4303, 2020

    Jean Barbier, Nicolas Macris, Mohamad Dia, and Florent Krzakala. Mutual information and optimality of approximate message-passing in random linear estimation.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 66(7):4270–4303, 2020. 16

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Strong replica symmetry in high-dimensional optimal bayesian inference.Communications in mathematical physics, 393(3):1199–1239, 2022

    Jean Barbier and Dmitry Panchenko. Strong replica symmetry in high-dimensional optimal bayesian inference.Communications in mathematical physics, 393(3):1199–1239, 2022

    2022

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    Marginals of a spherical spin glass model with correlated disorder.Electronic Communications in Probability, 27:1–12, 2022

    Jean Barbier and Manuel Sáenz. Marginals of a spherical spin glass model with correlated disorder.Electronic Communications in Probability, 27:1–12, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Concentration inequalities using the entropy method.The Annals of Probability, 31(3):1583–1614, 2003

    Stéphane Boucheron, Gábor Lugosi, and Pascal Massart. Concentration inequalities using the entropy method.The Annals of Probability, 31(3):1583–1614, 2003

    2003

  3. [11]

    Springer Series in Statistics

    Lucien Le Cam and Grace Lo Yang.Asymptotics in Statistics: Some Basic Concepts. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990

    1990

  4. [12]

    Spin glass identities and the nishimori line

    Pierluigi Contucci, Cristian Giardina, and Hidetoshi Nishimori. Spin glass identities and the nishimori line. InSpin Glasses: Statics and Dynamics: Summer School, Paris 2007, pages 103–121. Springer, 2009

    2007

  5. [13]

    Tap free energy, spin glasses and variational inference

    Zhou Fan, Song Mei, and Andrea Montanari. Tap free energy, spin glasses and variational inference. 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    JHU press, 2013

    Gene H Golub and Charles F Van Loan.Matrix computations. JHU press, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    JeanJacodandAlbertShiryaev.Limit theorems for stochastic processes, volume288. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    Statistical physics methods in optimization and machine learning.Lecture Notes, 2024

    Florent Krzakala and Lenka Zdeborová. Statistical physics methods in optimization and machine learning.Lecture Notes, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    High-dimensional statistics: Reflections on progress and open problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.05076, 2026

    Arian Maleki, Subhabrata Sen, Sivaraman Balakrishna, Verena Zuber, Chao Gao, Rishabh Dudeja, Christos Thrampoulidis, Anru Zhang, Weijie Su, Jason M Klusowski, et al. High-dimensional statistics: Reflections on progress and open problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.05076, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2009

    Marc Mezard and Andrea Montanari.Information, physics, and computation. Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2009

    2009

  11. [19]

    World Scientific Publishing Company, 1987

    Marc Mézard, Giorgio Parisi, and Miguel Angel Virasoro.Spin glass theory and beyond: An Introduction to the Replica Method and Its Applications, volume 9. World Scientific Publishing Company, 1987

    1987

  12. [20]

    Number 111

    Hidetoshi Nishimori.Statistical physics of spin glasses and information processing: an intro- duction. Number 111. Clarendon Press, 2001

    2001

  13. [21]

    PhD thesis, Oxford University, UK, 2010

    Michael Osborne and Michael Alan Osborne.Bayesian Gaussian processes for sequential prediction, optimisation and quadrature. PhD thesis, Oxford University, UK, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    Dmitry Panchenko.The sherrington-kirkpatrick model. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. 17

    2013

  15. [23]

    Characterizing finite-dimensional posterior marginals in high- dimensional glms via leave-one-out.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.00091, 2025

    Manuel Sáenz and Pragya Sur. Characterizing finite-dimensional posterior marginals in high- dimensional glms via leave-one-out.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.00091, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Perturbation bounds for the cholesky and qr factorizations.BIT Numerical Mathematics, 31(2):341–352, 1991

    Ji-Guang Sun. Perturbation bounds for the cholesky and qr factorizations.BIT Numerical Mathematics, 31(2):341–352, 1991

    1991

  17. [25]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2010

    Michel Talagrand.Mean field models for spin glasses: Volume I: Basic examples, volume 54. Springer Science & Business Media, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Cambridge university press, 2000

    Aad W Van der Vaart.Asymptotic statistics, volume 3. Cambridge university press, 2000

    2000

  19. [27]

    Introduction to the non-asymptotic analysis of random matrices., 2012

    Roman Vershynin. Introduction to the non-asymptotic analysis of random matrices., 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    Statistical physics of inference: Thresholds and algorithms.Advances in Physics, 65(5):453–552, 2016

    Lenka Zdeborová and Florent Krzakala. Statistical physics of inference: Thresholds and algorithms.Advances in Physics, 65(5):453–552, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    A concise tutorial on approximate message passing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07487, 2022

    Qiuyun Zou and Hongwen Yang. A concise tutorial on approximate message passing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07487, 2022. A Properties of the Cholesky decomposition For eachK≥1, letQ∈R K×K be a symmetric positive definite matrix and letL(Q)be its Cholesky factor. That is,L(Q)∈R K×...

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.