Gaussian limit for Pfaffian point processes

Kai Wang; Mei Xu

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Gaussian limit for Pfaffian point processes

T0 review · 4 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 The paper proves a central limit theorem for counting and step-function linear statistics of Pfaffian point processes, covering the bulk-scaling limits of the orthogonal and symplectic random matrix ensembles.

desk verdict The FRCP idea is genuinely new and the Sine4 commutator computation is the strong part, but Proposition 2.2's cumulant formula puts the antisymmetrized kernel in the trace, the variance comes out O(L^2) instead of log L, and Theorem 1.2 is unproved as printed — correctable, but not ready as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14487 v1 pith:RKUITKYZ submitted 2025-04-20 math.PR

Kai Wang , Mei Xu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PR MSC 60G5530B2030H20

keywords Pfaffianpointprocessescentrallimittheoremlinearstatisticsfinite-rankcommutatorpropertySine4processSine1randommatrixensemblesmomentmethod

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

Pfaffian point processes govern configurations whose correlation functions are Pfaffians of an antisymmetric 2x2 kernel, including eigenvalue configurations of the orthogonal and symplectic random matrix ensembles. The paper's aim is a general central limit theorem: whenever such a process satisfies a finite-rank commutator property and its variance grows, the centered and normalized counting statistic is Gaussian in the limit. Applications are given to the Pfaffian Sine_4 and Sine_1 processes, the universal bulk-scaling limits of these ensembles, for both interval counts and finite linear combinations of interval indicators. The proof works by showing that all cumulants of order three and higher are negligible compared with the appropriate power of the variance, using a combinatorial decomposition of Pfaffian correlation functions into traces of products of the matrix kernel.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through a cumulant expansion for Pfaffian linear statistics. Proposition 2.2 expresses the $n$-th cumulant of $S_f$ as a sum over partitions of $[n]$ of integrals of $\operatorname{Tr}(K(x_1,x_2)\cdots K(x_k,x_1))$, with $K=ZK$; the combinatorial step is a Pfaffian-cycle decomposition of the correlation function into 'necklaces.' The finite-rank commutator property (FRCP) then supplies the operator identities $A^\dagger B-BA=\sum f^{(i)}\otimes g^{(i)}$ and $DB-(\alpha A^2+\beta A)=\sum h^{(i)}\otimes e^{(i)}$, which collapse every such trace to $\lambda\operatorname{Tr}(A^k)$ plus products of rank-one operators. Under the hypothesis $\|A_L-A_L^2\|_1=o(\mathrm{Var})^\delta$, the leading terms reduce to $\lambda\operatorname{Tr}(A_L)$, so the $k$-th cumulant of the count becomes a difference $V_k-V_{k-1}$ that is negligible for $k\ge 3$; Lemma 2.1 converts the vanishing cumulants into convergence to the normal law.

What would settle it

Compute the second and fourth cumulants of the Sine_4 count on $(-L,L)$ directly from the cumulant formula of Proposition 2.2 and compare them with the claimed variance $\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\log L+O(1)$; any cumulant that grows like a positive power of $L$ would show the normalization is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a structural condition, the finite-rank commutator property (FRCP), is enough to force Gaussian fluctuations in Pfaffian point processes. Theorem 1.2 states that for a family $P_L$ with kernel $K_L(x,y)=ZK_L(x,y)$ and FRCP data satisfying variance growth, boundedness, the trace-class closeness $\|A_L-A_L^2\|_1=o(\mathrm{Var}_{P_L}(\#X_L))^\delta$, and negligibility of the finite-rank inner products, the normalized count $\frac{\#X_L-\mathbb{E}_{P_L}[\#X_L]}{\sqrt{\mathrm{Var}_{P_L}(\#X_L)}}$ converges in distribution to $N(0,1)$. Theorem 1.3 extends the conclusion to scaled step-function statistics in the Pfaffian $\mathrm{Sine}_4$ and $\mathrm{Sine}_1$ processes. The authors verify FRCP explicitly for these processes, with rank-two and rank-four commutators, and show that the variance of interval counts is $\sim \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\log L$ for Sine_4 and $\sim \frac{2}{\pi^2}\log L$ for Sine_1, so normalization by the standard deviation is meaningful.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every rank-one correction produced by the finite-rank commutator identities is negligible compared with the variance, uniformly in the fixed order of the cumulant being estimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the bulk of the orthogonal and symplectic random matrix ensembles, the number of eigenvalues in an interval of length $O(L)$ in microscopic units fluctuates normally after subtracting its mean and dividing by $\sqrt{\log L}$.
For any fixed step function $\phi$ with finitely many intervals, the scaled statistic $S_{\phi_L}$ in the Pfaffian $\mathrm{Sine}_4$ and $\mathrm{Sine}_1$ processes has Gaussian fluctuations.
The finite-rank commutator property gives a checkable sufficient condition: a Pfaffian process whose kernel operators admit finite-rank commutators and whose variance diverges satisfies a central limit theorem whenever the requisite trace-class estimates hold.
The result extends to Pfaffian processes the classical Gaussian fluctuation theory for determinantal point processes, with the same logarithmic variance growth for counting in expanding intervals.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper's claims, the same estimates should give Gaussian limits for local linear statistics of any finite-rank perturbation of the sine processes, because the FRCP identities and trace-class bounds are stable under such perturbations.
A direct test of the method is the real Ginibre bulk process, whose Pfaffian correlation structure is known but whose FRCP data are not worked out here; computing the commutator ranks would show how widely the condition holds.
The trace-class condition involving $\|A_L-A_L^2\|_1$ suggests the result should extend to mesoscopic intervals of length $L^\alpha$ with $0<\alpha<1$ and variance of order $\log L$, though the paper itself states only the full-interval scaling.

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

The finite-rank commutator property is a real new device, and the explicit commutator computation for Sine4 in §3.1 is the best part of the paper. The step-function CLT for Sine4 and Sine1 is a genuine advance over Leblé (C^4) and Lambert (C^3), since counting statistics are exactly the non-smooth case those results miss. The paper is self-contained, the moment/cumulant route is the right one, and the variance asymptotics check out.

The soft spot is load-bearing, and the stress-test note is right. Proposition 2.2's displayed cumulant formula puts the antisymmetrized kernel K = ZK inside the trace. Read literally, the k=1 term is Tr(ZK)/2 = 0, so the expectation of the counting statistic vanishes; the k=2 term for Sine4 counts on (-L,L) is order L^2, contradicting the log L variance in §3.1. (2.8) itself gives ρ1 = 0 for n=1, which cannot be right. The proof of the proposition and Lemma 2.4 only work if the trace is over the original 2×2 kernel before the Z multiplication; Lemma 2.4's all-ones cycle uses λ a, the original (1,1)-entry, while (ZK)_11 = λ b. The authors conflate the two kernels, and a reader has to re-derive the cumulant formula before trusting anything. With the original kernel, the n=2 cumulant matches (1.3) and the V_k estimates go through, so this is a correctable notational error — but as printed, Theorem 1.2 is unproved.

Two smaller issues. The Sine1 FRCP data in §3.2 says (α,β)=(1,1), but the displayed relation is DB + A − A^2, which needs β = −1 to satisfy α+β = 0 for λ = 1. And the verification of Assumption (A)(v) for step functions in the proof of Theorem 1.3 is one sentence; given the four families of inner products, that must be written out. There are also many typos, but those are cosmetic.

Citations look right: Soshnikov, Kargin, Leblé, Lambert, Costin-Lebowitz are all covered, and the novelty claim against them holds. This is a paper for random matrix and point process people. It deserves referee time, not a desk reject, but the request should be for a corrected version with the kernel convention fixed and (A)(v) filled in before the proofs are reviewed as they stand.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a class of Pfaffian point processes satisfying a finite-rank commutator property (FRCP) and proves, via the method of moments and cumulants, a central limit theorem for the normalized counting statistic (Theorem 1.2). The result is then applied to the Pfaffian Sine_4 and Sine_1 processes, which are shown to satisfy FRCP, and extended to scaled step-function statistics (Theorem 1.3). The proof strategy follows Soshnikov's cumulant approach for determinantal processes, with new technical lemmas for the Pfaffian cycle decomposition and for controlling remainder terms through the FRCP data.

Significance. If correct, this provides the first CLT of its kind for a broad class of Pfaffian point processes beyond the finite-rank case, covering bulk scaling limits of the orthogonal and symplectic ensembles. The FRCP framework is a natural analogue of the conditions used by Soshnikov and could be a useful tool for subsequent work on Pfaffian fluctuations. The paper also gives explicit variance asymptotics and identifies the correct log L scaling for Sine_4 and Sine_1. However, the present manuscript contains several notation inconsistencies and one substantial unproved verification, so the results as printed are not established.

major comments (4)

[Proposition 2.2; equations (2.8)–(2.11); Lemma 2.4; Section 3.1] The cumulant formula and the subsequent definition of V_k place the antisymmetrized kernel \mathbf{K}=ZK inside the trace, but the proof of the Pfaffian cycle decomposition and Lemma 2.4 evaluate the trace using the entries of the original kernel K. With \mathbf{K} inside the trace, the k=1 term vanishes and the k=2 term for the Sine_4 counting statistic on I_L is of order L^2, contradicting the variance Var = (1/2\pi^2)\log L + O(1) computed in Section 3.1. Concretely, Tr(\mathbf{K}(x,y)\mathbf{K}(y,x)) = Tr(ZK(x,y)ZK(y,x)) has a (1,1)-entry proportional to IS(x-y)^2, which is bounded away from zero at large separation, so its integral over I_L^2 is O(L^2). The derivation works only if the trace is taken over the original 2x2 kernel before multiplication by Z. This inconsistency must be corrected consistently in Proposition 2.2, the definition of V_k, Lemma 2.4, and the proof of Theorem 1.2; as printed, the proof does not establish the theorem.
[Section 3.2] The FRCP data for the Sine_1 process is stated as (4, f^{(i)}, g^{(i)}, h^{(i)}, e^{(i)}, 1, 1), but Definition 1.1 requires α+β=0 when λ=1. The computation just above shows that D_L B_L + A_L - A_L^2 is a finite-rank operator, which corresponds to α=1, β=-1. Unless the data are corrected to α=1, β=-1, the hypotheses of Theorem 1.2 are not verified for Sine_1, and the Sine_1 part of Theorem 1.3 is unsupported. The final values of α and β must also be propagated into Lemma 2.4 and the step-function argument.
[Section 3.3, proof of Theorem 1.3, verification of Assumption (A)(v)] The verification of Assumption (A)(v) for step functions is dispatched in a single sentence: 'an argument similar to that in Lemmas 3.2 verifies Assumption (A)(v).' This is load-bearing: Assumption (A)(v) requires bounds of order o(Var) for inner products involving operators with an arbitrary number of interval restrictions χ_{I_L^{(i)}} A_L and A_L^*, and the reduction to Lemma 3.2 is not automatic because the localized operators do not satisfy the same FRCP data on the subintervals without additional argument. No estimates for these intermediate products are supplied. Until this verification is written out, Theorem 3.4 and hence the step-function CLT of Theorem 1.3 are not proven.
[Section 3.3, proof of Theorem 3.4] The proof of Theorem 3.4 is only a concise outline. Equation (3.23) introduces constants C_{i_1,...,i_k} without definition, and the phrase 'By Lemma 2.4, it suffices to prove...' skips the required analogue of Lemma 2.4 under Assumption (A), where the operators A, B, D are modified by interval restrictions and the finite-rank commutator data are positioned inside each interval. A complete justification of the decomposition into merged-sequence traces and the rank-one remainder terms is needed. This gap is closely related to the previous comment on Assumption (A)(v).

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'Fixed an integer N' for 'Fix an integer N', 'patitions' for 'partitions', 'commutate' for 'commutator', 'FRCR' for 'FRCP', and inconsistent use of 'Sine4' vs 'Sine_4'. These should be corrected.
[Section 3.2] The variance formula for Sine_1 contains the term IS(2L)^2 - IS(2L); it may be helpful to recall that IS(2L) tends to 1, so this term is O(1), but the notation should be consistent.
[Lemma 3.3] In the bound after the alternating series argument, the integration limits in the second term are printed as ∫_{⌊x⌋+2}^{⌊x⌋+1}, which is reversed; it should read ∫_{⌊x⌋+1}^{⌊x⌋+2}.
[Section 3.1] When verifying condition (iii) of Theorem 1.2, the paper cites ‖A_L - A_L^2‖_1 = O(log L) but does not specify the δ required in condition (iii); since Var is O(log L), any δ>1 works, but this should be stated explicitly.
[Section 2] In the proof of Lemma 2.4, the notation K is used for both the original matrix kernel and the antisymmetrized kernel; this is the source of the major inconsistency and should be resolved by distinct symbols throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Pfaffian cumulant expansion, FRCP verification, and externally sourced variance asymptotics form a self-contained derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Proposition 2.2 obtains the Pfaffian cumulant expansion from the defining Pfaffian correlation functions by an explicit cycle decomposition (equations (2.7)-(2.11), culminating in the cumulant formula before Lemma 2.1), and Lemma 2.4 converts the assumed finite-rank commutator property into trace estimates by direct operator algebra. No parameter is fitted to the target statistic and then renamed as a prediction: the variance asymptotics for Sine4 and Sine1 are taken from external results, explicitly 'Following [7]' and 'From [7, 27]', and the FRCP for the sine kernels is verified by direct commutator computations in Proposition 3.1 and Section 3.2. The step-function extension is the same moment/cumulant argument under Assumption (A), with variance asymptotics computed in Lemma 3.6 from external estimates. The cited literature is external (Soshnikov, Costin-Lebowitz, Kargin), not a load-bearing self-citation chain, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The flagged issues in the manuscript are correctness/completeness concerns rather than circularity: the printed kernel convention in Proposition 2.2 may be inconsistent with the later variance computations, and the verification of Assumption (A)(v) in Theorem 1.3 is deferred to a single sentence ('an argument similar to that in Lemmas 3.2 verifies Assumption (A) (v)'). Neither issue makes the conclusion equivalent by construction to the input assumptions, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper relies on standard random matrix facts for sine kernels, the standard theory of Pfaffian point processes, and its own new FRCP structure. No data-dependent parameters are fitted. The FRCP constants α and β for the two sine processes are hand-set algebraic data; the Sine1 value as printed is inconsistent with the definition.

free parameters (1)

FRCP constants α, β = α=1, β=0 for Sine4; listed as α=1, β=1 for Sine1 (probable typo for β=-1)
Chosen constants in the FRCP definition (Def 1.1) satisfying α+β=1 for λ=1/2 and 0 for λ=1. They are not tuned to data; they are determined by the commutator identities for the sine kernels. Listed here because the paper hand-sets them, and the Sine1 entry conflicts with the definition.

assumptions (5)

standard math Variance asymptotics for sine-kernel processes: Var(#_L) = O(log L) with coefficients 1/(2π^2) for Sine4 and 2/π^2 for Sine1 (from [7])
Invoked in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 to verify condition (i) of Theorem 1.2 and in Lemma 3.6.
standard math Trace norm estimate ‖A_L - A_L^2‖_1 = O(log L) for the finite-interval sine kernel (from [7,27])
Used to verify condition (iii) of Theorem 1.2 with δ>1, and Assumption (A)(ii) for step functions.
standard math Standard facts: ∫_0^∞ S(x) dx = 1/2, ‖S‖_2 = 1, and the Plancherel identity S = (χ_{[-1/2,1/2]})^∧
Used in Lemma 3.3 and the FRCP verification.
domain assumption The sine kernels define valid Pfaffian point processes on intervals with the stated correlation functions
The paper uses the standard construction of Pfaffian processes from [3,5,6,14,17,18,25,26,31] without re-deriving it.
domain assumption The finite-rank commutator property data listed in Section 3.1 and 3.2 for Sine4 and Sine1, including the rank-two and rank-four decompositions (3.20), (3.21) and the analogous Sine1 identities
These are derived by direct computation, but the computations are only sketched and one entry (α=1, β=1 for Sine1) conflicts with Definition 1.1.

invented entities (1)

Finite-rank commutator property (FRCP) independent evidence
purpose: A structural condition on the Pfaffian kernel that allows the cumulant expansion to be controlled; satisfied by Sine_4 and Sine_1.
FRCP is a checkable algebraic condition on the integral operators; the paper verifies it explicitly for the two sine processes, and it is not assumed for other processes, so it carries a falsifiable handle within the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gaussian limit for Pfaffian point processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RKUITKYZ

@misc{pith2026250414487,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gaussian limit for Pfaffian point processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RKUITKYZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14487}
}

abstract

We prove a central limit theorem for linear statistics of a broad class of Pfaffian point processes. As an application, we derive Gaussian limits for scaled linear statistics of step functions in the Pfaffian $\mathrm{Sine_4}$ and $\mathrm{Sine}_1$ processes.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

Aslaksen

H. Aslaksen. Quaternionic determinants. Math. Intelli gencer 18 (1996), no. 3, 57-65

work page 1996
[2]

Bekerman, T

F. Bekerman, T. Leblé, S. Serfaty. CLT for ﬂuctuations of β -ensembles with general potential. Electron. J. Probab. 23 (2018), Paper no. 115, 31 pp

work page 2018
[3]

Borodin, E

A. Borodin, E. M. Rains. Eynard-Mehta theorem, Schur pro cess, and their Pfaﬃan analogs. J. Stat. Phys. 121 (2005), no. 3-4, 291-317

work page 2005
[4]

Breuer, M

J. Breuer, M. Duits. Central limit theorems for biorthog onal ensembles and asymptotics of recurrence coeﬃcients. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 30 (2017), no. 1, 27-66

work page 2017
[5]

A. I. Bufetov, P. P. Nikitin, Y. Qiu. On number rigidity fo r Pfaﬃan point processes. Mosc. Math. J. 19 (2019), no. 2, 217-274

work page 2019
[6]

A. I. Bufetov, F. D. Cunden, Y. Qiu. Conditional measures for Pfaﬃan point processes: conditioning on a bounded domain. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat. 57 (2021), no. 2, 856-871

work page 2021
[7]

Costin and J

O. Costin and J. Lebowitz. Gaussian ﬂuctuations in rando m matrices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995), no. 1, 69-72

work page 1995
[8]

D. J. Daley, D. Vere-Jones. An introduction to the theory of point processes. Vol. II. General theory and structure. Second edition. Probability and its Applica tions (New York). Springer, New York,

work page

Show all 33 references

[9]

Dereudre, A

D. Dereudre, A. Hardy, T. Leblé, M. Maïda. DLR equations a nd rigidity for the sine-beta process. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 74 (2021), no. 1, 172-222

2021
[10]

Deleporte, G

A. Deleporte, G. Lambert, (2024). Widom’s conjecture: Variance asymptotics and entropy bounds for counting statistics of free fermions. ArXiv. https://a rxiv.org/abs/2405.07796

2024 arXiv
[11]

R. Durrett. Probability: theory and examples. Fifth ed ition. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics, 49. Cambridge University Pres s, Cambridge, 2019

2019
[12]

F. J. Dyson. Correlations between eigenvalues of a rand om matrix. Comm. Math. Phys. 19 (1970), 235-250

1970
[13]

P. J. Forrester. Log-gases and random matrices. London Mathematical Society Monographs Series,
[14]

P. J. Forrester, A. Mays. Pfaﬃan point process for the Ga ussian real generalised eigenvalue problem. Probab. Theory Related Fields 154 (2012), no. 1-2, 1-47

2012
[15]

Johansson

K. Johansson. On ﬂuctuations of eigenvalues of random H ermitian matrices. Duke Math. J. 91 (1998), no. 1, 151-204

1998
[16]

Kallenberg

O. Kallenberg. Random measures, theory and applicatio ns. Probab. Theory Stoch. Model. 77. Springer, Cham, 2017, xiii+694 pp. 26 KAI W ANG AND MEI XU

2017
[17]

V. Kargin. On Pfaﬃan random point ﬁelds. J. Stat. Phys. 1 54 (2014), no. 3, 681-704

2014
[18]

S. Koshida. Pfaﬃan point processes from free fermion al gebras: perfectness and conditional measures. SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 17 (2021) , Paper No. 008, 35 pp

2021
[19]

G. Lambert. Mesoscopic central limit theorem for the ci rcular β -ensembles and applications. Electron. J. Probab. 26 (2021), Paper No. 7, 33 pp

2021
[20]

T. Leblé. CLT for ﬂuctuations of linear statistics in th e sine-beta process. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2021, no. 8, 5676-5756

2021
[21]

A. Lenard. Correlation functions and the uniqueness of the state in classical statistical mechanics. Comm. Math. Phys. 30 (1973), 35-44

1973
[22]

A. Lenard. States of classical statistical mechanical systems of inﬁnitely many particles. I. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 59 (1975), no. 3, 219-239

1975
[23]

A. Lenard. States of classical statistical mechanical systems of inﬁnitely many particles. II. Charac- terization of correlation measures. Arch. Rational Mech. A nal. 59 (1975), no. 3, 241-256

1975
[24]

E. Lukacs. Characteristic functions. Second edition, revised and enlarged. Hafner Publishing Co., New York, 1970

1970
[25]

Matsumoto, T

S. Matsumoto, T. Shirai. Correlation functions for zer os of a Gaussian power series and Pfaﬃans. Electron. J. Probab. 18 (2013), no. 49, 18 pp

2013
[26]

E. M. Rains. Correlation functions for symmetrized inc reasing subsequences. arXiv: math/0006097, 2000

2000 arXiv
[27]

A. B. Soshnikov. Gaussian ﬂuctuation for the number of p articles in Airy, Bessel, sine, and other determinantal random point ﬁelds. J. Statist. Phys. 100 (20 00), no. 3-4, 491-522
[28]

Soshnikov

A. Soshnikov. The central limit theorem for local linea r statistics in classical compact groups and related combinatorial identities. Ann. Probab. 28 (2000), no. 3, 1353-1370

2000
[29]

Soshnikov

A. Soshnikov. Determinantal random point ﬁelds. Uspek hi Mat. Nauk 55 (2000), no. 5 (335), 107-160; translation in Russian Math. Surveys 55 (2000), no. 5, 923-9 75

2000
[30]

Soshnikov

A. Soshnikov. Gaussian limit for determinantal random point ﬁelds. Ann. Probab. 30 (2002), 171-187

2002
[31]

Soshnikov

A. Soshnikov. Janossy densities. II. Pfaﬃan ensembles . J. Statist. Phys. 113 (2003), no. 3-4, 611-622

2003
[32]

Valkó, B

B. Valkó, B. Virág. Operator limit of the circular beta e nsemble. Ann. Probab. 48 (2020), no. 3, 1286-1316. School of Mathematical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai , 200433, China. Email address : kwang@fudan.edu.cn School of Mathematical Sciences, Fudan University, Shang...

2020
[34]

xiv+7 91 pp

Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010. xiv+7 91 pp

2010

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Aslaksen

H. Aslaksen. Quaternionic determinants. Math. Intelli gencer 18 (1996), no. 3, 57-65

work page 1996

[2] [2]

Bekerman, T

F. Bekerman, T. Leblé, S. Serfaty. CLT for ﬂuctuations of β -ensembles with general potential. Electron. J. Probab. 23 (2018), Paper no. 115, 31 pp

work page 2018

[3] [3]

Borodin, E

A. Borodin, E. M. Rains. Eynard-Mehta theorem, Schur pro cess, and their Pfaﬃan analogs. J. Stat. Phys. 121 (2005), no. 3-4, 291-317

work page 2005

[4] [4]

Breuer, M

J. Breuer, M. Duits. Central limit theorems for biorthog onal ensembles and asymptotics of recurrence coeﬃcients. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 30 (2017), no. 1, 27-66

work page 2017

[5] [5]

A. I. Bufetov, P. P. Nikitin, Y. Qiu. On number rigidity fo r Pfaﬃan point processes. Mosc. Math. J. 19 (2019), no. 2, 217-274

work page 2019

[6] [6]

A. I. Bufetov, F. D. Cunden, Y. Qiu. Conditional measures for Pfaﬃan point processes: conditioning on a bounded domain. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat. 57 (2021), no. 2, 856-871

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Costin and J

O. Costin and J. Lebowitz. Gaussian ﬂuctuations in rando m matrices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995), no. 1, 69-72

work page 1995

[8] [8]

D. J. Daley, D. Vere-Jones. An introduction to the theory of point processes. Vol. II. General theory and structure. Second edition. Probability and its Applica tions (New York). Springer, New York,

work page