Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 1 cited by

Phase transition and critical behavior in hierarchical integer-valued Gaussian and Coulomb gas models

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves sharp asymptotic formulas for the covariance and fractional-charge correlations of hierarchical integer-valued Gaussian and Coulomb gas fields, uniformly across a whole family of single-spin measures, with an explicit…

desk verdict A careful, sharp RG analysis of hierarchical integer-valued Gaussian/Coulomb gas models across the BKT transition; the main limitation is disclosed and does not undermine the theorems. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08964 v2 pith:SRJWABHR submitted 2024-12-12 math.PR math-phmath.MP

Marek Biskup , Haiyu Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath-phmath.MP MSC 60K3560G6082B2782B28
keywords hierarchicalrandomfieldsinteger-valuedGaussianmodelCoulombgassine-GordonBKTtransitionrenormalizationgroupfractionalchargelogarithmiccorrelations
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 a large class of two-dimensional hierarchical random fields with periodically modulated values, including the integer-valued Gaussian model and the sine-Gordon model, undergoes a sharp phase transition at inverse temperature beta_c = 2*$pi^{2}$/log b, where b is the branching number. Below beta_c the covariance is that of a Gaussian free field at scale 1/$\beta$; above beta_c it remains logarithmic but with a strictly smaller amplitude; exactly at beta_c an explicit iterated-logarithm correction appears. The fractional-charge correlation decays as a power of distance with an exponent that is smaller above beta_c than below, signalling partial screening, and receives a power-of-log correction at criticality. The formulas are uniform in the system size and in all single-spin measures satisfying the stated positivity condition, which is the sense in which the result is universal.

What carries the argument

The proof rests on the hierarchical Laplacian's finite-range decomposition, which turns the Gibbs measure into the law of a tree-indexed Markov chain. The renormalization-group flow is tracked through the Fourier coefficients a_k(q) of $e^{{-v_k}}$, which iterate by a convolution recursion with Gaussian damping; the key ratio inequality for a_k(q+1)/a_k(q) is what lets all three regimes be controlled. At criticality the ratio a_k(1)/a_k(0) decays as A/$\sqrt$(k), producing the iterated-log corrections, while just above beta_c the flow is drawn to a nontrivial fixed point lambda_* characterized by an explicit fixed-point equation, with contraction measured in a weighted metric. The covariance and fractional-charge asymptotics are then read off from the tree-indexed Markov chain via martingale identities and a coupling bound that compares the field's fractional parts to the stationary law at the fixed point.

What would settle it

For b = 2 and a single-spin measure satisfying the paper's positivity condition, numerically iterate the coefficient recursion (3.19) at beta = beta_c and at beta just above beta_c. The claimed asymptotics predict a_k(1)/a_k(0) ~ A/sqrt(k) at criticality and convergence to lambda_*(1) at a rate proportional to sqrt(beta - beta_c) above criticality; any deviation larger than the stated error bounds would falsify the core renormalization-group flow theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central assertion is that, for every admissible single-spin measure and every b >= 2, the covariance <phi_x phi_y> equals $sigma^{2}$($\beta$) log_{$b^{{1/2}}$}(diam/(1+d)) + O(1) for $\beta$ != beta_c, and equals (1/beta_c) log_{$b^{{1/2}}$}(diam/(1+d)) - c_bar log(log diam / log(2+d)) + O(1) at $\beta$ = beta_c, with all error terms uniform in the box size and in x,y. The fractional charge <$e^{{2*pi*i*alpha*(phi_x-phi_y)}}$> decays as (C_n + o(1)) $d^{{-kappa(alpha,beta)}}$ for $\beta$ != beta_c and as (C_n + o(1)) $d^{{-kappa(alpha,beta)}}$ (log d)^{tau($\alpha$)} at criticality. The exponent kappa($\alpha$,$\beta$) is defined implicitly through a fixed-point equation, equals 4*beta_c*$alpha^{2}$/$\beta$ below beta_c, is strictly smaller above beta_c, and satisfies kappa($\alpha$,$\beta$) = 4*beta_c*$sigma^{2}$($\beta$)*$alpha^{2}$ + o($alpha^{2}$) for small $\alpha$. The paper's way of saying this is that the renormalization-group flow converges to the trivial Gaussian fixed point below and at criticality, slowly at criticality, and to a nontrivial fixed point above beta_c.

Load-bearing premise

The argument needs the single-spin measure's Fourier coefficients to be strictly positive with a uniformly bounded ratio a(q+1)/a(q); without that, the key ratio iteration and the fixed-point contraction lose their footing, which is why the main theorems do not cover the hard-core Coulomb gas or the Gaussian free field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below beta_c every admissible model has the same logarithmic covariance amplitude 1/beta as the Gaussian free field, uniformly in the single-spin measure.
  • Above beta_c the covariance amplitude sigma^2(beta) is strictly smaller than 1/beta and has a square-root cusp at beta_c, with explicit expansion sigma^2(beta) = 1/beta - const*(beta - beta_c) + O((beta - beta_c)^{3/2}).
  • Exactly at beta_c the covariance contains the explicit iterated-log term -c_bar log(log diam / log(2+d)) and the fractional charge contains the factor (log d)^{tau(alpha)}, with constants given in closed form.
  • The fractional-charge exponent obeys kappa(alpha,beta) = 4*beta_c*sigma^2(beta)*alpha^2 + o(alpha^2), so phi_x - phi_y is asymptotically Gaussian after normalization, while higher-order corrections are expected to be non-Gaussian once beta >= beta_c.
  • Above beta_c the energy cost of inserting opposite fractional charges still grows logarithmically with distance, but with a reduced coefficient, meaning that screening is only partial in these long-range hierarchical models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's main theorems exclude the hard-core Coulomb gas, whose Fourier coefficients vanish for |q| >= 2 and so violate the ratio condition; if the same formulas hold there, as the authors expect, then Assumption 1.2 is sufficient but not necessary, and the real threshold is that the renormalization-group flow enters the contractive region.
  • At beta = beta_c the iterated-log correction should change the second-order term in the law of the field's maximum away from the Gaussian free field value; the authors identify this as an open problem, and the tree-indexed Markov chain representation offers a concrete route to test it.
  • The exponent kappa(alpha,beta) is defined implicitly and solved numerically, so one could test the near-critical slope in (1.20) by direct simulation of the hierarchical model for small alpha and small beta - beta_c.
  • Because the covariance remains logarithmic at all beta, the extremal process should follow the general log-correlated pattern, but the critical correction may alter the second-order extremal statistics; the paper does not address this, and it is a natural next question.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies hierarchical random fields on a square box in two dimensions, with law proportional to exp((β/2)(φ,Δ_n φ)) times a product of a 1-periodic single-spin measure ν, covering the hierarchical DG model and sine-Gordon models among others. Under Assumptions 1.1 and 1.2 on the hierarchical Laplacian and the Fourier coefficients of ν, the authors prove sharp asymptotic formulas for the covariance ⟨φ_x φ_y⟩ and the fractional charge ⟨e^{2π i α(φ_x−φ_y)}⟩ in the subcritical (β<β_c), critical (β=β_c), and slightly supercritical (β>β_c) regimes, with explicit constants including an iterated-log correction at criticality. The proof combines a renormalization-group analysis of the Fourier coefficients, a tree-indexed Markov chain representation of the field, and a new fixed-point contraction argument for the supercritical flow. The subcritical and critical flow estimates are adapted from the authors' earlier work [15], while the supercritical analysis is proved from scratch in Section 6.

Significance. If correct, the paper establishes a sharp, model-independent description of the BKT-type transition in hierarchical Z-modulated fields, including the nontrivial supercritical fixed point and explicit critical corrections. The main strengths are the uniformity in the single-spin measure, the explicit constants in the covariance and fractional-charge asymptotics, and the detailed proof structure with explicit error terms. The paper also provides internal consistency checks between the critical and near-critical coefficients. The restriction to Assumption 1.2, which excludes the GFF and the hard-core Coulomb gas, is disclosed in Section 1.4 and is a scope condition rather than a gap for the models covered.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Eq. (4.54)] The displayed formula (4.54) has a plus sign in front of the log(n/k) term, whereas both the derivation through (4.25) and the statement of Theorem 1.3 require a minus sign; this appears to be a typographical sign error and should be corrected.
  2. [Theorem 3.6] The sentence introducing v_k contains the duplicated word 'with with' and should read 'each v_k is a C^8 function with v'_k and v''_k uniformly bounded'.
  3. [Lemma 5.10] The word 'trivally' appears in the last paragraph of the proof and should be corrected to 'trivially'.
  4. [Eqs. (3.29) and (5.28)] The notation 'op(1)' is used in asymptotic statements where the asymptotic variable is not always explicit; for clarity, the authors should specify that the error terms tend to 0 uniformly in the indicated parameters, e.g., uniformly in z in (3.29).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is internally consistent, with the only reliance on prior work being independent of the target asymptotics.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, I find no claimed prediction that reduces to an input by construction. Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 are conditional on Assumptions 1.1-1.2, and the quantities sigma^2(beta), kappa(alpha,beta), t_*, and v_* are defined by fixed-point equations (4.47), (5.92), (5.123), and (3.34), not fitted to the covariance or fractional-charge data. The subcritical and critical RG bounds in Theorems 3.4-3.5 do draw on the authors' prior work [15] (e.g., Lemma 3.7 is a restatement of [15, Lemma 4.2], and Lemma 3.9 of [15, Lemma 4.5]), but [15] proves different statements about the RG flow and the subcritical DG model maximum, and none of its assumptions includes the covariance asymptotic (1.14) or the fractional-charge exponent (1.18) derived here. Moreover, the paper explicitly adapts these lemmas to variable sigma_k^2 and supplies the needed proofs rather than merely citing the conclusion. The supercritical fixed point is constructed from scratch in Section 6 with explicit parameter choices t=7/5 and A=(10/7)sqrt(b), with contractivity checked via inequalities (6.60)-(6.61). I see no self-definitional step, no fitted-input-called-prediction, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no renaming of a known result. The disclosed limitation that Assumption 1.2 excludes the GFF and hard-core Coulomb gas is a scope restriction, not a circularity.

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

No free parameters are fitted to numerical data. The quantities sigma^2(beta), t_*(alpha,beta), and v_* are determined by fixed-point equations and carry no adjustable constants. The assumptions are explicit domain restrictions on the hierarchical Laplacian and single-spin measure, not ad hoc inventions. No new physical entities are proposed.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1.1: the hierarchical Laplacian coefficients c_k are generated from a positive sequence sigma_k^2 obeying |sigma_k^2 - 1| <= d_min{k,n-k} with a summable sequence d_k.
    This structure yields the finite-range decomposition of the inverse Laplacian in Lemma 3.1 and is used throughout the RG flow proofs. It restricts the paper to hierarchical Laplacians of this special form.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1.2: nu is a 1-periodic Radon measure with strictly positive real Fourier coefficients a(q) satisfying sup_q a(q+1)/a(q) < infinity.
    Positivity of a(q) is needed for positivity of the iterated coefficients a_k(q) and for the key ratio Lemma 3.7. It excludes the GFF and the hard-core Coulomb gas (1.10), as the authors explicitly note.
  • domain assumption For supercritical theorems, the sequence d_k in Assumption 1.1 must decay exponentially; for the critical covariance theorem, Sum_j d_j log j < infinity is required.
    These stronger summability conditions control errors in the supercritical fixed-point contraction and allow the iterated-log sum to converge. They are stated in Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 and are not derived from weaker assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase transition and critical behavior in hierarchical integer-valued Gaussian and Coulomb gas models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRJWABHR

@misc{pith2026241208964,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase transition and critical behavior in hierarchical integer-valued Gaussian and Coulomb gas models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRJWABHR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08964}
}
abstract

Given a square box $\Lambda_n\subseteq\mathbb Z^2$ of side length $L^n$ with $L,n>1$, we study hierarchical random fields $\{\phi_x\colon x\in\Lambda_n\}$ with law proportional to ${\rm e}^{\frac12\beta(\phi,\Delta_n\phi)}\prod_{x\in\Lambda_n}\nu({\rm d}\phi_x)$, where $\beta>0$ is the inverse temperature, $\Delta_n$ is a hierarchical Laplacian on $\Lambda_n$, and $\nu$ is a non-degenerate $1$-periodic measure on $\mathbb R$. Our setting includes the integer-valued Gaussian field (a.k.a. DG model or Villain Coulomb gas) and the sine-Gordon model. Relying on renormalization group analysis we derive sharp asymptotic formulas, in the limit as $n\to\infty$, for the covariance $\langle\phi_x\phi_y\rangle$ and the fractional charge $\langle {\rm e}^{2\pi {\rm i}\alpha(\phi_x-\phi_y)}\rangle$ in the subcritical $\beta<\beta_{\rm c}:=\pi^2/\log L$, critical $\beta=\beta_{\rm c}$ and slightly supercritical $\beta>\beta_{\rm c}$ regimes. The field exhibits logarithmic correlations throughout albeit with a distinct $\beta$-dependence of both the covariance scale and the fractional-charge exponents in the sub/supercritical regimes. Explicit logarithmic corrections appear at the critical point.

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

  1. Quantitative delocalisation for the Gaussian and $q$-SOS long-range chains

    math.PR 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For the discrete Gaussian chain, the height variance grows like N^(α-2) for range exponent α in (2,3), like N/log N at α=3, and the same graph-surgery method gives new bounds for the q-SOS chain.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [15]

    Biskup and H

    M. Biskup and H. Huang (2023). A limit law for the maximum of subcritical DG-model on a hierar- chical lattice. Commun. Math. Phys. (to appear). arXiv:2309.09389

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Strict Convexity of the Surface Tension for Non-convex Potentials

    S. Adams, R. Koteck ´y, and S. M ¨uller (2016). Strict convexity of the surface tension for non-convex potentials. arXiv:1606.09541

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  3. [2]

    Cauchy-Born Rule from Microscopic Models with Non-convex Potentials

    S. Adams, S. Buchholz, R. Koteck ´y, and S. M¨uller (2019). Cauchy-Born rule from microscopic models with non-convex potentials. arXiv:1910.13564

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  4. [3]

    A ¨ıd´ekon (2013)

    E. A ¨ıd´ekon (2013). Convergence in law of the minimum of a branching random walk.Ann. Probab. 41, no. 3A, 1362–1426

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    Aizenman, M

    M. Aizenman, M. Harel, R. Peled, and J. Shapiro (2021). Depinning in integer-restricted Gaussian fields and BKT phases of two-component spin models. arXiv:2110.09498

    arXiv 2021

  6. [5]

    Armstrong and W

    S. Armstrong and W. Wu (2024). The scaling limit of the continuous solid-on-solid model. arXiv:2310.13630

    arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    Bauerschmidt and T

    R. Bauerschmidt and T. Bodineau (2020). Spectral gap critical exponent for Glauber dynamics of hi- erarchical spin models. Commun. Math. Phys. 373, 1167–1206

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Bauerschmidt, J

    R. Bauerschmidt, J. Park, and P .-F. Rodriguez (2024). The Discrete Gaussian model, I. Renormalisation group flow at high temperature. Ann. Probab. 52, no. 4, 1253–1359

    work page 2024

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    Bauerschmidt, J

    R. Bauerschmidt, J. Park, and P .-F. Rodriguez (2024). The Discrete Gaussian model, II. Infinite-volume scaling limit at high temperature. Ann. Probab. 52, no. 4, 1360–1398

    2024

  2. [9]

    B ¨aumler

    J. B ¨aumler. Distances in 1{}x´ y}2d percolation models for all dimensions (2023). Commun. Math. Phys. 404, no. 3, 1495–1570

    2023

  3. [10]

    Benfatto, G

    G. Benfatto, G. Gallavotti, and F. Nicol ´o (1982). On the massive sine-Gordon equation in the first few regions of collapse. Commun. Math. Phys. 83 387–410. PHASE DIAGRAM OF DG MODEL 73

    1982

  4. [11]

    Benfatto and J

    G. Benfatto and J. Renn (1992). Nontrivial fixed points and screening in the hierarchical two- dimensional Coulomb gas. J. Statist. Phys. 92 957–980

    1992

  5. [12]

    Berezinskii (1971)

    V .L. Berezinskii (1971). Destruction of long-range order in one-dimensional and two-dimensional sys- tems having a continuous symmetry group I. classical systems. Sov. Phys. JETP 3, no 3., 493–500

    1971

  6. [13]

    Biskup (2011)

    M. Biskup (2011). Recent progress on the Random Conductance Model. Prob. Surveys 8 294–373

    2011

  7. [14]

    Biskup (2020)

    M. Biskup (2020). Extrema of the two-dimensional Discrete Gaussian Free Field. In: M. Barlow and G. Slade (eds.): Random Graphs, Phase Transitions, and the Gaussian Free Field. SSPROB 2017. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, 304 (2020) 163–407. Springer, Cham

    2020

  8. [16]

    Biskup and O

    M. Biskup and O. Louidor (2016). Extreme local extrema of two-dimensional discrete Gaussian free field. Commun. Math. Phys. 345 271–304

    2016

  9. [17]

    Biskup and O

    M. Biskup and O. Louidor (2018). Full extremal process, cluster law and freezing for two-dimensional discrete Gaussian free field. Adv. Math. 330 589–687

    2018

  10. [18]

    Biskup and O

    M. Biskup and O. Louidor (2020). Conformal symmetries in the extremal process of two-dimensional discrete Gaussian free field. Commun. Math. Phys. 375, no. 1, 175–235

    2020

  11. [19]

    Biskup and H

    M. Biskup and H. Spohn (2011). Scaling limit for a class of gradient fields with non-convex potentials. Ann. Probab. 39, no. 1, 224–251

    2011

  12. [20]

    Bleher and Ya.G

    P .M. Bleher and Ya.G. Sinai (1973). Investigation of the critical point in models of the type of Dyson’s hierarchical model. Commun. Math. Phys. 33 23–42

    1973

  13. [21]

    Bleher and Ya.G

    P .M. Bleher and Ya.G. Sinai (1975). Critical indices for Dyson’s asymptotically hierarchical models. Commun. Math. Phys. 45 247–278

    1975

  14. [22]

    de Almeida Braga (1989)

    G. de Almeida Braga (1989). The two-dimensional lattice Coulomb gas at low temperature, PhD the- sis, New York University

    1989

  15. [23]

    Bramson, J

    M. Bramson, J. Ding and O. Zeitouni (2016). Convergence in law of the maximum of the two- dimensional discrete Gaussian free field. Commun. Pure Appl. Math 69, no. 1, 62–123

    2016

  16. [24]

    Bricmont, J.R

    J. Bricmont, J.R. Fontaine, and J.L. Lebowitz (1982). Surface tension, percolation, and roughening. J. Statist. Phys. 29 193–203

    1982

  17. [25]

    Brydges (2009)

    D.C. Brydges (2009). Lectures on the renormalisation group. In: Statistical mechanics, IAS/Park City Math. Ser., vol. 16, pages 7–93. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI

    2009

  18. [26]

    Brydges and T

    D. Brydges and T. Spencer (2012). Fluctuation estimates for sub-quadratic gradient field actions. J. Math. Phys. 53, no. 9, 095216

    2012

  19. [27]

    Coquille, P

    L. Coquille, P . Dario, A. Le Ny (2024). Quantitative delocalisation for the Gaussian and q-SOS long- range chains. 2412.15782

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cotar, J.-D

    C. Cotar, J.-D. Deuschel, and S. M ¨uller (2009). Strict convexity of the free energy for a class of non- convex gradient models. Commun. Math. Phys. 286, no. 1, 359–376

    2009

  21. [29]

    Dario (2023)

    P . Dario (2023). Upper bounds on the fluctuations of a class of degenerate convex ∇φ-interface mod- els. arXiv:2302.00547

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dario (2024)

    P . Dario (2024). Hydrodynamic limit for a class of degenerate convex ∇φ-interface models. arXiv:2409.20405

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Dimock and T.R

    J. Dimock and T.R. Hurd (2000). Sine-Gordon revisited. Annales Henri Poincar´ e1, no. 3, 499–541

    2000

  24. [32]

    Dobrushin (1972)

    R.L. Dobrushin (1972). Gibbs state describing coexistence of phases for a three-dimensional Ising model. Theor. Probab. Appl. 17, no. 4, 582–600

    1972

  25. [33]

    Dyson (1969)

    F. Dyson (1969). Existence of a phase transition in a one dimensional Ising ferromagnet, Commun. Math. Phys. 12 91–107

    1969

  26. [34]

    Falco (2012)

    P . Falco (2012). Kosterlitz-Thouless transition line for the two dimensional Coulomb gas. Commun. Math. Phys. 312, no. 2, 559–609

    2012

  27. [35]

    Falco (2013)

    P . Falco (2013). Critical exponents of the two dimensional Coulomb gas at the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz- Thouless transition. arXiv:1311.2237

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Fr ¨ohlich and Y.M

    J. Fr ¨ohlich and Y.M. Park (1978). Correlation inequalities and the thermodynamic limit for classical and quantum continuous systems. Commun. Math. Phys. 59, 235-266

    1978

  29. [37]

    Fr ¨ohlich and T

    J. Fr ¨ohlich and T. Spencer (1981). The Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in two-dimensional abelian spin systems and the Coulomb gas. Commun. Math. Phys. 81, no. 4, 527–602. 74 M. BISKUP , H. HUANG

    1981

  30. [38]

    Fr ¨ohlich and B

    J. Fr ¨ohlich and B. Zegarlinski (1991). The phase transition in the discrete Gaussian chain with 1 {r2 interaction energy.J. Statist. Phys. 63, 455–485

    1991

  31. [39]

    T. Funaki. Stochastic interface models , In: Lectures on probability theory and statistics, vol. 1869 of Lecture Notes in Math., pages 103–274. Springer, Berlin, 2005

    2005

  32. [40]

    Garban (2023)

    C. Garban (2023). Invisibility of the integers for the discrete Gaussian chain via a Caffarelli-Silvestre extension of the discrete fractional Laplacian. arXiv:2312.04536

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Garban and A

    C. Garban and A. Sep ´ulveda (2023). Quantitative bounds on vortex fluctuations in 2 d Coulomb gas and maximum of the integer-valued Gaussian free field. Proc. London Math. Soc. 127, no. 3, 653–708

    2023

  34. [42]

    Gawe ¸dzki and A

    K. Gawe ¸dzki and A. Kupiainen (1982). Triviality of φ4 and all that in a hierarchical model approxi- mation. J. Statist. Phys. 29 683–699

    1982

  35. [43]

    Giacomin, S

    G. Giacomin, S. Olla, and H. Spohn (2001). Equilibrium fluctuations for ∇φ interface model. Ann. Probab. 29, no. 3, 1138–1172

    2001

  36. [44]

    Guidi and D.H.U

    L.F. Guidi and D.H.U. Marchetti (2001). Renormalization group flow of the two-dimensional hierar- chical Coulomb gas. Commun. Math. Phys. 219 671–702

    2001

  37. [45]

    T. Hara, T. Hattori and H. Watanabe (2001). Triviality of hierarchical Ising Model in four dimensions. Commun. Math. Phys. 220 13–40

    2001

  38. [46]

    Hutchcroft (2022)

    T. Hutchcroft (2022). Critical cluster volumes in hierarchical percolation. arXiv:2211.05686

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Hutchcroft (2024)

    T. Hutchcroft (2024). The critical two-point function for long-range percolation on the hierarchical lattice. Ann. Appl. Probab. 34, no. 1B, 986–1002

    2024

  40. [48]

    Kharash and R

    V . Kharash and R. Peled (2017). The Fr ¨ohlich-Spencer proof of the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition. arXiv:1711.04720

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kjaer and H.J

    K.H. Kjaer and H.J. Hillhorst (1982). The discrete Gaussian chain with 1{rn interactions: exact results. J. Statist. Phys. 28, no. 4, 621–632

    1982

  42. [50]

    Kosterlitz and D.J

    J.M. Kosterlitz and D.J. Thouless (1973). Ordering, metastability and phase transitions in two- dimensional systems. J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 6, no. 7, 1181–1203

    1973

  43. [51]

    Lammers (2022)

    P . Lammers (2022). Height function delocalisation on cubic planar graphs. Probab. Theory Rel. Fields 82 531–550

    2022

  44. [52]

    Lubetzky, F

    E. Lubetzky, F. Martinelli, and A. Sly (2016). Harmonic pinnacles in the discrete Gaussian model. Commun. Math. Phys. 344 673–717

    2016

  45. [53]

    Madaule (2017)

    T. Madaule (2017). Convergence in law for the branching random walk seen from its tip. J. Theor. Probab. 30 27–63

    2017

  46. [54]

    Marchetti (1992)

    D.H.U. Marchetti (1992). Smooth phase in the one-dimensional discrete Gaussian model with 1 {pi´ jq2 interaction at inverse temperature βą 1 J. Statist. Phys. 66, no. 5/6, 1319-1342

    1992

  47. [55]

    Marchetti and A

    D.H. Marchetti and A. Klein (1991). Power-law falloff in two-dimensional Coulomb gases at inverse temperature βă 8π. J. Statist. Phys. 64, no. 1, 135–162

    1991

  48. [56]

    Marchetti and J.F

    D.H.U. Marchetti and J.F. Perez (1989). The Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition in two-dimensional hierarchical Coulomb gases. J. Statist. Phys. 55, no. 1-2, 141–156

    1989

  49. [57]

    Naddaf and T

    A. Naddaf and T. Spencer (1997). On homogenization and scaling limit of some gradient perturba- tions of a massless free field. Commun. Math. Phys. 183, no. 1, 55–84

    1997

  50. [58]

    Park (2022)

    J. Park (2022). Central limit theorem for multi-point Functions of the 2D discrete Gaussian model at high temperature. arXiv:2211.14367v2

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Sheffield (2005)

    S. Sheffield (2005). Random surfaces. Ast´ erisque304 vi+175

    2005

  52. [60]

    Siegert (1960)

    A.J.F. Siegert (1960). Partition functions as averages of functionals of Gaussian random functions. Physica 26 S30–S35

    1960

  53. [61]

    Velenik (2006)

    Y. Velenik (2006). Localization and delocalization of random interfaces. Prob. Surveys 3 112–169

    2006

  54. [62]

    Ye (2019)

    Z. Ye (2019). Models of gradient type with sub-quadratic actions. J. Math. Phys. 60, no. 7, 073304

    2019

Pith tools

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