Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Weak-disorder limit at criticality for directed polymers on hierarchical graphs

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves the conjectured distributional limit theorem for partition functions of directed polymers on diamond hierarchical graphs in the $b=s$ critical case: the limit laws are unique, universal in the disorder up to low-order…

desk verdict Proves the conjectured critical weak-disorder limit for diamond-graph polymers via a perturbative Stein method; the proof leans on unproved lemmas from the author's earlier paper, which is the main thing to check. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06555 v3 pith:TXGS6LGV submitted 2019-08-19 math-ph math.MP

Jeremy Clark This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MP MSC 60K3582B4460F05
keywords directedpolymersinrandomenvironmentdiamondhierarchicalgraphsmarginalrelevancecriticalweak-disorderlimitpartitionfunctiondistributionaltheoremWassersteindistanceStein'smethod
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 a conjecture from an earlier study of directed polymers on diamond hierarchical graphs: in the marginally relevant case with branching parameter $b$ equal to segmenting parameter $s$, the partition functions $W_n^\omega(\beta_{n,r})$ converge in distribution as $n\to\infty$ to a unique family of limit laws $\mathcal{L}_r$, provided the inverse temperature is scaled as $\kappa_b/\sqrt{n}$ with specific third- and fourth-cumulant corrections. The limit is universal across disorder distributions sharing the same low-order cumulants and is uniquely characterized by mean one, variance $R_b(r)$, centered moments $R_b^{(m)}(r)$, and the recursive identity $W_{r+1}=b^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^b\prod_{j=1}^b W_r^{(i,j)}$. It matters because the $b=s$ model is the hierarchical analogue of the marginally relevant $(2+1)$-dimensional polymer, for which no Wiener-chaos expansion exists and uniqueness of the critical limit is still open. The proof works instead through Wasserstein distance and a perturbative generalization of Stein's method, and it also yields the same limit law for the site-disorder model.

What carries the argument

The central object is the renormalization map $Q$ on edge-labeled arrays: with $\{X_h\}$ the centered disorder weights $e^{\beta\omega_h}/\mathbb E[e^{\beta\omega_h}]-1$, the partition function is $W_n^\omega(\beta)=1+Q^n\{X_h\}$. The linearization $L$ preserves variance and $E=Q-L$ produces uncorrelated error terms, so repeated application of $Q$ builds a pyramid of arrays whose layer moments converge to the functions $R^{(m)}(r-k)$. The variance recursion is driven by $M_{b,b}(x)=b^{-1}[(1+x)^b-1]$, whose fixed point at 0 is marginally repelling precisely when $b=s$; the fine-tuned scaling is chosen so that the initial variance matches the required asymptotics and converges to the function $R_b(r)$ with the shift property $M_{b,b}(R_b(r))=R_b(r+1)$. Convergence in law is obtained by comparing $Q^N$ applied to approximating arrays through a contractive $L^2$ bound, with Gaussian approximations at two intermediate generational scales controlled by a two-variable perturbative Stein equation and the zero-bias transformation.

What would settle it

Simulate the partition-function recursion (2.2) for $b=s=2$ and $b=s=3$ with $\beta_{n,r}$ given by (2.5) for a fixed $r$, using two different disorder distributions with matching third and fourth cumulants; if the empirical fourth centered moments fail to approach $R_b^{(4)}(r)$ at the rate allowed by Theorem 7.3, or if the two distributions yield different limiting laws, the central claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2.7: for each $b\in\{2,3,\ldots\}$ and each $r\in\mathbb R$, the edge-disorder partition functions $W_n^\omega(\beta_{n,r})$ converge in distribution to a limit law $\mathcal{L}_r$ uniquely determined by mean 1, variance $R_b(r)$, centered moments $R_b^{(m)}(r)$, the Gaussian behavior $\sqrt{-r}(W_r-1)\Rightarrow N(0,\kappa_b^2)$ as $r\to-\infty$, and the recursion $W_{r+1}=b^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^b\prod_{j=1}^b W_r^{(i,j)}$. The same limit family arises for the vertex-disorder model under the inverse-temperature scaling $\hat\kappa_b/n$. As $r$ runs from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$, the family passes from Gaussian fluctuations around 1 to concentration near 0, so the critical scaling captures the transition from weak to strong disorder within the limit.

Load-bearing premise

The proof relies without re-proving on the characterization of the variance function $R_b(r)$ and the limiting higher moments $R_b^{(m)}(r)$ quoted from an earlier paper, especially their decay as $r\to-\infty$; if those asymptotics were wrong, the Wasserstein estimates in Proposition 9.1 and Lemmas 9.7–9.9 would break and the distributional convergence proof would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $b=s$ critical limit exists as a genuine distributional limit, not merely a moment limit; the super-factorial growth of $R_b^{(m)}(r)$ is consistent with a unique law.
  • Universality in the disorder: any centered variance-one disorder with finite exponential moments and fixed third and fourth cumulants produces the same family $\mathcal{L}_r$ under the same scaling, with the cumulant corrections in the inverse-temperature expansion exactly accounting for the dependence on those moments.
  • The vertex-disorder model is in the same universality class: its partition functions converge, under $\hat\beta_{n,r}\sim\hat\kappa_b/n$, to the same limiting variables $W_r$.
  • The critical scaling resolves the weak-to-strong disorder transition: $\sqrt{-r}(W_r-1)$ converges to a centered normal with variance $\kappa_b^2$ as $r\to-\infty$, while $W_r$ concentrates near zero as $r\to\infty$.
  • The proof supplies a template for critical weak-disorder limits without a Wiener-chaos expansion: hierarchical symmetry plus Wasserstein-2 contraction plus perturbative Stein's method.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Likely transferable: the Wasserstein-plus-Stein template could be adapted to other marginally relevant hierarchical disordered systems and might provide a route to proving uniqueness of the critical distributional limit for the $(2+1)$-dimensional rectangular-lattice polymer, where only subsequential limits are currently known.
  • The infinite $Q$-pyramidic array of Theorem 6.16 can be read as a renormalization fixed point indexed by $r$; a natural next step would be to use it to construct a continuum random measure on the diamond fractal and study the log-Hausdorff dimension of typical path intersections.
  • A direct numerical test of the rate bound is feasible: simulate the recursion (2.2) for $b=2,3$ and check whether the Wasserstein-2 error to the limit law decays like $n^{-\upsilon}$ for $\upsilon<\alpha/9$, as predicted by Theorem 7.3.
  • Sharpening the quoted asymptotics of $R_b(r)$ would likely yield explicit finite-$n$ corrections to the limit laws and a more quantitative connection to lognormal-type fluctuations at criticality.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper proves the conjectured weak-disorder distributional limit for directed polymer partition functions on diamond hierarchical graphs at marginal criticality (b=s). The main result, Theorem 2.7 (refined as Theorem 6.23), establishes convergence in law of W_n^ω(β_{n,r}) to a limit law L_r uniquely determined by its variance R_b(r), centered moments R_b^(m)(r), the recursive identity W_{r+1} = (1/b)∑_{i=1}^b ∏_{j=1}^b W_r^{(i,j)}, and Gaussian tails as r→−∞. The proof represents W as Q^n applied to an array of i.i.d. random variables, decomposes Q = L + E, and controls Wasserstein-2 distance through a contractive estimate (Proposition 9.1) and Stein-type Gaussian approximation lemmas (Lemmas 9.7–9.9). A parallel theorem for vertex disorder (Theorem 3.1) is proved by reducing the site-disorder model to a bond-disorder model at logarithmic scale. Several variance and moment characterizations are imported from the prior paper [10], and one rate lemma for the sharp-regularity theorem is left unproved. The paper also proves an explicit scaling form (2.5), including third- and fourth-cumulant corrections, and derives a rate version (Theorem 7.3) under stronger moment assumptions.

Significance. If the result is correct, it confirms a conjecture in [10] and provides one of the few rigorous critical weak-disorder scaling limits for a marginally relevant disordered system. The proof is a substantial technical contribution: the Q-pyramidic array formalism, the contractive L2 bound in Proposition 9.1, and the perturbative Stein-method estimates in Section 11 are genuine new machinery, and the reduction of the site-disorder model in Section 14 is an elegant and useful device. The main theorem makes a falsifiable prediction: the limit law depends only on r and the low-order cumulants of the disorder, not on the full distribution. The principal caveat is that the proof leans heavily on the variance and moment asymptotics of [10], which are quoted without proof; the rate theorem 7.3 additionally depends on an unproved Lemma 13.5. These omissions are the main obstacle between the manuscript and a fully self-contained proof.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, Lemma 2.3 and Theorem 2.4; used throughout §§9–11] The entire r→−∞ asymptotic regime is imported from [10] without proof: Lemma 2.3 gives R_b(r) = −κ_b²/r + κ_b²η_b log(−r)/r² + O(log²(−r)/|r|³) and the derivative formula, and Theorem 2.4 gives the higher-moment asymptotics R_b^(m)(r) ∼ κ_b^m m!/(2^{m/2}(m/2)! |r|^{m/2}) for even m. These estimates are load-bearing in at least four places: the definition of δ in Proposition 9.1 uses summability of R(s−ℓ)−κ²/(ℓ−s); the telescoping estimate (11.4) in Lemma 9.7 uses the same expansion; Lemma 11.3’s variance and fourth-moment bounds invoke Proposition 12.1 and Lemma 15.7, both from [10]; and Corollary 9.12 and Example 7.6 use R(r−N) ≈ κ²/N. If any of these asymptotics were false, the proof of Theorem 6.23 would collapse at a central step. The manuscript should either reproduce the proofs (at least of the precise estimates used) or state Lemma 2.3 and Theorem 2.4 as explicit standing hypotheses, cleanly separated from the new results proved here.
  2. [§6.2, Proposition 6.14] Proposition 6.14 is stated without proof: the text says only that the proof is the same as part (i) of Theorem 3.3 of [10], or that the proof of that theorem implicitly proves Proposition 6.14. This proposition is not a peripheral remark: it is used in Lemma 6.15(III) to obtain the moment convergence E[(X_a^{(k,n)})^m] → R^(m)(r−k), which in turn is used in the tightness construction in Section 8 and in the Wasserstein estimates of Section 11. Since the proposition generalizes Theorem 2.4 from the specific disorder variables (6.1) to arbitrary minimally regular arrays, it is exactly the transfer principle needed by Theorem 6.23. Please provide a proof, or state it as a quoted theorem with a precise reference and the exact moment conditions required.
  3. [§13.1–13.2, Lemma 13.5 and Theorem 7.3] Theorem 7.3 is a main result giving an explicit Wasserstein-2 rate n^{−υ}, and Corollary 7.5 plus Example 7.6 depend on it. The proof of Theorem 7.3 is chained through Lemma 13.5, whose proof is omitted with the explanation that it is a 'lengthy near-repetition' of the arguments in Section 11. As written, the rate claim is therefore unsubstantiated: the omitted lemma is not a routine variation but a full analogue of Lemmas 9.7–9.9 under α-sharp regularity, including the control of the error terms ξ_N(n), ξ'_N(n), and ξ''_N(n). Either the proof of Lemma 13.5 should be included with the same level of detail as the proofs in Section 11, or Theorem 7.3 should be stated as conditional on Lemma 13.5, with the omitted proof explicitly marked as an assumption.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4 and §9.3] There are minor typos: 'explicitely' in Section 4 should be 'explicitly', and 'Wassertstein' appears in the proof of Theorem 6.23 in Section 9.3.
  2. [Appendix C] The final proof in Appendix C is headed 'Proof of Lemma 11.7', but the statement being proved is Corollary 11.7; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [§9.2, Remark 9.13] The convention that 'for large enough N and n' means N > λ and n > Λ(N) is introduced in Remark 9.13, but the phrase is used earlier in Section 9.2 and in the statements of Lemmas 9.7–9.9. Moving this convention before its first use would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the conjectured distributional limit is proved by an original Wasserstein contraction argument; the [10] inputs are moment and variance limits, not the target convergence in law.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Its target is distributional convergence of W_n^omega(beta_n,r) (Theorem 2.7 and its technical version Theorem 6.23), which was left open in [10]. The facts imported from [10] are exactly the variance limit and the characterizations of R_b(r) and R_b^(m)(r) (Lemma 2.3 and Theorem 2.4), i.e., convergence of the moments of the same partition functions. The paper explicitly recognizes that these do not by themselves imply convergence in law: 'Theorem 2.4 does not imply that W_n^omega(beta_n,r) converges in law as n->infty since R_b^(m)(r) grows super-factorially with m by (III) of Theorem 2.4.' The distributional limit is then proved by an original Wasserstein-2 contraction argument (Proposition 9.1 and Lemmas 9.7-9.9) that uses the R functions as parameters, not as the conclusion. The uniqueness of the limiting law is proved in Theorem 6.16, not imported from [10]. The inverse temperature scaling (2.5) is derived from the variance asymptotics in Appendix A, but matching the second moment is an input constraint, not the distributional result. Several technical lemmas are cited from [10] without proof in this paper (Lemma 2.3, Theorem 2.4, Proposition 6.14, Lemma 15.7, Lemma 14.9; Lemma 13.5 is described as a 'lengthy near-repetition' of the proof in Section 11). This creates a real dependence on prior results, possibly by the same author, and is a completeness or verification risk. However, it is not circularity: those cited statements are parameter-free external inputs whose assumptions do not include the target distributional convergence, and no equation in the paper reduces Theorem 6.23 to a fitted quantity, to a definition, or to the conjecture itself.

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

The central claim depends on the recursive variance/moment functions R_b and R_b^(m) from [10], which are used as black boxes. The parameter r is a free scaling parameter. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • r = any real number (critical window parameter)
    Appears in the inverse-temperature scaling (2.5) as kappa_b r/n^{3/2}; labels the limit laws L_r and shifts the variance asymptotics (2.7). It is an input parameter of the critical window, not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Kolmogorov extension theorem permits construction of the infinite Q-pyramidic array in Theorem 6.16.
    Used in Section 8 to pass from subsequential finite-layer limits to a single probability space.
  • standard math Stein's method bounds, including the zero bias transformation facts in Appendix C.
    Used in the proofs of Lemmas 9.8 and 9.9 to control Wasserstein distances.
  • domain assumption The disorder variables are i.i.d. with mean zero, variance one, and finite exponential moments.
    Assumed in Section 2.2 and throughout; needed for the Gibbs weights and the cumulant expansions.
  • domain assumption The branching and segmenting parameters satisfy b=s in {2,3,...}.
    The marginal case b=s is the entire subject of the paper; the variance map M_{b,b} is then marginally repelling.
  • domain assumption Lemma 2.3 and Theorem 2.4 from [10] give the variance function R_b(r) and limiting moments R_b^(m)(r), including the r to -infinity asymptotics.
    These prior results are quoted without proof in Section 2.4 and are load-bearing for the Wasserstein estimates in the present paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weak-disorder limit at criticality for directed polymers on hierarchical graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TXGS6LGV

@misc{pith2026190806555,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weak-disorder limit at criticality for directed polymers on hierarchical graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TXGS6LGV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06555}
}
abstract

We prove a distributional limit theorem conjectured in [Journal of Statistical Physics 174, No. 6, 1372-1403 (2019)] for partition functions defining models of directed polymers on diamond hierarchical graphs with disorder variables placed at the graphical edges. The limiting regime involves a joint scaling in which the number of hierarchical layers, $n\in \mathbb{N}$, of the graphs grows as the inverse temperature, $\beta\equiv \beta(n)$, vanishes with a fine-tuned dependence on $n$. The conjecture pertains to the marginally relevant disorder case of the model wherein the branching parameter $b \in \{2,3,\ldots\}$ and the segmenting parameter $s \in \{2,3,\ldots\}$ determining the hierarchical graphs are equal, which coincides with the diamond fractal embedding the graphs having Hausdorff dimension two. Unlike the analogous weak-disorder scaling limit for random polymer models on hierarchical graphs in the disorder relevant $b<s$ case (or for the (1+1)-dimensional polymer on the rectangular lattice), the distributional convergence of the partition function when $b=s$ cannot be approached through a term-by-term convergence to a Wiener chaos expansion, which does not exist for the continuum model emerging in the limit. The analysis proceeds by controlling the distributional convergence of the partition functions in terms of the Wasserstein distance through a perturbative generalization of Stein's method at a critical step. In addition, we prove that a similar limit theorem holds for the analogous model with disorder variables placed at the vertices of the graphs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The conditional Gaussian multiplicative chaos structure underlying a critical continuum random polymer model on a diamond fractal

    math.PR 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The critical continuum polymer measures on the dimension-two diamond fractal are shown to satisfy a conditional Gaussian multiplicative chaos relation: M_{r+a} equals in law a subcritical GMC over M_r.

  2. Continuum models of directed polymers on disordered diamond fractals in the critical case

    math.PR 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Critical continuum random polymer measures M_r are constructed on diamond fractals, and intersections of two independent paths are shown to have Hausdorff dimension zero with log-Hausdorff exponent 1.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [10]

    Clark: High-temperature scaling limit for directed polymers on a hierarchical lattice with bond disorder, J

    J.T. Clark: High-temperature scaling limit for directed polymers on a hierarchical lattice with bond disorder, J. Stat. Phys. 174, No. 6, 1372-1403 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Alberts, J

    T. Alberts, J. Clark, S. Kocic: The intermediate disorder regime for a directed polymer model on a hierarchical lattice, Stoch. Process. Appl. 127, 3291-3330 (2017)

    2017

  3. [2]

    Alberts, K

    T. Alberts, K. Khanin, J. Quastel: The intermediate disorder regime for directed polymers in dimension 1 + 1, Ann. Probab. 42, No. 3, 1212-1256 (2014)

    2014

  4. [3]

    Alberts, K

    T. Alberts, K. Khanin, J. Quastel: The continuum directed random polymer, J. Stat. Phys. 154, No. 1-2, 305-326 (2014)

    2014

  5. [4]

    Bertini and N

    L. Bertini and N. Cancrini: The two-dimensional stochastic heat equation: renormalizing a mul- tiplicative noise, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 31, 615, (1998)

    work page 1998

  6. [5]

    Caravenna, R

    F. Caravenna, R. Sun, and N. Zygouras: Polynomial chaos and scaling limits of disordered sys- tems, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 19, 1-65 (2017)

    2017

  7. [6]

    Caravenna, R

    F. Caravenna, R. Sun, and N. Zygouras: Universality in marginally relevant disordered systems , Ann. Appl. Probab. 27, No. 5, 3050-3112 (2017)

    2017

  8. [7]

    Caravenna, R

    F. Caravenna, R. Sun, N. Zygouras, The Dickman subordinator, renewal theorems, and disordered systems, Elect. Journ. Prob. 24, 1-48 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 28 references
  1. [8]

    Caravenna, R

    F. Caravenna, R. Sun, N. Zygouras: Scaling limits of disordered systems and disorder relevance , Proceedings of XVIII International Congress on Mathematical Physics, arXiv:1602.05825

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Caravenna, R

    F. Caravenna, R. Sun, N. Zygouras: On the moments of the (2+1)-dimensional directed polymer and stochastic heat equation in the critical window , Commun. Math. Phys. 372, 385-440 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Clark: Continuum directed random polymers on disordered hierarchical diamond lattices , Stoch

    J.T. Clark: Continuum directed random polymers on disordered hierarchical diamond lattices , Stoch. Process. Appl. 130, 1643-1668 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Clark: Continuum models of directed polymers on disordered diamond fractals in the critical case, preprint (2019), arXiv:1908.07120

    J.T. Clark: Continuum models of directed polymers on disordered diamond fractals in the critical case, preprint (2019), arXiv:1908.07120

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Clark: The conditional Gaussian multiplicative chaos structure underlying a critical contin- uum random polymer model on a diamond fractal , preprint (2019), arXiv:1908.08192

    J.T. Clark: The conditional Gaussian multiplicative chaos structure underlying a critical contin- uum random polymer model on a diamond fractal , preprint (2019), arXiv:1908.08192. 78

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Comets: Directed Polymers in Random Environments , Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol

    F. Comets: Directed Polymers in Random Environments , Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 2175, Springer, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    J. Cook, B. Derrida: Polymers on disordered hierarchical lattices: a nonlinear combination of random variables, J. Stat. Phys. 57, No. 12, 89139 (1989)

    1989

  8. [16]

    Derrida, R.B

    B. Derrida, R.B. Griffiths: Directed polymers on disordered hierachical lattices , Europhys. Lett. 8, No. 2, 111-116 (1989)

    1989

  9. [17]

    Giacomin, H

    G. Giacomin, H. Lacoin, F.L. Toninelli: Hierarchical pinning models, quadratic maps, and quenched disorder, Probab. Theor. Rel. Fields 145, (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Goldstein: Normal approximation for hierarchical structures , Ann

    L. Goldstein: Normal approximation for hierarchical structures , Ann. Appl. Probab. 14, No. 4, 1950-1969 (2004)

    2004

  11. [19]

    Goldstein and G

    L. Goldstein and G. Reinert: Stein’s method and zero bias transformation with application to simple random sampling , Ann. Appl. Probab. 7, 935-952 (1997)

    1997

  12. [20]

    Y. Gu, J. Quastel, L. Tsai: Moments of the 2D SHE at Criticality , preprint (2019), arXiv:1905.11310

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hambly, J.H

    B.M. Hambly, J.H. Jordan: A random hierarchical lattice: the series-parallel graph and its prop- erties, Adv. Appl. Prob., 36, 824-838 (2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    Hambly, T

    B.M. Hambly, T. Kumagai: Diffusion on the scaling limit of the critical percolation cluster in the diamond hierarchical lattice, Adv. Appl. Prob., 36, 824-838 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    Lacoin, G

    H. Lacoin, G. Moreno: Directed polymers on hierarchical lattices with site disorder , Stoch. Proc. Appl. 120, No. 4, 467-493 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Rogers: Hausdorff Measures, Cambridge University Press, London, 1970

    C.A. Rogers: Hausdorff Measures, Cambridge University Press, London, 1970

    1970

  17. [25]

    Ruiz: Explicit formulas for heat kernels on diamond fractals , Commun

    P.A. Ruiz: Explicit formulas for heat kernels on diamond fractals , Commun. Math. Phys. 364, 1305-1326 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Shamov: On Gaussian multiplicative chaos , J

    A. Shamov: On Gaussian multiplicative chaos , J. Funct. Anal. 270, 3224-3261 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Stein: A bound for the error in the normal approximation to the distribution of a sum of dependent random variables, Proc

    C. Stein: A bound for the error in the normal approximation to the distribution of a sum of dependent random variables, Proc. Sixth Berkeley Symp. Math. Statist. Probab.2, 583-602 (1972)

    1972

  20. [28]

    Wehr, J.M

    J. Wehr, J.M. Woo: Central limit theorems for nonlinear hierarchical sequences or random vari- ables, J. Stat. Phys. 104, 777-797 (2001). 79

    2001

Pith tools

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