Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Discrete snakes with globally centered displacements

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that size-conditioned critical Bienaymé trees with globally centered displacements of finite global variance scale to the head of the Brownian snake, uniformly under a finite third moment and a necessary tail condition.

desk verdict A genuine advance in snake convergence with honest hypotheses; the third-moment caveat is the main thing to probe. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21823 v2 pith:VY22DMN6 submitted 2025-05-27 math.PR

Louigi Addario-Berry , Serte Donderwinkel , Christina Goldschmidt , Rivka Mitchell This is my paper
classification math.PR MSC 60J8060F1760C05
keywords DiscretesnakesBranchingrandomwalksprocessestreesGloballycentereddisplacementsBrowniansnakeScalinglimitsLooptrees
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes a scaling limit for discrete snakes built on size-conditioned critical Bienaymé trees, when the spatial displacements are globally centered rather than locally centered. Under a finite global variance condition, the rescaled head of the discrete snake converges, in random finite-dimensional distributions, to the head of the Brownian snake driven by a Brownian excursion. Adding a finite third moment and a tail condition upgrades this to uniform functional convergence. The paper also proves the tail condition is necessary, and describes heavy-tailed alternatives in which the limit is a 'hairy tour' decorated by intervals or pure jumps. Two applications give scaling limits for the difference between the height process and the Łukasiewicz path, and for the difference between a tree's height process and its looptree's height process.

What carries the argument

A bijection between permutations of edge labels and labeled ordered rooted trees, which is a discrete analogue of the continuous line-breaking construction of the Brownian tree, carries the argument. Under this bijection, the subtree spanned by the root and $k$ uniform vertices is built from $k$ paths whose lengths and attachment points converge, after rescaling by $\sqrt{n}$, to the jump times and attachment points of the continuous line-breaking construction. Along each path, partial sums of the displacements behave like a random walk with IID steps distributed as $Y_{\bar{\xi},U}$, so they scale to Brownian motion with diffusivity $\beta$ after $n^{1/4}$ rescaling; displacements at branch points are shown to be $O_P(1)$ and hence negligible on that scale. Tightness is obtained by truncating displacements into typical, mid-range and large parts, and bounding the maximum spatial location through an induction that relies on a total-variation estimate between the degree of the root of the conditioned tree and the size-biased offspring law.

What would settle it

Take the deterministic displacement family $Y_{k,j}=\sigma-(2/\sigma)(k-j)$ with a critical offspring distribution whose tail satisfies $P\{\xi>y\}\sim c y^{-4}$, so the tail condition fails. Corollary 1.8 predicts that $n^{-1/4}\max_{0\le i\le n}|\sigma H_n(i)-2\sigma^{-1}W_n(i)|$ does not converge to the maximum modulus of $\beta\sqrt{2/\sigma}\,r$; a direct simulation or exact computation of that maximum should show macroscopic $\Theta(n^{1/4})$ fluctuations with probability bounded away from zero, confirming the necessity claim of Proposition 1.2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spatial locations encountered during a depth-first exploration of a size-conditioned critical Bayes tree have a universal Brownian scaling limit once displacements are centered in the global sense, meaning $E[Y_{\bar{\xi},U}]=0$ with finite global variance $\beta^2<\infty$. Concretely, Theorem 1.1 states that under this condition the joint rescaled height, head, contour and contour-head processes converge in random finite-dimensional distributions to $$\left(\frac{2}{\$\sigma$}e_t,\ \$\beta$\sqrt{\frac{2}{\$\sigma$}}r_t,\ \frac{2}{\$\sigma$}e_t,\ \$\beta$\sqrt{\frac{2}{\$\sigma$}}r_t\right)_{0\le t\le1},$$ where $e$ is a normalized Brownian excursion and $r$ is the head of the Brownian snake driven by $e$ (with covariance $\min_{u\in[s\wedge t,s\vee t]} e_u$). Under the additional assumption $E[\xi^3]<\infty$ and the tail condition $P\{\max_{1\le i\le\xi}|Y_{\xi,i}|>y\}=o(y^{-4})$, the convergence is uniform in $C([0,1],\mathbb{R}^4)$. The tail condition is sharp: Proposition 1.2 shows that if $\limsup_{y\to\infty} y^4P\{\max_{1\le i\le\xi}|Y_{\xi,i}|>y\}>0$, then displacements of order $n^{1/4}$ persist in the tree, so no continuous limit exists. Under a further regular-variation assumption [A3], the large displacements organize into a Poisson-decorated 'hairy tour' when $\eta=0$, or a pure-jump decoration when $\eta\in(0,2)$.

Load-bearing premise

The theorem needs the offspring distribution to have a finite third moment to make the tightness argument work, and the authors state they do not know whether this condition is genuinely necessary or only an artefact of their proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under [A1], the rescaled height process and the head of the discrete snake converge jointly in random finite-dimensional distributions to $(2\sigma^{-1}e,\ \beta\sqrt{2/\sigma}\,r)$; adding [A2] upgrades this to uniform convergence in $C([0,1],\mathbb{R}^4)$.
  • The tail condition $P\{\max_{1\le i\le\xi}|Y_{\xi,i}|>y\}=o(y^{-4})$ is necessary: when it fails, displacements of order $n^{1/4}$ persist at vertices with positive asymptotic probability, ruling out a continuous limit.
  • Under [A3] with $\eta=0$, the limit becomes the hairy tour: the continuous curve $\beta\sqrt{2/\sigma}\,r$ decorated by vertical intervals whose endpoints form a Poisson process with intensity $dt\otimes\pi$; with $\eta\in(0,2)$ the limit is the pure-jump decoration $U(0,\Xi)$.
  • The difference $\sigma H_n-2\sigma^{-1}W_n$ between the height process and the Łukasiewicz path converges in $C([0,1],\mathbb{R}^2)$ if and only if $P\{\xi>y\}=o(y^{-4})$, with explicit global variance $\beta^2=\frac{4}{3\sigma^2}(E[\xi^3]-1)-(\sigma^2+2)$.
  • The difference $cH_n-H_n^\circ$ between a tree's height process and its looptree's height process converges uniformly, with the same necessary and sufficient tail condition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test is whether uniform convergence survives when $E[\xi^3]=\infty$ but the tail condition still holds; the authors' own unresolved comment identifies this as the most direct route to deciding if the third moment is an artefact of the tightness proof.
  • The global-centering identity $E[Y_{\bar{\xi},U}]=0$ can be read as a recipe: centering in the size-biased coordinate is exactly what makes branch-point displacements vanish on the $n^{1/4}$ scale, so other centering schemes should be compared against this coordinate.
  • The hairy-tour theorems suggest that point-process decorations of the Brownian snake are the general heavy-tailed limit, and the deterministic family $Y_{k,j}=\sigma-(2/\sigma)(k-j)$ gives an explicit test case where the decoration is a full interval rather than isolated points.
  • The looptree application indicates that differences of two height-like encodings are generically globally centered snakes; similar differences for other graph encodings, such as dual trees or spanning trees, may admit the same theorem with explicit $\beta^2$ computations.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proves scaling limits for the head of a discrete snake built from a branching random walk whose genealogy is a critical Bienaymé tree conditioned to have n vertices, under a 'global centering' condition on the displacement of a size-biased uniform child. Theorem 1.1 states that under finite global variance β^2 the rescaled height and spatial location processes converge, in the sense of random finite-dimensional distributions, to (2/σ e, β√(2/σ) r), where e is a Brownian excursion and r is the head of the Brownian snake driven by e; uniform functional convergence is obtained under the additional conditions E[ξ^3]<∞ and P{max_{i≤ξ}|Y_{ξ,i}|>y}=o(y^{-4}). Proposition 1.2 shows the tail condition is necessary. Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 give hairy-tour limits when the displacements have heavier tails, and Corollaries 1.8 and 1.9 apply the main result to the difference between the height process and the Łukasiewicz path and between the height process and the looptree height process. The proofs use a discrete line-breaking construction, a change of measure for the size-biased degree sequence, and a Haas–Miermont-style tightness scheme.

Significance. If correct, this is a substantial advance: it removes the bounded-support hypothesis in Marckert's earlier global-centering result, extends the Janson–Marckert discrete-snake convergence to sibling-dependent displacements under weak moment assumptions, and identifies the exact tail condition needed for uniform convergence. The line-breaking convergence in Proposition 4.1 and Corollary 4.2 is a clean and reusable tool, and the authors are appropriately explicit about the role of the finite third moment, stating openly that they do not know whether it is necessary. The two applications to height-process differences are natural and the necessary-and-sufficient tail statements in Corollaries 1.8 and 1.9 are appealing. The paper also contains explicit, falsifiable limit statements for the heavy-tailed cases, which should be of interest beyond the immediate branching-random-walk community.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6, proof of Lemma 6.3] The comparison P{bD_m^1=k} ≤ cP{ξbar=k} for k∈[m] is asserted without proof and is then used to control the tail of the total variation sum and, through Lemmas 6.2 and 6.4, to prove the key tail bound Proposition 5.10. This is not immediate from Kemperman's formula because the ratio P{S_{m-1}=m-1-k}/P{S_m=m-1} must be bounded uniformly in k. Please provide a proof or a precise reference; as written, a load-bearing step of the tightness argument is unverified.
  2. [Section 7.1, Proposition 7.3] The proof says that the proof of Proposition 5.10 'generalises immediately' after replacing n^{1/4} by n^{1/(4-η)}. Proposition 5.10 is the central tail estimate, and the hypotheses in Section 7 are [A3] rather than [A2], so the induction in Section 6 does not formally apply without checking the analogues of Lemmas 6.1–6.4. Since Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 depend on this step, the generalized lemma and its proof, or at least a precise statement with the required modifications, should be included.
  3. [Section 5.2, proof of Proposition 5.7] The identity 'conditionally on J_k, d|γ^k| = B^2/(J_k^2+B^2)' is used to obtain the k→∞ limit in (5.11). Here d|γ^k| was defined as a size-biased pick from the list (|γ^k_j|, j≥1), but the displayed formula is a normalized quantity in [0,1]. Please clarify the normalization of the γ^k_j's and state precisely which result from [36] is being used; as it stands, the passage from the unnormalized size-biased pick to the expression B^2/(J_k^2+B^2) is not fully justified.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 7.2, Proposition 7.6] There is a typo: 'convergence in the first coordinate in in C([0,1], R^2)' should read 'convergence in the first coordinate in C([0,1], R^2)'.
  2. [Corollaries 1.8 and 1.9] The hypotheses are written as µ=(µ_k)_{k≥1}, whereas the offspring distribution µ is indexed from k≥0 elsewhere in the paper; please make the indexing consistent.
  3. [Appendix A.1, Lemma A.3] The quantitative local CLT is stated for k∈N with the comment that the generalization from [3, Lemma 5.5] is standard; it would be helpful to include a one-sentence indication of how the uniformity in k is obtained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scaling limits are derived from the model's own global variance and offspring data, with external Brownian benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a scaling limit to the Brownian snake head. The limit objects e and r are fixed external benchmarks, not defined in terms of the discrete model. The parameter beta^2 is the global variance E[Y^2_{\bar\xi,U}], a quantity computed from the displacement law and obtained as the diffusion coefficient via Donsker's theorem in Proposition 4.5, not imposed to match the limit. The finite-dimensional convergence is derived through the discrete line-breaking bijection and a measure change (Propositions 4.3, 4.7, 4.1), and the covariance of the limiting r is the standard Brownian snake covariance (1.1); no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The applications (Corollaries 1.8 and 1.9) compute the relevant displacement law, global centering, and global variance directly from the offspring distribution, then invoke Theorem 1.1; they do not take the theorem's conclusion as an input. The third-moment condition in [A2] is stated as a sufficient hypothesis and the authors explicitly flag it as possibly an artefact: "It is not clear to us whether the requirement that E[\xi^3] < \infty in [A2] is necessary or just an artefact of our approach to proving tightness." This is an honest limitation, not a circular step. Lemma A.3 is cited from previous work with overlapping authors, but it is a standard quantitative local central limit theorem with its own stated hypotheses, used as a tool rather than as a substitute for the target convergence, so under the reviewing rules it counts as independent support. I found no place where an equation or conclusion is equivalent by construction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proofs are self-contained modulo standard probabilistic machinery and published results. The limit objects (Brownian snake head, hairy tour) are fixed external benchmarks, and the constants beta^2 and c are computed from the model inputs rather than fitted, so the convergence statements are genuine derivations. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • beta^2 (global variance) = E[Y^2_{xi-bar,U}], a model input
    Computed from the model inputs (mu, nu) as the variance of a uniform child displacement under size-biased degree; not fitted to the limit.
  • constant c in Corollary 1.9 = c = (1/4)E[xi^2] + 1/2 + (1/4)P{xi in 2Z+1}
    Forced by the global centering condition for the looptree displacement family Y_{k,j} = c - min{j, k+1-j}; derived, not fitted.
  • heavy-tail exponent eta = any value in [0,2), fixed by [A3]
    Index of the displacement tail in Theorems 1.4 and 1.5; set by the model's tail behavior, not fitted.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Critical offspring distribution mu with variance sigma^2 in (0, infinity) and gcd of the support equal to 1
    Assumed at the start of Section 1. The gcd condition makes the tree size n aperiodic and enables the local CLT.
  • domain assumption Global centering [A1]: E[Y_{xi-bar,U}] = 0 and beta^2 < infinity
    Main hypothesis of Theorem 1.1; without it the displacement process has drift and no Brownian limit.
  • domain assumption Regular variation of heavy tails [A3] with measure pi
    Hypothesis of Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 giving the Poisson intensity of the hairy tour decoration.
  • standard math Lattice local CLT (Petrov, Theorem 13, Chapter VII)
    Used in Lemma 6.3 to bound the total variation distance between the size-biased root degree bD^m_1 and xi-bar.
  • standard math Quantitative local CLT (Lemma A.3, from Addario-Berry, Donderwinkel, Kortchemski [3])
    Used in Proposition 5.2 and in the proof of Lemma 7.1 to carry conditioning on the tree size through the convergence statements.
  • standard math Aldous line-breaking construction (Corollary 22 of Aldous [4])
    Identifies the law of the subtree spanned by k uniform points of the Brownian continuum random tree; used in Corollary 4.2 and equation (4.1).
  • standard math Haas and Miermont Lemma 25: E[1 - sum_i (Lambda_i^(m)/m)^2] = Theta(m^{-1/2})
    Underlies the inductive tail bound in Proposition 5.10, the key tightness estimate.
  • standard math Equivalence of height and contour parametrizations (Duquesne and Le Gall [12, Cor 2.5.1] and Marckert and Mokkadem [32])
    Reduces the joint convergence in Theorem 1.1 to convergence of the height process and snake head in (1.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discrete snakes with globally centered displacements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VY22DMN6

@misc{pith2026250521823,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discrete snakes with globally centered displacements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VY22DMN6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21823}
}
read the original abstract

We prove a scaling limit for globally centered discrete snakes on size-conditioned critical Bienaym\'e trees. More specifically, under a global finite variance condition, we prove convergence in the sense of random finite-dimensional distributions of the head of the discrete snake (suitably rescaled) to the head of the Brownian snake driven by a Brownian excursion. When the third moment of the offspring distribution is finite, we further prove uniform functional convergence under a necessary tail condition on the displacements. We also consider displacement distributions with heavier tails, for which we instead obtain convergence to a variant of the hairy snake introduced by Janson and Marckert. We further give two applications of our main result. Firstly, we obtain a scaling limit for the difference between the height process and the {\L}ukasiewicz path of a size-conditioned critical Bienaym\'e tree. Secondly, we obtain a scaling limit for the difference between the height process of a size-conditioned critical Bienaym\'e tree and the height process of its associated looptree.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Random punctured hyperbolic surfaces & the Brownian sphere

    math.PR 2025-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Random Weil-Petersson punctured spheres converge, after fourth-root rescaling, to the Brownian sphere.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [36]

    P ITMAN , J. (2003). Poisson–Kingman partitions. In Statistics and Science: a Festschrift for Terry Speed . IMS Lecture Notes Monogr. Ser. 40 1–34. Inst. Math. Statist., Beachwood, OH. https://doi.org/10. 1214/lnms/1215091133 MR2004330

    work page arXiv 2003

  2. [1]

    and A LBENQUE , M

    A DDARIO -BERRY, L. and A LBENQUE , M. (2017). The scaling limit of random simple triangulations and random simple quadrangulations. Ann. Probab. 45 2767–2825. https://doi.org/10.1214/16-AOP1124 MR3706731

    work page doi:10.1214/16-aop1124 2017

  3. [2]

    and A LBENQUE , M

    A DDARIO -BERRY, L. and A LBENQUE , M. (2021). Convergence of non-bipartite maps via symmetrization of labeled trees. Ann. H. Lebesgue 4 653–683. https://doi.org/10.5802/ahl.84 MR4315765

    work page doi:10.5802/ahl.84 2021

  4. [3]

    and K ORTCHEMSKI , I

    A DDARIO -BERRY, L., D ONDERWINKEL , S. and K ORTCHEMSKI , I. (2025). Critical trees are neither too short nor too fat. Ann. H. Lebesgue 8 113–149. https://doi.org/10.5802/ahl.231 MR4912670

    work page doi:10.5802/ahl.231 2025

  5. [4]

    A LDOUS , D. (1993). The continuum random tree. III. Ann. Probab. 21 248–289. MR1207226

    work page 1993

  6. [5]

    and P ITMAN , J

    A LDOUS , D. and P ITMAN , J. (2002). Invariance principles for non-uniform random mappings and trees. In Asymptotic combinatorics with application to mathematical physics (St. Petersburg, 2001). NATO Sci. Ser. II Math. Phys. Chem. 77 113–147. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht. MR1999358

    work page 2002

  7. [6]

    B ILLINGSLEY , P. (1999). Convergence of probability measures, second ed. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics: Probability and Statistics . John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9780470316962 MR1700749

    work page 1999

  8. [7]

    and M ARCKERT , J.-F

    B ROUTIN , N. and M ARCKERT , J.-F. (2014). Asymptotics of trees with a prescribed degree sequence and applications. Random Structures Algorithms 44 290–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/rsa.20463 MR3188597

    work page doi:10.1002/rsa.20463 2014

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    and S CHAEFFER , G

    C HASSAING , P. and S CHAEFFER , G. (2004). Random planar lattices and integrated superBrownian ex- cursion. Probab. Theory Related Fields 128 161–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00440-003-0297-8 MR2031225

    2004 doi

  2. [9]

    and K ORTCHEMSKI , I

    C URIEN , N. and K ORTCHEMSKI , I. (2014). Random stable looptrees. Electron. J. Probab. 19 no. 108, 35. https://doi.org/10.1214/EJP.v19-2732 MR3286462

    2014 doi

  3. [10]

    and R EBEI , F

    D UQUENSE , T. and R EBEI , F. (2025). Scaling limits of critical branching random walks via their snakes. In preparation

    2025

  4. [11]

    D UQUESNE , T. (2003). A limit theorem for the contour process of conditioned Galton–Watson trees. Ann. Probab. 31 996–1027. https://doi.org/10.1214/aop/1048516543 MR1964956

    2003

  5. [12]

    and LE GALL , J.-F

    D UQUESNE , T. and LE GALL , J.-F. (2002). Random trees, Lévy processes and spatial branching processes. Astérisque 281 vi+147. MR1954248

    2002

  6. [13]

    State spaces of the snake and its tour—convergence of the discrete snake

    G ITTENBERGER , B. (2003). A note on: “State spaces of the snake and its tour—convergence of the discrete snake” [31] by J.-F. Marckert and A. Mokkadem. J. Theoret. Probab. 16 1063–1067. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/B:JOTP.0000012006.91251.e8 MR2033198 78

    2003

  7. [14]

    and M IERMONT , G

    H AAS , B. and M IERMONT , G. (2012). Scaling limits of Markov branching trees with applications to Galton–Watson and random unordered trees. Ann. Probab. 40 2589–2666. https://doi.org/10.1214/ 11-AOP686 MR3050512

    2012

  8. [15]

    J ANSON , S. (2006). Left and right pathlengths in random binary trees. Algorithmica 46 419–429. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00453-006-0099-3 MR2291963

    2006 doi

  9. [16]

    J ANSON , S. (2011). Probability asymptotics: notes on notation. Preprint https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.3924

    2011 arXiv

  10. [17]

    J ANSON , S. (2012). Simply generated trees, conditioned Galton–Watson trees, random allocations and con- densation. Probab. Surv.9 103–252. https://doi.org/10.1214/11-PS188 MR2908619

    2012 doi

  11. [18]

    and MARCKERT , J.-F

    J ANSON , S. and MARCKERT , J.-F. (2005). Convergence of discrete snakes.J. Theoret. Probab.18 615–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10959-005-7252-9 MR2167644

    2005 doi

  12. [19]

    K ALLENBERG , O. (2021). Foundations of modern probability, third ed. Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling 99. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61871-1 MR4226142

    2021 doi

  13. [20]

    K HANFIR , R. (2022). Convergences of looptrees coded by excursions. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat. to appear. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.11528

    2022 doi arXiv

  14. [21]

    and M ARZOUK , C

    K ORTCHEMSKI , I. and M ARZOUK , C. (2024). Random Lévy looptrees and Lévy maps. Preprint. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.04098

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [22]

    and R ICHIER , L

    K ORTCHEMSKI , I. and R ICHIER , L. (2020). The boundary of random planar maps via looptrees. Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (6) 29 391–430. https://doi.org/10.5802/afst.1636 MR4150547

    2020 doi

  16. [23]

    L E GALL , J.-F. (1993). A class of path-valued Markov processes and its applications to superprocesses. Probab. Theory Related Fields95 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01197336 MR1207305

    1993 doi

  17. [24]

    L E GALL , J.-F. (1995). The Brownian snake and solutions of∆u = u2 in a domain.Probab. Theory Related Fields 102 393–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01192468 MR1339740

    1995 doi

  18. [25]

    L E GALL , J.-F. (2005). Random trees and applications. Probab. Surv.2 245–311. https://doi.org/10.1214/ 154957805100000140 MR2203728

    2005

  19. [26]

    L E GALL , J.-F. (2013). Uniqueness and universality of the Brownian map. Ann. Probab. 41 2880–2960. https://doi.org/10.1214/12-AOP792 MR3112934

    2013 doi

  20. [27]

    L EI, T. (2019). Scaling limit of random forests with prescribed degree sequences. Bernoulli 25 2409–2438. https://doi.org/10.3150/18-BEJ1058 MR4003553

    2019 doi

  21. [28]

    M ARCKERT , J.-F. (2004). The rotation correspondence is asymptotically a dilatation. Random Structures Algorithms 24 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/rsa.10111 MR2035871

    2004 doi

  22. [29]

    M ARCKERT , J.-F. (2008). The lineage process in Galton–Watson trees and globally centered discrete snakes. Ann. Appl. Probab. 18 209–244. https://doi.org/10.1214/07-AAP450 MR2380897

    2008 doi

  23. [30]

    and M IERMONT , G

    M ARCKERT , J.-F. and M IERMONT , G. (2007). Invariance principles for random bipartite planar maps.Ann. Probab. 35 1642–1705. https://doi.org/10.1214/009117906000000908 MR2349571

    2007 doi

  24. [31]

    and M OKKADEM , A

    M ARCKERT , J.-F. and M OKKADEM , A. (2003). States spaces of the snake and its tour—convergence of the discrete snake. J. Theoret. Probab. 16 1015–1046. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTP.0000012004. 73051.f3 MR2033196

    2003 doi

  25. [32]

    and M OKKADEM , A

    M ARCKERT , J.-F. and M OKKADEM , A. (2003). The depth first processes of Galton–Watson trees con- verge to the same Brownian excursion. Ann. Probab. 31 1655–1678. https://doi.org/10.1214/aop/ 1055425793 MR1989446

    2003 doi

  26. [33]

    M ARZOUK , C. (2020). Scaling limits of discrete snakes with stable branching. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat. 56 502–523. https://doi.org/10.1214/19-AIHP970 MR4058997

    2020 doi

  27. [34]

    M IERMONT , G. (2013). The Brownian map is the scaling limit of uniform random plane quadrangulations. Acta Math. 210 319–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11511-013-0096-8 MR3070569

    2013 doi

  28. [35]

    P ETROV, V. V. (1975). Sums of independent random variables . Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas] 82. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg Translated from the Russian by A. A. Brown. MR388499

    1975

  29. [37]

    P ITMAN , J. (2006). Combinatorial stochastic processes . Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1875. Springer- Verlag, Berlin Lectures from the 32nd Summer School on Probability Theory held in Saint-Flour, July 7–24, 2002, with a foreword by Jean Picard. MR2245368

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.