Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Interface scaling limit for the critical planar Ising model perturbed by a magnetic field

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A magnetic field turns the critical Ising interface into a massive SLE3

desk verdict First massive SLE3 with a coherent proof that is not yet fully written for the theorem as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16452 v1 pith:Y3CCGLU6 submitted 2024-11-25 math.PR math-phmath.MP

Léonie Papon This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath-phmath.MP MSC 60K3582B2060J67
keywords IsingmodelmassiveSLESLE3spininterfacescalinglimitexternalmagneticfieldnear-criticalcorrelationsDobrushinboundaryconditions
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 shows that adding a tiny external magnetic field to the critical planar Ising model changes the scaling limit of the interface that separates + and − spins. When the field strength is tuned to $C_{\sigma}^{-1} h \,\delta^{15/8}$, the random interface converges in law to a massive SLE$_3$ curve, and the paper gives an explicit formula for its law relative to ordinary SLE$_3$. If the field is chosen weaker than this near-critical scale, the interface still converges to SLE$_3$; if it is stronger, the interface degenerates to a boundary arc. This provides the first massive SLE$_3$ scaling limit obtained directly from a lattice model.

What carries the argument

The proof works with the discrete Radon-Nikodym derivative of the perturbed interface law with respect to the unperturbed one, expanded as a sum over the exponential of the discrete magnetization. Once the interface is fixed, the Markov property decomposes this observable into $k$-point spin expectations in the two components of the slit domain. The passage to the continuum uses the scaling limits of spin correlations in domains with non-smooth boundary, together with Wu's two-arm exponent to show that the boundary contribution vanishes and to control points close to the rough slit boundary. Tightness follows from uniform $L^p$ bounds on the Radon-Nikodym derivative, obtained from exponential-moment estimates for the magnetization field.

What would settle it

Simulate the critical Ising interface with $H=C_{\sigma}^{-1}h\,\delta^{15/8}$ on a fine grid and compare the crossing distribution of a small disk against the theorem's density truncated to $k=1$; a discrepancy that does not vanish as $\delta\to0$ would falsify the explicit formula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result, Theorem 1.1, is that on a square lattice of mesh $\delta$, the interface of the critical Ising model with Dobrushin boundary conditions and external field $H(x,\delta)=C_{\sigma}^{-1}h(x)\,\delta^{15/8}$ converges as $\delta\to0$ to a random curve whose law $P_h$ is absolutely continuous with respect to SLE$_3$. The Radon-Nikodym derivative on the $\sigma$-field generated by $\gamma([0,t])$ is $\frac{dP_h}{dP_{\mathrm{SLE}_3}}(\gamma)\big|_{\sigma(\gamma(s):0\le s\le t)} = \frac{1}{Z_h(\Omega)}\sum_{k\ge0}\frac{1}{k!}\int_{\Omega_t^k} h(z_1)\cdots h(z_k)\, f_t^{(\pm,k)}(z_1,\dots,z_k)\, dz_1\cdots dz_k$, where $\Omega_t=\Omega\setminus\gamma([0,t])$ and $f_t^{(\pm,k)}$ are the scaling limits of $k$-point spin correlations in the slit domain. Consequently, the limiting law is not conformally invariant but conformally covariant, with the density $h$ transforming with weight $15/8$. The paper also proves the two neighboring asymptotics: if the field is $\delta^{15/8}g_1(\delta)$ with $g_1(\delta)\to0$, the limit is ordinary SLE$_3$; if the field is $\delta^{15/8}g_2(\delta)$ with $g_2(\delta)\to\infty$, the interface converges to the boundary arc carrying the $-$ boundary conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The scaling limits of the spin correlations are assumed valid even in domains whose boundary is the growing rough SLE$_3$ curve; if these limits fail near that rough boundary, the explicit Radon-Nikodym derivative is not justified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the magnetic field is weaker than the near-critical scale, the asymptotic law of the interface is unchanged from the critical model, namely SLE$_3$.
  • If the magnetic field is stronger than the near-critical scale, the interface collapses onto the boundary arc carrying the opposite spins, matching the behavior seen near critical percolation.
  • The limiting law $P_h$ is conformally covariant, so under a conformal map the mass parameter transforms with the $15/8$ dimension of the magnetization field.
  • The driving function of the limiting curve is absolutely continuous relative to the Brownian driving of SLE$_3$, and should be expressible as $\sqrt{3}$ times Brownian motion plus an explicit drift once an additional continuity statement is established.
  • As $h\to\infty$, the law $P_h$ concentrates near the boundary arc: the probability that the curve exits an $\eta$-neighborhood of that arc tends to zero.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The explicit density suggests a natural numerical test: at small but finite mesh, the contribution of the $k=1$ term, which involves the one-point spin correlation in the slit domain, should capture the leading effect of the magnetic field on the interface law.
  • The theorem opens the door to a coupling between the continuum magnetization field of the critical Ising model and an SLE$_3$ curve, in the spirit of the Gaussian-free-field coupling to SLE$_4$; such a coupling could transfer the explicit density to other observables.
  • The two-arm-exponent control used near the rough slit boundary is likely reusable in other near-critical interface problems where the limit curve has Hausdorff dimension below a threshold set by the arm exponent.
  • The large-$h$ concentration result suggests an intermediate scaling regime in which the curve's transversal fluctuations are governed by the competition between the Brownian motion and the drift term; measuring this drift could yield a macroscopic observable for the mass parameter.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the critical planar Ising model with Dobrushin boundary conditions on a bounded simply connected domain, perturbed by an external magnetic field. The main theorem (Theorem 1.1) states that when the field strength scales as C_σ^{-1} h δ^{15/8}, the discrete interface converges in law to a massive version of SLE3 whose Radon-Nikodym derivative with respect to SLE3 is given by an explicit series involving integrals of the functions f_t^{(k)}. The paper also proves convergence to SLE3 when the perturbation is subcritical (Proposition 1.3), degeneration to a boundary arc when the perturbation is supercritical (Proposition 1.4), and a result on the large-h limit of the massive law (Proposition 1.5). The proof strategy is based on bounding the L^p norms of the discrete Radon-Nikodym derivative to obtain tightness, and then identifying the limit through convergence of spin correlations in the slit domains, with boundary contributions controlled via two-arm exponent estimates.

Significance. If correct, the paper establishes the first massive SLE3 as an exact scaling limit of a near-critical Ising interface, with an explicit and parameter-free expression for the limiting law. The result directly addresses a question raised by Makarov and Smirnov and provides a concrete example of a conformally covariant (rather than conformally invariant) limit. The proof has a clear and convincing overall structure: it avoids the usual martingale-observable characterization and instead uses the Radon-Nikodym derivative together with independent results on critical Ising convergence and spin correlation scaling. The paper is honest about several deferred technical steps, which is a positive feature, but those steps are load-bearing. The explicit formula for the density and the conformal covariance property are strong and original contributions.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3, proof of Theorem 1.1] Theorem 1.1 is stated for a bounded Lipschitz function h, but the proof of Section 3 is carried out only for a constant external field. The sentence at the start of Section 3 says the extension to Lipschitz h is straightforward and cites [7], but no argument is supplied. Since the theorem statement covers space-dependent fields, and the extension requires nontrivial verification that the discrete sums approximate the continuum integrals with the correct weights throughout the estimates of Lemma 3.10 and Lemma 3.11, this is a load-bearing gap. The full proof for Lipschitz h must be given, or the theorem must be restricted to constant h.
  2. [Lemma 3.9] The proof of Lemma 3.9 omits the contribution to E^±_n[|V(γ_n)|] from vertices in A_n(η) lying in squares other than s_a and s_b, explicitly deferring to [21, Theorem 5.5] with the phrase 'we leave the details to the reader.' This estimate is essential for the vanishing of the interface magnetization (Lemma 3.5 and Lemma 3.7) and hence for the dominated convergence argument in Proposition 3.2 and Proposition 3.3. The missing part should be written out or, if genuinely identical to [21], the reduction should be made precise enough for the reader to check.
  3. [Proposition 1.4 and Claim 4.3] The statement of Proposition 1.4 says 'Assume ... as in Theorem 1.1', but the proof requires ∂Ω to be smooth, as noted in Section 2.1: 'the proof of Proposition 1.4 requires ∂Ω to be more regular and we will actually take it to be smooth.' This hypothesis is absent from the proposition statement. Moreover, Claim 4.3, which is the key step showing that the FK-Ising crossing event has probability close to 1, is delegated to [5, Lemmas 5 and 7] with the extension to arbitrary bounded simply connected domains left to the reader. The proof of Claim 4.3 itself mentions a crucial restriction that ∂D has Minkowski dimension 1. These issues affect the validity of Proposition 1.4 as stated and need to be resolved, either by adding the smoothness hypothesis to the proposition or by proving the claim under the stated assumptions.
  4. [§3.2, application of Theorem 2.8 to slit domains] The identification of the limiting density relies on applying Theorem 2.8 ([11]) to the discrete slit domains Ω_{n,t} and their continuum limit Ω_t = Ω \ γ([0,t]). In the proof of Proposition 3.3 it is asserted that, P-almost surely, (Ω̂_{n,t}; a_{n,t}, b_n) → (Ω_t; a_t, b) in the Carathéodory topology. This is not immediate from the convergence of γ_n to γ in the curve space (T.4), and the paper does not verify the hypotheses of Theorem 2.8 for these rough domains, in particular the 'close approximation' condition for the moving boundary point a_{n,t}. Since the whole explicit formula (1) depends on having correlation convergence in slit domains whose boundary includes an SLE3 curve, this verification is load-bearing and should be supplied.
  5. [§3.1 and Lemma 3.17] In the proof of Proposition 3.1, the convergence of δ^{15/8} E^+_δ[∑ σ_x] and δ^{15/4} E^+_δ[(∑ σ_x)^2] is used to obtain uniform L^p bounds on the Radon-Nikodym derivative. The text refers to [2] or says this follows from Lemma 3.17, but Lemma 3.17 appears only later and its proof is omitted with 'We omit their proof as it is almost identical to that of Lemma 3.11 and Lemma 3.10.' Since tightness is a foundational part of the convergence theorem, the relevant estimates should be proved in the paper or cited with precise pointers.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 1.1, Eq. (1) and Proposition 3.3] The function f_t^{(k)} in Eq. (1) appears without the ± superscript, while Proposition 3.3 uses f_t^{(±,k)}. The notation should be made consistent and the meaning of the ± superscript (Dobrushin boundary conditions) clarified at first use.
  2. [§2.3.2] The descriptions of the topological spaces (T.2) and (T.3) are identical ('the metrizable space of continuous functions on [0,∞) with the topology of uniform convergence on compact subsets'). Presumably (T.3) refers to the driving functions; the text should be corrected to avoid confusion.
  3. [Various] There are numerous typos and minor errors: 'Lipchitz' for 'Lipschitz' in §3.1, 'Corrolary' for 'Corollary', 'an ym' for 'any m', 'Edwards-Sokal cooupling' in §4.2.1, 'exitst' in the proof of Proposition 1.5, and 'lattice FK-Ising cluster boundaries to CLE 16/3' in §1.2. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  4. [§1.2, outline] The outline says the first step of the proof of Proposition 1.3 is to show tightness, but the details are delegated to 'the same arguments as in the proof of Proposition 3.1' with 'we leave the details to the reader' in §4.1. Since Proposition 1.3 uses a different scaling factor g_1(δ), the uniform L^p bound should be written out or the similarity to Proposition 3.1 made precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the limiting massive-SLE3 density is derived from independent external inputs (Chelkak–Hongler–Izyurov correlations and Chelkak et al. critical convergence), not from the theorem being proved.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 1.1, is a scaling-limit theorem: the discrete interface under a magnetic perturbation converges to a law whose Radon–Nikodym derivative against SLE3 is expressed through the functions f_t^{(±,k)}. The proof obtains this derivative as the L1 limit of the explicit discrete Radon–Nikodym derivatives F_δ(γ_δ), with the convergence of the k-point spin correlations supplied by Theorem 2.8 from Chelkak–Hongler–Izyurov [11] and the convergence of the unperturbed interface supplied by Chelkak et al. [9]. These are external results that do not presuppose the existence or form of the massive SLE3 law; no parameter is fitted to the target quantity and no quantity in the conclusion is used as an input. The two-arm estimates from Wu [41], the Carathéodory-convergence machinery from Karrila [24], and the correlation bounds from Furlan–Mourrat [20] are also independent inputs. The author's own prior works [31, 32] are mentioned only as related massive-SLE4 results and are not load-bearing for Theorem 1.1 or Propositions 1.3–1.5. Several verification details are deferred (for example, the near-boundary contribution in Lemma 3.9 and Claim 4.3), and the extension from constant h to Lipschitz h is asserted rather than written out; these are correctness risks or omissions, not circularity. The derivation is self-contained relative to its cited external theorems, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper imports the critical Ising convergence to SLE3, the scaling limits of spin correlations with explicit f functions, alternating-arm exponents, spatial mixing, Edwards-Sokal couplings with external fields, and several integrability estimates. No parameter is fitted and no new entity is postulated: the limiting law is defined by an explicit formula. The main burden is the combination of these external inputs.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Critical Ising interface convergence: as δ→0, the Dobrushin interface converges to SLE3 in Ω (Theorem 2.7, from [9]).
    Used as the starting point for tightness and for the Skorokhod coupling of discrete interfaces to SLE3 in Section 3.
  • standard math Scaling limit of k-point spin correlations for the critical Ising model in rough slit domains, with explicit f functions satisfying conformal covariance (Theorem 2.8, from [11]).
    The Radon-Nikodym density (5)/(6) is exactly a sum of integrals of these f functions; the paper does not prove this correlation convergence.
  • standard math Alternating two-arm exponent and spatial mixing for critical planar Ising (Wu [41], especially Corollary 5.2 and Theorem 1.2).
    Used in Lemma 3.9 to control the interface length and in the boundary estimates of Section 3.2.2.
  • standard math Edwards-Sokal coupling with external field, including ghost-cluster probabilities and stochastic domination (Cioletti-Vila [13], Camia-Jiang-Newman [4,5]).
    Instrumental for Proposition 1.4; the cluster formulas in Proposition 4.1 are imported.
  • domain assumption Domain regularity and Carathéodory approximation: Ω bounded simply connected with degenerate prime ends, ∂Ω of Hausdorff dimension <7/4 for Theorem 1.1, smooth for Proposition 1.4; (Ωδ,aδ,bδ) close approximations as defined in Section 2.1.
    These assumptions are imposed on the domain in the statements; they enter through Karrila [24] and the integrability Lemma 5.1.
  • standard math Integrability estimates for f functions and FK-Ising connection probabilities (Junnila-Saksman-Webb [23], Furlan-Mourrat [20], Lemma 5.1 in the appendix).
    Claims 3.12-3.16 and Lemma 5.1 use these bounds to justify dominated convergence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interface scaling limit for the critical planar Ising model perturbed by a magnetic field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y3CCGLU6

@misc{pith2026241116452,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interface scaling limit for the critical planar Ising model perturbed by a magnetic field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y3CCGLU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16452}
}
abstract

We prove that the interface separating $+1$ and $-1$ spins in the critical planar Ising model with Dobrushin boundary conditions perturbed by an external magnetic field has a scaling limit. This result holds when the Ising model is defined on a bounded and simply connected subgraph of $\delta \mathbb{Z}^2$, with $\delta >0$. We show that if the scaling of the external field is of order $\delta^{15/8}$, then, as $\delta \to 0$, the interface converges in law to a random curve whose law is conformally covariant and absolutely continuous with respect to SLE$_3$. This limiting law is a massive version of SLE$_3$ in the sense of Makarov and Smirnov and we give an explicit expression for its Radon-Nikodym derivative with respect to SLE$_3$. We also prove that if the scaling of the external field is of order $\delta^{15/8}g_1(\delta)$ with $g_1(\delta)\to 0$, then the interface converges in law to SLE$_3$. In contrast, we show that if the scaling of the external field is of order $\delta^{15/8}g_2(\delta)$ with $g_2(\delta) \to \infty$, then the interface degenerates to a boundary arc.

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. The near critical random bond ising model via embedding deformation

    math.PR 2025-09 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A new embedding-deformation method proves conformal invariance of the near-critical random bond Ising model for coupling fluctuations up to n^-1/3, far beyond the deterministic n^-1 window.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [7]

    Discrete complex analysis on isoradial graphs

    Dmitry Chelkak and Stanislav Smirnov. Discrete complex analysis on isoradial graphs. Advances in Mathematics, 228:1590–1630, 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [11]

    C orrelations of primary fields in the critical Ising model

    Dmitry Chelkak, Cl´ ement Hongler, and Konstantin Izyurov. C orrelations of primary fields in the critical Ising model. arXiv:2103.10263, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  3. [21]

    Pivotal, cluster and interface measures for critical planar percolation

    Christophe Garban, Gabor P´ ete, and Oded Schramm. Pivotal, cluster and interface measures for critical planar percolation. Journal of the American Mathematical Society , 26:939–1024, 2013. 27

    work page 2013

  4. [2]

    Federico Camia, Christophe Garban, and Charles M. Newman. Plan ar Ising magnetization field I. Unique- ness of the critical scaling limit. Annals of Probability , 43:528–571, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [1]

    Near-cr itical dimers and massive SLE

    Nathana¨ el Berestycki and Levi Haunschmid-Sibitz. Near-cr itical dimers and massive SLE. arXiv:2203.15717, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  6. [3]

    Conformal Mea sure Ensembles for percolation and the FK–Ising model

    Federico Camia, Ren´ e Conijn, and Demeter Kiss. Conformal Mea sure Ensembles for percolation and the FK–Ising model. In Sojourns in Probability Theory and Statistical Physics - II , pages 44–89. Springer, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [4]

    Federico Camia, Jianping Jiang, and Charles M. Newman. FK–Ising c oupling applied to near-critical planar models. Stochastic Processes and their Applications , 130:560–583, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [5]

    Federico Camia, Jianping Jiang, and Charles M. Newman. Exponent ial decay for the near-critical scaling limit of the planar Ising model. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 73:1371–1405, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 41 references
  1. [6]

    Planar Ising model at criticality: state-of-the- art and perspectives

    Dmitry Chelkak. Planar Ising model at criticality: state-of-the- art and perspectives. In Proceedings of the ICM, pages 2819–2846, 2018

    2018

  2. [8]

    On the convergence of massive loop -erased random walks to massive SLE(2) curve

    Dmitry Chelkak and Yijun Wan. On the convergence of massive loop -erased random walks to massive SLE(2) curve. Electronic Journal of Probability , 26:1–35, 2021

    2021

  3. [9]

    Con- vergence of Ising interfaces to Schramm’s SLE curves

    Dmitry Chelkak, Hugo Duminil-Copin, Cl´ ement Hongler, Antti Kem ppainen, and Stanislav Smirnov. Con- vergence of Ising interfaces to Schramm’s SLE curves. Comptes rendus de l’Acad´ emie des Sciences, 352: 157–161, 2014

    2014

  4. [10]

    Conn ection probabilities in topological ractangles for the critical planar FK-Ising model

    Dmitry Chelkak, Hugo Duminil-Copin, and Cl´ ement Hongler. Conn ection probabilities in topological ractangles for the critical planar FK-Ising model. Electronic Journal of Probability , 21:1–28, 2016

    2016

  5. [12]

    Univ ersality of spin correlations in the Ising model on isoradial graphs

    Dmitry Chelkak, Konstantin Izyurov, and R´ emy Mahfouf. Univ ersality of spin correlations in the Ising model on isoradial graphs. Annals of Probability , 51:840–898, 2023

    2023

  6. [13]

    Graphical representations for Ising and Potts models in general external fields

    Leandro Cioletti and Roberto Vila. Graphical representations for Ising and Potts models in general external fields. Journal of Statistical Physics , 162:81–122, 2016

    2016

  7. [14]

    SLE and the free field: partition functions and couplings

    Julien Dub´ edat. SLE and the free field: partition functions and couplings. Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 22:995–1054, 2009

    2009

  8. [15]

    Parafermionic observables and their applications to plana r statistical physics models

    Hugo Duminil-Copin. Parafermionic observables and their applications to plana r statistical physics models . Ensaios Matematicos, 2013

    2013

  9. [16]

    100 years of the (critical) Ising model on the hypercubic lattice

    Hugo Duminil-Copin. 100 years of the (critical) Ising model on the hypercubic lattice. arXiv:2208.00864, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Connect ion probabilities and RSW-type bounds for the two-dimensional FK-Ising model

    Hugo Duminil-Copin, Cl´ ement Hongler, and Pierre Nolin. Connect ion probabilities and RSW-type bounds for the two-dimensional FK-Ising model. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 64:1165–1198, 2011

    2011

  11. [18]

    Edwards and Alan D

    Robert G. Edwards and Alan D. Sokal. Generalization of the Fort uin-Kasteleyn-Swendsen-Wang repre- sentation and Monte Carlo algorithm. Physical Review D , 38:2009–2012, 1988

    2009

  12. [19]

    Statistical Mechanics of Lattice Systems: A Concrete Mathe matical Intro- duction

    Sacha Friedli and Yvan Velenik. Statistical Mechanics of Lattice Systems: A Concrete Mathe matical Intro- duction. Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  13. [20]

    A tightness crite rion for random fields, with application to the Ising model

    Marco Furlan and Jean-Christophe Mourrat. A tightness crite rion for random fields, with application to the Ising model. Electronic Journal of Probability , 22:1–29, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    The sca ling limits of near-critical and dynamical percolation

    Christophe Garban, G´ abor Pete, and Oded Schramm. The sca ling limits of near-critical and dynamical percolation. Journal of the European Mathematical Society , 20:1195–1268, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Imaginary mu ltiplicative chaos: moments, regularity and connections to the Ising model

    Janne Junnila, Eero Saksman, and Christian Webb. Imaginary mu ltiplicative chaos: moments, regularity and connections to the Ising model. Annals of Applied Prbability , 5:2099–2164, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Limits of conformal images and conformal images of limits for planar random curves

    Alex Karrila. Limits of conformal images and conformal images of limits for planar random curves. L’Enseignement Math´ ematique, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Schramm–Loewner Evolution

    Antti Kemppainen. Schramm–Loewner Evolution. SpringerBriefs in Mathematical Physics. Springer, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Random curves, scalin g limits and Loewner evolutions

    Antti Kemppainen and Stanislav Smirnov. Random curves, scalin g limits and Loewner evolutions. Annals of Probability, 45:698–779, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Lawler, Oded Schramm, and Wendelin Werner

    Greg F. Lawler, Oded Schramm, and Wendelin Werner. Conforma l invariance of planar loop-erased random walks and uniform spanning trees. Annals of Probability , 32:939–995, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    Gregory F. Lawler. Conformally Invariant Processes in the Plane . Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, 2005

    2005

  21. [29]

    Off-critical lattice models and masive SLEs , pages 362–371

    Nikolai Makarov and Stanislav Smirnov. Off-critical lattice models and masive SLEs , pages 362–371. 2010

    2010

  22. [30]

    Asymmetry of near-critical pe rcolation interfaces

    Pierre Nolin and Wendelin Werner. Asymmetry of near-critical pe rcolation interfaces. Journal of the American Mathematical Society , 22:797–819, 2009

    2009

  23. [31]

    Massive SLE4 and the scaling limit of the massive harmonic explorer

    L´ eonie Papon. Massive SLE4 and the scaling limit of the massive harmonic explorer. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Massive SLE 4, massive CLE 4 and the massive planar GFF

    L´ eonie Papon. Massive SLE 4, massive CLE 4 and the massive planar GFF. arXiv:2312.11180, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S.C. Park. On isomonodromic deformation of massive Ising spinor s. arXiv:2211.13468, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    S.C. Park. Convergence of fermionic observables in the massive planar FK-Ising model. Communications in mathematical physics , 396:1071–1133, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Boundary Behaviour of Conformal Maps

    Christian Pommerenke. Boundary Behaviour of Conformal Maps . Grundlehren der mathematischen Wis- senschaften. Springer, 1992

    1992

  28. [36]

    Scaling limits of loop-erased random walks and unif orm spanning trees

    Oded Schramm. Scaling limits of loop-erased random walks and unif orm spanning trees. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 118:221–288, 2000

    2000

  29. [37]

    Harmonic explorer and its con vergence to SLE 4

    Oded Schramm and Scott Sheffield. Harmonic explorer and its con vergence to SLE 4. Annals of Probability, 33:2127–2148, 2005

    2005

  30. [38]

    Contour lines of the two-dime nsional discrete Gaussian free field

    Oded Schramm and Scott Sheffield. Contour lines of the two-dime nsional discrete Gaussian free field. Acta Mathematica, 202:21–137, 2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    A contour line of the continuu m Gaussian free field

    Oded Schramm and Scott Sheffield. A contour line of the continuu m Gaussian free field. Probability Theory and Related Fields , 157:47–80, 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    Critical percolation in the plane: conformal in variance, Cardy’s formula, scaling limits

    Stanislav Smirnov. Critical percolation in the plane: conformal in variance, Cardy’s formula, scaling limits. Comptes Rendus de l’Acad´ emie des Sciences, 333:239–244, 2001

    2001

  33. [41]

    Alternating arm exponents for the critical planar Ising model

    Hao Wu. Alternating arm exponents for the critical planar Ising model. Annals of Probability, 46:2863–2907, 2018. 28

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.