Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Top eigenpair statistics of diluted Wishart matrices

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that the average largest eigenvalue of a diluted Wishart matrix equals the critical parameter at which the population dynamics reaches stability, and that this parameter plus the stable populations yield the density of the…

desk verdict A legitimate first for top eigenpairs of diluted Wishart matrices, likely correct; the replica-symmetric ansatz is the main unproven step but doesn't sink it. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19280 v2 pith:6THDGVNC submitted 2025-01-31 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.dis-nnmath-phmath.MP

Barak Budnick , Preben Forer , Pierpaolo Vivo , Sabrina Aufiero , Silvia Bartolucci , Fabio Caccioli This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.dis-nnmath-phmath.MP MSC 60B2015B5282B44
keywords dilutedWishartmatricesreplicamethodpopulationdynamicslargesteigenvaluestatisticseigenvectorcomponentdensitysparserandomnoncentralensemblespectralgap
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 claims that the statistics of the top eigenpair of a diluted Wishart matrix $\mathbf{J} = \mathbf{X}^T \mathbf{X}$ become tractable when the data matrix $\mathbf{X}$ is sparse with bounded row and column degrees and its nonzero weights have a nonzero mean that produces an isolated largest eigenvalue. Working in the limit of large $N,M$ with fixed ratio, the authors reformulate the largest eigenvalue as a zero-temperature optimisation on the sphere and evaluate the disorder average with the replica method. The central claim is that the average largest eigenvalue $\langle\lambda_1\rangle$ equals the critical Lagrange parameter $\lambda$ that stabilises a population-dynamics algorithm solving a closed system of recursive distributional equations, and that the stable populations then give the density of the top eigenvector's components through a separate integral formula. If correct, this supplies analytical control over the top eigenpair of sparse covariance matrices, a regime where existing results were mostly confined to the average spectral density. The paper verifies the formulas against direct diagonalisation for two weight distributions and shows that the dense limit recovers the known noncentral Wishart answer.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is a replica-symmetric ansatz that represents the replicated order parameters as superpositions of an uncountable set of Gaussians with nonzero mean, parametrised by two probability densities $\pi(\omega,h)$ and $\rho(\sigma,\mu)$ (and their conjugates). A Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation turns the disorder-averaged replicated partition function into a functional integral, and a saddle-point evaluation in the limits $\beta\to\infty$ and $n\to0$ produces the closed system of recursive distributional equations (69), together with an integral constraint that fixes the Lagrange parameter $\lambda$. These equations are solved iteratively by a population-dynamics algorithm, in which $\lambda$ is tuned until the first moments of the $h$ and $\mu$ populations neither explode nor vanish; that critical $\lambda$ is the average largest eigenvalue, and the converged populations feed the formula (89) for the top eigenvector component density.

What would settle it

Run direct numerical diagonalisation for a bounded-support, nonzero-mean weight distribution not considered in the paper, such as a two-point distribution $p(K)=\frac12(\delta_{K,a}+\delta_{K,b})$, and compare the measured top eigenvalue and top eigenvector component histogram against the predictions of Eqs. (69) and (89); a systematic discrepancy beyond finite-size fluctuations would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for a diluted Wishart matrix $\mathbf{J} = \mathbf{X}^T \mathbf{X}$ with bounded row/column degrees and a nonzero-mean weight distribution $p(K)$ that generates a spectral gap, the typical largest eigenvalue is $\langle\lambda_1\rangle = \lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the unique parameter for which the recursive distributional equations (69) admit a nontrivial stable solution: the auxiliary populations $h$ and $\mu$ diverge when $\lambda$ is below the true top eigenvalue and shrink to zero when it is above. Once $\lambda$ and the stable densities $\pi(\omega,h)$ and $\rho(\sigma,\mu)$ are obtained, the density of the top eigenvector's components is given by the integral formula (89). The paper confirms these predictions numerically for $p(K)=\delta_{K,1}$ and a uniform $K\in(0,1)$, and in the dense limit recovers the noncentral Wishart result $\langle\lambda_1\rangle=\langle\tilde{K}\rangle^2$ together with full localisation of the top eigenvector.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the replica-symmetric ansatz (superpositions of Gaussians with no cross-replica terms) together with the population-dynamics stability criterion correctly encode the top eigenpair statistics; if either of these unproven steps fails, the equations (69) and (89) would not describe the true largest eigenvalue and eigenvector.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The average largest eigenvalue of a diluted Wishart matrix can be obtained from a one-parameter stability search in population dynamics, without diagonalising the matrix.
  • The same computation yields the full density of top eigenvector components, giving quantitative access to localisation and component statistics in the sparse regime.
  • Because the equations are valid for any connectivity distribution, the method applies directly to matrices with hard caps on row and column degrees, as used in the numerical checks.
  • In the dense limit, the formulas reduce to the known noncentral Wishart results: the top eigenvalue tends to $\langle\tilde{K}\rangle^2$ and the top eigenvector components concentrate at $u=1$, with the paper's conjectured Gaussian fluctuations forming a testable bridge between sparse and dense behaviour.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the replica-symmetric equations hold, the same framework could be extended to track the overlap between top eigenvectors of two coupled sparse covariance matrices by adding an external field to the replicated action, which would open a route to principal-component retrieval problems in the sparse regime.
  • The paper's stability criterion suggests a practical diagnostic that the top eigenvalue can be located by monitoring the first moment of the $h$-population alone, which may be usable as a cheap estimator in settings where full diagonalisation is infeasible.
  • The paper leaves the non-gapped regime open; a natural test is to add a zero-mean weight component and check where the formulas begin to fail, which would mark the sparse analogue of the BBP transition.
  • The dense-limit conjecture of Gaussian fluctuations, Eq. (120), is directly testable at finite $M$; if verified, it would provide a quantitative interpolation between the sparse localised regime and the dense localised regime.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a replica-method calculation of the statistics of the largest eigenvalue and the associated eigenvector for diluted Wishart matrices J = X^T X, where X is an N x M sparse matrix with independent nonzero weights drawn from p(K) and with bounded row/column degrees R and C. The average largest eigenvalue is expressed through a Lagrange parameter lambda that is identified from the stability threshold of a population-dynamics algorithm, and the full system of recursive distributional equations is given in Eq. (69). The density of the top eigenvector components is then obtained as Eq. (89). The authors validate the approach against direct numerical diagonalisation for two weight distributions (delta and uniform) over a range of sparsity parameters q, and they show that a suitable dense limit recovers the known noncentral Wishart result, with an additional conjecture on the fluctuation scale of the eigenvector components.

Significance. If the derivation is correct, this is a valuable contribution to the sparse random matrix literature, where analytical results for extreme eigenpair statistics are scarce. The paper provides explicit, numerically solvable equations, a self-contained algorithm, and nontrivial benchmarks: the recovery of the noncentral Wishart result in the dense limit, the agreement with diagonalisation in Figs. 3-4 for two qualitatively different weight distributions, and the scaling study in Fig. 2 that quantifies finite-size corrections. The conjecture in Eqs. (120)-(121) is clearly flagged as unproven and is a useful stimulus for further work. The main limitation is that the central results rest on the permutation-symmetric, cross-term-free replica ansatz, whose stability is not analysed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6, stability criterion after Eq. (69)] The replica-symmetric ansatz restricts the saddle point to superpositions of Gaussians with no cross-replica terms, and the paper itself notes that this is 'not the most general possible'. All subsequent central results—the fixed-point system (69), the identification <lambda_1> = lambda (Eq. (68)), and the eigenvector density (89)—follow from this ansatz, yet no stability analysis with respect to replica-symmetry-breaking perturbations is provided. Because the top-eigenpair problem is precisely the regime where the more restrictive rotationally invariant ansatz is known to fail (as stated in Sec. 4.3), the absence of a replicon check is a load-bearing gap. The two numerical examples are encouraging but do not cover small q near the detachment transition or signed weight distributions, where an RSB saddle point could plausibly have lower action. I recommend that the authors either perform a local stability analysis around the permutation-symmetric saddle point or provide a clear argument (or numerical evidence in previously untested regimes) that cross-replica terms cannot affect the extremal action.
  2. [Sec. 4.3 and discussion after Eq. (69)] The population dynamics algorithm terminates by asserting that the h and mu populations diverge for lambda < <lambda_1> and shrink to zero for lambda > <lambda_1>, with the critical lambda giving the desired eigenvalue (Eq. (68)). This stability criterion is essential: it is what converts the underdetermined system (69) into a predictive value of <lambda_1>. However, the criterion is not proved in the paper but deferred to [22]. Since the present manuscript aims to be self-contained and the eigenvalue prediction depends entirely on this criterion, I ask for a more explicit derivation or, at minimum, a systematic numerical demonstration of the claimed divergence/vanish dichotomy beyond the examples in Fig. 1.
  3. [Sec. 5, derivation of Eq. (89)] The replacement of the microcanonical bounded-degree model by the canonical Bernoulli model with a truncated Poisson degree distribution is invoked as a shortcut and justified by reference to Appendix B of [22]. The truncation is then used to enforce the row/column bounds R and C, which are essential for the O(1) behaviour of <lambda_1> (Appendix A). Since the equivalence of the truncated and microcanonical models is a non-trivial technical step and is load-bearing for the claim that the equations describe the bounded-degree ensemble, the paper should state precisely which parts of the argument are carried over from [22] and which are assumed, or include a self-contained justification in an appendix.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 1] In the Introduction, 'No table examples include...' should read 'Notable examples include...'.
  2. [Eq. (69)] In the displayed system (69), the third equation uses a sum with an upper limit that is not explicitly indicated as the truncation bound R, although the text explains that p_{alpha q}(s) is the truncated Poisson distribution; please make the notation uniform in the displayed equations.
  3. [Sec. 6, algorithm step (i)] The initialisation of lambda to a 'large' value uses the upper bound from Appendix A, but the algorithm's step (ix) decreases lambda by Delta; it would be useful to state explicitly how the target error tolerance Delta relates to the final uncertainty quoted as ±Delta/2.
  4. [Sec. 7, after Eq. (117)] The sentence 'This result indeed follows directly from evaluating \bar{\mu}' is terse; the connection between the normalisation condition and the value of \bar{\mu} would benefit from one additional equation or a short explanation.
  5. [Sec. 8] The paper states that its analysis does not account for finite-size corrections, but Fig. 2 shows that such corrections are ~4% at the smallest size; a brief comment on the expected scaling of these corrections with N and M would be informative.
  6. [Appendix B] In Eq. (B.4), the approximation sign is used when replacing the product by an exponential; for clarity, the condition q << sqrt(NM) and the fact that the correction is exponentially small in the large-N,M limit could be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the top-eigenvalue formula is derived from a saddle-point evaluation and independently benchmarked.

full rationale

The central result is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The parameter λ is introduced as the imaginary Lagrange multiplier enforcing the spherical constraint in Eq. (35), and the identification <λ1> = λ follows from evaluating the replicated action at the saddle point in Eqs. (66)-(68), not from fitting or from defining λ as the eigenvalue. The self-consistent system (69) determines π, ρ, and λ through stationarity conditions and the normalization constraint; the population-dynamics algorithm then finds λ as the critical value at which the populations are stable. That stability criterion is cited from prior work [22], but [22] is an independent, externally validated source, and the present paper separately checks the numerical output against direct diagonalisation in Figs. 2-4 and against the known noncentral Wishart dense limit in Section 7. The replica-symmetric ansatz in Section 4.3 is explicitly acknowledged as 'not the most general possible as it does not include cross-terms'; this is a possible correctness or rigor limitation, not circularity, because the ansatz is a stated assumption rather than an input that already contains the predicted eigenvalue or eigenvector density. The dense-limit conjecture in Eq. (120) is also explicitly labelled as a conjecture. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no derived equation reduces by definition to an input observable. Hence no significant circularity is present.

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

The derivation rests on the replica-symmetric ansatz and the population-dynamics stability criterion inherited from the authors' earlier works, plus the domain assumption of an isolated top eigenvalue. No new entities or fitted parameters are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Replica symmetric ansatz: order parameters are superpositions of Gaussians with nonzero mean, excluding cross-terms (Eqs. 31-35).
    Imported from spin glass theory and prior sparse RMT work [22-24]; not proven for this model. Invoked in Section 4.3.
  • standard math Analytic continuation of the replica index n to real values around 0.
    Standard replica trick, not rigorous; used in Eq. (9).
  • ad hoc to paper The canonical Bernoulli model (Eq. 4) can replace the microcanonical model, and the Poisson degree distribution can be truncated to enforce R and C bounds without changing the saddle point.
    Stated in Section 3 and justified by reference to Appendix B of [22]; the sums in (69) are manually truncated to R and C.
  • domain assumption Nonzero mean of p(K) guarantees an isolated largest eigenvalue with a macroscopic spectral gap.
    Stated in Section 3; the paper notes that a complete analytical characterization of the detachment transition is an open problem.
  • ad hoc to paper Population dynamics stability identifies lambda = <lambda_1>: populations diverge for lambda below and shrink for lambda above the true eigenvalue.
    Asserted based on [22]; used in Section 6 to extract the numerical value of lambda. No proof is given in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Top eigenpair statistics of diluted Wishart matrices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6THDGVNC

@misc{pith2026250119280,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Top eigenpair statistics of diluted Wishart matrices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6THDGVNC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19280}
}
abstract

Using the replica method, we compute the statistics of the top eigenpair of diluted covariance matrices of the form $\mathbf{J} = \mathbf{X}^T \mathbf{X}$, where $\mathbf{X}$ is a $N\times M$ sparse data matrix, in the limit of large $N,M$ with fixed ratio and a bounded number of nonzero entries. We allow for random non-zero weights, provided they lead to an isolated largest eigenvalue. By formulating the problem as the optimisation of a quadratic Hamiltonian constrained to the $N$-sphere at low temperatures, we derive a set of recursive distributional equations for auxiliary probability density functions, which can be efficiently solved using a population dynamics algorithm. The average largest eigenvalue is identified with a Lagrange parameter that governs the convergence of the algorithm, and the resulting stable populations are then used to evaluate the density of the top eigenvector's components. We find excellent agreement between our analytical results and numerical results obtained from direct diagonalisation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.19280 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of the first moment of the h population in absolute value, |hhi|(t), according to the population dynamics algorithm as outlined in section 6, with population size of NP = 105 and where t is measured in sweeps. The control parameters in this figure are chosen as q = 8, α = p 5/4 and p(K) = δK,1 for the left figure and p(K) = Θ(1 − K)Θ(K) for the right figure. In both figures the maximal number of nonzero el… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scaling of D λ1 E with the dimensions of the matrix X. This figure shows D λ1 E , collected from direct numerical diagonalisation of 102 realisations of J (circles), as the size of the matrix X is increased, while the ratio α = p N/M is kept fixed. The scaling parameter d is defined such that each data point was obtained using a matrix X of size (100 · d) × (80 · d). The solid blue line represents the results obtain… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We show D λ1 E as obtained by both population dynamics (solid line) and direct numerical diagonalisation (circles) as a function of q, which regulates the average density of nonzero elements in X. For this analysis, we used α = p 5/4 and set the weight distribution to (a) p(K) = δK,1, and (b) p(K) = Θ(1 − K)Θ(K). In both figures the maximal number of nonzero elements in each row is set to R = 70 and in each column t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: We compare the results for T(u), obtained from (89) (red crosses) and direct numerical diagonalisation (green circles). For this analysis, we used α = p 5/4 and set the weight distribution to (a) p(K) = δK,1, and (b) p(K) = Θ(1 − K)Θ(K) as in Fig. (3). In both figures …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Density of the top eigenvector’s components in the dense [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_5.png]

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. Localization and top eigenvalue detection

    cond-mat.dis-nn 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A positivity constraint on cavity precisions estimates the top eigenvalue of random matrices with a localized top eigenvector, validated on the Anderson model on random regular graphs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [24]

    Monasson and D

    R. Monasson and D. Villamaina, Europhysics Letters, 112, 50001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [22]

    I. M. Johnstone, The Annals of Statistics 2, 295 (2001)

    work page 2001

  3. [1]

    Contemporary data analysis challenges frequently involv e processing datasets with numerous variables and observations

    Introduction In recent decades, we have witnessed an unprecedented surge in the amount of information available for processing and forecasting, marking the e mergence of the Big Data era. Contemporary data analysis challenges frequently involv e processing datasets with numerous variables and observations. This high-dimensional na ture of data is particul...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [2]

    d iluted

    Literature review Since Wishart’s pioneering work [25], random matrix theory has played a fundamental role in multivariate statistics [26]. Results derived from random matrix models serve as crucial benchmarks for comparison with empirical data. A central focus of this field is the study of eigenvalue and eigenvector statistics, which provide in sight into...

  5. [3]

    microcanonical

    Formulation of the problem Consider the sparse N ×M matrix X, whose entries, Xij, are random variables, defined as Xij =cijKij . (1) Here, cij ∈ { 0, 1} regulates the density of non-zero elements of X and Kij represents the non-zero elements’ weights, randomly drawn from the pdf p(K). The central object of this study is the M ×M symmetric matrix Top eigenp...

  6. [4]

    rotationally invariant

    Replica analysis of the typical largest eigenvalue We begin our analysis by noting that the problem of evaluating J ’s largest eigenvalue can be formulated in terms of the Courant-Fisher maximisation λ1 = 1 M max v∈RM, |v|2=M ⟨v, J v⟩ , (5) where ⟨ ·, · ⟩ stands for the standard dot product among vectors in RM . We now introduce an auxiliary canonical par...

  7. [5]

    We begin by outlining the strategy, highlighting its similarities and differences wit h the analysis in sec

    Density of the top eigenvector’s components We now demonstrate how the results from the previous section can be applied to compute the average density of the top eigenvector’s component s for large M,N , T (u) = ⟨ 1 M M∑ i=1 δ ( u −v(i) 1 )⟩ , (70) where once again, ⟨ · ⟩ denotes averaging over different realisations of X. We begin by outlining the strateg...

  8. [6]

    Different in carnations of this algorithm have been used in a number of problems recently [22–24 , 79–81]

    Population dynamics In this section we briefly present the population dynamics algorithm [6 7, 77, 78], which can be used to numerically solve the system given by (69). Different in carnations of this algorithm have been used in a number of problems recently [22–24 , 79–81]. For a specified set of inputs q,α,p (K),R,C and a target error tolerance ∆, the algo...

Show all 92 references
  1. [7]

    The dense limit Below, we demonstrate how taking the large q limit recovers the familiar results of the noncentral Wishart ensemble, by following the same lines as in Ref. [22 ]. To ensure a finite largest eigenvalue in this limit, we rescale the bond weights as Kij = ˜Kij q , ...

  2. [8]

    Specifically, we focused on the average largest eigenvalue and the d ensity of its associated eigenvector components

    Summary and conclusions In summary, we developed a replica formalism to compute the top eige npair statistics of sparse correlation matrices of the form XT X, where the nonzero entries follow a nonzero-mean weight distribution p(K), leading to an isolated largest eigenvalue. S...

  3. [9]

    J. Fan, F. Han, and H. Liu, National Science Review 1, 293 (2014)

    2014

  4. [10]

    Jolliffe, Principal Component Analysis , Springer Series in Statistics (Springer, 2002)

    I. Jolliffe, Principal Component Analysis , Springer Series in Statistics (Springer, 2002)

    2002

  5. [11]

    James, D

    G. James, D. Witten, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani, An Introduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in R , Springer Texts in Statistics (Springer New York, 2014)

    2014

  6. [12]

    Sachs, O

    K. Sachs, O. Perez, D. Pe’er, D. A. Lauffenburger, and G. P. No lan, Science 308, 523 (2005)

    2005

  7. [13]

    A. J. Butte, P. Tamayo, D. Slonim, T. R. Golub, and I. S. Kohane, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97, 12182 (2000)

    2000

  8. [14]

    D. M. Witten, R. Tibshiran, and T. Hastie, Biostatistics 10, 515 (2009)

    2009

  9. [15]

    Deng, Y.-H

    Y. Deng, Y.-H. Jiang, Y. Yang, Z. He, F. Luo, and J. Zhou, BMC Bio informatics 13, 113 (2012)

    2012

  10. [16]

    Z. D. Kurtz, C. L. M¨ uller, E. R. Miraldi, D. R. Littman, M. J. Blaser , and R. A. Bonneau, PLOS Computational Biology 11, 1 (2015)

    2015

  11. [17]

    Levy and Y

    O. Levy and Y. Goldberg, Neural Information Processing Syste ms 27, 2177 (2014)

    2014

  12. [18]

    J. P. Bouchaud, arXiv:0903.2428 (2009)

    2009 arXiv

  13. [19]

    M. E. J. Newman, SIAM Rev. 45, 167 (2003)

    2003

  14. [20]

    J. Fan, Y. Liao, and H. Liu, The Econometrics Journal 19, C1 (2016)

    2016

  15. [21]

    S. N. Majumdar and P. Vivo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 200601 (2012)

    2012

  16. [23]

    K. V. Mardia, J. T. Kent, and J. M. Bibby, Multivariate Analysis (Academic Press, 1979)

    1979

  17. [25]

    Bai and J

    Z. Bai and J. W. Silverstein, Spectral Analysis of Large Dimensional Random Matrices (Springer New York, 2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Stoica and M

    P. Stoica and M. Cedervall, IF AC Proceedings Volumes 29, 4098 (1996)

    1996

  19. [27]

    Bianchi, M

    P. Bianchi, M. Debbah, M. Maida, and J. Najim, IEEE Transaction s on Information Theory 57, 2400 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    R. R. Nadakuditi and A. Edelman, IEEE Transactions on Signal P rocessing 56, 2625 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Nagao and T

    T. Nagao and T. Tanaka, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 4973 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    V. A. Susca, P. Vivo, and R. K¨ uhn, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 52, 485002 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    V. A. Susca, P. Vivo, and R. K¨ uhn, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54, 015004 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    V. A. Susca, P. Vivo, and R. K¨ uhn, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 33 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Wishart, Biometrika 20A, 32 (1928)

    J. Wishart, Biometrika 20A, 32 (1928)

    1928

  26. [34]

    Gupta and D

    A. Gupta and D. Nagar, Matrix Variate Distributions , Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics (Taylor & Francis, 1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    F. J. Dyson, Journal of Mathematical Physics 3, 140 (1962)

    1962

  28. [36]

    F. J. Dyson, Journal of Mathematical Physics 3, 157 (1962)

    1962

  29. [37]

    F. J. Dyson, Journal of Mathematical Physics 3, 166 (1962)

    1962

  30. [38]

    P. Vivo, S. N. Majumdar, and O. Bohigas, J. Phys. A: Math. The or. 40, 4317 (2007)

    2007

  31. [39]

    Katzav and I

    E. Katzav and I. P´ erez Castillo, Phys. Rev. E 82, 040104 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    S. N. Majumdar and M. Vergassola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 060601 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    J. A. Zavatone-Veth and C. Pehlevan, SciPost Phys. Core 6, 026 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    P. J. Forrester, Log-Gases and Random Matrices , Princeton University Press (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    Livan, M

    G. Livan, M. Novaes, and P. Vivo, Introduction to Random Matrices: Theory and Practice (Springer, 2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Rogers, I

    T. Rogers, I. P´ erez Castillo, R. K¨ uhn, and K. Takeda, Phys. Rev. E 78, 031116 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    P´ erez Castillo and F

    I. P´ erez Castillo and F. L. Metz, Phys. Rev. E 97, 032124 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    P. J. Forrester, Constr. Approx. 41, 589–613 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    K¨ uhn, J

    R. K¨ uhn, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 295002 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Rogers and I

    T. Rogers and I. P´ erez Castillo, Phys. Rev. E 79, 012101 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    Rogers, C

    T. Rogers, C. P. Vicente, K. Takeda, and I. P´ erez Castillo, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 43, 195002 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    F. L. Metz, I. Neri, and D. Boll´ e, Phys. Rev. E 82, 031135 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    F. L. Metz, I. Neri, and D. Boll´ e, Phys. Rev. E 84, 055101 (2011) Top eigenpair statistics of diluted Wishart matrices 34

    2011

  44. [52]

    Neri and F

    I. Neri and F. L. Metz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 030602 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    Boll´ e, F

    D. Boll´ e, F. L. Metz, and I. Neri, Spectral analysis, differential equations and mathematica l physics: A festschrift in honor of Fritz Gesztesy’s 60th bir thday, (Amer. Math. Soc., 2013) Chap. On the spectra of large sparse graphs with cycles, pp. 35–5 8

    2013

  46. [54]

    F. L. Metz, G. Parisi, and L. Leuzzi, Phys. Rev. E 90, 052109 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    Neri and F

    I. Neri and F. L. Metz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 224101 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    P´ ech´ e, Probab

    S. P´ ech´ e, Probab. Theory Relat. Fields143, 481 (2009)

    2009

  49. [57]

    El Karoui, Annals of Probability 35, 663 (2005)

    N. El Karoui, Annals of Probability 35, 663 (2005)

    2005

  50. [58]

    Z. Bao, G. Pan, and W. Zhou, Annals of Statistics 43, 382 (2015)

    2015

  51. [59]

    S. P. Natesh and J. Yin, Ann. Appl. Probab. 24, 935 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    Ding and F

    X. Ding and F. Yang, Ann. Appl. Probab. 28, 1679 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Barucca, M

    P. Barucca, M. Kieburg, and A. Ossipov, Europhys. Lett. 129, 60003 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    J. Y. Hwang, J. O. Lee, and W. Yang, Bernoulli 26, 2400 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    Auffinger and S

    A. Auffinger and S. Tang, Stochastic Processes and their Applic ations 126, 3310 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    J. Baik, G. Ben Arous, and S. P´ ech´ e, Ann. Probab. 33, 1643 (2005)

    2005

  57. [65]

    Bassler, P

    K. Bassler, P. Forrester, and N. Frankel, J. Math. Phys. 50, 1089 (2008)

    2008

  58. [66]

    Benaych-Georges and R

    F. Benaych-Georges and R. R. Nadakuditi, Advances in Mathem atics 227, 494 (2011)

    2011

  59. [67]

    Zamponi, ArXiv: abs/1008.4844 (2010)

    F. Zamponi, ArXiv: abs/1008.4844 (2010)

    2010 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Mezard, G

    M. Mezard, G. Parisi, and M. Virasoro, Spin Glass Theory and Beyond , Lecture Notes in Physics Series (World Scientific, 1987)

    1987

  61. [69]

    S. F. Edwards and R. C. Jones, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 9, 1595 (1976)

    1976

  62. [70]

    G. J. Rodgers and C. D. Dominicis, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 23, 1567 (1990)

    1990

  63. [71]

    Akara-pipattana and O

    P. Akara-pipattana and O. Evnin, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 58, 035006 (2025)

    2025

  64. [72]

    Biroli and R

    G. Biroli and R. Monasson, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 32, L255 (1999)

    1999

  65. [73]

    Semerjian and L

    G. Semerjian and L. F. Cugliandolo, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35, 4837 (2002)

    2002

  66. [74]

    Bianconi, ArXiv: 0804.1744 (2008)

    G. Bianconi, ArXiv: 0804.1744 (2008)

    2008 arXiv

  67. [75]

    K¨ uhn, J

    R. K¨ uhn, J. v. Mourik, M. Weigt, and A. Zippelius, J. Phys. A: Ma th. Theor. 40, 9227 (2007)

    2007

  68. [76]

    D. S. Dean, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35, L153 (2002)

    2002

  69. [77]

    F. L. Metz and D. A. Stariolo, Phys. Rev. E 92, 042153 (2015)

    2015

  70. [78]

    F. L. Metz and I. P´ erez Castillo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 104101 (2016)

    2016

  71. [79]

    F. L. Metz and I. P´ erez Castillo, Phys. Rev. B 96, 064202 (2017)

    2017

  72. [80]

    F. A. L´ opez and A. C. C. Coolen, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 065002 (2020)

    2020

  73. [81]

    Tapias, B

    D. Tapias, B. Gr¨ uger, R. K¨ uhn, and P. Sollich, arXiv preprint [2 507.07310] (2025)

    2025

  74. [82]

    Bollobas, Random Graphs, 2nd ed

    B. Bollobas, Random Graphs, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2001)

    2001

  75. [83]

    Krivelevich and B

    M. Krivelevich and B. Sudakov, Combinatorics, Probability and Co mputing 12, 51 (2001)

    2001

  76. [84]

    K¨ uhn, Acta Phys

    R. K¨ uhn, Acta Phys. Polon. B 46, 1653 (2015)

    2015

  77. [85]

    Mezard and G

    M. Mezard and G. Parisi, Eur. Phys. J. B 20, 217 (2001)

    2001

  78. [86]

    Zdeborov´ a and F

    L. Zdeborov´ a and F. Krzakala, Advances in Physics 65, 453 (2015)

    2015

  79. [87]

    K¨ uhn and T

    R. K¨ uhn and T. Rogers, Europhysics Letters 118, 68003 (2017)

    2017

  80. [88]

    K¨ uhn, Phys

    R. K¨ uhn, Phys. Rev. E 110, L032301 (2024)

    2024

  81. [89]

    Bartolucci, F

    S. Bartolucci, F. Caccioli, F. Caravelli, and P. Vivo, Proceedings o f the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 121, 40 (2024)

    2024

  82. [90]

    D. W. Lang, Phys. Rev. 135, B1082 (1964)

    1964

  83. [91]

    Jagadish, Phys

    V. Jagadish, Phys. Rev. E 90, 042144 (2014)

    2014

  84. [92]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products, 7th Edition (Academic Press, 2007)

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.