Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 47 references

The GKNS quadrangular random surface, equivalent to two mutually constrained percolation processes, shifts the percolation critical point to 0.4851(13) and the exponents to ν=1.588(17) and γ=2.83(2), defining a universality class absent fro

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 13:03 UTC pith:KXDYZZUU

load-bearing objection Worth reading for the DQ/GQ ensembles; the percolation universality claim is not yet supported. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19221 v1 pith:KXDYZZUU submitted 2026-07-21 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.dis-nnhep-th

Statistical properties of quadrangular surfaces

Hrant Topchyan , Rudik Badalyan , Ara Sedrakyan This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.dis-nnhep-th MSC 82B4382B4105C8060J1083C27
keywords random surfacesquadrangulationsdynamical triangulationspercolation universalitycritical exponentsHausdorff dimensionMarkov chainsdiscrete quantum gravity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper sets out to classify random surfaces built from quadrangles rather than triangles. It claims that the GKNS construction, defined by randomly squashing a quadrangle along a diagonal, is equivalent to two mutually exclusive percolation processes on dual lattices, and that the coupling between the two sectors changes the critical behavior: the critical point moves from 1/2 to 0.4851(13), with correlation-length exponent ν=1.588(17) and cluster-size exponent γ=2.83(2), both distinct from ordinary percolation. The paper introduces two Markov-chain ensembles, DQ and GQ, and shows that DQ reproduces the geometric universality class of dynamical triangulations (Hausdorff dimension ≈ 4, exponential degree distribution), while GQ has the same global dimension but a scale-free degree distribution. GKNS surfaces instead have an asymptotic Hausdorff dimension near 2. If these claims hold, quadrangular random surfaces are not a single generalization of triangulations: they contain at least three distinct classes of random geometry, one of which may support a new family of noncritical string theories.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the GKNS random surface, built by squashing quadrangles with random diagonal merging, is equivalent to two mutually constrained percolation processes on dual partitions: occupying a link in one partition prevents its dual in the other. Numerical analysis of area S=2.5e7 surfaces gives critical point p0=0.4851(13), correlation-length exponent ν=1.588(17), and cluster-size exponent γ=2.83(2), deviating from ordinary percolation's 4/3 and 43/18, and interpreted as a new universality class. Distance statistics yield GKNS asymptotic Hausdorff dimension ≈2, while DQ and GQ approach ≈4. DQ resembles dynamical triangulations; GQ has a broad degree distribution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the diagonal-squishing operation A_η (and its inverse A†), which merges two diagonal-opposite nodes of a quadrangle and, in the percolation-lattice representation, is equivalent to 'highlighting' one dual link while eliminating its counterpart. The GKNS ensemble is therefore exactly two mutually constrained percolation processes, and the paper studies that coupled percolation through the bounding-box reach distribution F_d(d) and the cluster-size distribution F_s(s), extracting the correlation length ξ_p and characteristic cluster size s_p. For the DQ and GQ ensembles, the machinery is the area-preserving link rotation R and the independent (A, A†) moves, which for

Load-bearing premise

The claimed new critical exponents rest on a single-lattice-size numerical fit using a nonstandard 'bounding-box reach' correlation-length observable, with no calibration run showing that the same pipeline recovers ordinary percolation exponents; if that observable is biased, the new-universality-class conclusion collapses.

What would settle it

Run the same bounding-box-reach fitting pipeline on ordinary square-lattice bond percolation (p0 = 1/2) at comparable lattice sizes: if it does not reproduce ν = 4/3 and γ = 43/18, the observable is biased and the GKNS deviations are unestablished. Alternatively, simulate GKNS surfaces at substantially larger areas (S ≥ 10^8) and check whether ν and γ remain near 1.588 and 2.83 or drift toward the ordinary percolation values.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the GKNS universality claim is correct, random quadrangulations do not form a single universality class: GKNS stands apart from both ordinary percolation and dynamical triangulations.
  • DQ is compatible with the established dynamical-triangulation class (exponential degree distribution, Δ_H ≈ 4), making it a safe quadrangular analogue for standard discrete 2D quantum gravity studies.
  • GQ has Δ_H ≈ 4 but a scale-free degree distribution, so the global Hausdorff dimension alone is insufficient to identify a geometric universality class.
  • GKNS surfaces have large-scale scaling S ∝ D^2, placing them in the same Hausdorff-dimension bracket as causal dynamical triangulations, although the paper stresses that additional observables are required to establish a stronger correspondence.
  • The measured critical point p0 = 0.4851(13), deviating from the naively self-dual value 1/2, indicates that the constraint between the two percolation sectors is a relevant perturbation that changes critical exponents, not merely a finite-size effect.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: if the GKNS coupled-percolation picture is the correct description, the two sectors' order parameters should be anticorrelated; measuring the joint cluster-size distribution would test the mutual-exclusion mechanism directly.
  • Editorial extension: a hyperscaling check is a natural next step—ordinary percolation in 2D satisfies scaling relations linking ν, γ, and the cluster fractal dimension, so one could test whether the GKNS exponents obey the same relations or require modifications.
  • Editorial extension: the paper's own crossover analysis suggests a double-scaling test—taking S → ∞ and p → p0 with S/S0(p) fixed and checking whether the crossover scale S0 diverges would determine whether the p-dependent effective short-scale dimension is a genuine second thermodynamic limit or a pre-asymptotic artifact.
  • Editorial extension: a spectral-dimension measurement on GKNS surfaces would help distinguish whether Δ_H ≈ 2 corresponds to a smooth two-dimensional geometry or to a branched-polymer-like structure, since both can share the same Hausdorff dimension.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies three ensembles of random quadrangular surfaces: GKNS, dynamical quadrangulation (DQ), and general quadrangulation (GQ). It presents a unified graph-theoretic framework and establishes relations among the elementary moves defining these ensembles. The central physical claim is that GKNS percolation has critical point p0=0.4851(13) and exponents ν=1.588(17), γ=2.83(2), deviating from ordinary percolation (ν=4/3, γ=43/18), and that GKNS surfaces have asymptotic Hausdorff dimension near 2, whereas DQ and GQ have near 4. The paper concludes that GKNS and GQ define new universality classes with no DT counterpart, possibly providing a geometric framework for new noncritical string theories. Secondary results include scaling of DQ and GQ mixing/relaxation times (Eq. 5), degree distributions and correlations, and diameter scaling.

Significance. If the central GKNS universality-class claim is correct, the paper genuinely extends the taxonomy of two-dimensional random geometry and connects percolation processes to random-surface measures, with possible implications for noncritical string theory and the IQHE plateau transition. The graph-theoretic decomposition of GKNS, DQ, and GQ moves is a useful conceptual contribution, and the numerical survey of three ensembles is valuable. The authors are also candid about several limitations. However, the headline GKNS result rests on a single lattice size and an uncalibrated correlation-length observable; the paper itself concedes in Sec. III D that the data do not establish a second thermodynamic limit. The result is therefore promising but not yet demonstrated at the level claimed in the abstract and conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A, Fig. 6] The claim that GKNS percolation defines a new universality class rests entirely on fits of ξ_p and s_p from one lattice area S=2.5×10^7. No finite-size scaling is reported, and no control simulation on ordinary percolation is shown to demonstrate that the bounding-box 'reach' observable F_d(d)∝e^{−d/ξ_p} recovers ν=4/3 and γ=43/18. The measured p0=0.4851(13) is about 3% below the self-dual value 1/2; at a single size this is the expected signature of a finite-size shift. Without a control run and at least two independent sizes or observables, the deviations ν=1.588(17) and γ=2.83(2) cannot be separated from artifacts of the reach statistic, the fitting window, or boundary effects. This is load-bearing for the universality-class conclusion.
  2. [Sec. III D and Conclusion] The text explicitly states that 'the presented data do not singlehandedly demonstrate the existence of two thermodynamic limits at criticality' and that for fixed p>p0 the exponent Δ< is a pre-asymptotic effective dimension while Δ>=2 determines the thermodynamic limit. The abstract and final paragraph nevertheless say the results 'demonstrate' that GKNS and GQ define distinct universality classes with no DT counterpart. For GQ, only the degree distribution clearly differs from DT; the global Hausdorff dimension is the same (≈4). The evidence for a distinct GQ class is therefore weaker than the wording implies. I recommend rewording the claims and stating explicitly which observable distinguishes GQ from DT in the thermodynamic limit.
  3. [Sec. III B 3, Eq. (5)] The mixing and relaxation time scalings are quoted as t_mix^DQ ≈ 4.2·S^1.34, t_rel^DQ ≈ 15·S^1.08, t_mix^GQ ≈ 0.95·S^1.25, t_rel^GQ ≈ 1.6·S^1.03, with no uncertainties on the exponents or prefactors. No fitting procedure or range is described, and the NetLSD zero-crossing definition of t_mix is calibrated only internally. Because these numbers are used to choose sampling intervals (t≥2t_mix, Δt=2t_rel) and are presented as quantitative results, the manuscript should provide error estimates and a description of the fitting protocol.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table I caption] The caption writes P(k)∝k^{β_k} while the text defines P(k)∝k^{−β_k}; the sign in the exponent should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption refers to the 'PN representation'; this should be 'PL representation' (percolation lattice).
  3. [Conclusion, final paragraph] The sentence 'GKNS surfaces possess an asymptotic Hausdorff dimension close to Δ_DQ^H≈2' appears to contain a typo: it should read Δ_GKNS^H≈2.
  4. [Sec. III B 3] The iterative self-consistency of t_mix through δh is acknowledged, but the manuscript does not report how quickly the iteration converges or how many iterations were used; please add this practical detail.
  5. [Sec. III C 2] The statement that h_τ=0 after τ≳S is stated without derivation or reference; it would be useful to justify or cite this cutoff.
  6. [Sec. III C 3] The crossover fit of Eq. (9) reports large uncertainties for Δ< and D0; the authors should state the fitting ranges and whether the crossover parameters are stable under changing the fit window.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claims are numerical measurements of the defined ensembles, compared against external literature values.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims—GKNS percolation critical point and exponents, DQ/GQ mixing and relaxation scaling, degree distributions, and Hausdorff dimensions—are obtained by direct numerical simulation and fitting of the ensembles defined in Section II. The mapping of GKNS to two mutually constrained percolation processes is a graph-theoretic rewriting of the A_eta operation (Section II B 1), not a result that presupposes the measured critical behavior. The values p0=0.4851(13), nu=1.588(17), and gamma=2.83(2) are extracted from fits to simulated F_d(d) and F_s(s) distributions and are compared to ordinary percolation's known nu=4/3 and gamma=43/18; no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction. Self-citations [17,18,19,26] supply the GKNS model definition and antecedent IQHE context, but the new universality-class conclusion rests on the simulations reported here, not on those references alone. The paper explicitly flags two internal caveats: the iterative self-consistency of t_mix (Section III B 3) and the statement that the data do not by themselves demonstrate two thermodynamic limits (Section III D). These are methodological limitations, not circular reductions. The lack of a calibration run of the 'reach' observable on ordinary percolation is a validation concern, but it is not an instance of a derivation reducing to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes two new ensembles and a set of numerical characterizations, but every headline number (critical exponents, Hausdorff dimensions, mixing-time scaling) is a fit parameter obtained from simulations. The analytical input consists of graph-theoretic decompositions and the prior GKNS-percolation mapping; the main 'axiom' burden is the uncalibrated and single-size numerical pipeline.

free parameters (9)
  • GKNS percolation critical point p0 = 0.4851(13)
    Fitted from Fig. 6; central to new-universality claim; no self-duality argument given to explain deviation from 1/2.
  • percolation correlation-length exponent ν = 1.588(17)
    Fitted from ξ_p ∝ (p0−p)^−ν, Fig. 6; differs from ordinary percolation 4/3.
  • cluster-size divergence exponent γ = 2.83(2)
    Fitted from s_p ∝ (p0−p)^−γ, Fig. 6; differs from ordinary percolation 43/18.
  • degree-distribution parameters β_k and k0 = β_k=1.64–1.66 (GKNS), 0.52 (DQ), 1.88 (GQ); k0=20–431 (GKNS), 5.49 (DQ), 31.4 (GQ)
    Fit to P(k) in Fig. 9; supports scale-free versus exponential classification.
  • degree-correlation exponent β_c = 2.47–2.61 (GKNS), 1.92 (DQ), 2.04 (GQ)
    Fit to C_k(d) ∝ d^{−β_c}; limited to d≤20.
  • distance-multiplicity exponent φ = 1.06–1.12 (GKNS), 2.87 (DQ), 3.00 (GQ)
    Fit to n(d) ∝ d^φ; Δ_H = φ+1.
  • diameter-scaling parameters Δ<, Δ>, D0 = See Table II (e.g., GKNS Δ>=2.04(14), DQ Δ>=4.1(4), GQ Δ>=4.7(8))
    Fit to ansatz Eq. 9; alternative Hausdorff estimate.
  • mixing/relaxation time scaling coefficients and exponents = t_mix≈4.2 S^1.34, t_rel≈15 S^1.08 (DQ); t_mix≈0.95 S^1.25, t_rel≈1.6 S^1.03 (GQ)
    Power-law fits to Fig. 8; no error bars reported.
  • GKNS Δ< divergence exponent ζ = 0.61(5)
    Fit to Eq. 10; relates pre-asymptotic dimension to criticality.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Random triangulations (and by extension quadrangulations) provide the discrete definition of 2D quantum gravity and noncritical string theory
    Sec I; inherited from [1–9]; motivates relevance but not used in calculations.
  • domain assumption The GKNS operation A is equivalent to two mutually constrained percolation processes on dual lattices with occupation probability p
    Sec II B 1; mapping from [17] and used as the basis for the percolation analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper The bounding-box 'reach' cumulative distribution F_d(d)∝e^{−d/ξ_p} defines the percolation correlation length
    Sec III A; no derivation or calibration against standard percolation; load-bearing for ν and p0.
  • ad hoc to paper Short-range dual-edge exclusion between the two percolation sectors can change the percolation universality class
    Sec III A/IV; asserted from the measured exponents; no analytical argument; contrasts with standard short-range-correlation universality.
  • standard math Distance multiplicity scales as n(d)∝d^φ and Δ_H=φ+1
    Sec III C 2; standard continuum relation V(d)∼d^{ΔH}.
  • domain assumption DQ and GQ Markov chains are irreducible and aperiodic on the accessible subspace
    Sec III B 2; argued informally via 2- and 3-step return sequences.
  • ad hoc to paper NetLSD observable deviations δh_τ and their zero-crossing quantile measure mixing time
    Sec III B 3; heuristic proxy; self-consistency acknowledged by the authors.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14130 in / 19466 out tokens · 181634 ms · 2026-08-01T13:03:07.678527+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the statistical properties of random quadrangular surfaces generated by different randomization procedures: the Gruzberg-Kl\"umper-Nuding-Sedrakyan (GKNS) construction, and two newly introduced generalizations of dynamical triangulations (DT), dynamical (DQ) and general quadrangulations (GQ). We formulate these surfaces within a unified graph-theoretic framework and establish the relationships between the elementary operations defining the different ensembles. For GKNS surfaces, we demonstrate that the construction is equivalent to two mutually constrained percolation processes and determine the associated critical point and critical exponents, revealing deviations from ordinary percolation. For DQ and GQ, we analyze the underlying Markov chains and determine the scaling of mixing and relaxation times. We further analyze all three ensembles through their degree distributions, degree correlations, distance statistics, and Hausdorff dimensions. While DQ exhibits exponentially decaying degree distributions and geometric properties similar to DT, GKNS and GQ display broad, scale-free degree distributions. Moreover, GKNS surfaces possess an asymptotic Hausdorff dimension $\Delta_H\approx 2$, whereas DQ and GQ approach $\Delta_H\approx 4$, similarly to DT. This indicates that DQ is compatible with the universal behavior of DT, while GKNS and GQ define distinct classes of random geometry, implying a different underlying measure in the space of random surfaces and a possible geometric framework for a new class of noncritical string theories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19221 by Ara Sedrakyan, Hrant Topchyan, Rudik Badalyan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The representations of random surfaces. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The surface modifications in different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The decompositions of operations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The bipartite (red and blue points) dSN surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The determination of critical point position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The dependence of the autocorrelation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The scaling of mixing and relaxation times of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The degree distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The scaling of surface area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fig.9. The data is collected over 100 independent surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    squishes

    GKNS surface The GKNS random surface was defined [17] in a study of the Integer quantum Hall effect to properly capture the randomness of the medium [17, 19], which solved the theory-experiment discrepancy [17, 18]. It is a modifi- cation of a regular scattering network by performing a certain operationAon each scattering node equivalent to making the cor...

  2. [2]

    Dynamical quadrangulation Here, we define dynamical quadrangulation (DQ) as an alternative way of generating random quadrangular sur- faces. It is a generalization of dynamical triangulation (DT) [1–3], which is based on a link rotation operation on a triangular surface: for any two adjacent triangles A† (2) − − − → A − → (a) The operationRin terms ofAand...

  3. [3]

    It can be shown that operationsA,A † (n) andRcan 4 FIG

    Common basis The operationsA † can be classified by the degrees of the split nodes:A †-s slitting ann+m-degree node into degreesn+ 1 andm+ 1 will be calledA † (n) (orA † (m)). It can be shown that operationsA,A † (n) andRcan 4 FIG. 4: The bipartite (red and blue points) dSN surface (black lines), the diagonalsη 0 (dashed) andη ′ (solid) (red lines), the c...

  4. [4]

    In an attempt to define a surface that is obtained via area preserving operations as in DQ but also preserves the properties of GKNS, we further define general quadrangulation (GQ)

    General quadrangulation As we shall see later, the GKNS and DQ surfaces are substantially different. In an attempt to define a surface that is obtained via area preserving operations as in DQ but also preserves the properties of GKNS, we further define general quadrangulation (GQ). As we have already seen (Fig.3a), the operationRof DQ can be expressed as ...

  5. [5]

    reach” of at leastd.F d(d) is ex- pected to decay exponentially asF d(d)∝e −d/ξp where ξp defines the correlation length [21]. For each node, one can define its “reach

    Then each cluster is enclosed by a bounding box whose boundaries are defined by the minimum and maximum coordinates of its contained nodes. In regular percolation on an infinite lattice, an infinite cluster (a cluster with a divergent bounding box) emerges at the critical point p0,r = 1/2 [20, 21]. The correlation between the two partitions of our case ca...

  6. [6]

    It is the process of ob- taining a random ensemble through repeatedly acting on some state by a predefined set of operations

    Markov chains The procedure for obtaining a random DQ or GQ sur- face is defined as a Markov chain. It is the process of ob- taining a random ensemble through repeatedly acting on some state by a predefined set of operations. A Markov chain [22] is a method of sampling from an ensemble of an unknown measure over some space by defining its in- variance pro...

  7. [7]

    Ergodicity The chains for which the equilibrium ensembleG (∞) exists and is unique are called ergodic. The chain is er- godic if it is irreducible (all elements of the space can be connected by the chain) and aperiodic (there is not 0 >1 such that returning to the same element is possible only at multiples oft 0). Generally, the discussed chains are not i...

  8. [8]

    total variation distance

    Mixing and relaxation times Important properties of a Markov chain are mixing and relaxation times. The mixing timet mix of a chain is when ||G(tmix), G(∞)||becomes small enough according to some notion of distance||G a, Gb||between the ensembles. Usu- ally||G 1, G2||is defined as the “total variation distance” which is TVD(Ga, Gb) = P g |pa g −p b g|/2 a...

  9. [9]

    It has been shown to play a crucial role in the critical behavior of physical systems [14, 26]

    Degree distribution and correlations The degree distribution is an important characteris- tic of a random surface. It has been shown to play a crucial role in the critical behavior of physical systems [14, 26]. Another relevant property is the degree-degree correlation which is a key factor for understanding the clustering properties of the surface [27, 2...

  10. [10]

    diameter

    Hausdorff dimension To study surface scaling, we introduce the notion of distance multiplicityn(d) [29]. It shows the average num- ber of nodes at a given distancedfrom a node. In the continuous regular extension,n(d) is the surface area of a sphere of radiusd. It is reasonable to expect a power-law dependence n(d)∝d φ (7) for large distances on an infini...

  11. [11]

    Numerical data for diame- terDare collected for several values of surface areaSfor GKNS, DQ, and GQ random surfaces with 100−1000 independent realizations each

    Diameter The connection between the surface area and the di- ameter provides an alternative pathway for determining the Hausdorff dimension ∆H . Numerical data for diame- terDare collected for several values of surface areaSfor GKNS, DQ, and GQ random surfaces with 100−1000 independent realizations each. The data presented in Fig.10 reveals a crossover of...

  12. [12]

    Ambjørn, B

    J. Ambjørn, B. Durhuus, and J. Fr¨ ohlich, Diseases of triangulated random surface models, and possible cures, Nuclear Physics B257, 433 (1985)

    1985

  13. [13]

    David, A model of random surfaces with non-trivial critical behaviour, Nuclear Physics B257, 543–576 (1985)

    F. David, A model of random surfaces with non-trivial critical behaviour, Nuclear Physics B257, 543–576 (1985)

    1985

  14. [14]

    Kazakov, Bilocal regularization of models of random surfaces, Physics Letters B150, 282–284 (1985)

    V. Kazakov, Bilocal regularization of models of random surfaces, Physics Letters B150, 282–284 (1985)

    1985

  15. [15]

    A. M. Polyakov, Quantum geometry of bosonic strings, Physics Letters B103, 207 (1981)

    1981

  16. [16]

    A. M. Polyakov,Gauge Fields and Strings(Harwood Academic Publishers, 1987)

    1987

  17. [17]

    V. G. Knizhnik, A. M. Polyakov, and A. B. Zamolod- chikov, Fractal structure of 2d quantum gravity, Modern Physics Letters A3, 819 (1988)

    1988

  18. [18]

    Distler and H

    J. Distler and H. Kawai, Conformal field theory and 2d quantum gravity, Nuclear Physics B321, 509 (1989)

    1989

  19. [19]

    David, Conformal field theories coupled to 2d gravity in the conformal gauge, Modern Physics Letters A3, 1651 (1988)

    F. David, Conformal field theories coupled to 2d gravity in the conformal gauge, Modern Physics Letters A3, 1651 (1988)

    1988

  20. [20]

    Ambjørn, B

    J. Ambjørn, B. Durhuus, and T. J´ onsson,Quantum Ge- ometry: A Statistical Field Theory Approach(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    1997

  21. [21]

    Duplantier and I

    B. Duplantier and I. K. Kostov, Conformal spectra of polymers on random surfaces, Physical Review Letters 61, 1430 (1988)

    1988

  22. [22]

    Kostov, Random surfaces, solvable lattice models and discrete quantum gravity in two dimensions, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements10, 295–322 (1989)

    I. Kostov, Random surfaces, solvable lattice models and discrete quantum gravity in two dimensions, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements10, 295–322 (1989)

    1989

  23. [23]

    Duplantier, Statistical mechanics of polymer networks of any topology, Journal of Statistical Physics54, 581 (1989)

    B. Duplantier, Statistical mechanics of polymer networks of any topology, Journal of Statistical Physics54, 581 (1989)

    1989

  24. [24]

    Botsch, L

    M. Botsch, L. Kobbelt, M. Pauly, P. Alliez, and B. Levy, Polygon Mesh Processing(A K Peters/CRC Press, 2010)

    2010

  25. [25]

    Janke and M

    W. Janke and M. Weigel, Harris-luck criterion for random lattices, Phys. Rev. B69, 144208 (2004)

    2004

  26. [26]

    F. J. Wegner, Duality in generalized ising models and phase transitions without local order parameters, Journal of Mathematical Physics12, 2259 (1971)

    1971

  27. [27]

    K. G. Wilson and J. Kogut, The renormalization group and the epsilon expansion, Physics Reports12, 75 (1974)

    1974

  28. [28]

    I. A. Gruzberg, A. Kl¨ umper, W. Nuding, and A. Se- drakyan, Geometrically disordered network models, quenched quantum gravity, and critical behavior at quan- tum hall plateau transitions, Phys. Rev. B95, 125414 (2017)

    2017

  29. [29]

    Topchyan, I

    H. Topchyan, I. A. Gruzberg, W. Nuding, A. Kl¨ umper, and A. Sedrakyan, Integer quantum hall transition: An s-matrix approach to random networks, Phys. Rev. B 110, L081112 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Conti, H

    R. Conti, H. Topchyan, R. Tateo, and A. Sedrakyan, Geometry of random potentials: Induction of two- dimensional gravity in quantum hall plateau transitions, Phys. Rev. B103, L041302 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Stauffer and A

    D. Stauffer and A. Aharony,Introduction To Percolation Theory(Taylor & Francis, 2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    Albert and A.-L

    R. Albert and A.-L. Barab´ asi, Statistical mechanics of complex networks, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 47 (2002)

    2002

  33. [33]

    D. A. Levin and Y. Peres,Markov chains and mixing times, 2nd ed. (American Mathematical Society, Provi- dence, RI, 2017)

    2017

  34. [34]

    Tsitsulin, D

    A. Tsitsulin, D. Mottin, P. Karras, A. Bronstein, and E. M¨ uller, Netlsd: Hearing the shape of a graph, in Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International 12 Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD ’18 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2018) p. 2347–2356

    2018

  35. [35]

    Ubaru, J

    S. Ubaru, J. Chen, and Y. Saad, Fast estimation of tr(f(a)) via stochastic lanczos quadrature, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications38, 1075 (2017)

    2017

  36. [36]

    Bia las, P

    P. Bia las, P. Korcyl, and T. Stebel, Analysis of autocor- relation times in neural markov chain monte carlo simu- lations, Phys. Rev. E107, 015303 (2023)

    2023

  37. [37]

    Topchyan, W

    H. Topchyan, W. Nuding, A. Kl¨ umper, and A. Se- drakyan, Harris-luck criterion in the plateau transition of the integer quantum hall effect, Phys. Rev. B111, L100201 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    M. E. J. Newman, Mixing patterns in networks, Phys. Rev. E67, 026126 (2003)

    2003

  39. [39]

    Arcagni, R

    A. Arcagni, R. Grassi, S. Stefani, and A. Torriero, Higher order assortativity in complex networks, European Jour- nal of Operational Research262, 708 (2017)

    2017

  40. [40]

    Mattila, Spherical averages of fourier transforms of measures with finite energy; dimensions of intersections and distance sets, Mathematika34, 207–228 (1987)

    P. Mattila, Spherical averages of fourier transforms of measures with finite energy; dimensions of intersections and distance sets, Mathematika34, 207–228 (1987)

    1987

  41. [41]

    Ambjørn, J

    J. Ambjørn, J. Jurkiewicz, and Y. Watabiki, On the frac- tal structure of two-dimensional quantum gravity, Nu- clear Physics B454, 313 (1995), arXiv:hep-lat/9507014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  42. [42]

    Durhuus, T

    B. Durhuus, T. Jonsson, and J. F. Wheater, The spectral dimension of generic trees, Journal of Statistical Physics 139, 859 (2010), arXiv:0908.3643 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  43. [43]

    Kawai, N

    H. Kawai, N. Kawamoto, T. Mogami, and Y. Watabiki, Transfer matrix formalism for two-dimensional quantum gravity and fractal structures of space-time, Physics Let- ters B306, 19 (1993), arXiv:hep-th/9302133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  44. [44]

    Ambjørn, J

    J. Ambjørn, J. Jurkiewicz, and R. Loll, Reconstruct- ing the universe, Physical Review D72, 064014 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0505154

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  45. [45]

    Ambjørn, T

    J. Ambjørn, T. G. Budd, and Y. Watabiki, The uni- verse from scratch, Physics Letters B728, 58 (2014), arXiv:1302.1763 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  46. [46]

    Watabiki, Construction of non-critical string field the- ory by transfer matrix formalism in dynamical triangu- lation, Nuclear Physics B441, 119 (1995), arXiv:hep- th/9401096

    Y. Watabiki, Construction of non-critical string field the- ory by transfer matrix formalism in dynamical triangu- lation, Nuclear Physics B441, 119 (1995), arXiv:hep- th/9401096

    arXiv 1995

  47. [47]

    Loll, Quantum gravity from causal dynamical trian- gulations: A review, Classical and Quantum Gravity37, 013002 (2020), arXiv:1905.08669 [hep-th]

    R. Loll, Quantum gravity from causal dynamical trian- gulations: A review, Classical and Quantum Gravity37, 013002 (2020), arXiv:1905.08669 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020