Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Scaling Limits for Ising Models on Inhomogeneous Random Graphs and Applications

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves a quenched central limit theorem for Ising linear statistics on inhomogeneous random graphs, with covariance given by the resolvent of the graphon operator.

desk verdict A strong and coherent generalization of Ising CLTs to graphon random graphs, but the main theorem's proof leans on an unreviewed companion preprint, so the result is conditional until then. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12804 v1 pith:EK7NLGYU submitted 2026-08-13 math.PR

Sanchayan Bhowal , Anirban Chatterjee , Somabha Mukherjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PR MSC 60F0560K3582B2005C8060G15
keywords IsingmodelinhomogeneousrandomgraphsgraphonquenchedcentrallimittheoremGaussianprocessnegativeSobolevspaceBayesianneuralnetworkscausalinterference
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

At high temperature, every macroscopic linear statistic of the Ising spin configuration on a graphon-generated random graph is asymptotically Gaussian, even conditional on the random graph itself. The covariance between two statistics with test functions $f$ and $g$ is $\langle f,(I-\beta T_W)^{-1}g\rangle$, where $T_W$ is the integral operator of the graphon and $\beta$ is the inverse temperature; the whole network effect is encoded by this resolvent. From this finite-dimensional theorem the paper derives a functional limit for the partial-sum process, a function-indexed central limit theorem, and convergence of the full empirical spin field in negative Sobolev spaces. The same results give explicit infinite-width Gaussian-process limits for Bayesian neural networks with Ising-coupled output signs and asymptotic normality for Hajek treatment-effect estimators under network interference.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing computation is the conditional moment-generating function of $\sigma_N(f)^2$, written as a ratio of random partition functions. Concentration results inherited from the companion paper reduce this ratio to an annealed expectation, and a rank-one determinant identity collapses the infinite eigenvalue product to $e^{t\int f^2}\sqrt{\det_2(I-\beta T_W)/\det_2(I-\beta T_W-2t|f\rangle\langle f|)}=1/\sqrt{1-2t\langle f,(I-\beta T_W)^{-1}f\rangle}$. This 2-modified Fredholm determinant identity is what turns the graphon's spectrum into the resolvent covariance; ferromagnetic correlation bounds and Kolmogorov tightness then lift the finite-dimensional statement to process and Sobolev-field convergence.

What would settle it

Simulate the high-temperature Ising model with $W\equiv1$ and sparsity $\theta_N=N^{-3/4}$ (below the paper's threshold) at $\beta=1/2$, and estimate the quenched law of $N^{-1/2}\sum_{i=1}^N\sigma_i$ across graphs. If its variance does not converge to $1/(1-\beta)=2$ or the law is not asymptotically Gaussian, the $N^{2/3}\theta_N\gtrsim1$ condition is a genuine boundary for the Gaussian limit; if it still converges, the threshold is an artifact of the proof.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Conditional on the graph adjacency matrix $A_N$, the vector $(\sigma_N(f_1),\ldots,\sigma_N(f_k))$ converges weakly in probability to $\mathcal{N}_k(0,\Sigma)$ with $\Sigma_{ij}=\langle f_i,(I-\beta T_W)^{-1}f_j\rangle$, for any Riemann-integrable $f_1,\ldots,f_k$ and $\beta\|W\|_{\mathrm{op}}<1$, $N^{2/3}\theta_N\gtrsim 1$, $\theta_N\to\theta$. The same resolvent covariance drives the partial-sum limit $X(t)=B(t)+\sum_i((1-\beta\lambda_i)^{-1/2}-1)\Phi_i(t)Z_i$ and the $H^{-s}(0,1)$-valued limit of the empirical spin field $\eta_N$ for every $s>1/2$. Explicit examples for two-block and rank-one graphons show how community structure and latent profiles imprint finite-rank corrections on the Gaussian fluctuations, and these examples feed the neural-network and causal-inference applications.

Load-bearing premise

The proof requires the random graph to stay moderately dense: $N^{2/3}\theta_N$ must remain bounded below by a positive constant, so the average degree grows at least like $N^{1/3}$; if sparsity is stronger, the concentration estimates that make the partition-function ratio converge can break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For an Erdos-Renyi graph ($W\equiv1$), the scaled magnetization converges to $\mathcal{N}(0,(1-\beta)^{-1})$ and the partial-sum process converges to $B(t)+((1-\beta)^{-1/2}-1)tB(1)$, recovering and extending the known dense-graph result.
  • For a two-block stochastic block model, the covariance is $\langle f_i,f_j\rangle+\frac{\beta(p+q)}{2-\beta(p+q)}m_i^+ m_j^+ + \frac{\beta(p-q)}{2-\beta(p-q)}m_i^- m_j^-$, so the two community eigenmodes appear as a rank-two correction to the independent-spin covariance.
  • The empirical spin field converges in $H^{-s}(0,1)$ for every $s>1/2$, so the full random field rather than only its projections has a Gaussian scaling limit.
  • A two-layer Bayesian neural network whose output signs follow the Ising measure has infinite-width Gaussian-process limits with kernel $C_a(x,y)+(q_\beta-1)m_a(x)m_a(y)$, a rank-one departure from the classical neural-network Gaussian-process kernel.
  • The Hajek estimator of the direct average treatment effect under graphon-Ising treatment assignment is asymptotically normal with variance $\kappa_2+\kappa_1^2(q_\beta-1)$, extending the Curie-Weiss analysis to inhomogeneous networks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An open question left by the paper is whether the same resolvent covariance persists when $\theta_N$ decays faster than $N^{-2/3}$; the proof's concentration estimates degrade exactly at that threshold, so the Gaussian limit in bounded-degree sparse graphs is not established here.
  • Because the covariance is written through $(I-\beta T_W)^{-1}$, the same fluctuation formalism should carry over to other mean-field spin systems whose partition functions admit the analogous rank-one perturbation identity, with the Ising-specific ferromagnetic bounds replaced by the corresponding correlation inequalities.
  • The quenched statement suggests a practical route to conditional inference on a single large network: estimate the graphon from the observed adjacency structure and use the resolvent covariance for approximate confidence sets, rather than resampling new networks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a quenched fluctuation theory for Ising models on inhomogeneous random graphs generated by graphons, in the high-temperature regime β||T_W||_{op}<1. The central result, Theorem 2.1, is a multivariate CLT for linear statistics σ_N(f_1),...,σ_N(f_k) conditional on the random graph, with limiting covariance ⟨f_i,(I−βT_W)^{-1}f_j⟩. This drives three infinite-dimensional extensions: a Donsker-type limit for the partial-sum process S_N in D[0,1] (Theorem 2.2), a function-indexed CLT over compact classes of absolutely continuous test functions (Theorem 2.3), and convergence of the empirical spin field η_N in negative Sobolev spaces H^{-s}(0,1) for s>1/2 (Theorem 2.4). The paper also derives two applications: an infinite-width Gaussian-process limit for two-layer Bayesian neural networks with Ising-dependent output-layer signs (Theorem 3.1), and asymptotic normality of Hájek estimators under network interference when treatment assignments follow the graphon Ising model (Theorem 3.2). The proofs use a rank-one perturbation analysis of the partition function, concentration of random partition functions around annealed expectations, a 2-modified Fredholm determinant identity, and moment bounds obtained from the Lebowitz inequality.

Significance. If the technical lemmas from the companion preprint [54] are correct, this is a substantial contribution: it unifies and extends known results for Erdős–Rényi and Curie–Weiss Ising models to the full graphon setting, and it provides a resolvent characterization of the limiting covariance that is both explicit and checkable in examples. The paper contains several genuinely useful auxiliary results, including the operator-norm concentration bound for graphon adjacency matrices (Lemma B.5), the quenched moment bounds (Lemma B.4), and the explicit Fredholm-determinant computation (Lemma C.2). The applications are well chosen and the recovery of known special cases — for example the ER magnetization variance 1/(1−β) and the ReLU neural-network Gaussian-process kernel at β=0 — is a genuine strength. The main limitation is that the load-bearing exponential expansions and Gaussian-chaos limits (Lemmas E.1, E.2, E.3, E.5) are delegated to an unpublished companion paper by three of the same authors, so the central result is not self-contained as submitted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1 and Appendix E] The proof of Theorem 2.1 rests on Lemmas E.1, E.2, E.3, and E.5, which are quoted from the companion preprint [54] or stated with only sketched proofs. In particular, Lemma E.3 is explicitly stated with 'proof omitted', and Lemma E.5 is justified by a cumulant sketch rather than a full proof. These lemmas are exactly what converts the conditional moment-generating function ratio in (4.4)–(4.5) into the resolvent covariance appearing in (4.10). Since [54] has three authors in common with the present paper and is itself an arXiv preprint, the central claim of Theorem 2.1 is not independently verifiable from the manuscript alone. The authors should either include complete proofs of these lemmas in an appendix or restructure the paper so that the main theorem is proved from first principles.
  2. [Assumption 1(3) and Lemma B.5] The sparsity condition N^{2/3}θ_N ≳ 1 means the expected degree grows at least like N^{1/3}, so the paper covers only moderately sparse graphs, not bounded-degree sparse graphs. This restriction is explicitly stated in Assumption 1(3) and is used in Lemma B.5 via the matrix Bernstein bound (B.26), but the abstract and the introduction describe the results as covering 'both dense and sparse graphs' without this qualification. The scope statement should be revised so that readers are not led to expect applicability in the bounded-degree regime, where the proof strategy and possibly the CLT behavior are different.
  3. [Lemma B.2 and Appendix B] Lemma B.2, which is the concentration step for the ratio of random partition functions in (4.4), relies on Lemmas E.1, E.2, E.3, and on 'the argument leading to [54, Eq. (A.51)]' and 'the proof of Lemma A.8 in [54]'. The variance bound O(1/(Nθ_N)) is the quantitative reason the conditional MGF converges to its annealed limit, so this lemma is load-bearing for Theorem 2.1. As with the companion lemmas, the dependence on [54] should be made explicit in the statement and, ideally, the proof should be included in the present paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §1.2] The abstract's phrase 'encompassing both dense and sparse graphs' should be qualified by the condition N^{2/3}θ_N ≳ 1, for example by saying 'moderately sparse graphs' or by explicitly stating the sparsity range in the abstract.
  2. [§1.2, first bullet] The first bullet states the sparsity condition as θ_N = Ω(N^{-2/3}); this is equivalent to Assumption 1(3) but the notation 'Ω' is only introduced in §1.3, so the reader meets it slightly earlier than the notation section.
  3. [Example 2] The variance computation for X_rank(1) is correct but somewhat compressed; the intermediate use of Cov(B(1), ∫_0^1 g dB) = ∫_0^1 g could be displayed for readability.
  4. [Lemma E.5] The statement says 'All three infinite series appearing in the distributional limit converge in L^2 and almost surely', but the proof only sketches the cumulant computation. For a lemma that is used in the main proof, a complete proof or a precise reference to [54] is needed; as written this is a presentation gap.
  5. [Appendix F] The Ornstein–Uhlenbeck representation is a nice addition, but the claim that U_s has the law of X for each fixed s would benefit from a one-sentence justification that the Gaussian process in (F.1) has the same covariance as X, which is already established in Lemma D.1.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Theorem 2.1's proof delegates key concentration and Gaussian-chaos lemmas to the authors' companion preprint [54]; load-bearing self-citation, but no by-construction reduction.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4.1 (proof of Theorem 2.1), Eqs. (4.4)-(4.10); Appendix B, Lemma B.2; Appendix E, Lemmas E.1-E.5]
    "The first variance bound follows directly from Lemma A.1 in [54]. ... The following result corresponds to the first part of Lemma F.1 (Eq. (F.1)) in [54]. ... The proof of the next lemma follows the argument of Lemma A.6 in [54], and is omitted."

    The proof of Theorem 2.1 reaches the pivotal MGF convergence (4.10) by combining the ratio representation (4.4) with Lemma B.2 and Lemmas E.1-E.5. Lemma B.2's first variance bound is explicitly cited to Lemma A.1 of [54]; Lemmas E.1 and E.2 are stated as parts of Lemma F.1 of [54]; Lemma E.3 is omitted with a reference to [54, Lemma A.6]; and Lemma E.5 is described as an analogue of Proposition F.1 in [54]. Since [54] is the authors' own companion preprint (Mukherjee, Bhowal, Chatterjee, and Bhattacharya), the central CLT's technical core is imported from overlapping-authored work rather than proved or independently verified in this manuscript. This is not an equation-level reduction of the conclusion to its inputs, and the lemmas are stated, but it is load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

Aside from the companion-paper delegation, the derivation chain is self-contained: the MGF ratio is a definitional identity, Lemmas B.1 and B.3 are proved in the appendix, Lemma C.2 proves the resolvent determinant identity, and the subsequential moment argument for weak convergence is standard. The sparsity condition N^{2/3} theta_N >= c is a stated scope restriction rather than a circularity; it limits the graph regime but does not make Theorem 2.1 follow from its assumptions by definition. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no self-definitional equation-level reduction is present. The only significant issue is that the pivotal auxiliary lemmas E.1, E.2, E.3, and E.5, together with the first variance bound in Lemma B.2, are taken from the authors' own companion preprint [54], with E.3's proof explicitly omitted. Because [54] is not machine-checked, code-reproduced, or independently verified here, this citation does not count as independent support under the review rules. The central claim still has genuine mathematical content and the quoted lemmas are not the target theorem itself, so the appropriate score is 4: load-bearing self-citation, but not a by-construction circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No constants are fitted to data; the inputs β, W, θ_N are model primitives satisfying Assumption 1. The paper relies on standard operator theory and on the companion paper [54] for several technical lemmas. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption High-temperature condition β||W||_op < 1
    Assumption 1(1); ensures I-βT_W is invertible and the resolvent covariance is well-defined. This is the regime of the paper.
  • domain assumption W and diag W are Riemann integrable, with ∫∫W > 0
    Assumption 1(2); used in Lemma B.5 (step-kernel approximation) and Lemma E.1 (diagonal sum expansion).
  • domain assumption Sparsity θ_N = Ω(N^{-2/3}) and θ_N → θ ∈ [0,1]
    Assumption 1(3); used in concentration bounds (Lemmas B.2, B.5, E.1, E.4).
  • ad hoc to paper Companion paper [54] lemmas are correct
    Several technical lemmas in Appendix E are quoted from [54] or their proofs omitted; the central proof of Theorem 2.1 depends on them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling Limits for Ising Models on Inhomogeneous Random Graphs and Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EK7NLGYU

@misc{pith2026260812804,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling Limits for Ising Models on Inhomogeneous Random Graphs and Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EK7NLGYU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12804}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we derive quenched scaling limits for linear functionals and the empirical spin field of Ising models on inhomogeneous random graphs generated by a graphon (encompassing both dense and sparse graphs), in the high-temperature regime. We first prove a joint central limit theorem (CLT) for finite collections of linear statistics of the spin configurations, where the limiting covariance is characterized by the resolvent of the associated graphon integral operator. Building on this result, we establish functional CLTs for the average magnetization and for the spin field indexed by suitable classes of regular test functions. We further prove convergence of the full empirical spin field, viewed as a random generalized function in negative Sobolev spaces. These scaling limits provide applications to both Bayesian neural networks and causal inference. Specifically, for the former, we derive infinite-width Gaussian-process limits for two-layer Bayesian neural networks with Ising-dependent output-layer signs, while for the latter, we establish the asymptotic normality of H\'{a}jek estimators for average treatment effects under network interference.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [54]

    Ising Models on Inhomogeneous Random Graphs: Inference, Local Asymptotic Minimaxity, and Limit of Experiments

    Somabha Mukherjee, Sanchayan Bhowal, Anirban Chatterjee, and Bhaswar B. Bhattacharya. Ising models on inhomogeneous random graphs: Inference, local asymptotic minimaxity, and limit of experiments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.07065, 2026

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [1]

    Marginal triviality of the scaling limits of critical 4D Ising andλϕ 4 4 models.Annals of Mathematics, 194(1):163–235, 2021

    Michael Aizenman and Hugo Duminil-Copin. Marginal triviality of the scaling limits of critical 4D Ising andλϕ 4 4 models.Annals of Mathematics, 194(1):163–235, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Aliprantis and Kim C

    Charalambos D. Aliprantis and Kim C. Border.Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker’s Guide. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 3 edition, 2006

    work page 2006

  4. [3]

    Carlin, and Alan E

    Sudipto Banerjee, Bradley P. Carlin, and Alan E. Gelfand.Hierarchical Modeling and Analysis for Spatial Data. Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2 edition, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [4]

    Universality of the mean-field for the Potts model

    Anirban Basak and Sumit Mukherjee. Universality of the mean-field for the Potts model. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 168(3–4):557–600, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    Causal Inference Under Network Interference

    Subhankar Bhadra and Michael Schweinberger. Causal inference under network interference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06808, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    Bhattacharya and Sumit Mukherjee

    Bhaswar B. Bhattacharya and Sumit Mukherjee. Inference in Ising models.Bernoulli, 24(1):493–525, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    Causal effect estimation under network interference with mean-field methods.The Annals of Statistics, 53(6):2430–2461, 2025

    Sohom Bhattacharya and Subhabrata Sen. Causal effect estimation under network interference with mean-field methods.The Annals of Statistics, 53(6):2430–2461, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 75 references
  1. [8]

    Bickel and Aiyou Chen

    Peter J. Bickel and Aiyou Chen. A nonparametric view of network models and Newman–Girvan and other modularities.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(50):21068–21073, 2009

    2009

  2. [9]

    Bickel, Aiyou Chen, and Elizaveta Levina

    Peter J. Bickel, Aiyou Chen, and Elizaveta Levina. The method of moments and degree distributions for network models.The Annals of Statistics, 39(5):2280–2301, 2011

    2011

  3. [10]

    John Wiley & Sons, New York, 3 edition, 1995

    Patrick Billingsley.Probability and Measure. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 3 edition, 1995

    1995

  4. [11]

    Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics

    Patrick Billingsley.Convergence of Probability Measures. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2 edition, 1999

    1999

  5. [12]

    The phase transition in inhomogeneous random graphs.Random Structures & Algorithms, 31(1):3–122, 2007

    B´ ela Bollob´ as, Svante Janson, and Oliver Riordan. The phase transition in inhomogeneous random graphs.Random Structures & Algorithms, 31(1):3–122, 2007

    2007

  6. [13]

    Chayes, L´ aszl´ o Lov´ asz, Vera T

    Christian Borgs, Jennifer T. Chayes, L´ aszl´ o Lov´ asz, Vera T. S´ os, and Katalin Vesztergombi. Convergent sequences of dense graphs I: Subgraph frequencies, metric properties and testing. Advances in Mathematics, 219(6):1801–1851, 2008

    2008

  7. [14]

    Chayes, L´ aszl´ o Lov´ asz, Vera T

    Christian Borgs, Jennifer T. Chayes, L´ aszl´ o Lov´ asz, Vera T. S´ os, and Katalin Vesztergombi. Convergent sequences of dense graphs II. Multiway cuts and statistical physics.Annals of Mathematics, 176(1):151–219, 2012

    2012

  8. [15]

    The thermodynamics of the Curie–Weiss model with random couplings.Journal of Statistical Physics, 72(3-4):643–664, 1993

    Anton Bovier and V´ eronique Gayrard. The thermodynamics of the Curie–Weiss model with random couplings.Journal of Statistical Physics, 72(3-4):643–664, 1993

    1993

  9. [16]

    Cattaneo, Yihan He, and Ruiqi Rae Yu

    Matias D. Cattaneo, Yihan He, and Ruiqi Rae Yu. Robust inference for the direct average treatment effect with treatment assignment interference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13238,

  10. [17]

    Sobolev convergence of log-determinants for smooth Wigner matrices

    Giorgio Cipolloni and Patrick Lopatto. Sobolev convergence of log-determinants for smooth Wigner matrices. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.27222, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Fluctuations of the Ising free energy on Erd˝ os–R´ enyi graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.08590, 2026

    Amin Coja-Oghlan, Dominik Kaaser, Maurice Rolvien, Pavel Zakharov, and Kostas Zam- petakis. Fluctuations of the Ising free energy on Erd˝ os–R´ enyi graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.08590, 2026

    2026

  12. [19]

    CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2018

    Harry Crane.Probabilistic Foundations of Statistical Network Analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2018

    2018

  13. [20]

    Nicole Cusimano, F´ elix del Teso, Luca Gerardo-Giorda, and Gianni Pagnini. Discretizations of the spectral fractional Laplacian on general domains with Dirichlet, Neumann, and Robin SCALING LIMITS FOR ISING MODELS ON INHOMOGENEOUS RANDOM GRAPHS AND APPLICATIONS 29 boundary co...

    2018

  14. [21]

    Fluctuations in mean-field Ising models.The Annals of Applied Probability, 33(3):1961–2003, 2023

    Nabarun Deb and Sumit Mukherjee. Fluctuations in mean-field Ising models.The Annals of Applied Probability, 33(3):1961–2003, 2023

    1961

  15. [22]

    Random currents expansion of the Ising model

    Hugo Duminil-Copin. Random currents expansion of the Ising model. InEuropean Congress of Mathematics, pages 869–889. European Mathematical Society, 2018

    2018

  16. [23]

    Cambridge Series in Statistical and Proba- bilistic Mathematics

    Rick Durrett.Probability: Theory and Examples. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Proba- bilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 4 edition, 2010

    2010

  17. [24]

    Ellis.Entropy, Large Deviations, and Statistical Mechanics, volume 271 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften

    Richard S. Ellis.Entropy, Large Deviations, and Statistical Mechanics, volume 271 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer, New York, 1 edition, 1985

    1985

  18. [25]

    Ellis, Charles M

    Richard S. Ellis, Charles M. Newman, and Jay S. Rosen. Limit theorems for sums of dependent random variables occurring in statistical mechanics. II. Conditioning, multiple phases, and metastability.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete, 51(2):153– ...

    1980

  19. [26]

    Airoldi, and Fabrizia Mealli

    Laura Forastiere, Edoardo M. Airoldi, and Fabrizia Mealli. Identification and estimation of treatment and interference effects in observational studies on networks.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 116(534):901–918, 2021

    2021

  20. [27]

    Y. V. Fyodorov, B. A. Khoruzhenko, and N. J. Simm. Fractional Brownian motion with Hurst indexH= 0 and the Gaussian unitary ensemble.The Annals of Probability, 44(4):2980–3031, 2016

    2016

  21. [28]

    Markov random field image models and their appli- cations to computer vision

    Stuart Geman and Christine Graffigne. Markov random field image models and their appli- cations to computer vision. In Andrew M. Gleason, editor,Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Berkeley, California, 1986, volume 1, pages 1496–1517, Provi- dence, RI...

    1986

  22. [29]

    Gunaratnam and Romain Panis

    Trishen S. Gunaratnam and Romain Panis. Emergence of fractional Gaussian free field correla- tions in subcritical long-range Ising models.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 61(2):953–966, 2025

    2025

  23. [30]

    Hoff, Adrian E

    Peter D. Hoff, Adrian E. Raftery, and Mark S. Handcock. Latent space approaches to social network analysis.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97(460):1090–1098, 2002

    2002

  24. [31]

    Holland, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey, and Samuel Leinhardt

    Paul W. Holland, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey, and Samuel Leinhardt. Stochastic blockmodels: First steps.Social Networks, 5(2):109–137, 1983

    1983

  25. [32]

    Hopfield

    John J. Hopfield. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 79(8):2554–2558, 1982

    1982

  26. [33]

    Average direct and indirect causal effects under interference.Biometrika, 109(4):1165–1172, 2022

    Yuchen Hu, Shuangning Li, and Stefan Wager. Average direct and indirect causal effects under interference.Biometrika, 109(4):1165–1172, 2022

    2022

  27. [34]

    Hudgens and M

    Michael G. Hudgens and M. Elizabeth Halloran. Toward causal inference with interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(482):832–842, 2008

    2008

  28. [35]

    C. P. Hughes, J. P. Keating, and N. O’Connell. On the characteristic polynomial of a random unitary matrix.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 220(2):429–451, 2001

    2001

  29. [36]

    Beitrag zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 31:253–258, 1925

    Ernst Ising. Beitrag zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 31:253–258, 1925

    1925

  30. [37]

    Fluctuations of the magnetiza- tion for Ising models on dense Erd¨ os–R´ enyi random graphs.Journal of Statistical Physics, 177(1):78–94, 2019

    Zakhar Kabluchko, Matthias L¨ owe, and Kristina Schubert. Fluctuations of the magnetiza- tion for Ising models on dense Erd¨ os–R´ enyi random graphs.Journal of Statistical Physics, 177(1):78–94, 2019

    2019

  31. [38]

    Zakhar Kabluchko, Matthias L¨ owe, and Kristina Schubert. Fluctuations of the magnetization for Ising models on Erd˝ os–R´ enyi random graphs: The regimes of smallpand the critical temperature.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 53(35):355004, 2020. 30 BHOWAL, ...

    2020

  32. [39]

    Zakhar Kabluchko, Matthias L¨ owe, and Kristina Schubert. Fluctuations for the partition function of Ising models on Erd¨ os–R´ enyi random graphs.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 57(4):2017–2042, 2021

    2017

  33. [40]

    Zakhar Kabluchko, Matthias L¨ owe, and Kristina Schubert. Fluctuations of the magnetization for Ising models on Erd˝ os–R´ enyi random graphs: The regimes of low temperature and external magnetic field.ALEA, Latin American Journal of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, 19...

    2022

  34. [41]

    From Painlev´ e to Zakharov–Shabat and beyond: Fredholm determi- nants and integro-differential hierarchies.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 54(3):035001, 2021

    Alexandre Krajenbrink. From Painlev´ e to Zakharov–Shabat and beyond: Fredholm determi- nants and integro-differential hierarchies.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 54(3):035001, 2021

    2021

  35. [42]

    Springer, Cham, 2016

    Jean-Fran¸ cois Le Gall.Brownian Motion, Martingales, and Stochastic Calculus, volume 274 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2016

    2016

  36. [43]

    Lebowitz

    Joel L. Lebowitz. GHS and other inequalities.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 35:87–92, 1974

    1974

  37. [44]

    Schoenholz, Jeffrey Pennington, and Jascha Sohl-Dickstein

    Jaehoon Lee, Yasaman Bahri, Roman Novak, Samuel S. Schoenholz, Jeffrey Pennington, and Jascha Sohl-Dickstein. Deep neural networks as Gaussian processes. InInternational Confer- ence on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  38. [45]

    CLT in high-dimensional Bayesian linear regression with low SNR

    Seunghyun Lee, Nabarun Deb, and Sumit Mukherjee. CLT in high-dimensional Bayesian linear regression with low SNR. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.23285, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Fluctuations in random field Ising models.The Annals of Applied Probability, 2026

    Seunghyun Lee, Nabarun Deb, and Sumit Mukherjee. Fluctuations in random field Ising models.The Annals of Applied Probability, 2026. To appear; arXiv:2503.21152v3

    2026 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Michael P. Leung. Causal inference under approximate neighborhood interference.Economet- rica, 90(1):267–293, 2022

    2022

  41. [48]

    Random graph asymptotics for treatment effect estimation under network interference.The Annals of Statistics, 50(4):2334–2358, 2022

    Shuangning Li and Stefan Wager. Random graph asymptotics for treatment effect estimation under network interference.The Annals of Statistics, 50(4):2334–2358, 2022

    2022

  42. [49]

    American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012

    L´ aszl´ o Lov´ asz.Large Networks and Graph Limits, volume 60 ofAmerican Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012

    2012

  43. [50]

    An extended Hilbert scale and its applications.Advances in Mathematics, 465:110155, 2025

    Vladimir Mikhailets, Aleksandr Murach, and Tetiana Zinchenko. An extended Hilbert scale and its applications.Advances in Mathematics, 465:110155, 2025

    2025

  44. [51]

    The spread of innovations in social networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(47):20196–20201, 2010

    Andrea Montanari and Amin Saberi. The spread of innovations in social networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(47):20196–20201, 2010

    2010

  45. [52]

    Alan Morningstar and Roger G. Melko. Deep learning the Ising model near criticality.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(163):1–17, 2018

    2018

  46. [53]

    Global testing against sparse alterna- tives under Ising models.The Annals of Statistics, 46(5):2062–2093, 2018

    Rajarshi Mukherjee, Sumit Mukherjee, and Ming Yuan. Global testing against sparse alterna- tives under Ising models.The Annals of Statistics, 46(5):2062–2093, 2018

    2018

  47. [55]

    Neal.Bayesian Learning for Neural Networks, volume 118 ofLecture Notes in Statistics

    Radford M. Neal.Bayesian Learning for Neural Networks, volume 118 ofLecture Notes in Statistics. Springer, New York, 1996

    1996

  48. [56]

    Ogburn, Oleg Sofrygin, Iv´ an D´ ıaz, and Mark J

    Elizabeth L. Ogburn, Oleg Sofrygin, Iv´ an D´ ıaz, and Mark J. van der Laan. Causal inference for social network data.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119(545):597–611, 2024

    2024

  49. [57]

    Triviality of the scaling limits of critical Ising andφ 4 models with effective dimension at least four.The Annals of Probability, 54(2):892–972, 2026

    Romain Panis. Triviality of the scaling limits of critical Ising andφ 4 models with effective dimension at least four.The Annals of Probability, 54(2):892–972, 2026

    2026

  50. [58]

    Treatment effect estimation under convergent network inter- ference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25032, 2026

    Bryan Park and Stefan Wager. Treatment effect estimation under convergent network inter- ference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25032, 2026. SCALING LIMITS FOR ISING MODELS ON INHOMOGENEOUS RANDOM GRAPHS AND APPLICATIONS 31

    2026

  51. [59]

    Causal inference for se- quential settings under interference and latent confounding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.14940, 2026

    Phevos Paschalidis, Constantinos Daskalakis, and Devavrat Shah. Causal inference for se- quential settings under interference and latent confounding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.14940, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Distribution of the magnetization of the critical Ising model on sparse random graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.28702, 2026

    Kyprianos-Iason Prodromidis and Allan Sly. Distribution of the magnetization of the critical Ising model on sparse random graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.28702, 2026

    2026

  53. [61]

    Weak convergence of stationary empirical processes

    Dragan Radulovi´ c and Marten Wegkamp. Weak convergence of stationary empirical processes. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 194:75–84, 2018

    2018

  54. [62]

    Weak convergence of empirical copula processes indexed by functions.Bernoulli, 23(4B):3346–3384, 2017

    Dragan Radulovi´ c, Marten Wegkamp, and Yue Zhao. Weak convergence of empirical copula processes indexed by functions.Bernoulli, 23(4B):3346–3384, 2017

    2017

  55. [63]

    Springer, Berlin, 3 edition, 1999

    Daniel Revuz and Marc Yor.Continuous Martingales and Brownian Motion, volume 293 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer, Berlin, 3 edition, 1999

    1999

  56. [64]

    The noise in the circular law and the Gaussian free field

    Brian Rider and B´ alint Vir´ ag. The noise in the circular law and the Gaussian free field. International Mathematics Research Notices, 2007:rnm006, 2007

    2007

  57. [65]

    Spectral bounds for the Ising ferromag- net on an arbitrary given graph.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2017(5):053403, 2017

    Alaa Saade, Florent Krzakala, and Lenka Zdeborov´ a. Spectral bounds for the Ising ferromag- net on an arbitrary given graph.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2017(5):053403, 2017

    2017

  58. [66]

    American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2 edition, 2005

    Barry Simon.Trace Ideals and Their Applications, volume 120 ofMathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2 edition, 2005

    2005

  59. [67]

    Regularity conditions in the CLT for linear eigenvalue sta- tistics of Wigner matrices.Advances in Mathematics, 249:37–87, 2013

    Philippe Sosoe and Percy Wong. Regularity conditions in the CLT for linear eigenvalue sta- tistics of Wigner matrices.Advances in Mathematics, 249:37–87, 2013

    2013

  60. [68]

    Dyson’s model of interacting Brownian motions at arbitrary coupling strength

    Herbert Spohn. Dyson’s model of interacting Brownian motions at arbitrary coupling strength. Markov Processes and Related Fields, 4(4):649–661, 1998

    1998

  61. [69]

    Tchetgen Tchetgen and Tyler J

    Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen and Tyler J. VanderWeele. On causal inference in the presence of interference.Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 21(1):55–75, 2012

    2012

  62. [70]

    Joel A. Tropp. User-friendly tail bounds for sums of random matrices.Foundations of Com- putational Mathematics, 12(4):389–434, 2012

    2012

  63. [71]

    E exp ( it√ N NX i=1 Liσi ) AN,σ ! AN # =E

    Aad W. van der Vaart and Jon A. Wellner.Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes: With Applications to Statistics. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New York, 1 edition, 1996. AppendixA.Proofs of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 In this section, we prove Theorems 3.1 and 3.2. A.1.P...

    1996

  64. [73]

    Theorem 2.1 now implies that the last expression converges in probability to exp −t2 2 κ2−κ 2 1 +κ 2 1qβ

    +o(1) E h eitκ1σN(1) AN i . Theorem 2.1 now implies that the last expression converges in probability to exp −t2 2 κ2−κ 2 1 +κ 2 1qβ . L´ evy’s continuity theorem, together with a subsequential argument connecting almost sure con- vergence and convergence in probability, shows...

  65. [74]

    The following result corresponds to the first part of Lemma F.1 (Eq

    This completes the proof.□ AppendixE.Supplementary Results In this section, we collect several supplementary results from the literature that play an important role in the proofs of our main results. The following result corresponds to the first part of Lemma F.1 (Eq. (F.1)) i...

  66. [75]

    Hence,V i(s) is centered Gaussian and Var(Vi(s)) = e−2ais ai + 2 ˆ s 0 e−2ai(s−r) dr= 1 ai

    The explicit solution of (F.2) is given by: Vi(s) =e−aisVi(0) + √ 2 ˆ s 0 e−ai(s−r) dBi(r). Hence,V i(s) is centered Gaussian and Var(Vi(s)) = e−2ais ai + 2 ˆ s 0 e−2ai(s−r) dr= 1 ai . Moreover, Cov(Vi(s),Vi(r)) =a−1 i e−ai|s−r|, so the processes{Vi}i≥1 are independent and sta...

  67. [2025]

    Version 2, revised June 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.