Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Geometry of the subgaussian body of an isotropic convex body

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For every centered convex body, the subgaussian body \(\Psi_2(K)\) has volume ratio bounded by an absolute constant with respect to the \(L_2\)-centroid body \(Z_2(K)\), a global strengthening of Milman's subgaussian-direction problem.

desk verdict A clean upgrade of subgaussian-body geometry from polylog to dimension-free bounds, but the central lemma is imported from a very recent preprint. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10241 v1 pith:IMKOR4DC submitted 2026-08-10 math.MG math.PR

Apostolos Giannopoulos , Minas Pafis , Natalia Tziotziou This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.MGmath.PR MSC 52A4046B0652A2360D05
keywords hyperplaneconjecturelog-concavemeasuresisotropicconvexbodiessubgaussiandirectionsvolumedistributioninhighdimensionscentroidpsi-2normGaussiancorrelationinequality
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

Every centered convex body \(K\subset \mathbb{R}^n\) has a body \(\Psi_2(K)\) that records the \(\psi_2\)-norm of each linear functional, and the paper proves that its volume ratio against the \(L_2\)-centroid body \(Z_2(K)\) is bounded by an absolute constant independent of \(n\) and of \(K\). This global statement goes beyond the existence of one subgaussian direction, which was recently solved, and controls the whole collection of directions at once. In the isotropic case the same mechanism yields sharp estimates for the mean width and for the volume radii of orthogonal projections, and produces orthonormal bases whose vectors have small subgaussian constants. The engine is a representation of \(\Psi_2(K)\) as a convex hull of rescaled centroid bodies, combined with Gaussian-measure lower bounds for their polars and the Gaussian correlation inequality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the family of \(L_p\)-centroid bodies \(Z_p(K)\) together with the representation \(\Psi_2(K)\approx \mathrm{conv}\{Z_p(K)/\sqrt{p}:1\le p\le n\}\). Because \(p\mapsto \|\langle\cdot,\xi\rangle\|_p/\sqrt{p}\) stabilizes once \(p\approx n\), only \(p\le n\) matter, and centroid comparison \(Z_{2p}\approx Z_p\) reduces \(p\) to dyadic powers. The second engine is Lemma 2.2: for \(A_p=C_0\sqrt{np}\,L_K\, Z_p(K)^\circ\), one has \(\gamma_n(A_p)\ge $e^{{-C_1 p}}$\), which follows from an optimal small-ball estimate for isotropic log-concave measures and negative-moment equivalence. The Gaussian correlation inequality combines these lower bounds across dyadic \(p\), giving \(\gamma_n(\cap_k A_{2^k})\ge $e^{{-C_2 n}}$\), and Blaschke–Santalo converts this into the volume-ratio estimate. This exact mechanism turns the existence of one subgaussian direction into control of the whole body.

What would settle it

Take a sequence of isotropic convex bodies, for example normalized cubes and cross-polytopes in dimensions \(n=10,\dots,1000\), and compute or rigorously estimate \(\left(\mathrm{vol}(\Psi_2(K))/\mathrm{vol}(Z_2(K))\right)^{1/n}\); if this ratio is unbounded in \(n\), Theorem 1.1 is false. On the input side, exhibit an isotropic log-concave measure and a point \(y\) with \(\mu\{|x-y|_2\le \sqrt{\varepsilon n}\}>\$varepsilon^{{c_0 n}}$\) for some fixed small \(\varepsilon\), which would falsify the small-ball inequality (2.1) that Lemma 2.2 depends on.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is Theorem 1.1: for every centered convex body \(K\subset \mathbb{R}^n\) normalized to volume one, \(\left(\mathrm{vol}_n(\Psi_2(K))/\mathrm{vol}_n(Z_2(K))\right)^{1/n}\le C\) with \(C\) an absolute constant. Since \(\Psi_2(K)\) also contains a constant multiple of \(Z_2(K)\), this bounds the volume radius of the subgaussian body by an absolute constant. The proof reduces to the isotropic case by affine invariance, cuts \(\Psi_2(K)\) into dyadic pieces via \(\Psi_2(K)\approx \mathrm{conv}\{Z_{2^k}(K)/\sqrt{2^k}\}\), and uses the Gaussian correlation inequality on the polar sets \(A_{2^k}=C_0\sqrt{n2^k}\,L_K\, Z_{2^k}(K)^\circ\). The same mechanism supplies an orthonormal basis with decaying subgaussian constants (Theorem 1.2), projection radius bounds (Theorem 1.3), mean width \(\le C\sqrt{\ln(en)}\) (Theorem 1.4), a basis with all constants \(\le C\sqrt{\ln(en)}\) (Theorem 1.5), and an explicit uniform basis in the unconditional case.

Load-bearing premise

The argument collapses if the optimal small-ball estimate for isotropic log-concave measures fails to hold with a dimension-free exponent; any dimension dependence in the bound on the mass of small Euclidean balls around points would make the Gaussian-correlation step lose its dimension-free character.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Milman's problem follows again as a corollary: a volume-ratio bound of \(C\) forces a direction \(v\) with \(h_{\Psi_2(K)}(v)\le C' h_{Z_2(K)}(v)\), i.e. a uniformly subgaussian direction.
  • For any isotropic \(K\) and any \(m\)-dimensional subspace \(F\), \(\mathrm{vrad}(P_F(\Psi_2(K)))\le C\sqrt{n/m}\); in particular \(\Psi_2(K)\subseteq C\sqrt{n}\,B_2^n\), so all \(\psi_2\)-norms of linear functionals are at most \(O(\sqrt{n})\).
  • One can construct an orthonormal basis with \(\|\langle\cdot,v_k\rangle\|_{\psi_2}\le C\sqrt{n/(n-k+1)}\), meaning most vectors are uniformly subgaussian and only the last few directions deteriorate.
  • A random orthonormal basis is, with high probability, a complete basis of subgaussian directions with constants \(\le C\sqrt{\ln(en)}\); for unconditional isotropic bodies an explicit Fourier-type basis achieves a uniform constant \(C\).
  • The mean width bound \(w(\Psi_2(K))\le C\sqrt{\ln(en)}\), combined with \(M(\Psi_2(K))\le C\), places the subgaussian body in the \(\ell\)-position up to a logarithmic factor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The dyadic Gaussian-correlation argument is insensitive to the particular shape of \(K\) beyond the small-ball estimate, so the same volume-ratio bound should transfer to every centered log-concave measure; Theorem 3.2 already takes a step in this direction and could likely be pushed further to control \(\Psi_2\) of marginals and products.
  • The explicit Fourier-basis construction for unconditional bodies suggests a testable extension: for unconditional \(K\), the optimal subgaussian basis may be chosen from a single universal orthonormal system independent of \(K\), which could be explored numerically for \(\ell_p\)-balls and Orlicz balls.
  • The projection bound is sharp for the normalized cross-polytope, so if a matching lower bound held beyond that example it would identify bodies with large subgaussian projections as being \(\ell_1\)-like; the paper only establishes sharpness in that one class.
  • The proof uses the boundedness of the isotropic constant as an input, but the volume-ratio mechanism itself is driven by small-ball behavior; isolating how much of the dependence on the isotropic constant is removable would clarify whether the dimension-free constant can be made completely explicit.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the subgaussian body Ψ2(K) of a centered convex body K⊂R^n, whose support function is the ψ2-norm of linear functionals on K. Its central result, Theorem 1.1, asserts that the volume ratio (vol_n(Ψ2(K))/vol_n(Z2(K)))^{1/n} is bounded by an absolute constant, where Z2(K) is the L2-centroid body. The proof passes to an isotropic affine image, represents Ψ2(K) as a polytope-type convex hull of dyadic L_p-centroid bodies, takes polars, and uses the Gaussian correlation inequality together with a lower bound γ_n(A_p)≥e^{-C_1 p} for the sets A_p=C_0√(np)L_K Z_p(K)° (Lemma 2.2, quoted from Letwin–Mikulincer [20]) to obtain a Gaussian-mass lower bound for the intersection. From this the authors derive volume estimates, prove projection bounds for isotropic bodies, construct orthonormal bases with subgaussian constants C√(n/(n−k+1)), prove sharp mean-width bounds, and give an explicit uniformly subgaussian basis for unconditional isotropic bodies via Bobkov–Nazarov and a Fourier basis construction.

Significance. If correct, the results are substantial: Theorem 1.1 upgrades the existence of a single subgaussian direction, recently proved by Letwin and Mikulincer, to a dimension-free bound on the whole subgaussian body relative to Z2(K), and it yields clean consequences for projections, mean width, orthonormal bases, and the ℓ-position of Ψ2(K). The proof architecture is transparent: the affine-invariance reduction, the dyadic centroid-body approximation, and the Gaussian-correlation step are elegant, and the unconditional case gives an explicit basis with optimal behavior. The paper is also honest about its dependencies and does not appear circular: it uses [20]'s A_p sets as a tool rather than assuming the final subgaussian-basis conclusion. The main caveat, which is load-bearing, is that Lemma 2.2 is imported from a very recent preprint and is not proved in the manuscript.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2, Lemma 2.2 and §3.1] Theorem 1.1 rests entirely on the lower bound γ_n(A_p)≥e^{-C_1 p} for 1≤p≤2c_0n, stated as Lemma 2.2. This lemma is not proved in the paper; it is quoted from [20, Prop. 2.4], which in turn depends on Proposition 2.1, Bizeul's small-ball estimate (2.1) from [5], and the negative-moment equivalence I_{-(n-1)}(µ)≈I_2(µ) cited to [11] and [12, Thm 6.9]. Since all of these are either very recent preprints or a self-cited survey, and since a dimension-dependent constant in any one of them would replace the product over dyadic p by e^{-ω(n)} and reduce Theorem 1.1 to vrad(Ψ2(K))≤C√n (also degrading Theorems 1.2 and 1.3), this is a load-bearing point. I ask the authors to include a complete proof of Lemma 2.2, or at least a precise derivation showing that the hypotheses of [20, Prop. 2.4] hold with absolute constants over the full range p≤2c_0n.
  2. [§3.3, Theorem 3.6 and Lemma 3.4] The advertised sharp mean-width estimate w(Ψ2(K))≤C√ln(en) depends on Bizeul's optimal M-estimate [6], a preprint, through Lemma 3.4, and also on the 'almost isotropic' comparison fν(0)^{1/m}≈Lν. Please state exactly which theorem from [6] is used and provide a derivation of the comparison, so the reader can verify that all constants are absolute. If [6] is not yet available in final form, an appendix containing the needed argument would resolve this dependency.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4, Proof of Proposition 3.11] The sentence 'Using the change of variables t=2s√(2ln(en))' reuses the symbol t for a new variable after t was already used as the threshold in Theorem 3.9; please rename one of the variables for clarity.
  2. [§3.3, Lemma 3.4] There is a typo in the phrase 'known facts abour Ball's bodies'; it should read 'about'.
  3. [§3.3, Eq. (3.5)] The constant c_5 appears in equation (3.5) without being introduced; since the paper uses generic constants elsewhere, please clarify or use standard notation.
  4. [§4.1] In the Sudakov inequality statement, the constant is written 'where c>0' but the inequality as stated needs an absolute constant independent of n and K; please make this explicit.
  5. [§3.5, Lemma 3.15] In the construction of the Fourier basis, the indexing for n even and n odd is correct, but the sentence 'If n is even, define in addition v_{n-1}=u_{n/2}' could be made clearer by explicitly stating that u_{n/2} is the real vector (1,-1,1,-1,...)/√n, which is already done in the following line.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central volume-ratio bound is derived from an external lemma on centroid bodies, not from the target statement; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's main theorem, Theorem 1.1, is proved by combining the representation Ψ2(K) ≈ conv{Z_p(K)/√p} with the Gaussian correlation inequality, Lemma 2.2 for the sets A_p, the Blaschke–Santaló inequality, and the boundedness of the isotropic constant. Lemma 2.2 is explicitly imported from Letwin and Mikulincer [20, Prop. 2.4] and concerns Gaussian measure of sets built from the L_p-centroid bodies Z_p(K); it is not defined in terms of Ψ2(K) or the volume-ratio quantity being proved. The paper does not assume Milman's answer or the target basis conjecture; Theorem 1.1 yields a stronger statement from which a subgaussian direction follows. The self-citations that appear ([10] for background on isotropic convex bodies, and [12] for the negative-moment equivalence I_{-(n-1)} ≈ I_2) are auxiliary: the negative-moment equivalence is also cited to the independent work [11], and the cited facts are not equivalent to the paper's conclusions. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work to force a choice, and no known result merely renamed. The proof does rely on the very recent external results of Bizeul and of Letwin–Mikulincer, so a failure of those estimates would damage the theorem; however, that is a correctness or robustness concern about the cited inputs, not a circular dependence in the derivation chain. Under the stated rules, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or entities; its proofs consume a chain of recent external theorems, most notably Bizeul's small-ball and mean-width estimates, the Klartag-Lehec solution of the hyperplane conjecture, and Royen's Gaussian correlation inequality. None of these are fitted to data and none is equivalent to the central claim; they are the load-bearing premises.

assumptions (9)
  • standard math Boundedness of isotropic constants L_K ≤ C (hyperplane conjecture, resolved by Klartag-Lehec and Bizeul).
    Used to discard L_K factors in the proofs of Theorem 1.1, Theorem 3.2, and Corollary 3.3; the volume ratio conclusions are only dimension-free after this theorem.
  • standard math Bizeul small-ball estimate: for isotropic log-concave measure µ, µ({x: |x-y|_2 ≤ εn}) ≤ ε^{c₀n}.
    Underlies Proposition 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 via the negative-moment representation; without it the Gaussian measure lower bound γ(A_p)≥e^{-Cp} fails.
  • standard math Negative-moment equivalence I_{-(n-1)}(µ)≈I_2(µ) for isotropic log-concave measures.
    Used in Proposition 2.1; imported from [11] and [12, Theorem 6.9].
  • standard math Gaussian correlation inequality (Royen): for symmetric convex Borel A and B, γ(A∩B)≥γ(A)γ(B).
    Used in Theorem 1.1 to lower-bound γ_n(∩ A_{2^k}) by the product of the individual Gaussian measures.
  • standard math Bizeul mean-width estimate w(K)≤C√(n log n) for isotropic convex bodies.
    Input for Lemma 3.4 and Theorem 3.6 producing the sharp O(√log n) mean width of Ψ2(K).
  • standard math Bobkov-Nazarov comparison: for isotropic unconditional K, ||<·,v>||ψ2 ≤ C√n ||v||∞.
    Gives the uniform basis statement in Corollary 3.16 for unconditional bodies.
  • standard math Litvak-Milman-Schechtman estimate w_s(C)≈max{w(C), R(C)√s/√n} for 1≤s≤n.
    Used in Theorem 3.6 to bound s-mean widths of centroid bodies with s=ln(en).
  • standard math Facts on Ball's bodies K_p(ν): f_ν(0)vol(K_{m+1})≈1, almost-isotropy of normalized K_{m+1}, and Z_m(ν)≈Z_m(M).
    Used in Lemma 3.4 to transfer Bizeul's mean-width bound to w(Z_m(ν)); cited from [10, Props 2.5.8, 2.5.12, Thm 5.1.7].
  • standard math Standard isotropic-body estimates R(K)≤c n L_K and ||<·,v>||ψ1≤c L_K.
    Used in the alternative proof of Corollary 3.3 to bound the radius of Ψ2(K).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometry of the subgaussian body of an isotropic convex body." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IMKOR4DC

@misc{pith2026260810241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometry of the subgaussian body of an isotropic convex body},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IMKOR4DC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10241}
}
abstract

For a centered convex body $K\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, let $\Psi_2(K)$ denote the symmetric convex body whose support function is given by the $\psi_2$-norms of linear functionals on $K$. The recent solution of Milman's problem on the existence of subgaussian directions by Letwin and Mikulincer naturally motivates the study of the geometry of this body. We prove that $\Psi_2(K)$ has bounded volume ratio with respect to the $L_2$-centroid body $Z_2(K)$. In the isotropic case, we also obtain sharp estimates for its mean width and the volume radii of its orthogonal projections, and derive consequences for the existence of subgaussian orthonormal bases. In particular, we construct orthonormal bases with quantitatively controlled subgaussian constants for every isotropic convex body.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Dimension-free Gaussian tail estimates for linear functionals on convex bodies

    B. Letwin and D. Mikulincer,Dimension-free Gaussian tail estimates for linear functionals on convex bodies, Preprint (https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.10939)

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [5]

    Bizeul,The slicing conjecture via small ball estimates, Ann

    P. Bizeul,The slicing conjecture via small ball estimates, Ann. Probab. (to appear). (https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06854)

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Dafnis and G

    N. Dafnis and G. Paouris,Small ball probability estimates,ψ 2-behavior and the hyperplane conjecture, J. Funct. Anal. 258 (2010), 1933–1964

    work page 2010

  4. [6]

    Bizeul,OptimalM M ∗ bounds for convex bodies, Preprint (https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.29458)

    P. Bizeul,OptimalM M ∗ bounds for convex bodies, Preprint (https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.29458)

    arXiv

  5. [1]

    Artstein-Avidan, A

    S. Artstein-Avidan, A. Giannopoulos and V. D. Milman,Asymptotic Geometric Analysis, Vol. I, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 202. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2015. xx+451 pp

    2015

  6. [2]

    Artstein-Avidan, A

    S. Artstein-Avidan, A. Giannopoulos and V. D. Milman,Asymptotic Geometric Analysis, Vol. II, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 261. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2021. xxxvii+645 pp

    2021

  7. [3]

    Aubrun and S

    G. Aubrun and S. J. Szarek,Alice and Bob meet Banach. The interface of asymptotic geometric analysis and quantum information theory, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 223. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2017. xxi+414 pp

    work page 2017

  8. [4]

    K. M. Ball,Logarithmically concave functions and sections of convex sets inR n, Studia Math. 88 (1988), 69–84. 23

    work page 1988

Show all 29 references
  1. [7]

    S. G. Bobkov and F. L. Nazarov,Large deviations of typical linear functionals on a convex body with uncondi- tional basis, Stochastic Inequalities and Applications, Progr. Probab. 56, Birkh¨ auser, Basel (2003), 3–13

    2003

  2. [8]

    Bourgain,On high dimensional maximal functions associated to convex bodies, Amer

    J. Bourgain,On high dimensional maximal functions associated to convex bodies, Amer. J. Math. 108 (1986), 1467–1476

    1986

  3. [9]

    Brazitikos and L

    S. Brazitikos and L. Hioni,Sub-Gaussian directions of isotropic convex bodies, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 425 (2015), No. 2, 919–927

    2015

  4. [10]

    Brazitikos, A

    S. Brazitikos, A. Giannopoulos, P. Valettas and B-H. Vritsiou,Geometry of isotropic convex bodies, Mathemat- ical Surveys and Monographs, 196. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2014. xx+594 pp

    2014

  5. [12]

    Giannopoulos, M

    A. Giannopoulos, M. Pafis and N. Tziotziou,The isotropic constant in the theory of high-dimensional convex bodies, Bull. Hellenic Math. Soc. 69 (2025), 89–188

    2025

  6. [13]

    Giannopoulos, A

    A. Giannopoulos, A. Pajor and G. Paouris,A note on subgaussian estimates for linear functionals on convex bodies, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 135 (2007), 2599–2606

    2007

  7. [14]

    Giannopoulos, G

    A. Giannopoulos, G. Paouris and P. Valettas,On the existence of subgaussian directions for log-concave mea- sures, Contemporary Mathematics 545 (2011), 103–122

    2011

  8. [15]

    Q. Y. Guan,A note on Bourgain ’s slicing problem, Preprint (https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.09075)

    arXiv

  9. [16]

    Ivanov,The maximal volume of projections of the cross-polytope, Preprint (https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12072)

    G. Ivanov,The maximal volume of projections of the cross-polytope, Preprint (https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12072)

    arXiv

  10. [17]

    Klartag,Uniform almost sub-gaussian estimates for linear functionals on convex sets, Algebra i Analiz (St

    B. Klartag,Uniform almost sub-gaussian estimates for linear functionals on convex sets, Algebra i Analiz (St. Petersburg Math. Journal) 19 (2007), 109–148

    2007

  11. [18]

    Klartag and J

    B. Klartag and J. Lehec,Affirmative resolution of Bourgain ’s slicing problem using Guan ’s bound, Geom. Funct. Anal. 35 (2025), 1147–1168

    2025

  12. [19]

    Latala and D

    R. Latala and D. Matlak,Royen ’s proof of the Gaussian correlation inequality, Geometric aspects of functional analysis, 265–275, Lecture Notes in Math., 2169, Springer, Cham, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    A. E. Litvak, V. D. Milman and G. Schechtman,Averages of norms and quasi-norms, Math. Ann. 312 (1998), 95–124

    1998

  14. [22]

    Milman,On the mean width of isotropic convex bodies and their associatedL p-centroid bodies, Int

    E. Milman,On the mean width of isotropic convex bodies and their associatedL p-centroid bodies, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2015, no. 11, 3408–3423

    2015

  15. [23]

    Geometry of Banach spaces, Proceedings of a conference held in Strobl, Austria, 1989

    V. D. Milman,A note on a lowM ∗-estimate, in “Geometry of Banach spaces, Proceedings of a conference held in Strobl, Austria, 1989” (P.F. Muller and W. Schachermayer, Eds.), LMS Lecture Note Series, Vol. 158, Cambridge University Press (1990), 219–229

    1990

  16. [24]

    Paouris,Concentration of mass in convex bodies, Geom

    G. Paouris,Concentration of mass in convex bodies, Geom. Funct. Anal. 16 (2006), 1021–1049

    2006

  17. [25]

    Paouris,Small ball probability estimates for log-concave measures, Trans

    G. Paouris,Small ball probability estimates for log-concave measures, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 364 (2012), 287–308

    2012

  18. [26]

    Paouris and R

    G. Paouris and R. Pathak,Optimal mean width and metric entropy estimates for convex bodies, Preprint (https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.29522)

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Royen,A simple proof of the Gaussian correlation conjecture extended to some multivariate gamma distri- butions, Far East J

    T. Royen,A simple proof of the Gaussian correlation conjecture extended to some multivariate gamma distri- butions, Far East J. Theor. Stat. 48 (2014), 139–145. 24

    2014

  20. [28]

    Sch¨ utt,Entropy numbers of diagonal operators between symmetric Banach spaces, J

    C. Sch¨ utt,Entropy numbers of diagonal operators between symmetric Banach spaces, J. Approx. Theory 40 (1984), no. 2, 121–128

    1984

  21. [29]

    Vershynin,High-Dimensional Probability: An Introduction with Applications in Data Science, Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics

    R. Vershynin,High-Dimensional Probability: An Introduction with Applications in Data Science, Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd edition, 2026. Keywords:Hyperplane conjecture; log-concave measures; isotropi...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.