Abstract
In this paper, we study lattice gauge theory on \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \) with finite Abelian structure group. When the inverse coupling strength is sufficiently large, we use ideas from disagreement percolation to give an upper bound on the decay of correlations of local functions. We then use this upper bound to compute the leading-order term for both the expected value of the spin at a given plaquette as well as for the two-point correlation function. Moreover, we give an upper bound on the dependency of the size of the box on which the model is defined. The results in this paper extend and refine results by Chatterjee and Borgs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Gauge theories are crucial tools in modern physics. For instance, they are used to formulate the Standard Model. These quantum field theories describe how different types of elementary particles interact. Even though such models have proved to be very successful in physics, they are not mathematically well-defined. This problem was considered important enough to be chosen as one of the Millenium Problems by the Clay Mathematics Institute [11].
Euclidean lattice gauge theories, with underlying structure group given by e.g. \( U(1)\), \( SU(2) \) or \( SU(3) \), appear as natural and well-defined discretisations of gauge theories on hyper-cubic lattices [17]. These discretizations have been proven to be very useful as tools to study the corresponding quantum field theories using e.g. simulations, high temperature expansions and low temperature expansions [12]. However, there is also hope that one would be able to take a scaling limit and in this way obtain a rigorously defined continuum gauge theory. As a first step in this direction, it is often instructive to try to understand relevant properties of slightly simpler models of the same type. The decay of correlations is an important property to try to understand in any model in statistical physics. For lattice gauge theories, this type of property is given further relevance due its connection with the mass gap problem in Yang–Mills theories. This is the main motivation for the current paper, where we study the decay of correlations in Abelian lattice gauge theories.
While lattice gauge theories with a finite Abelian structure group are not of known direct physical significance in the context of the Standard Model, they provide toy models for development of tools and ideas which can later be generalized to more physically relevant models. For this reason, they have been studied in the physics literature, see, e.g., [2, 8, 13] and the references therein, as well as in the mathematical literature, see e.g. [2, 6, 7, 16].
1.2 Lattice gauge theories with Wilson action
The lattice \(\mathbb {Z}^4\) has a vertex at each point in \(\mathbb {R}^4\) with integer coordinates, and an edge between nearest neighbors, oriented in the positive direction, so that there are exactly four positively oriented edges emerging from each vertex \( x \), denoted by \( dx_i , \,i=1,\ldots ,4 \). We will let \( -dx_i \) denote the edge with the same end points as \( dx_i \) but with opposite orientation. Each pair \( dx_i \) and \( dx_j \) of directed edges defines an oriented plaquette \( dx_i \wedge dx_j \). If \( i<j \), we say that the plaquette \( dx_i \wedge dx_j \) is positively oriented, and if \( i >j \), we say that the plaquette \( dx_i \wedge dx_j = - dx_j \wedge dx_i \) is negatively oriented.
Given real numbers \( a_1<b_1 \), \( a_2<b_2 \), \( a_3<b_3 \) and \( a_4<b_4 \), we say that \( B = \bigl ( [a_1,b_1] \times [a_2,b_2] \times [a_3,b_3] \times [a_4,b_4] \bigr ) \cap \mathbb {Z}^4 \) is a box. When \( B \) is a box, we write \(E_B\) for the set of (positively and negatively) oriented edges both of whose endpoints are contained in B, and \(P_B\) for set of the oriented plaquettes whose edges are all contained in \(E_B\). We will often write e and p for elements of \(E_B\) and \(P_B\), respectively.
In this paper we will always assume that a finite and Abelian group \( G \) has been given. This group will be referred to as the structure group. We let \(\Sigma _{E_B}\) be the set of \( G \)-valued 1-forms on \(E_B\), i.e., the set of functions \( \sigma :E_B \rightarrow G \) with the property that \( \sigma (e) = -\sigma (-e) \). Whenever \( \sigma \in \Sigma _{E_B} \) and \( e \in E_B \), we write \( \sigma _e :=\sigma (e) \). Each element \(\sigma \in \Sigma _{E_B}\) induces a configuration \( d\sigma \) on \( P_B \) by assigning
where \(e_1,e_2, e_3, e_4\) are the edges in the boundary \( \partial p\) of p, directed according to the orientation of the plaquette \( p \), see Sect. 2.1.3. The set of all configurations on \( P_B \) which arise in this way will be denoted by \( \Sigma _{P_B} \).
Next, we let \( \rho \) be a faithful, irreducible and unitary representation of G. With \( G \) and \(\rho \) fixed, we define the Wilson action by
Letting \( \mu _H \) denote the uniform measure on \( \Sigma _{E_B}\) and fixing some \( \beta \ge 0 \), we obtain an associated probability measure \(\mu _{B,\beta }\) on \(\Sigma _{E_B}\) by weighting \( \mu _H \) by the Wilson action:
where \( Z_{B,\beta } \) is a constant that ensures that \( \mu _{B,\beta } \) is a probability measure. The probability measure \( \mu _{B,\beta } \) describes lattice gauge theory on \( B \) with structure group \( G \), representation \( \rho \), coupling parameter \( \beta \) and free boundary conditions. We let \( \mathbb {E}_{B,\beta } \) denote expectation with respect to \( \mu _{B,\beta } \).
1.3 A distance between sets
Let \( B \) and \( B' \) be two boxes in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \) with \( B' \subseteq B \). In all of our results, we need a measure of the distance between sets of plaquettes \( P_1,P_2 \subseteq P_B \). To be able to define such a measure, we now introduce the following graph. Given \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \), let \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \) be the graph with vertex set \( {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \cup {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega ' \), and an edge between two distinct plaquettes \( p_1,p_2 \in {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \cup {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega '\) if \( p_1 \) and \( \pm p_2 \) are both in the boundary of some common 3-cell (see also Definition 1). For distinct \( p_1,p_2 \in P_B \), let
for \( p \in P_B \), let \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B,B'}(p,p) :=0 \), and for sets \( P_1,P_2 \subseteq P_B \), let
When \( B' = B \), we write \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B} \) instead of \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B,B} \). We mention that for any two distinct plaquettes \( p_1 \) and \( p_2 \), one can show that \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B,B'}(p_1,p_2) \) is bounded from above and below by some constant times the graph distance (in the lattice \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \)) between the corners of \( p_1 \) and the corners of \( p_2 \).
1.4 Preliminary notation
To simplify notation, for \( \beta \ge 0 \) and \( g \in G \), we let
and
The function \( \alpha (\beta ) \) will be used to express upper bounds on error terms in our main results. We mention that for any finite Abelian group \( G \) with a faithful representation \( \rho \), there are constants \( C> 0\) and \( \xi >0 \) such that \( \alpha (\beta ) \le C e^{- \beta \xi } \). In other words, \( \alpha (\beta ) \) decays exponentially in \( \beta \).
Next, for \( \beta \ge 0 \) such that \( 30 \alpha (\beta ) < 1 \), we define
and
We note that as \( \beta \rightarrow \infty \), \( C_1(\beta ) \searrow 4/9 \).
When \( P \) is a set of plaquettes, we let \( \delta P \) denote the set of all plaquettes in \( P \) which shares a 3-cell with some plaquette which does not belong to \( P \).
1.5 Main results
In several recent papers, the expected value of Wilson loop observables have been rigorously analyzed with probabilistic techniques, for different structure groups [4, 6, 7, 9]. The Wilson loop is an important observable in lattice gauge theories because it is believed to be related to the energy required to separate a pair of quarks [5, 17]. Another important observable is the spin-spin-correlation function, which is thought to be related to the so-called mass gap of the model [5]. In the first three main results of this paper, we study variants of this function in the low-temperature regime, by giving results which describe the decay of correlations of local functions. The first of these results is the following theorem. To give the statement, when \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( P \subseteq P_B \) and \( P = -P \), we let \( \omega \!\mid _{P} :=(\omega _p \cdot \mathbb {1}_{p \in P})\) denote the restriction of \( \omega \) to \( P \) in the natural way (see also Sect. 2.1.10).
Theorem 1
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let \( \beta \ge 0 \) be such that \( 30 \alpha (\beta ) < 1 \). Further, let \( f_1,f_2 :\Sigma _{P_B} \rightarrow \mathbb {C} \) and assume that there are disjoint sets \( P_1,P_2 \subseteq P_B \) such that for all \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) we have \( f_1(\omega ) = f_1(\omega \!\mid _{P_1})\) and \( f_2(\omega ) = f_2(\omega \!\mid _{P_2}) \). Then, if \( \sigma \sim \mu _{B,\beta } \), we have
where \( C_1 = C_1(\beta ) \) and \( C_2 \) are given by in (7) and (8) respectively.
In particular, if \( p_1 \in P_B \) and \( p_2 \in P_B \) are distinct, then
Remark 1
Since \( \alpha (\beta ) \) decays exponentially in \( \beta \), Theorem 1 shows that the covariance of two local functions decays exponentially both in \( \beta \) and in the distance between the corresponding sets \( P_1 \) and \( P_2 \).
Remark 2
We mention that if one for disjoint plaquettes \( p_1,p_2 \in P_B \) knew which configurations attained the minimum in (4), then the methods used in this paper could be adapted slightly to describe the first order behaviour of \( {{\,\mathrm{Cov}\,}}\bigl ({{\,\mathrm{tr}\,}}\rho ((d\sigma )_{p_1}), {{\,\mathrm{tr}\,}}\rho ((d\sigma )_{p_2}) \bigr ) \) for sufficiently large \( \beta \).
With Theorem 1 at hand, it is natural to ask how the decay of the covariance in (10) relates to the so-called spin-spin correlation \( \mathbb {E}_{B,\beta }\bigl [{{\,\mathrm{tr}\,}}\rho \bigl ((d\sigma )_p\bigr ) {{\,\mathrm{tr}\,}}\rho \bigl ((d\sigma )_{p'}\bigr )\bigr ] \). The next theorem, which improves upon a special case of Lemma 4.2 in [2], is a first step towards answering this question.
Theorem 2
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let \( \beta \ge 0 \) be such that \( 5 \alpha (\beta ) < 1 \).
Further, let \( p \in P_B \) and \( f :G \rightarrow \mathbb {C} \). Then, if \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B}\bigl (\{ p \}, \delta P_B\bigr ) >11 \), we have
Remark 3
When \( \beta \) tends to infinity, we have \( \sum _{e \in \partial p} \sum _{g \in G} \phi _\beta (g)^{12} \asymp \alpha (\beta )^6 \), and hence the right hand side of (11) will in general tend to zero much faster than the term \( \sum _{e \in \partial p} \sum _{g \in G} \bigl (f(g)-f(0) \bigr ) \, \phi _\beta (g)^{12} \) on the left hand side of the same equation. Consequently, Theorem 2 captures the first- and second-order behaviour of \( \mathbb {E}_{B,\beta }\bigl [ f\bigl ((d\sigma )_p\bigr )\bigr ] \).
Combining Theorem 1 and Theorem 2, we obtain the following result as a corollary.
Theorem 3
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let \( \beta \ge 0 \) be such that \( 30 \alpha (\beta ) < 1 \). Further, let \( p_1,p_2 \in P_B \) be distinct, and let \( f_1,f_2 :G \rightarrow \mathbb {C} \). Then, if \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B}\bigl (\{ p_1,p_2 \}, \delta P_B\bigr ) >11 \), we have
where \( C_1 = C_1(\beta ) \) and \( C_2 \), are given by (7), and (8) respectively.
Remark 4
For \( N \ge 1 \), let \( B_N \) be the box \( [-N,N]^4 \cap \mathbb {Z}^4\). By applying Ginibre’s inequality [10], one can show that whenever \( f \) is a real-valued function which depends only on a finite number of plaquettes, then the limit
exists and is translation invariant (see e.g. Section 2.3 in [7]). From this result, it follows that Theorems 1, 2 and 3 holds also in this limit.
By using the same strategy as for the proof of Theorem 1, we obtain the following result, which extends Theorem 5.3 in [6]. In this result, \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{TV}(X,Y) \) denotes the total variation distance between two random variables \( X \) and \( Y \).
Theorem 4
(Compare with Theorem 5.3 in [6] and Theorem 2.4 in [2]). Let \( B \) and \( B' \) be two boxes in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \) with \( B' \subsetneq B \), and let \( \beta \ge 0 \) be such that \( 30 \alpha (\beta ) < 1 \).
Further, let \( P\subseteq P_{B'} \), and let \( \sigma \sim \mu _{B,\beta } \) and \( \sigma '\sim \mu _{B',\beta } \). Then
where \( C_1 = C_1(\beta ) \) and \( C_2 \) are given by (7) and (8) respectively.
Remark 5
In contrast to Theorem 5.3 in [6], which hold only for \( G = \mathbb {Z}_2 \), Theorem 4 is valid for any finite Abelian group. Moreover, our proof can easily be adapted to work for other lattices such as \( \mathbb {Z}^n \) for \( n \ge 3 \), as well as for other actions such as the Villain action. Moreover, we mention that even in the case of \( {G} = \mathbb {Z}_2 \), we use a completely different proof strategy than the strategy used in the corresponding proof in [6].
Remark 6
By [1], a critical value for \( \beta \) in the case \( G = \mathbb {Z}_2 \) is given by \( 0.22 \). In comparison, when \( G = \mathbb {Z}_2 \), the assumption on \( \beta \) in the above results is either that \( 5 e^{-4\beta } < 1\) (equivalently, \( \beta \ge 0.40 \)) or that \( 30 e^{-4\beta } < 1\) (equivalently, \( \beta \ge 0.8 \)).
Remark 7
In this paper, we always use the measure given by (3), corresponding to free boundary conditions. However, with minor changes to the proofs in the paper, one can obtain results analogous to our main results for zero or periodic boundary conditions.
Remark 8
Using the theory as outlined in [4], some of the ideas in this paper might extend to finite non-Abelian structure groups as well. However, in some of the proofs, we use tools from discrete exterior calculus which are not valid in a non-Abelian setting. Consequently, such a generalization would be non-trivial.
Remark 9
The main novelty of this paper is the use of a coupling argument, similar to arguments in e.g. [3, 15], in to obtain upper bounds on both the covariance of local functions and on the total variation distance. Also, we give natural extensions and generalizations of several technical but useful lemmas from [7].
1.6 Structure of the paper
In Sect. 2, we give a brief summary of the foundations of discrete external calculus on hypercubic lattices, which we will use throughout the rest of this paper. Next, in Sect. 3, we give upper and lower bounds for the probability that certain plaquette configurations arise in spin configurations. In Sect. 4, we discuss the structure and properties of paths in the graph \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ^{(0)},\omega ^{(1)}) \) for \( \omega ^{(0)},\omega ^{(1)} \in \Sigma _{P_B} \). In Sect. 5, we define a notion of two sets being connected, and prove a lemma suggesting the usefulness of this concept. In Sect. 6, we define another measure \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_B^*(p_1,p_2) \) of the distance between two plaquettes, and state and prove a lemma which gives a relationship between this function and the function \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B,B'}(p_1,p_2) \) defined in the introduction. These results are then used in Sect. 7 to give an upper bound on the probability that two sets are connected. In Sect. 8, we give a connection between the event that two sets are connected and the covariance of local functions supported on these sets, and then use this connection to give a proof of Theorem 1. In Sect. 9, we give a similar connection between the event that two sets are connected and the total variation distance, and then use this observation to give a proof of Theorem 4. Finally, in Sect. 10, we prove Theorems 2 and 3.
2 Preliminaries
2.1 Discrete exterior calculus
In this section, we give a very brief overview of discrete exterior calculus on the cell complexes of \( \mathbb {Z}^n \) for \( n \in \mathbb {N} \). For a more thorough background on discrete exterior calculus, we refer the reader to [6].
All of the results in this section are obtained under the assumption that an Abelian group \( G \), which is not necessarily finite, has been given. In particular, they all hold for \( G=\mathbb {Z} \).
2.1.1 Oriented edges (1-cells)
The graph \(\mathbb {Z}^n\) has a vertex at each point \( x \in \mathbb {Z}^n \) with integer coordinates and an (undirected) edge between nearest neighbors. We associate to each undirected edge \( {\bar{e}} \) in \( \mathbb {Z}^n \) exactly two directed or oriented edges \( e \) and \( -e \) with the same endpoints as \( {\bar{e}} \); e is directed so that the coordinate increases when traversing e, and \(-e\) is directed in the opposite way.
Let \( \mathbf {e}_1 :=(1,0,0,\ldots ,0)\), \( \mathbf {e}_2 :=(0,1,0,\ldots , 0) \), ..., \( \mathbf {e}_n :=(0,\ldots ,0,1) \) and let \( d{\mathbf {e}}_1 \), ..., \( d{\mathbf {e}}_n \) denote the \( n \) oriented edges with one endpoint at the origin which naturally correspond to these unit vectors (oriented away from the origin). We say that an oriented edge \( e \) is positively oriented if it is equal to a translation of one of these unit vectors, i.e., if there exists a point \( x \in \mathbb {Z}^n \) and an index \( j \in \{ 1,2, \ldots , n\} \) such that \( e = x + d{\mathbf {e}}_j \). If \( x \in \mathbb {Z}^n \) and \( j \in \{ 1,2, \ldots , n\} \), then we let \( dx_j :=x + d{\mathbf {e}}_j \).
Given a box \( B \), we let \( E_B \) denote the set of oriented edges whose end-points are both in \( B \), and let \( E_B^+ \) denote the set of positively oriented edges in \( E_B \).
2.1.2 Oriented k-cells
For any two oriented edges \( e_1 \in E_B \) and \( e_2\in E_B \), we consider the wedge product \( e_1 \wedge e_2 \) satisfying \( e_1 \wedge e_1 = 0 \) and
If \( e_1 \), \( e_2 \), ..., \( e_k \) are oriented edges which do not share a common endpoint, we set \( e_1 \wedge e_2 \wedge \cdots \wedge e_k = 0 \).
If \( e_1 \), \( e_2 \), ..., \( e_k \) are oriented edges and \( e_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge e_k \ne 0 \), we say that \( e_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge e_k \) is an oriented \( k \)-cell. If there exists an \( x \in \mathbb {Z}^n \) and \( j_1<j_2<\cdots < j_k \) such that \( e_i = d{x}_{j_i} \), then we say that \( e_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge e_k \) is positively oriented and that \( -( e_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge e_k) \) is negatively oriented. Using (14), this defines an orientation for all \( k \)-cells. If not stated otherwise, we will always consider k-cells as being oriented.
If \( A \) is a set of oriented \( k \)-cells, we let \( A^+ \) denote the set of positively oriented \( k \)-cells in \( A \). If \( A = -A \) , then we say that \( A \) is symmetric.
2.1.3 Oriented plaquettes
We will usually say oriented plaquette instead of oriented \(2\)-cell. If \( x \in \mathbb {Z}^n \) and \( 1 \le j_1 < j_2 \le \), then \( p :=dx_{j_1} \wedge d{{x}}_{j_2} \) is a positively oriented plaquette, and we define
If \( e \) is an oriented edge, we let \( {\hat{\partial }} e \) denote the set of oriented plaquettes \( p \) such that \( e \in \partial p \).
We let \( P_B \) denote the set of oriented plaquettes whose edges are all in \( E_B \).
2.1.4 Discrete differential forms
A \( G \)-valued function \( f \) defined on a subset of the set of \( k \)-cells in \( \mathbb {Z}^n \) with the property that \( f(c) = -f(-c) \) is called a \( k \)-form. If \( f \) is a \( k \)-form which takes the value \( f_{j_1,\ldots , j_k}(x) \) on \( dx_{j_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge dx_{j_k} \), it is useful to represent its values on the k-cells at \(x \in \mathbb {Z}^n\) by the formal expression
To simplify notation, if \( c :=dx_{j_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge dx_{j_k} \) is a \( k \)-cell and \( f \) is a \( k \)-form we often write \( f_c \) instead of \( f_{j_1,\ldots , j_k}(x) \).
Given a \( k \)-form \( f \), we let \( {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}f \) denote the support of \( f \), i.e. the set of all oriented \( k \)-cells \( c \) such that \( f(c) \ne 0 \).
Now let \( B \) be a box, and recall that for \( k \in \{ 1,2,\ldots , n \} \), a \( k \)-cell \( c \) is said to be in \( B \) if all its corners are in \( B \). The set of \( G \)-valued \( k \)-forms with support in the set of \( k \)-cells that are contained in a \( B \) will be denoted by \( \Sigma _{B,k} \). The set of \( G \)-valued 1-forms with support in \( E_B \) will also be denoted by \( \Sigma _{E_B} =\Sigma _{B,k}\), and will referred to as spin configurations, and the set of \( G \)-valued 2-forms with support in \( \Sigma _{P_B} \) will be referred to as plaquette configurations.
2.1.5 The exterior derivative
Given \( h :\mathbb {Z}^n \rightarrow G \), \( x \in \mathbb {Z}^n \), and \( i \in \{1,2, \ldots , n \} \), we let
If \( k \in \{ 0,1,2, \ldots , n-1 \} \) and \( f \) is a \( G \)-valued \( k \)-form, we define the \( (k+1) \)-form \( df \) via the formal expression
The operator \( d \) is called the exterior derivative.
2.1.6 Boundary operators
If \( {\hat{x}} \in \mathbb {Z}^n \) and \( j \in \{ 1,2, \ldots , n \} \), then
Here we are writing \(\mathbb {1}_{x = {\hat{x}}}\) for the Dirac delta function of x with mass at \({\hat{x}}\). From this equation, it follows that whenever \( e = \hat{x} + d\mathbf {e}_j = d{\hat{x}}_j \) is an oriented edge and \( p \) is an oriented plaquette, we have
Note that this implies in particular that if \( 1 \le j_1 < j_2 \le n \), \( p = dx_{j_1} \wedge dx_{j_2} \) is a plaquette, and \( f \) is a \( 1 \)-form, then
Analogously, if \( k \in \{ 1,2, \ldots , n \} \) and \( c \) is a \( k \)-cell, we define \( \partial c \) as the set of all \( (k-1) \)-cells \( {\hat{c}} = d{\hat{x}}_{j_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge d{\hat{x}}_{j_{k-1}}\) such that
Using this notation, one can show that if \( f \) is a \( k \)-form and \( c_0 \) is a \( (k+1)\)-cell, then
If \( k \in \{ 1,2, \ldots , n \} \) and \( {\hat{c}} \) is a \( k \)-cell, the set \( \partial {\hat{c}} \) will be referred to as the boundary of \( {\hat{c}} \). When \( k \in \{ 0,1,2,3, \ldots , n-1 \} \) and \( c \) is a \( k \)-cell, we also define the co-boundary \( {\hat{\partial }} c \) of \( c \) as the set of all \( (k+1) \)-cells \( {\hat{c}} \) such that \( c \in \partial {\hat{c}} \).
Finally, when \( k \in \{ 1,2, \ldots , n \} \) and \( c \) is a \( k \)-cell, we will abuse notation and let
Similarly, when \( k \in \{ 0,1,2, \ldots , n-1 \} \) and \( c \) is a \( k \)-cell, we let
The following lemma will be useful to us.
Lemma 5
(The Bianchi lemma, see e.g. Lemma 2.5 in [7]). Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^n \) for some \( n \ge 3 \), and let \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \). Then, for any oriented 3-cell \( c \) in \( B \), we have
2.1.7 Boundary cells
Let \( k \in \{ 1,2,\ldots , n \} \). When \( A \) is a symmetric set of \( k \)-cells, we define the boundary of \( A \) by
If \( B \) is a box and \( e \in \delta E_B \), we say that \( e \) is a boundary edge of \( B \). Analogously, a plaquette \( p \in \delta P_B \) is said to be a boundary plaquette of \( B \). More generally, for \( k \in \{ 0,1, \ldots , n-1 \} \), a \( k \)-cell \( c \) in \( B \) is said to be a boundary cell of \( B \), or equivalently to be in the boundary of \( B \), if there is a \( (k+1) \)-cell \( {\hat{c}} \in {\hat{\partial }} c \) which contains a \( k \)-cell that is not in \( B \).
2.1.8 Closed forms
If \( k \in \{ 1,\ldots , n-1 \} \) and \( f \) is a \( k \)-form such that \( df = 0 \), then we say that \( f \) is closed.
2.1.9 The Poincaré lemma
Lemma 6
(The Poincaré lemma, Lemma 2.2 in [6]). Let \( k \in \{ 0,1, \ldots , n-1\} \) and let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^n \). Then the exterior derivative \( d \) is a surjective map from the set of \(G\)-valued \( k \)-forms with support contained in \(B\) onto the set of G-valued closed \((k+1)\)-forms with support contained in \(B\). Moreover, if \(G\) is finite and \( m \) is the number of closed \(G\)-valued \( k \)-forms with support contained in \(B\), then this map is an \(m\)-to-\(1\) correspondence. Lastly, if \( k \in \{ 0,1,2, \ldots , n-1 \} \) and \(f\) is a closed \( (k+1) \)-form that vanishes on the boundary of \(B\), then there is a \(k\)-form \( h\) that also vanishes on the boundary of \(B\) and satisfies \(dh = f\).
Recall from the introduction that when \( B \) is a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^n \), we defined
From Lemma 6, it follows that \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) if and only if \( d\omega = 0 \).
2.1.10 Restrictions of forms
If \( \sigma \in \Sigma _{E_B} \), \( E \subseteq E_B \) is symmetric, we define \( \sigma |_E \in \Sigma _{E_B} \) for \( e \in E_B \) by
Similarly, if \( \nu \in \Sigma _{P_B} \), \( P \subseteq P_B \) is symmetric, we define \( \omega |_P \in \Sigma _{B,2} \) for \( p \in P_B \) by
2.1.11 Non-trivial forms
Let \( k \in \{ 1,2, \ldots , n \} \). A \( k \)-form \( f \) is said to be non-trivial if it is not identically equal to zero.
2.1.12 Irreducible forms
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^n \), and let \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B}\). If \( P \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \) is symmetric, and there is no symmetric set \( P_0 \subseteq P_B \) such that
-
(i)
\( P \subseteq P_0 \subsetneq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \), and
-
(ii)
\( \omega |{}_{P_0} \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) (equivalently \( d(\omega |_{P_0}) =0 \)),
then \( \omega \) is said to be \( P \)-irreducible (see Fig. 1). If \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B}\) is \( P \)-irreducible for all non-empty, symmetric sets \( P \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \), then we say that \( \omega \) is irreducible. Finally, note that if \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) is \( \emptyset \)-irreducible, then \( \omega \equiv 0 \).
Example 1
Assume that we are given two edges \( e,e' \in \Sigma _{E_N} \) with \( {\hat{\partial }} e \cap \pm {\hat{\partial }} e' = \emptyset , \) that are not in the boundary of \( B_N. \) For \( g \in G {\smallsetminus } \{ 0 \} ,\) let \( \omega :=d(g\mathbb {1}_e - g\mathbb {1}_{-e})\) and \( \omega ' :=d(g\mathbb {1}_{e'} - g\mathbb {1}_{-e'})\) (see Fig. 1). Then, by definition, we have \( \omega ,\omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_N}, \) and one easily verifies that \( \omega \) and \( \omega ' \) are both irreducible.
On the other hand, if \( p \in {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega , \) and we define \( P :=\{ p,-p \} \) and \( P_0 :={{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega ' \sqcup P, \) then \( \omega '|_{P_0} = \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B_N}} ,\) and hence \( \omega +\omega ' \) is not \( P \)-irreducible, implying in particular that it is not irreducible.
More generally, one can show that if \( P \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega + \omega ' \) is symmetric, then \( \omega + \omega ' \) is \( P \)-irreducible if and only if \( P \) has non-empty intersection with both \( {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \) and \( {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega '. \)
Lemma 7
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^n \), let \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \), and let \( P \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \) be non-empty and symmetric. Then there is a symmetric set \( P' \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \) such that \( \omega |_{P'} \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \omega |_{P'} \) is \( P \)-irreducible.
Proof
Consider the set \( \mathcal {S} \) of all symmetric sets \( P' \subseteq P_B \) which are such that
-
(1)
\( P \subseteq P' \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \), and
-
(2)
\( \omega |_{P'} \in \Sigma _{P_B}\).
Since \( {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \) is symmetric and \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \), we have \( \omega \in \mathcal {S}\), and hence \( \mathcal {S} \) is non-empty. Moreover, if we order the elements in \( \mathcal {S} \) using set inclusion, \( \mathcal {S} \) is a partially ordered set. Since \( P_B \) is finite, \( \mathcal {S} \) is finite, and hence there is a minimal element \( P' \in \mathcal {S} \). By definition, any such minimal element is \( P\)-irreducible, and hence the desired conclusion follows. \(\square \)
2.1.13 The dual lattice
The lattice \( \mathbb {Z}^n \) has a natural dual, called the \( dual lattice \) and denoted by \( *\mathbb {Z}^n \). In this context, the lattice \( \mathbb {Z}^n \) is called the primal lattice.
The vertices of the dual lattice \( *\mathbb {Z}^n \) are placed at the centers of the \( n \)-cells of the primal lattice.
For \( k \in \{ 0,1,\ldots , n \} \), there is a bijection between the set of \( k \)-cells of \( \mathbb {Z}^n \) and the set of \( (n-k) \)-cells of \(*\mathbb {Z}^n \) defined as follows. For each \( x \in \mathbb {Z}^n \), let \( y :=*(dx_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge dx_n) \in *\mathbb {Z}^n\) be the point at the centre of the primal lattice \( n \)-cell \( dx_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge dx_n \). Let \( dy_1 = y-d\mathbf {e}_1, \ldots , dy_n = y-d\mathbf {e}_n \) be the edges coming out of \( y \) in the negative direction. Next, let \( k \in \{ 0,1, \ldots , n \} \) and assume that \( 1 \le i_1< \cdots < i_k \le n \) are given. If \(x \in \mathbb {Z}^n\), then \( c = dx_{i_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge dx_{i_k} \) is a \( k \)-cell in \( \mathbb {Z}^n \). Let \( {j_1}, \ldots , j_{n-k} \) be any enumeration of \( \{ 1,2, \ldots , n \} {\smallsetminus } \{ i_1, \ldots , i_k \} \), and let \( {{\,\mathrm{sgn}\,}}(i_1,\ldots , i_k, j_{1}, \ldots , j_{n-k} )\) denote the sign of the permutation that maps \((1,2,\ldots , n)\) to \( (i_1,\ldots , i_k, j_{1}, \ldots , j_{n-k} ) \). Define
and, analogously, define
2.1.14 Minimal non-trivial configurations
The purpose of the next two lemmas is to describe the non-trivial plaquette configurations in \( \Sigma _{P_B} \) with smallest support.
Lemma 8
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \). If \( \omega \ne 0 \) and the support of \( \omega \) does not contain any boundary plaquettes of \( P_B \), then either \( |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega |= 12 \), or \( |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega |\ge 22 \).
Proof
Let \( P :={{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \).
By Lemma 5, if \( c \) is an oriented 3-cell in the primary lattice, then
Consequently, if \( e = *c \) in an oriented edge in the dual lattice, then
Let \( \overline{* P} \) be the set of unoriented plaquettes obtained from \( *P \) by identifying \( p \) and \( -p \) for each \( p \in *P \). It then follows from (17) that each unoriented edge \( {\bar{e}} \) in the dual lattice which is in the boundary of a plaquette in \( \overline{* P} \) must be in the boundary of at least two plaquettes in \( \overline{* P} \).
In other words, the set \( \overline{* P} \) is a closed surface in the dual lattice. One easily verifies that the closed (non-empty) surfaces in the dual lattice which contains the fewest number of plaquettes are 3-dimensional cubes (see Fig. 2), and hence we must have \( |\overline{* P} |\ge 6 \). If \( |\overline{* P} |> 6 \), then by the same argument we must have \( |* {\bar{P}}|\ge 11 \) (see Fig. 2).
Since \( |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega |= |P|= 2|\overline{* P} |\), the desired conclusion follows. \(\square \)
Lemma 9
(Lemma 4.6 in [7]). Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \). If the support of \( \omega \) does not contain any boundary plaquettes of \( P_B \) and \( |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega |= 12\), then there is an edge \( dx_j \in E_B \) and \( g \in G{\smallsetminus } \{ 0 \} \) such that
When \( B \) is a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \) and \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \), we say that a plaquette \( p \in P_B \) is frustrated (in \( \omega \)) if \( \omega _p \ne 0 \).
2.2 \( \mu _{B,\beta } \) as a measure on plaquette configurations
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let \( \beta \ge 0\). In (3), we introduced \( \mu _{B,\beta } \) as a measure on \( \Sigma _{E_B} \). Using Lemma 6, this induces a measure on \( \Sigma _{P_B} \) as follows. For \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \), by definition, we have
If \( \sigma \in \Sigma _{E_B} \), then \( d\sigma \in \Sigma _{P_B} \). Consequently, the previous equation is equal to
Changing the order of summation, we get
By Lemma 6, the term \( |\{\sigma \in \Sigma _{E_B} :d\sigma =\omega '\}|\) is equal for all \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_B} \), and hence in particular, for all \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) we have \( |\{\sigma \in \Sigma _{E_B} :d\sigma =\omega '\}|=|\{\sigma \in \Sigma _{E_B} :d\sigma =\omega \}|\). Combining the above equations, we thus obtain
Consequently, \( \mu _{B,\beta } \) induces a measure on plaquette configurations. In order to simplify notation, we will abuse notation and use \( \mu _{B,\beta } \) and \( \mathbb {E}_{B,\beta } \) for both the measure on \( \Sigma _{E_B} \) and for the induced measure on \( \Sigma _{P_B} \).
2.3 The activity of plaquette configurations
When \( B \) is a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), \( \omega \in P_B \) and \( \beta \ge 0 \), then, recalling the definition of \( \phi _\beta \) from (6), we abuse notation and write
The quantity \( \phi _\beta (\omega ) \) is called the activity of \( \omega \) (see e.g. [2]). Using this notation, since \( \phi _\beta (0)=1 \), for any \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \), we also have
and hence, using (18), we can write
The following lemma is referred to as the factorization property of \( \phi _\beta \) in e.g. [4].
Lemma 10
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let \( \beta \ge 0 \). Further, let \( \omega ,\omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) be such that \( {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \cap {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega ' = \emptyset \). Then
Proof
By definition, we have
Since \( \omega \) and \( \omega ' \) have disjoint supports, we have
Since by definition, we have
the desired conclusion immediately follows. \(\square \)
Combining (19) and Lemma 10, we obtain the following lemma. This lemma can be extracted from the proof of Lemma 4.7 in [7], but we state and prove it here as an independent lemma for easier reference.
Lemma 11
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), let \( \beta \ge 0 \), and let \( \nu \in \Sigma _{P_B} \). Then
Proof
Let \( P = {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu \). Further, let
and, similarly, let
By (19), we then have
Since \( \nu \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) by assumption, we have \( d\nu = 0 \). Consequently, for any \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \), we have
and hence \( (\omega -\nu ) \in \Sigma _{P_B} \). This implies in particular that the mapping \( \omega \mapsto \omega -\nu \) is a bijection from \( \mathcal {E}_{ P,\nu } \) to \( \mathcal {E}_{ P,0} \), and hence the right-hand side of (21) is equal to
Next, note that if \( \omega \in \mathcal {E}_{P,\nu } \), then \( (\omega - \nu ) \) and \( \nu \) have disjoint supports. Consequently, for such \( \omega \) we can apply Lemma 10 to obtain
Plugging this into the left hand side of (22), we obtain
Combining the previous equations, we obtain (20) as desired. \(\square \)
2.4 Notation and standing assumptions
Throughout the remainder of this paper, we assume that a finite Abelian structure group \( G \), and a faithful, irreducible and unitary representation of \( \rho \) has been fixed.
3 The Probability of Sets of Plaquettes Being Frustrated
In this section we will state and prove three propositions which will be useful in later sections. We mention that although these are technical, they might be useful outside the scope of this paper. The first of these results is the following proposition, which extends Proposition 4.9 in [7].
Proposition 12
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), let \( \beta \ge 0 \) be such that \( 5\alpha (\beta )< 1 \), and let \( P \subseteq P_B\) be non-empty and symmetric. For \( M \ge |P^+| \), let \( \Pi _{P, M}^\ge :=\Pi _{B,P, M}^\ge \) be the set of all \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) such that there is \( \nu \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) with
-
(1)
\( P \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu \),
-
(2)
\( \nu \) is \( P \)-irreducible,
-
(3)
\( |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu |\ge 2M \), and
-
(4)
\( \omega |_{{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu } = \nu \).
Then
Before we give a proof of Proposition 12, we state and prove a few lemmas which will be used in the proof. The first of these lemmas is Lemma 13 below, which essentially is identical to Lemma 4.7 in [7].
Lemma 13
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), let \( \beta \ge 0 \), and let \( \nu \in \Sigma _{P_B} \). Then
Proof
Since
and \( \mu _{B,\beta } \) is a probability measure, we have
Using Lemma 11, we obtain (13) as desired. \(\square \)
The next result we will need in the proof of Proposition 12 is the following lemma, which gives an upper bound on the sum of the activity of the plaquette configurations \( \nu \) which satisfies (1), (2), and (3) of Proposition 12.
Lemma 14
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let \( \beta \ge 0 \). Further, let \( P\subseteq P_B \) be non-empty and symmetric, let \( m \ge |P^+| \), and let \( \Pi _{P,m} \) be the set of all plaquette configurations \( \nu \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) such that
-
(1)
\( P \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu \),
-
(2)
\( \nu \) is \( P \)-irreducible
-
(3)
\( |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu |= 2m \).
Then
Remark 10
Lemma 14 is very similar to Lemma 4.9 in [7], and is also similar to Lemma 3.11 in [14] and Lemma 1.5 in [2]. We remark however that our proof strategy yields a strictly better upper bound than the corresponding proofs in [2] and [14]. This would yield a strictly larger lower bound on \( \beta \) in the main results of this paper, and hence we give an alternative proof here.
Proof of Lemma 14
Let \( \ell :=|P_+|\). We will prove that Lemma 14 holds by giving a injective map from the set \( \Pi _{P,m} \) to a set of sequences \( \nu ^{(\ell )} ,\nu ^{(\ell +1)}, \ldots , \nu ^{(m)} \) of \( G \)-valued 2-forms on \( P_B \), and then use this map to obtain the desired upper bound. To this end, assume that a total ordering of the plaquettes in \( P_B \) and a total ordering of the 3-cells in \( B \) are given. If \( \Pi _{P,m} \) is empty, then the desired conclusion trivially holds, and hence we can assume that this is not the case.
Fix some \( \nu \in \Pi _{P,m} \).
Let \( \{ p_1,p_2,\ldots , p_\ell \} :=P^+ \), and define
Now assume that for some \( k\in \{ \ell ,\ell +1, \ldots , m\} \), we are given 2-forms \( \nu ^{(\ell )}, \nu ^{(\ell +1)} , \ldots , \nu ^{(k)} \) such that
-
(i)
for each \( j \in \{ \ell +1, \ell +2, \ldots , k \} \), we have \( {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu ^{(j)} = {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu ^{(j-1)} \sqcup \{ p_j,-p_j \} \) for some \( p_j \in P_B \), and
-
(ii)
for each \( j \in \{ \ell , \ell +1, \ldots , k \} \) we have \( \nu |_{{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu ^{(j)}} = \nu ^{(j)} \).
Consider first the case that \( d\nu ^{(k)} = 0 \). Since, by (ii), we have \( \nu |_{{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu ^{(k)}} = \nu ^{(k)} \), it follows from (2) that we must have \( \nu ^{(k)} = \nu \). On the other hand, by (i), we have \( |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu ^{(k)}|= 2k \), and hence using (3) we obtain \( k = m \). Consequently, if \( k <m \), then \( d\nu ^{(k)} \not \equiv 0 \). Equivalently, in this case there is at least one oriented 3-cell \( c \) in \( B \) for which \( (d \nu ^{(k)})_c \ne 0 \). Let \( c_{k+1} \) be the first oriented 3-cell (with respect to the ordering of the 3-cells) for which \( (d\nu ^{(k)})_{c_{k+1}} \ne 0\). Since \( \nu \in \Sigma _{P_B} \), we have \( (d\nu )_{c_{k+1}} = 0 \), and consequently there must be at least one plaquette \( p\in {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu \cap \bigl ( \partial c_{k+1} {\smallsetminus } {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu ^{(k)} \bigr )\). Let \( p_{k+1} \) be the first such plaquette (with respect to the ordering of the plaquettes).
Define
Note that if \( \nu ^{(\ell )},\nu ^{(\ell +1)}, \ldots , \nu ^{(k)} \) satisfies (i) and (ii), then so does \( \nu ^{(k+1)} \). Using induction, we obtain a sequence \( \nu ^{(\ell )}, \nu ^{(\ell +1)},\ldots , \nu ^{(m)} \) of 2-forms with \( {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu ^{(\ell )} = P \) which satisfies (i) and (ii). We now show that such a sequence must satisfy \( \nu ^{(m)} = \nu \). To this end, note that by (i), \( |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu ^{(m)} |= 2m \) and by (ii), \( \nu |_{{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu ^{(m)}} = \nu ^{(m)} \). Since \( |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu |= 2m \), it follows that \( \nu ^{(m)} = \nu \).
We now use the above construction of sequences \( (\nu ^{(\ell )}, \nu ^{(\ell +1)},\ldots , \nu ^{(m)}) ,\) each corresponding to some \( \nu \in \Pi _{P,m}, \) to get an upper bound on \( \sum _{\nu \in \Pi _{P,m}} \phi _\beta (\nu ). \) To obtain such an upper bound, note first that for each \( k \in \{ \ell , \ell +1, \cdots , m-1 \} \), given \( \nu ^{(k)} \), the 3-cell \( c_{k+1} \) is uniquely determined. Next, given \( \nu ^{(k)} \) and \( c_{k+1} \), there are at most five possible choices for \( p_{k+1} \). Finally, note that for each \( k \in \{ 1,2, \ldots , m \} \), we must choose \( \nu _{p_k} \in G{\smallsetminus } \{ 0 \} \). Since for \( \nu \in \Pi _{P,m} \) the mapping \( \nu \mapsto (\nu ^{(\ell )}, \nu ^{(\ell +1)}, \ldots , \nu ^{(m)}) \) is injective, we obtain
Recalling the definition of \( \alpha (\beta ) \), the desired conclusion now follows. \(\square \)
Proof of Proposition 12
For each \( m \ge |P^+|\) let \( \Pi _{P,m} \) be defined as in Lemma 14. Then, by definition,
Consequently, by a union bound, we have
By Lemma 13, for any \( m \ge M \) and any \( \nu \in \Pi _{P,m} \subseteq \Sigma _{P_B} \), we have
Applying Lemma 14, we thus obtain
The right-hand side in the previous equation is a geometric sum, which converges exactly if \({5\alpha (\beta )< 1.} \)
In this case, by combining the previous equations, we obtain
as desired. \(\square \)
The next result is a small variation of Proposition 12 which turns out to be useful when we work with pairs of plaquette configurations.
Proposition 15
Let \( B \) and \( B' \) be two boxes in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \) with \( B' \subseteq B \), let \( \beta \ge 0 \) be such that \( 5\alpha (\beta )< 1 \), and let \( P_0 \subseteq P_{B'}\) be non-empty and symmetric. For \( M \ge |P_0^+| \), let \( {\bar{\Pi }}_{P_0, M}^\ge \) be the set of all pairs \( (\omega ,\omega ') \in \Sigma _{P_B} \times \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \) such that there is \( \nu \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \nu ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \) with
-
(1)
\( \omega |_{{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu } = \nu \) and \( \omega '|_{{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu '} = \nu ' \),
-
(2)
\( P_0 \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu \cup {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu ' \),
-
(3)
for all symmetric sets \( P \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu \) and \( P' \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu '\) which satisfies satisfies \( P \sqcup P' = P_0 \), \( \nu \) is \( P \)-irreducible and \( \nu ' \) is \( P' \)-irreducible.
-
(4)
\( |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu |+ |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu ' |\ge 2M \).
Then
Proof
For non-empty and symmetric sets \( P \subseteq P_B \), and \( m \ge | P^+| \), recall the definition of \( \Pi _{B, P,m}^\ge \) from Proposition 12.
For \( m_0 \ge 0 \), define
Analogously, for non-empty and symmetric sets \( P \subseteq P_{B'} \), and \( m \ge | P^+| \), recall the definition of \( \Pi _{B', P,m}^\ge \) from Proposition 12, and for \( m_0 \ge 0 \), define
Then, by definition, we have
Consequently, by a union bound, we have
If \( P = \emptyset \), then
Similarly, if \( P = P_0 \), then
Consequently, we have
Since \( 5\alpha (\beta )< 1 \), we can now apply Proposition 12 to obtain
Combining (25), (26) and (27), we finally obtain (24) as desired. \(\square \)
The last result of this section is the following proposition, which provides a matching lower bound for the inequality in Lemma 13.
Proposition 16
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), let \( \beta >0 \) be such that \( 5\alpha (\beta )< 1 \), and let \( \nu \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) be such that \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_B({{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu , \delta B) \ge 7 \).
Then
Remark 11
For any given \( \nu \in \Sigma _{P_B} \), he ratio between the upper and lower bound in (28) can be made arbitrarily close to one by taking \( \beta \) sufficiently large.
Proof
Since the upper bound in (28) is a direct consequence of Lemma 13, we only need to show that the lower bound in (28) holds. To this end, note first that
Assume that \( p \in P_B \) and that \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) is such that \( \omega '|_p \ne 0 \). By Lemma 7 there exists an irreducible and non-trivial plaquette configuration \( \nu ' \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) with \( p \in {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu ' \) and \( \omega '|_{{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu '} = \nu ' \). By Lemma 8, any non-trivial plaquette configuration \( \nu ' \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) must satisfy \( |({{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu ')^+ |\ge 6 \). Consequently, by Proposition 12, applied with \( P :=\{ p,-p \} \) and \( M = 6 \), we have
Next note that for \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \), the event \( \omega |_{{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu } \ne 0 \) is equivalent to that \( {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \cap ({{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu )^+ \ne \emptyset \).
Consequently, by a union bound, we obtain
On the other hand, by Lemma 11, we have
Combining (29), (30) and (31), we obtain the desired lower bound. \(\square \)
4 Paths, Optimal Paths and Geodesics
The following definition, which we recall from the introduction, will be central in the rest of this paper.
Definition 1
Given two boxes \( B \) and \( B' \) in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \), let \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ' ) \) be the graph with vertex set \( {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \cup {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega ' \) and an edge between two distinct plaquettes \( p_1,p_2 \in {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \cup {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega ' \) if either \( {\hat{\partial }} p_1 \cap {\hat{\partial }} p_2 \ne \emptyset \) or \( {\hat{\partial }} p_1 \cap \hat{\partial }(-p_2) \ne \emptyset \).
If \( p_1,p_2 \in {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \cup {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega ' \) are neighbors in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ' ) \), we write \( p_1 \sim p_2 \).
The main reason for introducing the graph \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ' ) \) is to be able to talk about paths and geodesics in this graph. To be able to talk about general properties of such paths, we introduce the following notation.
Definition 2
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let the plaquettes \( p_1,p_2, \ldots , p_m \in P_B \) be distinct. If for each \( k \in \{ 1,2, \ldots , m-1 \}\) we have \( {\hat{\partial }} p_k \cap \pm {\hat{\partial }} p_{k+1} \ne \emptyset \), then \( \mathcal {P} :=(p_1, p_2, \ldots , p_m) \) is said to be a path (from \( p_1 \) to \( p_m \)) in \( P_B \).
When \( \mathcal {P} = (p_1,p_2, \ldots , p_m )\) is a path, we let \( {{\,\mathrm{Image}\,}}(\mathcal {P}) \) denote the set \( \{ p_1,p_2, \ldots , p_m \} \), and let \( |\mathcal {P}|:=|{{\,\mathrm{Image}\,}}(\mathcal {P})|= m \).
Note that if \( B \) and \( B' \) are two boxes in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \) with \( B' \subseteq B \) and \( \mathcal {P} \) is a path in \( P_{B'} \), then \( \mathcal {P} \) is a path in \( P_{B'} \). Also, if \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \), \( \omega '\in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \), and \( \mathcal {P} \) is a path in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \), then \( \mathcal {P} \) is a path in \( P_B \). Conversely, if \( \mathcal {P} \) is a path in \( P_B \), \( g \in G {\smallsetminus } \{ 0 \} \), and we define \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B}\) and \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B'}}\) by letting \( \omega ' \equiv 0 \) and \( \omega _p = g \) for all \( p \in P_B^+ \), then \( \mathcal {P} \) is a path in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \). Note that in this example, \( \omega \) has full support. The next lemma shows that in some cases, there is \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B}\) and \( \omega '\in \Sigma _{P_{B'}}\) with relatively small supports such that a given path \( \mathcal {P} \) is a path in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \).
Lemma 17
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let \( \mathcal {P} = (p_1,p_2,\ldots , p_m) \) be a shortest path from \( p_1 \) to \( p_m \) in \( P_B \). Then there is \( \omega ^{(0)},\omega ^{(1)} \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) such that
-
(1)
\( \mathcal {P} \) is a path in \( \mathcal {G} ( \omega ^{(0)} , \omega ^{(1)}) \), and
-
(2)
\( |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega ^{(0)}|+ |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega ^{(1)}|\le 12|\mathcal {P}|\).
Proof
We first choose a sequence of oriented edges as follows.
-
(i)
Let \( k_1 :=1 \). If \( m \ge 2 \) and \( \partial p_1 \cap \pm \partial p_2 \ne \emptyset \), pick \( e_1 \in \partial p_1 \cap \pm \partial p_2 \). Otherwise, pick any \( e_1 \in \partial p_1 \).
Now assume that \( e_1, e_2,\ldots , e_{j-1} \) are given for some \( j \ge 2 \). If there is \( k \in \{ 1, \ldots , m \} \) such that \( \partial p_k \cap \pm \{ e_1,e_2, \ldots , e_{j-1} \} = \emptyset \), we choose \( e_{j} \) as follows.
-
(ii)
Let \( k_{j} \ge 1 \) be the smallest integer such that \( \partial p_{k_j} \cap \pm \{ e_1, e_2, \ldots , e_{j-1} \} = \emptyset \).
If \( k_{j}+1 \le m \) and \( \partial p_{k_j} \cap \pm \partial p_{k_j+1} \ne \emptyset \), pick \( e_{j} \in \partial p_{k_j} \cap \pm \partial p_{k_j+1} \). Otherwise, pick any \( e_{j} \in \partial p_{k_j} \).
Let \( \ell \) be the smallest positive integer which is such that \( \partial p_k \cap \pm \{ e_1,e_2, \ldots , e_\ell \} \ne \emptyset \) for all \( k \in \{ 1,2,\ldots , m\} \).
Fix any \( g \in G {\smallsetminus } \{ 0 \} \) and define \( \sigma ^{(0)},\sigma ^{(1)} \in \Sigma _{E_N} \) by
and
We will show that \( \omega ^{(0)} :=d\sigma ^{(0)} \) and \( \omega ^{(1)} :=d\sigma ^{(1)} \) have the desired properties.
Since \( \mathcal {P} \) is a path, (1) is equivalent to that
To see that this holds, fix some \( k \in \{ 1,2, \ldots , m \} ,\) and define
By the choice of the edges \( e_1,e_2,\ldots ,e_\ell \), the set \( J_k \) is non-empty.
Now let \( j,j' \in J_k \) be such that \( j\le j' \).
By the choice of \( e_j, \) we have \( e_j \in \partial p_{k_j} ,\) and since \( j \in J_k ,\) we also have \( e_j \in \pm \partial p_k. \) Consequently, \(e_j \in \partial p_{k_j} \cap \pm \partial p_k, \) and thus \( p_{k_j} \sim p_k. \) By the same argument, we also have \( p_{k_{j'}} \sim p_k. \) Consequently, \( (p_{k_j},p_k,p_{k_{j'}}) \) is a path in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ^{(0)},\omega ^{(1)}).\) Since \( \mathcal {P} \) is a shortest path, \( \mathcal {P} \) contains \( p_{k_j} \) \(p_k ,\) and \( p_{k_{j'}} \) and \( k_j \le k_{j'} \) (since \( j \le j' \)), we must have \( k_j \in \{ k-1,k \} \) and \( k_{j'} \in \{ k,k+1 \}. \)
Since \( e_j \in \pm \partial p_k, \) we cannot have \( k_{j+1} = k, \) and since \( k_j \in \{ k-1,k \} \), we thus have \( k_{j+1} \ge k+1. \) Consequently, if \( j' \ne j' \), we must have \( j' = j+1. \)
In other words, we have either \( J_k = \{ j \} \) for some \( j \in \{ 1,2, \ldots , \ell \} \), or \( J_k = \{ j,j+1 \} \) for some \( j \in \{ 1,2, \ldots , \ell -1 \} \).
This implies in particular that
and thus (1) holds.
To see that (2) holds, note simply that
This concludes the proof. \(\square \)
Lemma 18
Let \( B \) and \( B' \) be two boxes in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), let \( P_1,P_2 \subseteq P_B \cup P_B \) be disjoint, and assume that \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \) are such that that \( P_1 \leftrightarrow P_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \). Further, let \( \mathcal {P} :=(p_1,p_2, \ldots , p_\ell ) \) be a geodesic in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \) between \( p_1 \in P_1 \) and \( p_\ell \in P_2 \). Then
Proof
Since \( \mathcal {P} \) is a geodesic in \( \mathcal {G} \), we must have
and
Consequently, we have
From this the desired conclusion immediately follows. \(\square \)
Remark 12
If we either assume that \( \partial {\hat{\partial }} p \cap \delta P_B = \emptyset \) for all \( p \in {{\,\mathrm{Image}\,}}P \) or consider lattice gauge theory with zero boundary conditions, then one can quite easily show that (33) can be replaced with
If we have zero boundary conditions, then this stronger inequality can be used to replace the constant \( C_2 \) defined in (8) with the smaller constant \( 3^{3/5} \cdot 10 \).
Definition 3
A path \( \mathcal {P} = ( p_1, p_2 \ldots , p_m ) \) is said to be optimal if
-
(i)
\( p_1,p_2, \ldots , p_{m-1} \) all have the same orientation, and
-
(ii)
for any \( i,j \in \{ 1,2, \ldots , m \} \), if \( {\hat{\partial }} p_i \cap ({\hat{\partial }} p_j \cup {\hat{\partial }} (-p_j)) \ne \emptyset \), then \( |i-j|\le 1 \).
The next lemma gives an upper bound on the number of optimal paths of a given length.
Lemma 19
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), let \( p_1 \in P_B \), and let \( m \ge 2 \). Then there are at most \( 40 \cdot 15^{m-2} \) optimal paths \( \mathcal {P} = ( p_1,p_2,\ldots , p_m ) \) with \( p_m \ne \pm p_1 \).
Proof
Note first that for any \( p \in P_B \), we have \( |{\hat{\partial }} p|= 4 \), and if \( c \in {\hat{\partial }} p \), then \( |(\partial c){\smallsetminus } \{ p \}|= 5 \).
Since \( \mathcal {P} \) is a path, we have
Since
the desired conclusion holds in the case \( m = 2 \).
On the other hand, for each plaquette \( p \in \pm \bigl (\partial {\hat{\partial }} p_1 {\smallsetminus } \{ p_1 \} \bigr ) \), we also have \( -p \in \pm \bigl (\partial {\hat{\partial }} p_1 {\smallsetminus } \{ p_1 \} \bigr ) \), and exactly one of \( p \) and \( -p \) has the same orientation as \( p_1 \). Since \( \mathcal {P} \) is optimal, if \( m \ge 3\) then the plaquettes \( p_1 \) and \( p_2 \) must have the same orientation, and hence in this case, given \( p_1 \) there are at most \( 40/2 = 20 \) possible choices of \( p_2 \).
Next, assume that \( m \ge 4 \) and that \( j \in \{3, \ldots , m-1 \} \). Since \( \mathcal {P} \) is a path, we have
and since \( \mathcal {P} \) is optimal, we have
Since \( \mathcal {P} \) is a path, we have \( |{\hat{\partial }} p_{j-1} \cap \pm {\hat{\partial }} p_{j-2} |\ge 1 \). Since \( j<m \), the plaquettes \( p_j \) and \( p_{j-1} \) must have the same orientation, and hence, given \( p_1,p_2, \ldots , p_{j-1} \), there are at most \( 2 \cdot (4-1)\cdot 5 \cdot \frac{1}{2}= 15 \) possible choices of \( p_j \). By the same argument, since the last plaquette can have any orientation, it follows that given \( p_1, p_2, \ldots , p_{m-1} \), there can be at most \( 2 \cdot (4-1)\cdot 5 = 30 \) possible choices of \( p_m \).
To sum up, we have showed that there are exactly \( 40\) optimal paths \( \mathcal {P} = (p_1,p_2) \) with \( p_2 \ne \pm p_1 \), and if \( m \ge 3 \), there are at most \( 20 \cdot 15^{m-3} \cdot 30\) optimal paths \( \mathcal {P} = (p_1,p_2, \ldots , p_m) \) with \( p_m \ne \pm p_1 \). This concludes the proof. \(\square \)
Lemma 20
Let \( B \) and \( B' \) be two boxes in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let \( p_1,p_2 \in P_B \) be disjoint. Further, let \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \) and assume that \( \{ p_1 \} \leftrightarrow \{ p_2\} \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \). Then there is an optimal geodesic \( \mathcal {P} \) from \( p_1 \) to \( p_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \).
Proof
Since \( \{ p_1 \} \leftrightarrow \{ p_2\} \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \), there exist at least one geodesic from \( p_1 \) to \( p_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \). Let \( (p^{(1)},p^{(2)},\ldots , p^{(m)}) \) be such a geodesic.
Then, for any \( \tau _2,\ldots , \tau _{m-1} \in \{ -1,1 \} \), the path
is also a geodesic from \( p_1 \) to \( p_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \). In particular, we can choose \( \tau _2,\ldots , \tau _{m-1} \in \{ -1,1 \} \) such that \( \mathcal {P} \) is an optimal geodesic from \( p_1 \) to \( p_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \). This concludes the proof. \(\square \)
5 Connected Sets of Plaquettes
Definition 4
Let \( B \) and \( B' \) be two boxes in in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \omega '\in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \).
Let \( P_1,P_2 \subseteq P_B \cup P_{B'} \) be two disjoint sets. If there is \( p_1 \in P_1 \) and \( p_2 \in P_2 \) and a path from \( p_1 \) to \( p_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \), then we say that \( P_1 \) and \( P_2 \) are connected in \( \mathcal {G}( \omega , \omega ') \) and write \( P_1 \leftrightarrow P_2 \) (in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \)). Otherwise, we say that \( P_1 \) and \( P_2 \) are disconnected, and write \( P_1 \nleftrightarrow P_2 \) (in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \)).
Note that with this definition, if \( p_1,p_2 \in P_B \cup P_{B'} \), \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \), then there is a path from \( p_1 \) to \( p_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G} (\omega ,\omega ') \) if and only if \( \{ p_1\} \leftrightarrow \{ p_2\} \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \). Note also that if \( P_1,P_2 \subseteq P_B \cup P_{B'} \), \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \) then, by definition, \( P_1 \leftrightarrow P_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \) if and only if \( P_2 \leftrightarrow P_1 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \). Moreover, \( P_1 \leftrightarrow P_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \) if and only if \( \delta P_1 \leftrightarrow \delta P_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \).
Re remark that if \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \), then the connected components of \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,0) \) are called vortices in [4, 6], and correspond to the support of polymers in [2].
Our main reason for introducing a notion of sets of plaquettes being connected is the following lemma.
Lemma 21
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let \( \beta \ge 0 \). Further, let \( P_1,P_2 \subseteq P_{B}\) be symmetric and disjoint, and let \( f :\Sigma _{P_B} \rightarrow \mathbb {C} \) and \( g :\Sigma _{P_B} \rightarrow \mathbb {C} \) be such that \( f(\omega ) = f(\omega |_{P_1}) \) and \( g(\omega ) = g(\omega |_{P_2}) \) for all \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \)=. Finally, let \( \omega ^{(0)}, \omega ^{(1)} \sim \mu _{B,\beta } \) be independent. Then
Proof
Given \( \omega ^{(0)}, \omega ^{(1)}\in \Sigma _{P_B} \), let
Then \( {\hat{P}}_1 \) is the set of all plaquettes in \( P_B \) which shares a 3-cell with some plaquette in \( P_B \) which is connected to \( P_1 \).
Note that the set \( {\hat{P_1}} \) can be determined without looking outside \( {{\hat{P}}}_1 \) in \( \omega ^{(0)} \) and \( \omega ^{(1)} \), and that
This implies that even if we know \( \omega ^{(0)}|_{{\hat{P}}_1} \) and \( \omega ^{(1)}|_{{\hat{P}}_1} \), we cannot distinguish between \( \omega ^{(0)}|_{P_{B} {\smallsetminus } {\hat{P}}_1} \) and \( \omega ^{(0)}|_{P_{B} {\smallsetminus } {\hat{P}}_1} \). Consequently, we have
This implies in particular that
Noting that
the desired conclusion follows. \(\square \)
6 Distances Between Plaquettes
Assume that two boxes \( B \) and \( B' \) in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \) with \( B' \subseteq B \), and sets \( P_1,P_2 \subseteq P_B \cup P_{B'} \) are given. Recall the definition of \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B,B'}(P_1,P_2 ) \) from (5). Using the notation of the previous section, we have
We now define another measure of the distance between sets of plaquettes which will be useful to us.
We mention that we do neither claim nor prove that the functions \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B,B'} \) and \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_B^* \) defined above are distance functions, and this will not be needed in the rest of this paper.
The following lemma gives a relationship between the distances \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B,B'} \) and \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_B^* \).
Lemma 22
Let \( B \) and \( B' \) be two boxes in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \) with \( B' \subseteq B \), and let \( P_1 ,P_2 \subseteq P_B \) be disjoint. Then
and
Proof
We first prove that (36) holds.
To this end, let \( \mathcal {P} \) be a path from \( p_1 \in P_1 \) to \( p_2 \in P_2 \) in \( P_B \) with \( |\mathcal {P}|= {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_B^*(P_1,P_2) \). Then \( \mathcal {P} \) is a shortest path from \( p_1 \) to \( p_2 \), and hence by Lemma 17 there is \( \omega ^{(0)},\omega ^{(1)} \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) such that \( \mathcal {P} \) is a path in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ^{(0)},\omega ^{(1)}) \) and \( |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega ^{(0)}|+ |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega ^{(1)}|\le 12|\mathcal {P}|\). Since \( \mathcal {P} \) is a path in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ^{(0)},\omega ^{(1)}) \) from \( p_1 \in P_1 \) to \( p_2 \in P_2 \), we have \( P_1 \leftrightarrow P_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ^{(0)},\omega ^{(1)}) \), and hence
This concludes the proof of (36).
We now show that (35) holds. To this end, assume that \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \) are such that that \( P_1 \leftrightarrow P_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \) and \( |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega |+ |{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega '|= 2{{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B,B'}(P_1,P_2) \). By the definition of \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B,B'}(P_1,P_2) \), such plaquette configurations \( \omega \) and \( \omega ' \) exists.
Since \( P_1 \leftrightarrow P_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \), there exists at least one path in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \) between some \( p_1 \in P_1 \) and some \( p_2 \in P_2 \). Let \( \mathcal {P} \) be such a path. Then by definition, we have
Moreover, by Lemma 18, we have
Combining these equations, we obtain
as desired. \(\square \)
7 The Probability of Two Sets Being Connected
The purpose of this section is to give a proof of the following result, which gives an upper bound on the probability that two given sets are connected.
Proposition 23
Let \( B \) and \( B' \) be two boxes in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \) with \( B' \subseteq B \), let \( \beta \ge 0 \) be such that \( 30 \alpha (\beta ) < 1 \), and let \( P_1,P_2 \subseteq P_{B } \) be disjoint. Then
Before giving a proof of this result at the end of this section, we will state and prove the following lemma, which gives an upper bound on the probability that a given path \( \mathcal {P} \) is a path in a random graph \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \).
Lemma 24
Let \( B \) and \( B' \) be two a boxes in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \) with \( B' \subseteq B \), and let \( \beta \ge 0 \) be such that \( 5\alpha (\beta ) < 1 \). Further, let \( p_1,p_2 \in P_{B} \) be distinct, and let \( \mathcal {P} \) be a path from \( p_1 \) to \( p_2 \) in \( P_B \).
Then
where \( M :=\max \Bigl ( |\mathcal {P}|, {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B,B'}(p_1,p_2) \Bigr ) \).
Proof
Let \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \) be such that \( \mathcal {P} \) is a geodesic from \(p_1\) to \(p_2\) in \( \mathcal {G} (\omega ,\omega '), \) and let \( P_0 :=\pm {{\,\mathrm{Image}\,}}\mathcal {P}. \) \(\square \)
We now claim that the following holds.
Claim 25
There are symmetric sets \( {\hat{P}} \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \) and \( {\hat{P}}' \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega ' \) such that
-
(a)
\( P_0 \subseteq {\hat{P}} \cup {\hat{P}}' \),
-
(b)
for all symmetric sets \( P \subseteq {\hat{P}}\) and \( P' \subseteq {\hat{P}}'\) which satisfies satisfies \( P \sqcup P' = P_0 \), \( \omega |_{{\hat{P}}} \) is \( P \)-irreducible and \( \omega '|_{{\hat{P}}'} \) is \( P' \)-irreducible.
Proof of Claim
We will give a proof by contradiction. To this end, and assume that no symmetric sets \( {\hat{P}} \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \) and \( {\hat{P}}' \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega ' \) which satisfy both (a) and (b) exist.
-
1.
Let \( {\hat{P}}_0 :={{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \) and \( {\hat{P}}_0' :={{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega '. \) Note that, by assumption, since \( \mathcal {P} \) is a geodesic in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \) and \( P_0 = \pm {{\,\mathrm{Image}\,}}\mathcal {P}, \) (a) holds with \( {\hat{P}} = {\hat{P}}_0 \) and \( {\hat{P}}' = {\hat{P}}'_0. \)
-
2.
For \( k = 1,2,3, \ldots \), assume that sets \( {\hat{P}}_{k-1} \) and \( {\hat{P}}'_{k-1} \) such that (a) holds with \( {\hat{P}} = {\hat{P}}_{k-1} \) and \( {\hat{P}}' = {\hat{P}}'_{k-1} \) are given.
Since (a) holds with \( {\hat{P}} = {\hat{P}}_{k-1} \) and \( {\hat{P}}' = {\hat{P}}'_{k-1}, \) by assumption, (b) must fail.
Consequently, there must exist symmetric sets \( P \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{k-1}\) and \( P' \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{k-1}'\) such that \( P \sqcup P' = P_0, \) and such that either \( \omega |_{{\hat{P}}_{k-1}} \) is not \( P \)-irreducible or \( \omega '|_{{\hat{P}}_{k-1}'} \) is not \( P' \)-irreducible.
At the same time, by Lemma 7, there is \( {\hat{P}}_k \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{k-1} \) and \( {\hat{P}}'_k \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{k-1}'\) such that \( \omega |_{{\hat{P}}_k} \) is \( P\)-irreducible and \( \omega |_{{\hat{P}}'_k} \) is \( P'\)-irreducible.
Since \( P_0 = P \sqcup P' \) , we have \( P_0 \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega |_{{\hat{P}}_k} \cup {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega '|_{{\hat{P}}_k'} = {\hat{P}}_k \cap {\hat{P}}_{k}'\) and hence (a) holds with \( {\hat{P}} = {\hat{P}}_{k} \) and \( {\hat{P}}' = {\hat{P}}'_{k} .\)
Also, since either \( \omega |_{{\hat{P}}_{k-1}} \) is not \( P \)-irreducible or \( \omega '|_{{\hat{P}}_{k-1}'} \) is not \( P' \) irreducible, we must have \( |{\hat{P}}_{k}|+ |{\hat{P}}'_{k}|< |{\hat{P}}_{k-1}|+ |{\hat{P}}'_{k-1}|. \)
Repeating the above argument, we obtain an infinite sequence of sets \( ({\hat{P}}_0,{\hat{P}}_0'), ({\hat{P}}_1,{\hat{P}}_1'), \ldots \) with
However, since \( P_N \) is finite and \( P_0 \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{k} \cup {\hat{P}}'_{k} \), this is impossible, and hence our assumption must be false. This concludes the proof. \(\square \)
Using Claim 25, we let \( {\hat{P}} \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega \) and \( {\hat{P}}' \subseteq {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\omega ' \) be symmetric sets which satisfy (a) and (b) of this claim, and define \( \nu :=\omega |_{{\hat{P}}} \) and \( \nu ' :=\omega '|_{{\hat{P}}'}. \)
Note that by definition, \( \nu \) and \( \nu ' \) satisfy (1), (2), and (3) of Proposition 15.
Next, since \( \mathcal {P} \) is a geodesic in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \), it follows that \( \mathcal {P} \) is a geodesic in \( \mathcal {G} (\nu ,\nu '). \) Using Lemma 18, it follows from (a) and the definition of \( \nu \) and \( \nu ' \) that
On the other hand, by the definition of \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B,B'} \), we must also have
To sum up, we have showed that if \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \) are such that \( \mathcal {P} \) is a geodesic from \(p_1\) to \(p_2\) in \( \mathcal {G} (\omega ,\omega '),\) and we let \( {\bar{\Pi }}_{P_0,M}^\ge \) be as in Proposition 15, then \( (\omega ,\omega ') \in {\bar{\Pi }}_{P_0,M}^\ge . \) Consequently,
Applying Proposition 15, we thus obtain
Since \( p_1 \) and \( p_2 \) are distinct, we have \( |\mathcal {P}|\ge 2 \), and hence \( M -|\mathcal {P}|\ge 1. \) Using the inequality \( x \le 2^{x-1} \), valid for all \( x \ge 1 \), the desired conclusion follows. \(\square \)
We now give a proof of Proposition 23.
Proof of Proposition 23
Let \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \), and assume that \( P_1 \leftrightarrow P_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \). Then, by Lemma 20, there is \( p_1 \in P_1 \), \( p_2 \in P_2 \), and an optimal geodesic from \( p_1 \) to \( p_2 \) in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega , \omega ') \).
Consequently, we have the upper bound
By Lemma 19, given \( m \ge 2 \) and \( p_1 \in P_1 \), there are at most \( 40 \cdot 15^{m-2} \) optimal paths \( \mathcal {P} \) of length \( m \) which starts at \( p_1 \) and ends at some \( p \in P_B \).
Since \( P_1 \) and \( P_2 \) are disjoint, we have \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_B^*(P_1,P_2) \ge 2 \). Consequently, for any \( m \ge {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_B^*(P_1,P_2) \), there can be at most \( |P_1|\cdot 40 \cdot 15^{m-2} \) optimal paths which starts at some \( p_1 \in P_1\) and ends at some \( p_2 \in P_2 \).
In particular, this implies that for any \( m \ge {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_B^*(P_1,P_2) \), there are at most \( |P_1|\cdot 40 \cdot 15^{m-2} \) paths which starts at some \( p_1 \in P_1\) and ends at some \( p_2 \in P_2 \) which can be an optimal geodesic in \( \mathcal {G}(\omega ,\omega ') \) for some \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \).
On the other hand, given a path \( \mathcal {P} \) from \( p_1 \) to \( p_2 \), by Lemma 24 we have
Combining there observations, and summing over all \( m \ge {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_B^*(P_1,P_2) \), we thus obtain
We now rewrite the sum in (39) as follows. First, note that by Lemma 22, we have
Consequently,
The first term in (40) is a finite geometric sum, and the second term is an infinite geometric sum which converge since \( 30\alpha (\beta )<1 \). Hence the previous equation is equal to
Since \( 30 \alpha (\beta ) < 1 \), we can bound the previous equation from above by
Combining the previous equations, we obtain
Recalling the definition of \( C_1 \) from (7) and the definition of \( C_2 \) from (8), we obtain the desired conclusion. \(\square \)
8 Covariance and Connected Sets
We now use the notion of connected sets to obtain an upper bound on the covariance of local functions.
Lemma 26
Let \( B \) be a box in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let \( \beta \ge 0 \). Further, let \( P_1 \subseteq P_B \) and \( P_2 \subseteq P_B \) be symmetric and disjoint, and let \( f_1,f_2 :\Sigma _{B,2} \rightarrow \mathbb {C} \) be such that \( f_1( \omega ) = f_1( \omega |_{P_1}) \) and \( f_2( \omega ) = f_2( \omega |_{P_2}) \) for all \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \). Finally, let \( \omega , \omega ' \sim \mu _{B,\beta } \) be independent. Then
Proof
Note first that
Since \( f_1(\omega '') = f_1(\omega ''|_{P_1}) \) and \( f_2(\omega '') = f_1(\omega ''|_{P_2}) \) for all \( \omega '' \in \Sigma _{P_B} \), we can apply Lemma 21 to obtain
Combining the previous equations, we obtain
and hence
From this the desired conclusion immediately follows. \(\square \)
We now combine the previous lemma with Proposition Proposition 23 to obtain our first main result.
Proof of Theorem 1
By combining Lemma 26 and Proposition 23, we immediately obtain
This concludes the proof of the first part of Theorem 1.
To see that the second claim of the theorem holds, we apply the first part of the theorem with \( f_1(\omega ) = {{\,\mathrm{tr}\,}}\rho (\omega _{p_1}) \), \( f_2(\omega ) = {{\,\mathrm{tr}\,}}\rho (\omega _{p_2}) \), \( P_1 = \{ p_1 \} \), and \( P_2 = \{ p_2 \} \), and note that since \( \rho \) is unitary, we have \( \Vert f_1 \Vert _\infty \le \dim \rho \) and \( \Vert f_2 \Vert _\infty \le \dim \rho \). \(\square \)
9 Total Variation and Connected Sets
The next lemma gives a connection between the total variation distance of two restricted configurations and the property of two sets being connected in the same configurations. The proof of this lemma uses a coupling of the two configurations. We mention that this coupling is the same type of coupling that is used in e.g. [15] and [3].
Lemma 27
Let \( B' \subsetneq B\) be two boxes in \( \mathbb {Z}^4 \), and let \( \beta \ge 0 \). Let \( P_0 \subseteq P_{B'} \). Further, let \( \omega \sim \mu _{B,\beta } \) and \( \omega ' \sim \mu _{B',\beta } \). Then
Proof
Given \( \omega \in \Sigma _{P_B} \) and \( \omega ' \in \Sigma _{P_{B'}} \), let
(see Fig. 3B).
Next, define
(see Fig. 3C) and note that \( P_B{\smallsetminus } P_{B'} \subseteq \hat{{\hat{P}}} \) and that
Note also that the set \( {\hat{P}} \) can be determined without looking outside \( \hat{{\hat{P}}} \) in \( \omega \) and \( \omega ' \). Together, these observations imply that if we let \( \omega \sim \mu _{B,\beta } \) and \( \omega ' \sim \mu _{B',\beta } \) be independent, then, conditioned on \( {\hat{P}} = {\hat{P}}(\omega ,\omega ')\), we have
We now use this observation to construct a coupling \( ({\hat{\omega }},{\hat{\omega }}') \) of \( {\hat{\omega }} \sim \mu _{B,\beta } \) and \( {\hat{\omega }}' \sim \mu _{B',\beta } \).
To this end, let \( \omega \sim \mu _{B,\beta } \) and \( \omega ' \sim \mu _{B',\beta } \) be independent.
Given \( {\hat{P}} = {\hat{P}}(\omega ,\omega ') \), define
By (41), we have
and hence \( {\hat{\omega }}' \sim \mu _{B',\beta } \). Since \( \hat{\omega }\sim \mu _{B,\beta } \) by definition, it follows that \( (\hat{\omega }, {\hat{\omega }}') \) is a coupling of \( {\hat{\omega }} \sim \mu _{B,\beta } \) and \( {\hat{\omega }}' \sim \mu _{B',\beta } \).
By the coupling characterization of total variation distance, we therefore have
If \( {\hat{\omega }} |_{P_0} \ne {\hat{\omega }}'|_{P_0} \), then
and hence it follows that
This completes the proof. \(\square \)
We now use the previous lemma to give a proof of Theorem 4.
Proof of Theorem 4
By Lemma 27, we have
On the other hand, by Proposition 23, we have
Combining the previous equations, we thus obtain
as desired. \(\square \)
10 The Expected Spin at a Plaquette
In this section, we give proofs of Theorem 2 and Theorem 3.
Proof of Theorem 2
We first define two useful events.
Let
and, for \( e \in \partial p \) and \( g \in G \), let
Note that since \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B} \bigl ( \{p\}, \delta P_B \bigr ) > 6 \), these events are all well-defined. Moreover, by Lemma 8 and Lemma 9, since \( {{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}_{B} \bigl ( \{p\}, \delta P_B \bigr ) > 11 \), we have
We now give upper bounds of the \( \mu _{B,\beta }\)-measure of the events defined above.
To this end, note first that by Proposition 12, applied with \( P = \{ p,-p \} \) and \( M = 11 \), we have
If for some \( e \in \partial p \) the event \( A_{e,0}^c \) happen, then there must exist an irreducible plaquette configuration \( \nu \in \Sigma _{P_B}\) with \( (d\sigma )|_{{{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu } = \nu \) and \( {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu \cap {\hat{\partial }} e \ne \emptyset \). From Proposition 12, applied with \( p' \in {\hat{\partial }} e \) and \( M= 6 \), and a union bound, we obtain
Next, note that if \( \{ e,e' \} \subseteq \partial p \) and \( g \in G{\smallsetminus } \{ 0 \} \) then it follows from Proposition 12, applied with \( P = ({\hat{\partial }} e \cup {\hat{\partial }} (-e)) \cup (\hat{\partial }e' \cup {\hat{\partial }} (-e')) \) and \( M = |P^+| = 6+6-1 = 11 \), that
Finally, if we for \( e = dx_j \in \partial p \) and \( g \in G {\smallsetminus } \{ 0 \} \) define \( \nu ^{(e,g)} \) by
then \( d(\nu ^{(e,g)})=0 \), \( {{\,\mathrm{supp}\,}}\nu ^{(e,g)} = \pm {\hat{\partial }} e \), and by Lemma 9, we have
Moreover, we have
Consequently, we can apply Lemma 11 with \( \nu = \nu ^{(e,g)} \) to obtain
We now combine the above equations to obtain (11). To this end, note first that by the triangle inequality we have
To get an upper bound on (48), we first rewrite (43) as a union of disjoint events;
Using first (47) and then (50), we immediately obtain
To obtain an upper bound on (49), we use (45) to get
Finally, note that \( \left( {\begin{array}{c}|\partial p|\\ 2\end{array}}\right) = 6 \), that \( \sum _{e\in \partial p} |{\hat{\partial }} e|= 4 \cdot 6 \), and that
Combining the above equations, we thus get
Since \( 5 \alpha (\beta )< 1 \), we have \( 5^{10} + 6 + 24 \cdot 5^{5} \alpha (\beta ) < 5^{11}\), and hence the desired conclusion follows. \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 3
Note first that, by definition, we have
Consequently, by the triangle inequality we have
For the second term, note that for any \( x,y,a,b \in \mathbb {C} \), we have \( |xy-ab|\le |(x-a)(y-b)|+ |a(y-b)|+ |b(x-a)|\). Using this inequality and Theorem 2, we obtain
Combining the previous equations and using Theorem 1, we get
Noting that, for \( j \in \{ 0,1 \} \), we have
we obtain (12) as desired. \(\square \)
References
Balian, R., Drouffe, J.M., Itzykson, C.: Gauge fields on a lattice. II. Gauge-invariant Ising model. Phys. Rev. D 11(8), 2098–2103 (1975)
Borgs, C.: Translation symmetry breaking in four dimensional lattice gauge theories. Commun. Math. Phys. 96, 251–284 (1984)
Burton, R.M., Steif, J.E.: Quite weak Bernoulli with exponential rate and percolation for random fields. Stoch. Process. Appl. 58, 35–55 (1995)
Cao, S.: Wilson loop expectations in lattice gauge theories with finite gauge groups. Commun. Math. Phys. 380, 1439–1505 (2020)
Chatterjee, S.: Yang Mills for probabilists. In: Fritz, P., König, W., Mukherjee, C., Olla, S. (eds.) Probability and Analysis in Interacting Physical Systems. VAR75 2016. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol 283. Springer, Cham (2019)
Chatterjee, S.: Wilson loops in Ising lattice gauge theory. Commun. Math. Phys. 377, 307–340 (2020)
Forsström, M.P., Lenells, J., Viklund, F.: Wilson loops in finite Abelian lattice gauge theories, accepted for publication in Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré (B) Probabilités et Statistiques (2021)
Fröhlich, J., Spencer, T.: Massless phases and symmetry restoration in Abelian gauge theories and spin systems. Commun. Math. Phys. 83, 411–454 (1982)
Garban, S., Sepulveda, A.: Improved spin-wave estimate for Wilson loops in \(U(1)\) lattice gauge theory. Preprint available as arXiv:2107.04021 (2021)
Ginibre, J.: General formulation of Griffiths’ inequalities. Commun. Math. Phys. 16, 310–328 (1970)
Jaffe, A., Witten, E.: Quantum Yang–Mills Theory. https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/yangmills.pdf
Kogut, J.B.: Lattice gauge theory and spin systems. Rev. Mod. Phys. 51(4), 659–713 (1979)
Mack, G., Petkova, G.V.: Comparison of lattice gauge theories with gauge groups \( \mathbb{Z}_2 \) and \( SU(2) \). Ann. Phys. 123(2), 442–467 (1979)
Seiler, E.: Gauge Theories as a Problem of Constructive Quantum Field Theory and Statistical Mechanics. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 159. Springer, Berlin (1982)
van den Berg, J., Maes, C.: Disagreement percolation in the study of Markov fields. Ann. Probab. 22(2), 749–763 (1994)
Wegner, F.J.: Duality in generalized Ising models and phase transitions without local order parameters. J. Math. Phys. 12, 2259 (1971)
Wilson, K.G.: Confinement of quarks. Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445 (1974)
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges support from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation and from the Swedish Research Council, Grant No. 2015-05430. The author would also like to thank Fredrik Viklund and Jonatan Lenells for comments on the content of this manuscript.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Royal Institute of Technology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by S. Chatterjee.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Forsström, M.P. Decay of Correlations in Finite Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories. Commun. Math. Phys. 393, 1311–1346 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-022-04391-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-022-04391-0