NoBLE for lattice trees and lattice animals

In Section ? we have already proven the bound on \Xi^{\ssc[0]}_{z}. From \Xi^{\ssc[0]}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R},z}, we have extracted the contributions in which 0 and x are connected by a direct bond, see (?). Considering this, the bounds (?) and (?) follow directly. The only difference between \Xi^{\ssc[0]}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R},z} and \Psi^{\ssc[0],\kappa}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R, II},z} is that x-\ve[\kappa]\not\in A for \Psi^{\ssc[0],\kappa}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R, II},z}. Since each double connection requires at least two neighbors of x to be part of A, the spatial symmetry of the LAs implies that

which implies (?) and (?).

The coefficient \Psi^{\ssc[0],\kappa}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R, I},z}(x) was created by extracting the shortest contributions with x=\ve[\kappa] and x’s that are neighbors of \ve[\kappa]. The contribution of the remaining (2d-1) neighbors of the origin is bounded using \mathscr{B}_{\underline 1,3}(\ve[1],0). For all other x, i.e., those with |x|>1, we use \Psi^{\ssc[0],\kappa}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R, II},z}(x)\leq \Psi^{\ssc[0],\kappa}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R, I},z}(x) to conclude the bounds stated in (?).

In (?), we bound the contribution due to all neighbors of origin by the first term. The contribution due to all other x are bounded by the second term. Regarding the neighbors x=\ve[\iota] of the origin, with \iota\in\{\pm1,\dots,\pm d\}, we note that

Summing over \iota creates the stated factor 4d. For the other x, we know that any path to x contains at least two bonds. To be able to use a symmetry argument, we ignore that we extracted terms and as well as the condition x-\ve[\kappa]\not\in A, to obtain the simple bound

Then, we use |x-\ve[\kappa]|^2=(|x|^2 -2x_\kappa+1) and that the term involving -2x_\kappa sums to zero by symmetry, to obtain

which is the second term in (?). This proves (?), and completes the proof of Lemma 5.1.

By definition,

For LTs, this simplifies to

For LAs we recall that we have bounded such animals already between (?) and (?).

We improve these bounds by using repulsive diagrams (recall Section ?) and by considering four cases for the point u, where u is the summand appearing in (?), thus yielding the bound \alpha_{1,1} (see (?)). Let us explain the four cases for u:
(a) For u=0, the diagram is given by a double connection from 0 to x and a simple path from 0 to \ve[\iota] that we bound by

The first term is given explicitly in (?) and the second term corresponds to the first term of \alpha_{1,1}.
(b) For u=\ve[\iota], the point \ve[\iota] is on the double connection between 0 and x. For x=\ve[\iota], we have a simple double connection to \ve[\iota], otherwise a repulsive triangle, as stated in the second and third term of \alpha_{1,1}.
(c) In the contributions in which u=x\not\in \{0,\ve[\iota]\} we find a double connection between 0 and x, bounded by \mathscr{D}_{1}(x,0) and a connection from x to \ve[\iota], bounded by \tilde G_{m,z}(x-\ve[\iota]). We improve this bound slightly using the parity of the lattice: If 0 and x are directly connected, the length of the connection between x to \ve[\iota] is at least 2.
(d) In the remaining contributions, we have that u\neq \{0,x,\ve[\iota]\}, so that these LAs can be bounded by

which corresponds to the last term of \alpha_{1,1}. This completes the proof of (?).

The diagrams with the additional weights |x|^2 and |x-\ve[\iota]|^2 are bounded in a similar manner. As the numerical bounds, using the bootstrap function f_3, require a G_z to carry the spatial weight, we express the bounds using two-point functions instead of repulsive diagrams. For the weight |x-\ve[\iota]|^2, two additional steps are made: Firstly, for u=0\neq x we first split the weights using symmetry, as shown in (?), and then bound the two arising terms. This leads to the first line of \gamma_1 in (?). Secondly, for u\neq \{0,\ve[\iota],x\}, we use that |x-\ve[\iota]|^2\leq 2(|x|^2+1), see [FitHof13b, (2.24)], and bound the arising terms individually. This completes the proofs of (?) and (?).

For the bounds on \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R, I},z} and \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R, II},z} stated in (?)-(?), we review which terms have been extracted from \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_z(x) to yield \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R, I},z} and \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R, II},z}. For \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R, II},z}(x), the LAs in which x is directly connected to the origin have been removed. For this reason, in \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R, II},z} all paths from 0 to x have a length of at least 2 instead of 1. This is expressed by the subscripts n of \alpha_{n,m} and \beta_{n}. To obtain \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R, I},z}(x) from \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_z(x), we have extracted all LAs in which x is directly connected to \ve[\iota]. This means that in \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R, I},z}(x), the path from \ve[\iota] to x in contributing LAs have length at least 2. The bounds (?) and (?) are created by repeating the consideration of cases for u, as given above for the bound on bound \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_z(x), while keeping these additional restrictions.

We continue with the bounds on \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_{\alpha,{ \scriptscriptstyle I},z} and \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_{\alpha,{ \scriptscriptstyle II},z} in (?)–(?). Note that for LTs, most of these terms are zero due to the lack of double connections, so we restrict to LAs. Recall (?), as well as (?)–(?).

By their definitions in (?) and (?),

which proves (?). To obtain the bound in (?), we again use (?), and remark that, for x\neq 0 with |x-\ve[\iota]|^2=1, we can write x=\ve[\kappa]+\ve[\iota] with \kappa\neq -\iota to get

Thus, \ve[\kappa]+\ve[\iota] and \ve[\iota] are directly connected in the LA. We distinguish between the case where \ve[\iota] is on the double connection or not to obtain

Summing over all neighbors \ve[\kappa]+\ve[\iota] of \ve[\iota], and also using that the contribution of \kappa=-\iota is \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_{\alpha,{ \scriptscriptstyle I},z}(0)=G_z(\ve[\iota]), proves (?).

For \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_{\alpha,{ \scriptscriptstyle II},z}(\ve[\kappa]), we recall (?), and consider \kappa\neq \iota, distinguish between the cases where \ve[\iota] is part of the double connection from 0 to \ve[\kappa] or not. For this, let u be the first point that any path between 0 and \ve[\iota], and the path between \ve[\kappa] and \ve[\iota], share. We split between u=0, \ve[\kappa],\ve[\iota] and u\not\in \{0,\ve[\kappa], \ve[\iota]\}, to obtain

Summing this over all neighbors \ve[\kappa] of the origin, and using that the contribution for \kappa=\iota can be bounded by \frac {\1^{a}}{g_z}\mathscr{D}_{1}(\ve[\iota]), proves (?).

For the bounds on \Pi^{\ssc[0],\iota,\kappa}_{z}, \Pi^{\ssc[0],\iota,\kappa}_{\alpha,z} and \Pi^{\ssc[0],\iota,\kappa}_{{ \scriptscriptstyle R},z} stated in (?)–(?), it is useful to write out the definition of \Pi^{\ssc[0],\iota,\kappa}_{z} in (?), and simplify it for the special case N=0. This leads to

Using the split \Pi^{\ssc[0],\iota,\kappa}_{\alpha,z} (see (?)), we extract from this the contributions where x=\ve[\iota], as well as those with x=\ve[\iota]+\ve[\kappa] in which the edge (\ve[\iota],\ve[\iota]+\ve[\kappa]) is in the LA. For x=\ve[\iota], we see that

as the LAs contain a simple double connection to a neighbor of the origin. Summing this over \kappa proves (?). The bounds (?) and (?) basically follow from the fact that \Pi^{\ssc[0],\iota,\kappa}_z(x)\leq zg_z\Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_z(x), see (?). To understand (?) we compare the bound with (?). When summing over \iota for x=0, \iota=-\kappa does not contribute explaining the factor (2d-1). Further, we have extracted the case that x=\ve[\iota], thus we can us \alpha_{1,1} instead of \alpha_{1,0} for this bound.

For (?), we need to redistribute the weights. We write

since \Pi^{\ssc[0],\iota,\kappa}_z(x)\leq zg_z\Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_z(x). The first contribution is bounded by 2(2d)^2zg_z G_z(\ve[\iota]). We use (?) for the |x-\ve[\iota]|^2 contribution. We further use (?) (without the term created by x\in\{0,\ve[\iota]\}) to obtain a bound (2d)^2zg_z\alpha_{1,1} on the contribution due to +1. Finally, \sum_{\iota} \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_z(x) is symmetric, so that the x_\kappa contribution vanishes, while the \delta_{\iota,\kappa} contribution gives 2\sum_{\iota, x\not\in\{0,\ve[\iota]\}} \Xi^{\ssc[0],\iota}_z(x), which can be taken together with the +1 contribution using (?).

We divide the proof depending on whether N=2 and N\geq 3.

Proof for N=2. As we have already discussed how to bound the non-trivial sausage for \Xi^\ssc[1]_z, occurring for \underline{b}_1\neq 0, we will restrict to \underline{b}_1= 0 in our discussion for \Xi^\ssc[2]_z. We have to consider the coefficients as shown in Figure ?: For a sausage-walk \omega and a lace L=\{0t_1,s_2|\omega|\} to which \omega contributes we define w_1=w_1(\omega),\ w_2=w_2(\omega) and y=\overline{b}^\omega_{s_2}. If s_2<t_1, then we define u=\omega_{s_1} and l=\max\{d_\omega(u,y),2\}. For s_2=t_1 we identify the last point u that the paths b^{S^\omega_{s_2}}(\underline{b}^\omega_{s_2+1}, v) and b^{S^\omega_{s_2}}(\underline{b}^\omega_{s_2+1}, w) have in common and define l=-\max\{d_{A^\omega_{s_2}}(\underline{b}^\omega_{s_2+1},u),2\}.

By definition of a sausage-walk (Definition 3.3), using the non-backtracking condition, and the selection of the first intersection points w_1,w_2, we know that each square is repulsive and consists of at least four bonds. Especially, if t_1=1, so that S^\omega_{0} and S^\omega_{1} intersect, then the non-backtracking condition states that this intersection cannot occur at the backbone bond, i.e., w_1\not\in b_1^\omega. For the same reason we know that w_2\not\in b_{|\omega|}^\omega in the cases of |\omega|-s_2=1 and \overline{b}_{|\omega|}^\omega=x. This last observations look like a minute special case, but it is numerically a major contribution.

To obtain (?), we let the line u,y contribute to the left square. When we add the weight |x-y|^2, we obtain (?). When considering the weight |y|^2, we choose the split of the diagram such that the line u,y contributes to the right square instead. This creates the bound (?). To prove (?)-(?), we have to go through all cases for l and check that all possible sausage-walks are captured by the bounds on the right-hand sides. These tedious arguments follow the same steps as in the proof of the bounds on the coefficients for N=1 in the previous section, and we omit the details. The bound on \Xi^{\ssc[2],\iota}_z is obtained in the same way, using the initial piece P^{\ssc[1],\iota,m}_{z}, sketched in Section ?.

Proof for N\geq 3. The bounds for N\geq 3 are proven following the same procedure as described for N=2. For each sausage-walk \omega and lace L, we identify the points at which we split \omega, these are \underline{b}_{s_i}, \underline{b}_{t_i}, as well as the first intersection points w_i(\omega). Whenever s_i=t_{i-1}, we also identify the point at which we split the sausage S_{s_i}^\omega, see Figures ? and ?. Then, we define the lengths of the shared lines of neighboring loops l_i accordingly. For a bound on the weighted diagrams, we then split the weight using (?), leading to a sum of weighted diagrams as in (?), and for each of these summands, we derive a bound as in (?)-(?) depending on which line is weighted.

We now give some insight into how these bounds can be proven. As all these arguments do not offer any further insight, we omit their formal proof and refer the interested reader to [Fit13, Section 4.3.5], where more details are given. It involves defining skeletons that encode (i) the length of the pieces of shared lines of neighboring loops; (ii) the location of the backbone; and (iii) the partial displacements (x_i)_{i=1}^{N}. Then, we classify all pairs or rib-/sausage-walks and laces (\omega,L) uniquely according to their skeleton and prove the bound using induction on N. The proof strategy uses ideas already presented above and techniques described in the standard reference [Slad06].

Bound on \Xi^{\ssc[N],\iota}_z. The coefficients \Xi^{\ssc[N]}_z and \Xi^{\ssc[N],\iota}_z differ only by the first sausage, as informally explained in the foundation block P^{\ssc[1],m} and P^{\ssc[1],\iota,m}. Thus, also the bounds differ only in the first block. The block P^{\ssc[1],\iota,m} can have very many forms and the bounds on its weighted versions \Delta^{\iota,{ \scriptscriptstyle I},m} and \Delta^{\iota,{ \scriptscriptstyle II},m} have to be done with care, as they are numerically important.

We provide a complete definition of the bounding diagrams P^{\ssc[1],\iota,m}, \Delta^{\iota,{ \scriptscriptstyle I},m} and \Delta^{\iota,{ \scriptscriptstyle II},m} that list all possible cases, and rigorously derive their corresponding bounds in Appendices ?-?. In the extended version of this article [FitHof13g-ext], we provide the complete definitions of P^{\ssc[1],\iota,m}, \Delta^{\iota,{ \scriptscriptstyle I},m} and \Delta^{\iota,{ \scriptscriptstyle II},m} that list all possible cases/forms and their corresponding bounds. See [FitHof13g-ext, Appendices C.2.2-C.2.4] As this takes 19 pages we omit these definition here. In this version we only added the sketch of P^{\ssc[1],\iota,m} in Section ?.

We use Lemma A.2 to show that z_I\geq (2d-1)^{-1}{\mathrm e}^{-1}. For this, we bound g_z using (?), as

We note that

since the summand in (?) equals the probability that the total progeny of a branching process with Poisson offspring distribution with parameter one equals n, and the sum of these probabilities equals 1, since the tree is a.s. finite. We obtain for z \leq((2d-1){\mathrm e})^{-1} that

Since g^{\iota}_z\leq g_z this is also a bound for g^{\iota}_z. We can improve this bound on g^{\iota}_z by using the condition that \ve[\iota] is not part of the tree/animal. A non-trivial LT/LA contains at least one edge connecting the origin to a neighboring point. Therefore, at least at 1 out of 2d LTs/LAs counted in g_z does not contribute to g^{\iota}_z. We conclude that

and thus, for all z\leq z_I,

as well as, by the definition of z_I in (?),

This implies that z_I\geq (2d-1)^{-1}{\mathrm e}^{-1}.

The proof of [HarSla90b, Lemma 3.1] uses a similar bound as stated in (?) in Lemma A.2, but contains an error. Namely it is used that there are (n+1)^{n}/(n+1)! abstract unlabeled rooted trees with n edges. However, while Cayley’s theorem states that there are (n+1)^{n} labeled rooted trees, the removal of the labels does not create a factor 1/(n+1)! as stated. Indeed, there are less than (n+1)! ways to label an abstract tree, e.g., for a tree with two edges there are only 3 different ways to label the tree as the only difference is the label of the vertex that is part of two edges.

To prove the bound stated in (?) we first use the techniques of [BorChaHofSla99, Sections 2 and 5] to show the lemma only for LTs. Then, we adapt the arguments to LAs.

We begin by defining a non-backtracking branching random walk with Poisson offspring distribution. Abstract trees are the family trees of a critical branching process with Poisson offspring distribution. In more detail, we begin with a single individual having \xi offspring, where \xi is a Poisson random variable of mean 1, i.e., \prob(\xi=m)=({\mathrm e} m!)^{-1}. Each of the offspring then independently has offspring of its own with the same critical Poisson distribution. We denote by |\mathcal{T}| the number of bonds of the tree \mathcal{T}. For an abstract rooted tree \mathcal{T}, with the ith individual having \xi_i offspring, this associates to \mathcal{T} the weight

We define an embedding of \varphi of \mathcal{T} into \mathbb{Z}^d to be a mapping of the vertices of \mathcal{T} into \mathbb{Z}^d, such that the root is mapped to the origin and adjacent vertices in the tree are mapped to nearest-neighbors in \mathbb{Z}^d. Further, we restrict to embeddings in which the children are not mapped to the location of the grandparents. We define the pair (\mathcal{T},\varphi) to be a non-backtracking branching random walk with Poisson offspring distribution (Poisson-NBBRW). Given an abstract tree \mathcal{T} with n bonds, there are 2d (2d-1)^{n-1} possible embeddings \varphi of \mathcal{T}. The Poisson-NBBRW measure is given by

for all \mathcal{T} and \varphi. We define \Ibold^{ \scriptscriptstyle (t)}(\mathcal{T},\varphi) to be the indicator that the embedding \varphi of \mathcal{T} is a LT, i.e., \varphi\colon \mathcal{T}\mapsto \mathbb{Z}^d is injective. For a LT T, we write T=\varphi(\mathcal{T}) if the embedding \varphi of \mathcal{T} equals T. For abstract trees with n bonds, we define the measure

with normalization

We prove that the number of n-bond LTs that contain the origin is given by

which is equivalent to

To do that, we show that, for each n-bond LT T,

which implies that the measure {\mathbb Q}^{ \scriptscriptstyle (t)}_n corresponds to the uniform measure on all n-bond LTs and thus implies (?), and thus (?).

From (?) we conclude that, for all T with |T|=n,

We continue by proving that, for any LT T,

Let d_0 be the degree of 0 in T, and given non-zero x\in T, let d_x be the degree of x in T minus 1. The set \{d_x\colon x\in T\} must be equal to the set of \xi_i for any \mathcal{T} that can be mapped to T. Defining \nu(T)=\#\{(\mathcal{T},\varphi)\colon \varphi(\mathcal{T})=T\}, (?) is therefore equivalent to

We prove (?) by induction on the number N of generations of T. By this, we mean the length of the longest self-avoiding path in T, starting from the origin. The identity (?) clearly holds for N=0. Our induction hypothesis is that (?) holds if there are N-1 or fewer generations. Suppose T has N generations, let T_1,\dots,T_{d_0} denote the LTs resulting from deleting from T all bonds incident on the origin. We regard each T_a as rooted at the neighbor of the origin in the corresponding deleted bond. It suffices to show that \nu(T)=b_0!\prod_{a=1}^{d_0}\nu(T_a), since each T_a has fewer than N generations. To prove this, we note that each (\mathcal{T},\varphi) with \varphi(\mathcal{T})=T induces a Poisson-NBBRW (\mathcal{T}_a,\varphi_a) such that \varphi_a(\mathcal{T}_a)=T_a. This correspondence is d_0! to 1, since (\mathcal{T},\varphi) is determined by the set of (\mathcal{T}_a,\varphi_a), up to permutations of the branches of \mathcal{T} at its root. This proves \nu(T)=d_0!\prod_{a=1}^{d_0}\nu(T_a).

We finally complete the proof of the lemma for LTs. We rearrange (?) and use (?) to obtain

Since there are 2d (2d-1)^{n-1} embeddings \varphi, we then know that

The probability distribution of the total number of bonds of a Poisson branching process is given by \prob(|\mathcal{T}|=n)={\mathrm e}^{-(n+1)} (n+1)^{n}/(n+1)! (as this is the number of vertices, also called the total progeny, minus 1). We insert this into (?) and obtain the claimed bound for LTs.

The claim for LAs is obtained using similar ideas, but requires some adaptations as LAs can contain loops. The main difficulty is to obtain a relation similar to (?).

We define \Ibold^{ \scriptscriptstyle (a)}(\mathcal{T},\varphi) to be the indicator for the event that

1. no two bonds of the abstract tree \mathcal{T} are mapped to the same bond in \mathbb{Z}^d by \varphi,

2. for all i\in\mathcal{T} either \xi_i=0 or the following two conditions hold:

   1. there exist no j\in\mathcal{T}\setminus\{i\}, such that \varphi(i)=\varphi(j), \xi_j>0 and {\rm height}(j)={\rm height}(i),

   2. there exist no j\in\mathcal{T}\setminus\{i\}, such that \varphi(i)=\varphi(j) and {\rm height}(j)<{\rm height}(i),

   where the height of a individual point a\in\mathcal{T} is intrinsic distance of a to the root in \mathcal{T}.

For a Poisson-NBBRW (\mathcal{T}_a,\varphi_a) (1) guarantees that each bond is only used once by the process and (2) is the condition that whenever a point is visited by multiple individuals then only the first of them can have offspring. Thus, (1) and (2) together imply that the image \varphi(\mathcal{T}) is a LA. Here, for a LA A, we write A=\varphi(\mathcal{T}) if the embedding \varphi of \mathcal{T} equals A.

Now we proceed as for the LT by defining

where

We next prove that the number of n-bond LAs containing the origin is given by

This is analogous to the proof for LT in (?), which the exception of the proof that

We now explain how to adapt the argument so as to obtain (?). To prove this we define d_x such that it corresponds to the number of offspring of the Poisson branching process. In contrast to the LT case, for LAs it can happen that \varphi maps multiple individuals of \mathcal{T} to x. Therefore, it is not obvious how to choose d_x such that (\xi_i)_i and (d_x)_x are equivalent.

For a LA A, and two vertices x,y\in A, we define d_{A}(x,y) to be the intrinsic distance between x and y, and call the distance d_A(0,x) the age of x. For N\in\Nbold, we call the set of all vertices with age N the generation N. We define an exploration process, that we use to define (d_x)_x, as follows:

1. We define d_0 to be the degree of 0 in A;

2. We define S to be the set of all vertices directly connected to the origin in A;

3. We define B\subset A to be the subset of all bonds in A that do not contain the origin;

4. Let N be the age of the youngest vertex in S;

5. For the unique x in the Nth generation with the lowest lexicographic order:

   1. we define d_x to be the degree of x in B;

   2. we update S by adding the endpoints of the bonds in B adjacent to x, and give these endpoints an age that is equal to the age of x plus one;

   3. we remove x from S and the bonds that contain x from B.

6. If S is non-empty, then we repeat the procedure starting in 4) with the updated sets S and B.

This procedure terminates when d_x has been defined for all vertices of A.

Similarly to the LT case, we define \nu(A)=\#\{(\mathcal{T},\varphi):\varphi(\mathcal{T})=A, \Ibold^{ \scriptscriptstyle (a)}(\mathcal{T},\varphi)=1\} and now show that

which implies (?).

We again prove (?) by induction on the number N of generations of A. The number of generations corresponds to the age of the oldest particle in A. The identity (?) clearly holds for N=0. Our induction hypothesis is that (?) holds if there are N-1 or fewer generations.

For a LT, the removal of the d_0 bonds adjacent to the origin splits the tree into d_0 unique, non-intersecting subtrees T_1,\dots,T_{d_0}. Due to possible double connections in a LA, the removal of the bonds adjacent to the origin does not automatically split the animal into d_0 uniquely defined sub-animals A_a. We will now create a unique split of the animal A, that is consistent with the exploration process that we have used to define (d_x)_x.

For this, we first remove a certain set of bonds to create a LT T\subseteq A. Then we split the T into d_0 subtrees as done above. In the last step we add each of the removed bonds to the subtrees to create a unique decomposition A_1,\dots,A_{d_0}. This procedure is visualized in Figure ?. In what follows, we explain how the set of bonds is being chosen. We fix a LA A.

1. We orient all bonds of A away from the origin in the intrinsic distance, see Figure ?, and denote by \vec A the created LA of oriented bonds. Thus, the oriented bonds b=(x,y) are such that the age of y equals that of x plus one (equal ages cannot happen due to the bipartite structure of the hypercubic lattice \Zbold^d);

2. For all x\in \mathbb{Z}^d which have multiple ingoing bonds we remove all ingoing bonds from \vec A with the exception of the ingoing bond (b_i=(\underline{b}_i,\overline{b}_i=x))_i that contains the starting point \underline{b}_i with the lowest lexicographic order;

3. We denote the resulting LA by \vec T and the set of all removed oriented bonds by \vec S;

4. We know that \vec A=\vec T\cup \vec S and that in fact \vec T is a LT since step (3) leaves at most one ingoing bond for every x (and precisely one for all vertices except for 0). Further, we see that \vec T contains the same set of vertices as A, so that \vec{T} can also be considered a spanning tree of the graph A;

5. We delete from \vec T all bonds incident to the origin and denote the created LTs by \vec T_1,\dots,\vec T_{d_0};

6. For i=1,\dots, d_0, we define

   \begin{aligned} \vec A_i=\vec T_i\cup\{ b\in \vec S \mid \underline{b}\in \vec T_i\}, \end{aligned}

   and A_i to be the LA obtained by removing the orientation of the bonds of \vec A_i.

We regard A_{i} as rooted at the unique vertex in it that was directly connected to the origin in A. We see that for all i=1,\dots,d_0 and x\in A_i, the number d_x corresponds to the number of outgoing edges of x in A_i. We note that for all bonds b\in \vec S\cup \vec A_i, the end-vertex \overline{b} has no outgoing bonds. This is related to the condition (2) of the definition of \Ibold^{ \scriptscriptstyle (a)}(\mathcal{T},\varphi).

It suffices to show that \nu(A)=d_0!\prod_{a=1}^{d_0}\nu(A_{a}), since each A_{i} has at most N-1 generations. We note that each (\mathcal{T},\varphi) with \varphi(\mathcal{T})=A induces a Poisson-NBBRW (\mathcal{T}_{a},\varphi_{a}) such that \varphi_a(\mathcal{T}_{a})=A_{a}. This correspondence is d_0! to 1, since (\mathcal{T},\varphi) is determined by the set of (\mathcal{T}_{a},\varphi_{a}), up to permutations of the branches of \mathcal{T} at its root. This proves \nu(A)=d_0!\prod_{a=1}^{d_0}\nu(A_{a}). This completes the proof of (?).

Knowing that (?) holds, we repeat the steps between (?) and (?) for LAs, and obtain the claimed bound on t^{ \scriptscriptstyle (a)}_n(0), which completes the proof of Lemma A.2.

We define the dimension of a path be the maximal dimension of the points it traverses, and let

This c_n^{ \scriptscriptstyle (d)} has the following properties, which hold for any type of nearest-neighbor paths:

1. c_n^{ \scriptscriptstyle (d)}(x)\equiv 0 when n<|x|_1, as there are simply not enough steps n to reach x

2. c_n^{ \scriptscriptstyle (d)}(x)\equiv 0 when d< \mathrm{dim}(x), as the point x lives in larger dimension than d.

3. c_n^{ \scriptscriptstyle (d)}(x)\equiv 0 when n-|x|_1 is odd, by parity of the lattice.

4. c_n^{ \scriptscriptstyle (d)}(x)\equiv 0 when d>\mathrm{dim}(x)+\tfrac {n-|x|_1}2, as the path can simply not use all the required dimensions d and still reach x in n steps.

By grouping the paths from 0 to x according to the number of dimensions d' used, regarding the properties above, we obtain

The binomial coefficient represents the free choices for the additional dimensions d', not imposed by x itself, that the path uses. We then write

where

Our restriction to 2d\geq 2\mathrm{dim}(x)+n-|x|_1 ensures that each summand contributes, which allows us to conclude the required monotonicity of d\mapsto c_n(x)/(2d-1)^n by showing that d\mapsto f_n(d',d+1) is monotonically decreasing for every d' fixed. For this, we need to show that

is smaller than one. The first fraction is monotone increasing in \mathrm{dim}(x) and d'. We use that d'\leq \tfrac {n-|x|_1}2, \mathrm{dim}(x)\leq |x|_1 and then n\geq |x|_1\geq 0 to obtain

where the final inequality follows since n\leq d+1. For the second fraction we note that (1+y)^n\leq 1+yn+y^2n(n-1)/2

for all n\leq y and y>-1, so that

Combining both bounds, we obtain

We finally note that, since n\leq d,

when d\geq 1.