Disordered Monomer-Dimer model on Cylinder graphs

Let \mathcal{H}^y(\mathfrak{m}) denote the Hamiltonian with the transformed weights. Note that any matching \mathfrak{m} includes exactly one edge adjacent to v, or leaves v unpaired. Thus \mathcal{H}^y(\mathfrak{m})=\mathcal{H}(\mathfrak{m})+y for all \mathfrak{m}. Moreover for the transformed partition function Z_n^y, we have

With \mu^y denoting the transformed Gibbs measure, for all \mathfrak{m}\in \mathcal{M} we have

In particular, the Gibbs measure stays invariant.

Key to this lemma is the fact that R_{n,k}>0. Note that with \mathcal{E} and A as introduced in (?) we have,

We combine this with the explicit expression for R_{n,k} provided in (?). Thus

Applying the multinomial theorem, we get

The last inequality follows from \log (1+e^{z})\leqslant 1+|z| for all z\in \mathds{R}. The proof follows from the triangle inequality for norms.

First, assuming convergence we show that |f|< \infty. Let v\in V_{\mathcal{G}}. This vertex can either be paired with an adjacent vertex or unpaired. The contribution of v to any configuration can be bounded above by 1+\exp {\nu_v}+\sum_{w\sim v}\exp{\omega_{(w,w)}}. The all monomer configuration has energy given by \sum_{v\in V}\nu_v. These yield the upper and lower bounds

The expectation of the above expression is obviously bounded given the moment condition on \omega_e and \nu_v. Now, we recall the decomposition introduced in (?). We clearly have

It is sufficient for the first moments of \nu and \omega to exist to guarantee \bigl\VertR_{n,k}\bigr\Vert_1 being finite and uniformly bounded. Observing that

immediately yields that \operatorname{\mathds{E}}\log Z_n satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem 2.1 with the corresponding b_n being given by \sup_{1\leqslant k \leqslant n}\bigl\VertR_{n,k}\bigr\Vert_1 which is uniformly bounded above by a constant. This completes the proof of convergence.

The proof will proceed via the Efron-Stein inequality. Let e=(u,v) denote an edge, let \omega_e the corresponding edge weight, and let \nu_u and \nu_v be the corresponding vertex weights. Let Z_n^{e} denote the partition function obtained when \omega_e is replaced by an independent copy \omega_e^{'}. Analogously, let Z_n^{v} denote the partition function obtained by replacing \nu_v with independent copy \nu_v^{'}

For an edge e=(u,v), let \mathcal{G}_n^{e} denote the graph G_n with only the edge e removed. Let \mathcal{G}_n^{u,v} denote the principal subgraph obtained on removing vertices u and v. We now introduce

Clearly, we have

On taking the difference of \log Z_n and \log Z_n^{e},

On applying the triangle inequality, we get

Now for the vertices, given a vertex v let \mathcal{G}_n^{v} denote the principal subgraph obtained on the removal of v from \mathcal{G}_n. With two vertices u and v, we denote \mathcal{G}_n^{u,v} to be the principal subgraph obtained on the removal of u and v. We will introduce

Recurrence (?) then yields Z_n=\widehat{\alpha}_v+\exp(\nu_v)\widehat{\beta}_v. In a process identical to bounding the influence of the edge weights, we find |\log Z_n^{v}-\log Z_n|\leqslant |\nu_v'-\nu_v|. Squaring, and adding over all e\in E_{\mathcal{G}_n} and v \in V_{\mathcal{G}_n} completes the proof.

We begin with

Recall that for a random variable X, we denote its centered version as

The variance of X is then given by \bigl\Vert\overline{X}\bigr\Vert_{2}^{2}. We have

Applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and independence between disjoint blocks, we get

Applying Lemmas 3.1 and 3.3, we have

Applying the concavity of the square root, we then have

Thus, the sequence \sigma_{F,n}^{2}=\bigl\Vert\overline{\log Z_n}\bigr\Vert_{2}^{2} satisfies the hypothesis of the subadditive lemma, application of which completes the proof of convergence.

For the moment, we take G_n to be the one dimensional torus \mathds{T}_n. To distinguish this from the usual non-transitive case, we denote the partition function as W_n. It is equivalent to prove a lower bound for \operatorname{Var}\log W_n. This is because a modification of ? yields that \log Z_{n-1} + R_{n+1,1} = \log W_{n+1}, where \bigl\VertR\bigr\Vert_{2} is bounded above. On centering,

Consider the principal subgraph obtained on restriction to the vertices having fixed H–coordinate, let us say k\in V_{H}. There are n edges corresponding to this layer, and we enumerate them as \{e_1,e_{2},\ldots, e_n\}. We denote their respective weights as \{\omega_1,\omega_{2},\ldots,\omega_n\}. Let

denote the filtration corresponding to the weights of the edges. We will use Doob’s martingale decomposition to find a lower bound for the variance.

We have that \operatorname{\mathds{E}}\left(\log W_n\mid \mathcal{F}_j\right) is a martingale in j, and the variance of \operatorname{\mathds{E}}\left(\log W_n \mid \mathcal{F}_n\right) can be written as the sum of the variances of the martingale differences. The j^{th} martingale difference is

Suppose we replace the weight \omega_j of edge e_j with an independent copy \omega_j', let W_n^{(j)} denote the new partition function. The expression in (?) is the same as

Thus,

A combination of the tower property and Jensen’s inequality yields

Shift-invariance of G_n implies edge transitivity; therefore, exchangeability of the random variables we are conditioning on. Concretely, the random variables \operatorname{\mathds{E}}\left(\log W_n\mid \omega_i\right) depends on i only through \omega_i, for all i=1,2,\ldots,n. We write

as the common conditional expectation function.

The problem of the variance lower bound for the free energy has been reduced to showing that the variance of g is bounded below by a constant, since from (?) we have

Recall the \alpha_{e_j} and \beta_{e_j} introduced in Lemma 3.3, so that W_n=\alpha_{e_j} + \beta_{e_j} e^{\omega_j} and

for all j=1,2,\ldots,n. W.l.o.g. we can work with j=1. Let u and v be the vertices incident to e_1, and let \mathcal{E}_1\subset E_{\mathcal{G}_n} denote the collection of edges adjacent to e_1. From the definitions of \alpha_{e_1} and \beta_{e_1}, on using (?) we have

Note that, the random variable

is bounded and has strictly positive mean as \bigl\vert\mathcal{E}_1\bigr\vert is bounded. Observe that

Since the integrand in (?) is monotonically increasing in z, on the event \{\omega_1> \omega_1'\}, we have

Thus,

To complete the proof, we square, take the expectation, and apply (?).

To prove this lemma, we will have to subdivide until we have blocks of constant order size. We begin with (?) and take k=\ell -2. On centering and applying the triangle inequality,

Note that each of the sums within the norms are sums of i.i.d. mean zero random variables, justifying the application of Rosenthal’s inequality. Lemma 3.1 yields uniform bounds for \bigl\VertT_j\bigr\Vert_{2+\varepsilon} and \bigl\VertR_j\bigr\Vert_{2+\varepsilon} and the proof of Theorem 1.1 yields a bound on \bigl\VertZ_{\pi_{\ell-2}(\boldsymbol{a})}\bigr\Vert. Applying Theorem 2.2,

where C_1 and C_{2} are constants determined by \bigl\Vert\omega\bigr\Vert_{2+\varepsilon}, \bigl\Vert\nu\bigr\Vert_{2+\varepsilon} and \varepsilon. Clearly, we have 1+a_j\leqslant 2 and by hypothesis, 2^{\ell}\leqslant n\leqslant 2^{\ell+1}, implying that

Taking C to be the right hand side constant completes the proof.

We illustrate the method for the edge weights, as the case of bounding the change with respect to the vertex weights is identical. Let us pick an edge e \in E_{\mathcal{G}_{n}} with weight \omega_{e}. We replace \omega_{e} with an independent copy \omega_{e}'. Note that,

and it is easy to see that

Adding over all edges e, then repeating the same procedure with the vertex weights completes the proof.

Identical procedure to that of Lemma 3.5.

We begin by constructing a sequence of principal subgraphs of \mathcal{G}_n whose corresponding Lee-Yang zeroes satisfy the interlacing condition in (?). Let K \in (0,\infty) denote a cutoff. Recall the definition of \Delta_u from (?), the weighted degree of a vertex u. We remove all vertices u with \Delta_u\geqslant K from \mathcal{G}_n, and denote the principal subgraph on the remaining vertices as \mathcal{G}^{K}. Clearly, as K increases, the vertices are added in one by one until we obtain the full graph \mathcal{G} as K \to \infty. Let N_K denote the number of vertices in \mathcal{G}^{K}. Clearly,

Now, let u and v be two distinct vertices. Via a coupling argument, it is not hard to show that if \text{deg}(u)>\text{deg}(v), then \operatorname{\mathds{P}}(\Delta_u<K)\leqslant \operatorname{\mathds{P}}(\Delta_v<K). Let \Delta_{max} denote a random variable equal in distribution to the weighted degree of the vertex with maximum degree. We find the following bounds for the mean and variance

Since N=nh and \bigl\vert E_{\mathcal{G}_n} \bigr\vert\leqslant (d_{max}+1)nh/2,

These estimates together yield concentration via Chebyshev’s inequality:

What this means in particular is that for \varepsilon >0 with probability approaching 1,

We do not go into the detail of the distribution of \Delta_{max}. This is because for proving tightness of \rho_n all that is required is that \Delta_{max} is a tight random variable which is clear since d_{max} is bounded. The localization of the zeroes relates the weighted degree of the vertices to the absolute values of the Lee-Yang zeroes. By hypothesis, on \mathcal{G}^{K} the weighted degrees of all the vertices are bounded above by K, thus all Lee-Yang zeroes corresponding to Z_{\mathcal{G}^{K}} are located in the interval [-K,K]. Let us now take K and K+\delta such that exactly one vertex is added, that is N_{K+\delta}=N_K+1. Let the Lee-Yang zeroes of the corresponding partition functions be denoted as \{\lambda_{k,K+\delta}\}_{k=1}^{N_{K+\delta}} and \{\lambda_{k,K}\}_{k=1}^{N_K}. The interlacing (?) yields that

Extending this inductively, let \{\lambda_{k}\}^{N}_{k=1} denote the Lee-Yang zeroes of the partition function corresponding to \mathcal{G}_n. We have

Thus, 2(n-N_K)/n is an upper bound for the fraction of Lee-Yang zeroes of Z_{\mathcal{G}_n}(x) such that |\lambda|> K. Given an \varepsilon > 0, we can choose K such that 2(n-N_K)/n\leqslant \varepsilon with probability approaching 1. This is exactly \rho_n[-K,K]^{c}, which establishes tightness.

We focus on a particular principal subgraph of \mathcal{G}_n, which consists of disjoint connected components of size 2. All vertices v in \mathcal{G}_n are of the form v=(g,h) where g\in V_{G} and h\in V_{H} are the G and H coordinates, respectively. We fix a H-coordinate, say h^\star\in V_{H}. Let

be a collection of \lfloor n/2\rfloor many disjoint edges. We obtain a sequence of principal subgraphs of \mathcal{G}_n by sequentially removing all vertices not in \mathcal{V}', until only the vertices present in \mathcal{V}' are left. We denote the resulting subgraph as \mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{V}'}, and the size of its vertex set as N_{\mathcal{V}'}. By construction,

Note that each connected component of \mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{V}'} is of size 2, that is just a pair of vertices connected by an edge. Consider K>0 such that p:=\operatorname{\mathds{P}}(\tilde{\omega}_e \geqslant -K)>0. Define \delta:=\exp(-K/2). We sequentially remove the vertices adjacent to edges with edge weight \tilde{\omega}<-K. We denote the resulting subgraph as \mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{V}} and the size of its vertex set as N_{\mathcal{V}}. As a standard consequence of the concentration of Binomial random variables, for every \varepsilon>0 we have with probability approaching 1, we have

The connected components of \mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{V}} have size 2. Thus, the partition function Z_{\mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{V}}} factors into a product of the partition functions of the respective connected components. We denote the Lee-Yang zeroes of Z_{\mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{V}}} as \{\lambda_{i,\mathcal{V}}\}_{i=1}^{N_{\mathcal{V}}}. Now, if G' is a graph on two vertices with edge weight \tilde{\omega} and vertex weights x, it is easy to see that the partition function Z_{G'} must be of the form

with Lee-Yang zeroes given by \pm \exp(\tilde{\omega}/2). Given the product structure of Z_{\mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{V}}}, it follows that |\lambda_{i,\mathcal{V}}|\geqslant e^{-K/2}=\delta for all 1\leqslant i\leqslant N_{\mathcal{V}}. Let \ell=N_{\mathcal{V}}/2.

Via the interlacing hierarchy, we obtain that

where \{\lambda_i\}_{i=1}^{N} are the Lee-Yang zeroes of Z_n(x). Further, this means that there are at least N_{\mathcal{V}}-\ell zeroes that exceed \delta. With probability approaching 1, we have

To conclude, we take \varepsilon=p/(4h).

Let us enumerate the vertices in V' as \{v_1,v_{2},\ldots, v_{|V'|}\}. We then sequentially remove the vertices, obtaining a sequence of partition functions whose underlying graphs differ by the removal of a single vertex. We denote the partition function after the j^{ {\textrm{th}} } removal by Z^{(j)}(x) for all 1\leqslant j\leqslant |V'|. Clearly, Z^{(|V'|)}(x):=Z^{V'}(x). The Lee-Yang zeroes of Z^{(j)}(x), denoted \lambda_{k,j}, interlace those of Z^{(j-1)}(x). For ease of notation, we denote

Expressing the i^{ {\textrm{th}} } cumulant in terms of the empirical measures, we have that

It will be convenient to merge the sequence of zeroes corresponding to Z^{(j)} and Z^{(j+1)} into a single sequence. We use the convention that \gamma_{0,j}=-\infty and define the combined sequence \gamma_{k,j} such that

By the interlacing property (?), the combined sequence \gamma_{k,j} is non-decreasing in k, and symmetric about 0. With these definitions we have

Note that \{-\infty,\gamma_{0,j},\gamma_{1,j},\gamma_{2,j},\ldots,\gamma_{2N-2j-1,j},\infty\} is a tagged partition of (-\infty,\infty). We aim to bound the variation of f^i with respect to this partition. Fix K<\infty, it is easy to see that for (x,\lambda)\in [-K,K]\times \mathds{R}, |f^i| and |\partial_{\lambda}f^i| are both bounded. Furthermore for 1\leqslant i\leqslant 3, f^i decay to 0 as |\lambda|\to {\infty}, monotonically for sufficiently large \lambda. Let M_K be chosen such that for |\lambda|>M_K, f^i monotonically decays to 0 as |\lambda|\to \infty for all i and x\in [-K,K]. Note that \gamma_{N-j,j}=0 by symmetry. We define

By hypothesis, on [M_K,\infty), f^i is bounded and monotonically converges to 0. Thus,

Next, on [0,M_K] we have that \bigl\Vert\partial_{\lambda}f\bigr\Vert_{\infty} is finite and thus f^i is of bounded variation. In particular, we have

Combining the above bounds and using the symmetry about 0, we finally get

We apply the triangle inequality to the following sum

to complete the proof.

Note that, for all i\geqslant 1 we have

For i=1, the Lemma follows immediately from Lemma 4.3 as

We can now use induction along with Lemma 4.3 and Leibniz rule to complete the proof.

We aim to bound the derivatives of the error term

We will be applying Lemma 2.3 to

Thus, it suffices to bound the “moment” terms

where we used \tilde{\omega}_{A}:=\sum_{e\in A}\tilde{\omega}_e. We define

On applying Lemma 4.4, we get

We plug the bound in (Proof), to get

This completes the proof.

Recall the definition of f^1(x,\lambda) from (Proof). Let \{\lambda_{k}\} and \{\lambda_{k}'\} be the Lee-Yang zeroes of Z_1 and Z_{2}. We have

It suffices to consider the case of n being even, as if n is odd, Z_1 and Z_{2} have a common root located at 0 which cancels on taking the difference. We may also sum exclusively over \lambda> 0 since the roots are symmetric. We re-index the roots from 1 to l where l=\frac{n}{2}. By interlacing, we have that \lambda_{k}\leqslant \lambda_{k+2}' for all k. Rearranging, we get

Moreover, interlacing yields that

Combining the bounds

and applying triangle inequality completes the proof.

We begin with the decomposition in (?) and take the derivative with respect to x

Lemma 4.5 then yields

The subadditive lemma then yields the convergence, and we have

exists for all x.

We use the same method as Lemma 3.3, the only difference is that since we are taking a derivative with respect to x, the dependence of the \alpha and \beta terms on x needs to be taken into account. Let e=(v,w) be an arbitrary edge and u be an arbitrary vertex. With the same notation as Lemma 3.3,

Analogously for the vertices, we have

We illustrate the method for the variance that is contributed by the edge randomness. The vertex case is identical. By applying Lemma 4.4 and the triangle inequality we have

We now use the fact that when a,b\geqslant 0 then 2ab\leqslant (a+b)^2. Finally squaring, taking the expectation and summing over all edges complete the proof.

The symmetry is of crucial importance here. Let L_n denote the random variable with distribution \mu_n. Symmetry of \mu_n implies that the distribution of L_n can be recovered from the distribution of L_n^{2}. The transform F_n(z) is given by

Applying Fubini’s theorem, we obtain that

where

is the Laplace transform of the measure \mu_n. Since the sequence \{\mu_n\} is tight, there exists a subsequence \{\mu_{n_{k}}\} weakly converging to a probability measure \mu. If \mu_n is not weakly convergent, there must be another subsequence \{\mu_{m_{k}}\} with a distinct weak limit \mu^{*}. Since \exp({-zt}) is bounded and continuous, we have that \Gamma_{n_{k}}(t) and \Gamma_{m_{k}}(t) both converge pointwise as k \to \infty to limits, say \Gamma(t) and \Gamma^{*}(t), respectively. By our original hypothesis, F_{n_{k}}(z) and F_{m_{k}}(z) both converge to F(z) as k \to \infty. Applying dominated convergence (we may since |\Gamma_n|\leqslant 1), we obtain that

Uniqueness of the Laplace transform now implies that \Gamma=\Gamma^{*}, which in turn implies that \mu=\mu^{*}. Thus, \mu_n is weakly convergent with limit \mu.

We establish the convergence of the quenched variance first. We have

The integrand is bounded and continuous. Convergence of the variance is an immediate corollary of the weak convergence in probability of \rho_n, i.e.,

The argument for the convergence of the annealed variance is similar to the proof of the convergence of variance of the free energy in Lemma 3.5. We write the decomposition

and denote

Computing the variance of both sides and applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have

By Lemma 5.2, \sigma^{2}_{A,n}(x)\leqslant C n. As an immediate corollary of the subadditivity lemma, we get that n^{-1}{\sigma^{2}_{A,n}(x)} converges as n\to\infty, we denote the limit as \sigma^{2}_{A}.

Note that, we have

From Lemma 4.2, we may find \varepsilon,\delta>0 such that with probability approaching 1, \rho_n[0,\delta)\leqslant 1-\varepsilon. The tightness proved in Lemma 4.1 says that given \varepsilon>0, we may find an K such that with probability approaching 1, \rho_n{[K,\infty)}\leqslant \varepsilon/2. We now use the fact that \rho_{n}([\delta,K])\geqslant \varepsilon/2 to complete the proof.

The proof, as with the case of \sigma_{F} is about extracting the bounds on the influence of a single edge. The martingale argument then yields the lower bound. Recall the filtration \mathcal{F}_j defined in Lemma 3.6. With the same notation, we have

We now apply the triangle inequality and Lemma 4.6 to obtain

Note that the integrand may be rewritten as y^{-1}\operatorname{sech}^{2}\left(\frac{z+y}{2}\right) where

For the fixed compact interval [-K,K] which our weights are restricted to, the integrand is uniformly bounded below in z. Applying this lower bound, squaring and then taking the expectation completes the result. The non transitive case follows in a procedure identical to that followed in Lemma 3.6.

Let e=(u,v) be an edge. The gauge transformed weight of e is \tilde{\omega}_e=\omega_e-\nu_u-\nu_v. By hypothesis, this implies that with probability 1,

Thus for any vertex v,

This implies that there is an M<1 such that all Lee-Yang zeroes associated to Z_n(x) are located in [-M,M]. Lemma 5.8 now applies with x=0.

Recall the dyadic subdivision as introduced in Section ? along with the accompanying notation, and let n=\sum_{i=0}^{l}a_i2^i. Recall from (?)

Taking the derivative, the expectation, and then absolute value of both sides,

Applying Lemma 4.5, we get

Dividing both sides by n and simplifying, we have

where m=\pi_{k}(\boldsymbol{a}). Let p=l-k and

It is easy to show that

Multiplying the entire expression by m and applying the triangle inequality, we get

Let

Rearranging the terms and using the fact that 0\leqslant \partial_x \log Z_{m}\leqslant m (there are at most m unpaired vertices), we obtain

Note that letting p\to \infty implies that n \to \infty while keeping m fixed. Thus, we have |m\cdot u-\operatorname{\mathds{E}}\langle U\rangle _{m}|\leqslant C'+2. This completes the proof.