1: \documentclass[10pt]{article}

2: %\usepackage[active]{srcltx }

3: \usepackage{graphicx,color}

4: \usepackage{amsmath}

5: %\usepackage{showkeys}

6: \usepackage{amsfonts}

7: \usepackage{amssymb}

8: %\usepackage{ulem}

9: 

10: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

11: \newtheorem{acknowledgement}{Acknowledgement}

12: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}

13: \newtheorem{example}{Example}

14: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

15: \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}

16: \newtheorem{remark}{Remark}

17: \newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}

18: \newenvironment{proof}[1][Proof]{\textbf{#1.} }%

19:                {\ \rule{0.5em}{0.5em}\medskip}

20: 

21: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.{\arabic{equation}}}%

22: 

23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

24: \pagestyle{myheadings}

25: \markright{{\scriptsize Entropic repulsion in external field; version from \today%21.09.01

26: }}

27: %         {{\scriptsize version from \today}}

28: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

29: \newif\ifShowComments

30: \ShowCommentstrue

31: \def\strutdepth{\dp\strutbox}

32: \def\druk#1{\strut\vadjust{\kern-\strutdepth

33:         {\vtop to \strutdepth{%

34:                 \baselineskip\strutdepth\vss

35:                         \llap{\hbox{#1}\quad}\null}}}}

36: \def\asksign{{\bf?!!}}

37: %\def\comm#1{\ifShowComments \asksign \underline{\sf\small\ #1}\asksign\ \fi}

38: \def\comm#1{\ifShowComments \asksign{\sf\small\ #1}\asksign\marginpar{\asksign \asksign}\fi}

39: \def\note#1{\ifShowComments\marginpar{\sf\small #1!!!}\fi}

40: %\ShowCommentsfalse% comment this out if comments should be printed

41: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

42: 

43: \def\bl{\bigl}%

44: \def\br{\bigr}%

45: \def\Bl{\Bigl}%

46: \def\Br{\Bigr}%

47: 

48: \begin{document}

49: \title{Entropic repulsion of an interface in an external field}

50: \author{Y.Velenik\\Laboratoire d'Analyse, Topologie, Probabilit\'es\\UMR-CNRS 6632\\ C.M.I., Universit\'e de Provence\\Marseille, France\\{\tt

51: velenik@cmi.univ-mrs.fr}}

52: \maketitle

53: \begin{abstract}

54: We consider an interface above an attractive hard wall in the complete wetting regime, and submitted to the action of an external increasing, convex potential, and study its delocalization as the intensity of this potential vanishes. Our main motivation is the analysis of critical prewetting, which corresponds to the choice of a linear external potential.

55: 

56: We also present partial results on critical prewetting in the two dimensional Ising model, as well as a few (weak) results on pathwise estimates for the pure wetting problem for effective interface models.

57: \end{abstract}

58: 

59: \section{Introduction and results}

60: %

61: %

62: %

63: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

64: % Introduction

65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

66: %

67: %

68: %

69: \subsection{Effective interface models}

70: There has been a lot of interest recently in the properties of effective interface models in the presence of an attractive hard wall, and the associated wetting phase transition~\cite{BoDeZe2000,CaVe2000,IsYo2001}, as well as the related problems of entropic repulsion~\cite{BrElFr1986, BoDeZe1995,De1996,BoDeGi2001,DeGi1999,DeGi2000,BeGi2002a, BeGi2002b} and pinning by a local potential~\cite{DuMaRiRo1992,BoBr2001,DeVe2000,IoVe2000,BoVe2001}.

71: 

72: 

73: In the present work, we consider $d$-dimensional effective interface models with

74: convex interactions. That is, the interface is described by a collection of

75: non-negative real numbers $X_i$, $i\in\Lambda_N=\{-N,\dots,N\}^d$, representing

76: the height of the interface above site $i$. The probability measure is given by

77: \begin{multline}

78: \mathrm{P}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(\mathrm{d}X) =

79: \bl(Z_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}\br)^{-1}\, \exp\Bigl\{ - \sum_{\langle i,j

80: \rangle\cap\Lambda_N \neq\emptyset}\!\! \mathsf{U}(X_i-X_j) - \sum_{i\in\Lambda_N}

81: \lambda\, \mathsf{V}(X_i)\Bigr\}\\

82: \times \prod_{i\in\Lambda_N} \left( \mathrm{d} X_i + \upsilon \delta_0(\mathrm{d} X_i) \right) \prod_{i\in\mathbb{Z}^d \setminus \Lambda_N} \delta_0(\mathrm{d} X_i)\,,

83: \label{eq_measure}

84: \end{multline}

85: where $\delta_0$ is the Dirac mass at $0$, $\lambda$ is a strictly positive real number, $\upsilon \geq 0$ and the function $\mathsf{U}$ satisfies

86: $c<\mathsf{U}''<1/c$ for some $c>0$. We are mostly interested in the case $\mathsf{V}(x)=|x|$, but we allow for general $\mathsf{V}:\mathbb{R}^+ \to \mathbb{R}^+$, which are convex, increasing, and satisfy $\mathsf{V}(0)=0$ and the following growth condition:

87: There exists $f:\mathbb{R}^+\to\mathbb{R}^+$ such that, for all $\alpha>0$,

88: $$

89: \limsup_{x\to\infty} \frac {V(\alpha x)} {V(x)} \leq f(\alpha) < \infty\,.

90: $$

91: (Obviously any convex polynomial is fine.)

92: The parameter $\upsilon$ corresponds to the

93: strength of the pinning potential locally attracting the interface to the wall.

94: \begin{remark}

95: Our results and proofs can be extended straightforwardly to the case of a square-well potential of the form $-b\mathbf{1}_{X_i\leq a}$, $b\geq 0$, $a>0$.

96: \end{remark}

97: When the pinning potential is absent (i.e.

98: $\upsilon=0$), we simply omit the corresponding subscript. We denote by

99: $\upsilon_{\mathrm{c}}$ the critical value of the pinning parameter,

100: \begin{equation}

101: \label{eq_CW}

102: \upsilon_{\mathrm{c}} = \sup\left\{ \upsilon \,:\, \lim_{N\to\infty} |\Lambda_N|^{-1} \log

103: \frac{Z_{N,+,0,\upsilon}} {Z_{N,+,0}} = 0 \right\}\,.

104: \end{equation}

105: This corresponds to the value of the pinning parameter at which the wetting transition takes place. In the case

106: $\mathsf{U}(x)=x^2$, it is known that $\upsilon_{\mathrm{c}}>0$ when $d\leq 2$~\cite{CaVe2000}, while $\upsilon_{\mathrm{c}} = 0$ when $d\geq

107: 3$~\cite{BoDeZe2000}. (The situation is different when one drops the assumption

108: of strict convexity of $\mathsf{U}$, see~\cite{CaVe2000}.) We write $\mathsf{CW} = \{\upsilon\geq 0 \,:\, \upsilon < \upsilon_c \} \cup \{0\}$ to denote the region of complete wetting; for these values of the pinning parameter, the interface is delocalized when $\lambda=0$.

109: 

110: Let $\mathcal{H}_{\lambda,d}$ be defined as follows: In dimension $d=2$, $\mathcal{H}(\lambda;2) = |\log\lambda|$; in dimensions $d\geq 3$,  $\mathcal{H}_{\lambda,d} = |\log\lambda|^{1/2}$. Then our main result can be stated as

111: \begin{theorem}\label{thm_EffInt} 

112: Let $\upsilon\in\mathsf{CW}$. There exist dimension-dependent, strictly positive constants $\delta$, $\lambda_0$, $r$, and $c$ such that: For all $\lambda<\lambda_0$ and $N> \lambda^{-r}$,

113: $$

114: \mathrm{P}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}\bigl(|\Lambda_N|^{-1}\sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} X_i \not\in (\delta \mathcal{H}_{\lambda,d},

115: \delta^{-1} \mathcal{H}_{\lambda,d})\bigr) \leq \exp\left\{-c\,\lambda\, \mathsf{V}\left(\mathcal{H}_{\lambda,d}\right)\, |\Lambda_N| \right\}\,.

116: $$

117: Actually, the upper bound can be strengthened as

118: $$

119: \mathrm{P}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}\bigl(|\Lambda_N|^{-1}\sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} X_i \not\in (\delta \mathcal{H}_{\lambda,d},

120: \delta^{-1} \mathcal{H}_{\lambda,d})\bigr) \leq \exp\left\{-c\,\delta^{-1}\, \lambda\, \mathsf{V}\left(\mathcal{H}_{\lambda,d}\right)\, |\Lambda_N| \right\}\,.

121: $$

122: \end{theorem}

123: \begin{remark}

124: We do not state and prove here the corresponding results in dimension $1$. The reason is that, in that case, much more detailed informations, valid for an immensely larger class of interactions $\mathsf{U}$ can be obtained. This is of interest, since one would like to understand the degree of universality in the behavior found here. These results will appear elsewhere~\cite{HrVe2003}. Let us just mention that, when $d=1$, the interface is repelled to a height of order $\mathcal{H}$, the unique solution of the equation

125: $$

126: \lambda \mathcal{H}^2 \mathsf{V}(2\mathcal{H}) = 1\,.

127: $$

128: \end{remark}

129: The previous theorem only yields estimates on the height of the field averaged

130: over the box. It is however very easy to derive from it the following local

131: estimates.

132: \begin{corollary}

133: \label{cor_highdim}

134: Let $\upsilon\in\mathcal{CW}$ and fix $0<\epsilon<1$.

135: There exist $\delta>0$ and $\lambda_0>0$ such that, for

136: all $\lambda<\lambda_0$ and $N>N_0(\lambda)$,

137: \begin{align*}

138: \sup_{i\in\Lambda_N}\mathrm{E}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_i) &\leq \delta^{-1}|\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)},\\

139: \inf_{i\in\Lambda_{\epsilon N}}\mathrm{E}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_i) &\geq

140: \delta\,|\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)}\,;

141: \end{align*}

142: \end{corollary}

143: 

144: \bigskip

145: Our main motivation for studying this model comes from the physical phenomenon of \textit{critical prewetting}.

146: Consider

147: some substance in the regime of phase coexistence; let us call the two equilibrium phases

148: $A$ and $B$. Suppose that phase $A$ occupies the bulk of the vessel, while

149: the boundary of the latter favors phase $B$. As a result, a film of $B$ phase

150: is generated along the walls. It is well-known that by increasing the

151: temperature, the system may undergo a surface phase transition, the wetting

152: transition, reflected in the behavior of this film: Below the wetting

153: temperature the film has a microscopic width (partial wetting), while above it

154: its width becomes macroscopic (complete wetting), in the sense that it diverges

155: in the thermodynamic limit.

156: 

157: Suppose now that, starting from the complete wetting regime, the system is

158: pulled away from phase coexistence and only phase $A$ remains thermodynamically

159: stable. The film of (now unstable) $B$ phase, though still present, cannot

160: occupy a macroscopic region and therefore its width stays microscopic (i.e.

161: remains finite in the thermodynamic limit). Critical prewetting corresponds to

162: the (continuous) divergence of the film thickness as the system nears the phase

163: coexistence manifold. If we denote by $\lambda$ the free energy difference

164: between phase $B$ and phase $A$, then one is interested in the behavior of the

165: average film width as a function of $\lambda$.

166: 

167: The Gibbs measures~\eqref{eq_measure} provide a natural modelization of this phenomenon. Indeed, when the external potential is chosen as $\mathsf{V}(x)=x$, these measures introduce a penalization of the form ``$\lambda \times$ the volume of the wet layer'', which correspond to the free energetic cost for creating such a layer. In that case, the averaged width of the wetting layer is of order $\lambda^{-1/3}$ when $d=1$~\cite{HrVe2003}.

168: 

169: In the Subsection~\ref{ssec_IsingIntro}, we introduce another, more realistic modelization of this phenomenon in a lattice gas, the two-dimensional Ising model, and prove some partial results indicating that this model has the same type of critical behavior, in particular that the critical exponent is also $1/3$.

170: %

171: %%% Additional results %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

172: %

173: \subsection{Some additional results about effective interface models}

174: In this section, we present some new results about effective interface models, not directly related to the main problem investigated in the paper. Some turn out to be useful in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_EffInt}, other are just of independent interest.

175: 

176: \bigskip

177: The first problem concerns the probability that an interface stays inside a fixed horizontal slab. This problem was first investigated in~\cite{BrElFr1986} in the Gaussian case. Our first result in an extension to the case of strictly convex interactions; our proof is also completely different. Let $\mathrm{P}_{N}$ denote the Gibbs measure with 0-b.c. without the positivity constraint and with $\lambda=\eta=0$. 

178: 

179: \begin{theorem}\label{thm_Slab}

180: There exist strictly positive constants

181: $c_-(d)$, $c_+(d)$, $c$ and $\ell_0<\infty$ such that, for any $\ell>\ell_0$ the following holds:

182: \begin{itemize}

183: \item If $d=2$, for all $N>e^{c\ell}$,

184: $$

185: e^{-e^{-c_+ \ell}\, |\Lambda_N|}

186: \geq \mathrm{P}_{N}(|X_i| \leq \ell,\, \forall i \in\Lambda_N) 

187: \geq e^{-e^{-c_- \ell}\, |\Lambda_N|}\,.

188: $$

189: \item If $d\geq3$, for all $N>e^{c\ell^2}$,

190: $$

191: e^{-e^{-c_+ \ell^2}\, |\Lambda_N|}

192: \geq \mathrm{P}_{N}(|X_i| \leq \ell,\, \forall i \in\Lambda_N) 

193: \geq e^{-e^{-c_- \ell^2}\, |\Lambda_N|}\,.

194: $$

195: \end{itemize}

196: \end{theorem}

197: We have not been able to extend the results on the variance and the mass proved in~\cite{BrElFr1986} in the Gaussian setting. The corresponding results in dimension $1$, valid for a much larger class of models will appear in~\cite{HrVe2003}

198: 

199: \medskip

200: All other results concern the (pure) wetting transition in effective interface models. We start with results giving more informations on pathwise properties.

201: \begin{theorem}\label{thm_Wetting}

202: \begin{enumerate}

203: \item Let $\upsilon\in\mathsf{CW}$. For all $\epsilon>0$, there exist $N_0(\upsilon,\epsilon)$ and $c(\upsilon)>0$ such that, for all $N\geq N_0$,

204: $$

205: \mathrm{P}_{N,+,0,\upsilon} (|\Lambda_N|^{-1}\,\sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} 1_{\{X_i = 0\}} \geq \epsilon) \leq e^{-c\,\epsilon\, |\Lambda_N|}\,.

206: $$

207: \item Let $d=2$ and $\upsilon\in\mathsf{CW}$.

208: $$

209: \lim_{N\to\infty} \mathrm{E}_{N,+,0,\upsilon} (|\Lambda_N|^{-1}\, \sum_{i\in\Lambda_N}X_i) = \infty\,.

210: $$

211: Moreover, for all $\eta$ small enough, there exists $C>0$ such that

212: $$

213: \mathrm{E}_{N,+,0,\upsilon} (|\Lambda_N|^{-1}\, \sum_{i\in\Lambda_N}X_i) \geq C\log N\,.

214: $$

215: \item We consider the Gaussian case $\mathsf{U}(x) = x^2/2$. Let $d=2$ and $\upsilon$ be large enough. Then there exists $C<\infty$ such that, for all $i\in\Lambda_N$,

216: $$

217: \mathrm{E}_{N,+,0,\upsilon} (X_i) \leq C\,.

218: $$

219: Moreover, there exists $C>0$ such that, for all $x\in\mathbb{S}^1$,

220: $$

221: \lim_{k\to\infty}-\frac 1{k} \limsup_{N\to\infty}\log\mathrm{cov}_{N,+,0,\upsilon} (X_0,X_{[kx]}) > C\,,

222: $$

223: where $[y]\in\mathbb{Z}^d$ denotes the componentwise integer part of $y\in\mathbb{R}^d$.

224: \end{enumerate}

225: \end{theorem}

226: Finally, a long-term goal would be to control quantitatively the divergence of the interface as the wetting transition is approached from the partial wetting regime, i.e. the limit $\upsilon\searrow\upsilon_{\rm c}$. This seems far from what can be achieved with today's techniques, but at least we can show (easily), in the $d\geq 3$ Gaussian case, that the transition is second order, in the sense that the average height does indeed diverge as $\upsilon\searrow\upsilon_{\rm c}=0$, and not stay finite and jump at the transition.

227: \begin{theorem}\label{thm_2ndOrder}

228: Let $d\geq 3$ and suppose that $\upsilon_{\rm c}=0$ (this is the case, e.g., when $\mathsf{U}(x)=x^2/2$). Then, for any $i\in\mathbb{Z}^d$,

229: $$

230: \lim_{\upsilon\searrow\upsilon_{\rm c}} \lim_{N\to\infty} \mathrm{E}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon} (X_i) =\infty\,.

231: $$

232: \end{theorem}

233: %

234: %%%% Ising %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

235: %

236: \subsection{The two-dimensional Ising model}

237: \label{ssec_IsingIntro}

238: It would of course be very interesting to obtain results similar to those of Theorem~\ref{thm_EffInt} also in the case of lattice gases. However, such systems do not always display critical prewetting. In particular, below the roughening temperature, e.g. in the low-temperature $3$-dimensional Ising model, or in subcritical Ising models in dimensions $d\geq 4$, it is expected that the continuous divergence of the width of the wet layer is replaced by an infinite sequence of first order phase transitions, the \textit{layering transitions}, at which the interface jumps up one microscopic unit. This has never been established for the Ising model, though that should follow from a rather straightforward, but technically involved, Pirogov-Sinai analysis. This problem was studied in detail in the series of papers~\cite{DiMa1994,CeMa1996,LeMa1996} in the case of the discrete SOS model.

239: 

240: On the other hand, critical prewetting is expected to occur in the rough phase of such models. In particular, it should occur for any subcritical temperatures in the case of the two-dimensional Ising model. This is what we analyze in this section.

241: 

242: \bigskip

243: Let $N$ be even and set $\Lambda_N=\{-N/2+1,\dots,N/2\} \times \{0,\dots,N-1\}$,

244: $\partial^+\Lambda_N = \{x\in\Lambda_N\,:\, \exists y\not\in\Lambda_N,\,

245: |x-y|=1,\, y_2\geq 0\}$ and $\partial^-\Lambda_N = \{x\in\Lambda_N\,:\, \exists

246: y\not\in\Lambda_N,\, |x-y|=1,\, y_2=-1\}$.

247: 

248: We define the following Hamiltonian acting on configurations

249: $\sigma\in\{-1,1\}^{\Lambda_N}$,

250: $$

251: H_{\lambda,h,\Lambda_N} (\sigma) = -\sum_{\langle x,y \rangle \subset

252: \Lambda_N} \sigma_x\sigma_y - \lambda \sum_{x\in\Lambda_N} \sigma_x -

253: \sum_{x\in\partial^+\Lambda_N} \sigma_x + h \sum_{x\in\partial^-\Lambda_N}

254: \sigma_x\,.

255: $$

256: $\lambda>0$ is the bulk magnetic field, while the boundary field $h>0$ serves to

257: model the preference of the bottom wall toward $-$ spins. The Gibbs

258: measure in $\Lambda_N$ is the probability measure on

259: $\sigma\in\{-1,1\}^{\Lambda_N}$ given by

260: $$

261: \mu_{\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda_N} (\sigma) = (Z_{\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda_N})^{-1}\;

262: e^{-\beta\, H_{\lambda,h,\Lambda_N} (\sigma)}\,.

263: $$

264: 

265: Let $\beta>\beta_c$ and $\lambda=0$. Because of our choice of boundary

266: conditions, the bulk of the system is occupied, with probability asymptotically

267: $1$, by the $+$ phase, while the introduction of the boundary field $h$ results

268: in the creation of a layer of $-$ phase along the bottom wall. It is

269: well-known~\cite{Ab1980, FrPf1987a} that there is a critical value $h_w(\beta)>0$

270: of $h$ at which a wetting transition occurs. For $h<h_w(\beta)$, the layer has

271: a finite thickness (see~\cite{PfVe1997a}), while for $h\geq h_w(\beta)$, the width of the film of $-$

272: phase becomes macroscopic (of order $N^{1/2}$) (this can be proved, for example, along the line of the argument leading to~\eqref{7_8} below). It is actually expected that in this regime, once suitably rescaled, the microscopic interface converges to Brownian excursion; the sketch proof of such a result in the case $h=1$ can be found in~\cite{Do1993}.

273: 

274: Let us now choose some $h\geq h_w(\beta)$ and let $\lambda>0$.

275: Our second result describes the behavior of the film of $-$

276: phase as $\lambda \to 0^+$. There is no canonical way of measuring the width of

277: the film of $-$ phase in the Ising model, or, for that matter, even to define

278: the film itself. We proceed as follows.

279: 

280: \begin{figure}[t!]

281: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=45mm]{layervol.eps}}

282: \caption{Part of the open contour $\gamma(\sigma)$ (bold line), and the set

283: $\Lambda^-(\sigma)$ (shaded).}

284: \label{fig_layervol}

285: \end{figure}

286: 

287: Given a configuration $\sigma$ in the box $\Lambda_N$, construct its extension

288: $\bar\sigma$ to $\mathbb{Z}^2$ by setting, for $x\not\in\Lambda_N$,

289: $\bar\sigma_x = -1$ if $x_2<0$ and $\bar\sigma_x = 1$ otherwise. Then in the

290: configuration $\bar\sigma$ there is a single (infinite) open Peierls contour.

291: This Peierls contour can intersect itself, and we use the deformation rules

292: given in Fig.~\ref{fig_rules} to turn it into a simple curve. We call the

293: resulting open contour $\gamma(\sigma)$. This contour splits $\mathbb{Z}^2$

294: into two components. We denote by $\Lambda^-(\sigma)$ the set of all sites of

295: $\Lambda_N$ lying ``below'' $\gamma(\sigma)$, see Fig.~\ref{fig_layervol}. The

296: volume of $\Lambda^-(\sigma)$ is one of the measures of the size of the layer

297: we use. The other one is $|C^-(\sigma)|$, where $C^-(\sigma)$ is the set of all sites in $\Lambda^-(\sigma)$ connected to the bottom wall by a path of $-$ spins in $\sigma$. 

298: 

299: Our result is the following

300: \begin{theorem}

301: \label{thm_Ising}

302: Let $\beta>\beta_c$ and $h\geq h_w(\beta)$. There exist $\lambda_0>0$,

303: $K<\infty$, and $C_2>0$ such that, for all $0<\lambda<\lambda_0$ and

304: $N>K\lambda^{-2/3}|\log\lambda|^{3}$,

305: \begin{equation}\label{eq_Ising_LB}

306: \mu_{\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda_N} (|\Lambda^-| <

307: |\log\lambda|^{-3}\, \lambda^{-1/3}\, N) \leq

308: e^{-C_2\,|\log\lambda|^2 \lambda^{2/3}\, N}\,,

309: \end{equation}

310: and

311: \begin{equation}\label{eq_Ising_UB}

312: \mu_{\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda_N} (|C^-| >

313: K\, |\log\lambda|^2\, \lambda^{-1/3}\, N) \leq

314: e^{-C_2\,|\log\lambda|^2 \lambda^{2/3}\, N}\,.

315: \end{equation}

316: \end{theorem}

317: We expect that the two quantities $|\Lambda^-|$ and $|C^-(\sigma)|$ are

318: typically the same, up to a multiplicative constant:

319: \begin{conjecture} 

320: There exists a constant $c>0$ such that

321: $$

322: \lim_{N\to\infty} \mu_{\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda_N} (|C^-| > c

323: |\Lambda^-|) = 1\,.

324: $$

325: \end{conjecture}

326: (Of course $|\Lambda^-(\sigma)|\geq |C^-(\sigma)|$ for all $\sigma$.) We were

327: unable to prove this conjecture. The difficulty is that the system can create

328: big droplets of $+$ phase inside the layer of $-$ phase, and it seems that a

329: rather complicated metastability analysis is required. Such an analysis is well

330: understood in the case of regular macroscopic boxes, see e.g.~\cite{ScSh1996}.

331: However, we are here in a situation where the box is random, and very

332: anisotropic.

333: 

334: \begin{remark}

335: The logarithmic corrections present in Theorem~\ref{thm_Ising} are artificial and should be removed. The reason of their appearance is the lack of local CLT type results for Ising random-lines in the vicinity of the boundary of the system. Such estimates have been proved in~\cite{CaIoVe2003a} in the case of random-lines in the bulk but their extension seems delicate. 

336: \end{remark}

337: 

338: \vskip 0.2cm

339: \noindent

340: {\bf Acknowledgments.} It is a pleasure to thank Ostap Hryniv for many fruitful discussions, as well as useful comments and criticisms on earlier versions of this text. The author is also grateful to Walter Selke for bringing his attention to the problem of interfacial adsorption, the understanding of which was the original motivation for this work.

341: 

342: \section{Proofs}

343: %

344: %

345: %

346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

347: % Effective interface models: Proof of main results

348: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

349: %

350: %

351: %

352: \subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_EffInt} and its corollary}

353: \subsubsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_EffInt}}

354: Let $\nu(2)=1$ and $\nu(d)=1/2$ when $d\geq 3$.

355: Theorem~\ref{thm_EffInt} is a rather simple corollary of Theorem~\ref{thm_Slab} and the following result.

356: \begin{lemma}[\cite{DeGi2000}, Lemma~2.9] There exists $K>0$ such that, for all $\epsilon>0$,

357: \begin{equation}

358: \label{eq_entrep}

359: \lim_{N\to\infty} \mathrm{P}_{N,+,0} \left(\left\vert \left\{

360: i \in \Lambda_{[N/2]} \,:\, X_i \leq K(\log

361: N)^{\nu(d)} \right\}\right\vert \geq \epsilon |\Lambda_{[N/2]}| \right) = 0\,.

362: \end{equation}

363: \end{lemma}

364: 

365: \bigskip

366: We first prove a lower bound on the partition function.

367: \begin{lemma} \label{lem_lowerboundPF_highdim}

368: There exist $\lambda_0>0$, $r>0$ and $C>0$ such that, for all $\lambda<\lambda_0$ and

369: $N>\lambda^{-r}$, and any nonnegative $\upsilon$,

370: $$

371: Z_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon} \geq e^{-C\, \lambda

372: \mathsf{V}(|\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)})\, |\Lambda_N|}\, Z_{N,+,0,\upsilon}\,.

373: $$

374: \end{lemma}

375: \begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem_lowerboundPF_highdim}]

376: First observe that it is enough to prove the corresponding claim without

377: pinning. Indeed, by FKG,

378: \begin{align*}

379: \frac{Z_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}} {Z_{N,+,0,\upsilon}}

380: &=

381: \langle e^{-\lambda \sum_i \mathsf{V}(X_i)}

382: \rangle_{N,+,\upsilon}\\

383: &\geq

384: \langle e^{-\lambda \sum_i \mathsf{V}(X_i)}

385: \rangle_{N,+,0}

386: =

387: \frac{Z_{N,+,\lambda}}{Z_{N,+,0}}\,.

388: \end{align*}

389: Let now 

390: $$

391: \mathcal{H}=\left|\log\left( \lambda \mathsf{V}(|\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)})\right) / c_-(d)

392: \right|^{\nu(d)}\,,

393: $$

394: where $c_-(d)$ has been introduced in Theorem~\ref{thm_Slab} and $\nu(d)$ is defined above.

395: $$

396: Z_{N,+,\lambda} \geq e^{-\lambda |\Lambda_N| \mathsf{V}(2\mathcal{H})}\; Z_{N,0}\;

397: \mathrm{P}_{N,0}(0\leq X_i \leq 2\mathcal{H},\, \forall i \in\Lambda_N)\,,

398: $$

399: Obviously, shifting the boundary condition from $0$ to $\mathcal{H}$ and changing

400: variables, we can write, thanks to the convexity of $\mathsf{U}$,

401: $$

402: \mathrm{P}_{N,0}(0\leq X_i \leq 2\mathcal{H},\, \forall i \in\Lambda_N) \geq e^{-C

403: \mathcal{H}^2\, N^{d-1}} \mathrm{P}_{N,0}(|X_i| \leq \mathcal{H},\, \forall i

404: \in\Lambda_N)\,.

405: $$

406: Applying~Theorem~\ref{thm_Slab}, we get that

407: $$

408: Z_{N,+,\lambda} \geq e^{-(\lambda \mathsf{V}(2\mathcal{H}) + e^{-c_- \mathcal{H}^{-\nu(d)}} +

409: c\mathcal{H}^2N^{-1}) |\Lambda_N|}\; Z_{N,0}\,.

410: $$

411: Making use of the growth condition on $\mathsf{V}$, the claim follows.

412: \end{proof}

413: 

414: Using the convexity of $\mathsf{U}$, the lemma immediately implies that

415: \begin{align*}

416: \mathrm{P}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon} &\left(\sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} X_i \geq \delta^{-1}

417: |\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)}\, |\Lambda_N|\right) \\

418: &\leq

419: \mathrm{P}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon} \left(\sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} \mathsf{V}(X_i) \geq \mathsf{V}\left(\delta^{-1}

420: |\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)}\right)\, |\Lambda_N|\right)\\

421: &\leq

422: \exp\left\{-\lambda \mathsf{V}\left(\delta^{-1}

423: |\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)}\right)\, |\Lambda_N|  \right\} \; \frac{Z_{N,+,0}}{Z_{N,+,\lambda}}\\

424: &\leq \exp\left\{-\lambda \left(\mathsf{V}\left(\delta^{-1}

425: |\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)}\right) - C\, \mathsf{V}\left(|\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)}\right) \right)\, |\Lambda_N|  \right\}\\

426: &\leq \exp\left\{-\lambda \mathsf{V}(|\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)}) \left(\delta^{-1} - C)  \right)\, |\Lambda_N|  \right\}\,,

427: \end{align*}

428: and one half of Theorem~\ref{thm_EffInt} is proved.

429: 

430: Let us consider the second half. We first apply

431: Lemma~\ref{lem_lowerboundPF_highdim} to remove the external field,

432: \begin{multline*}

433: \mathrm{P}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon} (\sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} X_i \leq \delta

434: |\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)})\\

435: \leq

436: e^{C\lambda|\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)} N^d}\; \mathrm{P}_{N,+,0,\upsilon}

437: (\sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} X_i \leq \delta |\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)})\,.

438: \end{multline*}

439: Let $R=R_0\cdot\left(\lambda \mathsf{V} (|\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)}) \right)^{-1/d}$, with $R_0>0$ some small

440: enough real number to be chosen below. Let also

441: $$

442: \Delta_R = \{x\in\mathbb{Z}^d \,:\, x_i \equiv 0 \mod 2(R+1),\text{ for some

443: }i\in\{1,\dots,d\} \}\,.

444: $$

445: Using the usual expansion on the pinned sites (see e.g.~\cite{BoVe2001}) and FKG inequalities, we can write

446: \begin{align*}

447: \mathrm{P}_{N,+,0,\upsilon}& \bigl(\sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} X_i \leq

448: \delta |\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)} |\Lambda_N|\bigr)\\

449: &=

450: \sum_{A\subset\Lambda_N} \nu_{N,+,\upsilon}(A) \, \mathrm{P}_{A^c,+,0}

451: \bigl(\sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} X_i \leq \delta |\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)} |\Lambda_N| \bigr)\\

452: &\leq

453: \sum_{A\subset\Lambda_N} \nu_{N,+,\upsilon}(A) \, \mathrm{P}_{A^c,+,0} \bigl(\sum_{i\in\Lambda_N}

454: X_i \leq \delta |\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)} |\Lambda_N|\,\bigm\vert\, X\equiv 0 \text{ on

455: }\Delta_R \bigr)\,, 

456: \end{align*}

457: where $\nu_{N,+,\upsilon}$ is the induced probability measure on the subsets of $\Lambda_N$.

458: 

459: The grid $\Delta_R$ splits $\Lambda_N$ into $M=|\Lambda_N|/(2R+2)^d$ cubic cells of sidelength $2R+1$.

460: (To simplify the notation, we suppose that this splitting can be done exactly.)

461: Given a realization $A$ of the random set

462: of the pinned sites, we declare a cell \textsl{clean} if it does not contain

463: any site of $A$; otherwise it is \textsl{dirty}.

464: We need to ensure that, for all $\upsilon\in\mathsf{CW}$, at least half of the cells of the grid are clean. 

465: This follows easily from the first claim of Theorem~\ref{thm_Wetting} with $\epsilon = \tfrac12 M/|\Lambda_N|$, which implies that at least one half of the cells are clean once $N$ is large enough, up to an event of probability $e^{-c\, M}$.

466: In the rest of this proof, we suppose $N$ is at least that large.

467: 

468: Let us number the clean cells as $\mathcal{C}_1,\dots,\mathcal{C}_K$,

469: $K\geq\tfrac12 M$, and let $Y_k$, $k=1,\dots,K$, be the indicator

470: function of the event

471: $$

472: \sum_{i\in \mathcal{C}_k} X_i \leq 4\delta |\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)}\;

473: |\mathcal{C}_k|\,.

474: $$

475: We clearly have the inclusion (for all $\lambda$ small enough)

476: $$

477: \bigl\{ \sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} X_i \leq \delta |\log\lambda|^{\nu(d)} |\Lambda_N| \bigr\} \subset

478: \bigl\{ \sum_{k=1}^K Y_i \geq \tfrac13 K \bigr\}\,.

479: $$

480: Now, under $\mathrm{P}_{A^c,+,0} (\,\cdot\,\vert\, X\equiv 0 \text{ on

481: }\Delta_R)$, the $Y_i$ are i.i.d. Bernoulli random variables. Let us denote

482: their common law by $\mathrm{Q}_R$. Using~\eqref{eq_entrep}, we see that

483: \begin{align*}

484: \mathrm{Q}_R (Y_i = 1)

485: &\leq

486: \mathrm{P}_{R,+,0} \left(\left\vert \left\{

487: i \in \Lambda_{[R/2]} \,:\, X_i \leq 2^{d+3}\delta|\log

488: \lambda|^{\nu(d)} \right\}\right\vert \geq \tfrac12 |\Lambda_{[R/2]}| \right)\\

489: &\leq 1/10\,,

490: \end{align*}

491: provided $\delta$, and then $\lambda$, are chosen small enough. Consequently,

492: $$

493: \otimes_{k=1}^M \mathrm{Q}_R (\sum_{k=1}^M Y_i \geq \tfrac16 M) \leq e^{-C\,

494: M}\,,

495: $$

496: and the conclusion follows, provided we take $R_0$ small enough.

497: 

498: \subsubsection{Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor_highdim}}

499: We only give the proof for $d=2$ since the argument for $d\geq 3$ is identical.

500: Notice first that it is enough to prove the result for $X_0$. Indeed, by FKG,

501: $$

502: \mathrm{E}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_i) \leq \mathrm{E}_{2N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_0)\,,

503: $$

504: for all $i\in\Lambda_N$, while for $i\in\Lambda_{\epsilon N}$

505: ($0<\epsilon<1$) we have that

506: $$

507: \mathrm{E}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_i) \geq \mathrm{E}_{\epsilon N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_0)\,,

508: $$

509: Theorem~\ref{thm_EffInt} implies that

510: $$

511: \mathrm{E}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(|\Lambda_N|^{-1} \sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} X_i ) \in

512: (a_1,a_2) \mathcal{H}_{\lambda,d}\,,

513: $$

514: for some constants $0<a_1<a_2<\infty$ provided $\lambda$ is small enough and $N$

515: large enough. Using FKG inequalities, we deduce that

516: $$

517: |\Lambda_N|^{-1} \sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} \mathrm{E}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_i)

518: \leq

519: |\Lambda_N|^{-1} \sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} \mathrm{E}_{2N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_0)

520: =

521: \mathrm{E}_{2N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_0)\,,

522: $$

523: from which it follows that $\mathrm{E}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_0) \geq a_1

524: \mathcal{H}_{\lambda,d}$ for $N$ large enough. The complementary bound is also a trivial

525: consequence of FKG:

526: \begin{align*}

527: |\Lambda_N|^{-1} \sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} \mathrm{E}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_i)

528: &\geq

529: |\Lambda_N|^{-1} \sum_{i\in\Lambda_{[N/2]}} \mathrm{E}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_i)\\

530: &\geq

531: |\Lambda_N|^{-1} \sum_{i\in\Lambda_{[N/2]}} \mathrm{E}_{[N/2],+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_0)\\

532: &=

533: \tfrac14\; \mathrm{E}_{[N/2],+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_0)\,.

534: \end{align*}

535: This shows that $\mathrm{E}_{N,+,\lambda,\upsilon}(X_0) \leq 4 a_2\,  \mathcal{H}_{\lambda,d}$.

536: 

537: %

538: %

539: %

540: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

541: % Additional results

542: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

543: %

544: %

545: %

546: \subsection{Proof of Theorems~\ref{thm_Slab}, \ref{thm_Wetting} and \ref{thm_2ndOrder}}

547: \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_Slab}]

548: We first establish the lower bound. We write

549: $$

550: \mathrm{P}_{N}(|X_i| \leq \ell,\, \forall i \in\Lambda_N) \geq

551: \mathrm{P}_{N,+}(X_i \leq \ell,\, \forall i \in\Lambda_N)\,

552: \mathrm{P}_{N}(X_i \geq 0,\, \forall i \in\Lambda_N)\,.

553: $$

554: By~\cite[Theorem~3.1]{DeGi2000}, $\mathrm{P}_{N}(X_i \geq 0,\, \forall i

555: \in\Lambda_N) \geq e^{-c\, N^{d-1}}$ for some $c>0$ if $d\geq 2$, and can thus be neglected. Let us consider the other one. We introduce $R=e^{\kappa\,\ell}$ if $d=2$, and $R=e^{\kappa\,\ell^2}$ if $d\geq 3$, where $\kappa$ is a small number to be chosen later, and the grid

556: $$

557: \Delta_R =

558: \{x\in\mathbb{Z}^d \,:\, x_i \equiv 0 \mod 2(R+1), \text{ for some

559: }i\in\{1,\dots,d\}\}\,.

560: $$

561: This grid splits

562: $\Lambda_N$ into $M=|\Lambda_N|/(2R+2)^d$ cubic cells of sidelength $2R+1$. (To simplify the notation, we suppose that this splitting can be done exactly.) Denoting by $\mathrm{P}_{N,+}^t$ the measure with $t$ boundary conditions, FKG inequalities then imply that

563: \begin{align*}

564: \mathrm{P}_{N,+}(X_i \leq \ell,\, \forall i \in\Lambda_N)

565: &\geq \mathrm{P}_{N,+}^\ell(X_i \leq \ell,\, \forall i \in\Lambda_N \,|\, X

566: \equiv \ell \text{ on } \Delta_R)\\

567: &= \left( \mathrm{P}_{R}(X_i \geq 0,\, \forall i

568: \in\Lambda_R \,|\, X_i\leq \ell,\, \forall i\in \Lambda_R)

569: \right)^{M}\,.

570: \end{align*}

571: Now,

572: \begin{multline*}

573: \mathrm{P}_{R}(X_i \geq 0,\, \forall i

574: \in\Lambda_R \,|\, X_i\leq \ell,\, \forall i\in \Lambda_R)\\

575: \geq\mathrm{P}_{R,+}(X_i\leq \ell,\, \forall i\in \Lambda_R)

576: \,  \mathrm{P}_{R}(X_i \geq 0,\, \forall i

577: \in\Lambda_R)\,.

578: \end{multline*}

579: As above,

580: $$

581: \mathrm{P}_{R}(X_i \geq 0,\, \forall i

582: \in\Lambda_R) \geq e^{-c\, R^{d-1}}\,,

583: $$

584: while, using~\cite[Corollary~2.6]{DeGi2000},

585: $$

586: \mathrm{P}_{R,+}(X_i\leq \ell,\, \forall i\in \Lambda_R)

587: \geq 1 - |\Lambda_R|\,

588: \sup_{i\in\Lambda_R}\mathrm{P}_{R,+}(X_i > \ell) \geq

589: \tfrac12\,,

590: $$

591: provided that $\kappa$ is chosen small enough, and then $\ell$ large enough

592: (actually the above reference does not give explicitly a rate of convergence,

593: but a glance at the proof shows that $\sup_{i\in\Lambda_R}\mathrm{P}_{R,+}(X_i > \ell) \leq R^{-c\,\ell}$).

594: 

595: Collecting all the estimates proves the lower bound. 

596: 

597: \medskip

598: Let us now turn to the upper bound. $\Delta_R$ is the same grid as above (for an

599: $R$ to be chosen later). Then it follows from convexity of $\mathsf{U}$ and FKG inequalities that

600: \begin{align*}

601: \mathrm{P}_{N}(|X_i| \leq \ell,\, \forall i \in\Lambda_N)

602: &\leq

603: \mathrm{P}_{N,+}(X_i \leq 2\ell,\, \forall i \in\Lambda_N)\,

604: e^{c\ell^2\,|\partial \Lambda_N|}\\

605: &\leq

606: \mathrm{P}_{N,+}(X_i \leq 2\ell,\, \forall i \in\Lambda_N \,|\, X\equiv 0

607: \text{ on $\Delta_R$ })\, e^{c\ell^2\,|\partial \Lambda_N|}\\

608: &=

609: \left( \mathrm{P}_{R,+}(X_i \leq 2\ell,\, \forall i \in\Lambda_R)

610: \right)^{M}\, e^{c\ell^2\,|\partial \Lambda_N|}\,.

611: \end{align*}

612: We choose $R$ as follows: If $d=2$, then $R=e^{\rho \ell}$, while in the case $d\geq 3$, we choose $R=e^{\rho \ell^2}$, with $\rho$ large enough.

613: Then

614: $$

615: \mathrm{P}_{R,+}(X_i \leq 2\ell,\, \forall i \in\Lambda_R) \leq 1/2\,,

616: $$

617: by the results of~\cite{DeGi2000} (since the typical height of the repelled field is

618: proportional to  $(\log R)^{\nu(d)} = \rho^{\nu(d)} \ell$). This completes the

619: proof.

620: \end{proof}

621: 

622: \noindent

623: \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_Wetting}]

624: 

625: \noindent

626: \textit{First statement.}

627: Let $\mathcal{A}$ be the (random) set of pinned sites.

628: The crucial observation is that

629: \begin{align*}

630: \mathrm{E}_{N,+,0,\upsilon} \left( e^{t|\mathcal{A}|} \right) 

631: &= \sum_{A\subset\Lambda_N} e^{t|A|}\, \upsilon^{|A|} \mathrm{Z}_{A^c,+,0,0} / \mathrm{Z}_{N,+,0,\upsilon}\\

632: &= \frac{\mathrm{Z}_{N,+,0,e^t\upsilon}} {\mathrm{Z}_{N,+,0,\upsilon}}\,.

633: \end{align*}

634: Therefore an application of the exponential Chebyshev inequality yields

635: $$

636: \mathrm{P}_{N,+,0,\upsilon}\left( |\mathcal A| > \zeta |\Lambda_N|  \right) 

637: \leq e^{-t\zeta|\Lambda_N|  + \log(\mathrm{Z}_{N,+,0,e^t\upsilon}/\mathrm{Z}_{N,+,0}) - \log(\mathrm{Z}_{N,+,0,\upsilon}/\mathrm{Z}_{N,+,0} )}\,.

638: $$

639: Choosing $t$ such that $e^t=\tfrac12(\upsilon+\upsilon_c)$ and using~\eqref{eq_CW}, we get the conclusion, for all $N>N_0(\upsilon,\zeta)$.

640: 

641: \noindent

642: \textit{Second statement.}

643: Since $\lambda=0$ in all the proof, we omit it from the notations.

644: It is proved in~\cite{CaVe2000} that the condition $\upsilon\in\mathsf{CW}$ implies that

645: $$

646: \lim_{N\to\infty} |\Lambda_N|^{-1}\; \mathbb{E}_{N,+,\upsilon} \left[

647: \rho_N\right] =0\,,

648: $$

649: where $\rho_N(X)=\sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} 1_{\{X_i=0\}}$. So there exists a sequence $c_N$, with $\lim c_N=0$, such that $\mathbb{E}_{N,+,\upsilon}

650: \left[ \rho_N \right] \leq c_N\, |\Lambda_N|$. Let

651: $\mathcal{E}_N = \{X\,:\,\rho_N(X)\leq 2c_N\, |\Lambda_N|\}$. Using again the expansion on pinned sites, we have the following 

652: \begin{align*}

653: \mathbb{E}_{N,+,\upsilon} \left[

654: \sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} X_i \right]

655: &\geq \mathbb{E}_{N,+,\upsilon} \left[

656: \sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} X_i 1_{\mathcal{E}_N} \right]\\

657: &= \sum_{\substack{A\subset\Lambda_N\\|A|\leq 2c_N |\Lambda_N|}}

658: \nu_{N,+,\upsilon}(A)\; \mathbb{E}_{A^c,+,0} (\sum_{i\in\Lambda_N} X_i)\\

659: &\geq \sum_{\substack{A\subset\Lambda_N\\|A|\leq 2c_N |\Lambda_N|}}

660: \nu_{N,+,\upsilon}(A)\;

661:  \sum_{\substack{i\in\Lambda_N\\d(x,A)\geq

662: c_N^{-1/4}}}\mathbb{E}_{B_{c_N^{-1/4}}(x),+,0} (X_i)\\

663: &\geq C\, |\log c_N|\, |\Lambda_N|\,,

664: \end{align*}

665: where $B_r(x) = \{y \,:\,|y-x|\leq r\}$, and we used positivity of the field and FKG inequalities; the last inequality follows from Markov inequality and the usual entropic repulsion estimate for a square box of radius

666: $c_N^{-1/4}$ with $0$ b.c., see~\cite{DeGi2000}.

667: 

668: \bigskip

669: Since, when $\upsilon$ is sufficiently small, we can even choose $c_N\sim N^{-1}$~\cite{CaVe2000}, in that case one has the stronger result

670: $$

671: \mathbb{E}^{+,\varepsilon}_N \left[

672: \sum_{x\in\Lambda_N} \phi_x \right] \geq C\, \log N\, |\Lambda_N|\,.

673: $$

674: 

675: \noindent

676: \textit{Third statement.}

677: Since $\lambda=0$ in all the proof, we omit it from the notations.

678: Our proof is based on the following estimate: There exist $\eta_0$ and $c>0$ such that, for all $B\subset\Lambda$ and all $\upsilon>\upsilon_0$,

679: \begin{equation}

680: \label{eq_PercLargeUps}

681: \nu_{N,+,\upsilon} (\mathcal{A} \cap B = \emptyset) \leq e^{-c|\log\upsilon| |B|}\,.

682: \end{equation}

683: Let us first assume that~\eqref{eq_PercLargeUps} holds and prove the two statements of the Theorem. The first statement is very easy: By the usual decomposition over pinned sites, and FKG inequalities,

684: \begin{align*}

685: \mathrm{E}_{N,+,0,\upsilon} (X_i) &= \sum_{R\geq 1} \sum_{\substack{A\subset\Lambda_N\\ d(A,x)=R}} \nu_{N,+,\upsilon}(A) \, \mathrm{E}_{A^{\rm c},+,0,0} (X_i)\\

686: &\leq \sum_{R\geq 1} \sum_{\substack{A\subset\Lambda_N\\ d(A,x)=R}} \nu_{N,+,\upsilon}(A) \, \sup_{|j-i|=R}\mathrm{E}_{\mathbb{Z}^2\setminus\{j\},+,0,0} (X_i)\,.

687: \end{align*}

688: Since $\mathrm{E}_{\mathbb{Z}^2\setminus\{j\},+,0,0} (X_i) \leq C\log R$ uniformly in $j$ such that $|j-i|=R$~\cite{DuMaRiRo1992}, the first bound is proved.

689: 

690: Let us now establish the positivity of the mass. Decomposing again according to the pinned sites, we get

691: \begin{align*}

692: \mathrm{E}_{N,+,0,\upsilon} (X_i X_j) 

693: &= \sum_{\substack{A\subset\Lambda_N \\ i \not\stackrel{A^{\rm c}}{\leftrightarrow}j}} \nu_{N,+,\upsilon}(A) \, \mathrm{E}_{A^{\rm c},+,0,0} (X_i X_j)\,,\\

694: &\hspace{1cm}+ \sum_{\substack{A\subset\Lambda_N \\ i \stackrel{A^{\rm c}}{\leftrightarrow}j}} \nu_{N,+,\upsilon}(A) \, \mathrm{E}_{A^{\rm c},+,0,0} (X_i X_j)\,,

695: \end{align*}

696: where $i \stackrel{A^{\rm c}}{\leftrightarrow}j$ means that $i$ and $j$ are connected by a path containing only sites of $\Lambda_N\setminus A$, and $i\not\stackrel{A^{\rm c}}{\leftrightarrow}j$ is the complementary event.

697: 

698: Suppose $i\not\stackrel{A^{\rm c}}{\leftrightarrow}j$ occurs. Let $\gamma_i$ be the innermost closed path of pinned sites surrounding $j$ (possibly using sites outside from $\Lambda_N$), and let $\gamma_j$ be the analogous object for $j$. If $\gamma_i$ does not surround $j$, then let $\gamma=\gamma_i$, otherwise let $\gamma=\gamma_j$. Observe that under $i\not\stackrel{A^{\rm c}}{\leftrightarrow}j$, $\gamma$ surrounds only one of the two sites, and is the innermost path with this property. Suppose, for definiteness that it surrounds $i$. We then bound the first term as follows, writing $\mathrm{int}(\gamma)$ for the set of site surrounded by $\gamma$ or along $\gamma$,

699: \begin{align*}

700: \mathrm{E}_{N,+,0,\upsilon} (X_i X_j \,|\, \gamma)

701: &\leq \mathrm{E}_{\Lambda_N\setminus\mathrm{int}(\gamma),+,0,\upsilon} (X_j)

702: \; \mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{int}(\gamma)\setminus\gamma,+,0,0} (X_i)\\

703: &\leq \mathrm{E}_{\Lambda_N,+,0,\upsilon} (X_j)

704: \; \mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{int}(\gamma)\setminus\gamma,+,0,0} (X_i)\,.

705: \end{align*}

706: Since averaging the last expectation over $\gamma$ yields $\mathrm{E}_{N,+,0,\upsilon} (X_i,\, i\not\stackrel{A^{\rm c}}{\leftrightarrow}j,\, \gamma=\gamma_i)$, we see that

707: $$

708: \sum_{\substack{A\subset\Lambda_N \\ i \not\stackrel{A^{\rm c}}{\leftrightarrow}j}} \nu_{N,+,\upsilon}(A) \, \mathrm{E}_{A^{\rm c},+,0,0} (X_i X_j)

709: - \mathrm{E}_{N,+,0,\upsilon} (X_i) \mathrm{E}_{N,+,0,\upsilon} (X_j) \leq 0\,.

710: $$

711: Therefore, it only remains to prove that

712: $$

713: \sum_{\substack{A\subset\Lambda_N \\ i \stackrel{A^{\rm c}}{\leftrightarrow}j}} \nu_{N,+,\upsilon}(A) \; \mathrm{E}_{A^{\rm c},+,0,0} (X_i X_j)

714: $$

715: is exponentially small in $|i-j|$. This follows from~\eqref{eq_PercLargeUps}. Indeed, this expression is bounded above by

716: $$

717: \sum_{R_1\geq 0, R_2\geq 0} \sum_{\substack{A\subset\Lambda_N,\, i \stackrel{A^{\rm c}}{\leftrightarrow}j \\ d(A,x)=R_1, d(A,y)=R_2}} \nu_{N,+,\upsilon}(A)\; \mathrm{E}_{A^{\rm c},+,0,0} (X_i X_j)\,.

718: $$

719: Now, proceeding as above,

720: $$

721: \mathrm{E}_{A^{\rm c},+,0,0} (X_i X_j) \leq \Bigl(\mathrm{E}_{A^{\rm c},+,0,0} (X_i^2) \mathrm{E}_{A^{\rm c},+,0,0} (X_j^2) \Bigr)^{1/2} \leq C \log R_1 \log R_2\,.

722: $$

723: Moreover, it follows from~\eqref{eq_PercLargeUps} that

724: $$

725: \sum_{\substack{A\subset\Lambda_N,\, i \stackrel{A^{\rm c}}{\leftrightarrow}j \\ d(A,x)=R_1, d(A,y)=R_2}} \nu_{N,+,\upsilon}(A) \leq e^{-C|\log\upsilon| \;|i-j|} e^{-C|\log\upsilon| \; (R_1{}^2+R_2{}^2)}\,,

726: $$

727: provided $\upsilon$ is chosen large enough.

728: The statement follows.

729: 

730: \medskip

731: Let us turn now to the proof of~\eqref{eq_PercLargeUps}.

732: The control of the distribution of pinned sites is done similarly as in~\cite{DeVe2000,IoVe2000,BoVe2001}. Let $B\subset\Lambda_N$. We set $B_0=B$, and define

733: $$

734: B_{k+1} = B_k \cup \{x\in\mathbb{Z}^2\,:\, d(x,B_k)=1\}\,.

735: $$

736: We then have

737: $$

738: \nu_{N,+,\upsilon} (\mathcal{A} \cap B = \emptyset) \leq \sum_{k\geq 0} \nu_{N,+,\upsilon} (\mathcal{A} \cap B_k = \emptyset \,|\, \bar{\mathcal{A}} \cap B_{k+1} \neq \emptyset)\,,

739: $$

740: where $\bar{\mathcal{A}} = A\cup(\Lambda_N)^{\rm c}$. It is therefore enough to prove that

741: $$

742: \nu_{N,+,\upsilon} (\mathcal{A} \cap B_k = \emptyset \,|\, \bar{\mathcal{A}} \cap B_{k+1} \neq \emptyset) \leq e^{-c |\log\upsilon| \, |B|}\,.

743: $$

744: We then write, as in~\cite{DeVe2000,IoVe2000,BoVe2001},

745: \begin{align*}

746: \nu_{N,+,\upsilon} (\mathcal{A} \cap B_k = \emptyset \,|\, \bar{\mathcal{A}} \cap B_{k+1} \neq \emptyset) 

747: &\leq \left\{\sum_{C\subset B_k} \upsilon^{|C|} \inf_{\substack {A\cap B_k=\emptyset \\ \bar{A} \cap B_{k+1} \neq \emptyset}} \frac{Z_{(A\cup C)^{\rm c},+,0}}{Z_{A^{\rm c},+,0}}  \right\}^{-1}\\

748: &\leq \left\{\upsilon^{|B_k|} \inf_{\substack {A\cap B_k=\emptyset \\ \bar{A} \cap B_{k+1} \neq \emptyset}} \frac{Z_{(A\cup B_k)^{\rm c},+,0}}{Z_{A^{\rm c},+,0}}  \right\}^{-1}\,.

749: \end{align*}

750: Let us number the sites of $B_k=\{t_1,\ldots,t_{|B_k|}\}$ in such a way that $t_1$ is a neighbor of a site of $\bar{A}\cap B_{k+1}$, and each $t_k$, $k>1$, is a neighbor of at least one $t_j$, $j<k$. We write the last fraction as a telescoping product: 

751: $$

752: \frac{Z_{(A\cup B_k)^{\rm c},+,0}}{Z_{A^{\rm c},+,0}} = \prod_{k=1}^{|B_k|} \frac {Z_{(A\cup \{t_1,\ldots,t_k\})^{\rm c},+,0}} {Z_{(A\cup \{t_1,\ldots,t_{k-1}\})^{\rm c},+,0}}\,.

753: $$

754: The conclusion follows once we prove that there exists $c>0$ such that

755: $$

756: \frac{Z_{(C\cup \{i\})^{\rm c},+,0}} {Z_{C^{\rm c},+,0}} \geq c\,,

757: $$

758: uniformly in $C\subset\Lambda_N$, and $i$ neighboring $C$.

759: \begin{equation*}

760: \frac{Z_{(C\cup \{i\})^{\rm c},+,0}}{Z_{C^{\rm c},+,0}} =

761: \lim_{\epsilon\searrow 0}\frac 1\epsilon \mathbb{P}_{(C\cup \{i\})^{\rm c},+,0}(|X_{i}|\leq

762: \epsilon) \geq \lim_{\epsilon\searrow 0}\frac 1\epsilon \mathbb{P}_{\mathbb{Z}^2,+,0}(|X_{i}|\leq

763: \epsilon \,\vert\, X_j=0)\,,

764: \end{equation*}

765: %

766: where $j$ in the last probability is a site of $C$ which is nearest

767: neighbor to $i$ (the last inequality follows from FKG). Let us estimate this

768: probability. By the Markov property, we have ($u\sim v$ meaning $u$ and $v$

769: nearest neighbors)

770: %

771: \begin{align*}

772: \mathbb{P}_{\mathbb{Z}^2,+,0}(|X_{i}|\leq

773: \epsilon &\,\vert\, X_j=0)\\

774: &\geq \int\mathbb{P}_{\mathbb{Z}^2,+,0}(\mathrm{d} X

775: \,|\, X_j=0)\; 1_{\{\max_{k\sim i} X_k < h_1\}}

776: \mathbb{P}_{\{i\},+,X}(X_i\leq\epsilon)\\

777: &\geq \int\mathbb{P}_{\mathbb{Z}^2,+,0}(\mathrm{d} X\,|\, X_j=0)\; 1_{\{\max_{k\sim i} X_k < h_1\}}

778: \mathbb{P}_{\{i\},+,0}^{h_1}(X_i\leq\epsilon)\\

779: &=\mathbb{P}_{\mathbb{Z}^2,+,0}( \max_{k\sim i} X_k < h_1 \,|\,

780: X_j=0)\;\mathbb{P}_{\{i\},+,0}^{h_1}(X_i\leq\epsilon)\,.

781: \end{align*}

782: %

783: Now, this last probability can easily be bounded from below:

784: %

785: \begin{equation*}

786: \mathbb{P}_{\{i\},+,0}^{h_1}(X_i\leq\epsilon) \geq c_1\;\epsilon\,,

787: \end{equation*}

788: %

789: while the other probability can be bounded below by $1/2$ if $h_1$ is chosen

790: large enough. Indeed, since

791: %

792: \begin{equation*}

793: \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Z}^2,+,0} (X_k \,|\, X_j = 0) \leq c_2\,,

794: \end{equation*}

795: %

796: when $k\sim i\sim j$, Markov inequality yields

797: %

798: \begin{equation*}

799: \mathbb{P}_{\mathbb{Z}^2,+,0}(\max_{k\sim i} X_k \geq h_1 \,|\,

800: X_j=0) \leq 4\;c_2/h_1\,.

801: \end{equation*}

802: %

803: \end{proof}

804: 

805: \noindent

806: \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_2ndOrder}]

807: The proof is trivial; by FKG inequalities,

808: $$

809: \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Z}^2,+,0,\upsilon} (X_i) \geq \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Z}^2,0,\upsilon} (X_i 1_{\{X_i\geq 0\}})

810: = \tfrac12\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Z}^2,0,\upsilon} (|X_i|) \geq C\sqrt{|\log\upsilon|}\,,

811: $$

812: the last inequality being proved in~\cite{BoVe2001}.

813: \end{proof}

814: %

815: %

816: %

817: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

818: % Ising

819: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

820: %

821: %

822: %

823: \subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_Ising}}\label{2dIsing}

824: \subsubsection{Preliminaries}

825: Let us first introduce our notations; note that, for reasons of convenience, the

826: notations we use here differ slightly from those used in the introduction.

827: 

828: Let $\Lambda\Subset\mathbb{Z}^2$, $h\in\mathbb{R}$, and let, for each bond

829: $e=\langle x,y \rangle$, $x,y\in\mathbb{Z}^2$,

830: $$

831: J(e) =

832: \begin{cases}

833:   h  &  \text{if $\min (x_2,y_2) = 0$ and $\max (x_2,y_2) = 1$;}\\

834:   1  &  \text{otherwise.}

835: \end{cases}

836: $$

837: We define the following Hamiltonian acting on configurations

838: $\sigma\in\{-1,1\}^{\Lambda}$,

839: $$

840: H_{\lambda,h,\Lambda} (\sigma) = -\sum_{\langle x,y \rangle \subset \Lambda}

841: J(\langle x,y \rangle)\,

842: (\sigma_x\sigma_y-1) - \lambda \sum_{x\in\Lambda} \sigma_x\,.

843: $$

844: $\lambda$ and $h$ are respectively the bulk and boundary magnetic fields.

845: Let $\partial\Lambda = \{x\in\Lambda\,:\, \exists y\not\in\Lambda,\, |x-y|=1\}$.

846: We define three

847: Gibbs measures in $\Lambda$; all are probability measures on

848: $\sigma\in\{-1,1\}^{\Lambda}$. Let $s=\pm 1$;

849: $$

850: \mu_{s,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda} =

851: \begin{cases}

852: (Z_{s,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda})^{-1}\; e^{-\beta\, H_{\lambda,h,\Lambda} (\sigma)}

853:    & \text{if } \sigma_x = s,\, \forall x\in\partial\Lambda\,;\\

854: 0  &  \text{otherwise.}

855: \end{cases}

856: $$

857: and

858: $$

859: \mu_{\pm,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda} =

860: \begin{cases}

861: (Z_{\pm,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda})^{-1}\; e^{-\beta\, H_{\lambda,h,\Lambda}

862: (\sigma)}

863:    & \text{if } \sigma_x = \mathrm{sign}(x_2),\, \forall x\in\partial\Lambda\,;\\

864: 0  &  \text{otherwise,}

865: \end{cases}

866: $$

867: where we set $\mathrm{sign}(0) = -1$.

868: 

869: Let $\beta>\beta_c$. We denote by $h_w(\beta)\geq 0$ the value of the boundary

870: field at which wetting takes place when $\lambda=0$.

871: Since $\beta>\beta_c$ and $h\geq h_w(\beta)$ are kept fixed, we often lighten

872: the notations by omitting the corresponding subscripts.

873: 

874: For $N$ even, consider the square box

875: \[

876: \Lambda_N=\{-N/2+1,\dots,N/2\} \times \{0,\dots,N-1\}.

877: \]

878: 

879: In the complete wetting regime $h\geq h_w(\beta)$, when $\lambda=0$ the wall free energy is given by the surface tension in the horizontal direction. In the presence of a bulk field $\lambda>0$, the latter does not make sense anymore since the $-$ phase isn't stable, however the former remains meaningful since in the vicinity of the wall the $-$ phase is stabilized by the boundary conditions. We therefore define the (finite-volume) wall free energy by the usual formula,

880: $$

881: \tau_{\mathrm{bd}}(\beta,h,\lambda,N) = - \frac1N\, \log\frac{Z_{\pm,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda_N}}{Z_{+,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda_N}}\,.

882: $$

883: The next lemma states that the effect of the bulk field $\lambda$

884: on the surface tension is to increase the latter by an amount of order at most

885: $\lambda^{2/3 + o(1)}$.

886: \begin{lemma}\sl

887: \label{lem_lowerboundPF_Ising}

888: For all $\beta>\beta_c$ and $h>h_w(\beta)$, there exist $C>0$, $\lambda_0>0$

889: and $K>0$ such that, for all $0<\lambda<\lambda_0$ and

890: $N>K\lambda^{-2/3}|\log\lambda|^{3}$,

891: $$

892: \tau_{\mathrm{bd}}(\beta,h,0,N)

893: \leq \tau_{\mathrm{bd}}(\beta,h,\lambda,N)

894: \leq \tau_{\mathrm{bd}}(\beta,h,0,N) + C \lambda^{2/3}|\log\lambda|^2\,.

895: $$

896: \end{lemma}

897: 

898: \begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem_lowerboundPF_Ising}]

899: 

900: Let $F_\lambda(\sigma)=e^{\lambda\,\sum_{x\in\Lambda_N} \sigma_x}$.

901: The statement of the lemma can be rewritten in the following form,

902: $$

903: \langle F_\lambda \rangle_{+,\beta,0,h,\Lambda_N}

904: \geq \langle F_\lambda \rangle_{\pm,\beta,0,h,\Lambda_N}

905: \geq e^{- C_4\,\lambda^{2/3}\, |\log\lambda|^2\, N}

906: \langle F_\lambda \rangle_{+,\beta,0,h,\Lambda_N}\,.

907: $$

908: Since the first inequality is a direct consequence of FKG inequalities, we only have to prove the second one.

909: 

910: Let $\mathcal{H}=\lambda^{-1/3}|\log\lambda|^2$ and $\mathcal{S}_\mathcal{H} = \{x\in\Lambda_N

911: \,:\, x_2 \leq \mathcal{H}\}$ be the strip of width $\mathcal{H}$ along the bottom wall.

912: 

913: According to the discussion in Appendix~\ref{app_randomline},

914: $$

915: Z_{\pm,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda_N} \geq \sum_{\gamma\subset \mathcal{S}_\mathcal{H}}

916: w(\gamma)\,

917: Z_{+,\beta,\lambda,\Lambda^+(\gamma)}\, Z_{-,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda^-(\gamma)}\,.

918: $$

919: To simplify somewhat the notations we omit, in the rest of the proof, the

920: subscripts $\beta$ and $h$, and write simply $\Lambda^+$ and $\Lambda^-$.

921: 

922: Our first task is to remove the $\lambda$-dependence in the last equation.

923: Indeed our main tool, the random-line representation briefly described in

924: Appendix~\ref{app_randomline}, only applies in the absence of bulk field.

925: \begin{align*}

926: Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda^+}\,Z_{-,\lambda,\Lambda^-}

927: &\geq Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda^+}\,Z_{-,-\lambda,\Lambda^-}

928: \;e^{-2\lambda\, |\Lambda^-(\gamma)|}\\

929: &\geq \frac{Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda^+}\,

930: Z_{-,-\lambda,\Lambda^-}} {Z_{+,0,\Lambda^+}\,

931: Z_{+,0,\Lambda^-}} \; Z_{+,0,\Lambda^+}\,

932: Z_{+,0,\Lambda^-}\;e^{-2\lambda\, \mathcal{H}\,N}\,.

933: \end{align*}

934: Writing $x\sim\gamma$ if $x$ is one the sites whose value is completely

935: determined by $\gamma$, we can estimate the ratio

936: \begin{align*}

937: \frac{Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda^+}\,

938: Z_{-,-\lambda,\Lambda^-}} {Z_{+,0,\Lambda^+}\,

939: Z_{+,0,\Lambda^-}}

940: &= \frac{\mu_{+,\lambda,\Lambda_N}(\sigma_x = 1,\, \forall

941: x\sim\gamma)} {\mu_{+,0,\Lambda_N}(\sigma_x = 1,\, \forall

942: x\sim\gamma)}\; \frac{Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda_N}}{Z_{+,0,\Lambda_N}}\\

943: &\geq  \frac{Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda_N}}{Z_{+,0,\Lambda_N}}\,.

944: \end{align*}

945: Here, the identity follows from the $+/-$ symmetry of the model, and the last

946: inequality is a consequence of FKG inequalities.

947: Collecting all these estimates together, we get, see~\eqref{def_q},

948: $$

949: Z_{\pm,\lambda,\Lambda_N} \geq e^{- 2\lambda\, \mathcal{H}\, N}\, Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda_N} \,

950: \sum_{\gamma\subset\mathcal{S}_\mathcal{H}} q_{N}(\gamma)\,,

951: $$

952: which is precisely what we were after. At this stage, it is possible to use the

953: tools discussed in Appendix~\ref{app_randomline} in order to control the last

954: sum.

955: 

956: Let $K$ be a sufficiently large integer.

957: We split the slab $\mathcal{S}_\mathcal{H}$ into $M$

958: disjoint rectangles, $\mathcal{R}_1,\dots,\mathcal{R}_M$,

959: with height $\mathcal{H}$ and basis of length $[\mathcal{H}^2/(K\log \mathcal{H})]$, except possibly for the

960: rightmost one which may have a shorter basis.

961: We also introduce the dual sites $a_k$, $k=0,\dots,M$, defined by

962: $$

963: a_k = (-(N-1)/2+k[\mathcal{H}^2/(K\log \mathcal{H})] \wedge (N-1)/2,1/2)\,.

964: $$

965: ($a_{k-1}$ and $a_k$ are thus the bottom corners of the rectangle

966: $\mathcal{R}_k$).

967: 

968: \begin{figure}[t!]

969: \centerline{\resizebox{!}{2cm}{\input{isinglayer.pstex_t}}}

970: \caption{The restricted family of open contours.}

971: \label{fig_layer}

972: \end{figure}

973: 

974: We further restrict the summation to the set of open contours $\gamma$

975: satisfying the following conditions (see Fig.~\ref{fig_layer}):

976: \begin{itemize}

977: \item $\gamma = \eta_1 \amalg \eta_2 \amalg \dots \amalg \eta_M$.

978: \item The piece $\eta_k$, $k=1,\dots,M$, use only inner edges of the $k$th

979: rectangle, and connects $a_{k-1}$ and $a_k$.

980: \end{itemize}

981: By~\eqref{infvol} and~\eqref{split},

982: $$

983: q_{N}(\gamma)\geq\prod_{k=1}^M q_{\mathrm{s.i.}}(\eta_k)\,.

984: $$

985: Therefore

986: $$

987: \sum_{\gamma\subset\mathcal{S}_\mathcal{H}} q_{N}(\gamma) \geq \prod_{k=1}^M

988: \sum_{\eta_k\subset\mathcal{R}_k} q_{\mathrm{s.i.}}(\eta_k)\,;

989: $$

990: the last summation runs over contours satisfying the condition above. It is

991: controlled thanks to~\eqref{Concentration}, which implies that

992: $$

993: \sum_{\eta_k\subset\mathcal{R}_k} q_{\textrm{s.i.}}(\eta_k) \geq \mathcal{H}^{-C}\;

994: \sum_{\zeta:\, a_{k-1} \to a_k} q_{\textrm{s.i.}}(\zeta)\,,

995: $$

996: provided $K$ is big enough. We then combine~\eqref{exp2PF} and~\eqref{OZ32} to

997: obtain

998: \begin{align*}

999: \sum_{\zeta:\, a_{k-1} \to a_k} q_{\textrm{s.i.}}(\zeta)

1000: &\geq

1001: C\,|a_{k-1}-a_k|^{-3/2}\,e^{-\tau_\beta(\mathbf{e}_1)|a_{k-1}-a_k|}\\

1002: &\geq

1003: C\, \mathcal{H}^{-3}\, e^{-\tau_\beta(\mathbf{e}_1)\, |a_{k-1}-a_k|}\,,

1004: \end{align*}

1005: where $\tau_\beta(\mathbf{e}_1)$ is the surface tension in the horizontal

1006: direction. Since, by~\eqref{expansion} (with $\lambda=0$) and~\eqref{def_q} ,

1007: \eqref{exp2PF} and~\eqref{OZ32},

1008: $$

1009: e^{-\tau_\beta(\mathbf{e}_1)\, N} \geq

1010: \frac{Z_{\pm,0,\Lambda_N}}{Z_{+,0,\Lambda_N}}\,,

1011: $$

1012: the conclusion follows.

1013: \end{proof}

1014: %

1015: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Lemma LB %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1016: %

1017: \subsubsection{Proof of the lower bound}

1018: We turn now to the proof of~\eqref{eq_Ising_LB}.

1019: As before, we omit reference to $\beta$ and $h$ in the notations,

1020: write simply  $\Lambda^+$ and $\Lambda^-$, and also set $C_{\lambda,N} =

1021: \lambda^{-1/3}|\log\lambda|^{-3}\, N$. We also denote by $\mathcal{A}$ the set

1022: of open contours such that $|\Lambda^-| < C_{\lambda,N}$. Applying

1023: Lemma~\ref{lem_lowerboundPF_Ising} yields

1024: \begin{equation*}

1025: \mu_{\pm,\lambda,\Lambda_N} (\mathcal A)

1026: \leq

1027: e^{C\,\lambda^{2/3}|\log\lambda|^2\, N}\; \frac{Z_{+,0,\Lambda_N}}

1028: {Z_{\pm,0,\Lambda_N}}\; \sum_{\gamma\in\mathcal{A}} w(\gamma)\;

1029: \frac{Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda^+}\, Z_{-,\lambda,\Lambda^-}}

1030: {Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda_N}}\,.

1031: %\label{withfield}

1032: \end{equation*}

1033: Our first task is again to get rid of the bulk field. This is the content of the

1034: following

1035: %

1036: % Lemma \lem_OpenContours

1037: %

1038: \begin{lemma}\label{lem_OpenContours}

1039: For all $\beta>\beta_c$, there exists $C_1<\infty$ and $C_2>0$ such that, for

1040: any set $\mathcal{C}$ of open contours,

1041: \begin{multline}

1042: \label{nofield}

1043: \frac{Z_{+,0,\Lambda_N}} {Z_{\pm,0,\Lambda_N}}\;

1044: \sum_{\gamma\in\mathcal{C}} w(\gamma)\;

1045: \frac{Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda^+}\, Z_{-,\lambda,\Lambda^-}}

1046: {Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda_N}}\\

1047: \leq e^{C_1\, \lambda\, N}\; \frac{Z_{+,0,\Lambda_N}} {Z_{\pm,0,\Lambda_N}}\;

1048: \sum_{\gamma\in\mathcal{C}} q_{N}(\gamma)\; + \; e^{-C_2\,N}\,.

1049: \end{multline}

1050: \end{lemma}

1051: %

1052: \begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem_OpenContours}]

1053: By symmetry,

1054: \begin{align*}

1055: \frac{Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda^+}\, Z_{-,\lambda,\Lambda^-}}

1056: {Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda_N}}

1057: &= \frac{Z_{+,-\lambda,\Lambda^-}}

1058: {Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda^-}}\;\mu_{+,\lambda,\Lambda_N} (\sigma_x=1,\, \forall

1059: x\sim\gamma)\nonumber\\

1060: &\leq\mu_{+,\lambda,\Lambda_N} (\sigma_x=1,\, \forall

1061: x\sim\gamma)\,,

1062: %\label{above}

1063: \end{align*}

1064: where as before $x\sim\gamma$ if its value is completely determined by $\gamma$,

1065: and we used

1066: \begin{equation*}

1067: %\label{smallerthanone}

1068: \frac{Z_{+,-\lambda,\Lambda^-}} {Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda^-}} = \exp\left\{

1069: \sum_{x\in\Lambda^-} \int_0^\lambda \left( \langle

1070: \sigma_x \rangle_{+,-s,\Lambda^-} -  \langle

1071: \sigma_x \rangle_{+,s,\Lambda^-}\right)\; \mathrm{d}s \right\} \leq 1\,.

1072: \end{equation*}

1073: Now,

1074: \begin{multline*}

1075: \mu_{+,\lambda,\Lambda_N} (\sigma_x=1,\, \forall

1076: x\sim\gamma) =

1077: \mu_{+,0,\Lambda_N} (\sigma_x=1,\, \forall

1078: x\sim\gamma)\\

1079: \times \exp\left\{ \sum_{x\in\Lambda_N} \int_0^\lambda \bigl( \langle \sigma_x

1080: \,|\, \sigma_y=1,\, \forall y\sim\gamma \rangle_{+,s,\Lambda_N} -  \langle

1081: \sigma_x \rangle_{+,s,\Lambda_N}\bigr)\; \mathrm{d}s \right\}\,.

1082: \end{multline*}

1083: The difference in the exponent can easily be bounded using~\eqref{BLP}:

1084: There exists $C<\infty$ such that, uniformly in $s\geq 0$,

1085: $$

1086: \langle \sigma_x \,|\, \sigma_y=1,\, \forall y\sim\gamma

1087: \rangle_{+,s,\Lambda_N} -  \langle \sigma_x \rangle_{+,s,\Lambda_N}

1088: \leq C\; \sum_{z\sim\gamma} e^{-|x-z|/C}\,,

1089: $$

1090: and therefore

1091: $$

1092: \sum_{x\in\Lambda} \int_0^\lambda \bigl( \langle \sigma_x \,|\, \sigma_y=1,\,

1093: \forall y\sim\gamma \rangle_{+,s,\Lambda_N} -  \langle \sigma_x

1094: \rangle_{+,s,\Lambda_N}\bigr)\, \mathrm{d}s \leq C'\,\lambda\, \#\{z\,:\,

1095: z\sim\gamma\}\,.

1096: $$

1097: We are almost done. Observe now that $\#\{z\,:\, z\sim\gamma\} < 4|\gamma|$. Let $K$ be a large number, which will be

1098: chosen below. In the case $|\gamma| < K\,N$, we get

1099: $$

1100: \mu_{+,\lambda,\Lambda_N} (\sigma_x=1,\, \forall

1101: x\sim\gamma) \leq e^{4C'K\, \lambda\,N}\;

1102: \mu_{+,0,\Lambda_N} (\sigma_x=1,\, \forall

1103: x\sim\gamma)\,.

1104: $$

1105: This yields the first term in~\eqref{nofield}. The second term takes care of

1106: the remaining open contours. Indeed,

1107: \begin{align*}

1108: \sum_{\substack{\gamma:\\|\gamma|\geq KN}} q_{N}(\gamma)\;

1109: e^{CC'\,\lambda\,|\gamma|}

1110: &\leq \sum_{k\geq 0} e^{CC'\,\lambda\, (K+k+1)\, N}\; \sum_{l=(K+k)\,

1111: N}^{(K+k+1)\, N -1} \sum_{\substack{\gamma:\\|\gamma|= l}} q_{N}(\gamma)\\

1112: &\leq \sum_{k\geq 0} e^{-C''(K+k)\,N}\\

1113: &\leq e^{-C'''K\,N}\,,

1114: \end{align*}

1115: where we used~\eqref{longunlikely}. Consequently, since

1116: $$

1117: \frac{Z_{+,0,\Lambda_N}} {Z_{\pm,0,\Lambda_N}} \leq

1118: C\, N^{3/2}\, e^{\tau_\beta(\mathbf{e}_1)\, N}\,,

1119: $$

1120: we see that

1121: $$

1122: \frac{Z_{+,0,\Lambda_N}} {Z_{\pm,0,\Lambda_N}}\;

1123: \sum_{\gamma:\, |\gamma| \geq K\,N} w(\gamma)\;

1124: \frac{Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda^+}\, Z_{-,\lambda,\Lambda^-}}

1125: {Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda_N}}

1126: \leq e^{-C\, N}\,,

1127: $$

1128: provided $K$ is chosen large enough.

1129: \end{proof}

1130: 

1131: Applying the lemma,  we have

1132: \begin{align*}

1133: \mu_{\pm,\lambda,\Lambda_N} (\mathcal A)

1134: &\leq e^{C\,\lambda^{2/3}|\log\lambda|^2\, N}\;

1135: \frac{Z_{+,0,\Lambda_N}} {Z_{\pm,0,\Lambda_N}}\;

1136: \sum_{\substack{\gamma:\\|\Lambda^-| < C_{\lambda,N}}} q_{N}(\gamma) +

1137: e^{-a\,N}\\

1138: &= e^{C\,\lambda^{2/3}|\log\lambda|^2\, N}\;

1139: \mu_{\pm,0,\Lambda_N} (|\Lambda^-| < C_{\lambda,N}) +

1140: e^{-a\,N}\,,

1141: \end{align*}

1142: for some $a>0$, and so we are left with estimating the probability that

1143: $|\Lambda^-| < C_{\lambda,N}$ in the absence of bulk magnetic field, a purely

1144: entropic problem.

1145: 

1146: \begin{figure}[t!]

1147: \centerline{\resizebox{!}{3.5cm}{\input{Omega.pstex_t}}}

1148: \caption{The box $\Omega$ is obtained by splitting $\Lambda_N$ into strips of

1149: width $[A\lambda^{-2/3}|\log\lambda|^{-2}]$ by forcing all the spins on the

1150: corresponding vertical half-lines to take the value $+1$.}

1151: \label{fig_Omega}

1152: \end{figure}

1153: 

1154: The next step is to observe that the event $\{|\Lambda^-| <

1155: C_{\lambda,N}\}$ is increasing. So, by FKG inequalities,

1156: $$

1157: \mu_{\pm,0,\Lambda_N} (|\Lambda^-| < C_{\lambda,N}) \leq

1158: \mu_{\pm,0,\Omega} (|\Lambda^-| < C_{\lambda,N})\,

1159: $$

1160: where $\Omega$ is the box (see Fig.~\ref{fig_Omega})

1161: $$

1162: \Omega = \Lambda_N \setminus \{z:\, z_1 = -N/2 + 1 +

1163: k[A\lambda^{-2/3}|\log\lambda|^{-2}],\,

1164: k\in\mathbb{N}\}\,,

1165: $$

1166: $A$ being a small number to be chosen later.

1167: Let us denote by $\Lambda^-_k$ the component of $\Lambda^-$ contained in the

1168: $k$th slice $\Omega_k$ of $\Omega$. Let $K_{\lambda} =

1169: \lambda^{-1}|\log\lambda|^{-9/2}$. We are going to show that

1170: \begin{equation}

1171: \mu_{\pm,0,\Omega_1}(|\Lambda^-_1| < K_{\lambda} ) < 7/8\,.

1172: \label{7_8}

1173: \end{equation}

1174: From this and a standard large deviations estimate, we get that

1175: $$

1176: \mu_{\pm,0,\Omega} \left( \# \{ k:\, |\Lambda^-_k| < K_{\lambda} \} \geq

1177: \frac{15}{16}\, \frac{N}{[A\lambda^{-2/3}|\log\lambda|^{-2}]}\right) \leq

1178: e^{-CA^{-1}\, \lambda^{2/3}\, |\log\lambda|^2\, N}\,.

1179: $$

1180: (Notice that the events $\{ |\Lambda^-_k| < K_{\lambda} \}$ are

1181: independent under $\mu_{\pm,0,\Omega}$). The proposition easily follows from

1182: this, provided $\lambda$ is chosen small enough (for a fixed small $A$). Indeed, on the complementary event,

1183: i.e.

1184: $$

1185: \# \{ k:\, |\Lambda^-_k| >

1186: K_{\lambda} \} > \frac{1}{16}\,

1187: \frac{N}{[A\lambda^{-2/3}|\log\lambda|^{-2}]}\,,

1188: $$

1189: we have

1190: $$

1191: |\Lambda^-| > \tfrac1{16} N/[A\lambda^{-2/3}|\log\lambda|^{-2}]

1192: \,K_{\lambda} > C_{\lambda,N}\,,

1193: $$

1194: for small $\lambda$. Let us now prove~\eqref{7_8}.

1195: 

1196: Denote by $x^l$ and $x^r$ the dual sites which are the bottom left and bottom

1197: right corners of $\Omega_1$ (so these are the endpoints of the open path in

1198: $\Omega_1$, see Fig.~\ref{fig_minvol}). Let $a_l = x^l_1 + [(\tfrac12 -

1199: A^2|\log\lambda|^{-1})A\lambda^{-2/3}|\log\lambda|^{-2}]$ and $a_r = x_r -

1200: [(\tfrac12 - A^2 |\log\lambda|^{-1})A\lambda^{-2/3}|\log\lambda|^{-2}]$. We

1201: introduce the following sets of dual sites:

1202: \begin{align*}

1203: \Delta_l &= \{ x \in \mathbb{Z}^{2,*}: \, x_1 = a_l,\, \tfrac12 \leq x_2 < A

1204: \lambda^{-1/3} |\log\lambda|^{-1} \}\\

1205: \Delta_r &= \{ x \in \mathbb{Z}^{2,*}: \, x_1 = a_r,\, \tfrac12 \leq x_2 < A

1206: \lambda^{-1/3} |\log\lambda|^{-1} \}\\

1207: \Delta &= \Delta_l\cup\Delta_r\\

1208: B &= \{ x \in \mathbb{Z}^{2,*}: \, a_l < x_1 < a_r,\, \tfrac12 \leq x_2 < \tfrac12 A

1209: \lambda^{-1/3} |\log\lambda|^{-1} \}\,.

1210: \end{align*}

1211: We are going to show that

1212: \begin{equation}

1213: \sum_{\substack{\gamma:x^l\to x^r\\\gamma\cap B = \emptyset}} q_{\Omega_1}

1214: (\gamma) \geq \tfrac18\, \langle \sigma_{x^l} \sigma_{x^r}

1215: \rangle_{\Omega_1}\,,

1216: \label{GoesHigh}

1217: \end{equation}

1218: which readily implies~\eqref{7_8} since $|B| > K_{\lambda}$ (when $\lambda$ is

1219: small). To prove~\eqref{GoesHigh}, we first show that the open contour

1220: typically does not hit $\Delta$. This is equivalent to saying that

1221: $\Lambda_1^-$ contains the set $\Delta$. But this is a decreasing event.

1222: Therefore, if we introduce the new box

1223: $$

1224: \widetilde\Omega_1 = \{x=(x_1,x_2):\, (x_1,|x_2|) \in \Omega_1\}\,,

1225: $$

1226: and the new set

1227: $$

1228: \widetilde\Delta = \{x=(x_1,x_2):\, (x_1,|x_2|) \in \Delta\}\,,

1229: $$

1230: then by FKG inequalities,

1231: $$

1232: \mu_{\pm,0,\Omega_1}(\Lambda^-_1 \supset \Delta) \geq

1233: \mu_{\pm,0,\widetilde\Omega_1}(\Lambda^-_1 \supset \Delta)

1234: \geq \mu_{\pm,0,\widetilde\Omega_1}(\Lambda^-_1 \supset \widetilde\Delta)\,.

1235: $$

1236: The latter probability is easily bounded. Indeed, by symmetry it is larger than

1237: $$

1238: \tfrac12\,\langle \sigma_{x^l} \sigma_{x^r} \rangle_{\widetilde\Omega_1}^{-1}\;

1239: \sum_{\substack{\gamma:x^l\to x^r\\\gamma\cap \widetilde\Delta =

1240: \emptyset}} q_{\widetilde\Omega_1} (\gamma),\,

1241: $$

1242: and the latter expression is larger than $1/4$ since

1243: \begin{align*}

1244: \sum_{\substack{\gamma:x^l\to x^r\\\gamma\cap \widetilde\Delta \neq

1245: \emptyset}} q_{\widetilde\Omega_1} (\gamma)

1246: &\leq \sum_{u\in\widetilde\Delta} \langle \sigma_{x^l}

1247: \sigma_{u} \rangle_{\widetilde\Omega_1}\, \langle \sigma_{u}

1248: \sigma_{x^r} \rangle_{\widetilde\Omega_1}\\

1249: &\leq C\, \sum_{u\in\widetilde\Delta}

1250: \frac{e^{-\tau(u-x^l)}}{|u-x_l|^{1/2}} \frac{e^{-\tau(x^r-u)}}{|x_r-u|^{1/2}}\\

1251: &\leq 3C\, \frac{e^{-\tau(x^r-x^l)}}{|x_r-x_l|^{1/2}} \;

1252: \frac{|\widetilde\Delta|}{|x_r-x_l|^{1/2}} \\

1253: &\leq \tfrac12\, \langle \sigma_{x^l} \sigma_{x^r}

1254: \rangle_{\widetilde\Omega_1}\,,

1255: \end{align*}

1256: provided $A$ is chosen small enough. We have thus shown that

1257: \begin{equation}

1258: \mu_{\pm,0,\Omega_1}(\Lambda^-_1 \supset \Delta) \geq 1/4\,.

1259: \label{typicallyhigh}

1260: \end{equation}

1261: 

1262: \begin{figure}[t!]

1263: \centerline{\resizebox{!}{5cm}{\input{minvol.pstex_t}}}

1264: \caption{The settings for the proof of~\eqref{7_8}.}

1265: \label{fig_minvol}

1266: \end{figure}

1267: 

1268: We now restrict our attention to open paths $\gamma$ in $\Omega_1$ not

1269: intersecting $\Delta$, but intersecting $B$. To each such paths we

1270: associate three dual sites: the first visit to the set $\{x : \, x_1 = a_l,\,

1271: x\not\in\Delta_l\}$, the last visit to

1272: $\{x : \, x_1 = a_r,\, x\not\in\Delta_r\}$, and the first visit to $B$. We

1273: denote these dual sites by $b^l$, $b^r$ and $b^m$ respectively.

1274: Using~\eqref{skel}, we then have

1275: \begin{align*}

1276: \sum_{\substack{\gamma:x^l\to x^r\\

1277:                 \gamma\cap \Delta = \emptyset\\

1278: 		\gamma\cap B \neq \emptyset

1279: 	       }

1280:      } q_{\Omega_1} (\gamma)

1281: &\leq \sum_{b^l,b^m,b^r}

1282: \langle \sigma_{x^l} \sigma_{b^l} \rangle_{\Omega_1}\;

1283: \langle \sigma_{b^l} \sigma_{b^m} \rangle_{\Omega_1}\;

1284: \langle \sigma_{b^m} \sigma_{b^r} \rangle_{\Omega_1}\;

1285: \langle \sigma_{b^r} \sigma_{x^r} \rangle_{\Omega_1}

1286: \end{align*}

1287: We first observe that

1288: $$

1289: \sum_{b^l:\, b^l_2 > \lambda^{-1}} \langle \sigma_{x^l} \sigma_{b^l}

1290: \rangle_{\Omega_1} \leq e^{-C\, \lambda^{-1}} \ll \langle \sigma_{x^l}

1291: \sigma_{x^r} \rangle_{\Omega_1}\,,

1292: $$

1293: and similarly for $b^r$, so that we can restrict the sum over these points to

1294: those with second component smaller than $\lambda^{-1}$. We now use the sharp triangle inequality~\eqref{STI} to get

1295: \begin{align*}

1296: \tau(b^m-b^l) + \tau(b^r-b^m)

1297: &\geq \tau(b^r-b^l) + \kappa\, (|b^m-b^l|+|b^r-b^m|-|b^r-b^l|)\\

1298: &\geq \tau(b^r-b^l) + CA^{-1}\, |\log\lambda|\,,

1299: \end{align*}

1300: and therefore, using~\eqref{OZ},

1301: \begin{align*}

1302: \langle \sigma_{b^l} \sigma_{b^m} \rangle_{\Omega_1}\;

1303: \langle \sigma_{b^m} \sigma_{b^r} \rangle_{\Omega_1}

1304: &\leq

1305: \langle \sigma_{b^l} \sigma_{b^m} \rangle\;

1306: \langle \sigma_{b^m} \sigma_{b^r} \rangle\\

1307: &\leq

1308: e^{-C'A^{-1}\, |\log\lambda|}\;

1309: \langle \sigma_{b^l} \sigma_{b^r} \rangle\, |b^r-b^l|\\

1310: &\leq

1311: e^{-C''A^{-1}\, |\log\lambda|}\;

1312: \langle \sigma_{b^l} \sigma_{b^r} \rangle_{\Omega_1}\,.

1313: \end{align*}

1314: Using this and

1315: $$

1316: \langle \sigma_{x^l} \sigma_{b^l} \rangle_{\Omega_1}\;

1317: \langle \sigma_{b^l} \sigma_{b^r} \rangle_{\Omega_1}\;

1318: \langle \sigma_{b^r} \sigma_{x^r} \rangle_{\Omega_1}

1319: \leq

1320: \langle \sigma_{x^l} \sigma_{x^r} \rangle_{\Omega_1}\,,

1321: $$

1322: which follows from GKS inequalities, we finally get

1323: $$

1324: \sum_{\substack{\gamma:x^l\to x^r\\

1325:                 \gamma\cap \Delta = \emptyset\\

1326: 		\gamma\cap B \neq \emptyset

1327: 	       }

1328:      } q_{\Omega_1} (\gamma)

1329: \leq e^{-C'''A^{-1}\, |\log\lambda|}\; \langle \sigma_{x^l} \sigma_{x^r}

1330: \rangle_{\Omega_1} \leq \tfrac18\, \langle \sigma_{x^l} \sigma_{x^r}

1331: \rangle_{\Omega_1}\,.

1332: $$

1333: We deduce from the latter bound and~\eqref{typicallyhigh} that

1334: $$

1335: \sum_{\substack{\gamma:x^l\to x^r\\

1336: 		\gamma\cap B \neq \emptyset

1337: 	       }

1338:      } q_{\Omega_1} (\gamma)

1339: \leq (\tfrac18 + \tfrac34)\, \langle \sigma_{x^l} \sigma_{x^r}

1340: \rangle_{\Omega_1}\,,

1341: $$

1342: and~\eqref{GoesHigh} is proved.

1343: 

1344: \subsubsection{Proof of the upper bound}

1345: Let us write $V=K|\log\lambda|^2\lambda^{-1/3}N$, where $K$ will be chosen

1346: sufficiently large later on. We want to bound from above the following

1347: probability: $$

1348: \mu_{\pm,\lambda,\Lambda_N} \left( |C^-(\,\cdot\,)| \geq V \right)\,,

1349: $$

1350: where $C^-(\sigma)$ is the set of all sites in $\Lambda_N$ that are

1351: connected to the bottom wall by a path of $-$ spins in $\sigma$. Our aim is to show that this probability goes to zero with $N$, provided $K$ has been chosen large enough.

1352: 

1353: We start with the following obvious upper bound:

1354: \begin{equation*}

1355: \frac{Z_{\pm,\lambda,\Lambda_N}\left( |C^-(\,\cdot\,)| \geq V \right)}

1356:      {Z_{\pm,\lambda,\Lambda_N}}

1357: \leq

1358: \frac{Z_{\pm,\lambda,\Lambda_N}\left( |C^-(\,\cdot\,)| \geq V \right)}

1359:      {Z_{\pm,0,\Lambda_N}\left( |C^-(\,\cdot\,)| \geq V \right)}

1360: \,

1361: \frac{Z_{\pm,0,\Lambda_N}}

1362:      {Z_{\pm,\lambda,\Lambda_N}}

1363: \end{equation*}

1364: By Lemma~\ref{lem_lowerboundPF_Ising},

1365: $$

1366: \frac{Z_{\pm,0,\Lambda_N}}

1367:      {Z_{\pm,\lambda,\Lambda_N}}

1368: \leq e^{C|\log\lambda|^2\lambda^{2/3}N}

1369: \frac{Z_{+,0,\Lambda_N}}

1370:      {Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda_N}}\,.

1371: $$

1372: Now observe that we can write

1373: $$

1374: \frac{Z_{+,0,\Lambda_N}}

1375:      {Z_{+,\lambda,\Lambda_N}}

1376: =

1377: \exp\left\{ - \int_0^\lambda \mathrm{d}\lambda' \sum_{x\in\Lambda_N} \langle \sigma_x

1378: \rangle_{+,\lambda',\Lambda_N}\right\}\,,

1379: $$

1380: and, similarly,

1381: $$

1382: \frac{Z_{\pm,\lambda,\Lambda_N}\left( |C^-(\,\cdot\,)| \geq V \right)}

1383:      {Z_{\pm,0,\Lambda_N}\left( |C^-(\,\cdot\,)| \geq V \right)}

1384: =

1385: \exp\left\{ \int_0^\lambda \mathrm{d}\lambda' \sum_{x\in\Lambda_N} \langle \sigma_x

1386: \,|\, |C^-(\,\cdot\,)| \geq V \rangle_{\pm,\lambda',\Lambda_N}\right\}\,.

1387: $$

1388: We estimate the product of these two expressions using a coupling argument.

1389: Since, by FKG inequalities and the fact that $\{ |C^-(\,\cdot\,)| \geq V \}$ is

1390: non-increasing,

1391: $$

1392: \mu_{+,\lambda',\Lambda_N} \succeq

1393: \mu_{\pm,\lambda',\Lambda_N}(\,\cdot\,|\, |C^-(\,\cdot\,)| \geq V)\,,

1394: $$

1395: there exists a coupling $\nu_{\lambda'}$ of $\mu_{+,0,\Lambda_N}$ and

1396: $\mu_{\pm,\lambda',\Lambda_N}(\,\cdot\,|\, |C^-(\,\cdot\,)| \geq V)$ such that

1397: $$

1398: \nu(\{\sigma\geq \sigma'\}) = 1\,.

1399: $$

1400: In fact, it is well-known that one can construct this coupling explicitly. We

1401: quickly sketch this, because we'll need some non-degeneracy property below.

1402: First, we order all the sites in $\Lambda_N$, say $i_1,\ldots,i_{|\Lambda_N|}$.

1403: Then we introduce a family $(X_{i_k})_{k=1}^{|\Lambda_N|}$ of iid random

1404: variables, with uniform distribution over $[0,1]$. Now we set $\sigma_{i_1}=1$ (resp.

1405: $\sigma'_{i_1}=1$) if $\mu_{+,\lambda',\Lambda_N}(\sigma_{i_1}=1)\geq X_{i_1}$ (resp. if

1406: $\mu_{\pm,\lambda',\Lambda_N}(\sigma_{i_1}=1 \,|\, |C^-(\,\cdot\,)| \geq V) \geq

1407: X_{i_1}$); otherwise it is set to $-1$. Suppose we have already constructed the

1408: first $k-1$ spins. Then we set $\sigma_{i_k}=1$ if

1409: $\mu_{+,\lambda',\Lambda_N}(\sigma_{i_k}=1 \,|\, \sigma_{i_l},\, l<k) \geq X_{i_k}$,

1410: and similarly for $\sigma'_{i_k}$. Just observe that, by FKG inequalities,

1411: $$

1412: \mu_{+,\lambda',\Lambda_N}(\sigma_{i_k}=1 \,|\, \sigma_{i_l},\, l<k) \geq

1413: \mu_{\pm,\lambda',\Lambda_N}(\sigma_{i_k}=1 \,|\, |C^-(\,\cdot\,)| \geq V,\, \sigma_{i_l},\, l<k)\,.

1414: $$

1415: 

1416: Using this notation, we are left with estimating 

1417: $

1418: \sum_{x\in\Lambda_N} \left( \nu_{\lambda'}(\sigma'_x - \sigma_x) \right)\,.

1419: $

1420: Since $\nu_{\lambda'}(\sigma\geq \sigma')=1$, we can write

1421: \begin{align*}

1422: \nu_{\lambda'}\bigl( \sum_{x\in\Lambda_N} (\sigma'_x - \sigma_x) \bigr)

1423: &\leq

1424: \nu_{\lambda'}\bigl( \sum_{x\in C^-(\sigma')} (\sigma'_x - \sigma_x) \bigr)\,.

1425: \end{align*}

1426: Now observe that $\sum_{x\in C^-(\sigma')} \sigma'_x = -|C^-(\sigma')|$.

1427: Moreover, from the above construction, we see that the coupling satisfies

1428: $$

1429: \inf_{x\in\Lambda_N}\nu_{\lambda'}\bigl(\sigma_x \,\bigm|\, \sigma_y,\, \forall y\in\Lambda_N \setminus\{x\},

1430: \sigma'_z,\, \forall z\in\Lambda_N \bigr) > -1-\epsilon_\beta\,,

1431: $$

1432: with $\epsilon_\beta$ depending only on the parameter $\beta$, for all $\lambda$

1433: small enough. Therefore, putting everything together, we obtain

1434: $$

1435: \mu_{\pm,\lambda,\Lambda_N} \left( |C^-(\,\cdot\,)| \geq V \right)

1436: \leq

1437: e^{-( K\epsilon_\beta - c ) |\log\lambda|^2\lambda^{2/3} N}\,,

1438: $$

1439: and the conclusion follows once $K$ is taken large enough.

1440: 

1441: 

1442: %

1443: %

1444: %

1445: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1446: % Appendix app_randomline

1447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1448: %

1449: %

1450: %

1451: \begin{appendix}

1452: \section{Some tools}\label{app_randomline}

1453: In this section we collect several results from~\cite{PfVe1997a,Ve1997,PfVe1999a} which we

1454: are using in the paper. This is not supposed to be an introduction to the

1455: random-line representation, and we refer the reader to the latter works for

1456: detailed explanations.

1457: 

1458: Let $\mathcal{E}^*$ be the set of all dual bonds of the infinite lattice.

1459: One of the basic objects in this paper is the partition function

1460: $Z_{\pm,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda_N}$.

1461: To any configuration $\sigma$ with

1462: non-zero weight under $\mu_{\pm,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda_N}$, we can associate a

1463: subset $n(\sigma)$ of

1464: $$

1465: \mathcal{E}^*_N = \{ e^*\in\mathcal{E}^*\,:\, e^* \text{ dual to }

1466: e\subset\Lambda_N,\, e\not\subset\partial\Lambda_N \}

1467: $$

1468: composed of all dual edges $e^*$ such that $e=\langle x,y

1469: \rangle\not\subset\partial\Lambda_N$ with $\sigma_x\neq\sigma_y$. We then split

1470: this subset into a collection of contours, by applying the rules given in

1471: Fig.~\ref{fig_rules} each time more than two bonds are incident on a given

1472: vertex; contours are the families of edges remaining connected after these

1473: operations. Among all the contours, there is a unique open contour connecting

1474: the dual sites $(-(N-1)/2,1/2)$ and $((N+1)/2,1/2)$; we call it $\gamma$.

1475: \begin{figure}[t!]

1476: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=35mm]{rules.eps}}

1477: \caption{Deformation rules.}

1478: \label{fig_rules}

1479: \end{figure}

1480: 

1481: We want to expand the partition functions in terms of the open contour $\gamma$.

1482: Notice that once $\gamma$ is fixed, some

1483: spins in the box $\Lambda_N$ become

1484: frozen (i.e. in any configuration with positive weight having $\gamma$ as open

1485: contour, these spins take the same values). We denote by $\Lambda^+(\gamma)$

1486: the set of all non-frozen spins located

1487: inside a component surrounded by $+$ spins. Similarly, we write

1488: $\Lambda^-(\gamma)$ for the set of all non-frozen spins

1489: located inside a component surrounded by $-$ spins.

1490: 

1491: We then have

1492: \begin{equation}

1493: \label{expansion}

1494: Z_{\pm,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda_N} = \sum_{\gamma}w(\gamma)\;

1495: Z_{+,\beta,\lambda,\Lambda^+(\gamma)}\,Z_{-,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda^-(\gamma)}\,,

1496: \end{equation}

1497: where $Z_{+,\beta,\lambda,\Lambda^+(\gamma)}$ and

1498: $Z_{-,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda^-(\gamma)}$ are the two partition functions

1499: associated to the restriction of our system to $\Lambda^+(\gamma)$ and

1500: $\Lambda^-(\gamma)$, and $w(\gamma) = e^{-2\beta|\gamma|}$, where $|\gamma| =

1501: \sum_{e^*\subset\gamma} J(e)$.

1502: 

1503: We introduce the weight (notice that it is computed at zero bulk field)

1504: \begin{equation}

1505: \label{def_q}

1506: q_{\beta,h,N} (\gamma) = w(\gamma)\;

1507: \frac{Z_{+,\beta,0,\Lambda^+(\gamma)}\,

1508: Z_{-,\beta,0,h,\Lambda^-(\gamma)}} {Z_{+,\beta,0,h,\Lambda_N}}\,.

1509: \end{equation}

1510: 

1511: 

1512: Let $\beta^*$, $h^*$ and $J^*(e^*)$ be such that

1513: $

1514: \tanh(\beta^*) = \exp(-2\beta)$, $\tanh(\beta^*h^*) = \exp(-2\beta h)$ and

1515: $\tanh(\beta^*J^*(e^*)) = \exp(-2\beta J(e))$.

1516: 

1517: The Gibbs measure in $\mathcal{E}^*_N$ with free b.c. is defined by

1518: $$

1519: \mu_{\beta^*,h^*,N}(\sigma) = (Z_{\beta^*,h^*,N})^{-1}\prod_{e^*=\langle x,y

1520: \rangle \in\mathcal{E}^*_N} e^{-\beta^* J^*(e^*)\, \sigma_x\sigma_y}\,.

1521: $$

1522: A basic duality argument, see e.g.~Lemma 6.2 in~\cite{PfVe1999a}, shows that

1523: \begin{equation}

1524: \label{exp2PF}

1525: \sum_{\gamma} q_{\beta,h,N} (\gamma) = \langle \sigma_{(-(N-1)/2,1/2)}

1526: \sigma_{((N+1)/2,1/2)} \rangle_{\beta^*,h^*,N}\,.

1527: \end{equation}

1528: One has in fact a deeper relation between high and low temperature models.

1529: To each subset of $\mathcal{E}^*_N$ which remains connected after applying the

1530: rules of Fig.~\ref{fig_rules}, we can associate a weight $q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,N}$

1531: (see~(6.8) of~\cite{PfVe1999a} for a definition) such that

1532: $$

1533: q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,N}(\gamma) = q_{\beta,h,N} (\gamma)\,.

1534: $$

1535: However, $q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,N}$ being defined for much more general subsets of

1536: $\mathcal{E}^*_N$ than $q_{\beta,h,N}$, it is a much more useful quantity.

1537: We'll state its properties for arbitrary $E\Subset\mathcal{E}^*$, and

1538: will denote the corresponding weight by $q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,E}$.

1539: We

1540: list now the properties of these weights that we are using in the proof. Let us

1541: denote by $\mathcal{E}^*_{\rm s.i.} = \bigcup_{N\to\infty} \mathcal{E}^*_N$.

1542: \begin{itemize}

1543: \item (\cite{PfVe1999a}, Lemma~6.3) The limiting weights

1544: $q^*_{\beta^*,h^*} = \lim_{E\uparrow\mathcal{E}^*} q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,E}$

1545: and

1546: $q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,{\rm s.i.}} = \lim_{E\uparrow\mathcal{E}^*_{\rm s.i.}}

1547: q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,E}$

1548: are well-defined quantities.

1549: Moreover, for any $\gamma\subset E$,

1550: \begin{equation}\label{split}

1551: q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,E}(\gamma) \geq q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,{\rm s.i.}}(\gamma) \geq

1552: q^*_{\beta^*,h^*}(\gamma)\,.

1553: \end{equation}

1554: \item (\cite{PfVe1999a}, Lemma~6.4) If $\gamma = \gamma_1 \amalg \gamma_2$ ($\amalg$

1555: is a concatenation operation, see~\cite{PfVe1999a} for a definition), then

1556: \begin{equation}\label{infvol}

1557: q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,E}(\gamma) \geq q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,E}(\gamma_1)\,

1558: q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,E}(\gamma_2)\,.

1559: \end{equation}

1560: \item (\cite{PfVe1999a}, Lemma~6.5) Let $t_1,\dots,t_n$ be distinct dual sites in $E$.

1561: Then

1562: \begin{equation}\label{skel}

1563: \sum_{\substack{\gamma:\,t_1\to\dots\to t_n}} q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,E} (\gamma) \leq

1564: \prod_{k=1}^{n-1} \sum_{\substack{\gamma:\,t_k\to\dots\to t_{k+1}}}

1565: q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,E} (\gamma)\,.

1566: \end{equation}

1567: \item (\cite{Ve1997}, Lemma 4.4.6, and \cite{PfVe1999a}, Lemma 6.10) Let $\mathcal{R}$

1568: be a rectangular subset of $\mathcal{E}^*$ having length $R^2/(K\log R)$ and

1569: height $R$, with basis contained inside $\{e^*=\langle x,y \rangle \in

1570: \mathcal{E}^*\,:\, x_2=y=2=1/2\}$. We denote by $u$ and $v$ the dual sites at

1571: the bottom left and bottom right corners of $\mathcal{R}$. Then, for $K$ large

1572: enough, there exists $C<\infty$ such that

1573: \begin{equation}\label{Concentration}

1574: \sum_{\substack{\gamma:\, u \to v\\\gamma\subset\mathcal{R}}}

1575: q^*_{\beta^*,h^*}(\gamma) \geq R^{-C}\, \sum_{\gamma:\, u \to v}

1576: q^*_{\beta^*,h^*}(\gamma)\,.

1577: \end{equation}

1578: \item (\cite{PfVe1999a}, (6.9) and Lemma~6.9) For any vertices $x,y\in E$,

1579: \begin{equation}

1580: \label{2ptfctN}

1581: \sum_{\gamma:\, x \to y} q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,E}(\gamma) = \langle \sigma_x

1582: \sigma_y \rangle_{\beta^*,h^*,E}\,.

1583: \end{equation}

1584: Moreover

1585: \begin{align}

1586: \label{2ptfctsi}

1587: \sum_{\gamma:\, x \to y} q^*_{\beta^*,h^*,{\rm s.i.}}(\gamma) &= \langle

1588: \sigma_x

1589: \sigma_y \rangle_{\beta^*,h^*,{\rm s.i.}}\,,\\

1590: \intertext{and}

1591: \sum_{\gamma:\, x \to y} q^*_{\beta^*,h^*}(\gamma) &= \langle \sigma_x

1592: \sigma_y \rangle_{\beta^*,h^*}\,,\\

1593: \label{2ptfct}

1594: \end{align}

1595: where $\langle \,\cdot\, \rangle_{\beta^*,h^*}$ and $\langle \,\cdot\,

1596: \rangle_{\beta^*,h^*,{\rm s.i.}}$ denote expectation w.r.t. the

1597: infinite and semi-infinite volume Gibbs measures.

1598: \item There exists $c>0$ and $l_0<\infty$ such that, for all $l$,

1599: \begin{equation}\label{longunlikely}

1600: \sum_{\substack{\gamma:\\|\gamma|\geq l}} q_{\beta,h,N}(\gamma) \leq

1601: e^{-c(l-l_0)}\,.

1602: \end{equation}

1603: \end{itemize}

1604: 

1605: \begin{proof}[Proof of~\eqref{longunlikely}]

1606: The proof is similar to that of Lemma~5.6 in~\cite{PfVe1997a}; we only sketch it.

1607: Let $R$ be some big positive number. We make a coarse-graining of the path

1608: $\gamma$ on the scale $R$, i.e. we set $t_1$ to be the left endpoint of

1609: $\gamma$, $t_k$ to be the first point of $\gamma$ after $t_{k-1}$ which is

1610: outside the square of sidelength $R$ centered on $t_{k-1}$, and the procedure

1611: stops when one reaches the other endpoint of $\gamma$. One then first sum over

1612: these sites $t_0,t_1,\dots,t_L$ (observing that, given $t_k$ there are at most

1613: $C R$ choices for $t_{k+1}$, and that the total length of the piece of $\gamma$

1614: between two consecutive points is at most $R^2$, so that $L\geq l/R^2$) and

1615: uses~\eqref{split}, \eqref{2ptfctN}, and the upper bound in~\eqref{OZ} below.

1616: The conclusion follows since $\tau_\beta$ is uniformly strictly positive when

1617: $\beta>\beta_c$.

1618: \end{proof}

1619: 

1620: We also use the following results about the asymptotic behavior of the

1621: boundary 2-point function $\langle \sigma_x \sigma_y \rangle_{\beta^*,h^*,{\rm

1622: s.i.}}$: Suppose that $h>h_w(\beta)$; then there exist

1623: constants $K_1$ and $K_2$ such that, for any $x,y$ with $x_2=y_2=1/2$,

1624: \begin{equation}

1625: \label{OZ32}

1626: K_1\, |x-y|^{-3/2} e^{-\tau_\beta(\mathbf{e}_1)\, |x-y|}

1627: \geq \langle \sigma_x \sigma_y \rangle_{\beta^*,h^*,{\rm s.i.}}

1628: \geq K_2\, |x-y|^{-3/2} e^{-\tau_\beta(\mathbf{e}_1)\, |x-y|}\,,

1629: \end{equation}

1630: where $\tau_\beta(\mathbf{e}_1)$ is the surface tension in the horizontal

1631: direction.

1632: 

1633: We also need the corresponding result for the bulk 2-point. There exists $K<\infty$ such that, for any $h>h_w(\beta)$, and any pair of dual sites $x,y$ in $E$ such that the set

1634: $$

1635: \mathcal{S}_K(x,y) = \{ u\in \mathbb{Z}^{2,*} \,:\, \|x-u\|_2 + \|y-u\|_2 \leq \|x-y\|_2 + K\log\|x-y\|_2 \}\,,

1636: $$

1637: satisfies $\mathcal{S}_K(x,y) \subset \{ x \in E \,:\, x_2 \geq 3/2\}$, the following holds: There exist

1638: constants $K_1$ and $K_2$ such that (\cite{Ve1997}, Proposition 4.6.1.)

1639: \begin{equation}

1640: \label{OZ}

1641: K_1\, |x-y|^{-1/2} e^{-\tau_\beta(\frac{x-y}{|x-y|})\, |x-y|}

1642: \geq

1643: \langle \sigma_x \sigma_y \rangle_{\beta^*,h^*}

1644: \geq K_2\, |x-y|^{-1/2} e^{-\tau_\beta(\mathbf{e}_1)\, |x-y|}\,.

1645: \end{equation}

1646: 

1647: An important property of surface tension is that it satisfies the following {\sl

1648: sharp triangle inequality} (\cite{PfVe1999a}, Theorem~2.1): There exists $\kappa>0$

1649: such that, for any $x,y$,

1650: \begin{equation}

1651: \label{STI}

1652: \tau_\beta(x) + \tau_\beta(y) \geq \tau_\beta(x+y) + \kappa (|x|+|y|-|x+y|)\,.

1653: \end{equation}

1654: 

1655: Finally, we also need the following estimate on the relaxation of correlation

1656: functions (\cite{BrLePf1981}): Suppose that $h$ and $\lambda$ are

1657: non-negative; then there exists $C(\beta)>0$ and $K<\infty$ such that, for any

1658: $\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2\subset\mathbb{Z}^2$ and $A\subset \Lambda_1\cup\Lambda_2$,

1659: \begin{equation}

1660: \label{BLP}

1661: \left\vert

1662:    \langle \sigma_A \rangle_{+,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda_1}

1663:  - \langle \sigma_A \rangle_{+,\beta,\lambda,h,\Lambda_2}

1664: \right\vert

1665: \leq K\sum_{\substack{t\in A\\t'\in\Lambda_1\triangle\Lambda_2}} e^{- C(\beta)\,

1666: |t'-t|}\,,

1667: \end{equation}

1668: where $\sigma_A = \prod_{x\in A}\sigma_x$.

1669: 

1670: 

1671: \end{appendix}

1672: 

1673: \bibliographystyle{plain} 

1674: \bibliography{V03}

1675: 

1676: \end{document}

1677: 

1678: