Sharpness for finite-range models

Dans le document Interpolation schemes in percolation theory (Page 132-146)

Then, the proof follows similar lines of reasoning as the proof of (5.5.1) and (5.5.2) from Lemma 5.5.1 at the end of Section 5.5.1, choosing the prefactor δ appearing in (5.5.40) suitably small (recall that L = L(ε) is fixed) to obtain an analogue of the differential inequality (5.5.14). We omit further details.

5.6 Sharpness for finite-range models

In this section we prove Proposition 5.1.3. Fix L≥0 andδ ∈(0,1), we set

ω={ωh :h∈R}, where ωh :=TδL≥h}, h∈R (5.6.1) (recall Tδ from the paragraph preceding the statement of Proposition 5.1.3). To be specific, we assume thatωis sampled in the following manner. There exists a collection of i.i.d. uniform random variables U = {Ux : x ∈ Zd} independent of the process Z (recall the definition from Section 5.3.1) underP such that, for h∈R,

ωh(x) =



0 if Ux ≤δ/2,

1ϕLx≥h if Ux ∈(δ/2,1−δ/2), 1 if Ux ≥1−δ/2.

(5.6.2) We proceed to verify that ω satisfies the following properties:

(a) Lattice symmetry. For all h ∈ R, the law of ωh is invariant with respect to translations ofZd, reflections with respect to hyperplanes and rotations by π/2.

(b) Positive association. For all h ∈ R, the law of ωh is positively associated, i.e., any pair of increasing events satisfies the FKG-inequality.

(c) Finite-energy. There exists cFE ∈(0,1) such that for any h∈R, P[ωh(x) = 0|ωh(y) for all y6=x]∈(cFE,1−cFE).

(d) Bounded-range i.i.d. encoding. Let{V(x) :x∈Zd}denote a family of i.i.d. ran-dom variables (e.g. uniform in [0,1]). Then, for everyh∈R, there exists a (mea-surable) function g = gh : RZd → {0,1}Zd such that the law of g((V(x))x∈Zd) is the same as that of ωh and, for any x ∈ Zd, gx((vy)y∈Zd) depends only on {vy :y ∈BL(x)}. Thus, in particular,ωh is an L-dependent process.

Property (a) is inherited from corresponding symmetries of the laws of U and ϕL. In view of (5.6.2), (5.3.2) and (5.3.7), ωh is an increasing function of the independent collection (U,Z), and Property (b) follows by the FKG-inequality for independent random variables. Still by (5.6.2), (5.3.2) and (5.3.7), Properties (c) and (d) hold: for the former, takecFE =δ/2; for the latter one can use V(x) to generate the independent random variables Ux and Z`(˜z), for all 0≤`≤L and ˜z ∈ {x, x+12ei,1≤i≤d}. We will use another property of ωh, whose proof is more involved. We therefore state it as a separate lemma.

Lemma 5.6.1. The field ω satisfies the following:

(e) Sprinkling property. For every pair h < h0 ∈ R, there exists ε = ε(h, h0) > 0 such thatωh stochastically dominatesωh0∨ηε, whereηε is a Bernoulli percolation with density ε independent of ωh0. Henceforth we will denote this domination byωh ωh0 ∨ηε.

Proof. We assume by suitably extending the underlying probability space that there existsη={ηε :ε∈(0,1)}withηindependent ofωandηεdistributed as i.i.d. Bernoulli variables with density ε. We will progressively replace the threshold h with h0 in a finite number of steps. To this end we claim that for anyκ >0 there existsε >0 such that for anyh∈[h, h0] andL∈ L, whereLcomprises all the (finitely many) translates of the sub-lattice 10LZd, we have

ωhωh+κ∨ηεL, (5.6.3)

where ηεL(x) = ηε(x) if x ∈ L and ηεL(x) = 0 otherwise. Let us first explain how to derive property (e) from (5.6.3): choosingκ:= h|L|0−h givesωh ωh+κ∨ηεL, for suitable ε = ε(h, h0, L, d) > 0 and any choice L, so that iterating this over the lattices in L gives

ωh ωh+|L|κ∨ _


ηLεh0 ∨ηε, as desired.

By approximation, it suffices to verify (5.6.3) for all fields restricted to a finite set Γ ⊂ Zd. Let ωh(S) := {ωh(x) :x ∈ S} for S ⊂Zd and define similarly ηε(S), ηεL(S).

Notice thatωhh+κ ∨ωh and ωh+κ∨ηLε are both increasing functions of (ωh+κ, ωh) and (ωh+κ, ηεL) respectively. Therefore it suffices to show that, conditionally on any realization ofωh+κ, the field ωh(Γ) stochastically dominates ηLε(Λ). To this end we fix an ordering{x1, x2, . . .} of the vertices in Γ such that all the vertices inL∩Γ appear before all the vertices inLc∩Γ. In view of [101, Lemma 1.1], it then suffices to show that for any k ≥1, with Λk ={x1, . . . , xk−1} (Λ0 =∅),

P-a.s., P[ωh(xk) = 1|A, A0]≥ε·1xkL, (5.6.4) where A := {ωh(x) = σ(x), x ∈ Λk}, A0 := {ωh+κ(x) = σ0(x), x ∈ Λ}, for arbitrary σ, σ0 ∈ {0,1}Zd with σ ≥ σ0 (as ωh ≥ ωh+κ). We now show (5.6.4) and assume that xk∈L (the other cases are trivial). To this end let us first define, for any x∈Zd, the pair of events

T(x) :={Ux ∈/ (δ/2,1−δ/2)} and U(x) := \


T(y). (5.6.5)

Notice that, in view of (5.6.2), T(x) corresponds to the event that the noise at x is triggered. We then write, with U =U(xk),

P[ωh(xk) = 1|A, A0]≥P[ωh(xk) = 1| U, A, A0]·P[U |A, A0]. (5.6.6) We will bound the two probabilities on the right-hand side separately from below. It follows from the definition ofωhin (5.6.2) thatωh+κ(y) =ζ(y) on the eventT(y), where

ζ(y) = 1Uy≥1−δ/2. Consequently, decomposing A0, we obtain, with A01 := {ωh+κ = σ0 on Γ∩BL(xk)c} and A02 :={ζ =σ0 onBL(xk)\ {xk}}, that

p:= P[ωh(xk) = 1| U, A, A0] =P[ωh(xk) = 1| U, A, ωh+κ(xk) =σ0(xk), A01, A02]. However, in view of definition (5.6.2), (5.6.5) and the fact that L is 10L-separated, it follows that both {ωh(xk) = 1, ωh+κ(xk) = σ0(xk)} and {ωh+κ(xk) = σ0(xk)} are where the equality in the second line follows by (5.6.2) and (5.6.5) upon conditioning on ωh(x), x∈ Λk, ωh+κ(y), y∈ (Λ\BL(xk))∪ {xk} and 1ϕL

y≥h+κ, y ∈BL(xk)\ {xk}, and the final lower bound follows by distinguishing whether ρ(y) 6= σ0(y) (in which case the given conditional probability equals 1) or not, and using (5.6.2). Overall, the right-hand side of (5.6.6) is thus bounded from below by ε := ε0(δ/2)|BL|, which implies (5.6.4) and completes the verification of (e).

The rest of this section is devoted to deriving Proposition5.1.3from Properties (a)–

(e). We prove in two parts that ˜h(δ, L) ≥h(δ, L) and h(δ, L) = h∗∗(δ, L) ≥ ˜h(δ, L) which together imply ˜h(δ, L) =h(δ, L) =h∗∗(δ, L), as asserted.

We first argue that ˜h(δ, L) ≥ h(δ, L). As a consequence of Properties (a)–(c) and (e), one can adapt the argument in [75] in the context of Bernoulli percolation

— see also [74, Chap. 7.2] — to deduce that ωh percolates in “slabs”, i.e., for every h < h(δ, L), there exists M ∈Nsuch that

But this implies h≤˜h(δ, L), as desired.

The proof of h(δ, L) =h∗∗(δ, L)≥˜h(δ, L) on the other hand follows directly from the exponential decay of ωh in the subcritical regime. More precisely, we claim that for every h > h(δ, L), there exists c=c(h)>0 such that

P[0←ωh ∂BR]≤exp(−cR), for every R ≥0, (5.6.8) which implies that h(δ, L) =h∗∗(δ, L), cf. (5.1.4) (recall that h∗∗(δ, L) ≥ ˜h(δ, L), as explained below (5.1.12) for δ = 0 and L = ∞). We therefore focus on the proof of (5.6.8). For each h ∈ R, consider the family of processes γε := ωh ∨ηε indexed by ε ∈ [0,1] where ηε is a Bernoulli percolation with density ε independent of ωh. Let εcc(h)∈[0,1] denote the critical parameter of the family of percolation processes {γε : ε ∈ [0,1]} and suppose for a moment that for every 0 ≤ ε < εc(h), there exists c=c(h, ε)>0 such that for everyR ≥1,

θR(ε) :=P[0←→γε ∂BR]≤exp(−cR). (5.6.9) Then (5.6.8) follows immediately by takingε= 0 in caseεc(h)>0 for allh > h(δ, L).

But the latter holds by the following reasoning. From Property (e), we see that whenever h > h(δ, L), choosingh0 = (h(δ, L) +h)/2, one hasωh0 ωh∨ηε0 for some ε0 > 0, whence ε0 ≤ εc(h) as ωh0 is subcritical. The remainder of this subsection is devoted to proving (5.6.9).

For this purpose, we use the strategy developed in the series of papers [58,57, 59]

to prove subcritical sharpness using decision trees. This strategy consists of two main parts. In the first part, one bounds the varianceθR(1−θR) using the OSSS inequality from [125] by a weighted sum of influences where the weights are given by revealment probabilities of a randomized algorithm (see (5.6.14) below). Then in a second part one relates these influence terms to the derivative ofθR(ε) with respect toεto deduce a system of differential inequalities of the following form:

θR0 ≥β R

ΣRθR(1−θR), (5.6.10)

where ΣR :=PR−1

r=0 θr and β =β(ε) : (0,1)→(0,∞) is a continuous function. Using purely analytical arguments – see [58, Lemma 3.1] – one then obtains (5.6.9) forε < εc. In our particular context, we apply the OSSS inequality for product measures (see [58] for a more general version) and for that we use the encoding of ωh in terms of {V(x) :x∈Zd}provided by Property (d). In view of this,1ER with ER={0←→γε ∂BR} can now be written as a function of independent random variables (V(x) :x∈BR+L) and (ηε(x) : x ∈ BR). Using a randomized algorithm very similar to the one used in [59, Section 3.1] (see the discussion after the proof of Lemma 5.6.2 below for a more detailed exposition), we get



InfV(x)+ X


Infηε(x) ≥cL−(d−1) R

ΣRθR(1−θR), (5.6.11) where InfV(x) := P[1ER(V, ηε) 6= 1ER( ˜V, ηε)] with ˜V being the same as V for every vertex except atxwhere it isresampled independently, and Infηε(x) is defined similarly.

In order to derive (5.6.10) from (5.6.11), we use the following lemma.

Lemma 5.6.2. There exists a continuous function α : (0,1) → (0,∞) such that for all R≥1,

θR0 (ε)≥α(ε) X


InfV(x)+ X



. (5.6.12)

Proof. Since the derivative is with respect to the parameter of the Bernoulli component of the process, it follows from standard computations that

θ0R=P[ωh(0) = 0] X



where Pivx is the same event as in Section 5.5 (see below (5.5.6)) with χt replaced by γε. Now, on the one hand, Infηε(x) ≤ P[Pivx]. On the other hand, since V(x) affects the states of vertices only in BL(x) by Property (d), one immediately gets InfV(x) ≤ P[Piv(BL(x))], where Piv(BL(x)) – called the pivotality of the box BL(x) – is the event that 0 is connected to ∂BR in γε∪BL(x) where as it is not in γε\BL(x).

In fact, due to finite-energy property of ωh, we can write

P[Piv(BL(x))]≤(cFE(1−ε))−c0LdP[Piv(BL(x)), γε(y) = 0 for all y∈BL(x)]. If we start on the event on the right-hand side and then open the vertices insideBL(x) one by one inγε until 0 gets connected to ∂BR, which must happen by the definition of Piv(BL(x)). The last vertex to be opened is pivotal for the resulting configuration.

This implies that

P[Piv(BL(x)), ηε(y) = 0 for all y∈BL(x)]≤ε−c0Ld X


P[Pivy]. Combining all these displays yields (5.6.12).

To conclude, we now give a full derivation of (5.6.11) for sake of completeness. To this end let us define a randomized algorithm T which takes (V(x) : x ∈ BR+L) and (ηε(x) : x∈ BR) as inputs, and determines the event ER by revealing V(x), ηε(x) one by one as follows:

Definition 5.6.3 (Algorithm T). Fix a deterministic ordering of the vertices in BR and choose j ∈ {1, . . . , R} uniformly and independently of (V, ηε). Now set x0 to be the smallest x ∈ ∂Bj in the ordering and reveal ηε(x0) as well as V(y) for all y ∈ BL(x0). Set E0 := {x0} and C0 := {x0} if γε(x0) = 1 and C0 := ∅ otherwise. At each stept ≥1, assume that Et−1 and Ct−1 have been defined. Then,

— If the intersection of BR with the set (∂outCt−1 ∪∂Bj)\Et−1 is non-empty, let x be the smallest vertex in this intersection and set xt := x, Et := Et−1 ∪ {xt}.

Reveal ηε(xt) as well as V(y) for all y ∈ BL(xt) and set Ct := Ct−1 ∪ {xt} if γε(xt) = 1 and Ct :=Ct−1 otherwise.

— If the intersection is empty, halt the algorithm.

In words, the algorithm T explores the clusters in γε of the vertices in ∂Bj. By applying the OSSS inequality [125] to 1ER and the algorithmT, we now get

Var[1ER] =θR(1−θR)≤ X


θV(x)(T) InfV(x)+ X


θηε(x)(T) Infηε(x), (5.6.13) where the functionθ·(T), called the revealment of the respective variable, is defined as θV(x)(T) :=π[Treveals the value of V(x)], (5.6.14) and θηε(x)(T) is defined in a similar way. Here π denotes the probability governing the extension of (V, ηε) which accommodates the random choice of layer j, which is independent of (V, ηε).

Let us now bound the revealments for V(x) and ηε(x). Notice that since V(x) affects the state of vertices only in BL(x) by Property (d), V(x) is revealed only if there is an explored vertex y ∈ BL(x)∩ BR. The vertex y, on the other hand, is explored only ify is connected to ∂Bj in γε. We deduce that

θV(x)(T)≤ 1 R




P[(BL(x)∩BR)←→γε ∂Bj]≤ 1 R






P[y←→γε ∂Bj], where in the last step we used a naive union bound. Forηε(x), it is even simpler:

θηε(x)(T)≤ 1 R




P[x←→γε ∂Bj].

Now (5.6.11) follows by plugging the previous two displays into (5.6.13) combined with the translation invariance of γε implied by Property (a) and the triangle inequality.


[1] A. Ab¨acherli. Local picture and level-set percolation of the Gaussian free field on a large discrete torus. Stoch. Proc. Appl., 129(9):3527–3546, 2019.

[2] A. Ab¨acherli and J. ˇCern`y. Level-set percolation of the Gaussian free field on regular graphs II: Finite expanders. Preprint, available at arXiv:1909.01972, 2019.

[3] A. Ab¨acherli and J. ˇCern´y. Level-set percolation of the Gaussian free field on regular graphs I: regular trees. Electron. J. Probab., 25:24 pp., 2020.

[4] D. Ahlberg, S. Griffiths, R. Morris, and V. Tassion. Quenched Voronoi percola-tion. Advances in Mathematics, 286:889–911, 2016.

[5] D. Ahlberg, V. Tassion, and A. Teixeira. Existence of an unbounded vacant set for subcritical continuum percolation. Electron. Commun. Probab., 23:8 pp., 2018.

[6] M. Aizenman and D. Barsky. Sharpness of the phase transition in percolation models. Comm. Math. Phys., 108(3):489–526, 1987.

[7] M. Aizenman, D. J. Barsky, and R. Fern´andez. The phase transition in a general class of Ising-type models is sharp. J. Statist. Phys., 47(3-4):343–374, 1987.

[8] M. Aizenman, H. Duminil-Copin, and V. Sidoravicius. Random Currents and Continuity of Ising Model’s Spontaneous Magnetization. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 334:719–742, 2015.

[9] M. Aizenman and G. Grimmett. Strict monotonicity for critical points in per-colation and ferromagnetic models. J. Statist. Phys., 63(5-6):817–835, 1991.

[10] M. Aizenman, H. Kesten, and C. M. Newman. Uniqueness of the infinite cluster and continuity of connectivity functions for short and long range percolation.

Comm. Math. Phys., 111(4):505–531, 1987.

[11] N. Anantharaman. Topologie des hypersurfaces nodales de fonctions gaussiennes, S´eminaire Bourbaki Vol. 2015/2016. Ast´erisque, 390:Exp. No. 1116, 369–408, 2017.

[12] P. Antal and A. Pisztora. On the chemical distance for supercritical Bernoulli percolation. Ann. Probab., 24(2):1036–1048, 1996.

[13] E. Babson and I. Benjamini. Cut sets and normed cohomology with applications to percolation. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 127(2):589–

597, 1999.

[14] T. Balaban and M. O’Carroll. Low temperature properties for correlation functions in classical n-vector spin models. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 199(2):493–520, 1999.


[15] P. Balister and B. Bollob´as. Counting regions with bounded surface area. Com-munications in Mathematical Physics, 273(2):305–315, 2007.

[16] P. Balister, B. Bollob´as, and O. Riordan. Essential enhancements revisited.

Preprint, available at arXiv:1402.0834, 2014.

[17] M. T. Barlow. Random walks on supercritical percolation clusters.Ann. Probab., 32(4):3024–3084, 2004.

[18] D. J. Barsky, G. R. Grimmett, and C. M. Newman. Percolation in half-spaces:

equality of critical densities and continuity of the percolation probability.Probab.

Theory Related Fields, 90(1):111–148, 1991.

[19] R. Bauerschmidt. A simple method for finite range decomposition of quadratic forms and Gaussian fields. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 157(3):817–

845, 2013.

[20] V. Beffara and H. Duminil-Copin. The self-dual point of the two-dimensional random-cluster model is critical forq≥1. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 153(3-4):511–542, 2012.

[21] V. Beffara and D. Gayet. Percolation of random nodal lines. Publ. Math. IH ´ES, 126(1):131–176, 2017.

[22] D. Beliaev and S. Muirhead. Discretisation schemes for level sets of planar gaussian fields. Comm. Math. Phys., 359(3):869–913, 2018.

[23] I. Benjamini, R. Lyons, Y. Peres, and O. Schramm. Critical percolation on any nonamenable group has no infinite clusters. The Annals of Probability, 27(3):1347–1356, 1999.

[24] I. Benjamini, R. Lyons, Y. Peres, and O. Schramm. Group-invariant percolation on graphs. Geometric & Functional Analysis GAFA, 9(1):29–66, 1999.

[25] I. Benjamini, A. Nachmias, and Y. Peres. Is the critical percolation probability local? Probab. Theory Related Fields, 149(1-2):261–269, 2011.

[26] I. Benjamini, R. Pemantle, and Y. Peres. Unpredictable paths and percolation.

The Annals of Probability, 26(3):1198–1211, 1998.

[27] I. Benjamini and O. Schramm. Percolation beyond Zd, many questions and a few answers. Electron. Comm. Probab., 1:no. 8, 71–82 (electronic), 1996.

[28] I. Benjamini and O. Schramm. Conformal invariance of Voronoi percolation.

Comm. Math. Phys., 197(1):75–107, 1998.

[29] I. Benjamini and V. Tassion. Homogenization via sprinkling. Ann. Inst. H.

Poincar´e Probab. Statist., 53(2):997–1005, 2017.

[30] N. Berestycki. Introduction to the Gaussian free field and Liouville quantum gravity. Lecture notes, available at beresty/Articles/oxford, 2016.

[31] N. Berger and M. Biskup. Quenched invariance principle for simple random walk on percolation clusters. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 137(1-2):83–120, 2007.

[32] T. Bodineau. Slab percolation for the Ising model. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 132(1):83–118, 2005.

[33] B. Bollob´as and O. Riordan. The critical probability for random Voronoi per-colation in the plane is 1/2. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 136(3):417–468, 2006.

[34] E. Bolthausen, J.-D. Deuschel, and O. Zeitouni. Entropic repulsion of the lattice free field. Comm. Math. Phys., 170(2):417–443, 1995.

[35] J. Bricmont, J. L. Lebowitz, and C. Maes. Percolation in strongly correlated systems: the massless Gaussian field. J. Statist. Phys., 48(5-6):1249–1268, 1987.

[36] S. R. Broadbent and J. M. Hammersley. Percolation processes. I. Crystals and mazes. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 53:629–641, 1957.

[37] R. M. Burton and M. Keane. Density and uniqueness in percolation. Comm.

Math. Phys., 121(3):501–505, 1989.

[38] E. Candellero and A. Teixeira. Percolation and isoperimetry on roughly transi-tive graphs. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´e Probab. Statist., 54(4):1819–1847, 2018.

[39] Y. Canzani and P. Sarnak. Topology and nesting of the zero set components of monochromatic random waves. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 72(2):343–374, 2019.

[40] R. Cerf.Large deviations for three dimensional supercritical percolation. Number 267 in Ast´erisque. Soci´et´e math´ematique de France, 2000.

[41] R. Cerf. A lower bound on the two-arms exponent for critical percolation on the lattice. Ann. Probab., 43(5):2458–2480, 2015.

[42] J. ˇCern´y and A. Teixeira. Random walks on torus and random interlacements:

macroscopic coupling and phase transition.Ann. Appl. Probab., 26(5):2883–2914, 2016.

[43] Y. Chang and A. Sapozhnikov. Phase transition in loop percolation. Probab.

Theory Relat. Fields, 164(3):979–1025, 2016.

[44] D. Chelkak and S. Smirnov. Universality in the 2D Ising model and conformal invariance of fermionic observables. Invent. Math., 189(3):515–580, 2012.

[45] A. Chiarini and M. Nitzschner. Entropic repulsion for the Gaussian free field conditioned on disconnection by level-sets. To appear in Probab. Theory Relat.

Fields, DOI: 10.1007/s00440-019-00957-7, 2019.

[46] T. Coulhon and L. Saloff-Coste. Isop´erim´etrie pour les groupes et les vari´et´es.

Revista Matem´atica Iberoamericana, 9:293–314, 1993.

[47] J.-D. Deuschel and G. Giacomin. Entropic repulsion for the free field: pathwise characterization ind ≥3. Comm. Math. Phys., 206(2):447–462, 1999.

[48] J. Ding and M. Wirth. Percolation for level-sets of Gaussian free fields on metric graphs. Ann. Probab., 48(3):1411–1435, 2020.

[49] A. Drewitz, A. Pr´evost, and P.-F. Rodriguez. Geometry of Gaussian free field sign clusters and random interlacements.Preprint, available at arXiv:1811.05970, 2018.

[50] A. Drewitz, A. Pr´evost, and P.-F. Rodriguez. The sign clusters of the massless Gaussian free field percolate on Zd, d > 3 (and more). Comm. Math. Phys., 362(2):513–546, 2018.

[51] A. Drewitz, B. R´ath, and A. Sapozhnikov. On chemical distances and shape theorems in percolation models with long-range correlations. J. Math. Phys., 55(8):083307, 30, 2014.

[52] A. Drewitz and P.-F. Rodriguez. High-dimensional asymptotics for percolation of Gaussian free field level sets. Electron. J. Probab., 20(47):1–39, 2015.

[53] H. Duminil-Copin. Lectures on the Ising and Potts models on the hypercubic lattice. Lecture notes, available at arXiv:1707.00520, 2017.

[54] H. Duminil-Copin, M. Gagnebin, M. Harel, I. Manolescu, and V. Tassion. Dis-continuity of the phase transition for the planar random-cluster and Potts models withq >4. To appear in Annales de l’ENS, available at arXiv:1611.09877, 2016.

[55] H. Duminil-Copin, S. Goswami, A. Raoufi, F. Severo, and A. Yadin. Existence of phase transition for percolation using the gaussian free field. Duke Math. J., 169(18):3539–3563, 2020.

[56] H. Duminil-Copin, S. Goswami, P.-F. Rodriguez, and F. Severo. Equality of critical parameters for percolation of Gaussian free field level-sets. Preprint, available at arXiv:2002.07735, 2020.

[57] H. Duminil-Copin, A. Raoufi, and V. Tassion. Exponential decay of connection probabilities for subcritical Voronoi percolation in Rd. Probab. Theory Relat.

Fields, 173(1):479–490, 2019.

[58] H. Duminil-Copin, A. Raoufi, and V. Tassion. Sharp phase transition for the random-cluster and potts models via decision trees. Ann. of Math. (2), 189(1):75–99, 2019.

[59] H. Duminil-Copin, A. Raoufi, and V. Tassion. Subcritical phase ofd-dimensional Poisson–Boolean percolation and its vacant set. Annales Henri Lebesgue, 3:677–

700, 2020.

[60] H. Duminil-Copin, V. Sidoravicius, and V. Tassion. Continuity of the phase transition for planar random-cluster and Potts models with 1≤q ≤4. Commu-nications in Mathematical Physics, 349(1):47–107, 2017.

[61] H. Duminil-Copin and V. Tassion. A new proof of the sharpness of the phase transition for Bernoulli percolation and the Ising model. Comm. Math. Phys, 343(2):725–745, 2016.

[62] H. Duminil-Copin and V. Tassion. A note on Schramm’s locality conjecture for random-cluster models. Sojourns in Probability Theory and Statistical Physics -II, pages 123–134, 2019.

[63] R. Fitzner and R. van der Hofstad. Mean-field behavior for nearest-neighbor percolation ind >10. Electron. J. Probab., 22:65 pp., 2017.

[64] C. M. Fortuin and P. W. Kasteleyn. On the random-cluster model. I. Introduc-tion and relaIntroduc-tion to other models. Physica, 57:536–564, 1972.

[65] J. Fr¨ohlich and T. Spencer. Massless phases and symmetry restoration in abelian gauge theories and spin systems. Comm. Math. Phys., 83(3):411–454, 1982.

[66] J. Fr¨ohlich, B. Simon, and T. Spencer. Infrared bounds, phase transitions and continuous symmetry breaking. Comm. Math. Phys., 50(1):79–95, 1976.

[67] O. Garet. Percolation transition for some excursion sets. Electron. J. Probab., 9:no. 10, 255–292, 2004.

[68] A. Georgakopoulos and C. Panagiotis. Analyticity of the percolation density θ in all dimensions. Preprint, available at arXiv:2001.09178, 2020.

[69] S. Goswami, P.-F. Rodriguez, and F. Severo. On the radius of Gaussian free field excursion clusters. Preprint, available at arXiv:2101.02200, 2021.

[70] J.-B. Gou´er´e. Subcritical regimes in the poisson boolean model of continuum percolation. Ann. Probab., 36(4):1209–1220, 07 2008.

[71] G. Grimmett. The random-cluster model, volume 333 ofGrundlehren der Math-ematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences].

Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006.

[72] G. Grimmett and Z. Li. Strict inequalities for connective constants of transitive graphs. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 28(3):1306–1333, 2014.

[73] G. Grimmett and C. Newman. Percolation in ∞+ 1 dimensions. Disorder in physical systems, pages 167–190, 1990.

[74] G. R. Grimmett. Percolation, volume 321 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 1999.

[75] G. R. Grimmett and J. M. Marstrand. The supercritical phase of percolation is well behaved. Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 430(1879):439–457, 1990.

[76] G. R. Grimmett and A. M. Stacey. Critical probabilities for site and bond percolation models. Ann. Probab., 26(4):1788–1812, 1998.

[77] M. Gromov. Groups of polynomial growth and expanding maps. Publications Math´ematiques de l’Institut des Hautes ´Etudes Scientifiques, 53(1):53–78, 1981.

[78] O. H¨aggstr¨om and Y. Peres. Monotonicity of uniqueness for percolation on Cayley graphs: all infinite clusters are born simultaneously. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 113(2):273–285, 1999.

[79] P. Hall. Finiteness conditions for soluble groups. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 3(1):419–436, 1954.

[80] P. Hall. On continuum percolation. Ann. Probab., 13(4):1250–1266, 11 1985.

[81] T. Hara and G. Slade. Mean-field critical behaviour for percolation in high dimensions. Comm. Math. Phys., 128(2):333–391, 1990.

[82] T. E. Harris. A lower bound for the critical probability in a certain percolation process. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 56:13–20, 1960.

[83] J. Hermon and T. Hutchcroft. Supercritical percolation on nonamenable graphs:

Isoperimetry, analyticity, and exponential decay of the cluster size distribution.

Preprint, available at arXiv:1904.10448, 2019.

[84] O. H¨aggstr¨om and J. Jonasson. Uniqueness and non-uniqueness in percolation theory. Probab. Surveys, 3:289–344, 2006.

[85] T. Hutchcroft. Critical percolation on any quasi-transitive graph of exponential growth has no infinite clusters. Comptes Rendus Mathematique, 354(9):944–947, 2016.

[86] T. Hutchcroft. Locality of the critical probability for transitive graphs of expo-nential growth. Ann. Probab., 48(3):1352–1371, 2020.

[87] T. Kennedy and C. King. Spontaneous symmetry breakdown in the abelian higgs model. Comm. Math. Phys., 104(2):327–347, 1986.

[88] H. Kesten. The critical probability of bond percolation on the square lattice equals 12. Comm. Math. Phys., 74(1):41–59, 1980.

[89] H. Kesten. Analyticity properties and power law estimates of functions in per-colation theory. Journal of Statistical Physics, 25(4):717–756, 1981.

[90] H. Kesten.Percolation theory for mathematicians, volume 2 ofProgress in Prob-ability and Statistics. Birkh¨auser Boston, Mass., 1982.

[91] H. Kesten. Scaling relations for 2D-percolation.Comm. Math. Phys., 109(1):109–

156, 1987.

[92] H. Kesten. Asymptotics in high dimensions for percolation. In Disorder in physical systems, Oxford Sci. Publ., pages 219–240. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1990.

[93] H. Kesten and Y. Zhang. The probability of a large finite cluster in supercritical Bernoulli percolation. Ann. Probab., 18(2):537–555, 1990.

[94] G. Kozma. Personal communication.

[95] G. Kozma. Percolation, perimetry, planarity. Revista Matem´atica Iberoameri-cana, 2:671–676, 2005.

[96] G. F. Lawler. Intersections of random walks. Probability and its Applications.

Birkh¨auser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1991.

[97] Y. Le Jan. Amas de lacets markoviens. Comptes Rendus Mathematique, 350(13):643 – 646, 2012.

[98] Y. Le Jan and S. Lemaire. Markovian loop clusters on graphs. Illinois J. Math., 57(2):525–558, 2013.

[99] J. Lebowitz and A. Mazel. Improved Peierls argument for high-dimensional Ising models. Journal of statistical physics, 90(3-4):1051–1059, 1998.

[100] J. L. Lebowitz and H. Saleur. Percolation in strongly correlated systems.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 138(1):194 – 205, 1986.

[101] T. M. Liggett, R. H. Schonmann, and A. M. Stacey. Domination by product measures. Ann. Probab., 25(1):71–95, 1997.

[102] T. Lupu. From loop clusters and random interlacements to the free field. Ann.

Probab., 44(3):2117–2146, 2016.

[103] T. Lupu and W. Werner. A note on Ising random currents, Ising-FK, loop-soups and the Gaussian free field. Electron. Commun. Probab., 21:7 pp., 2016.

[104] R. Lyons. Random walks and the growth of groups. Comptes rendus de l’Acad´emie des sciences. S´erie 1, Math´ematique, 320(11):1361–1366, 1995.

[105] R. Lyons, B. Morris, and O. Schramm. Ends in uniform spanning forests. Elec-tron. J. Probab., 13:1702–1725, 2008.

[106] R. Lyons and Y. Peres. Probability on Trees and Networks. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

[107] R. Lyons and O. Schramm. Indistinguishability of percolation clusters. Ann.

Probab., 27(4):1809–1836, 10 1999.

[108] V. I. Marinov and J. L. Lebowitz. Percolation in the harmonic crystal and voter model in three dimensions. Phys. Rev. E, 74:031120, Sep 2006.

[108] V. I. Marinov and J. L. Lebowitz. Percolation in the harmonic crystal and voter model in three dimensions. Phys. Rev. E, 74:031120, Sep 2006.

Dans le document Interpolation schemes in percolation theory (Page 132-146)