PreprintCited by 21Stochastic processes and statistical mechanicsTheoretical and Computational PhysicsGeometric Analysis and Curvature Flows

The phase transition for planar Gaussian percolation models without FKG

Open access
Muirhead, Stephen, Rivera, Alejandro, Vanneuville, Hugo, Köhler-Schindler, Laurin·2020·arXiv

Abstract

We develop techniques to study the phase transition for planar Gaussian percolation models that are not (necessarily) positively correlated. These models lack the property of positive associations (also known as the `FKG inequality'), and hence many classical arguments in percolation theory do not apply. More precisely, we consider a smooth stationary centred planar Gaussian field $f$ and, given a level $\ell \in \mathbb{R}$, we study the connectivity properties of the excursion set $\{f \geq -\ell\}$. We prove the existence of a phase transition at the critical level $\ell_{crit}=0$ under only symmetry and (very mild) correlation decay assumptions, which are satisfied by the random plane wave for instance. As a consequence, all non-zero level lines are bounded almost surely, although our result does not settle the boundedness of zero level lines (`no percolation at criticality'). To show our main result: (i) we prove a general sharp threshold criterion, inspired by works of Chatterjee, that states that `sharp thresholds are equivalent to the delocalisation of the threshold location'; (ii) we prove threshold delocalisation for crossing events at large scales -- at this step we obtain a sharp threshold result but without being able to locate the threshold -- and (iii) to identify the threshold, we adapt Tassion's RSW theory replacing the FKG inequality by a sprinkling procedure. Although some arguments are specific to the Gaussian setting, many steps are very general and we hope that our techniques may be adapted to analyse other models without FKG.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2010.11770

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. K.S. Alexander. Boundedness of level lines for two-dimensional random fields. Ann. Probab., 24(4):1653-1674, 1996.
  2. D. Ahlberg and J.E. Steif. Scaling limits for the threshold window: When does a monotone Boolean function flip its outcome? With an appendix by G. Pete. Ann. I. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat., 53(4):2135-2161, 2017.
  3. R.J. Adler and J.E. Taylor. Random Fields and Geometry. Springer, 2007.
  4. J.M. Azaïs and M. Wschebor. Level Sets and Extrema of Random Processes and Fields. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2009.
  5. E. Bogomolny, R. Dubertrand, and C. Schmit. SLE description of the nodal lines of random wave- functions. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 40(3):381, 2006.
  6. V. Beffara and D. Gayet. Percolation of random nodal lines. Publ. Math. IHES, 126(1):131-176, 2017.
  7. D. Beliaev and S. Muirhead. Discretisation schemes for level sets of planar Gaussian fields. Commun. Math. Phys., 359(3):869-913, 2018.
  8. D. Beliaev, M. McAuley, and S. Muirhead. On the number of excursion sets of planar Gaussian fields. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 178(3):655-698, 2020.
  9. D. Beliaev, M. McAuley, and S. Muirhead. Smoothness and monotonicity of the excursion set density of planar Gaussian fields. Electron. J. Probab., 25(93):1-37, 2020.
  10. D. Beliaev, S. Muirhead, and A. Rivera. A covariance formula for topological events of smooth Gaussian fields. Ann. Probab., 48(6):2845-2893, 2020.
  11. E. Bogomolny and S. Schmit. Percolation model for nodal domains of chaotic wave functions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 88(11):114102, 2002.
  12. D. Cordero-Erausquin and M. Ledoux. Hypercontractive measures, Talagrand's inequality, and influences. In Geometric aspects of functional analysis, pages 169-189. Springer, 2012.
  13. S. Chatterjee. Chaos, concentration, and multiple valleys. arXiv preprint arXiv:0810.4221, 2008. · arXiv
  14. S. Chatterjee. Superconcentration and related topics. Springer, 2014.
  15. H. Duminil-Copin, A. Raoufi, and V. Tassion. Sharp phase transition for the random-cluster and Potts models via decision trees. Ann. Math., 189(1):75-99, 2019.
  16. H. Duminil-Copin, A. Rivera, Pierre-F. Rodriguez, and H. Vanneuville. Existence of an unbounded nodal hypersurface for smooth Gaussian fields in dimension d ≥ 3. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.08008, 2021. · arXiv
  17. B.T. Graham and G.R Grimmett. Influence and sharp-threshold theorems for monotonic measures. Ann. Probab., 34(5):1726-1745, 2006.
  18. A. Gandolfi, M. Keane, and L. Russo. On the uniqueness of the infinite occupied cluster in depen- dent two-dimensional site percolation. Ann. Probab., 16(3):1147-1157, 1988.
  19. Mark Goresky and Robert MacPherson. Stratified morse theory. Springer, 1988.
  20. G.R. Grimmett and J.M. Marstrand. The supercritical phase of percolation is well behaved. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., Ser. A430:439-457, 1990.
  21. G.R. Grimmett. Percolation (Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften). Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1999.
  22. T.E. Harris. A lower bound for the critical probability in a certain percolation process. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 56:13-20, 1960.
  23. M.B. Isichenko. Percolation, statistical topography, and transport in random media. Rev. Mod. Pys., 64(4):961-1043, 1992.
  24. S. Janson. Gaussian Hilbert spaces, volume 129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
  25. M. Kratz and J. León. Central limit theorems for level functionals of stationary Gaussian processes and fields. J. Theor. Probab, 14(3):639-672, 2001.
  26. Laurin Köhler-Schindler and Vincent Tassion. Crossing probabilities for planar percolation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.04618, 2020. · arXiv
  27. S.A. Molchanov and A.K. Stepanov. Percolation in random fields. I. Theor. Math. Phys., 55(2):478- 484, 1983.
  28. S.A. Molchanov and A.K. Stepanov. Percolation in random fields. II. Theor. Math. Phys., 55(3):592- 599, 1983.
  29. S. Muirhead and F. Severo. Percolation of strongly correlated Gaussian fields I. decay of subcritical connection probabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10723, 2022. · arXiv
  30. S. Muirhead and H. Vanneuville. The sharp phase transition for level set percolation of smooth planar Gaussian fields. Ann. I. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat., 56(2):1358-1390, 2020.
  31. I. Nourdin, G. Peccati, and M. Rossi. Nodal statistics of planar random waves. Commun. Math. Phys., 369(1):99-151, 2019.
  32. F. Nazarov and M. Sodin. On the number of nodal domains of random spherical harmonics. Amer. J. Math., 131(5):1337-1357, 2009.
  33. F. Nazarov and M. Sodin. Asymptotic laws for the spatial distribution and the number of connected components of zero sets of Gaussian random functions. J. Math. Phys. Anal. Geo., 12(3):205-278, 2016.
  34. L.D. Pitt. Positively correlated normal variables are associated. Ann. Probab., 10(2):496-499, 1982.
  35. A. Rivera and H. Vanneuville. Quasi-independence for nodal lines. Ann. I. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat., 55(3):1679-1711, 2019.
  36. M. Sodin. Lectures on random nodal portraits. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics: Probability and Statistical Physics in St. Petersburg, 91:395-422, 2016.
  37. M. Talagrand. On Russo's approximate zero-one law. Ann. Probab., 22(3):1576-1587, 1994.
  38. V. Tassion. Crossing probabilities for Voronoi percolation. Ann. Probab., 44(5):3385-3398, 2016.
  39. A. Weinrib. Long-range correlated percolation. Phys. Rev. B, 29(1):387, 1984.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Muirhead, S., Rivera, A., Vanneuville, H., & Köhler-Schindler, L.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
51
Issue
5
Pages
1785-1829
ISSN
0091-1798 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3094038065
Cited by
21
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
FWCI
6.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Annals of Probability (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (175505)
  • Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Mathematical Physics › Stochastic processes and statistical mechanics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Condensed Matter Physics › Theoretical and Computational Physics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Geometric Analysis and Curvature Flows
Keywords
phase transitions, FKG inequality, sharp threshold, excursion sets, random plane waves, level lines, sprinkling, positive association

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review