D Ising (X, Y) E (Z) X y

NON-CONSTANT GROUND CONFIGURATIONS IN THE DISORDERED
FERROMAGNET
MICHAL BASSAN, SHONI GILBOA, AND RON PELED

arXiv:2309.06437v1 [math-ph] 12 Sep 2023
Abstract. The disordered ferromagnet is a disordered version of the ferromagnetic Ising

model in which the coupling constants are non-negative quenched random. A ground config-
uration is an infinite-volume configuration whose energy cannot be reduced by finite mod-
ifications. It is a long-standing challenge to ascertain whether the disordered ferromagnet
on ZD admits non-constant ground configurations. We answer this affirmatively in dimen-
sions D ≥ 4, when the coupling constants are sampled independently from a sufficiently
concentrated distribution. The obtained ground configurations are further shown to be
translation-covariant with respect to ZD−1 translations of the disorder.
1. Introduction
Disordered ferromagnet. The Ising model is among the most basic models of statistical
physics. On the hypercubic lattice ZD , it is described by the formal Hamiltonian
X
H Ising (σ) := − σx σy (1.1)
{x,y}∈E(ZD )
on spin configurations σ : ZD → {−1, 1}, where we write E(ZD ) for the edge set of ZD .
In this paper we study the disordered ferromagnet (or ferromagnetic random-bond Ising
model), a version of the Ising model described by the formal Hamiltonian
X
H η (σ) := − η{x,y} σx σy , (1.2)
{x,y}∈E(ZD )
in which the coupling field η = (ηe )e∈E(ZD ) is a non-negative quenched random field. We refer
to η as the (quenched) disorder and restrict throughout to the case that it is an independent
field. We first consider the isotropic case, in which each ηe is sampled independently from
the same probability distribution ν, termed the disorder distribution.
Ground configurations. Our primary interest is in the set of ground configrations, or zero-
temperature configurations, of the disordered ferromagnet1. Precisely, a configuration σ is
said to be a ground configuration for the coupling field η if it holds that H η (σ) ≤ H η (σ ′ )
for every configuration σ ′ which differs from σ in finitely many places. To make sense of
the definition note that although H η (σ) is ill-defined, as a non-convergent infinite sum, the
difference H η (σ) − H η (σ ′ ) is well defined whenever σ and σ ′ differ in finitely many places.
As the coupling constants are non-negative, it is clear that the constant configurations,
σ ≡ +1 and σ ≡ −1, are ground configurations of the disordered ferromagnet. We study the
following basic challenge:
1The terminology ground states is commonly used in the literature, but with two different meanings: while
it may refer to the ground configurations defined here, it may also refer to probability measures over ground
configurations. We use the terminology of ground configurations to avoid this ambiguity.
1
2 M. BASSAN, S. GILBOA, AND R. PELED
Question 1.1. Does the disordered ferromagnet admit non-constant ground configurations?
Ergodicity implies that existence of non-constant ground configurations is an event of prob-
ability 0 or 1 for each dimension and disorder distribution ν. The case of one dimension
(D = 1) is simple: non-constant ground configurations exist if and only if ν has an atom
at the bottom of its support. However, the question has remained open in all higher di-
mensions. Much attention has been given to the two-dimensional case (D = 2), where it is
shown that existence of non-constant ground configurations is equivalent to the existence of
infinite bigeodesics in a dual first-passage percolation model (see, e.g., [N97, Page 8]). Such
bigeodesics are believed not to exist under mild assumptions on the disorder distribution,
whence the answer to Question 1.1 is expected to be negative in D = 2. However, so far this
is only proved under assumptions on the model which are still unverified [A20], or for other,
related, models possessing a special integrable structure [BHS22,BBS20,GJRA21,BS22]. The
higher-dimensional case, and the closely-related question of localization of domain walls of the
disordered ferromagnet (see Question 1.6 below), were studied in the physics and mathematics
literature by several authors, including Huse–Henley [HH85], Bovier–Fröhlich–Glaus [BFG86],
Fisher [F86], Bovier–Picco [BP91], Bovier–Külske [BK94, BK96], Wehr [W97] and Wehr–
Wasielak [WW16]. These studies predict, from non-rigorous methods [HH85, BFG86, F86]
and from rigorous studies of simplified interface models [BP91, BK94] (see also Section 1.1),
an affirmative answer to Question 1.1 in dimensions D ≥ 4 for sufficiently concentrated disor-
der distributions ν (see Section 9 for a discussion of other settings). In this work we confirm
this prediction.
Existence result. To state our results, we need to give a precise meaning to the idea that the
disorder distribution ν is sufficiently concentrated. To this end, we define a notion of “width”
of the distribution, applicable to either of the following two classes of disorder distributions:
(1) Compact support: If the distribution ν has compact support, we set
diam(ν) := min{b − a : b ≥ a and ν([a, b]) = 1} (1.3)
and otherwise we set diam(ν) := ∞.
(2) Lipschitz image of a Gaussian: If there exists a Lipschitz continuous f : R → [0, ∞)
such that ν = f (N (0, 1)) (i.e., ν is the push-forward through f of the standard normal
distribution) then set
Lip(ν) := inf{Lip(f ) : f : R → [0, ∞) is Lipschitz and ν = f (N (0, 1))}, (1.4)
|f (t)−f (s)|
with Lip(f ) := supt6=s |t−s| being the Lipschitz constant of f . Otherwise, set
Lip(ν) := ∞.
We then define the “width” of the disorder distribution ν by
wid(ν) := min{diam(ν), Lip(ν)}. (1.5)
We further restrict attention to disorder distributions whose support is bounded away from
zero and to this end we denote by
min(supp(ν)) := max{α : ν([α, ∞)) = 1} (1.6)
the smallest point of the support. Lastly, to avoid issues with uniqueness of ground configu-
rations in finite volume, we assume that ν has no atoms.
The following is our main result.
NON-CONSTANT GROUND CONFIGURATIONS IN THE DISORDERED FERROMAGNET 3
Theorem 1.2. There exists c > 0 such that the following holds in dimensions D ≥ 4. Con-
sider the (isotropic) disordered ferromagnet with disorder distribution ν. If min(supp(ν)) > 0,
ν has no atoms and √
wid(ν) D
≤c (1.7)
min(supp(ν)) log D
then the disordered ferromagnet admits non-constant ground configurations.
We make two remarks regarding the theorem:
(1) Condition (1.7) is our notion of ν being sufficiently concentrated. It is invariant to
dilations of ν, as it should be since multiplying all coupling constants (ηe ) in the Hamil-
tonian (1.2) by a positive constant does not change the set of ground configurations
of the disordered ferromagnet (or its Gibbs states).
The condition becomes easier to satisfy as the dimension D increases. In partic-
ular, the theorem shows that for any non-atomic disorder distribution ν satisfying
min(supp(ν)) > 0 and wid(ν) < ∞ there exists D0 (ν) ≥ 4 such that the disordered
ferromagnet with disorder distribution ν admits non-constant ground configurations
in all dimensions D ≥ D0 (ν).
Condition (1.7) also becomes easier to satisfy if a positive constant is added to ν.
More precisely, we see that for any non-atomic distribution µ supported in [0, ∞)
and satisfying wid(µ) < ∞ and any D0 ≥ 4 there exists C0 (µ, D0 ) ≥ 0 such that
the following holds: for all C ≥ C0 (µ, D0 ), the disordered ferromagnet with disorder
distribution ν = µ + C admits non-constant ground configurations in all dimensions
D ≥ D0 (where µ + C is the push-forward of µ by the translation x 7→ x + C).
As an example, there exists C > 0 such that the disordered ferromagnet whose
disorder distribution is uniform on the interval [C, C + 1] admits non-constant ground
configurations in all dimensions D ≥ 4.
(2) For wid(ν) to be finite, the disorder distribution needs to be either of compact support
or a Lipschitz image of a Gaussian. The latter possibility allows some distributions
of unbounded support such as the positive part of a Gaussian (plus a constant, so
that min(supp(ν)) > 0), and can also lead to a smaller value of wid(ν) for some
distributions of compact support.
Covariant ground configurations. Once the existence of non-constant ground config-
urations has been established, it is natural to turn to more refined properties. In the non-
disordered setup, a key role is played by the notion of invariant Gibbs states (e.g., translation-
invariant Gibbs states). The corresponding notion in the disordered setup is that of covariant
states (going back at least to the pioneering work of Aizenman–Wehr [AW90], who further
introduced covariant metastates). We apply this notion to ground configurations as follows:
Let G be a group of automorphisms of the lattice ZD (each g ∈ G is composed of translations,
rotations and reflections). We naturally define
g(η){x,y} := ηg{x,y} = η{gx,gy} and g(σ)x := σgx (1.8)
D
for coupling fields η and configurations σ. Let C ⊂ [0, ∞)E(Z ) be a measurable set of
coupling fields which is G-invariant in the sense that g(η) ∈ C for each automorphism g ∈ G
and coupling field η ∈ C. A G-covariant ground configuration defined on C is a measurable
D
function T : C → {−1, 1}Z which satisfies the following properties for all η ∈ C:
(1) T (η) is a ground configuration for the disordered ferromagnet with coupling field η.
(2) T (g(η)) = g(T (η)) for each automorphism g ∈ G.

If, moreover, T (η) is non-constant for all η ∈ C we say that T is a non-constant G-covariant
ground configuration defined on C.
When a disorder distribution ν has been specified (in the isotropic setup), we may refer to
a G-covariant ground configuration without reference to its domain C. It is then understood
that the (ηe ) are sampled independently from ν and that the G-covariant ground configuration
is defined on some G-invariant C satisfying that P(η ∈ C) = 1. The analogous comment applies
to the anistropic setup discussed below, when the two disorder distributions ν k and ν ⊥ have
been specified.
Wehr–Wasielak [WW16] prove, in all dimensions D ≥ 1, that when the disorder distribution
ν is non-atomic and has finite mean (or, more generally, sufficiently light tail) then there
are no non-constant ZD -translation-covariant ground configurations (ZD -translation-covariant
means that the group G is the translation group of ZD ). More generally, they prove that ZD -
translation-covariant ground metastates (i.e., G-covariant probability distributions on ground
configurations) must be supported on the constant configurations.
Our next result shows that non-constant G-covariant ground configurations may exist al-
ready when G is one rank lower than the full translation group of ZD .
Theorem 1.3. Let GD−1 be the group of automorphisms of ZD which preserve the last coor-
dinate, i.e.,
GD−1 := {g automorphism of ZD : (gx)D = xD for all x = (x1 , . . . , xD )}. (1.9)
Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.2 (for a sufficiently small c > 0), there exists a non-
constant GD−1 -covariant ground configuration.
The anisotropic disordered ferromagnet. Our proof naturally extends to an anisotropic

setup, in which there is a distinguished lattice axis and the coupling constants of edges in the
direction of that axis are sampled from a different disorder distribution. We next describe
this setup (distinguishing the Dth axis).
It is sometimes convenient to identify edges of ZD with their dual plaquettes, i.e., to identify
{x, y} ∈ E(ZD ) with the (D − 1)-dimensional plaquette separating the unit cubes centered
at x and y. With this identification in mind we partition the plaquettes into those which are
parallel to the hyperplane spanned by the first D − 1 coordinate axes and those which are
perpendicular to it. Thus we define
E k (ZD ) := {{x, y} ∈ E(ZD ) : x − y ∈ {−eD , eD }},
(1.10)
E ⊥ (ZD ) := {{x, y} ∈ E(ZD ) : x − y ∈
/ {−eD , eD }},
where e1 , e2 , . . . , eD are the standard unit vectors in ZD .

By the anisotropic disordered ferromagnet we mean that the disorder η is sampled inde-
pendently from two disorder distributions, ν k and ν ⊥ . Precisely, (ηe )e∈E(ZD ) are independent,
with ηe sampled from ν k when e ∈ E k (ZD ), and sampled from ν ⊥ when e ∈ E ⊥ (ZD ). The
isotropic setup is recovered when ν k = ν ⊥ .
Our standard assumptions on the disorder distributions are
min(supp(ν k )) > 0, wid(ν k ) < ∞ and ν k has no atoms,
(1.11)
min(supp(ν ⊥ )) > 0, wid(ν ⊥ ) < ∞.
We do not assume that ν ⊥ has no atoms (and, in fact, the case that ν ⊥ is supported on a
single point is of interest as it leads to the disordered Solid-On-Solid model; see Remark 1.11).
In the anisotropic setup, condition (1.7) of Theorem 1.2 is replaced by condition (1.14)
below, which is based on the following quantity:

1 1 1
κ(ν k , ν ⊥ , d) := + wid(ν k )2 + ⊥ 2 wid(ν ⊥ )2 (1.12)
αk α⊥ d(α⊥ )2 (α )
where, for brevity, we denote
αk := min(supp(ν k )) and α⊥ := min(supp(ν ⊥ )). (1.13)
Theorem 1.4. There exists c0 > 0 such that the following holds in dimensions D ≥ 4. In the
anisotropic disordered ferromagnet, suppose the disorder distributions ν k and ν ⊥ satisfy (1.11)
and
α⊥

k ⊥ D
κ(ν , ν , D − 1) 1 + k ≤ c0 . (1.14)
α (log D)2
Then the anisotropic disordered ferromagnet admits non-constant ground configurations.
Moreover, there exists a non-constant GD−1 -covariant ground configuration, where GD−1 is
given by (1.9).
Theorem 1.2 and Theorem 1.3 arise as the special case of Theorem 1.4 in which ν k = ν ⊥ .
We thus focus in the sequel on the anisotropic setup.
Similarly to condition (1.7), we make the following remark regarding condition (1.14). For
any pair of disorder distributions ν k and ν ⊥ satisfying min(supp(ν k )) > 0, min(supp(ν ⊥ )) > 0,
wid(ν k ) < ∞ and wid(ν ⊥ ) < ∞, condition (1.14) will be satisfied in either sufficiently high
dimensions D, or in any fixed dimension D ≥ 4 provided ν ⊥ and ν k are replaced by ν ⊥ + C
and ν k + C, respectively, for a sufficiently large C.
Dobrushin boundary conditions. Our proof of Theorem 1.4 proceeds through an explicit
construction of a non-constant ground configuration. Specifically, we will show that the
infinite-volume limit of the model with Dobrushin boundary conditions leads to such a ground
configuration. In this section we explain the relevant result, following required notation.
We first generalize the notion of ground configuration to allow boundary conditions. Let
∆ ⊂ ZD and ρ : ZD → {−1, 1}. The configuration space in the domain ∆ with boundary
conditions ρ is
Ω∆,ρ := {σ : ZD → {−1, 1} : σx = ρx for x ∈ / ∆}. (1.15)
A ground configuration in Ω∆,ρ (for the coupling field η) is any σ ∈ Ω∆,ρ with the property
that H η (σ) ≤ H η (σ ′ ) for every configuration σ ′ ∈ Ω∆,ρ which differs from σ in finitely many
places. (noting, again, that the difference H η (σ) − H η (σ ′ ) is then well defined). It is possible
for multiple ground configurations to exist even when ∆ is finite, though this will not be the
case when η is generic in a suitable sense (see Section 4.1.1).
We proceed to discuss ground configurations with Dobrushin boundary conditions. Assume
henceforth that the dimension D ≥ 2 and introduce the convenient notation
d := D − 1. (1.16)
We often tacitly use the convention to denote vertices of ZD by a pair (v, k) with v ∈ Zd and
k ∈ Z. By Dobrushin boundary conditions we mean ρDob : ZD → {−1, 1} given by
ρDob
(v,k) := sign(k − 1/2) (1.17)
where sign denotes the sign function.

The following simple lemma shows that there is a unique ground configuration with Do-
brushin boundary conditions on infinite cylinders of the form Λ × Z for Λ ⊂ Zd finite, under
suitable conditions on the disorder distributions.
Lemma 1.5. In the anisotropic disordered ferromagnet, suppose the disorder distributions
ν k and ν ⊥ satisfy (1.11). For each finite Λ ⊂ Zd there exists almost surely a unique ground
configuration in ΩΛ×Z,ρ , that we denote σ η,Λ,Dob . Moreover, σxη,Λ,Dob = ρDob
Dob
x for all but
finitely many x ∈ ZD .
The ground configuration σ η,Λ,Dob necessarily contains an interface separating the +1
boundary values imposed at the “top” of the cylinder Λ × Z from the −1 boundary val-
ues imposed at the “bottom” of the cylinder. To derive the existence of non-constant ground
configurations in the whole of ZD from these semi-infinite-volume ground configurations, the
fundamental issue to be understood is whether this interface remains localized in the sense of
the following question.
Question 1.6. Is the interface under Dobrushin boundary conditions localized, uniformly in
the finite volume Λ? More precisely, is it the case that for each ε > 0 there exists a finite
∆ ⊂ ZD such that
P(σ η,Λ,Dob is constant on ∆) < ε for all finite Λ ⊂ Zd . (1.18)
For the set ∆ in the question, one may have in mind, e.g., the set {(0, . . . , 0, j) : −k ≤ j ≤ k}
with k large.
A positive answer to Question 1.6 implies a positive answer to Question 1.1. Indeed, by
compactness, the distribution of the pair (η, σ η,Λ,Dob ) admits sub-sequential limits along any
sequence of finite volumes (Λn ) increasing to Zd . Any such limiting distribution is supported
on pairs (η ′ , σ) with η ′ having the distribution of η and σ an infinite-volume ground configu-
ration for η ′ . A positive answer to the question ensures that σ is almost surely non-constant.
The answer to Question 1.6 is known to be negative for D = 2 in the isotropic setup under
mild assumptions on the disorder distribution ν; this is essentially the Benjamini–Kalai–
Schramm midpoint problem [BKS03], resolved conditionally by Damron–Hanson [DH17], un-
conditionally by Ahlberg–Hoffman [AH16] and quantitatively by Dembin, Elboim and the
third author [DEP22]. The following theorem, our main result on Dobrushin interfaces,
proves that the answer is positive in dimensions D ≥ 4 for sufficiently concentrated disorder
distributions. Further discussion on Question 1.6, including the possibility of a roughening
transition in the disorder concentration, is in Section 9.
Theorem 1.7 (Localization of Dobrushin interface). There exist c0 , c > 0 such that the
following holds in dimensions D ≥ 4. In the anisotropic disordered ferromagnet, suppose the
disorder distributions ν k and ν ⊥ satisfy (1.11) and condition (1.14) holds (with the constant
c0 ). Then for all finite Λ ⊂ Zd and all (v, k) ∈ ZD ,
c d−2

η,Λ,Dob
P σ(v,k) 6= ρDob
(v,k) ≤ exp − |k| d−1 (1.19)
d2 κ
with κ = κ(ν k , ν ⊥ , d) defined in (1.12). Moreover, for small k we have the improved depen-
d−1
dence on dimension: if |k| ≤ 4 d then
c
η,Λ,Dob
P σ(v,k) 6= ρDob
(v,k) ≤ exp − |k| . (1.20)
κ
We add that the theorem resolves a version of [DG23, Open question 1] (see Section 1.1.5).
We also remark that the power of |k| in (1.19) is probably not optimal and may be increased
with further optimization of the proof.
As explained above, Theorem 1.7 already suffices to deduce the existence of non-constant
ground configurations. To go further and prove the existence of a non-constant covariant
ground configuration we employ the next result, which proves the almost sure convergence
of the semi-infinite-volume ground configurations with Dobrushin boundary conditions to an
infinite-volume limit.
Theorem 1.8 (Convergence). Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.7 (for a sufficiently small
c0 > 0) there exists a configuration σ η,Dob such that for every fixed sequence (Λn ) of finite
subsets of Zd satisfying that Λn ⊃ {−n, −n + 1, . . . , n}d for each n, almost surely,
for each v ∈ Zd there exists n0 such that σ η,Λn ,Dob |{v}×Z ≡ σ η,Dob |{v}×Z for all n ≥ n0 .
(1.21)
The following is an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.7 and Theorem 1.8.
Corollary 1.9. There exists c > 0 such that the following holds under the assumptions of The-
orem 1.7 (for a sufficiently small c0 > 0). The configuration σ η,Dob of Theorem 1.8 (possibly
modified on a set of zero probability) is a non-constant GD−1 -covariant ground configuration,
where GD−1 is given by (1.9). In addition, for all (v, k) ∈ ZD ,
c d−2

η,Dob
P σ(v,k) 6= ρDob
(v,k) ≤ exp − |k| d−1 (1.22)
d2 κ
with κ = κ(ν k , ν ⊥ , d) defined in (1.12). Moreover, for small k we have the improved depen-
d−1
dence on dimension: if |k| ≤ 4 d then
c
η,Dob
P σ(v,k) 6= ρDob
(v,k) ≤ exp − |k| . (1.23)
κ
Theorem 1.4 is an immediate consequence of the last corollary.
Our techniques further allow to quantify the rate of convergence in Theorem 1.8 and to
bound the rate of correlation decay in the infinite-volume configuration σ η,Dob . We record
these in our final result.
Theorem 1.10. There exist C, c > 0 such that the following holds under the assumptions of
Theorem 1.7 (for a sufficiently small c0 > 0). Let
( )! d−2
k ⊥ c αk d−1
c(ν , ν , d) := 2 min , 1 (1.24)

κd α⊥
using the notation (1.12) (with κ = κ(ν k , ν ⊥ , d)) and (1.13). Let also Λ(k) := {−k, . . . , k}d
for integer k ≥ 0.
(1) Let L1 > L0 ≥ 0 integer. Let Λ ⊂ Zd be a finite subset containing Λ(L1 ). Then
d−2

P σ η,Dob |Λ(L0 )×Z 6≡ σ η,Λ,Dob |Λ(L0 )×Z ≤ C exp −c(ν k , ν ⊥ , d) (L1 − L0 ) d . (1.25)
(2) Let u, v ∈ Zd and L ≥ 0 integer, and suppose ku−vk∞ > 2L. Let f, g : {−1, 1}Λ(L)×Z →
[−1, 1] be measurable. Then
Cov(f (σ η,Dob |(u+Λ(L))×Z ), g(σ η,Dob |(v+Λ(L))×Z ))

d−2

≤ C exp −c(ν k , ν ⊥ , d) (ku − vk∞ − 2L) d (1.26)
where Cov(X, Y ) denotes the covariance of the random variables X, Y .
(3) The process (η, σ η,Dob ) is Gd -invariant. Moreover, define the Zd -tail sigma algebra
of (η, σ η,Dob ) as the intersection of the sigma algebras (Tn ), where Tn is generated
by σ η,Dob |(Zd \Λ(n))×Z and by (ηe ) for the edges e = {(u, k), (v, ℓ)} with {u, v} ∩ (Zd \
Λ(n)) 6= ∅. Then the Zd -tail sigma algebra of (η, σ η,Dob ) is trivial. In particular,
(η, σ η,Dob ) is ergodic with respect to the group of translations in the first d coordinates.
Theorem 1.7 is proved in Section 4.3, Theorem 1.8, Corollary 1.9 and Theorem 1.10 are
proved in Section 8 and Lemma 1.5 is proved in Appendix B.
1.1. Background.
1.1.1. Localization predictions. The domain walls of the disordered Ising ferromagnet were
studied by Huse–Henley [HH85], Bovier–Fröhlich–Glaus [BFG86] and Fisher [F86] using meth-
ods which are not mathematically rigorous. They predicted that the interface with Dobrushin
boundary conditions is rough in dimensions 2 ≤ D ≤ 3, is localized in dimensions D ≥ 5,
and, for sufficiently concentrated disorder, is also localized in dimension D = 4.
1.1.2. Disordered Solid-On-Solid model. The following simplified model for the interface under
Dobrushin boundary conditions is considered by [HH85, BFG86]: The interface is described
by a (height) function ϕ : Zd → Z, whose energy is given by the formal “disordered Solid-On-
Solid (SOS)” Hamiltonian
X X
H SOS,ζ (ϕ) := |ϕu − ϕv | + ζv,ϕv (1.27)
{u,v}∈E(Zd ) v∈Zd
where ζ : Zd × Z → R is an environment describing the quenched disorder. This model is

obtained from the disordered ferromagnet with two approximations: (i) It is assumed that
the interface in D = d + 1 dimensions has no overhangs, i.e., it may be described by a
height function above a d-dimensional base, (ii) all the coupling constants corresponding to
perpendicular plaquettes (i.e., all the η{u,v} for {u, v} ∈ E ⊥ (ZD )) are set equal (with the
normalization of (1.27) they are set equal to 1/2 while ζv,k := 2η{v,k},{v,k+1} ).
Remark 1.11. In fact, as part of the analysis of this paper, we prove the (possibly surprising)
fact that at zero temperature the no overhangs approximation (i) is actually a consequence
of the equal perpendicular couplings approximation (ii) (see Lemma 3.1). Thus, our main
results for the anistropic disordered ferromagnet cover also the disordered SOS model (1.27),
as the special case in which the disorder distribution ν ⊥ is a delta measure at 1/2 (however,
in this special case our proof may be greatly simplified due to the no overhangs property).
A mathematically-rigorous study of the disordered SOS model (1.27) was carried out by
Bovier–Külske [BK94, BK96], following an earlier analysis by Bovier–Picco [BP91] of a hi-
erarchical version of the model (see also [BK92, BK93]). It was shown in [BK94] that in
each dimension d ≥ 3, at low temperature (including zero temperature), when the (ζv,· )v∈Zd
are independent and identically distributed, the sequence k 7→ ζv,k is stationary for each v
(this is more general than being independent!) and the ζv,k are sufficiently concentrated, the
finite-volume Gibbs measures of the Hamiltonian (1.27) converge, on a non-random sequence
of volumes, to a limiting infinite-volume Gibbs measure, ζ-almost-surely. Some control of the
fluctuations of the infinite-volume Gibbs measure, at least at zero temperature, is also pro-
vided [BK94, Proposition 3.6]. These results for the disordered SOS model (1.27) thus have
the flavor of our Theorem 1.7 and Theorem 1.8, though they, on the one hand, apply also at
low positive temperature and allow for more general disorder distributions and, on the other
hand, do not quantify the dependence on the dimension d (i.e., their sufficient concentration
requirement may become more stringent as d increases). The work [BK94] further discusses
alternative assumptions on ζ relevant to the interface in the random-field Ising model (see
also Section 9.2).
The behavior of the disordered SOS model (1.27) in the low dimensions d = 1, 2 was studied
in [BK96] (using a method of Aizenman–Wehr [AW90]), who proved a result showing a form
of delocalization in these dimensions. Specifically, they prove that, at all finite non-zero
temperatures, when the (ζv,k ) are independently sampled from a distribution with positive
variance which either has no isolated atoms or has compact support, the model does not admit
translation-covariant and coupling-covariant metastates. Here, a metastate is a measurable
mapping from ζ to probability distributions over (infinite-volume) Gibbs measures of the
model, and the coupling covariance requirement is that, for each finite Λ ⊂ Zd , the metastate
changes in a natural way under modification of (ζv,k )v∈Λ,k∈Z .
1.1.3. Long-range order in the random-field Ising model. The localization proof of [BK94]
in dimensions d ≥ 3 is closely tied to earlier developments on the problem of long-range
order in the random-field Ising model (see (1.28) below). Imry–Ma [IM75] predicted that
at low temperatures and weak disorder in dimensions d ≥ 3, the random-field Ising model
retains the ferromagnetic ordered phase of the pure Ising model (and that this does not
occur when d = 2). The prediction for d = 3 was initially challenged in the physics lit-
erature (e.g., [PS79]), but received support in works of Chalker [C83] and Fisher–Fröhlich–
Spencer [FFS84] and was finally confirmed in the breakthrough works of Imbrie [I84, I85]
and Bricmont–Kupiainen [BK87, BK88]. The proof of [BK94] adapts the proof technique
of [BK88]. Recently, a short proof of the existence of an ordered phase in the random-field
Ising model was found by Ding–Zhuang [DZ23]. In this paper, we use an adaptation of the
Ding–Zhuang argument as one of the ingredients in our proof of localization of the Dobrushin
interface in the disordered Ising ferromagnet (see Section 1.2 below).
1.1.4. Law of large numbers and large deviations of the ground energy. In dimensions D > 2,
following initial work by Kesten [K87] (and [ACCFR83, CC86] in the case of {0, 1} coupling
constants), there has been significant advances in the understanding of the law of large num-
bers and large deviations of the ground energy of the disordered ferromagnet (or the maximal
flow in a dual network) in various settings [Z00, Z18, T07, T08, W09, RT10, CT11a, CT11b,
CT11c, T14, CT14, D20, DT20, DT21].
1.1.5. Ground energy fluctuations. Dembin–Garban [DG23] studied the fluctuations of the
ground energy of the disordered ferromagnet in the cylinder {0, 1, . . . , L}d ×{−H, −H + 1, . . . , H},
with boundary conditions − (+) imposed on the bottom face {0, 1, . . . , L}d ×{−H} (on the top
face {0, 1, . . . , L}d × {H}) and free boundary conditions elsewhere (equivalently, they studied
minimal weight cutsets separating the top and bottom faces of the cylinder). They obtain the
first “sub-surface-order” bounds (superconcentration) on the variance of the ground energy,

Ld
proving that when H ≥ CL then the variance is at most C log L . The result is proved for
coupling fields sampled independently from a disorder distribution supported on exactly two
positive atoms. They mention that while their result applies in any dimension d ≥ 1, this
may be due to the free boundary conditions on the sides of the cylinder which allow a trans-
lation freedom for the cutset. Indeed, in [DG23, Open question 1] they ask to prove that the
variance is of order Ld when imposing Dobrushin boundary conditions on the cylinder and
d is sufficiently high. Their Proposition 5.1 implies that this is the case if the corresponding
Dobrushin interface is localized. Our localization result, Theorem 1.7, thus answers a ver-
sion of [DG23, Open question 1] in the following sense: We prove that for any non-atomic
disorder distribution ν satisfying min(supp(ν)) > 0 and wid(ν) < ∞ there exists d0 (ν) ≥ 3
such that the Dobrushin interface in the infinite cylinder (H = ∞) is localized in dimensions
d ≥ d0 (ν) (with d0 (ν) being D − 1 for the minimal D ≥ 4 for which (1.7), with c > 0 a
small universal constant, is satisfied). Moreover, there exists C(ν, d) > 0 (depending on the
disorder distribution ν and the dimension d) such that the same conclusion holds with any
d−1
H ≥ C(ν, d)(log(L)) d−2 , as the Dobrushin interface of the infinite cylinder coincides with the
interface in such a finite cylinder with high probability, by the probability estimate (1.19).
1.1.6. Concentrated disorder distributions. Our results apply for sufficiently concentrated dis-
order distributions (see conditions (1.7) and (1.14)). Related assumptions were also useful in
the study of the limit shape in first-passage percolation, by Basdevant–Gouéré–Théret [BGT22]
(for {0, 1} passage times) and by Dembin–Elboim–Peled [DEP22, Theorem 1.5].
1.1.7. Number of ground configurations. Wehr [W97] proved that the number of ground con-
figurations of the disordered ferromagnet is two or infinity. The result applies for coupling
fields sampled independently from a non-atomic disorder distribution with finite mean. It
thus follows from our main result, Theorem 1.2, that there are infinitely many ground con-
figurations under the assumptions there (see also Section 9.3).
1.1.8. Translation-covariant ground metastates. As previously mentioned, Wehr–Wasielak [WW16]

proved that ZD -translation-covariant ground metastates must be supported on the constant
configurations when the disorder distribution ν is non-atomic and has finite mean (or, more
generally, has sufficiently light tail). This result is applied in the discussion in Section 9.3.
1.1.9. The Dobrushin interface in other settings. Our localization result, Theorem 1.7, ex-
tends the seminal work of Dobrushin [D72] to the setting of the zero-temperature disordered
ferromagnet. Dobrushin’s result has previously been extended to various (non-disordered)
settings, of which we mention the Widom–Rowlinson model [BLPO79, BLP79], lattice Gauge
theories [B84] (see also Section 9.5), the Falicov–Kimball model [DMN00], percolation and
the random-cluster model [GG02, CK03] and in studying fine properties of the Dobrushin
interface of the Ising model [GL20]. Alternative approaches for showing the existence of
non-translation-invariant Gibbs states include the correlation inequality approach of van Bei-
jeren [vB75] and the restricted reflection positivity approach of Shlosman–Vignaud [SV07].
These alternative approaches do not seem to be applicable in our disordered setting.
1.2. Overview of the proof. In this section we overview the proof of the localization of the
Dobrushin interface stated in Theorem 1.7.
The basic idea is to synthesize Dobrushin’s approach [D72] for proving the localization
of the Dobrushin interface in the pure (i.e., non-disordered) Ising model with the simple
method for proving long-range order in the random-field Ising model presented by Ding–
Zhuang [DZ23]. As it turns out, difficulties arise in this synthesis which necessitate the
development of additional tools.
1.2.1. The random-field Ising model. The random-field Ising model (RFIM) is the model on
σ : Zd → {−1, 1} given by the formal Hamiltonian
X X
H RFIM,ζ (σ) := − σu σv − λ ζ v σv (1.28)
{u,v}∈E(Zd ) v
where (ζv ) are independently sampled from, say, the standard Gaussian distribution and
λ > 0 denotes the random-field strength. Imbrie [I84, I85] established long-range order in the
RFIM in dimensions d ≥ 3 at zero temperature and small λ (and Bricmont–Kupiainen [BK87,
BK88] proved the analogous fact at low, positive temperatures). It is instructive to begin
our overview by describing Ding–Zhuang’s [DZ23] short approach to this. Let σ ζ,L be the
ground configuration of the RFIM in {−L, . . . , L}d with +1 boundary conditions. Let us
show that it is unlikely that there exists some A ⊂ Zd , connected with connected complement
and containing the origin, such that σ ζ,L ≡ −1 (σ ζ,L ≡ +1) on the interior (exterior) vertex
boundary of A. Suppose A is such a set. Define a new configuration and random field by
(
ζ,L,A −σvζ,L v ∈ A
σv := ,
σvζ,L v∈ /A
( (1.29)
A −ζv v ∈ A
ζv := .
ζv v∈/A
The discrete ±1 symmetry of the RFIM then leads to the energy gap
A
H RFIM,ζ (σ ζ,L ) − H RFIM,ζ (σ ζ,L,A ) ≥ 2|∂A| (1.30)
where ∂A is the edge boundary of A. This implies that also
A ,L
GERFIM,ζ,L − GERFIM,ζ ≥ 2|∂A| (1.31)
where GERFIM,ζ,L := H RFIM,ζ (σ ζ,L ) denotes the energy of the ground configuration in the
random field ζ. The argument will be (eventually) concluded by proving that
d−2 !

∃A⊂Zd connected with connected complement, 0 ∈ A and |∂A| = ℓ,
ℓ d−1
P A ≤ Cd exp −cd 2 (1.32)
| GERFIM,ζ,L − GERFIM,ζ ,L |≥2|∂A| λ
(with Cd , cd > 0 depending only on d). Let us explain how (1.32) is derived. First, observe
that GERFIM,ζ,L satisfies the conditional concentration inequality (see Theorem 2.1 below)
t2

RFIM,ζ,L RFIM,ζ,L
P GE −E(GE | ζ|Ac ) ≥ t | ζ|Ac ≤ C exp −c 2 (1.33)
λ |A|
(with C, c > 0 absolute constants). Next, note that ζ A has the same distribution as ζ,
even conditioned on ζ|Ac . Consequently, the difference of ground energies satisfies the same
concentration inequality (with different constants),
t2

RFIM,ζ,L RFIM,ζ A ,L
P GE − GE ≥ t ≤ C exp −c 2 . (1.34)
λ |A|
In particular, if A was a non-random set then we would have (using the isoperimetric inequal-
ity |A| ≤ Cd |∂A|d/(d−1) )
d−2 !
|∂A|2

RFIM,ζ,L RFIM,ζ A ,L |∂A| d−1
P(GE − GE ≥ 2|∂A|) ≤ C exp −c 2 ≤ C exp −cd .
λ |A| λ2
(1.35)
Such an estimate, however, does not suffice to establish (1.32) via a union bound, since the
number of subsets 0 ∈ A ⊂ Zd , connected with connected complement, which have |∂A| = ℓ
is at least cd exp(Cd ℓ) (see also (6.27) for the converse bound). Instead, the estimate (1.32) is
derived from the concentration bound (1.34) using a coarse-graining technique (or chaining
argument) introduced by Fisher–Fröhlich–Spencer [FFS84] in a closely-related, but different,
context. To this end one defines AN , the N -coarse-grained version of A ⊂ Zd , as the union of
all cubes B ⊂ Zd , of the form v+{0, 1, . . . , N −1}d with v ∈ N Zd , which satisfy |A∩B| ≥ 12 |B|.
Then, one writes the chaining expansion
K−1
X A k+1 A k

RFIM,ζ,L RFIM,ζ A ,L
GE − GE = GERFIM,ζ 2 ,L
− GERFIM,ζ 2 ,L
(1.36)
k=0
where K is chosen sufficiently large that A2K = ∅ (so that ζ A2K = ζ), and noting that
A20 = A1 = A. A version of the concentration inequality (1.34) is available (with the same
proof) for any two finite A′ , A′′ ⊂ Zd ,
t2

′ ′′
RFIM,ζ A ,L RFIM,ζ A ,L
P GE − GE ≥ t ≤ C exp −c 2 ′ . (1.37)
λ |A ∆A′′ |
The idea of the coarse-graining technique is to apply the concentration bound (1.37) to each
of the terms on the right-hand side of (1.36) (with suitable tk summing to 2∂A), using a
union bound over the possible A2k and bounds for |A2k ∆A2k+1 |, for 0 ≤ k ≤ K − 1. The gain
over the direct application (1.35) of (1.34) lies in the smaller denominator in the right-hand
side of the concentration inequality (1.37) compared to (1.34), and the fact that the number
of possibilities for A2k is greatly reduced as k increases (roughly, |∂AN | ≈ |∂A| so that AN
may be regarded as a set with surface volume |∂A|/N d−1 after shrinking the lattice Zd by a
factor N . This is complicated, however, by the fact that AN need not be connected or have
connected complement).
1.2.2. The disordered Solid-On-Solid model. It is instructive to first try and adapt the above
approach to the disordered SOS model (1.27), before discussing the disordered ferromagnet.
The goal there is to recover a version of the result of [BK94], showing that in dimensions d ≥ 3
when, say, the disorder (ζv,k ) is given by independent Gaussians with small variance, then
there is localization of the ground configuration ϕζ,L in {−L, . . . , L}d with zero boundary
values. To this end, it suffices to show that it is unlikely that there exists an integer m ≥ 0
and some A ⊂ Zd , connected with connected complement and containing the origin, such
that ϕ ≥ m + 1 (ϕ ≤ m) on the interior (exterior) vertex boundary of A. We have checked
(but do not provide full details here) that a proof may be carried out very similarly to the
RFIM case with the main difference being that the discrete ±1 symmetry of the RFIM is
now replaced by the discrete translation symmetry of adding an integer constant to ϕ. Thus,
instead of (1.29), a new configuration and disorder are defined by

ϕζ,L,A := ϕζ,L − 1A ,
(
A ζ(v,k+1) v ∈ A (1.38)
ζ(v,k) :=
ζ(v,k) v∈/A
(where 1A is the indicator function of A), leading to the energy gap
A
H SOS,ζ (ϕζ,L ) − H SOS,ζ (ϕζ,L,A ) ≥ |∂A|. (1.39)
While we do not enter into further detail, we remind that the disordered SOS model may be
seen as a special case of the anisotropic disordered ferromagnet; see Remark 1.11.
1.2.3. The disordered ferromagnet. We proceed to overview our approach to proving Theo-
rem 1.7 - localization of the Dobrushin interface in the disordered ferromagnet. While the
approach adapts several of the ideas appearing above, it is significantly more complicated,
essentialy due to the fact that the Dobrushin interface may have overhangs (i.e., have several
parallel interface plaquettes in the same “column”). Below we describe the obstacles that
arise and our methods for overcoming them.
We work in dimension D = d + 1 ≥ 4 under the assumptions of Theorem 1.7. For finite
Dob
Λ ⊂ Zd , we write σ η,Λ,Dob for the ground configuration in ΩΛ×Z,ρ as given by Lemma 1.5,
and we let GEΛ (η) be its energy (i.e., the ground energy) in the coupling field η (see (4.6)
below for a precise definition). Our goal is to show that, for (v0 , k0 ) ∈ ZD , the event
η,Λ,Dob
σ(v0 ,k0 )
6= ρDob
(v0 ,k0 ) (1.40)
is unlikely (with ρDob defined in (1.17)).
1.2.3.1. Shifts and energy gap. We aim to obtain an energy gap after a transformation of
the configuration and the disorder based on a discrete symmetry, in a similar way to (1.38)
and (1.39). The symmetry used is the translation of the ZD lattice along its last coordinate,
but its use is more complicated than in the disordered SOS model. The amount to translate
by is encoded by a function τ : Zd → Z having finite supp(τ ) := {v ∈ Zd : τ (v) 6= 0}; we call
any such function a shift.
The shifted disorder η τ is defined as follows: We fix, once and for all, an arbitrary function
ι : E(Zd ) → Zd that chooses an endpoint for each edge (i.e., ι(e) ∈ e). Then
(
ηe+(0,τ (u)) e = {(u, k), (u, k + 1)} ∈ E k (ZD ),
ηeτ := (1.41)
ηe+(0,τ (ι({u,v}))) e = {(u, k), (v, ℓ)} ∈ E ⊥ (ZD ),
where {x, y} + z = {x + z, y + z} for x, y, z ∈ ZD (i.e., the “column of disorders” above a base
vertex u is shifted by τ (u), and the “column” above a base edge {u, v} ∈ E(Zd ) is shifted by
τ (ι({u, v})); see also (4.7)) and (4.8)). Two useful features of this definition are that ι({u, v})
is unimportant when τ (u) = τ (v) and that (η τ1 )τ2 = η τ1 +τ2 for τ1 , τ2 shifts.
The action on the configuration σ η,Λ,Dob is more complicated, since a simple shift would not
suffice to eliminate overhangs. Instead, our definition involves an additional subset Ã ⊂ Zd
which should be thought of as the projection to Zd of the overhangs and “interface walls”
that we would like to remove. We thus define, for (u, k) ∈ ZD ,
( η,Λ,Dob
η,Λ,Dob,τ,Ã σ(u,k+τ (u)) u ∈
/ Ã,
σ(u,k) := Dob
(1.42)
ρ(u,k) u ∈ Ã.
The energy gap obtained from this definition is the difference

τ
GEΛ (η) − GEΛ (η τ ) ≥ H η (σ η,Λ,Dob ) − H η (σ η,Λ,Dob,τ,Ã ) (1.43)
and we aim for the right-hand side to consist exactly of (twice) the coupling constants cor-
responding to the overhangs and walls of σ η,Λ,Dob above Ã (more precisely regarding the
overhangs, for each u ∈ Ã such that {u} × Z has multiple parallel interface plaquettes we
gain the coupling constants of all these plaquettes except the one between (u, τ (u)) and
(u, τ (u) + 1)). To this end, we ensure the following compatibility relations between τ and Ã,
If {u, v} ∈ E(Zd ) and {u, v} 6⊂ Ã then τ (u) = τ (v). (1.44)
η,Λ,Dob
/ Ã and {u, v} ∈ E(Zd ) then σ(u,k+τ
If u ∈ Ã, v ∈ Dob
(u)) = ρu,k for k ∈ Z. (1.45)
η,Λ,Dob η,Λ,Dob η,Λ,Dob
If u ∈ Ã then σ(u,τ (u)) = −σ(u,τ (u)+1) (our construction also gives σ(u,τ (u)) = −1). (1.46)
A key role in our proof of Theorem 1.7 is thus played by defining τ and Ã as above so that:
(i) a sufficient energy gap is generated when (1.40) holds, and (ii) the shift τ is taken from
a small enough class (that we call admissible shifts; see Section 1.2.3.5 below) for which we
may develop suitable enumeration theorems for the required union bounds (there is no need
to also enumerate over Ã as it does not appear on the left-hand side of (1.43)).
1.2.3.2. Definition of τ and Ã. Let E ⊂ Λ (initially E = {v0 } for the v0 of (1.40). However,
later parts in our argument necessitate consideration of more general E). We aim to define Ã
as the “projection to Zd of the places with overhangs and interface walls which surround E”
and to define τ in a compatible and admissible manner. Our definitions are motivated by the
ideas of Dobrushin [D72], to which we add a new result (Lemma 3.1) in order to define τ as an
admissible shift. In fact, the absence of bubbles (finite connected components of spins of one
sign) in our zero-temperature setup allows us to simplify the approach of [D72] and we present
a self-contained treatment in Section 7 (with some inspiration from [PS23, PS20]). This also
yields an improved dependence on the dimension d. A brief description of our construction
follows.
First, we define a function I : Zd → Z ∪ {“layered”}, which partitions Zd into different
regions according to the height of the Dobrushin interface, as follows: (i) I(v) = k if σ η,Λ,Dob
η,Λ,Dob η,Λ,Dob
has a unique sign change in {v}×Z, with σ(v,k) = −1 and σ(v,k+1) = 1, (ii) I(v) = “layered”
if σ η,Λ,Dob has multiple sign changes in {v} × Z. Define the set Vση,Λ,Dob ⊂ Z d (the “projected
interface vertices”) as those v satisfying that there exists an edge {u, v} ∈ E(Zd ) with either
I(u) 6= I(v) or I(u) = I(v) = “layered′′ (i.e., all layered vertices and their neighbors and all
non-layered vertices having a neighbor with a different value of I). We then define Ã to be
the union of those connected components of Vση,Λ,Dob which surround E (i.e., those connected
components C for which some vertex of E lies in a finite connected component of Zd \ C).
Second, we define a “pre-shift” τ0 : Zd → Z ∪ {“layered”} as follows: For v ∈ Ã we set
τ0 (v) = I(v). For v ∈ / Ã, we let Bv be the connected component of v in Zd \ Ã and observe
that I is necessarily some constant integer on the external vertex boundary of Bv ; then we
set τ0 (v) equal to this constant (necessarily τ0 (v) = 0 if Bv is infinite).
Third, the requisite shift τ is formed from τ0 by setting τ (v) = τ0 (v) whenever τ0 (v) ∈ Z
and choosing values τ (v) ∈ Z at those v where τ0 (v) = “layered” (such v are necessarily in Ã).
While our choice is limited by the compatibility relation (1.46), this still leaves it significant
freedom; the main limiting factor is our requirement that τ be an admissible shift. To choose
the values we use our Lemma 3.1, which gives a mechanism for modifying the configuration
σ η,Λ,Dob on each connected component of layered vertices into a configuration σ ′ with the
properties: (i) σ ′ has no overhangs, (ii) if σ(v,k)
′ ′
= −σ(v,k+1) at some (v, k) then the same
holds for σ η,Λ,Dob ′
at (v, k), and (iii) σ has a fewer or equal number of perpendicular interface
plaquettes than σ η,Λ,Dob . Choosing τ on layered vertices to be the height of the unique sign
change in σ ′ is shown to yield the requisite admissible shift.
1.2.3.3. Chaining and concentration. We have shown that on the event (1.40) there exists an
admissible shift τ inducing an energy gap in (1.43) (and this gap is large if k0 of (1.40) is
large). Consequently, it remains to prove Theorem 4.3 below, which states that it is unlikely
that there exists any admissible shift producing an energy gap which is large in absolute
value. To this end, motivated by the chaining expansion (1.36) of the RFIM, our first step is
to write
K−1
X
GEΛ (η) − GEΛ (η τ ) = GEΛ (η τ2k+1 ) − GEΛ (η τ2k )

(1.47)
k=0
where τN represents some notion of N -coarse-graining of τ , with τ20 = τ1 = τ and with K

large enough that τ2K ≡ 0 (so that η τ2K = η). We choose to define τN : Zd → Z as a function
which is constant on cubes of the form v + {0, 1, . . . , N − 1}d with v ∈ N Zd , and equal on each
such cube B to the average of τ on B rounded to the closest integer (arbitrarily rounding
k + 1/2 to k for integer k). Significant effort is then devoted in Section 6.2 and Section 6.3 to
develop an enumeration theory (reminiscent of [FFS84]) for the number of possibilities for τN
according to the complexity of τ (complexity is discussed in Section 1.2.3.5 below). The proof
also introduces an extra “fine grained” shift τI , for I ⊂ [d] = {1, . . . , d}, which “lies between”
τ and τ2 and is obtained by averaging and rounding τ on boxes of the form v+{0, 1}I ×{0}[d]\I .
This extra ingredient allows our assumptions on the disorder distributions ((1.7) and (1.14))
to become less restrictive as the dimension d increases.
The next step following (1.47) is to obtain a concentration inequality for the ground energy
differences appearing in its right-hand side, similar to the concentration inequality (1.37) of
the RFIM. Here, however, lies a major hurdle in our analysis, as the available inequality
is significantly weaker than the one available for the RFIM or the disordered SOS model.
Let us describe the inequality that we have. Let τ1 , τ2 be shift functions. We introduce a
version of the ground energy in which we minimize over a restricted set of configurations:
k ⊥
For A ⊂ Zd and bk , b⊥ ≥ 0, let GEΛ,A,(b ,b ) (η) be the minimal energy in the coupling field η
Dob
among configurations in ΩΛ×Z,ρ which have at most bk parallel plaquettes and at most b⊥
perpendicular plaquettes above A in the Dobrushin interface (see (6.3) for a precise definition).
Then (see Lemma 6.1)
k ,b⊥ ) k ,b⊥ )

P GEΛ,supp(τ1 −τ2 ),(b (η τ1 ) − GEΛ,supp(τ1 −τ2 ),(b (η τ2 ) ≥ t
t2

≤ C exp −c , (1.48)
wid(ν k )2 bk + wid(ν ⊥ )2 b⊥
so that the concentration estimate deteriorates as bk and b⊥ grow. Thus, in order to ap-
ply (1.48) to the kth term in (1.47) (and successfully use a union bound over the possible
k
η τ2k and η τ2k+1 ) we need that for sufficiently small bk (s) and b⊥
k (s) (depending on k and the
energy gap s; see Lemma 6.2),
k ⊥
GEΛ (η τ2k ) = GEΛ,supp(τ2k+1 −τ2k ),(bk (s),bk (s)) (η τ2k ),
k ⊥
(1.49)
GEΛ (η τ2k+1 ) = GEΛ,supp(τ2k+1 −τ2k ),(bk (s),bk (s)) (η τ2k+1 ).
However, we are not guaranteed that these equalities hold!
1.2.3.4. The maximal energy gap. It remains to deal with the case that one of the inequali-
ties (1.49) is violated. Our strategy is to show that in this case there is a new admissible shift
′
τ ′ inducing a significantly larger absolute energy gap | GEΛ (η) − GEΛ (η τ )| than the shift τ .
The argument then proceeds by focusing on the admissible shift with the maximal energy
gap and deducing that for that shift all the equalities (1.49) hold.
To this end, suppose, e.g., that the first equality in (1.49) is violated. Set E := supp(τ2k+1 −
τ k k
τ2k ). By definition, this means that σ η 2 ,Λ,Dob either has more than bk (s) parallel interface
plaquettes above E or has more than b⊥ k (s) perpendicular interface plaquettes above E. We
τ k
may thus use the construction of Section 1.2.3.2, with σ η 2 ,Λ,Dob
and E, to define τ ′ and Ã′
′ k
inducing a large energy gap GEΛ (η τ2k ) − GEΛ ((η τ2k )τ ). If bk (s) and b⊥ k (s) are not too small
(see Lemma 6.2 for their value) then the new gap will indeed be much greater than the old
one, as we require. One difficulty, however, is that the new gap is induced for the shifted
disorder η τ2k rather than for the original disorder η. This is simply resolved though, since
′ ′
GEΛ (η τ2k ) − GEΛ ((η τ2k )τ ) = GEΛ (η τ2k ) − GEΛ (η τ2k +τ )
′
(1.50)
= GEΛ (η τ2k ) − GEΛ (η) − GEΛ (η τ2k +τ ) − GEΛ (η)
so that a large energy gap induced for the shifted disorder η τ2k implies a large energy gap in
absolute value for the original disorder (induced either by the shift τ2k or by the shift τ2k +τ ′ ).
1.2.3.5. Admissible shifts. The above argument may give rise to shift functions with a com-
plicated structure. Initially, given the input (1.40), we construct a relatively simple shift τ
(and set Ã) in order to remove the interface walls surrounding the vertex v0 . However, as
explained in Section 1.2.3.4 above, we may need to replace the shift τ by the shifts τ2k or
τ2k + τ ′ appearing in (1.50), and upon iterating this procedure the shifts may become more
and more complicated. We thus need to define a class of shifts which, on the one hand, is
broad enough to be closed under such operations and, on the other hand, is narrow enough
to enable efficient enumeration (of the number of possibilities for the shift and its coarse
grainings), allowing the union bounds in the chaining argument to go through. This is our
motivation for defining in Section 4.1.3 the class of admissible shifts, which depends on the
coupling field η. We measure the complexity of a shift τ by its total variation TV(τ ) (i.e., the
ℓ1 -norm of its gradient) and by a quantity R(τ ) that we call trip entropy, which is the minimal
length of a path visiting all level components of τ (i.e., visiting all connected components of
level sets of τ ). Admissible shifts are then defined as those that induce an energy gap for
the coupling field η that is sufficiently large compared to the complexity of the shift. This
definition turns out to strike the requisite balance between broadness and narrowness.
2. Notation, conventions and concentration results

We use the convention N := {1, 2, . . .}. For k ∈ N, we let [k] := {1, 2, . . . , k} and for any
set A, let

A
:= {I ⊆ A : |I| = k}
k
be the family of subsets of size k of A. P
For x ∈ Rm and p ≥ 1 we let kxkp = ( m p 1/p be the standard p-norm.
i=1 |xi | )
Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all “geometric” notions in Zd are with respect to the ℓ1
metric. In particular, the (closed) ball of radius r ≥ 0 around a ∈ Zd is
Br (a) := {v ∈ Zd : kv − ak1 ≤ r},
the diameter of a bounded set A ⊂ Zd is diam(A) = maxu1 ,u2 ku1 − u2 k1 , the distance from
ω ∈ Zd to a non-empty set A ⊂ Zd is dist(ω, A) = minu∈A kω − uk1 and the distance between
two non-empty sets A, B ⊂ Zd is dist(A, B) = minu∈A, v∈B ku − vk1 ; we say that u, v ∈ Zd are
d
adjacent, and denote it by u ∼ v, if ku − vk1 = 1; let E(Zd ) := {{u, v} ∈ Z2 : u ∼ v}; the
edge boundary of a set A ⊂ Zd is
∂A := {(u, v) : u ∈ A, v ∈ Zd \ A, u ∼ v}
its inner vertex boundary is
∂ in A := {u ∈ A : ∃v ∈ Zd \ A such that u ∼ v},
and its outer vertex boundary is
∂ out A := {v ∈ Zd \ A : ∃u ∈ A such that u ∼ v}.
Denote by π the projection from Zd+1 to Zd defined by π(x1 , . . . , xd , xd+1 ) = (x1 , . . . , xd ).
The proofs of our main results require a concentration inequality for the minimal energy of
configurations of the disordered ferromagnet. According to whether the disorder distributions
have compact support or are Lipschitz functions of a Gaussian, one of the following two
inequalities will be used.
A function f : D → R, defined on a subset D ⊂ Rn , is said to be Lipschitz with constant
L > 0 if
|f (x) − f (y)| ≤ Lkx − yk2 , x, y ∈ D. (2.1)
Theorem 2.1 (Gaussian concentration inequality; see, e.g. [BLM13, Theorem 5.6]).
Let g1 , . . . , gn be independent standard Gaussian random variables. Suppose f : Rn → R is
Lipschitz with constant L. Set X := f (g1 , . . . , gn ). Then E(|X|) < ∞ and for each t > 0,
t2
P(|X − E(X)| ≥ t) ≤ 2e− 2L2 .
The theorem is part of the Gaussian concentration phenomenon as initiated by Paul Lévy,
Christer Borell, Tsirelson–Ibragimov–Sudakov and Maurey–Pisier.
A function f : Rn → R is called quasi-convex if {x ∈ Rn : f (x) ≤ s} is a convex set for
every s ∈ R.
Theorem 2.2 ([BLM13, Theorem 7.12], going back to Johnson–Schechtman [JS91], following
Talagrand [T88]). Let z1 , ..., zn be independent random variables taking values in the interval
[0, 1] and let f : [0, 1]n → R be a quasi-convex function which is also Lipschitz with constant
1. Set X := f (z1 , . . . , zn ). Then, for each t > 0,
t2
P(|X − med(X)| ≥ t) ≤ 4e− 4 (2.2)
where med(X) is any median of X.
We remark that it is standard (and simple; see [MS86, p. 142]) that (2.2) implies the same
conclusion with the median replaced by the (necessarily finite) expectation, in the form
2
P(|X − E(X)| ≥ t) ≤ Ce−ct (2.3)
for some universal constants C, c > 0.
For our later use, it is convenient to deduce a unified result from the previous two theorems,
applicable to distributions of finite width. For a random variable W we set
wid(W ) := wid(L(W )) (2.4)
where L(W ) is the distribution of W (and wid(L(W )) is defined by (1.5)).
Corollary 2.3. There exist C, c > 0 such that the following holds. Let W1 , . . . , Wn be in-
dependent random variables with 0 < wid(Wi ) < ∞ for all i. Suppose f : Rn → R is a
quasi-convex function which is Lipschitz with constant L > 0 in the sense of (2.1). Set

W1 Wn
X := f ,..., . (2.5)
wid(W1 ) wid(Wn )
Then E(|X|) < ∞ and for each t > 0,
t2
P(|X − E(X)| ≥ t) ≤ Ce−c L2 . (2.6)
We remark regarding the restriction wid(Wi ) > 0 that a distribution ν with wid(ν) = 0 is
supported on a single point. Indeed, this is clear if wid(ν) = diam(ν), while if wid(ν) = Lip(ν)
then one may either argue directly or deduce the fact from Theorem 2.1.
Proof of Corollary 2.3. Let us assume, without loss of generality, that 0 ≤ k ≤ n is such
that wid(Wi ) = Lip(L(Wi )) for 1 ≤ i ≤ k while wid(Wi ) = diam(L(Wi )) for k + 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
By subtracting suitable constants from the Wi with k + 1 ≤ i ≤ n we may further assume,
without loss of generality, that each such Wi is supported on an interval of the form [0, ai ]
with diam(Wi ) = ai . This implies that Wi / wid(Wi ) ∈ [0, 1] for k + 1 ≤ i ≤ n, as will be
required for using Theorem 2.2.
It suffices to prove that for any t > 0 we have
t2
P(|X − E(X | W1 , . . . , Wk )| ≥ t | W1 , . . . , Wk ) ≤ Ce−c L2 (2.7)
almost surely, and
t2
P(|E(X|W1 , . . . , Wk ) − E(X)| ≥ t) ≤ Ce−c L2 . (2.8)
Inequality (2.7) follows Theorem 2.2, in the form (2.3). To see this, first note that f /L is
a quasi-convex function which is Lipschitz with constant 1. Conclude that, for each fixed
values of x1 , . . . , xk ∈ R, the restricted function xk+1 , . . . , xn 7→ f (x1 , . . . , xk , xk+1 , . . . , xn )/L
satisfies the same properties, and finally recall that Wi / wid(Wi ) ∈ [0, 1] for k + 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
We proceed to deduce inequality (2.8). Observe first that the average of a Lipschitz function
with respect to some of its variables is still a Lipschitz function, with the same constant, of
the remaining variables. In particular, the function

˜ Wk+1 Wn
f (x1 , . . . , xk ) := E f x1 , . . . , xk , ,..., (2.9)
wid(Wk+1 ) wid(Wn )
is Lipschitz with constant L. Fix ε > 0. Let g1 , . . . , gk be a independent standard Gaussian
random variables. Write, for 1 ≤ i ≤ k, Wi =hi (gi ) where hi : R → R satisfies Lip(hi ) ≤
˜ h1 (y1 ) hk (yk )
Lip(Wi )(1 + ε). It follows that (y1 , . . . , yk ) 7→ f wid(W1 ) , . . . , wid(Wk ) is a Lipschitz function
with constant L(1 + ε). Inequality (2.8) then follows from Theorem 2.1, taking into account
that ε is arbitrary.
3. Disorders which are constant on perpendicular plaquettes

Say that an Ising configuration σ : Zd+1 → {−1, 1} is interfacial if for every v ∈ Zd
lim σ(v,k) = −1 and lim σ(v,k) = 1. (3.1)
k→−∞ k→∞
A configuration σ is said to have no overhangs if it is interfacial and for every v ∈ Zd , there

is a unique k for which σ(v,k) = −σ(v,k+1) .
Recall the definition of Ω∆,ρ and the definition of a ground configuration in Ω∆,ρ from (1.15).
We use these here with ∆ = Λ × Z for a finite Λ ⊂ Zd and a ρ with no overhangs. Note
that a ground configuration in ΩΛ×Z,ρ may not exist for a general coupling field η. However,
such a ground configuration, which is moreover interfacial, will exist if inf e∈E(ZD ) ηe > 0 (see
a related discussion after Observation 4.1).
Lemma 3.1. Let Λ ⊂ Zd be finite and let ρ : Zd+1 → {−1, 1} have no overhangs. Suppose
the coupling field η : E(Zd+1 ) → [0, ∞) satisfies that η is constant on E ⊥ (Zd+1 ). Then for
each interfacial configuration σ ∈ ΩΛ×Z,ρ there exists σ ′ ∈ ΩΛ×Z,ρ with no overhangs such that
H η (σ ′ ) ≤ H η (σ) and whenever {x, x+ ed+1 } ∈ E(Zd+1 ) is such that σx′ = −1 and σx+e
′
d+1
=1
then also σx = −1 and σx+ed+1 = 1.
Consequently, if η is such that there exists an interfacial ground configuration in ΩΛ×Z,ρ ,
then there also exists a ground configuration in ΩΛ×Z,ρ which has no overhangs.
We note that in the terminology of (3.2) below, the lemma asserts that the sign changes
of σ ′ (having no overhangs) are contained in the odd sign changes of σ.
The proof of the lemma uses the following preliminary definitions and proposition.
Fix Λ ⊂ Zd finite and a configuration ρ with no overhangs. We make the following defini-
tions for an interfacial configuration σ ∈ ΩΛ×Z,ρ :
(1) The next definitions capture a notion of “odd” and “even” sign changes in σ,
OSC(σ) := {{x, x + ed+1 } ∈ E(Zd+1 ) : σx = −1, σx+ed+1 = 1},
(3.2)
ESC(σ) := {{x, x + ed+1 } ∈ E(Zd+1 ) : σx = 1, σx+ed+1 = −1}.
Note that as ρ has no overhangs and σ is interfacial, then
• for each v ∈ Zd there are finitely many k for which {(v, k), (v, k + 1)} ∈ OSC(σ),
with a unique such k when v ∈ Zd \ Λ.
• for each v ∈ Zd , the number of {(v, k), (v, k + 1)} ∈ ESC(σ) equals the number of
{(v, k), (v, k+1)} ∈ OSC(σ) minus 1. In particular, if {(v, k), (v, k+1)} ∈ ESC(σ)
then v ∈ Λ.
(2) Let NESC(σ) be the number of “adjacent even sign changes” in σ, defined as the
number of pairs {{(u, k), (u, k + 1)}, {(v, ℓ), (v, ℓ + 1)}} ⊂ ESC(σ) satisfying that
{u, v} ∈ E(Zd ) and k = ℓ.
(3) Define the number of perpendicular domain wall plaquettes above Λ to be
D Λ (σ) := |{{x, y} ∈ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) : {x, y} ∩ (Λ × Z) 6= ∅, σx 6= σy }|.
Finally, we define a partial order on interfacial configurations in ΩΛ×Z,ρ as follows: Say that
σ ′ < σ if
D Λ (σ ′ ) ≤ D Λ (σ)
and, either
OSC(σ ′ ) ( OSC(σ)
or
OSC(σ ′ ) = OSC(σ) and NESC(σ ′ ) > NESC(σ).
The following proposition is the key step in proving Lemma 3.1.
Proposition 3.2. Let σ ∈ ΩΛ×Z,ρ be interfacial. If ESC(σ) 6= ∅ then there exists σ ′ ∈ ΩΛ×Z,ρ
such that σ ′ < σ (in particular, σ ′ is interfacial).
Proof. Fix a σ ∈ ΩΛ×Z,ρ with ESC(σ) 6= ∅. Fix some {(v0 , k0 ), (v0 , k0 + 1)} ∈ ESC(σ).
Consider the set of all positions which are directly below even sign changes at height k0 ,
∆ := {v ∈ Λ : {(v, k0 ), (v, k0 + 1)} ∈ ESC(σ)}.
For a given height k, define the sum of the configuration surrounding ∆ at height k,
X
S(k) := σ(v,k) .
v∈∂ out ∆
The definition of ∆ implies that S(k0 ) ≤ S(k0 + 1). Thus, either S(k0 ) ≤ 0 or S(k0 + 1) ≥ 0
(or both). Let us assume without loss of generality that S(k0 ) ≤ 0 as the other case can be
treated analogously.
Define k1 ≤ k0 to be the smallest integer with the following property: For all k1 ≤ k ≤ k0
it holds that
σ(v,k) = σ(v,k0 ) = 1 for v ∈ ∆,
σ(v,k) ≤ σ(v,k0 ) for v ∈ ∂ out ∆.
The definition implies, in particular, that
S(k) ≤ S(k0 ) ≤ 0 (3.3)
for all k1 ≤ k ≤ k0 . Finally, define a configuration σ′
as follows
(
′ −1 v ∈ ∆, k1 ≤ k ≤ k0 ,
σ(v,k) =
σ(v,k) otherwise.
The inequality (3.3) implies that D Λ (σ ′ ) ≤ D(σ). Moreover, the definition of k1 implies that
either OSC(σ ′ ) ( OSC(σ) or OSC(σ ′ ) = OSC(σ) and NESC(σ ′ ) > NESC(σ). Thus, σ ′ < σ,
as we wanted to prove.
A repeated use of Proposition 3.2 yields the following corollary.
Corollary 3.3. For every interfacial σ ∈ ΩΛ×Z,ρ , there is an interfacial configuration σ ′ that
has a unique sign change above every vertex (i.e., σ ′ has no overhangs), with σ having the
same sign change at the same height, and D Λ (σ ′ ) ≤ D Λ (σ), i.e.,
|{{x, y} ∈ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) : {x, y} ∩ (Λ × Z) 6= ∅, σx′ 6= σy′ }|
≤ |{{x, y} ∈ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) : {x, y} ∩ (Λ × Z) 6= ∅, σx 6= σy }|. (3.4)
Proof. If ESC(σ) = ∅ then σ has no overhangs and we are done. Otherwise, apply Propo-
sition 3.2 iteratively to produce a sequence σm < σm−1 < · · · < σ0 = σ of configurations in
ΩΛ×Z,ρ , with ESC(σm ) = ∅ (the iterations necessarily terminate at some finite m ≥ 1 since
the number of odd sign changes above each v ∈ Zd cannot increase and the number of even
sign changes above each v ∈ Λ is no larger than the number of odd sign changes above v).
Then, σm has no overhangs, and by the definition of the partial order, OSC(σm ) ⊂ OSC(σ)
and D Λ (σm ) ≤ D Λ (σ).
Lemma 3.1 immediately follows from Corollary 3.3.
Proof of Lemma 3.1. Let η : E(Zd+1 ) → [0, ∞) satisfy the properties in the lemma. Let σ be
an interfacial configuration in ΩΛ×Z,ρ . Let σ ′ be the configuration guaranteed by Corollary
3.3. Since η is constant on E ⊥ (Zd+1 ), it follows from (3.4) that H η (σ ′ ) ≤ H η (σ).
4. Stability of the ground energy under shifts of the disorder and a

deduction of Theorem 1.7
In this section we present our main technical result, Theorem 4.3 below, which bounds
the probability that certain “admissible shifts of the disorder” lead to a significant change
in the energy of the ground configuration under Dobrushin boundary conditions. Our main
localization theorem, Theorem 1.7, follows by combining Theorem 4.3 with the fact, stated
in Lemma 4.4 below, that admissible shifts inducing large energy changes necessarily exist
whenever the interface in the ground configuration deviates (in prescribed locations) from the
flat interface. Theorem 4.3 will also be instrumental in the proof of Theorem 1.8 (presented
in Section 8) on the convergence of the semi-infinite-volume ground configurations in the
infinite-volume limit.
We begin in Section 4.1 with required definitions, continue in Section 4.2 with the statement
of our main technical result and finally deduce Theorem 1.7 in Section 4.3.
4.1. Preliminaries. This section contains the required definitions of ground energies, shifts
and their action on the disorder, and admissibility of shifts.
4.1.1. Coupling fields, energies and ground configurations.
Generic coupling fields. We often work with coupling fields η whose values on all edges
are uniformly bounded from 0. In addition, in order to ensure uniqueness of finite-volume
ground configurations we ask that the coupling field η satisfies the assumption
k
X
si ηfi 6= 0, k ∈ N, {si }ki=1 ⊆ {−1, 1}, {fi }ki=1 ⊂ E(Zd+1 ) and {fi }ki=1 * E ⊥ (Zd+1 ). (4.1)
i=1
This is captured with the following notation: Given αk , α⊥ ∈ (0, ∞) let

ηe ∈(αk ,∞) for e∈E k (Zd+1 ),

k ⊥ d+1
D(α , α ) := η : E(Z ) → (0, ∞) : ηe ∈(α ,∞) for e∈E (Z ), .
⊥ ⊥ d+1 (4.2)
η satisfies (4.1)
In addition, we set [
D := D(αk , α⊥ ). (4.3)
αk ,α⊥ ∈(0,∞)
Such disorders arise, almost surely, under our assumption that ν k and ν ⊥ satisfy (1.11).
Semi-infinite volumes and an equivalent Hamiltonian. Most of our analysis will be
done on the semi-infinite volume Λ × Z for a finite Λ ⊂ Zd . Recalling the definition of the
Dobrushin boundary conditions ρDob from (1.17) and of Ω∆,ρ from (1.15), we work on the
following configuration space
n Dob
o
ΩΛ,Dob := σ ∈ ΩΛ×Z,ρ : σ = ρDob at all but finitely many points of Λ × Z . (4.4)
Now, given also a coupling field η : E(Zd+1 ) → [0, ∞] and a finite Λ ⊂ Zd define the Hamil-
tonian X X
Hη,Λ (σ) := η{x,y} (1 − σx σy ) = 2 η{x,y} 1σx 6=σy (4.5)
{x,y}∈E(Zd+1 ) {x,y}∈E(Zd+1 )
{x,y}∩(Λ×Z)6=∅ {x,y}∩(Λ×Z)6=∅
and note that it is well defined on ΩΛ,Dob .

From the following observation it follows that the minimizers of the Hamiltonian Hη,Λ
in ΩΛ,Dob coincide with the ground configurations discussed in Lemma 1.5. It is proved in
appendix B for completeness.
Observation 4.1. Let σ, σ ′ ∈ ΩΛ,Dob , and η : E(ZD ) → [0, ∞). The following holds
H η (σ) − H η (σ ′ ) = Hη,Λ (σ) − Hη,Λ (σ ′ ).
We note that when η ∈ D then there is a unique minimizer of Hη,Λ in ΩΛ,Dob . Indeed, there
are only finitely many configurations in ΩΛ,Dob whose energy is lower than Hη,Λ (ρDob ), and no
two of them have equal energy by (4.1). With a slight abuse of notation, we will denote this
unique minimizer by σ η,Λ,Dob , noting that it coincides with the minimizer of Lemma 1.5 under
the assumptions there. We will use the terminology ground energy to refer to the energy of
the minimizing configuration. We thus define, for each η ∈ D and finite Λ ⊂ Zd ,
GEΛ (η) := Hη,Λ (σ η,Λ,Dob ). (4.6)
4.1.2. Shifts of the coupling field.
Shifts and shifted coupling fields. We use the term shift to denote any function τ : Zd → Z
which equals zero except at finitely many vertices. We denote the (finite) support of τ by
supp(τ ) := {v ∈ Zd : τ (v) 6= 0}.
P
We occasionally refer to the ℓ1 norm of a shift, kτ k1 := v∈Zd |τv |. The set of all shifts will
be denoted by S.
We define an operation of shifts on coupling fields η: first fix an arbitrary choice function
ι : E(Zd ) → Zd that chooses for each edge one of its endpoints, i.e., ι(e) ∈ e for every
e ∈ E(Zd ); the shifted coupling field η τ is defined by shifting the “column of disorders” above
a base vertex u by τ (u), and a similar shift up for “columns” above any base edge {u, v}
such that ι({u, v}) = u. Precisely, given a shift τ and a disorder η : E(Zd+1 ) → [0, ∞), define
η τ : E(Zd+1 ) → [0, ∞) as follows: for every u ∈ Zd and k ∈ Z,
τ
η{(u,k),(u,k+1)} := η{(u,k+τ (u)),(u,k+1+τ (u))} , (4.7)
and for every {u, v} ∈ E(Zd ) and k ∈ Z,

τ
η{(u,k),(v,k)} := η{(u,k+τ (ι({u,v}))),(v,k+τ (ι({u,v})))} . (4.8)
Note that if τ (u) = τ (v) for adjacent u, v ∈ Zd , then for every k ∈ Z,
τ
η{(u,k),(v,k)} = η{(u,k+τ (u)),(v,k+τ (u))} = η{(u,k+τ (v)),(v,k+τ (v))} . (4.9)
Changes to the ground energy. Of central importance in our arguments will be the change
in ground energy induced by shifts of the coupling field. This is captured by the following
definition. For each η ∈ D, finite Λ ⊂ Zd and shifts τ, τ ′ we set
′
Gη,Λ (τ, τ ′ ) := GEΛ (η τ ) − GEΛ (η τ ). (4.10)
We also abbreviate
Gη,Λ (τ ) := Gη,Λ (τ, 0) = GEΛ (η) − GEΛ (η τ ). (4.11)
With these definitions, for any shifts τ1 , . . . , τk we have the telescopic sum
k−1
X
Gη,Λ (τ1 ) = Gη,Λ (τi , τi+1 ) + G(τk ). (4.12)
i=1
4.1.3. Enumeration of shifts, admissible shifts and the maximal energetic change. The count-
ing of various classes of shifts plays an important role in our arguments (the shifts play a role
somewhat analogous to that of contours in the classical Peierls argument). To facilitate it,
we need a way to succinctly describe shifts. To this end, the following notations regarding a
shift τ are handy:
• The total variation of τ is defined as
X
TV (τ ) := |τ (u) − τ (v)|.
{u,v}∈E(Zd )
• A level component of a shift τ is a connected set on which τ is constant and which is

not strictly contained in another set with this property (i.e., a connected component
of τ −1 (k) for some k). Denote the collection of all level components of τ by LC(τ ).
• A finite sequence (vi )i≥0 of points in Zd with v0 = 0 is a root sequence for a collection
F of sets in Zd if there is a point of {vi }i≥0 in every set in F. We further define the
trip entropy R(τ ) of the shift τ as
 
X 
R(τ ) := min kvi − vi−1 k1 : (vi )i≥0 is a root sequence for LC(τ ) .
 
i≥1
Similarly, define the trip entropy R(E) of a set E ⊆ Zd as

 
X 
(vi )i≥0 is a root sequence for the collection
R(E) := min kvi − vi−1 k1 : of connected components of E
.
 
i≥1
These definitions are put to use in estimating the number of shifts in Proposition 6.3.
We next define a restricted class of shifts, depending on η, that we term admissible shifts
(while restricted, the set of admissible shifts is still defined in a broad enough fashion to
contain all the shifts arising in our proof). Very roughly, the class is defined as those shifts
whose action on the coupling field induces a sufficiently large energetic change to the ground
energy (as defined in (4.11)) to compensate for the number of shifts in the class. Here, the first
notion one has for the number of shifts with given parameters is that coming from our later
Proposition 6.3. However, we will see later that this notion will need to be further refined in
our argument, where we will also need to take care of the number of coarse grainings (and fine
grainings) of our shifts. The need to account also for these more refined counting problems lies
at the heart of our choice for the definition of root sequence above and the precise definition
of admissible shifts below.
Given a coupling field η : E(Zd+1 ) → [0, ∞], finite Λ ⊂ Zd and positive αk , α⊥ , the class of
(α , α⊥ )-admissible shifts is defined by
k
⊥
η,Λ k ⊥ η,Λ α k ⊥ d
AS (α , α ) := τ ∈ S : |G (τ )| ≥ max TV(τ ), min{α , α } R(τ ) .
2 200
Lastly, we give a notation to the maximal change in the ground energy that is induced by an
(αk , α⊥ )-admissible shift,
MGη,Λ (αk , α⊥ ) := sup |Gη,Λ (τ )|. (4.13)
τ ∈AS η,Λ (αk ,α⊥ )
Our proof will make use of the fact that MGη,Λ (αk , α⊥ ) < ∞, almost surely, under suitable
assumptions on the disorder distributions. This is implied by the following lemma, proved in
appendix B.
Lemma 4.2. In the anisotropic disordered ferromagnet, suppose the disorder distributions
ν k and ν ⊥ satisfy (1.11). Then, for any finite Λ ⊂ Zd and positive αk , α⊥ we have that
| AS η,Λ (αk , α⊥ )| < ∞ almost surely.
4.2. Stability of the ground energy.

We proceed to state our main technical result, Theorem 4.3 below. It gives a quantitative
bound on the probability that there exists an admissible shift whose action on the disorder
yields a large change in the ground energy.
Theorem 4.3. There exist constants c0 , c, C > 0 such that the following holds. In the
anisotropic disordered ferromagnet, suppose the disorder distributions ν k and ν ⊥ satisfy (1.11).
Let κ = κ(ν k , ν ⊥ , d) be as in definition (1.12). Let αk and α⊥ be the minimums of the supports
of ν k and ν ⊥ , as in (1.13). Let D = d + 1 ≥ 4 and suppose that condition (1.14) holds (with
the constant c0 ). Then the following holds for all finite Λ ⊂ Zd and t > 0,
d−2 !

η,Λ k ⊥
c t d−1
P MG (α , α ) ≥ t ≤ C exp − 2 . (4.14)
κd α⊥
d−1
Moreover, for small t we have the improved dependence on dimension: if t < α⊥ 4 d then

η,Λ k ⊥
ct
P MG (α , α ) ≥ t ≤ C exp − ⊥ . (4.15)
κα
The theorem will be proven at the end of subsection 5.2.
4.3. Deduction of Theorem 1.7. The following deterministic lemma shows that if the
interface of the ground configuration is not flat around the origin then there necessarily exists
an admissible shift whose action on the coupling field induces a large change in the ground
energy.
Lemma 4.4. Let η ∈ D(αk , α⊥ ) for some αk , α⊥ > 0 and let Λ ⊂ Zd be a finite subset. If
η,Λ,Dob η,Λ k
σ(0,k) 6= ρDob
(0,k) then there exists a shift τ ∈ AS (α , α⊥ ) for which
Gη,Λ (τ ) ≥ 2|k|α⊥ .
The lemma is proved in Section 7.5.
Theorem 1.7 follows as a direct consequence of Lemma 4.4 and Theorem 4.3. First, it
suffices to establish the inequality (1.19) at the vertex v = 0, since the choice of Λ in The-
orem 1.7 is arbitrary. Then, inequality (1.19) with v = 0 follows directly by combining
Lemma 4.4 with (4.14).
5. Coarse and fine grainings of shifts and their use in proving the stability
of the ground energy
In this section we take the first step towards proving Theorem 4.3, describing a form of
“chaining” argument on the set of admissible shifts which is used to control their effect on the
ground energy. The notion of coarse grainings of shifts which lies at the heart of our chaining
argument is modelled after a similar graining method for sets which was introduced by Fisher–
Fröhlich–Spencer [FFS84] in their discussion of the domain walls in the random-field Ising
model.
5.1. Coarse and fine grainings of shifts. The chaining argument is based on the notions
of coarse and fine grainings of shifts that we now describe.
Given a partition P of Zd into finite sets and a shift τ , we write τP for the shift obtained by
averaging the value of τ on each partition element of P and rounding to the closest integer.
Precisely, we set
 
1 X
τP (v) :=  τ (u) (5.1)
|P (v)|
u∈P (v)
where we write P (v) for the unique partition element of P containing v, and where [a] is the
1

rounding of a to the nearest integer, with the convention k + 2 = k for k ∈ Z.
We make use of two special cases of the above definition:
• Coarse graining: Given an integer N ≥ 1, we use the notation τN := τPN (as in (5.1)),
with PN is the following partition into discrete cubes of side length N ,
PN = {QN (v)}v∈N Zd where QN (v) := v + {0, 1, . . . , N − 1}d .
• Fine graining: Given a subset of the coordinates I ⊂ [d], we use the notation τI := τPI
(as in (5.1)), with PI is the following partition into discrete boxes with side length 2
in the directions in I and side length 1 in the directions in [d] \ I,
PI = {QI (v)}v∈(2Z)I ×Z[d]\I where QI (v) := v + {0, 1}I × {0}[d]\I .
5.2. The chaining argument. We work under the assumptions of Theorem 4.3. Precisely,
let the disorder η be sampled as in the anisotropic disordered ferromagnet, with the disorder
distributions ν k and ν ⊥ satisfying (1.11). Let D ≥ 4 and suppose that condition (1.14) holds
with a constant c > 0 chosen sufficiently small for the arguments below.
Fix a finite Λ ⊂ Zd . For brevity, we will write G for Gη,Λ , AS for AS η,Λ (αk , α⊥ ) (re-
call (1.13)), admissible for (αk , α⊥ )-admissible and MG for MGη,Λ (αk , α⊥ ). First, since
MG < ∞ almost surely by Lemma 4.2, we have
∞
X
P(MG ≥ t) = P MG ∈ [t2k , t2k+1 ) .
k=0
Next, for any s P> 0, integer K ≥ 1, integer 1 ≤ r ≤ d, any positive (γj )j∈[K]∪{(0,r),(r,1)} with
γ(0,r) + γ(r,1) + 1≤k≤K γk ≤ 1 and any function Iτ which assigns a subset of [d] of size r to
each shift τ , we have the chaining argument (noting that the supremum is realized in (4.13)
due to Lemma 4.2, and also recalling (4.12))

P( MG ∈ [s, 2s)) = P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ max |G(τ )| ≥ s
τ ∈AS
K−1
( )!
X
=P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ max |G(τ, τIτ ) + G(τIτ , τ2 ) + G(τ2k , τ2k+1 ) + G(τ2K )| ≥ s
τ ∈AS
k=1

≤P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ max |G(τ, τIτ )| ≥ γ(0,|Iτ |) s (5.2a)
τ ∈AS

+ P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ max |G(τIτ , τ2 )| ≥ γ(|Iτ |,1) s (5.2b)
τ ∈AS
K−1
X
+ P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ max |G(τ2k , τ2k+1 )| ≥ γk s (5.2c)
τ ∈AS
k=1

+ P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ max |G(τ2K )| ≥ γK s . (5.2d)
τ ∈AS
The following notion will become useful for bounding the terms (5.2a) and (5.2b) from
above. A set of indices I ⊆ [d] will be called compatible with a shift τ if it holds that
4|I|
TV(τI ) ≤ 20(2|I| + 1) TV(τ ) and kτI − τ k1 ≤ TV(τ ).
d
Denote
comp(τ ) := {I ⊂ [d] : I is compatible with τ } .
The following proposition is proved in Section 6.2.2.
Proposition 5.1. Let τ be a shift. For each 0 ≤ r ≤ d there exists I ∈ comp(τ ) with |I| = r.
It is clear that sufficiently coarse grainings of a shift will yield the identity (all zero) shift.
The following proposition, proved in Section 6.2.1, quantifies this statement.
√
d
1
TV(τ ) d−1
Proposition 5.2. Let τ be a shift. For each integer N > 2 2d it holds that τN ≡ 0.
The next lemma, whose proof will be the focus of section 6 allows to estimate the expressions
(5.2a), (5.2b) and (5.2c).
Lemma 5.3. Define κ = κ(ν k , ν ⊥ , d) as in (1.12):

k ⊥ 1 1 1
κ = κ(ν , ν , d) := k ⊥
+ ⊥ 2
wid(ν k )2 + ⊥ 2 wid(ν ⊥ )2 .
α α d(α ) (α )
There exist universal constants C, c > 0 such that the following hold for every s > 0.
(1) For any 1 ≤ r ≤ d, any map τ 7→ Iτ assigning to each shift τ a compatible set
log d α⊥
Iτ ∈ comp(τ ) with |I| = r, and Crκ d 1 + αk ≤ Γ ≤ 1,
√ o

n Γ
P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ ∃τ ∈ AS : |G(τ, τIτ )| > Γs ≤ C exp −c ⊥ s .
κα r
(2) For any 1 ≤ r ≤ d, any map τ 7→ Iτ map assigning
⊥ to each shift τ a compatible set
dr α
Iτ ∈ comp(τ ) with |I| = r, and Cκ 2r r + log αk dr + 1 ≤ Γ ≤ 1,
√ o

n Γ
P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ ∃τ ∈ AS : |G(τIτ , τ2 )| > Γs ≤ C exp −c ⊥ s .
κα d
⊥

d3
(3) For any k ≥ 1 and Cκ 2k(d−2) dk + log ααk d2 + 1 ≤ Γ ≤ 1,
√ o

n Γ
P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ ∃τ ∈ AS : |G(τ2k , τ2k+1 )| ≥ Γs ≤ C exp −c ⊥ 2 k s .
κα d 2
For small s, we may obtain an improved dependence on the dimension d, using the following
lemma.
Lemma 5.4. There exists universal constants C, c > 0 such that the following holds. Assume
0 < s ≤ α⊥ 4d−1 d, and let κ = κ(ν k , ν ⊥ , d) be as in (1.12), then

c
P ({MG ≤ 2s} ∩ {∃τ ∈ AS : |G(τ )| > s}) ≤ C exp − ⊥ s . (5.3)
κα
Proof of Theorem 4.3. Throughout the proof we will use C and c to denote positive absolute
constants; the values of these constants will be allowed to change from line to line, even within
the same calculation, with the value of C increasing and the value of c decreasing.
1 4s
Set K := ⌈ d−1 log2 α⊥ d ⌉ + 1. By Proposition 5.2 and the definition of admissibility, the
term (5.2d) vanishes for any choice of γK .
1
Set γ(0,|I|) = γ(|I|,1) := 41 and γk := γ 2− 4 min{k,K−k} for any 1 ≤ k ≤ K − 1, where
P −1
− 14 min{k,K−k}
γ = 2 K−1 k=1 2 . Set r := ⌈min{10 log2 d, d2 }⌉ and a map τ 7→ Iτ assigning to
each shift τ a compatible set Iτ ∈ comp(τ ) of size r, existing by Proposition 5.1. Notice that
γ(0,r) + γ(r,1) + K−1
P
γ = 1 and that 1 ≤ r ≤ d so one may use the chaining argument (5.2).
k=1 k⊥
Recall that κ 1 + ααk ≤ c0 logd+1 2
(d+1)
, by assumption (1.14) on the noise distributions. It
is easy to verify that for c0 sufficiently small, this enables us to use the first part of Lemma
5.3 to bound the term (5.2a), the second part of Lemma 5.3 to bound the term (5.2b), and
the third part of Lemma 5.3 to bound the term (5.2c) (recall that the term (5.2d) vanishes).
This yields that for every positive s,
⌈K
2
⌉ !
s s X s
P(MG ∈ [s, 2s)) ≤C exp −c ⊥ + C exp −c ⊥ +C exp −c 3
κα r κα d κα⊥ d2 2 2 k
k=1
K−1
X s
+C exp −c ⊥ 2 K
K
κα d 2
k=⌈ 2
⌉+1
Now, noticing that the K − ⌈ K2 ⌉ − 1 last summands are asymptotically dominant and that
1
d−1
2K ≤ 4 α4s
⊥d , one gets the bound
d−2 !
c s d−1
P(MG ∈ [s, 2s)) ≤ C exp − 2
κd α⊥
for every positive integer s. Hence,

 d−2

∞ ∞
2i t d−1

X X c
P(MG ≥ t) = P(MG ∈ [2i t, 2i+1 t)) ≤ C exp − 
κd2 α⊥
i=0 i=0
d−2 !
c t d−1
≤ C exp − .
κd2 α⊥
d−1
For t ≤ α⊥ 4 d , denoting by k the unique integer such that 2k−1 t ≤ α⊥ 4d−1 d < 2k t, the
following holds, by Lemma 5.4 and (4.14),
k−1
X
P MG ∈ 2i t, 2i+1 t + P MG ≥ 2k t

P(MG ≥ t) =
i=0
 
k−1 k d−2
X c i c 2 t d−1
ct
≤ C exp − ⊥ 2 t + C exp − 2
  ≤ C exp − ⊥ .
κα κd α⊥ κα
i=0
6. Concentration of ground-energy differences between consecutive

grainings
The goal of this section is to prove Proposition 5.1, Proposition 5.2, Lemma 5.3 and
Lemma 5.4. The proofs of Lemma 5.3 and Lemma 5.4 are achieved via the following pivotal
statements.
Interface layering. In the following lemmas, the concept of interface layering plays a
significant role. By such layering, we mean the number of interface plaquettes (in a ground
configuration with Dobrushin boundary conditions) lying above a given position in the base
plane (i.e., having the same projection). We use the following definitions: The parallel layering
of a configuration σ ∈ ΩΛ,Dob over a set A ⊂ Λ ⊂ Zd is defined as
n o
k
LA (σ) := {x, x + ed+1 } ∈ E k (Zd+1 ) : π (x) ∈ A, σx 6= σx+ed+1 . (6.1)
The perpendicular layering of σ over A is defined as

n o
L⊥
A (σ) := {x, y} ∈ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) : π (x) ∈ A, π (y) ∈ A, σx 6= σy . (6.2)
k
With these definitions in mind one may think of L⊥ A (τ ) + LA (τ ) − |A| as the number of
excessive plaquettes in the interface created by the minimal energy configuration above A,
compared to the interface of the configuration ρDob .
For A ⊂ Λ ⊂ Zd and integer bk , b⊥ ≥ 0, define:

 

 

k ⊥
 X 
Λ,A,(b ,b ) Λ,Dob θ
Ω := σ ∈ Ω : 1σx 6=σy ≤ b for θ ∈ {k, ⊥} ,
 
{x,y}∈E θ (Zd+1 )

 

{π(x),π(y)}∩A6=∅
as well as n o
k ,b⊥ ) k ⊥
GEΛ,A,(b (η) := min Hη,Λ (σ) : σ ∈ ΩΛ,A,(b ,b ) . (6.3)
When Λ is fixed, we will occasionally abbreviate by omitting it. Also define
k ,b⊥ ) ′ ),(bk ,b⊥ ) ′ ′ ),(bk ,b⊥ )
Gη,Λ,(b (τ, τ ′ ) := GEΛ,supp(τ −τ (η τ ) − GEΛ,supp(τ −τ (η τ ),
and abbreviate
k ,b⊥ ) k ,b⊥ ) k ,b⊥ ) k ,b⊥ )
Gη,Λ,(b (τ ) := Gη,Λ,(b (τ, 0) = GEΛ,supp(τ ),(b (η) − GEΛ,supp(τ ),(b (η τ ).
Concentration of ground energy differences. First, we provide a bound on the prob-
ability of a given shift producing a large energetic gain, given some a priori bound on the
“number of excessive faces in the interface” above the support of the shift.
Lemma 6.1. There exist universal C, c > 0 such that the following holds. Suppose the
disorder distributions ν k , ν ⊥ satisfy (1.11). Then for any two shifts τ, τ ′ and any non-negative
′ k ⊥
bk , b⊥ for which ρDob ∈ ΩΛ,supp(τ −τ ),(b ,b ) ,
t2

η,Λ,(bk ,b⊥ ) ′
P |G (τ, τ )| ≥ t ≤ C exp −c . (6.4)
Layering bounds. Lemma 6.1 provides a concentration estimate for the ground energy of
a restricted set of configurations. In the following lemma, we show that at each step of the
graining, the non-restricted ground energy coincides with an appropriate restricted ground
energy.
Lemma 6.2. There exists a universal C > 0 such that the following holds. Let η ∈ D(αk , α⊥ )
for some αk , α⊥ > 0. Let Λ ⊂ Zd be a finite subset. Let s > 0 such that MG(αk , α⊥ ) ≤ 2s,
and let τ be an (αk , α⊥ )-admissible shift.
(1) For any ∅ =
6 I ∈ comp(τ ),
k
Λ,supp(τ −τI ),(b(0,|I|) (s),b⊥ (s))
GEΛ (#) = GE (0,|I|) (#) for # ∈ {η τ , η τI },
k
Λ,supp(τ2 −τI ),(b(|I|,1) (s),b⊥ (s))
GEΛ (#) = GE (|I|,1) (#) for # ∈ {η τ2 , η τI },
where

k 1 1 C
b(0,|I|) (s) := C + |I|s, b⊥
(0,|I|) (s) := |I|s,
αk α⊥ d α⊥

k 1 1 C
b(|I|,1) (s) := C + ds, b⊥
(|I|,1) (s) := ⊥ ds.
αk α⊥ d α
(2) For any k ≥ 1,
k ⊥
GEΛ (η τ2k ) = GEΛ,supp(τ2k −τ2k+1 ),(bk (s),bk (s)) (η τ2k )
(k≥2) k ⊥
= GEΛ,supp(τ2k−1 −τ2k ),(bk−1 ,bk−1 ) (η τ2k ),
where
k 1 1 C 2 k
bk (s)
:= C + ⊥ d2 2k s, b⊥
k (s) := d 2 s.
α k α d α⊥
⊥ d−1
(3) For s ≤ α 4 d it holds that
k ,b⊥ )
GEΛ (#) = GEΛ,supp(τ ),(b (#) for # ∈ {η τ , η},
where
k 1 1 C
b (s) := C + ⊥ s, b⊥ (s) := s.
αk α d α⊥
Enumeration of shifts. Lastly, we provide a bound on the number of shifts and their
coarse/fine grainings, satisfying that their total variation and trip entropy are bounded by
given constants. This is done by the following proposition and the corollary that follows it.
Proposition 6.3 (Counting shift functions). There exists C > 0 such that for each λ, ρ > 0,
ρ log d
|{τ ∈ S : TV(τ ) ≤ λ, R(τ ) ≤ ρ}| ≤ exp C min λ + λ log + 1 ,λ + ρ log d ,
λ d
Corollary 6.4. There exists a universal C > 0 such that the following holds.
(1) For each integer N ≥ 2 and λ, ρ > 0,
|{τN : τ ∈ S, TV(τ ) ≤ λ, R(τ ) ≤ ρ}|

dλ ρ
≤ exp C d−1 d log N + log +1 . (6.5)
N dλ
(2) For each integer 1 ≤ r ≤ d, a mapping τ 7→ Iτ such that Iτ ∈ comp(τ ) and |Iτ | = r,
and λ, ρ > 0,

rλ ρ
|{τIτ : τ ∈ S, TV(τ ) ≤ λ, R(τ ) ≤ ρ}| ≤ exp C r r + log +1 . (6.6)
2 rλ
Lemma 6.1 will be proved in subsection 6.4, using a concentration estimate. Lemma 6.2
will be proved in section 6.5, requiring both basic properties of grainings to be established as
well as using Lemmas inspired by Dobrushin’s work. Proposition 6.3 and Corollary 6.4 will
be proved in section 6.3 using the work of Bollobás–Balister [BB07] (continuing on Lebowitz–
Mazel [LM98]).
6.1. Proof of Lemmas 5.3 and 5.4. In this section we show how Lemma 6.1, Lemma
6.2, Proposition 6.3 and Corollary 6.4 imply Lemmas 5.3 and 5.4. We will continue to use
the abbreviations of section 5, specifically G for Gη,Λ , AS for AS η,Λ (αk , α⊥ ) and MG for
MGη,Λ (αk , α⊥ ). Throughout this section we will use C and c to denote positive absolute
constants; the values of these constants will be allowed to change from line to line, even
within the same calculation, with the value of C increasing and the value of c decreasing.
In the proofs of Lemmas 5.3 and 5.4 we will use the following corollary of Proposition 6.3
and Corollary 6.4.
Corollary 6.5. The following bounds hold.
(1) For every t > 0,

(log d)t
|{τ ∈ AS : G(τ ) ≤ t}| ≤ exp C . (6.7)
min{αk , α⊥ }d
(2) For every integer N ≥ 2 and t > 0,

⊥
2d t α
|{τN : τ ∈ AS, G(τ ) ≤ t}| ≤ exp C ⊥ d−1 d log N + log +1 . (6.8)
α N αk d2
(3) For every integer 1 ≤ r ≤ d, a mapping τ 7→ Iτ such that Iτ ∈ comp(τ ) and |Iτ | = r,
and t > 0,
⊥
2rt α
|{τIτ : τ ∈ AS, G(τ ) ≤ t}| ≤ exp C ⊥ r r + log +1 . (6.9)
α 2 αk dr
Proof. For every t > 0,

2t 200t
{τ ∈ AS : G(τ ) ≤ t} ⊆ τ ∈ S : TV(τ ) ≤ ⊥ , R(τ ) ≤ .
α min{αk , α⊥ }d
Hence, by Proposition 6.3,

2t 200t
|{τ ∈ AS : G(τ ) ≤ t}| ≤ τ ∈ S : TV(τ ) ≤ ⊥ , R(τ ) ≤
100α⊥

2t 2t 2t 200t
≤ exp C min + log + 1 , ⊥ log d + log d,
α⊥ α⊥ min{αk , α⊥ }d α d min{αk , α⊥ }d

(log d)t
≤ exp C ,
min{αk , α⊥ }d
for every integer N ≥ 2, by (6.5),

2t 200t
|{τN : τ ∈ AS, G(τ ) ≤ t}| ≤ τN : τ ∈ S, TV(τ ) ≤ ⊥ , R(τ ) ≤ d
α min{αk , α⊥ }
α⊥

2d t 100
≤ exp C ⊥ d−1 d log N + log 1+ k +1
α N d2 α
⊥
dt α
≤ exp C ⊥ d−1 d log N + log +1 ,
α N αk d2
and for every integer 1 ≤ r ≤ d and mapping τ 7→ Iτ such that Iτ ∈ comp(τ ) and |Iτ | = r,
by (6.6),

2t 200t
|{τIτ : τ ∈ AS, G(τ ) ≤ t}| ≤ τIτ : τ ∈ S, TV(τ ) ≤ ⊥ , R(τ ) ≤
100α⊥

2rt
≤ exp C ⊥ r r + log +1
α 2 min{αk , α⊥ }dr
⊥
rt α
≤ exp C ⊥ r r + log +1 .
α 2 αk dr
Proof of Lemma 5.3. For the first part of the Lemma, let 1 ≤ r ≤ d, τ 7→ Iτ a map assigning
⊥
to each shift τ a compatible set Iτ ∈ comp(τ ) with |Iτ | = r, and Crκ d 1 + ααk ≤ Γ ≤ 1.
log d
It holds that
√
P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ {∃τ ∈ AS, |G(τ, τIτ )| > Γs}
√
k

η,Λ,(b(0,r) (t),b⊥ (t))
= P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ {∃τ ∈ AS, |G (0,r) (τ, τIτ )| > Γs}
 
2

(log d)s Γs
≤ C exp C k ⊥
exp −c k

min{α , α }d k 2
Lip(ν ) b(0,r) + Lip(ν ) b(0,r) ⊥ 2 ⊥

C log d Γ
= C exp k ⊥
−c ⊥ s ,
min{α , α }d κα r
with the first equality by Lemma 6.2, the first inequality by union bound, (6.7), and Lemma
k
6.1, and the second equality by the definition of b(0,r) , b⊥
(0,r) and of κ. Now, for C sufficiently
large, if
α⊥

log d
Γ ≥ Crκ 1+ k
d α
then the second term in the exponent is the asymptotically dominant one and one gets
√

Γs
P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ {∃τ ∈ AS, |G(τ, τIτ )| > Γs} ≤ C exp −c ⊥ .
κα r
In an identical manner, it holds that

√
P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ {∃τ ∈ AS, |G(τIτ , τ2 )| > Γs}
√
k

η,Λ,(b(r,1) (t),b⊥ (t))
= P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ {∃τ ∈ AS, |G (r,1) (τIτ , τ2 )| > Γs}
 
⊥ 2
rs α Γs
≤ C exp C ⊥ r r + log k
+1 exp −c k

α 2 α dr Lip(ν k )2 b(r,1) + Lip(ν ⊥ )2 b⊥
(r,1)
⊥
r α Γ
= C exp C ⊥ r r + log k
+1 −c ⊥ s ,
α 2 α dr κα d
k
6.1, and the second equality by the definition of b(r,1) , b⊥
(r,1) and of κ. Now, for C sufficiently
large, if
⊥
dr α
Γ ≥ Cκ r r + log +1
2 αk dr
√

Γs
P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ {∃τ ∈ AS, |G(τ, τIτ )| > Γs} ≤ exp C −c ⊥ .
κα d
For the third bound, again in an identical manner

√
P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ {∃τ ∈ AS, |G(τ2k , τ2k+1 )| > Γs}
k ⊥ √
= P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ {∃τ ∈ AS, |Gη,Λ,(bk (t),bk (t)) (τ2k , τ2k+1 )| > Γs}
⊥ !
Γs2

ds α
≤ C exp C ⊥ k(d−1) dk + log +1 exp −c
α 2 αk d2 k
Lip(ν k )2 bk + Lip(ν ⊥ )2 b⊥
k
⊥
d α Γ
= C exp C ⊥ k(d−1) dk + log k 2
+1 −c ⊥ 2 k s ,
α 2 α d κα d 2
k
6.1, and the second equality by the definition of bk , b⊥
k and of κ. For C > 0 sufficiently large,
if
⊥
d3

α
Γ ≥ Cκ k(d−2) dk + log +1
2 αk d2
√

Γs
P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ {∃τ ∈ AS, |G(τ, τIτ )| > Γs} ≤ C exp −c ⊥ 2 k .
κα d 2
This concludes the proof.
Proof of Lemma 5.4. It holds that
P ({MG ≤ 2s} ∩ {∃τ ∈ AS, |G(τ )| > s})

η,Λ,(bk ,b⊥ )
= P {MG ≤ 2s} ∩ {∃τ ∈ AS, |G (τ )| > s}
s2

(log d)s
≤ exp C C exp −
min{αk , α⊥ }d Lip(ν k )2 bk + Lip(ν ⊥ )2 b⊥

C log d c
= C exp − s ,
min{α , α }d κα⊥
k ⊥
6.1, and the k ⊥
second
⊥
equality by the definition of b , b and of κ. Then, for c > 0 sufficiently
small, if κ 1 + ααk ≤ c logd d which is always the case by condition (1.14), then the second
term in the exponent is the asymptotically dominant one and one gets

c
P ({MG ≤ 2s} ∩ {∃τ ∈ AS, |G(τ )| > s}) ≤ exp − ⊥ s .
κα
6.2. Basic properties of grainings of shifts. This section provides estimates on basic
parameters (total variation, support size, trip-entropy, etc.) for coarse and fine grainings of
shifts. These estimates will be used in the proof of several of our preliminary statements in
the subsequent sections.
6.2.1. Bounding the total variation and weighted difference of coarse grainings. In this section
we will prove Proposition 5.2 as well as the following useful bounds.
Proposition 6.6. For every shift τ and every positive integer N ,
TV(τN ) ≤ 10d TV(τ ).
Proposition 6.7. For every shift τ ,
|supp(τ2 − τ )| ≤ kτ2 − τ k1 ≤ 4 TV(τ )
and moreover, for every positive integer N ,
|supp(τ2N − τN )| ≤ kτ2N − τN k1 ≤ (4d + 9)N TV(τ ).
The proofs of Propositions 5.2, 6.6 and 6.7 will rely on several Lemmas.
Lemma 6.8. Let A be a finite set of points in Zd . Then,
1
|∂A| ≥ 2d|A|1− d . (6.10)
Moreover, for every N × N × · · · × N d-dimensional cube B in Zd ,
2
|∂A ∩ (B × B)| ≥ min {|A ∩ B|, |B \ A|} . (6.11)
3N
Proof. For any S ⊂ Zd and 1 ≤ i ≤ d, let πi (S) be the projection of S on the hyperplane
spanned by {e1 , e2 , . . . , ed } \ {ei }.
Recall that the Loomis-Whitney inequality [LW49] states that for every finite set S of
points in Zd it holds that di=1 |πi (S)| ≥ |S|d−1 and hence, by the AM-GM inequality,
Q
d
X 1
|πi (S)| ≥ d|S|1− d . (6.12)
i=1
For every 1 ≤ i ≤ d, let ∂i A := {(u, v) ∈ ∂A : u−v ∈ {−ei , ei }}. Obviously, |∂i A| ≥ 2|πi (A)|
for every 1 ≤ i ≤ d, and hence,
d d
X X 1
|∂A| = |∂i A| ≥ 2 |πi (A)| ≥ 2d|A|1− d .
i=1 i=1
We proceed to prove (6.11). Since ∂A ∩ (B × B)| = ∂(B \ A) ∩ (B × B), we may assume
with no loss of generality that |A ∩ B| ≤ 12 |B|. For every 1 ≤ i ≤ d, let

−1 |B|
Fi := x ∈ πi (A ∩ B) : |A ∩ B ∩ πi (x)| = .
|πi (B)|
For every x ∈ πi (A ∩ B) \ Fi it holds that |∂i A ∩ (B × B) ∩ (πi−1 (x) × πi−1 (x))| ≥ 1. Hence,
X
|∂i A ∩ (B × B)| = |∂i A ∩ (B × B) ∩ (πi−1 (x) × πi−1 (x))| ≥ |πi (A ∩ B)| − |Fi |,
x∈πi (A∩B)
and since
X |B|
|A ∩ B| ≥ |A ∩ B ∩ πi−1 (x)| = |Fi | ,
|πi (B)|
x∈Fi
it follows that
|πi (B)|
|∂i A ∩ (B × B)| ≥ |πi (A ∩ B)| − |A ∩ B|.
|B|
Hence, by (6.12),
d d
X X |πi (B)|
|∂A ∩ (B × B)| = |∂i A ∩ (B × B)| ≥ |πi (A ∩ B)| − |A ∩ B|
|B|
i=1 i=1
d
!
X d 1 d
= |πi (A ∩ B)| |A ∩ B| ≥ d|A ∩ B|1− d − |A ∩ B|
−
N N
i=1
p ! √
d d
|B| d( d 2 − 1)
= p − 1 |A ∩ B| ≥ |A ∩ B|,
N d
|A ∩ B| N
√
and (6.11) follows since d( d 2 − 1) > ln 2 > 2/3.
Lemma 6.9. For every shift function τ ,
 1− 1
d
X
TV(τ ) ≥ 2d  |τ (u)| .
u∈Zd
Proof. WLOG we may assume that τ is non-negative, since TV(|τ |) ≤ TV(τ ) by the triangle
d : τ (u) > k . By definition, we have that

inequality.PDefine the family
P of sets Ak :=P u ∈ Z
TV(τ ) := k≥0 |∂Ak | and u∈Zd |τ (u)| = k≥0 |Ak | (note that in both sums all but finitely
many of the terms are non-zero) and so showing
 1− 1
d
X X
|∂Ak | ≥ 2d  |Ak |
k≥0 k≥0
1
would be sufficient. Using (6.10) for each of the Ak ’s one gets k≥0 |∂Ak | ≥ 2d k≥0 |Ak |1− d .
P P
P
The result follows by setting λk := |Ak |/ k≥0 |Ak | for every k ≥ 0 and noting that 0 ≤ λk ≤ 1
for every k ≥ 0 and hence
, 1− 1
d
X 1− 1
1− d1
X X X
|Ak |  |Ak | = λk d ≥ λk = 1.
k≥0 k≥0 k≥0 k≥0
Recall that for every u ∈ Zd , h i

rough
τN (u) = τN (u) ,
where by [a] we denote the nearest integer to a and
rough 1 X
τN (u) := d τ (v),
N
v∈QN (N w)
where w is the unique point in Zd such that u ∈ QN (N w).

Proof of Proposition 5.2. Let τ be a shift. Observe that if N is a positive integer such that
d
P
u∈Z |τ (u)| < N /2 then necessarily τN ≡ 0. Hence, by Lemma 6.9, τN ≡ 0 if
d
d
TV(τ ) d−1 1
< N d,
2d 2
i.e.,
1
√

d TV (τ ) d−1
N> 2 .
2d
For a shift τ : Zd → Z and a set A ⊂ Zd , define

X
TV(τ ; A) := |τ (u) − τ (v)|.
{u,v}∈E(Zd )∩ A
2 ( )
1 rough
Lemma 6.10. For every 0 < α < 2 and u ∈ Zd such that |τN (N u) − τN (N u)| > α, it
holds that
2α d−1
TV (τ ; QN (N u)) ≥ N .
3
Proof. For simplicity, denote B := QN (N u) and let m := minv∈B τ (v), M := maxv∈B τ (v).
For every integer k, let Ak := {v ∈ B : τ (v) > k}. Note that Am−1 = B and AM = ∅. Let
ℓ := min{m ≤ k ≤ M : |Ak | < 12 N d }.
P −1
Note that TV (τ ; B) = M k=m |∂Ak ∩ (B × B)| and hence, by (6.11),
M −1 ℓ−1 M −1
2 X 2 X 2 X
TV (τ ; B) ≥ min {|Ak |, |B \ Ak |} = |B \ Ak | + |Ak |.
3N 3N 3N
k=m k=m k=ℓ
Pℓ−1 PM −1
Hence, the result follows if k=m |B \ Ak | ≥ αN d or k=ℓ |Ak | ≥ αN d . Assume by way of
Pℓ−1 P −1
contradiction that k=m |B \ Ak | < αN d and M d
k=ℓ |Ak | < αN . Now, since
M −1 ℓ−1 M −1
rough 1 X X |Ak | X |B \ Ak | X |Ak |
τN (N u) = d
τ (v) = m + d
= ℓ − d
+
N N N Nd
v∈B k=m k=m k=ℓ
rough
it follows that |τN (N u)−ℓ| < α. In particular, τN (N u) = ℓ and we get a contradiction.
Lemma 6.11. For every {u, v} ∈ E(Zd ),

rough rough 1
τN (N u) − τN (N v) ≤ TV (τ ; QN (N u) ∪ QN (N v)) .
N d−1
Proof. With no loss of generality, assume that v = u + ed . Then,
N −1 2N −1
!
rough rough 1 X X X
τN (N u) − τN (N v) = d τ (x + ied ) − τ (x + ied ) ,
N
x∈B i=0 i=N
where B := N u + {0, 1, 2, . . . , N − 1}d−1 × {0}. For every x ∈ B, it holds that

N
X −1 2N
X −1 2N
X −1
τ (x + ied ) − τ (x + ied ) = min{i, 2N − i} (τ (x + (i − 1)ed ) − τ (x + ied )) .
i=0 i=N i=1
and hence
N
X −1 2N
X −1 2N
X −1
τ (x + ied ) − τ (x + ied ) ≤ N |τ (x + (i − 1)ed ) − τ (x + ied )|.
i=0 i=N i=1
Therefore,
N −1 2N −1
rough rough 1 X X X
|τN (N u) − τN (N v)| = τ (x + ied ) − τ (x + ied )
Nd
x∈B i=0 i=N
X 2N −1
1 X
≤ |τ (x + (i − 1)ed ) − τ (x + ied )|
N d−1
x∈B i=1
≤ TV (τ ; QN (N u) ∪ QN (N v)) .
Proof of Proposition 6.6. It is clearly enough to prove that for every {u, v} ∈ E(Zd ),
5
|τN (N u) − τN (N v)| ≤ TV (τ ; QN (N u) ∪ QN (N v)) .
N d−1
rough rough
If τN (N u) = τN (N v) there is nothing to prove. If τN (N u) − τN (N v) ≥ 13 , then
rough rough rough rough

|τN (N u) − τN (N v)| ≤ τN (N u) − τN (N v) + 1 ≤ 4 τN (N u) − τN (N v)
and the result follows from Lemma 6.11.

rough rough 1
Therefore, suppose that τN (N u) − τN (N v) < 3 but τN (N u) 6= τN (N v). Then,
necessarily,
n
rough rough
o 1
max τN (N u) − τN (N u) , τN (N v) − τN (N v) > .
3
rough 1
If |τN (N u) − τN (N u)| > 3 then by Lemma 6.10,
9
|τN (N u) − τN (N v)| = 1 ≤ TV (τ ; QN (N u))
2N d−1
rough 1
and similarly, if |τN (N v) − τN (N v)| > 3 then by Lemma 6.10,
9
|τN (N u) − τN (N v)| = 1 ≤ TV (τ ; QN (N v)) .
2N d−1
Lemma 6.12. Let w ∈ Zd , let g be a function from B := Q2 (2 w) to R, and let µ :=
1 P
2d u∈B g(u). Then,
X X
|g(u) − µ| ≤ |g(u) − g(v)|.
u∈B {u,v}∈E(Zd )∩ B ( )
2
Proof. We first prove by induction on k that for every 1 ≤ k ≤ d that

X d−1 X
|g(u) − g(v)| ≤ |g(u) − g(v)|. (6.13)
B
k−1 B
{u,v}∈( 2 ) {u,v}∈E(Z )∩( 2 )
d
ku−vk1 =k
The base case k = 1 obviously holds as equality, and if (6.13) holds for some k, then it follows
that it holds for k + 1 as well, since
X 1X X
|g(u) − g(v)| = |g(u) − g(v)|
2
B
{u,v}∈( 2 ) u∈B v∈B
ku−vk =k+1 1
ku−vk1 =k+1
1X X 1 X
≤ (|g(u) − g(w)| + |g(w) − g(v)|)
2 k+1
u∈B v∈B w∈B
ku−vk1 =k+1 ku−wk1 =k, w∼v

1 X d−k X 1X 1 d−1 X
= |g(u) − g(w)| + |g(w) − g(v)|
2 k+1 2 k+1 k
u∈B w∈B v∈B w∈B
ku−wk1 =k w∼v

d−k X 1 d−1 X
= |g(u) − g(w)| + |g(v) − g(w)|.
k+1 B
k+1 k
{u,w}∈( )2
{v,w}∈E(Zd )∩ B
2( )
ku−wk1 =k
Now we can conclude the proof of the Lemma.

X X 1 X
|g(u) − µ| ≤ |g(u) − g(v)|
2d
u∈B u∈B v∈B
d
1 X 1 X X
= |g(u) − g(v)| = |g(u) − g(v)|
2d−1 2d−1
{u,v}∈( B
) k=1 {u,v}∈(B )
2 2
ku−vk1 =k
d
1 X d−1 X
≤ d−1 |g(u) − g(v)|
2 k−1
k=1 {u,v}∈E(Zd )∩( B
)
2
X
= |g(u) − g(v)|.
{u,v}∈E(Zd )∩ B
2 ( )
Proof of Proposition 6.7. It is clearly enough to prove that for every w ∈ Zd , it holds that
X
|τ2N (u) − τN (u)|
u∈Q2N (2N w)
X X
≤ 9N TV (τ ; QN (N v)) + 4N TV (τ ; QN (N u) ∪ QN (N v)) ,
v∈B {u,v}∈E(Zd )∩ B ( )
2
where B := Q2 (2 w). Let

rough 1
A := v ∈ B : |τN (N v) − τN (N v)| > .
6
rough rough 1
Note that for every v ∈ B, if τN (N v) = τ2N (N v) or τN (N v) − τ2N (N v) ≥ 3
rough rough
then |τN (N v) − τ2N (N v)| ≤ 4 τN (N v) − τ2N (N v) and if τN (N v) 6= τ2N (N v) and
rough rough
τN (N v) − τ2N (N v) < 13 , then |τN (N v) − τ2N (N v)| = 1 and v ∈ A. Hence,
1 X X
|τN (u) − τ2N (u)| = |τN (N v) − τ2N (N v)|
Nd
u∈Q2N (2N w) v∈B
rough rough
X
≤ |A| + 4 |τN (N v) − τ2N (N v)|,
v∈B
and we are done since by Lemma 6.10,
9 X
|A| ≤ d−1 TV (τ ; QN (N v))
N
v∈A
and by Lemma 6.12 and Lemma 6.11,
X rough rough
X rough rough
|τN (N v) − τ2N (N v)| ≤ |τN (N u) − τN (N v)|
v∈B B
{u,v}∈E(Zd )∩( 2 )
1 X
≤ d−1 TV (τ ; QN (N u) ∪ QN (N v)) .
N B
{u,v}∈E(Z )∩( 2 )
d
6.2.2. Bounding the total variation and weighted difference for fine grainings. In this section
we prove analogous results to Propositions 6.6 and 6.7 for fine grainings, and deduce Proposi-
tion 5.1. For I ∈ [d] d d d

r , let TI : Z → Z be defined as follows: for any x = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xd ) ∈ Z
and every 1 ≤ i ≤ d, the ith coordinate of TI (x) is 2xi if i ∈ I and xi otherwise. Recall that
for every u ∈ Zd , h i
τI (u) = τIrough (u) ,
where by [a] we denote the nearest integer to a and
1
τIrough (u) := r
X
τ (v),
2
v∈QI (TI (w))
where w is the unique point in Zd such that u ∈ QI (TI (w)).

[d]
Lemma 6.13. For every I ∈ r and {u, v} ∈ E(Zd ),
1
τIrough (TI (u)) − τIrough (TI (v)) ≤ r−1 TV (τ ; QI (TI (u)) ∪ QI (TI (v))) . (6.14)
2
Proof. If u − v ∈ {−ei , ei } for i ∈ / I, then (6.14) easily follows by a straightforward use of
the triangle inequlity; otherwise, (6.14) is simply the claim of Lemma 6.11 for N = 2 in the
appropriate r-dimensional affine subspace of Zd .
Proposition 6.14. Let I ∈ [d]

r be chosen uniformly at random. Then, for every τ : Λ → Z,
the following holds:
E TV(τI ) ≤ 10(2r + 1) TV(τ )
Proof. For every {x, y} ∈ E(Zd ), let X{x,y} be the random variable defined as follows:
X{x,y} = 2d if x − y ∈ {ei , −ei } for i ∈ I and X{x,y} = 1 otherwise. Note that for every
{x, y} ∈ E(Zd ), it holds that EX{x,y} = dr · 2d + 1 − dr · 1 < 2r + 1.

Note that for every {x, y} ∈ E(Zd ),

X{x,y} = |{u, v} ∈ E(Zd ) : {x, y} ⊂ QI (TI (u) ∪ QI (TI (v))}|.
The same argument as in the proof of Proposition 6.6, where Lemma 6.11 is replaced by
Lemma 6.13, and Lemma 6.10 is applied in an appropriate r-dimensional affine subspace of
Zd , yields that for every {u, v} ∈ E(Zd ),
5
|τI (TI (u)) − τI (TI (v))| ≤ TV (τ ; QI (TI (u)) ∪ QI (TI (v))) .
2r−1
Therefore,
X
TV(τI ) ≤ 2r |τI (TI (u)) − τI (TI (v))|
{u,v}∈E(Zd )
X X
≤ 10 TV(τ ; QI (TI (u) ∪ QI (TI (v))) = 10 |τ (x) − τ (y)|X{x,y} .
{u,v}∈E(Zd ) {x,y}∈E(Zd )
Hence,
X
E TV(τI ) ≤ 10 |τ (x) − τ (y)| EX{x,y} ≤ 10(2r + 1) TV(τ ).
{x,y}∈E(Zd )
[d]
Proposition 6.15. Let I ∈ r be chosen uniformly at random. Then, for every τ : Λ → Z,
the following holds:
2r
EkτI − τ k1 ≤ TV(τ ).
d
Proof. For every 1 ≤ i ≤ d, let Xi be the random variable defined as follows: Xi = 1 if i ∈ I
and Xi = 0 otherwise. For every u ∈ Zd it holds that |τ (u) − τI (u)| ≤ 2 τ (u) − τIrough (u) .
Hence, for every w ∈ Zd , by Lemma 6.12,
|τ (u) − τIrough (u)|

X X
|τ (u) − τI (u)| ≤ 2
v∈QI (TI (w)) v∈QI (TI (w))
X
≤2 |τ (u) − τ (v)|.
QI (TI (w))
{u,v}∈E(Zd )∩( 2 )
Therefore,
X X d
X X
kτI − τ k1 ≤ 2 |τ (u) − τ (v)| = 2 |τ (u) − τ (v)|Xi
i∈I {u,v}∈E(Zd ) i=1 {u,v}∈E(Zd )
u−v∈{−ei ,ei } u−v∈{−ei ,ei }
and hence,
d
X X
EkτI − τ k1 ≤ 2 |τ (u) − τ (v)|EXi
i=1 {u,v}∈E(Zd )
u−v∈{−ei ,ei }
d
2r X X 2r
= |τ (u) − τ (v)| = TV(τ ).
d d
i=1 {u,v}∈E(Zd )
u−v∈{−ei ,ei }
[d]
Proof of Proposition 5.1. Let I ∈ r be chosen uniformly at random, By Markov inequality
and Propositions 6.14 and 6.15,
E TV(τI ) 1
P (TV(τI ) ≥ 20(2r + 1) TV(τ ) + 1) ≤ <
20(2r + 1) TV(τ ) + 1 2
and
EkτI − τ k1

4r 1
P kτI − τ k1 ≥ TV(τ ) ≤ 4r ≤ .
d d TV(τ )
2
Hence,

4r
P TV(τI ) ≤ 20(2r + 1) TV(τ ) and kτI − τ k1 < TV(τ ) > 0
d
and the result follows.
6.2.3. Entropy bounds.

Lemma 6.16. For every A ⊂ Zd and finite B ⊆ ∂ out A, there is a set S ⊆ B such that
|S| < d1 |∂A| and B ⊆ a∈S B4 (a).
S
Proof. We first show that for every a ∈ ∂ out A,

∂A ∩ Zd × B2 (a) > d. (6.15)
With no loss of generality assume that a + ed ∈ A, and let E := {−ei }d−1 d−1
i=1 ∪ {ei }i=1 . For
every u ∈ E, denote
Tu := {(a + u, a), (a + ed , a + u + +ed ), (a + u + ed , a + u)} .
If a + u ∈ A then (au , a) ∈ ∂A; if a + u + ed ∈/ A then (a + ed , a + u + ed ) ∈ ∂A; finally, if
a+u ∈ / A and a + u + ed ∈ A then (a + u + ed , a + u) ∈ ∂A. Hence, ∂A ∩ Tu 6= ∅ for every
u ∈ E, and (6.15) follows since the 2d − 2 > d sets {Tu }u∈E are mutually disjoint.
Now, let S be a set of maximal cardinality in BSsuch that the sets {B2 (a)}a∈S are mutually
disjoint. The maximality of S implies that B ⊆ a∈S B4 (a), and by (6.15),
1X 1
|S| < ∂A ∩ Zd × B2 (a) ≤ |∂A|.
d d
a∈S
We will say that a set A ⊆ Zd is ℓ+ 1 -connected if for any two points a, b ∈ A there is a
sequence a = s0 , s1 , . . . , sn = b of points in A such that ksi−1 − si k1 ≤ 2 for every 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
Lemma 6.17. SLet A ⊂ Zd be an ℓ+1 -connected finite set, and assume that there is a set S ⊆ A
such that A ⊆ a∈S B4 (a). Then,
diam(A) < 10|S| (6.16)
Moreover, there is an ordering a1 , a2 , . . . , a|S| of S such that, denoting a|S|+1 := a1 ,
|S|
X
kai − ai+1 k1 < 20|S|. (6.17)
i=1
Consequently, for every finite Ω ⊂ Zd , there is an ordering ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ω|Ω| of Ω such that,

denoting ω|Ω|+1 := ω1 ,
|Ω|
X X
kωi − ωi+1 k1 < 20|S| + 8|Ω| + 2 dist(ω, A). (6.18)
i=1 ω∈Ω
Proof. Consider the complete graph K on the vertex set S, and its spanning subgraph G in
which a, b ∈ S are adjacent if there are u ∈ B4 (a), v ∈ B4 (b) such that ku − vk1 ≤ 2. For any
edge e = {a, b} of K, denote kek := ka − bk1 . Note that kek ≤ 10 for every edge e of G. Since
A is ℓ+1 -connected, it follows that the graph G is connected. Let T be a spanning tree of G.
To prove (6.16), we need to show that ka − ãk1 < 10|S| for every a, ã ∈ A. There are
s, s̃ ∈ S such that a ∈ B4 (s) and ã ∈ B4 (s̃). Let s = s0 , s1 , . . . , sk = s̃ be the unique path
from s to s̃ in T . Then,
k
X
ka − ãk1 ≤ ka − sk1 + ksi−1 − si k1 + ks̃ − ãk1 ≤ 4 + 10k + 4 < 10(k + 1) ≤ 10|S|.
i=1
Using the structure of the tree, we may arrange the edges of T , each taken in both directions
to create a directed cycle C0 that goes through all the vertices. Let C1 be the simple cycle in
K obtained from C0 by omitting multiple occurrences of vertices. Then, by using the triangle
inequality,
X X X
kek ≤ kek = 2 kek ≤ 20|E(T )| = 20(|S| − 1)
e∈E(C1 ) e∈E(C0 ) e∈E(T )
which proves (6.17).

Finally, let Ω ⊂ Zd be a finite set. Let a1 , a2 , . . . , a|S| be an ordering of S such that
P|S|
(denoting a|S|+1 := a1 ) i=1 kai − ai+1 k1 < 20|S|. For every ω ∈ Ω, there is 1 ≤ n(ω) ≤ |S|
such that kω − an(ω) k1 ≤ 4 + dist(ω, A). Let ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ω|Ω| be an ordering of Ω such that
n(ωj ) ≤ n(ωj+1 ) for every 1 ≤ j < |Ω| (it is easy to see that such orderings exist), and denote
ω|Ω|+1 := ω1 . Then, for every 1 ≤ j ≤ |Ω|,
n(ωj+1 )−1
X
kωj − ωj+1 k1 ≤ kωj − an(ωj ) k1 + kai − ai+1 k1 + kan(ωj+1 ) − ωj+1 k1
i=n(ωj )
n(ωj+1 )−1
X
≤ kai − ai+1 k1 + 8 + dist(ωj , A) + dist(ωj+1 , A),
i=n(ωj )
Pn(ω1 )−1 P|S|
where, for j = |Ω|, the sum i=n(ω ) kai − ai+1 k1 should be interpreted as i=n(ω ) kai −
|Ω| |Ω|
Pn(ω )−1
ai+1 k1 + i=11 kai − ai+1 k1 . Hence,
|Ω| |S|
X X X
kωj − ωj+1 k1 ≤ kai − ai+1 k1 + 8|Ω| + 2 dist(ω, A)
j=1 i=1 ω∈Ω
X
< 20|S| + 8|Ω| + 2 dist(ω, A).
ω∈Ω
Following Timár [T13], we define, for a set A ⊆ Zd and v ∈ Zd ∪ {∞}, the outer vertex
boundary of A visible from v:
∂vis(v) A := u ∈ ∂ out A : there exists a path from u to v not intersecting A .

(6.19)
Observation 6.18. For every bounded A ⊆ Zd and every u ∈ A it holds that

dist(u, ∂vis(∞) A) < diam(∂vis(∞) A).
Proof. There is w ∈ ∂vis(∞) A such that dist(u, ∂vis(∞) A) = ku−wk1 . With no loss of generality
we may assume that the first coordinate of u − w is non-negative. Let n0 := max{n ∈
Z : u + ne1 ∈ A} + 1. Obviously, u + n0 e1 ∈ ∂vis(∞) A. Therefore,
dist(u, ∂vis(∞) A) = ku − wk1 < k(u + n0 e1 ) − wk1 ≤ diam(∂vis(∞) A).
The following lemma is a special case of [T13, Theorem 3].
Lemma 6.19. For every connected A ⊆ Zd and every v ∈ Zd ∪ {∞}, the set ∂vis(v) A is
ℓ+
1 -connected.
Observation 6.20. The number of level components of τN satisfies the following bound
TV(τN )
|LC(τN )| ≤
dN d−1
and similarly, for the number of level components of τI ,
TV(τI )
|LC(τI )| ≤ .
d 2|I|−1
1
Proof. For every level component A of τN it holds, by (6.10), that |∂A| ≥ 2d|A|1− d ≥ 2d N d−1 .
Hence,
1 X 1
|LC(τN )| ≤ d−1
|∂A| ≤ 2 TV(τN ).
2d N 2d N d−1
A∈LC(τN )
1
Similarly, for every level component A of τI it holds, by (6.10), that |∂A| ≥ 2d|A|1− d ≥
|I|
2d 2|I|− d ≥ 2d 2|I|−1 . Hence,
1 X 1
|LC(τN )| ≤ |∂A| ≤ 2 TV(τI ).
2d 2|I|−1 2d 2|I|−1
A∈LC(τI )
Proposition 6.21. Let τ, τ̃ be two shifts and let r be a positive integer such that for every
level component Ã ∈ LC(τ̃ ) of τ̃ , there exists a level component A ∈ LC(τ ) of τ such that
dist(Ã, ∂vis(∞) A) ≤ r. Then,
88
R(τ̃ ) ≤ R(τ ) + TV(τ ) + (2r + 8)|LC(τ̃ )|.
d
N −1
Proof. For simplicity, denote N := |LC(τ )|. Let (ui )i=0 be a sequence of points in Zd such
PN −1
that u0 = 0, i=1 kui−1 − ui k1 = R(τ ) and each ui is in a different level component of τ ,
which we denote Ai . For every Ã ∈ LC(τ̃ ) there are 0 ≤ i(Ã) ≤ N − 1 and ω(Ã) ∈ Ã such
that dist(ω(Ã), ∂vis(∞) Ai(Ã) ) ≤ r. For every 0 ≤ i ≤ N − 1, let
Ωi := {ui } ∪ {ω(Ã) : Ã ∈ LC(τ̃ ), i(Ã) = i}.

1
S Lemma 6.16, there is a set Si ⊆ ∂vis(∞) Ai such that |Si | <
By d |∂Ai | and ∂vis(∞) Ai ⊆
a∈Si B4 (a). By Observation 6.18 and (6.16),
10
|∂Ai |.
dist(xi , ∂vis(∞) Ai ) < diam(∂vis(∞) Ai ) < 10|Si | <
d
The set ∂vis(∞) Ai is ℓ+
1 -connected, by Lemma 6.19. Hence, by (6.18), there is an ordering
(i) (i) (i) (i) (i)
ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ω|Ωi | of Ωi such that, denoting ω|Ωi |+1 := ω1 ,
|Ωi |
(i) (i)
X X
kωj − ωj+1 k1 <20|Si | + 8|Ωi | + 2 dist(ω, ∂vis(∞) Ai )
j=1 ω∈Ωi
20 20
< |∂Ai | + 8|Ωi | + |∂Ai | + 2(|Ωi | − 1)r
d d
40
= |∂Ai | + (2r + 8)(|Ωi | − 1) + 8.
d
(i)
With no loss of generality we may assume that ω1 = xi . Hence, for every 1 ≤ i ≤ N − 1,
(i−1) (i) (i−1) (i−1) (i−1) (i) (i) (i)
kω|Ωi−1 | − ω2 k1 ≤ kω|Ωi−1 | − ω1 k1 + kω1 − ω1 k1 + kω1 − ω2 k1
(i−1) (i−1) (i) (i)
= kω|Ωi−1 | − ω1 k1 + kui−1 − ui k1 + kω1 − ω2 k1 .
Therefore, considering the sequence
(0) (0) (0) (1) (1) (1) (2) (2) (N −1)
0 = ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ω|Ω0 | , ω2 , ω3 , . . . , ω|Ω1 | , ω2 , ω3 , . . . , ω|ΩN−1 | ,
we conclude that
 
|Ω0 |−1 N −1 |Ωi |−1
(0) (0) kω (i−1) − ω2(i) k1 + (i) (i)
X X X
R(τ̃ ) ≤ kωj − ωj+1 k1 + |Ωi−1 | kωj − ωj+1 k1 
j=1 i=1 j=2
 
|Ω0 |−1 N −1 |Ωi |−1
(0) (0) kω (i−1) − ω1(i−1) k1 + kui−1 − ui k1 + (i) (i)
X X X
≤ kωj − ωj+1 k1 + |Ωi−1 | kωj − ωj+1 k1 
j=1 i=1 j=1
N |Ωi |
−1 X
(i) (i) (N −1) (N −1)
X
= kωj − ωj+1 k1 − kω|ΩN−1 | − ω1 k1 + R(τ )
i=1 j=1
N −1
X 40
< |∂Ai | + (2r + 8)(|Ωi | − 1) + 8 + R(τ )
d
i=1
N −1 N −1
40 X X
= |∂Ai | + (2r + 8) (|Ωi | − 1) + 8(N − 1) + R(τ ),
d
i=1 i=1
PN −1 PN −1
and the result follows since i=1 |∂Ai | ≤ 2 TV(τ ), i=1 (|Ωi | − 1) = |LC(τ̃ )| and by Obser-
vation 6.20, N − 1 < TV(τ )/d.
Lemma 6.22. There is a universal constant C > 0 such that for every shift τ and for every
integer N ≥ 2,
C
R(τN ) ≤ R(τ ) + TV(τ ), (6.20)
d
and for every I ∈ comp(τ ),

C
R(τI ) ≤ R(τ ) + TV(τ ). (6.21)
d
Proof. Let Ã be a level component of τN . By the definition of τN , there are necessarily
u1 ∼ u2 , both at distance at most N from Ã, such that u1 ∈ A1 and u2 ∈ A2 , where A1 , A2
are distinct level components of τ . It is easy to see that for every two disjoint connected sets
A1 , A2 ⊆ Zd , it holds that
E(Zd ) ∩ (A1 × A2 ) ⊆ A1 × ∂vis(∞) (A1 ) ∪ ∂vis(∞) (A2 ) × A2 .

(6.22)
It follows that for every level component Ã of τN , there is a level component A of τ such that
dist(Ã, ∂vis(∞) A) ≤ N . Hence, by Proposition 6.21,
88
R(τN ) ≤ R(τ ) + TV(τ ) + (2N + 8)|LC(τN )|,
d
and (6.20) follows, since by Observation 6.20 and Proposition 6.6,
1 10
|LC(τN )| ≤ TV(τN ) ≤ d−1 TV(τ ).
dN d−1 N
Similarly, if I ⊆ [d], then for every level component Ã of τI , there is a level component A
of τ such that dist(Ã, ∂vis(∞) A) ≤ 2. Hence, by Proposition 6.21,
88
R(τI ) ≤ R(τ ) + TV(τ ) + 12|LC(τI )|,
d
and (6.21) follows, for I ∈ comp(τ ), since then, by Observation 6.20,
1 20(2|I| + 1)
|LC(τI )| ≤ TV(τI ) ≤ TV(τ ).
d2|I|−1 d 2|I|−1
The following observation is a simple one, deriving from the definition of total variation
and triangle inequality:
Observation 6.23. For any two shifts τ, τ ′ the following holds:
TV(τ + τ ′ ) ≤ TV(τ ) + TV(τ ′ ).
Lemma 6.24. There is a universal constant c such that for any two shifts τ, τ ′ ,
88 10
R τ + τ ′ ≤ 2R (τ ) + R τ ′ + TV (τ ) + TV τ ′ + TV(τ + τ ′ )

d d
98
≤ 2R (τ ) + R τ ′ + TV (τ ) + TV τ ′ ,

d
where the second inequality follows by Observation 6.23.
Proof. Suppose that u1 ∼ u2 belong to different level components of τ + τ ′ . Then, u1 ∈ A1
and u2 ∈ A2 , where A1 and A2 are distinct level components of the same function in {τ, τ ′ }.
By (6.22), u1 ∈ ∂vis(∞) (A2 ) or u2 ∈ ∂vis(∞) (A1 ). It follows that for every Ã ∈ LC(τ + τ ′ ),
there is A ∈ LC(τ ) ∪ LC(τ ′ ) such that dist(Ã, ∂vis(∞) A) ≤ 1. Then, a similar argument to
that of the proof of Proposition 6.21 yields that
88
R(τ + τ ′ ) ≤ 2R(τ ) + R(τ ′ ) + TV(τ ) + TV(τ ′ ) + 10|LC(τ + τ ′ )|

d
and the result follows since |LC(τ + τ ′ )| ≤ 1d TV(τ + τ ′ ), by Observation 6.20.
6.3. Enumeration of shifts. The goal of this section is prove Proposition 6.3 and Corollary
6.4. Before proving Proposition 6.3, we first show how it easily implies Corollary 6.4. Intu-
itively it is clear that the number of possible grainings of a shift of bounded complexity will
decrease significantly as the scale of the grainings grows. Corollary 6.4 quantify this simple
statement and is a direct result of the previously obtained total variation and trip entropy
bounds for coarse and fine grainings, a simple scaling argument, and Proposition 6.3 bounding
the number of general shifts with limited total variation and trip entropy.
Proof of Corollary 6.4. To show the first bound, let SN be the set of shifts which are constant
in each set of the partition PN . Then, by Proposition 6.6 and (6.20) there is a universal
constant C > 0 such that

C
{τN : τ ∈ S, TV(τ ) ≤ λ, R(τ ) ≤ ρ} ⊆ τ ∈ SN : TV(τ ) ≤ 10dλ, R(τ ) ≤ ρ + λ .
d
Denote by µN : Zd → Zd the multiplication by N . The mapping τ 7→ τ ◦ µN is obviously a
1
bijection of SN onto S, and moreover, for every τ ∈ SN , clearly TV(τ ◦ µN ) ≤ N d−1 TV(τ )
and R(τ ◦ µN ) ≤ R(τ ). Hence,

C
|{τN : τ ∈ S, TV(τ ) ≤ λ, R(τ ) ≤ ρ}| ≤ τ ∈ SN : TV(τ ) ≤ 10dλ, R(τ ) ≤ ρ + λ
d

10dλ C
≤ τ ∈ S : TV(τ ) ≤ d−1 , R(τ ) ≤ ρ + λ .
N d
The bound (6.5) now follows directly from Proposition 6.3. The proof of (6.6) is similar.
Proof of Proposition 6.3. Fix a shift τ . Let J(τ ) be the number of level components of τ , let
J(τ ) PJ(τ )−1
(xj (τ ))j=1 be a sequence of points in Zd such that x1 (τ ) = 0, j=1 kxj (τ ) − xj+1 (τ )k1 =
J(τ )
R(τ ) and there is a unique element of {xj (τ )}j=1 in each level component of τ . For every
1 ≤ j ≤ J(τ ), let Lj (τ ) be the level component of τ containing xj (τ ). Let j0 (τ ) be the index
of the unique unbounded level component of τ .
Define a partial order ≤τ on the set [J(τ )] as follows: i ≤τ j ifSevery path from Li
to ∞ necessarily intersects Lj . For every j ∈ [J(τ )], let Uj (τ ) := i≤τ j Li (τ ). Clearly,
Uj0 (τ ) (τ ) = Zd .
Let G(τ ) be the graph on the vertex set [J(τ )] in which i 6= j are adjacent if there are
neighbouring x ∈ Li and y ∈ Lj . Define a rooted spanning tree T (τ ) of G(τ ) in the following
inductive manner. Set V0 := {j0 (τ )}, Ṽ0 := {j0 (τ )} and E0 := ∅, and for every 1 ≤ r ≤ J(τ ),
let ir := min Ṽr−1 and set Vr := Vr−1 ∪ {j ∈ [J(τ )] \ Vr−1 : j is adjacent to ir in G(τ )},
Ṽr := (Ṽr−1 \ {ir }) ∪ (Vr \ Vr−1 ) and Er := Er−1 ∪ {(ir , j) : j ∈ Vr \ Vr−1 }. Finally, let T (τ )
be the tree on the vertex set VJ(τ ) = [J(τ )] whose set of (directed) edges is EJ(τ ) . For every
directed edge e = (i, j) of T (τ ), let se (τ ) := τ (Li ) − τ (Lj ).
PJ(τ )
Clearly, j=1 |∂Lj (τ )| ≤ 2TV(τ ) and by (6.10), |∂Lj (τ )| ≥ 2d for every 1 ≤ j ≤ J(τ ).
1
Consequently, J(τ ) ≤ 2d TV(τ ). Moreover, clearly J(τ ) ≤ 1+ R(τ ). For every positive integer
λ
J ≤ min{ 2d .1 + ρ}, let
S̃J := {τ ∈ S : TV(τ ) ≤ λ, R(τ ) ≤ ρ, J(τ ) = J}.
The map
χ : τ 7→ J(τ ), j0 (τ ), (Uj (τ ))j0 (τ )6=j∈[J(τ )] , (se (τ ))e∈E(T (τ ))
is clearly injective, hence

X X
|{τ ∈ S : TV(τ ) ≤ λ, R(τ ) ≤ ρ}| = |S̃J | ≤ |χ(S̃J )|. (6.23)
λ λ
J≤ 2d J≤ 2d
In the estimates below we will use the following estimates several times. First, for every
positive integers k and n,
k
nk en k

n 3n
≤ < < . (6.24)
k k! k k
For every positive integers k and m there are no more than min{k, m} non-zero terms in
every sequence (ai )ki=1 such that ki=1 |ai | ≤ m and hence
P
k k
|ai | ≤ m}| ≤ 2min{k,m} |{(pi )ki=1 ∈ Z ∩ [0, ∞)]k :
X X
|{(ai )ki=1 ∈ Zk : pi ≤ m}|
i=1 i=1

min{k,m} m+k min{k,m} m+k
=2 =2 .
k m
Therefore, for every positive integers k and m and real α ≥ k, by (6.24),

k
X m+k m k m α
|{(ai )ki=1 k
∈Z : |ai | ≤ m}| ≤ 2 k
≤ 6 +1 ≤ 6 +1 , (6.25)
k k α
i=1
m
t
where the last inequality holds since the function t 7→ t + 1 is increasing in the interval
(0, ∞), and also
k m
X m+k k α m
|{(ai )ki=1 ∈ Zk : |ai | ≤ m}| ≤ 2m ≤ 6 +1 ≤ 6 +1 . (6.26)
m m m
i=1
Let Bd denote the family of finite A ⊂ Zd such that both A and Zd \ A are connected. For
every shift τ and j0 (τ ) 6= j ∈ [J(τ )], the set Uj (τ ) is obviously in Bd . By [BB07, Theorem 6]
(improving on [LM98, Corollary 1.2]; see more details in Appendix A), it holds that for every
x ∈ Zd and integer b ≥ 2d,
|{A ∈ Bd : x ∈ A, |∂A| = b}| ≤ (8d)2b/d . (6.27)

d J−1 such
P for every x1 , . . . , xJ ∈ Z , 1 ≤ j0 ≤ J and integers (bj )j0 6=j∈[J] ∈ ([2d, ∞))
Hence,
that j0 6=j∈[J] bj ≤ λ,
Y
|{(Aj )j0 6=j∈[J] : ∀j0 6= j ∈ [J] it holds that Aj ∈ Bd , xj ∈ Aj , |∂Aj | = bj | ≤ (8d)2bj /d
j0 6=j∈[J]
P
= (8d)2 j0 6=j∈[J ] bj /d ≤ (8d)2λ/d .
P
For every shift τ it holds that j0 (τ )6=j∈[J(τ )] |∂Uj (τ )| ≤ TV(τ ) and by (6.10), |∂Uj (τ )| ≥ 2d
for every j0 (τ ) 6= j ∈ [J(τ )]. Therefore, since by (6.25) (noting that d(J − 1) < λ/2) and
(6.26) (noting that d(J − 1) ≤ dρ),

J−1
X J−1
X
|{(xj )Jj=1 d J
∈ (Z ) : x1 = 0, kxj − xj+1 k1 ≤ ρ}| = |{(yj )J−1
j=1
d J−1
∈ (Z ) : kyj k1 ≤ ρ}|
j=1 j=1
d(J−1) ( λ/2 )
d(J−1) d(J−1)
X 2ρ ρ
= |{(ai )i=1 ∈Z : |ai | ≤ ρ}| ≤ min 6 +1 , (6(d + 1))
λ
i=1
( λ/2 )
2ρ ρ
≤ min 6 +1 , (8d)
λ
and for every 1 ≤ j0 ≤ J, by (6.24),

J−1
X λ − 2d(J − 1) + J − 1
|{(bj )j0 6=j∈[J] ∈ (Z ∩ [2d, ∞)) : bj ≤ λ}| =
J −1
j0 6=j∈[J]
J−1 J−1
3(λ − 2d(J − 1) + J − 1) 3λ λ
< < ≤ (6d) 2d
J −1 J −1
λ
(where the last inequality holds since J − 1 < 2d and the function t 7→ (eλ/t)t is increasing
in the interval (0, λ]), we conclude that
|{(j0 (τ ), (Uj (τ ))j0 (τ )6=j∈[J(τ )] ) : τ ∈ S̃J }|

( λ/2 )
λ 2ρ ρ λ 2λ
≤ min 6 +1 , (8d) (6d) 2d (8d) d (6.28)
2d λ
P
Additionally, for every τ , clearly e∈E(T (τ )) |se (τ )| ≤ TV(τ ). Hence, by using (6.25), since
λ
J − 1 < J ≤ 2d ,
λ λ
|{(se (τ ))e∈E(T (τ )) : τ ∈ S̃J }| ≤ (6(2d + 1)) 2d ≤ (14d) 2d .
λ
Combining this with (6.28) we get that for every J ≤ min{ 2d , ρ + 1},
( λ/2 )
λ 2ρ 3 λ/d ρ

|χ(S̃J )| ≤ min C1 +1 , C2 d (8d)
λ
for some universal positive constants C1 , C2 , and the result follows by (6.23).
6.4. Concentration of ground energy differences. In this section we prove Lemma 6.1
in the following equivalent formulation.
There exist universal C, c > 0 such that the following holds. Suppose the disorder distributions
ν k , ν ⊥ satisfy (1.11). Then for any shift τ and any non-negative bk , b⊥ for which ρDob ∈
k ⊥
ΩΛ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) ,
t2

η,Λ,(bk ,b⊥ )
P |G (τ )| ≥ t ≤ C exp −c . (6.29)
(This is a special case of Lemma 6.1, for τ ′ ≡ 0, and it implies the lemma in full generality,
k ⊥ τ′ k ⊥
since Gη,Λ,(b ,b ) (τ, τ ′ ) = Gη ,Λ,(b ,b ) (τ − τ ′ ) for any two shifts τ, τ ′ .)
We aim to use Corollary 2.3 to show concentration of the ground energy difference under
changes in the disorder η induced by shifts. To be able to do so would require approximating
the ground energy difference by a function of the disorder on finitely many edges.
To be exact, for Λ ⊂ Zd finite we write ∆M := Λ × {−M, . . . , M }, and define
k ,b⊥ ) Dob k ,b⊥ )
Ω∆M ,A,(b := Ω∆M ,ρ ∩ ΩΛ,A,(b
to be the space of configurations on ∆M satisfying the Dobrushin boundary conditions and

layering bounds (bk , b⊥ ) in A ⊆ Λ. Let η : E(Zd+1 ) → [0, ∞). Denote by
k ⊥
n k ⊥
o
GE∆M ,A,(b ,b ) (η) := min Hη,Λ (σ) : σ ∈ Ω∆M ,A,(b ,b )
k ⊥ k ,b⊥ ) k ,b⊥ )
and by G∆M ,(b ,b ) (τ ) = GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b (η) − GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b (η τ ). Then under the
above definitions, the following holds:
Lemma 6.25. Let Λ ⊂ Zd be finite, τ a shift and non-negative bk , b⊥ for which ρDob ∈
k ⊥
ΩΛ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) . Then
k ⊥ k ⊥

lim P Gη,∆M ,(b ,b ) (τ ) = Gη,Λ,(b ,b ) (τ ) = 1.
M →∞
The proof of Lemma 6.25 is routine, and appears in appendix B for completeness.
By the lemma above proving (6.29) may be reduced to the following.
Proposition 6.26. There exist universal C, c > 0 such that the following holds. Suppose the
disorder distributions ν k , ν ⊥ satisfy (1.11). Then for any shift τ and non-negative bk , b⊥ for
k ⊥
which ρDob ∈ ΩΛ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) and every positive integer M ,
t2

η,∆M ,(bk ,b⊥ )
P G (τ ) ≥ t ≤ C exp −c . (6.30)
The rest of this section will be devoted to proving Proposition 6.26. Note that condition
(1.11) implies that wid(ν k ) 6= 0. Also notice that if wid(ν ⊥ ) = 0 then ν ⊥ is supported on
one point, so the value of the coupling field on perpendicular plaquettes is fixed rather than
random. This simplifies the argument and hence we will assume that wid(ν ⊥ ) 6= 0. Let
H := {ηe : e ∈ E(Zd+1 ), e * supp(τ ) × Z},

AM := {e ∈ E(Zd+1 ) : e ⊆ supp(τ ) × {−M, . . . , M }},
and for every e ∈ AM , let
ηe
e ∈ E k (Zd+1 ),
(
wid(ν k )
Xe := ηe
wid(ν ⊥ )
e ∈ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ).
k ⊥
Conditioned on H, the ground energy GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η) may be viewed as a function of
{Xe }e∈AM . Moreover, it is easy to verify that it is quasi-concave. Therefore, the following
lemma will allow us to apply Corollary 2.3 to it.
k ⊥
Lemma 6.27. The ground energy GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b p ,b )
(η), conditioned on H, is Lipschitz, as
a function of {Xe }e∈AM , with Lipschitz constant 2 wid(ν k )2 bk + wid(ν ⊥ )2 b⊥ .
Before proving Lemma 6.27, we show how it implies Proposition 6.26. By Lemma 6.27 and
k ⊥
Corollary 2.3, E|(GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η) | H)| < ∞ and for each t > 0,
k ,b⊥ )
k ⊥

P GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b (η) | H − E GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η) | H ≥ t
t2

≤ C exp −c . (6.31)
k ,b⊥ )
Similarly, E|(GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b (η τ ) | H)| < ∞ and for each t > 0,
k ,b⊥ )
k ⊥

P GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b (η τ ) | H − E GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η τ ) | H ≥ t
t2

≤ C exp −c . (6.32)
Observe that the following holds, by linearity of expectation and the facts that the disorder
is independent and η τ has the same distribution as η.
Observation 6.28. It holds that

k ⊥
k ⊥

E GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η) | H = E GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η τ ) | H .
Observation 6.28 implies that for every t > 0,
k ⊥

P Gη,∆M ,(b ,b ) | H ≥ t
k ⊥
k ⊥

≤P GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η) | H − E GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η) | H ≥ t/2
k ⊥
k ⊥

+P GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η τ ) | H − E GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η τ ) | H ≥ t/2
and (6.30) follows by (6.31) and (6.32).
d+1 )\A
Proof of Lemma 6.27. For y ∈ [0, ∞)AM and ỹ ∈ [0, ∞)E(Z M let h(y, ỹ) : E(Zd+1 ) →
[0, ∞) be defined by

k e ∈ AM ∩ E k (Zd+1 ),
wid(ν )ye

(h(y, ỹ))e = wid(ν ⊥ )ye e ∈ AM ∩ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ),
e ∈ E(Zd+1 ) \ AM .

ỹ

d )\A
We need to verify that for any ỹ ∈ [0, ∞)E(Z M and y, y ′ ∈ [0, ∞)AM it holds that
q
k ,b⊥ ) k ,b⊥ )
|GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b (h) − GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b (h′ )| ≤ 2 wid(ν k )2 bk + wid(ν ⊥ )2 b⊥ ky − y ′ k2 ,
k ,b⊥ )
where h := h(y, ỹ) and h′ := h(y ′ , ỹ). Let σ ′ be (some) ground configuration in ΩΛ,supp(τ ),(b
with respect to the coupling field h′ . Then,
′
X
Hh,Λ (σ ′ ) − Hh ,Λ (σ ′ ) ≤ |h{x,y} − h′{x,y} | 1 − σx′ σy′

{x,y}∈AM
X
= wid(ν k ) ′
| 1 − σx′ σy′ +

|y{x,y} − y{x,y}
{x,y}∈AM ∩E k (Zd+1 )
X
wid(ν ⊥ ) ′
| 1 − σx′ σy′

|y{x,y} − y{x,y}
{x,y}∈AM ∩E ⊥ (Zd+1 )
q
≤2 wid(ν k )2 bk + wid(ν ⊥ )2 b⊥ ky − y ′ k2 ,
where the last inequality is by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (and the layering bound on σ ′
k ⊥ k ⊥
deriving from the fact σ ′ ∈ Ω∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) ). Since GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (h) ≤ Hh,Λ (σ ′ ) and
k ⊥ ′
GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (h′ ) = Hh ,Λ (σ ′ ), it follows that
q
k ⊥ k ⊥
GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (h) − GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (h′ ) ≤ 2 wid(ν k )2 bk + wid(ν ⊥ )2 b⊥ ky − y ′ k2 .
A symmetric inequality of the form

q
∆M ,supp(τ ),(bk ,b⊥ ) ′ ∆M ,supp(τ ),(bk ,b⊥ )
GE (h ) − GE (h) ≤ 2 wid(ν k )2 bk + wid(ν ⊥ )2 b⊥ ky − y ′ k2 .
holds with identical reasoning, and so we are done.
6.5. Layering bounds. In this section we prove Lemma 6.2. Fix positive αk , α⊥ and a finite
set Λ ⊂ Zd . Recall the definitions of parallel and perpendicular layering in (6.1) and (6.2).
Introduce the following convenient notation: For η ∈ D(αk , α⊥ ), θ ∈ {k, ⊥} write LθE (η) :=
LθE (σ η,Λ,Dob ) where σ η,Λ,Dob is the unique ground configuration, existing by Lemma 1.5. We
will use the following proposition, which will be proved in Section 7.
Proposition 6.29. Let E ⊂ Λ and let η ∈ D(αk , α⊥ ) be a coupling field. Then, there exists
a shift function τ satisfying the following:

k
Gη,Λ (τ ) ≥ 2αk LE (η) − |E| + 2α⊥ max{L⊥
E (η), TV(τ )},
1
Gη,Λ (τ ) ≥ min{αk , α⊥ }d (R(τ ) − R(E) − 2(|E| − 1)) .
16
Fix any coupling field η ∈ D(αk , α⊥ ). For brevity, we will once more write G for Gη,Λ , AS
for AS η,Λ (αk , α⊥ ), admissible for (αk , α⊥ )-admissible and MG for MGη,Λ (αk , α⊥ ).
The following proposition establishes a useful general layering bound.
Proposition 6.30. Let E ⊂ Λ, and τ a shift. The following layering bound holds:

k
α⊥ L⊥ τ
E (η ) + α
k
LE (η τ ) − |E|
n o
≤ max MG, 2α⊥ TV (τ ) + 2 min{αk , α⊥ }d (R(τ ) + R (E) + |E|) . (6.33)
Proof. By Proposition 6.29, applied to the set E and the shifted disorder η τ , there is a shift
τ ′ such that

τ k
Gη ,Λ (τ ′ ) ≥ 2αk LE (η τ ) − |E| + 2α⊥ max{L⊥ τ ′
E (η ), TV(τ )},
τ ,Λ 1
Gη (τ ′ ) ≥ min{αk , α⊥ }d R(τ ′ ) − R(E) − 2(|E| − 1) .

16
Note that
τ ,Λ
′
′
Gη (τ ′ ) = GEΛ (η τ ) − GEΛ (η τ )τ = GEΛ (η τ ) − GEΛ (η τ +τ )
′

= GEΛ (η) − GEΛ (η τ +τ ) − GEΛ (η) − GEΛ (η τ ) = G(τ + τ ′ ) − G(τ )

≤ 2 max{G(τ + τ ′ ), |G(τ )|}.

Hence,

k
max{G(τ + τ ′ ), |G(τ )|} ≥ αk LE (η τ ) − |E| + α⊥ max{L⊥ τ ′
E (η ), TV(τ )}, (6.34)
1
max{G(τ + τ ′ ), |G(τ )|} ≥
min{αk , α⊥ }d R(τ ′ ) − R(E) − 2(|E| − 1) .

(6.35)
32
By way of contradiction, assume that (6.33) does not hold. Then, by (6.34),
max{G(τ + τ ′ ), |G(τ )|}
n o
> max MG, 2α⊥ TV (τ ) + 2 min{αk , α⊥ }d (R(τ ) + R (E) + |E|) . (6.36)
If |G(τ )| ≥ G(τ + τ ′ ) then by (6.36), |G(τ )| > 2α⊥ TV (τ ), |G(τ )| > 2 min{αk , α⊥ }dR (τ )
and |G(τ )| > MG, hence τ is admissible and of larger energetic gain than MG, a contradiction.
Assume that G(τ + τ ′ ) > |G(τ )|. By Lemma 6.24, (6.35) and (6.34),
98
R(τ + τ ′ ) ≤ 2R(τ ) + R(τ ′ ) + TV(τ ) + TV(τ ′ )

d
32 G(τ + τ ′ ) 98 98 G(τ + τ ′ )
≤ 2R(τ ) + R(E) + 2|E| + + TV(τ ) +
α⊥ d

min αk , α⊥ d d
130 G(τ + τ ′ )

TV(τ )
≤ 100 + R(τ ) + R(E) + |E| +
d min αk , α⊥ d
180
and hence, by (6.36), R(τ + τ ′ ) < min{αk ,α⊥ }d
G(τ + τ ′ ), and by Observation 6.23, (6.36) and
(6.34),
G(τ + τ ′ ) G(τ + τ ′ ) 2
TV(τ + τ ′ ) ≤ TV(τ ) + TV(τ ′ ) < + < ⊥ G(τ + τ ′ ).
2α⊥ α⊥ α
Therefore, τ +τ ′ is admissible and of larger energetic gain than MG, by (6.36), a contradiction.

Now we use Proposition 6.30 to prove Lemma 6.2.
Proof of Lemma 6.2. First note that for every set E ⊆ Λ and every coupling field η̃ ∈
k ⊥ k
D(αk , α⊥ ), it holds that GEΛ (η̃) = GEΛ,E,(b ,b ) (η̃) if and only if L⊥ ⊥ k
E (η̃) ≤ b and LE (η̃) ≤ b .
Also note that η τ ∈ D(αk , α⊥ ) for every shift τ . Throughout the proof we will use C to denote
a positive absolute constant; the values of this constant will be allowed to change from line
to line, even within the same calculation, with its value increasing.
To prove the third part of the lemma, we use Proposition 6.30 twice, for the same subset
E := supp(τ ). Recall that, by the admissibility of τ ,
2 2 4s
TV(τ ) ≤ ⊥
|G(τ )| ≤ ⊥ MG ≤ ⊥ , (6.37)
α α α
200 200 400s
R(τ ) ≤ k ⊥
|G(τ )| ≤ k ⊥
MG ≤ . (6.38)
min{α , α }d min{α , α }d min{αk , α⊥ }d
Cs
Hence, R(E) ≤ R(τ ) ≤ min{αk ,α⊥ }d
and by Lemma 6.9 and the assumption that s ≤ α⊥ 4d−1 d,
d d
X TV(τ ) d−1 2s d−1 Cs
|E| ≤ |τ (u)| ≤ ≤ ≤ . (6.39)
2d α⊥ d α⊥ d
u∈Zd
The first use of Proposition 6.30 will be for the shift τ , and it gives

k
α⊥ L⊥ τ
E (η ) + α
k
LE (η τ ) − |E|
n o
≤ max MG, 2α⊥ TV (τ ) + 2 min{αk , α⊥ }d (R(τ ) + R(E) + |E|) ≤ Cs
and the second use will be for the shift τ0 ≡ 0, and it gives
n o
k
α⊥ L⊥
E (η) + αk
L E (η) − |E| ≤ max MG, 2 min{α k
, α⊥
}d (R(E) + |E|) ≤ Cs.
Hence, for # ∈ {η τ , η}, by using (6.39),

Cs k 1 1
L⊥
E (#) ≤ ⊥, LE (#) ≤C + s.
α αk α⊥ d
We proceed to prove the second part of the lemma. For every positive integer k, let
Ek := supp (τ2k − τ2k+1 ). By Proposition 6.6,
Cds
TV(τ2k ) ≤ 10d TV(τ ) ≤ , (6.40)
α⊥
and by (6.20),
C Cs
R(τ2k ) ≤ R(τ ) + TV(τ ) ≤ . (6.41)
d min{αk , α⊥ }d
Hence, by Lemma 6.24,
98 Cs
R (Ek ) ≤ R (τ2k − τ2k+1 ) ≤ R (τ2k ) + 2R (τ2k+1 ) + (TV (τ2k ) + TV (τ2k+1 )) ≤ ,
d min{αk , α⊥ }
and by Proposition 6.7,
C2k ds
|Ek | ≤ kτ2k − τ2k+1 k1 ≤ (4d + 9)2k TV(τ ) ≤ . (6.42)
α⊥
Therefore, by Proposition 6.30,

k
α⊥ L⊥Ek (η
τ2k
) + αk LEk (η τ2k ) − |Ek |
n o
≤ max MG, 2α⊥ TV (τ2k ) + 2 min{αk , α⊥ }d (R(τ2k ) + R (Ek ) + |Ek |) ≤ C2k d2 s
and

k
α⊥ L⊥
Ek−1 (η τ2k
) + αk
L Ek−1 (η τ2k
) − |Ek−1 |
n o
≤ max MG, 2α⊥ TV (τ2k ) + 2 min{αk , α⊥ }d (R(τ2k ) + R (Ek−1 ) + |Ek−1 |) ≤ C2k d2 s.
Hence, for # ∈ {k − 1, k}, by using (6.42),
C2k d2 s C2k d2 s

2k k 1 1
L⊥
E# (τ ) ≤ , LE# (τ2k ) ≤ + |E# | ≤ C + ⊥ d2 2k s.
α⊥ αk αk α d
To prove the first part of the Lemma, fix ∅ =
6 I ∈ comp(τ ), and let E(0,I) := supp (τ − τI ).
By the compatibility of I and (6.37),
C|I|s
TV(τI ) ≤ 20(2|I| + 1) TV(τ ) ≤ , (6.43)
α⊥
and by (6.21), (6.37) and (6.38),
C Cs
R(τI ) ≤ R(τ ) + TV(τ ) ≤ , (6.44)
and hence, by Lemma 6.24,
100 C|I|s
R E(0,I) ≤ R (τ − τI ) ≤ R (τ ) + 2R (τI ) + (TV (τ ) + TV (τI )) ≤ , (6.45)
and by the compatibility of I,
4|I| C|I|s
|E(0,I) | ≤ kτ − τI k1 ≤ TV(τ ) ≤ ⊥ . (6.46)
d α d

k
α⊥ L⊥E(0,I) (η τ
) + αk
L E(0,I) (η τ
) − |E(0,I) |
n o
≤ max MG, 2α⊥ TV (τ ) + 2 min{αk , α⊥ }d R(τ ) + R E(0,I) + |E(0,I) | ≤ C|I|s

and

k
α⊥ L⊥
E(0,I) (η τI
) + αk
L E(0,I) (η τI
) − |E(0,I) |
n o
≤ max MG, 2α⊥ TV (τI ) + 2 min{αk , α⊥ }d R(τI ) + R E(0,I) + |E(0,I) | ≤ C|I|s.

Hence, for # ∈ {η τ , η τI }, by using (6.46),

C|I|s k C|I|s 1 1
L⊥
E(0,I) (#) ≤ , LE(0,I) (#) ≤ + |E(0,I) | ≤ C + ⊥ |I|s.
α⊥ αk αk α d
Finally, let E(I,1) := supp (τI − τ2 ) and note that by Lemma 6.24, (6.44), (6.41), (6.43) and
(6.40),
98 Cs
R E(I,1) ≤ R (τI − τ2 ) ≤ R (τI ) + 2R (τ2 ) + (TV (τI ) + TV (τ2 )) ≤ ,
d min{αk , α⊥ }
and by the compatibility of I, Proposition 6.7 and (6.37),
4|I| Cs
|E(I,1) | ≤ kτI − τ2 k1 ≤ kτI − τ k1 + kτ2 − τ k1 ≤ TV(τ ) + 4 TV(τ ) ≤ ⊥ . (6.47)
d α

k
α⊥ L⊥ τI
E(I,1) (η ) + α
k
LE(I,1) (η τI ) − |E(I,1) |
n o
⊥ k ⊥

≤ max MG, 2α TV (τI ) + 2 min{α , α }d R(τI ) + R E(I,1) + |E(I,1) | ≤ Cds
and

k
α⊥ L⊥
E(I,1) (η τ2
) + αk
L E(I,1) (η τ2
) − |E(I,1) |
n o
≤ max MG, 2α⊥ TV (τ2 ) + 2 min{αk , α⊥ }d R(τ2 ) + R E(I,1) + |E(I,1) | ≤ Cds.

Hence, for # ∈ {η τI , η τ2 }, by using (6.47),

Cds k Cds 1 1
L⊥
E(I,1) (#) ≤ ⊥ , LE(I,1) (#) ≤ k + |E(I,1) | ≤ C k
+ ⊥ ds.
α α α α d
7. Obtaining admissible shifts from interfaces

The goal of this section will be to prove Proposition 6.29 and Lemma 4.4.
Fix η ∈ Dαk , α⊥ ) for some αk , α⊥ > 0 and let Λ ⊂ Zd be finite. Recall the definition of the
configuration space for semi-infinite-volume under Dobrushin boundary conditions ΩΛ,Dob in
(4.4), the Hamiltonian Hη,Λ in (4.5), and of the ground energy with respect to it GEΛ,η in
(4.6). Recall as well the definition of parallel and perpendicular layering in (6.1) and (6.2).
7.1. Defining τ0 . Let E ⊆ Λ and let σ0 : Zd → {−1, 1} be a configuration in ΩΛ,Dob .
Define a function Iσ0 : Zd → Z ∪ {“layered”} as follows. For each v ∈ Zd , if σ0 has a
unique sign change above v, then set Iσ0 (v) to be the location of this sign change (precisely, if
σ0 (v, k) = −1 and σ0 (v, k + 1) = 1 then set Iσ0 (v) = k). If σ0 has more than one sign change
above v then set Iσ0 (v) = “layered”.
Define a graph Gσ0 to be the induced subgraph of Zd on the vertex set Vσ0 , where Vσ0 ⊂ Zd
is defined to be the set of vertices v satisfying that there exists a neighbor u ∼ v (in the usual
connectivity of Zd ) such that either Iσ0 (u) 6= Iσ0 (v) or Iσ0 (u) = Iσ0 (v) = “layered”.
Recall from (6.19) the definition of ∂vis(w) (A), the outer vertex boundary of a set A ⊆ Zd
visible from a point w ∈ Zd .
Observation 7.1. For every connected component A of Gσ0 and every v ∈ (Zd \ A) ∪ {∞},
there is an integer, which we denote I˜σ0 (v; A), such that Iσ0 (u) = I˜σ0 (v; A) for every u ∈
∂vis(v) (A).
Proof. For any u ∈ Zd \ Vσ0 , it holds that Iσ0 (w) = Iσ0 (u), for every w ∈ B1 (u). Hence, for
every u1 , u2 ∈ Zd \ Vσ0 such that ku1 − u2 k1 ≤ 2, i.e., such that B1 (u1 ) ∩ B1 (u2 ) 6= ∅, it holds
that Iσ0 (u1 ) = Iσ0 (u2 ).
The claim follows since ∂vis(v) (A) ⊆ ∂ out A ⊆ Zd \ Vσ0 and the set ∂vis(v) (A) is ℓ+
1 -connected,
by Lemma 6.19.
For every A ⊆ Zd , let
n o
in(A) := u ∈ Zd \ A : every path from u to ∞ intersects A .
Lemma 7.2. Let A1 , A2 ⊆ Zd be nonempty connected sets such that dist(A1 , A2 ) > 1.
(1) If dist(A1 ∪ in(A1 ), A2 ∪ in(A2 )) ≤ 1, then (A1 ∪ in(A1 )) ∩ (A2 ∪ in(A2 )) 6= ∅.

(2) If (A1 ∪ in(A1 )) ∩ (A2 ∪ in(A2 )) 6= ∅ then A1 ⊆ in(A2 ) or A2 ⊆ in(A1 ).
(3) If A1 ⊆ in(A2 ) then in(A1 ) ( in(A2 ). (Similarly, if A2 ⊆ in(A1 ) then in(A2 ) (
in(A1 ).)
Proof. We first show that the first statement holds. There are u1 ∈ A1 ∪ in(A1 ) and u2 ∈
A2 ∪ in(A2 ) such that ku1 − u2 k1 ≤ 1. If u1 = u2 there is nothing to prove, hence we assume
that ku1 − u2 k1 = 1, i.e., u1 ∼ u2 . Since dist(A1 , A2 ) > 1, necessarily u1 ∈/ A1 or u2 ∈ / A2 .
With no loss of generality assume that u1 ∈ / A1 . Hence, u1 ∈ in(A1 ). If P is a path from u2
to ∞, then starting at u1 and continuing along P is a path from u1 ∈ in(A1 ) to ∞, therefore
it must intersect A1 ; hence, since u1 ∈
/ A1 , the path P necessarily intersects A1 . Therefore,
every path from u2 to ∞ intersects A1 , i.e., u2 ∈ A1 ∪ in(A1 ).
To prove the second statement, assume by contradiction that there are a1 ∈ A1 \ in(A2 )
and a2 ∈ A2 \ in(A1 ). Consider an arbitrary path P0 from an arbitrary vertex u0 ∈ (A1 ∪
in(A1 )) ∩ (A2 ∪ in(A2 )) to ∞. The path P0 necessarily intersects both A1 and A2 . Let a be
the first intersection point of P0 with A1 ∪ A2 . With no loss of generality we may assume
that a ∈ A1 . Since A1 is connected, there is a path P1 in A1 from a to a1 . Since a1 ∈ / in(A2 ),
there is a path P2 from a1 to ∞ that does not intersect A2 . Then, the path that is obtained
by taking P0 up to the point a, then P1 and then P2 is a path from u0 ∈ A2 ∪ in(A2 ) to ∞
which does not intersect A2 , and we get a contradiction.
Finally, we show that the last statement holds. If P is a path from a point of in(A1 ) to
∞, then it must intersect A1 ; let a1 be such an intersecting point; the part of the path P
that starts at a1 is a path from a1 ∈ A1 ⊆ in(A2 ) to ∞, hence it intersects A2 . Therefore,
every path from any point of in(A1 ) to ∞ intersects A2 , i.e., in(A1 ) ⊆ A2 ∪ in(A2 ). By way of
contradiction assume that in(A1 ) * in(A2 ); then, there is a2 ∈ A2 ∩ in(A1 ); let P be a path
from a2 to ∞ and let a be the last intersection point of P with A1 ∪ A2 ; if a ∈ A1 , then the
part of P that starts at a is a path from a to ∞ that does not intersect A2 , contradicting
the assumption that A1 ⊆ in(A2 ); if a ∈ A2 , then since A2 is connected there is a path P2
in A2 from a2 to a and then, the path that is obtained by taking P2 and then the part of
P that starts at a is a path from a2 ∈ in(A2 ) to ∞ which does not intersect A2 , and we
get a contradiction. Hence, in(A1 ) ⊆ in(A2 ), and the inclusion is obviously proper, since
∅=6 A1 ⊆ in(A2 ) \ in(A1 ).
Let C be the collection of all connected components of Gσ0 , let
[
A = {A ∈ C : E ∩ (A ∪ in(A)) 6= ∅}, Ã := A,
A∈A
and let
n o
B∞ := u ∈ Zd : there is a path from u to ∞ that does not intersect Ã

be the unique infinite connected component of Zd \ Ã. For v ∈ Zd \ B∞ ∪ Ã , the second
and third parts of Lemma 7.2 imply that there exists Av ∈ A such that v ∈ in(Av ) and
in(Av ) ( in(A) for any other A ∈ A for which v ∈ in(A).
Lemma 7.3. For every v ∈ ∂ out Ã,
(
0 v ∈ B∞ ,
Iσ0 (v) = ˜
Iσ0 (v; Av ) v∈/ B∞ .
S
Proof. Let Av := {A ∈ C : v ∈ in(A)} and let Sv := A∈C\Av (A ∪ in(A)). Note that v ∈ / Sv .
If v ∈ B∞ then there is a path from v to ∞ that does not intersect Ã, and since Iσ0 = 0 at
all but finitely many points of Zd , and hence the set Sv is finite, this path eventually reaches
a point in Zd \ Sv where Iσ0 = 0.
If v ∈
/ B∞ then any path from v to ∞ intersects Av , and the last point in any such path
before it first meets Av is necessarily in ∂viz(v) Av ⊆ Zd \ Sv .
In any case, there is a path v0 , v1 , . . . , vN of points in Zd \ A∈Av A such that vi−1 ∼ vi for
S
every 1 ≤ i ≤ N , v0 = v, vN ∈ / Sv and
(
0 v ∈ B∞ ,
Iσ0 (vN ) = ˜
Iσ0 (v; Av ) v ∈/ B∞ .
Let I := {0 ≤ i ≤ N : vi ∈ / Sv }. Note that vi ∈

/ Vσ0 for every i ∈ I, hence Iσ0 (vi−1 ) = Iσ0 (vi )
for every 1 ≤ i ≤ N such that {i − 1, i} ∩ I 6= ∅.
Note that 0 ∈ I and N ∈ I, hence the set {0, 1, . . . , N }\I may be presented as rj=1 {aj , aj +
S
1, . . . , bj −1}, where 1 ≤ a1 < b1 < a2 < b2 < · · · < ar < br ≤ N . For every 1 ≤ j ≤ r, Lemma
7.2 implies that there is Aj ∈ C \ Av such that vi ∈ Aj ∪ in(Aj ) for every aj < i < bj − 1; then
obviously vaj −1 , vbj ∈ ∂ out (Aj ∪ in(A)j)) = ∂vis(∞) Aj and hence Iσ0 (vaj −1 ) = I˜σ0 (∞; A) =
Iσ0 (vbj ), by Observation 7.1.
Hence, Iσ0 (v0 ) = Iσ0 (vN ) and the claim follows.
Define a “pre-shift” τ0 : Zd → Z ∪ {“layered”} as follows.


0
 v ∈ B∞ ,
τ0 (v) := Iσ0 (v) v ∈ Ã,
˜

Iσ0 (v; Av ) otherwise.
Observation 7.4. For every connected component B of Zd \ Ã, the function τ0 is constant
on the set B ∪ ∂ out B.
Proof. Let v ∈ ∂ out B. Necessarily v ∈ Ã and hence τ0 (v) = Iσ0 (v). There is u ∈ ∂ in B such
that u ∼ v. Necessarily u ∈ ∂ out Ã ⊆ Zd \ Ã ⊆ Zd \ Vσ0 , therefore Iσ0 (v) = Iσ0 (u), and by
Lemma 7.3, Iσ0 (u) = τ0 (u). Hence, τ0 (v) = τ0 (u).
To obtain the claim it is therefore enough to show that τ0 is constant on B. By definition,
τ0 = 0 on B∞ . For every u, v ∈ B 6= B∞ , clearly Au = Av , and moreover ∂vis(u) (Au ) =
∂vis(v) (Av ), and hence τ0 (u) = τ0 (v).
7.2. Defining τ . Now, we turn the ”pre-shift” τ0 into a shift τ : Zd → Z. Define a configura-
tion σ which has a unique sign change above every vertex v where τ0 (v) is an integer, and the
sign change occurs at height τ0 (v). The value of σ above vertices v where τ0 (v) = “layered”
equals the value of σ0 at these vertices. Note that, by Observation 7.4,
{{x, y} ∈ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) : {x, y} ∩ (Λ × Z) 6= ∅, σx 6= σy }

= {{x, y} ∈ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) : x, y ∈ Ã × Z, (σ0 )x 6= (σ0 )y }. (7.1)
By Corollary 3.3 there is an interfacial configuration σ ′ that has a unique sign change above
every vertex, with σ having the same sign change at the same height, and
|{{x, y} ∈ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) : {x, y} ∩ (Λ × Z) 6= ∅, σx′ 6= σy′ }|

≤ |{{x, y} ∈ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) : {x, y} ∩ (Λ × Z) 6= ∅, σx 6= σy }|. (7.2)
For every v ∈ Zd , let τ (v) be the height where σ ′ changes sign over v.
Note that τ (v) = τ0 (v) for every v ∈ Zd such that τ0 (v) 6= “layered”, in particular for
every v ∈ (Zd \ Ã) ∪ ∂ out (Zd \ Ã). This observation, combined with Observation 7.4 yields the
following useful corollary.
Corollary 7.5. For every connected component B of Zd \ Ã, the function τ is constant on
the set B ∪ ∂ out B.
7.3. Bounding the total variation of τ via a layering bound. This section is devoted
to proving the following proposition.
Proposition 7.6. The shift τ as defined above satisfies

k
Hη,Λ (σ0 ) − GEΛ (η τ ) ≥ 2αk LÃ (σ0 ) − |Ã| + 2α⊥ L⊥ (σ )
Ã 0
(7.3)
and consequently,

k
Hη,Λ (σ0 ) − GEΛ (η τ ) ≥ 2αk LE (σ0 ) − |E| + 2α⊥ max{L⊥
E (σ0 ), TV(τ )}. (7.4)
For every coupling field η̃ : E(Zd+1 ) → [0, ∞) and configuration σ ∈ ΩΛ,Dob , denote
X XX
Hη̃,Λ,k (σ) := 2 η̃{x,y} 1σx 6=σy = 2 η̃{(u,k),(u,k+1)} 1σ(u,k) 6=σ(u,k+1) ,
{x,y}∈E k (Zd+1 ) u∈Λ k∈Z
{x,y}∩(Λ×Z)6=∅
X X X
Hη̃,Λ,⊥ (σ) := 2 η̃{x,y} 1σx 6=σy = 2 η̃{(u,k),(v,k)} 1σ(u,k) 6=σ(v,k) .
{x,y}∈E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) {u,v}∈E(Zd ) k∈Z
{x,y}∩(Λ×Z)6=∅ {u,v}∩Λ6=∅
Define a configuration σ̃ ∈ ΩΛ,Dob as follows:


(σ0 )(u,k+s(u))
 u ∈ Λ \ Ã,
σ̃(u,k) = 1 u ∈ Ã, k > 0,

−1 u ∈ Ã, k ≤ 0.

Observation 7.7. If (u, v) ∈ ∂ Ã, i.e., u ∈ Ã and v ∈

/ Ã, then σ̃(u,k) = (σ0 )(u,k+s(u)) for
all k ∈ Z.
Proof. Necessarily v ∈ / Vσ0 and hence τ0 (u) = Iσ0 (u) = Iσ0 (v) 6= “layered”. Therefore,
τ (u) = τ0 (u) = Iσ0 (u). Hence, (σ0 )(u,k) = 1 for every k > τ (u) and (σ0 )(u,k) = −1 for every
k ≤ τ (u), i.e., σ̃(u,k) = (σ0 )(u,k+τ (u)) .
Proposition 7.6 will easily follow from the following lemmas.
Lemma 7.8. It holds that

τ ,Λ,k k
Hη,Λ,k (σ0 ) − Hη (σ̃) ≥ 2αk LÃ (σ0 ) − |Ã| .

τ ,Λ,⊥
Hη,Λ,⊥ (σ0 ) − Hη (σ̃) ≥ 2α⊥ L⊥ (σ ).
Ã 0
Before proving Lemmas 7.8 and 7.9, let us show how they imply Proposition 7.6.
Proof of Proposition 7.6. Combining Lemmas 7.8 and 7.9 yields that
τ
τ τ

Hη,Λ (σ0 ) − Hη ,Λ (σ̃) = Hη,Λ,k (σ0 ) + Hη,Λ,⊥ (σ0 ) − Hη ,Λ,k (σ̃) + Hη ,Λ,⊥ (σ̃)
τ
τ

= Hη,Λ,k (σ0 ) − Hη ,Λ,k (σ̃) + Hη,Λ,⊥ (σ0 ) − Hη ,Λ,⊥ (σ̃)

k
≥ 2αk LÃ (σ0 ) − |Ã| + 2α⊥ L⊥ (σ ),
Ã 0
τ ,Λ
and (7.3) follows since obviously GEΛ (η τ ) ≤ Hη (σ̃). We proceed to show how (7.3) implies
(7.4). Note first that E ∩ Vσ0 ⊆ Ã and hence
k k
LÃ (σ0 ) − |Ã| ≥ LE∩Vσ (σ0 ) − |E ∩ Vσ0 |, L⊥ (σ ) ≥ L⊥
Ã 0 E∩Vσ (σ0 ).
0 0
k
/ Vσ0 and L⊥
Additionally, note that L{u} (σ0 ) = 1 for every u ∈ {u,v} (σ0 ) = 0 for every {u, v} ∈
E(Zd ) such that {u, v} * Vσ0 and hence,
k k
LE∩Vσ (σ0 ) − |E ∩ Vσ0 | = LE (σ0 ) − |E|, L⊥ ⊥
E∩Vσ0 (σ0 ) = LE (σ0 ).
0
Finally, by (7.2) and (7.1),
L⊥ (σ ) = |{{x, y} ∈ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) : x, y ∈ Ã × Z, (σ0 )x 6= (σ0 )y }|

Ã 0
= |{{x, y} ∈ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) : {x, y} ∩ (Λ × Z) 6= ∅, σx 6= σy }|
≥ |{{x, y} ∈ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) : {x, y} ∩ (Λ × Z) 6= ∅, σx′ 6= σy′ }| = TV(τ ).
We now prove Lemmas 7.8 and 7.9.
Proof of Lemma 7.8. If u ∈ Λ \ Ã, then for every k ∈ Z,

τ
η{(u,k),(u,k+1)} = η{(u,k+τ (u)),(u,k+1+τ (u))} ,
σ̃(u,k) = (σ0 )(u,k+τ (u)) , σ̃(u,k+1) = (σ0 )(u,k+1+τ (u)) ,
and hence,
X X
η{(u,k),(u,k+1)} 1(σ0 )(u,k) 6=(σ0 )(u,k+1) = η{(u,k+τ (u)),(u,k+1+τ (u))} 1(σ0 )(u,k+τ (u)) 6=(σ0 )(u,k+1+τ (u))
k∈Z k∈Z
X
τ
= η{(u,k),(u,k+1)} 1σ̃(u,k) 6=σ̃(u,k+1) .
k∈Z
If u ∈ Ã, then
X
τ τ
η{(u,k),(u,k+1)} 1σ̃(u,k) 6=σ̃(u,k+1) = η{(u,0),(u,1)} = η{(u,τ (u)),(u,τ (u)+1)}
k∈Z
and hence, since by the definition of τ , the configuration σ0 has a sign change at height τ (u),
i.e., (σ0 )(u,τ (u)) 6= (σ0 )(u,τ (u)+1) ,
X X
τ
η{(u,k),(u,k+1)} 1(σ0 )(u,k) 6=(σ0 )(u,k+1) − η{(u,k),(u,k+1)} 1σ̃(u,k) 6=σ̃(u,k+1)
k∈Z k∈Z

k
X
= η{(u,k),(u,k+1)} 1(σ0 )(u,k) 6=(σ0 )(u,k+1) − η{(u,τ (u)),(u,τ (u)+1)} ≥ αk L{u} (σ0 ) − 1 .
k∈Z
The result follows.
Proof of Lemma 7.9. For every {u, v} ∈ E(Zd ) such that {u, v} ∩ Λ 6= ∅ and {u, v} * Ã, it
holds that u, v ∈ B ∪ ∂ out B for some connected component of Zd \ Ã and hence τ (u) = τ (v),
τ
by Corollary 7.5. Hence, by (4.9), η{(u,k),(v,k)} = η{(u,k+s(u)),(v,k+s(u))} for every k ∈ Z.
Additionally, with the aid of Observation 7.7 in case that |{u, v} ∩ Ã| = 1, it holds that
σ̃(u,k) = (σ0 )(u,k+τ (u)) and σ̃(v,k) = (σ0 )(v,k+τ (v)) = (σ0 )(v,k+τ (u)) for every k ∈ Z. Therefore,
X X
η{(u,k),(v,k)} 1(σ0 )(u,k) 6=(σ0 )(v,k) = η{(u,k+τ (u)),(v,k+τ (u))} 1(σ0 )(u,k+τ (u)) 6=(σ0 )(v,k+τ (u))
k∈Z k∈Z
X
τ
= η{(u,k),(v,k)} 1σ̃(u,k) 6=σ̃(v,k)
k∈Z
Hence, since for every {u, v} ∈ E(Zd ) such that both u and v are in Ã it holds that
σ̃(u,k) = σ̃(v,k) for every integer k, it follows that
τ
X X
Hη,Λ,⊥ (σ0 ) − Hη ,Λ,⊥ (σ̃) = 2 η{(u,k),(v,k)} 1(σ0 )(u,k) 6=(σ0 )(v,k)
{u,v}∈E(Zd ) k∈Z
u,v∈Ã
X X
≥ 2α⊥ 1(σ0 )(u,k) 6=(σ0 )(v,k) = 2α⊥ L⊥ (σ ).
Ã 0

{u,v}∈E(Zd ) k∈Z
u,v∈Ã
7.4. Bounding the trip entropy of τ . This section is devoted to proving the following
proposition.
Proposition 7.10. The shift τ as defined above satisfies
16
Hη,Λ (σ0 ) − GEΛ (η τ ) .

R(τ ) < R(E) + 2(|E| − 1) + k ⊥
min{α , α }d
Denote L := {u ∈ Zd : Iσ0 (u) = “layered”} and D := {{u, v} ∈ E(Zd ) : Iσ0 (u) 6= Iσ0 (v)}.
Observation 7.11. It holds that L ⊆ Vσ0 and for every {u, v} ∈ D, the vertices u and v are
both in Vσ0 and moreover, belong to the same connected component of Gσ0 .
Observation 7.12. For every connected component A of the graph Gσ0 it holds that

k
|A| ≤ 2 LA (σ0 ) − |A| + L⊥
A (σ 0 ) .
Proof. Every u ∈ A \ L has at least one neighbour v such that {u, v} ∈ D. Hence, by using
Observation 7.11, it holds that

A 1 k
|A| ≤ |L ∩ A| + 2 D ∩ ≤ LA (σ0 ) − |A| + 2L⊥A (σ0 ).
2 2
Lemma 7.13.
S Let A be a connected component of the graph Gσ0 . There is a set S ⊆ A such
that A ⊆ a∈S B4 (a) and
1 k
|S| < LA (σ0 ) − |A| + L⊥ (σ
A 0 ) .
d
Proof. We first show that for every a ∈ A,

B2 (a) ∩ A
|L ∩ B2 (a) ∩ A| + D ∩ > d. (7.5)
2
If Iσ0 (a) = “layered”, then a ∈ L and for every neighbour b of a it holds that b ∈ A and either
b ∈ L or {a, b} ∈ D. Hence,

B1 (a) ∩ A
|L ∩ B1 (a) ∩ A| + D ∩ ≥ 2d + 1.
2
If Iσ0 (a) 6= “layered”, then since a ∈ Vσ0 , it follows that there is a neighbour b of a such that
Iσ0 (b) 6= Iσ0 (a). Note that b ∈ A and {a, b} ∈ D. With no loss of generality we may assume
that b = a + ed . Then, for every v ∈ {±ei }d−1 i=1 it holds that {{a, a + v}, {b, b + v}, {a + v, b +
v}} ∩ D = 6 ∅. Hence, by using Observation 7.11,

B2 (a) ∩ A
D∩ ≥ 2d − 1.
2
Now, let S be a set of maximal cardinality in ASsuch that the sets {B2 (a)}a∈S are mutually
disjoint. The maximality of S implies that A ⊆ a∈S B4 (a), and by (7.5),

1X B2 (a) ∩ A
|S| < |L ∩ B2 (a) ∩ A| + D ∩
d 2
a∈S

1 A 1 1 k

⊥
≤ |L ∩ A| + D ∩ ≤ LA (σ0 ) − |A| + LA (σ0 ) .
d 2 d 2
Proof of Proposition 7.10. By Corollary 7.5, every level component of s intersects Ã. Hence,
by (6.18) and Lemma 7.13,
R(τ ) <R(E) + 2(|E| − 1)+
X 20 k
⊥
2dist(E, A) + LA (σ0 ) − |A| + LA (σ0 ) + 8|LC(τ )|. (7.6)
d
A∈A
Let A ∈ A and let v ∈ E ∩ (A ∪ in(A)). If v ∈ A, then dist(E, A) = 0. Otherwise,

let B := Bdist(v,A) (0) ∩ Zd−1 × {0} . For every u ∈ B, since v ∈ in(A), it holds that
{v
+ u + te∞d : t ∈ Z} ∩ A 6= ∅ and it follows that |B| ≤ |A|. Therefore, since the sequence
1 r+d−1
d d−1 is non-decreasing for every positive integer r,
d=1

1 dist(v, A) + 2 1 dist(v, A) + d − 1 1 1 1
dist(v, A) ≤ ≤ = |B ∩ [0, ∞)d | < |B| ≤ |A|
3 2 d d−1 d d d
and hence, by Observation 7.12,
2 k ⊥

dist(E, A) ≤ dist(v, A) < LA (σ0 ) − |A| + LA (σ0 ) .
d
Plugging this in (7.6) yields that

24 X k
R(τ ) ≤ R(E) + 2(|E| − 1) + LA (σ0 ) − |A| + L⊥ A 0(σ ) + 8|LC(τ )|
d
A∈A
24 k
= R(E) + 2(|E| − 1) + LÃ (σ0 ) − |Ã| + L⊥ Ã
(σ 0 ) + 8|LC(τ )|.
d
The result now follows by (7.3) and since
1 1 η,Λ Λ τ

|LC(τ )| ≤ TV(τ ) ≤ H (σ 0 ) − GE (η ) .
d 2α⊥ d
by Observation 6.20 and (7.4).
7.5. Proof of Proposition 6.29 and Lemma 4.4.

Proof of Proposition 6.29. Let σ0 := σ η,Λ,Dob and consider the shift τ as defined above. Note
that
Gη,Λ (τ ) = GEΛ (η) − GEΛ (η τ ) = Hη,Λ (σ0 ) − GEΛ (η τ ) (7.7)
and the result follows by (7.4) and Proposition 7.10.
In the proof of Lemma 4.4 we will use the following lemma, which is an immediate conse-
quence of [T13, Lemma 1].
Lemma 7.14. For a positive integer ℓ. let Gℓ be the graph on the vertex set E(Zℓ ), in which
distinct e, ẽ ∈ E(Zℓ ) are adjacent if
e, ẽ ∈ {{u, u + ei }, {u + ei , u + ei + ej }, {u + ei + ej , u + ej }, {u + ej , u}}
for some u ∈ Zℓ and 1 ≤ i < j ≤ ℓ. If A ⊆ Zℓ is a connected set such that Zℓ \ A is connected
as well, then the set of edges {{u, v} ∈ E(Zℓ ) : (u, v) ∈ ∂A} is connected in Gℓ .
Proof of Lemma 4.4. Let σ0 := σ η,Λ,Dob , let E = {0}, and consider the shift τ as defined
above. By using (7.7), it follows from (7.4) that Gη,Λ (τ ) ≥ 2α⊥ TV(τ ) and Proposition 7.10
1
yields that Gη,Λ (τ ) ≥ 16 min{αk , α⊥ }d R(τ ); hence, τ ∈ AS η,Λ (αk , α⊥ ); moreover, by (7.3),
Gη,Λ (τ ) ≥ 2α⊥ L⊥
Ã
(σ0 ). Hence, it is left to show that L⊥
Ã
(σ0 ) ≥ |k|.
With no loss of generality, assume that k > 0 and that k = max{h ∈ Z : (σ0 )(0,h) = −1}.
Define πd+1 : Zd × Z → Z by πd+1 (u, h) = h, and for every {u, v} ∈ E(Zd+1 ), let
πd+1 ({u, v}) = {πd+1 (u), πd+1 (v)}. Note that if e, ẽ ∈ E(Zd+1 ) are adjacent in the graph
Gd+1 (defined above in Lemma 7.14), then πd+1 (e) ⊆ πd+1 (ẽ) or πd+1 (e) ⊇ πd+1 (ẽ).
Let X := {x ∈ Zd+1 : σ0 (x) = 1}. The set {x ∈ X : there is no path in X from x to ∞}
is necessarily empty, otherwise we could flip all signs in this finite set to get a configuration
in ΩΛ,Dob with smaller H η . Hence, X is connected. Similarly, the set Zd+1 \ X = {y ∈
Zd+1 : σ0 (y) = −1} is connected as well. Hence, by Lemma 7.14, the set
I(σ0 ) = {{x, y} ∈ E(Zd+1 ) : (x, y) ∈ ∂X} = {{x, y} ∈ E(Zd+1 ) : σ0 (x) = 1, σ0 (y) = −1}
is connected in Gd+1 .
We now argue similarly to the proof of Lemma 7.3. Recall that C is the collection of all
connected components of the graph Gσ0 and A = {A ∈ C : 0 ∈ A ∪ in(A)},Ssince E = {0}.
Since σ0 = ρDob at all but finitely many points of Zd+1 , and hence the set A∈C (A ∪ in(A))
is finite, there is w ∈ Zd \ A∈C (A ∪ in(A)) such that (σ0 )(w,k) = ρDob
S
(w,k) for every integer k.
Since the set I(σ0 ) is connected in Gd+1 , there is a sequence (ẽi )N

i=0 of edges in I(σ0 )
such that ẽi−1 , ẽi are adjacent in Gd+1 for every 1 ≤ i ≤ N , ẽ0 = {(0, k + 1), (0, k)} and
ẽN = {(w, 1), (w, 0)}. Let
 
 [ 
I := 0 ≤ i ≤ N : ẽi * (A ∪ in(A)) × Z .
 
A∈C\A
Since 0 ∈ I and N ∈ I, the set {0, 1, . . . , N }\I may be presented as rj=1 {aj , aj +1, . . . , bj −1},
S
where 1 ≤ a1 < b1 < a2 < b2 < · · · < ar < br ≤ N .
Fix 1 ≤ j ≤ r. Lemma 7.2 implies that there is A ∈ C \ A such that e˜i ⊆ (A ∪ in(A)) × Z
for every aj < i < bj − 1. Then, ẽaj −1 has at least one endpoint (v, h) such that v ∈
∂ out (A ∪ in(A)) = ∂vis(∞) A; Observation 7.1 implies that h = Iσ0 (v) = I˜σ0 (∞; A) and there-
fore, I˜σ0 (∞; A) ∈ πd+1 (ẽaj −1 ). Similarly, I˜σ0 (∞; A) ∈ πd+1 (ẽbj ) and hence πd+1 (ẽaj −1 ) ∩
πd+1 (ẽbj ) 6= ∅.
Since πd+1 (ẽi−1 ) ⊆ πd+1 (ẽi ) or πd+1 (ẽi−1 ) ⊇ πd+1 (ẽi ) for every 1 ≤ i ≤ N , πd+1 (ẽaj −1 ) ∩
πd+1 (ẽbj ) 6= ∅ for every 1 ≤ j ≤ r, πd+1 (ẽ0 ) = {k + 1, k} and πd+1 (ẽN ) = {1, 0}, it follows
that for every 1 ≤ h ≤ k there is ih ∈ I such that πd+1 (ẽih ) = {h}. Then, for every 1 ≤ h ≤ k
it holds that ẽih ∈ I(σ0 ) ∩ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) and ẽih ∩ (Ã × Z) 6= ∅ and hence,
L⊥ (σ ) = |{e ∈ I(σ0 ) ∩ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) : e ∩ (Ã × Z) 6= ∅}| ≥ k,
Ã 0
as desired.
8. Convergence of finite-volume ground configurations

In this section we prove Theorem 1.8, Corollary 1.9 and Theorem 1.10.
We assume throughout the section that we work with the anisotropic disordered ferromag-
net in dimension D ≥ 4, with disorder distributions ν k and ν ⊥ satisfying (1.11) and that
condition (1.14) holds with a sufficiently small constant c > 0 so that both the assumptions
of Theorem 1.7 and Theorem 4.3 hold.
We introduce the notation, for integer k ≥ 0,
Λ(k) := {−k, . . . , k}d . (8.1)
8.1. Proof of Theorem 1.8. The proof is based on the following deterministic lemma, which
is proved using similar methods as those in Section 7.
Lemma 8.1. Let η ∈ D(αk , α⊥ ) for some αk , α⊥ > 0. Let L1 > L0 ≥ 0 integer. Let
Λ1 , Λ2 ⊂ Zd be finite subsets containing Λ(L1 ). If
1 ,Dob 2 ,Dob
σ η,Λ |Λ(L0 )×Z 6≡ σ η,Λ |Λ(L0 )×Z (8.2)
i
then for i = 1 or for i = 2 there exists τ ∈ AS η,Λ (αk , α⊥ ) with
i min{αk , α⊥ } 1
Gη,Λ (τ ) ≥ (L1 − L0 )1− d . (8.3)
4
We postpone the proof of the lemma to Section 8.4. The following is an immediate conse-
quence of the lemma and Theorem 4.3 (applied with Λ = Λ1 and with Λ = Λ2 ).
Corollary 8.2. There exist constants C, c > 0 such that the following holds under the as-
sumptions of Theorem 4.3 (for a sufficiently small c0 > 0). Let L1 > L0 ≥ 0 integer. Let
Λ1 , Λ2 ⊂ Zd be finite subsets containing Λ(L1 ). Then
1 2

P σ η,Λ ,Dob |Λ(L0 )×Z 6≡ σ η,Λ ,Dob |Λ(L0 )×Z
 ( )! d−2 
c αk d−1
d−2
≤ C exp − 2 min ,1 (L1 − L0 ) d  . (8.4)
κd α⊥
We proceed to prove Theorem 1.8. It suffices to prove that for every sequence (Λn ) of finite
domains in Zd , satisfying that Λn ⊃ Λ(n) for each n, and for every v ∈ Zd ,
the restricted configuration σ η,Λn ,Dob |{v}×Z is the same for all large n, almost surely. (8.5)
Indeed, if we then define
for each v ∈ Zd , σ η,Dob |{v}×Z is the eventual value of σ η,Λ(n),Dob |{v}×Z as n → ∞ (8.6)
then we may conclude that the eventual value of σ η,Λn ,Dob |{v}×Z also equals σ η,Dob |{v}×Z by
applying (8.5) to the following two sequences of domains formed by interlacing subsequences
of (Λn ) and (Λ(n)): either taking (Λ2n ) in the even positions and (Λ(2n + 1)) in the odd
positions or taking (Λ2n+1 ) in the odd positions and (Λ(2n)) in the even positions.
We proceed to prove (8.5), for some fixed sequence (Λn ) of finite domains in Zd , satisfying
that Λn ⊃ Λ(n) for each n. Let L0 ≥ 0 be an integer. Let En := {σ η,Λn ,Dob |Λ(L0 )×Z 6=
σ η,Λn+1 ,Dob |Λ(L0 )×Z }. By Corollary 8.2 (with L1 = n) we deduce that for every n > L0 ,
d−2

P(En ) ≤ C exp −c(ν k , ν ⊥ , d)(n − L0 ) d (8.7)
with c(ν k , ν ⊥ , d) > 0, depending only on ν k , ν ⊥ and the dimension d and some absolute
constant C > 0. Thus n P(En ) < ∞. We conclude that only a finite number of the En
P
hold, almost surely, implying that (8.5) holds for all v ∈ Λ(L0 ). This finishes the proof of (8.5)
as L0 is arbitrary.
8.2. Proof of Corollary 1.9. The probabilistic estimates (1.22) and (1.23) hold as a con-
sequence of Theorem 1.7 (with Λ equal to some Λ(n)).
We proceed to define a Gd -invariant set C0 of coupling fields satisfying that P(C0 ) = 1 and,
on C0 , σ η,Dob is well defined and is Gd covariant.
For an automorpishm h ∈ Gd and a set Λ ⊂ Zd we define h(Λ) as the set in Zd satisfying
that h(Λ) × Z = h(Λ × Z) (such a set h(Λ) exists by the definition (1.9) of Gd ).
Define
Dob
\
Cunique := {η : ∀n, there is a unique ground configuration in Ωh(Λ(n))×Z,ρ for g(η)}.
g,h∈Gd
(8.8)
As Gd is countable and g(η) has the same distribution as η (since g ∈ Gd ) we have that
P(Cunique ) = 1 by Lemma 1.5. It is clear from the definition that Cunique is Gd invariant.
Dob
As before, the unique ground configuration (on Cunique ) in Ωh(Λ(n))×Z,ρ for g(η) is denoted
σ g(η),h(Λ(n)),Dob .
Now set
for each g ∈ Gd , there exists a configuration σg(η),Dob : ZD → {−1, 1} such that
n o
C0 := η ∈ Cunique : g(η),h(Λ(n)),Dob g(η),Dob . (8.9)
limn→∞ σx = σx for all h ∈ Gd and x ∈ ZD
Then P(C0 ) = 1 by Theorem 1.8 (applied to the sequence (h(Λ(n0 + n)))n for n0 = n0 (h)
large enough so that h(Λ(n0 + n)) ⊃ Λ(n) for each n). It is again clear from the definition
that C0 is Gd invariant.
We proceed to check that σ η,Dob is Gd covariant on C0 . Note that, for Λ ⊂ Zd and an
Dob
automorphism a of ZD , the set of ground configurations in Ωa(Λ)×Z,ρ for a(η) equals a
Λ×Z,ρDob
applied to the set of ground configurations in Ω for η. In particular, if σ η,Λ,Dob is well
defined (i.e., uniqueness holds) then also σ a(η),a(Λ),Dob is well defined and we have
σxa(η),a(Λ),Dob = σax
η,Λ,Dob
= a(σ η,Λ,Dob )x , x ∈ ZD . (8.10)
Now let g ∈ Gd and η ∈ C0 . For each x ∈ ZD ,
g(σ η,Dob )x = σgx
η,Dob η,Λ(n),Dob
= lim σgx = lim σxg(η),g(Λ(n)),Dob = σxg(η),Dob , (8.11)
n→∞ n→∞
where the second and last equality use the definition of C0 and the third equality uses (8.10).
Thus σ η,Dob is a Gd -covariant ground configuration defined on C0 .
It remains to define a Gd invariant set of coupling fields C ⊂ C0 with P(C) = 1 such that
σ η,Dob is a non-constant Gd -covariant ground configuration defined on C. Define
Cnon-const := {η : σ η,Dob is not a constant configuration}, (8.12)
η,Dob
Cground := {η : σ is a ground configuration for the coupling field η}. (8.13)
Set
C := C0 ∩ Cnon-const ∩ Cground . (8.14)
Then P(Cnon-const ) = 1 by the estimate (1.22), and P(Cground ) = 1 since σ η,Dob
is the pointwise
limit of σ η,Λ(n),Dob and each of these configurations is, almost surely, a ground configuration
Dob
in ΩΛ(n)×Z,ρ by Lemma 1.5. The set C is Gd invariant since the covariance identity (8.11)
holds on C0 (and it maps ground configurations for η to ground configurations for g(η)). This
finishes the proof.
8.3. Proof of Theorem 1.10. The estimate (1.25) is a direct consequence of Corollary 8.2,
applied with Λ1 = Λ(n) and Λ2 = Λ, by taking n to infinity and applying the convergence
result of Theorem 1.8.
We proceed to establish (1.26). Let k := ⌊ ku−vk 2
∞
⌋, so that u + Λ(k) is disjoint from
v + Λ(k). By (1.25) (after a translation by u and by v),
d−2

P σ η,Dob |(u+Λ(L))×Z 6≡ σ η,u+Λ(k),Dob |(u+Λ(L))×Z ≤ C exp −c(ν k , ν ⊥ , d) (k − L) d ,
d−2

P σ η,Dob |(v+Λ(L))×Z 6≡ σ η,v+Λ(k),Dob |(v+Λ(L))×Z ≤ C exp −c(ν k , ν ⊥ , d) (k − L) d .
The estimate (1.26) follows (perhaps with a smaller c > 0) as σ η,u+Λ(k),Dob and σ η,v+Λ(k),Dob
are independent (as they are functions of disjoint subsets of the disorder).
Lastly, the fact that (η, σ η,Dob ) is Gd -invariant is a rephrasing of the fact that σ η,Dob is
Gd -covariant (proved in Corollary 1.9). The fact that it has a trivial Zd -tail sigma algebra
is a consequence of (1.25), since for each finite Λ ⊂ Zd , σ η,Λ,Dob is a function of (ηe ) for the
edges e above Λ, and hence σ η,Λ,Dob is independent of the Zd -tail sigma algebra of (η, σ η,Dob ).
It is standard that an invariant and tail-trivial process is ergodic.
8.4. Proof of Lemma 8.1. For a configuration σ : Zd+1 → {−1, 1}, define the graph Gσ
and the function Iσ : Zd → Z ∪ {“layered”} as in Section 7.1.
Lemma 8.3. Let σ : Zd+1 → {−1, 1} be a configuration such that σ = ρDob at all but finitely
many points of Zd+1 and let u0 ∈ Zd such that there exists k0 ∈ Z for which σ(u0 ,k0 ) 6= ρDob
(u0 ,k0 ) .
Then, there exists a connected component A of Gσ such that u0 ∈ A ∪ in(A).
Proof. Let U0 be the connected component of the set {u ∈ Zd : σ(u,k0 ) = σ(u0 ,k0 ) } containing
u0 , let U := U0 ∪ in(U0 ) and let A0 := ∂ in U ∪ ∂ out U .
Recall the definition of the graph Gd from Lemma 7.14. Obviously, U and Zd \ U are both
connected. Hence, by Lemma 7.14, the set {{u, v} ∈ E(Zd ) : (u, v) ∈ ∂U } is connected in Gd
and it readily follows that the set A0 is connected.
Clearly, ∂ in U ⊆ ∂ in U0 ⊆ Vσ and ∂ out U ⊆ ∂ out U0 ⊆ Vσ , and hence A0 ⊆ Vσ . Let A be the
connected component of Gσ such that A0 ⊆ A.
The set {u ∈ Zd : σ(u,k0 ) = σ(u0 ,k0 ) } ⊆ {u ∈ Zd : σ(u,k0 ) 6= ρDob
(u,k0 ) } is finite, hence U0 and
U are finite as well. Therefore, since u0 ∈ U0 ⊆ U , it follows that every path from u0
to ∞ intersects the set ∂ in U ⊆ A0 ⊆ A (as well as the set ∂ out U ⊆ A0 ⊆ A) and hence
u0 ∈ A ∪ in(A).
Lemma 8.4. Under the assumptions of Lemma 8.1, there exists a path u1 , . . . , un of points
in Zd starting in u1 ∈ ∂ out Λ(L0 ) and ending in un ∈ ∂ in Λ(L1 ) such that uj−1 ∼ uj for every
η,Λ1 ,Dob η,Λ2 ,Dob
1 < j ≤ n, and for every 1 ≤ j ≤ n there is an integer k such that σ(u j ,k) 6
= σ (u j ,k)
.
Proof. Let
η,Λ ,Dob 1
η,Λ ,Dob 2
U := {u ∈ Λ(L1 ) : ∀k ∈ Z it holds that σ(u j ,k)
= σ(u j ,k)
}.
By way of contradiction, assume that Λ(L0 ) ⊆ U ∪ in(U ). Consider the configurations
σ̃1 , σ̃2 : Zd+1 → {−1, 1} defined as follows. For every u ∈ Zd and k ∈ Zd ,
( η,Λ2 ,Dob ( η,Λ1 ,Dob
σ(u,k) u ∈ in(U ), σ(u,k) u ∈ in(U ),
(σ̃1 )(u,k) = η,Λ1 ,Dob (σ̃2 )(u,k) = η,Λ2 ,Dob
σ(u,k) otherwise, σ(u,k) otherwise.
i i i i
For any i ∈ {1, 2}, clearly σ̃i ∈ ΩΛ ,Dob and hence Hη,Λ (σ̃i ) ≥ Hη,Λ (σ η,Λ ,Dob ). Therefore,
since it is easy to see that
1 2 1 1 ,Dob 2 2 ,Dob
Hη,Λ (σ˜1 ) + Hη,Λ (σ˜2 ) = Hη,Λ (σ η,Λ ) + Hη,Λ (σ η,Λ ),
it follows that H η,Λ1
(σ˜1 ) = H η,Λ1
(σ η,Λ1 ,Dob
) (as well as H η,Λ2 2
(σ˜2 ) ≥ Hη,Λ (σ η,Λ
2 ,Dob
)), in
1
contradiction to the uniqueness of σ η,Λ ,Dob .
Hence, Λ(L0 ) * U ∪ in(U ) and the claim follows.
i
We proceed to prove Lemma 8.1. For any i ∈ {1, 2} denote, for brevity, σi := σ η,Λ ,Dob
and let Ci be the collection of all connected components of Gσi . For the path u1 , . . . , un
guaranteed by Lemma 8.4, note that for every 1 ≤ j ≤ n it holds that (σ1 )(uj ,k) 6= ρDob
(uj ,k) or
(σ2 )(uj ,k) 6= ρDob
(uj ,k) and hence, by Lemma 8.3, there is A ∈ C1 ∪C2 such that uj ∈ A∪in(A). Let
M ⊆ C1 ∪ C2 be a minimal collection (with respect to inclusion) such thatSfor every 1 ≤ j ≤ n
there is A ∈ M such that uj ∈ A ∪ in(A). For any i ∈ {1, 2}, let A(i) := A∈M∩Ci A and
(i)
B∞ := {u ∈ Zd : there is a path from u to ∞ that does not intersect A(i) }.
(i)
Consider v ∈ Zd \(A(i) ∪B∞ ) for i ∈ {1, 2}. Clearly, there is A ∈ M∩Ci such that v ∈ in(A),
and this A is unique by the second and third parts of Lemma 7.2 and the minimality of M.
Let τ̃i (v) := I˜σi (v; A) (see Observation 7.1). We complete the definition of a “pre-shift”
(i)
τ̃i : Zd → Z ∪ {“layered”} by setting τ̃i (v) = Iσi (v) for v ∈ A(i) and τ̃i (v) = 0 for v ∈ B∞ .
We turn the ”pre-shift” τ̃i for i ∈ {1, 2} into a shift τi : Zd → Z exactly as done in Section
7.2. The arguments presented in the proof of Proposition 7.6 imply, by using (7.7), that for
any i ∈ {1, 2},
i k
Gη,Λ (τi ) ≥ 2αk LA(i) (σi ) − |A(i) | + 2α⊥ L⊥
A(i) (σi ) (8.15)
and consequently,
i
Gη,Λ (τi ) ≥ 2α⊥ TV(τi ). (8.16)
Lemma 8.5. For any i ∈ {1, 2},
24 n
η,Λ1 η,Λ2
o
R(τi ) < max G (τ 1 ), G (τ 2 ) .
min{αk , α⊥ }d
Proof. We first show that the set A(1) ∪A(2) = A∈M A is connected. By way
S
of contradiction,
6 Γ ( A∈M A such that dist(Γ, A∈M A \ Γ)
S S
assume that there is a set ∅ = S > 1. Since
every A ∈ M is connected, there is necessarily ∅ = 6 M0 ( M such that Γ = A∈M0 A and
that dist(A, A′ ) > 1 for every A ∈ M0
S S
A∈M A \ Γ = A∈M\M0 A. Note that it follows
and A′ ∈ M \ M0 . The minimality of M implies that neither {uj }nj=1 ⊆ A∈M0 (A ∪ in(A))
S
nor {uj }nj=1 ⊆ A∈M\M0 (A∪ in(A)). Since {uj }nj=1 ⊆ A∈M (A∪ in(A)), it follows that there
S S
are 1 ≤ j, j ′ ≤ n, A ∈ M0 and A′ ∈ M \ M0 such that uj ∈ (A ∪ in(A)), uj ′ ∈ in(A′ ) ∪ A′

and |j − j ′ | = 1, therefore kuj − uj ′ k1 = 1 and hence dist(A ∪ in(A), A′ ∪ in(A′ )) ≤ 1. Lemma
7.2 implies that either A ∪ in(A) ( A′ ∪ in(A′ ) or A′ ∪ in(A′ ) ( A ∪ in(A), contradicting the
minimality of M.
(i) (i)
S Lemma 7.13 implies that for any i ∈ {1, 2} there is a set Si ⊆ A such that A ⊆
a∈Si B4 (a) and, by using (8.15),
X 1 k
|Si | < LA (σi ) − |A| + L⊥ (σ
A i )
d
A∈M∩Ci
1 k 1 i
= LA(i) (σi ) − |A(i) | + L⊥
A (i) (σ i ) < k ⊥
Gη,Λ (τi ).
d 2 min{α , α }d
For any i ∈ {1, 2}, the definition of τi implies, as in Sections 7.1 and 7.2, that every level
component of τi intersects A(i) , and therefore intersects A(1) ∪ A(2) .
Hence, by (6.18), since A(1) ∪ A(2) ⊆ a∈S1 ∪S2 B4 (a),
S
10
η,Λ1 η,Λ2

R(τi ) < 20|S1 ∪ S2 | + 8|LC(τi )| < G (τ 1 ) + G (τ 2 ) + 8|LC(τi )|
min{αk , α⊥ }d
and the result follows since
1 1 i
|LC(τi )| ≤ TV(τi ) ≤ ⊥
Gη,Λ (τi ).
d 2α d
by Observation 6.20 and (8.16).
n o min{αk , α⊥ } 1
η,Λ1 η,Λ2
max G (τ1 ), G (τ2 ) ≥ (L1 − L0 )1− d .
4
Proof. For every finite set A ⊂ Zd , by (6.10),

1 1
|A| ≥ |∂(in(A))| ≥ |in(A)|1− d
2d
and therefore
1 1 1 1 1
2|A| ≥ |in(A)|1− d + |A| ≥ |in(A)|1− d + |A|1− d ≥ (|in(A)| + |A|)1− d = |in(A) ∪ A|1− d .
Hence, for any i ∈ {1, 2}, by (8.15) and Observation 7.12,
2 η,Λi

k (i) ⊥

G (τ i ) ≥ 4 L (σ
A(i) i
) − |A | + L (σ
A(i) i
)
min{αk , α⊥ }

k
X
= 4 LA (σi ) − |A| + L⊥ A (σ i )
A∈M∩Ci
X X 1
≥ 2|A| ≥ |in(A) ∪ A|1− d .
A∈M∩Ci A∈M∩Ci
Therefore,
4 n
η,Λ1 η,Λ2
o 2
η,Λ1 η,Λ2

max G (τ 1 ), G (τ 2 ) ≥ G (τ 1 ) + G (τ 2 )
min{αk , α⊥ } min{αk , α⊥ }
!1− 1
d
X 1 X
≥ |in(A) ∪ A|1− d ≥ |in(A) ∪ A|
A∈M A∈M
S
and the result follows since {u1 , . . . , un } ⊆ A∈M (A ∪ in(A)), and hence
X [
|in(A) ∪ A| ≥ (A ∪ in(A)) ≥ |{u1 , . . . , un }| ≥ L1 − L0 .
A∈M A∈M
1 2
To conclude the proof of Lemma 8.1, take i ∈ {1, 2} for which max{Gη,Λ (τ1 ), Gη,Λ (τ2 )} =
i
Gη,Λ (τi ). Then τi is admissible by (8.16) and Lemma 8.5, and
i min{αk , α⊥ } 1
Gη,Λ (τi ) ≥ (L1 − L0 )1− d
4
by Lemma 8.6.
9. Discussion and open problems

9.1. Localization of Dobrushin interface, roughening transitions and non-constant
ground configurations. Question 1.6 asks whether the interface formed under Dobrushin
boundary conditions remains localized uniformly in the volume. This question and its vari-
ants have received significant attention in the physics literature. As an approximation to the
true interface (reminiscent of the disordered SOS model (1.27) but involving further approx-
imations), it is suggested to study the ground configurations with zero boundary values of
a real-valued height function ϕ : Zd → R whose energy is given by the formal “disordered
Gaussian free field (GFF)” Hamiltonian
X X
H GFF,ζ (ϕ) := (ϕu − ϕv )2 + ζv,ϕv (9.1)
{u,v}∈E(Zd ) v∈Zd
where ζ : Zd ×R → R is an environment describing the quenched disorder, which is chosen with

(ζv,· )v independent and t 7→ ζv,t having short-range correlations for each v (and possibly also
light tails). It is predicted that this height function delocalizes with power-law fluctuations
in dimensions d = 1, 2, 3, delocalizes with sub-power-law fluctuations in dimension d = 4 and
remains localized in dimensions d ≥ 5. These predictions are put on a rigorous footing in the
forthcoming work [DEHP23]. More precisely, it is predicted that on the cube {−L, . . . , L}d ,
the height function fluctuates to height L2/3 in dimension d = 1 [HH85, HHF85, KN85], to
height L0.41... in dimension d = 2, to height L0.22... in dimension d = 3 [F86, M95] and to
height (log L)0.41... in dimension d = 4 [EN98].
It is predicted, however, that the model (9.1) may display different behavior when re-
stricted to integer-valued height functions. Specifically, while it is believed that the ground
configurations with zero boundary values are still delocalized in dimensions d = 1, 2, with the
same power laws as the real-valued versions, and still localized in dimensions d ≥ 5, a change
of behavior occurs for d = 3, 4 [HH85, F86, BG92, EN98]. In dimension d = 3 a roughening
transition takes place in the disorder concentration: the height function is localized for suf-
ficiently concentrated disorder and delocalized otherwise, having logarithmic fluctuations at
the critical disorder concentration and power-law fluctuations, of the same order as the real-
valued version, for less concentrated disorder [EN98]. In contrast, it is indicated that no such
transition takes place in dimension d = 4, where the height function is localized at all disorder
concentrations [EN98]. These predictions are also believed to govern the fluctuations of the
disordered SOS model (1.27), and the Dobrushin interface of the disordered ferromagnet on
ZD , with our standard substitution D = d + 1. Our work justifies the fact that the Dobrushin
interface of the disordered ferromagnet is localized in dimensions d ≥ 3 for sufficiently con-
centrated disorder (the analogous fact for the disordered SOS model is established in [BK94]).
It would be very interesting to extend it to establish the predicted roughening transition in
dimension d = 3 and the predicted localization for all disorder concentrations in dimensions
d ≥ 4. It would also be interesting to prove delocalization in dimension d = 2 (and especially
to prove power-law delocalization). We expect the methods of Aizenman–Wehr [AW90], or
their quantitative extension in [DHP21], to be relevant in dimension d = 2, as was the case
for the disordered SOS model [BK96]. Power-law delocalization in dimension d = 1 is proved
by Licea–Newman–Piza [LNP96] (see also [DEP22, DEP23]).
Related to the above, we mention that a version of the model (9.1) in which the disorder is
linear, i.e., ζv,ϕv = ζ̄v ϕv with the (ζ̄v ) independently sampled from the Gaussian dsitribution
N (0, λ2 ), is studied in [DHP23]. The (real-valued) model is exactly solvable and behaves
similarly to (9.1) in the sense that it also exhibits power-law delocalization in dimensions
d = 1, 2, 3, square-root logarithmic delocalization when d = 4 and is localized when d ≥ 5. It
is conjectured in [DHP23] that the integer-valued version of this model should also exhibit a
roughening transition: the model should transition from a localized to a delocalized regime as
λ increases in dimension d = 3 (whether this also occurs for d = 4 is unclear). The localization
part of the transition is established in [DHP23].
Lastly, Question 1.1 asks whether the disordered ferromagnet admits non-constant ground
configurations. This is certainly the case whenever the Dobrushin interface is localized, as in
this work. However, it may still be the case even when the Dobrushin interface is delocalized,
as it may be that other boundary conditions on {−L, . . . , L}D (possibly depending on the
disorder η) may lead to an interface passing near the origin. The fact that the predicted
roughening exponent is relatively small already for d = 2 (the prediction there is ≈ 0.41),
together with the fact that there are more possibilities for the boundary conditions as d
grows leads us to believe that non-constant ground configurations will indeed exist for all
d ≥ 2 (see [ADH17, Section 4.5.1] for a related heuristic of Newman for the d = 1 case).
9.2. Positive temperature and the random-field Ising model. Our main result (Theo-
rem 1.2) states that the disordered ferromagnet admits non-constant ground configurations in
dimension D ≥ 4 when the coupling constants are sampled independently from a sufficiently
concentrated distribution. This is achieved by proving that the interface formed under Do-
brushin boundary conditions remains localized uniformly in the volume (Theorem 1.7). It is
natural to ask for an extension of these results to the disordered ferromagnet at low, pos-
itive temperatures (instead of asking about non-constant ground configurations, one may
ask whether there exist Gibbs states other than mixtures of the infinite-volume limits un-
der constant boundary conditions). Such an extension is established for the disordered SOS
model (1.27) by Bovier–Külske [BK94] and we believe that it holds also for the disordered
ferromagnet. We also expect our methods to be relevant to the proof of such a result, though
one obstacle which one will need to overcome is the existence of bubbles in the Ising configura-
tion: finite islands of one sign completely surrounded by spins of the other sign. Such bubbles
occur at any non-zero temperature. Additional tools from the work of Dobrushin [D72], such
as the use of cluster expansions and the notion of “groups of walls” may be of help here too.
Another model of interest is the random-field Ising model (1.28). It is natural to won-
der whether our results (and their possible low-temperature extensions) hold also for the
Dobrushin interface in the random-field Ising model. On the level of a disordered SOS ap-
proximation to the Dobrushin interface, this is stated to be true, in dimensions D ≥ 4 and for
sufficiently weak disorder, by Bovier–Külske [BK94], following an earlier analysis of a hierar-
chical version [BK92]. We again believe that our methods will be relevant to the random-field
Ising model case, but point out that an extra complication arising in this case compared to
the disordered ferromagnet is that bubbles appear already at zero temperature.
9.3. The set of non-constant covariant ground configurations. Theorem 1.3 shows the
existence of a non-constant GD−1 -covariant ground configuration. Additional configurations
with these properties may be obtained from a given one by the following recipe: Suppose
η 7→ σ(η) is a non-constant GD−1 -covariant ground configuration. For each integer k, define
a configuration η 7→ σ k (η) by the relation
T k (σ k (η)) := σ(T k (η)) (9.2)
where T k is the automorphism of ZD given by T k (x) := x + keD (with eD being the last
coordinate vector) and the action of automorphisms on coupling fields and configurations
is given by (1.8). It is straightforward that η 7→ σ k (η) is then also a non-constant GD−1 -
covariant ground configuration.
Suppose the coupling constants (η{x,y} ) are sampled independently from a disorder distri-
bution which is non-atomic and has finite mean. We claim that the mappings (η 7→ σ k (η))k
are all distinct (even modulo zero probability events). Indeed, to obtain a contradiction, sup-
pose that σ k+m = σ k almost surely, for some integers k and m 6= 0. Then also σ m = σ almost
surely. But this implies that η 7→ σ(η) is a ZD,m -covariant ground configuration, where ZD,m
is the group of translations by vectors of the form x = (x1 , . . . , xD ) ∈ ZD with xD divisible
by m. Recall that Wehr–Wasielak [WW16] prove that there are no non-constant ZD -covariant
ground configurations (under the above assumptions on η). A minor extension of their proof
also rules out non-constant ZD,m -covariant ground configurations, contradicting the fact that
σ is non-constant.
It is natural to ask whether there is a unique family (η 7→ σ k (η))k∈Z of non-constant GD−1 -
covariant ground configurations. We believe that the answer is positive under the assumptions
of Theorem 1.2.
We also pose the following, somewhat related, problem. Theorem 1.8 proves that for every
sequence (Λn ) of finite subsets of Zd , with Λn ⊃ {−n, . . . , n}d for each n, it holds almost
surely that σ η,Λn ,Dob → σ η,Dob pointwise. Are there exceptional sequences? That is, is
there a random sequence (Λn ) of subsets of Zd , converging to Zd , for which, with positive
probability, the pointwise convergence σ η,Λn ,Dob → σ η,Dob fails? We expect that the answer
is negative under the assumptions of Theorem 1.7.
9.4. Tilted interfaces. Our work investigates the interface formed in the disordered ferro-
magnet’s ground configuration when imposing the Dobrushin boundary conditions ρDob (v,k) =
sign(k − 1/2). It is also of interest to study the interfaces formed under other boundary
conditions. For instance, one may consider “tilted Dobrushin-type boundary conditions” of
the form ρDob,y
x := sign(x · y − 1/2), corresponding to a flat interface orthogonal to the vector
y ∈ Z (so that ρDob corresponds to y = (0, . . . , 0, 1)). In analogy with predictions for the
D
pure Ising model, we expect that whenever y is not a multiple of one of e1 , . . . , eD (the stan-
dard basis vectors) then the fluctuations of these tilted interfaces are of the same order as
those of the real-valued disordered GFF model (9.1) discussed above, except perhaps in the
critical dimension d = 4. In particular, they are delocalized in dimensions d ≤ 3 and localized
in dimensions d ≥ 5 (a discussion of some simulation results is in [ADMR01, Section 7.2.3]).
9.5. Higher codimension surfaces. The Dobrushin interface studied in this paper may be
thought of as a d-dimensional surface embedded in a D = d + 1 dimensional space. It is also
of interest to consider surfaces of higher codimension, i.e., d-dimensional surfaces embedded
in a D = d + n dimensional space. Generalizing an approach of Borgs [B84], let us describe
how such surfaces arise in the context of (generalized) Ising lattice gauge theories.
Let d, n ≥ 1 and set D := d + n. An m-face in the lattice ZD is a subset of the form
x + {0, 1}I × {0}[D]\I for some x ∈ ZD and I ⊂ [D] with |I| = m (a 0-face is a vertex, a 1-face
is an edge, etc.). Denote the set of m-faces of ZD by Fm . We consider Ising lattice gauge
theories on (n − 1)-faces, defined as follows. A configuration is a function σ : Fn−1 → {−1, 1}.
We also define
Y
σ(fn ) := σfn−1 (9.3)
fn−1 ∈Fn−1
fn−1 ⊂fn
for an n-face fn . The formal Hamiltonian is

X
H gauge (σ) := − σ(fn ). (9.4)
fn ∈Fn
The defects of σ are the n-faces fn satisfying σ(fn ) = −1. We think of the defect set as
being dual to a d-dimensional surface (e.g., for n = 1, the case of the standard Ising model,
the defects are dual to the domain walls separating −1 and 1). We wish to put the model
under specific, Dobrushin-like, boundary conditions which will force such a surface through
the volume. To this end, write vertices of ZD as x = (v, k) with v = (v1 , . . . , vd ) ∈ Zd and
k = (k1 , . . . , kn ) ∈ Zn . The Dobrushin-like boundary conditions are then

(
surface −1 fn−1 =(v,k)+C with v∈Zd , k=(k1 ,0,...,0) having k1 ≤0 and C={0}[d+1] ×{0,1}[d+n]\[d+1] ,
ρfn−1 :=
1 otherwise,
(9.5)
for each fn−1 ∈ Fn−1 . The important fact about this choice is that its defect set is exactly
the set of n-faces ((v, 0) + {0}[d] × {0, 1}[d+n]\[d] )v∈Zd (other boundary conditions inducing the
same defect set are also suitable). We note that ρsurface = ρDob when n = 1. The problem of
localization is then to decide whether the surface dual to the defects of σ stays localized in the
infinite-volume limit with ρsurface boundary conditions (i.e., to show that there are defects in
the neighborhood of the origin with high probability, uniformly in the volume). Borgs [B84]
considered the case d = 2, n = 2 and proved that localization occurs at low temperature (this
is the so-called weak coupling regime). His results apply more generally when the (gauge)
group {−1, 1} is replaced by a finite Abelian group.
The result of Borgs [B84] is analogous to the result of Dobrushin [D72] in that he establishes
the existence of a non-translation-invariant Gibbs measure for the non-disordered model. In
our context, it is natural to consider a disordered version, with formal Hamiltonian
X
H gauge,η (σ) := − ηfn σ(fn ) (9.6)
fn ∈Fn
with the (ηfn )fn ∈Fn sampled independently from a disorder distribution supported in [0, ∞)
(possibly satisfying additional assumptions). We highlight two special cases: (i) the case
n = 1 is the disordered ferromagnet studied in this work, (ii) for d = 1, the defect surface of
the finite-volume ground configuration with ρsurface boundary conditions is dual to a geodesic
in first-passage percolation (in finite volume) in Z1+n .
In analogy with Question 1.1 and Question 1.6 we may ask whether the disordered model
admits ground configurations with non-empty defect set and whether the ground configuration
with ρsurface boundary conditions induces a localized surface. Regarding the second question,
we believe that the localization/delocalization behavior is mostly determined by d (though
the quantitative delocalization magnitude depends also on n). In particular, we expect that
when d ≥ 3 an analogue of our results holds for each n ≥ 1. Regarding the first question, it
seems natural that the existence of ground configurations with non-empty defect set becomes
easier as n increases. We thus expect such configurations to exist (under mild assumptions
on the disorder distribution) for all d ≥ 2 and n ≥ 1. For d = 1, the question coincides with
the open problem of whether infinite bigeodesics exist in first-passage percolation on Z1+n ,
where a negative answer is expected for n = 1 but the situation for larger n is unclear.
9.6. More general disorder distributions. Our main results are proved for non-atomic
disorder distributions (though in the anisotropic setup atoms are allowed for ν ⊥ ) with a
strictly positive lower bound on their support, which are sufficiently concentrated in the
sense that their “width”, as defined in (1.5), is sufficiently small.
Our notion of width allows either for compactly-supported distributions or distributions
which are Lipschitz images of the standard Gaussian distribution. In fact, our only use
of the concentration properties of the distribution is through the concentration inequality of
Corollary 2.3. Thus, our proof may be used for more general classes of distributions satisfying
a similar concentration inequality; see [GRST17, GRSST18].
In addition, our proof of the localization of the Dobrushin interface (Theorem 1.7) applies
also when the disorder variables (ηe ) are sampled independently from different disorder dis-
tributions, as long as the same disorder distribution is used for edges in the same “column”
(e1 , e2 are in the same column if e1 = e2 + (0, . . . , 0, k) for some k ∈ Z), and our assump-
tions (1.11) and (1.14) (for a sufficiently small c0 > 0) are satisfied for each pair of parallel
and perpendicular distributions.
The assumption that the disorder distribution is non-atomic is imposed only to ensure the
uniqueness of finite-volume ground configurations. We expect suitable versions of Theorem 1.7
and Theorem 4.3 to hold also in its absence, with minor adjustments to the proofs.
We also expect the results of this paper to continue to hold for some classes of disorder
distributions ν with min(supp(ν)) = 0. However, the assumption that min(supp(ν)) > 0 is
used more heavily in our proofs.
Acknowledgements. The research of M.B. and R.P. is supported by the Israel Science Foun-
dation grant 1971/19 and by the European Research Council Consolidator grant 101002733
(Transitions). Part of this work was completed while R.P. was a Cynthia and Robert Hillas
Founders’ Circle Member of the Institute for Advanced Study and a visiting fellow at the
Mathematics Department of Princeton University. R.P. is grateful for their support.
We are grateful to Michael Aizenman, Sky Cao, Daniel S. Fisher, Reza Gheissari and
David Huse for illuminating discussions. We thank Daniel Hadas and Sasha Sodin for helpful
comments.
Appendix A.
For every A ⊆ Zd , let ∂A˜ := {{u, v} : (u, v) ∈ ∂A or (v, u) ∈ ∂A}. Recall the definition
of the graph Gd from Lemma 7.14. Following [LM98, BB07], a set E ⊆ E(Zd ) is called a
contour if it is connected in Gd and there is a finite set A ⊆ Zd such that E = ∂A. ˜ A
contour is primitive if it is not a disjoint union of two non-empty contours. Let B̃d := {A ⊂
˜ is a primitive contour}. Recall that the family of finite A ⊂ Zd such
Zd : A is finite and ∂A
that both A and Z \ A are connected in Zd was denoted Bd in the proof of Proposition 6.3.
d
The claim of [BB07, Theorem 6] is that |{A ∈ B̃d : 0 ∈ A, |∂A| = b| ≤ (8d)2b/d for every
(even) integer b ≥ 2d. This is equivalent to (6.27) in light of the following proposition.
Proposition A.1. B̃d = Bd .
Proof. First note that if A ∈ Bd then ∂A ˜ is connected in Gd , by Lemma 7.14, and hence ∂A ˜
is a contour.
Let A ∈ B̃d . Since A is finite, the set Zd \ A obviously has a unique infinite connected
component. Let A be the collection of connected components of A and finite connected
components of Zd \ A. Define a partial order on the set A as follows: C1 C2 if every
path from C1 to ∞ necessarily intersects C2 . For every C ∈ A, let C̄ := ∪SC S. It is easy to
˜ is the disjoint union of the sets {∂˜C̄}C∈A and that for every C ∈ A it holds that
see that ∂A
C̄ ∈ Bd and hence ∂˜C̄ is a contour. Since ∂A ˜ is a primitive contour, it follows that |A| = 1
and hence, A ∈ Bd , as A is finite. Thus B̃d ⊆ Bd .
By way of contradiction, assume there is A ∈ Bd \ B̃d . Since A ∈ Bd , the set ∂A ˜ is a contour.
˜
/ B̃d , it follows that ∂A is not primitive, i.e., it is the disjoint union of two
Therefore, since A ∈
non-empty contours. In particular, there is a finite A0 ⊂ Zd such that ∅ = ˜ 0 ( ∂A.
6 ∂A ˜ Since
d d
A and A0 are both finite, the set (Z \ A) ∩ (Z \ A0 ) is infinite and in particular, non-empty.
˜ 0 ⊂ ∂A,
Hence, since (Zd \ A) is connected and ∂A ˜ it follows that (Zd \ A) ⊆ (Zd \ A0 ), i.e.,
˜ 0 6= ∅. Hence, since A is connected and
A0 ⊆ A. The set A ∩ A0 = A0 is non-empty, since ∂A
˜ 0 ⊂ ∂A,
∂A ˜ it follows that A0 ⊇ A. Therefore, A0 = A, in contradiction with ∂A
˜ 0 6= ∂A.
˜
Appendix B.
In this section Lemma 1.5, Observation 4.1, Lemma 4.2, and Lemma 6.25 will be proved.
The following observation will be used in the proof of Lemma 6.25 as well as Lemma 4.2.
Observation B.1. Let η = f (X) be Lipschitz function f of a normalized Gaussian random
variable X ∼ N (0, 1). Then η has exponential moments, i.e., E(eη ) < ∞.
Proof. Denote by C > 0 a constant such that f is C-Lipschitz. Then the following holds:
Z ∞ Z ∞
1 x2 1 x2
E(eη ) = √ ef (x) e− 2 dx = √ ef (x) + ef (−x) e− 2 dx
2π x=−∞ 2π x=0
Z ∞
e|f (0)| e|f (0)| ∞ Cx − x2
x2 Z
≤ √ e|f (x)−f (0)| + e|f (−x)−f (0)| e− 2 dx ≤ √ e e 2 dx
2π x=0 2π x=0
C2 Z C2 Z
∞ ∞
e|f (0)|+ 2 − (x−C)
2
e|f (0)|+ 2 (x−C)2 C2
= √ e 2 dx < √ e− 2 dx = e|f (0)|+ 2 ,
2π x=0 2π x=−∞
where the first equality is by definition of η, the first inequality by triangle inequality, the
second by definition of C-Lipschitz function.
Proposition B.2. Let Λ ⊂ Zd finite. Suppose the disorder distributions ν k , ν ⊥ satisfies the
condition in (1.11). For every integer h and positive integer M :
!
X
P η{(v,h),(v,h+1)} ≥ M ≤ βe−M , (B.1)
v∈Λ
where β = β(|Λ|, ν k ) is a constant which depends on |Λ|, ν k . In particular, for h = 0, it holds

for every positive integer M that

P Hη,Λ (ρDob ) ≥ M ≤ βe−M/2 . (B.2)
Consequently, by the first Borel Cantelli lemma it holds that the configuration ρDob has finite
energy a.s and so the ground energy is a.s finite.
Proof. Defining β(|Λ|, ν k ) := E(eX )|Λ| < ∞, for X ∼ ν k and where the expectation is finite
trivially for the compact case, and by Observation B.1 for the Lipschitz of Gaussian case. By
the i.i.d nature of the disorders the following holds
P
η{(v,h),(v,h+1)}
E e
!
X P v∈Λ
P η{(v,h),(v,h+1)} ≥ M = P e v∈Λ η{(v,h),(v,h+1)} ≥ eM ≤

eM
v∈Λ
E(eη{(v,h),(v,h+1)} )
Q
= v∈Λ = βe−M .
eM
The proposition below states that from the appearance of a sign change in a ground con-
figuration in height k one may deduce a lower bound on the energy of it.
Proposition B.3. Let η : E(Zd+1 ) → [0, ∞) such that ηe ≥ α⊥ for every e ∈ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ).
Let Λ ⊂ Zd be finite and let σ ∈ ΩΛ,Dob such that both the sets {x ∈ Zd+1 : σ(x) = 1} and
{y ∈ Zd+1 : σ(y) = −1} are connected. If (u, h) ∈ Λ × Z such that σ(u,h) 6= ρDob (u,h) then
η,Λ ⊥
H (σ) ≥ 2α |h|.
Proof. The proof is similar to (though considerably simpler than) the argument used to prove
Lemma 4.4.
With no loss of generality, assume that h > 0 and that h = max{k ∈ Z : σ(u,k) = −1}.
Recall the definition of the graph Gd+1 from Lemma 7.14. Define πd+1 : Zd × Z → Z by
πd+1 (u, h) = h, and for every {x, y} ∈ E(Zd+1 ), let πd+1 ({x, y}) = {πd+1 (x), πd+1 (y)}. Note
that if e, ẽ ∈ E(Zd+1 ) are adjacent in Gd+1 , then πd+1 (e) ⊆ πd+1 (ẽ) or πd+1 (e) ⊇ πd+1 (ẽ).
By Lemma 7.14. the set
I(σ) := {{x, y} ∈ E(Zd+1 ) : σ(x) = 1, σ(y) = −1}
is connected in Gd+1 . In particular, there is a sequence (ẽi )N i=1 of edges in I(σ) such that
ẽ1 = {(u, h + 1), (u, h)}, ẽN = {(w, 1), (w, 0)} for some w ∈ Zd \ Λ and ẽi , ẽi+1 are adjacent in
Gd+1 for every 1 ≤ i < N .
Since πd+1 (ẽ1 ) = {h + 1, h}, πd+1 (ẽN ) = {1, 0} and for every 1 ≤ i < N it holds that
πd+1 (ẽi−1 ) ⊆ πd+1 (ẽi ) or πd+1 (ẽi−1 ) ⊇ πd+1 (ẽi ), it follows that for every 1 ≤ k ≤ h there is
necessarily 1 < ih < N such that πd+1 (ẽik ) = {k}. Then, for every 1 ≤ k ≤ h it holds that
ẽik ∈ I(σ) ∩ E ⊥ (Zd+1 ) and ẽik ∩ (Λ × Z) 6= ∅, and hence
X h
X
H η,Λ
(σ) = 2 ηe ≥ 2 ηẽik ≥ 2hα⊥ .
e∈I(σ) k=1
e∩(Λ×Z)6=∅
Proof of Lemma 6.25. First notice that for any M > 0

k ⊥ k ⊥

P Gη,∆M ,(b ,b ) (τ ) 6= Gη,Λ,(b ,b ) (τ )
k ⊥ k ⊥

≤P GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η) 6= GEΛ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η)
k ⊥ k ⊥

+ P GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η τ ) 6= GEΛ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η τ )
k ⊥ k ⊥

=2P GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η) 6= GEΛ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ) (η) ,
where the inequality is by union bound and equality afterwards by the fact the disorder is
i.i.d and τ is fixed.
The set {x ∈ Zd+1 : σ(x) = 1} obviously has a unique infinite connected component for ev-
k ⊥
ery σ ∈ ΩΛ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ),Dob . If the set {x ∈ Zd+1 : σ(x) = 1} has finite connected components
k ⊥
then flipping all signs in such a component yields a configuration in ΩΛ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ),Dob with
k ⊥
smaller H η . Hence, if σ0 ∈ ΩΛ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ),Dob is a configuration minimizing Hη,Λ , then the
set {x ∈ Zd+1 : σ0 (x) = 1} is necessarily connected, and similarly, the set {y ∈ Zd+1 : σ0 (y) =
k ⊥
1} is connected as well. Hence, if σ0 ∈ / Ω∆M ,supp(τ ),(b ,b ),Dob then Hη,Λ (σ) ≥ 2α⊥ (M + 1), by
Proposition B.3. It follows that
k ,b⊥ ) k ,b⊥ )
{η : GE∆M ,supp(τ ),(b (η) 6= GEΛ,supp(τ )(b (η)}
Λ,supp(τ ),(bk ,b⊥ )
⊆ {η : GE (η) ≥ 2α⊥ (M + 1)} ⊆ {η : Hη,Λ (ρDob ) ≥ 2α⊥ (M + 1)}
k ,b⊥ )
where the second inclusion is by definition of ground energy, since ρDob ∈ ΩΛ,supp(τ ),(b .
And so by the above inclusion, and (B.2),
k ⊥ k ⊥
⊥
P Gη,∆M ,(b ,b ) (τ ) 6= Gη,Λ,(b ,b ) (τ ) ≤ 2βe−α (M +1) −−−−→ 0
M →∞
as required.
Proof of Observation 4.1. By definition of ΩΛ,Dob the configurations σ, σ ′ may only differ in
finitely many places, and so the difference H η (σ) − H η (σ ′ ) is well defined and denoting
D = {x : σx 6= σx′ }, both
X
H η (σ) − H η (σ ′ ) = −2 η{x,y} σx σy
{x,y}∈∂D
and also
X X
Hη,Λ (σ) − Hη,Λ (σ ′ ) = η{x,y} σx′ σy′ − σx σy ) = −2

η{x,y} σx σy .
{x,y} {x,y}∈∂D
1
Proof of Lemma 1.5. Let M be an integer larger than α⊥
Hη,Λ (ρDob ) (which is finite by Propo-
sition B.2). Let ∆M := Λ × {−M, . . . , M }. The function Hη,Λ is well defined on the finite
Dob Dob
Ω∆M ,ρ ⊂ ΩΛ,Dob . Thus, there is a ground configuration σ η,∆M ,Dob in Ω∆M ,ρ with respect
η,Λ
to the Hamiltonian H , which is unique by condition (4.1). By Observation 4.1, σ η,∆M ,Dob
Dob
is also the unique ground configuration in Ω∆M ,ρ with respect to the Hamiltonian H η .
Dob
Consider a configuration σ ∈ ΩΛ,Dob \ Ω∆M ,ρ . Each of the sets {x ∈ Zd+1 : σ(x) = 1},
{y ∈ Zd+1 : σ(y) = −1} obviously has a unique infinite connected component. If either of
the sets {x ∈ Zd+1 : σ(x) = 1}, {y ∈ Zd+1 : σ(y) = −1} has a finite connected component,
then flipping all signs in such a component yields a configuration σ̃ ∈ ΩΛ,Dob such that
H η (σ) − H η (σ̃) > 0. If neither of the sets {x ∈ Zd+1 : σ(x) = 1}, {y ∈ Zd+1 : σ(y) = −1}
has finite connected components, then both sets are connected and hence, by Observation 4.1
and Proposition B.3,
H η (σ) − H η (ρDob ) = Hη,Λ (σ) − Hη,Λ (ρDob ) ≥ α⊥ (M + 1) − Hη,Λ (ρDob ) > 0.
Dob
Therefore, no σ ∈ ΩΛ,Dob \ Ω∆M ,ρ is a ground configuration in ΩΛ,Dob and hence σ η,∆M ,Dob
is also the unique ground configuration in ΩΛ,Dob .
Finally, since every configuration that differs from σ η,∆M ,Dob in finitely many places is
Dob
necessarily in ΩΛ,Dob , it follows that σ η,∆M ,Dob is also a ground configuration in ΩΛ×Z,ρ ; it
Dob
is also almost surely unique, since almost surely no configuration in ΩΛ×Z,ρ \ ΩΛ,Dob is a
Dob
ground configuration in ΩΛ×Z,ρ with respect to the Hamiltonian H η , as we will prove next.
k
Take γ > ln β(|Λ|, ν ) (see Proposition B.2), and let
X
J := {j ∈ Z : η{(v,j),(v,j+1)} < γ}.
v∈Λ
Dob
We will show that if the set J is infinite, then no configuration in ΩΛ×Z,ρ \ ΩΛ,Dob is a
Dob
ground configuration in ΩΛ×Z,ρ with respect to the Hamiltonian H η . Since the disorder η
is an independent field, it readily follows from (B.1) that J is almost surely infinite, and we
are done.
Dob
Therefore, assume that the set J is infinite and let σ ∈ ΩΛ×Z,ρ \ ΩΛ,Dob . Then, the set
d Dob
I := {i ∈ Z : ∃u ∈ Z such that σ(u,i) 6= ρ(u,i) } is infinite, and hence there are 0 ≤ j1 < j2 or
γ
j1 < j2 ≤ 0 in J such that |I ∩ [j1 + 1, j2 ]| > α⊥ d
. Consider the configuration σ̃, defined as
follows: for every u ∈ Zd , σ̃(u,i) = ρDob
(u,i) if j1 + 1 ≤ i ≤ j2 and σ̃(u,i) = σ(u,i) otherwise. Clearly,
Dob
σ̃ ∈ ΩΛ×Z,ρ , {x ∈ Zd+1 : σ̃x 6= σx } is finite and
X X
H η (σ) − H η (σ̃) ≥4α⊥ d|I ∩ [j1 + 1, j2 ]| − 2 η{(v,j1 ),(v,j1 +1)} − 2 η{(v,j2 ),(v,j2 +1)}
v∈Λ v∈Λ
>4γ − 4γ = 0.
Hence, σ is not a ground configuration, as desired.
Proof of Lemma 4.2. First notice that for any τ ∈ S ∩ {τ : maxu∈Λ |τ (u)| = r} it holds that
TV(τ ) ≥ 2dr, and so
{η : τ ∈ AS η,Λ (αk , α⊥ )} ⊂ {η : |Gη,Λ (τ )| ≥ dα⊥ } (B.3)
by the definition of (αk , α⊥ )-admissibility.
Now use union bound and (B.3) to get

P ∃τ ∈ AS (α , α ) : max |τ (u)| = r ≤ (2r + 1)|Λ|
η,Λ k ⊥
max P(τ ∈ AS)
u∈Λ τ ∈S
maxu∈Λ |τ (u)|=r

≤ (2r + 1)|Λ| P |Gη,Λ (τ )| ≥ dα⊥ ≤ 2(2r + 1)|Λ| P GEΛ,Dob (η) ≥ dα⊥
⊥
≤ 2(2r + 1)|Λ| P Hη,Λ (ρDob ) ≥ dα⊥ ≤ β2(2r + 1)|Λ| e−dα /2
where the first inequality is by union bound, the second is by (B.3), the third is by the fact
the parallel disorder is i.i.d, the forth is by definition of ground energy, and
the fifth by (B.2).
η,Λ k ⊥
Noticing that by the above P ∃τ ∈ AS (α , α ) : maxu∈Λ |τ (u)| = r is summable with
respect to r and applying Borel–Cantelli one gets that with probability one finitely many of
the events
{∃τ ∈ AS η,Λ (αk , α⊥ ) : max |τ (u)| = r}
u∈Λ
η,Λ
and in particular with probability one |AS (α , α⊥ )|
k < ∞ as required.
References
[AH16] D. Ahlberg and C. Hoffman, Random coalescing geodesics in first-passage percolation. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1609.02447 (2016).
[ACCFR83] M. Aizenman, J. T. Chayes, L. Chayes, J. Fröhlich, and L. Russo, On a sharp transition from
area law to perimeter law in a system of random surfaces. Communications in Mathematical Physics 92, no.
1 (1983): 19-69.
[AW90] M. Aizenman and J. Wehr, Rounding effects of quenched randomness on first-order phase transitions.
Communications in mathematical physics 130, no. 3 (1990): 489-528.
[ADMR01] M. J. Alava, P. M. Duxbury, C. F. Moukarzel, and H. Rieger, Exact combinatorial algorithms:
Ground states of disordered systems. In Phase transitions and critical phenomena, vol. 18, pp. 143-317.
Academic Press, 2001.
[A20] K. S. Alexander, Geodesics, bigeodesics, and coalescence in first passage percolation in general dimension.
arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08736 (2020).
[ADH17] A. Auffinger, M. Damron, and J. Hanson, 50 years of first-passage percolation. Vol. 68. American
Mathematical Soc., 2017.
[BBS20] M. Balázs, O. Busani and T. Seppäläinen, Non-existence of bi-infinite geodesics in the exponential
corner growth model. In Forum of Mathematics, Sigma, vol. 8, p. e46. Cambridge University Press, 2020.
[BB07] P. N. Balister and B. Bollobás, Counting regions with bounded surface area, Comm. Math. Phys. 273
(2007), no. 2, 305–315.
[BGT22] A.-L. Basdevant, J.-B. Gouéré, and M. Théret, First-order behavior of the time constant in Bernoulli
first-passage percolation. The Annals of Applied Probability 32, no. 6 (2022): 4535-4567.
[BHS22] R. Basu, C. Hoffman and A. Sly, Nonexistence of bigeodesics in planar exponential last passage
percolation. Communications in Mathematical Physics (2022): 1-30.
[BKS03] I. Benjamini, G. Kalai and O. Schramm, First Passage Percolation Has Sublinear Distance Variance.
Annals of Probability (2003): 1970-1978.
[B84] C. Borgs, Translation symmetry breaking in four dimensional lattice gauge theories. Communications
in mathematical physics 96 (1984): 251-284.
[BG92] Bouchaud, Jean-Philippe, and Antoine Georges. ”Competition between lattice pinning and impurity
pinning: Variational theory and physical realizations.” Physical review letters 68, no. 26 (1992): 3908.
[BLM13] S. Boucheron, G. Lugosi and P. Massart, Concentration Inequalities: A Nonasymptotic Theory of
Independence. OUP Oxford, 2013.
[BFG86] A. Bovier, J. Fröhlich and U. Glaus, Lines and domain walls in dilute ferromagnets. Physical Review
B 34, no. 9 (1986): 6409.
[BK92] A. Bovier and C. Külske, Stability of hierarchical interfaces in a random field model. Journal of
statistical physics 69 (1992): 79-110.
[BK93] A. Bovier and C. Külske, Hierarchical interfaces in random media II: The Gibbs measures. Journal of
[BK94] A. Bovier and C. Külske, A rigorous renormalization group method for interfaces in random media.
Reviews in Mathematical Physics 6, no. 03 (1994): 413-496.
[BK96] A. Bovier and C. Külske, There are no nice interfaces in (2+ 1)-dimensional SOS models in random
media. Journal of statistical physics 83 (1996): 751-759.
[BP91] A. Bovier and P. Picco, Stability of interfaces in a random environment. A rigorous renormalization
group analysis of a hierarchical model. Journal of statistical physics 62 (1991): 177-199.
[BK87] J. Bricmont and A. Kupiainen, Lower critical dimension for the random-field Ising model. Physical
review letters 59, no. 16 (1987): 1829.
[BK88] J. Bricmont and A. Kupiainen, Phase transition in the 3d random field Ising model. Communications
in mathematical physics 116 (1988): 539-572.
[BLP79] J. Bricmont, J. L. Lebowitz and C. E. Pfister, Non-translation invariant Gibbs states with coexisting
phases: II. Cluster properties and surface tension. Communications in Mathematical Physics 66, no. 1 (1979):
21-36.
[BLPO79] J. Bricmont, J. L. Lebowitz, C. E. Pfister and E. Olivieri, Non-translation invariant Gibbs states
with coexisting phases: I. Existence of sharp interface for Widom-Rowlinson type lattice models in three
dimensions. Communications in Mathematical Physics 66, no. 1 (1979): 1-20.
[BS22] O. Busani and T. Seppäläinen, Non-existence of bi-infinite polymers. Electronic Journal of Probability
27 (2022): 1-40.
[CT11a] R. Cerf and M. Théret, Law of large numbers for the maximal flow through a domain of Rd in first
passage percolation. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 363, no. 7 (2011): 3665-3702.
[CT11b] R. Cerf and M. Théret, Lower large deviations for the maximal flow through a domain of Rd in first
passage percolation. Probability theory and related fields 150, no. 3-4 (2011): 635-661.
[CT11c] R. Cerf and M. Théret, Upper large deviations for the maximal flow through a domain of Rd in first
passage percolation. Annals of Applied Probability 21, no. 6 (2011): 2075-2108.
[CT14] R. Cerf and M. Théret, Maximal stream and minimal cutset for first passage percolation through a
domain of Rd . Annals of probability 42, no. 3 (2014): 1054-1120.
[CK03] J. Černý, and R. Kotecký, Interfaces for random cluster models. Journal of statistical physics 111, no.
1-2 (2003): 73-106.
[C83] J. T. Chalker, On the lower critical dimensionality of the Ising model in a random field. Journal of
Physics C: Solid State Physics 16, no. 34 (1983): 6615.
[CC86] J. T. Chayes, and L. Chayes, Bulk transport properties and exponent inequalities for random resistor
and flow networks. Communications in mathematical physics 105, no. 1 (1986): 133-152.
[DH17] M. Damron and J. Hanson, Bigeodesics in first-passage percolation. Communications in Mathematical
Physics 349, no. 2 (2017): 753-776.
[DHP21] P. Dario, M. Harel, and R. Peled, Quantitative disorder effects in low-dimensional spin systems.
arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.01711 (2021).
[DHP23] P. Dario, M. Harel, and R. Peled, Random-field random surfaces. Probability Theory and Related
Fields 186, no. 1-2 (2023): 91-158.
[DMN00] N. Datta, A. Messager, and B. Nachtergaele, Rigidity of interfaces in the Falicov–Kimball model.
Journal of Statistical Physics 99 (2000): 461-555.
[D20] B. Dembin, The maximal flow from a compact convex subset to infinity in first passage percolation on
Zd . (2020): 622-645.
[DEHP23] B. Dembin, D. Elboim, D. Hadas and R. Peled, Minimal surfaces in random environment. In
preparation.
[DEP22] B. Dembin, D. Elboim and R. Peled, Coalescence of geodesics and the BKS midpoint problem in
planar first-passage percolation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02332 (2022).
[DEP23] B. Dembin, D. Elboim and R. Peled, On the influence of edges in first-passage percolation. arXiv
preprint arXiv:2307.01162 (2023).
[DG23] B. Dembin and C. Garban, Superconcentration for minimal surfaces in first passage percolation and
disordered Ising ferromagnets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11248 (2023).
[DT20] B. Dembin and M. Théret, Large deviation principle for the streams and the maximal flow in first
passage percolation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05526 (2020).
[DT21] B. Dembin and M. Théret, Large deviation principle for the cutsets and lower large deviation principle
for the maximal flow in first passage percolation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.11601 (2021).
[DZ23] J. Ding and Zijie Zhuang, Long range order for random field Ising and Potts models. Comm. Pure
Appl. Math. (2023).
[D72] R. L. Dobrušin, The Gibbs state that describes the coexistence of phases for a three-dimensional Ising
model, Teor. Verojatnost. i Primenen. 17 (1972), 619–639.
[EN98] T. Emig and Thomas Nattermann, Roughening transition of interfaces in disordered systems. Physical
review letters 81, no. 7 (1998): 1469.
[F86] D. S. Fisher, Interface fluctuations in disordered systems: 5 − ε expansion and failure of dimensional
reduction. Physical review letters 56, no. 18 (1986): 1964.
[FFS84] D. S. Fisher, J. Fröhlich and T. Spencer, The Ising model in a random magnetic field, J. Statist. Phys.
34 (1984), no. 5-6, 863–870.
[GL20] R. Gheissari and E. Lubetzky, Maximum and shape of interfaces in 3D Ising crystals, Communications
on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 2020.
[GG02] G. Gielis and G. Grimmett, Rigidity of the interface in percolation and random-cluster models. Journal
of Statistical Physics 109 (2002): 1-37.
[GRST17] N. Gozlan, C. Roberto, P.-M. Samson, and P. Tetali, Kantorovich duality for general transport
costs and applications. Journal of Functional Analysis 273, no. 11 (2017): 3327-3405.
[GRSST18] N. Gozlan, C. Roberto, P.-M. Samson, Y. Shu, and P. Tetali, Characterization of a class of weak
transport-entropy inequalities on the line. (2018): 1667-1693.
[GJRA21] S. Groathouse, C. Janjigian and F. Rassoul-Agha, Non-existence of non-trivial bi-infinite geodesics
in Geometric Last Passage Percolation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00161 (2021).
[HH85] D. A. Huse and C. L. Henley, Pinning and roughening of domain walls in Ising systems due to random
impurities. Physical review letters 54, no. 25 (1985): 2708.
[HHF85] D. A. Huse, C. L. Henley, and D. S. Fisher, Huse, Henley, and Fisher respond. Physical review letters
55, no. 26 (1985): 2924.
[I84] J. Z. Imbrie, Lower critical dimension of the random-field Ising model. Physical review letters 53, no. 18
(1984): 1747.
[I85] J. Z. Imbrie, The ground state of the three-dimensional random-field Ising model. Communications in
mathematical physics 98, no. 2 (1985): 145-176.
[IM75] Y. Imry and S.-k. Ma, Random-field instability of the ordered state of continuous symmetry. Physical
Review Letters 35, no. 21 (1975): 1399.
[JS91] W. B. Johnson and G. Schechtman, Remarks on Talagrand’s deviation inequality for Rademacher
functions. Functional analysis (Austin, TX, 1987/1989), 72–77. Lecture Notes in Math., 1470 Longhorn
Notes Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
[KN85] M. Kardar, and David R. Nelson, Commensurate-incommensurate transitions with quenched random
impurities. Physical review letters 55, no. 11 (1985): 1157.
[K87] H. Kesten, Surfaces with minimal random weights and maximal flows: a higher dimensional version of
first-passage percolation. Illinois Journal of Mathematics 31, no. 1 (1987): 99-166.
[LM98] J. L. Lebowitz and A. E. Mazel, Improved Peierls argument for high-dimensional Ising models. J.
Statist. Phys. 90 (1998), no. 3–4, 1051–1059.
[LNP96] C. Licea, C. M. Newman, and M. S.T. Piza, Superdiffusivity in first-passage percolation. Probability
Theory and Related Fields 106, no. 4 (1996): 559-591.
[LW49] L. H. Loomis and H. Whitney, An inequality related to the isoperimetric inequality, Bull. Amer. Math.
Soc 55 (1949), 961–962.
[M95] A. A. Middleton, Numerical results for the ground-state interface in a random medium. Physical Review
E 52, no. 4 (1995): R3337.
[MS86] V. Milman and G. Schechtman, Asymptotic theory of finite-dimensional normed spaces. With an
appendix by M. Gromov Lecture Notes in Math., 1200 Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986. viii+156 pp.
[N97] C. M. Newman, Topics in disordered systems. Springer Science & Business Media, 1997.
[PS79] G, Parisi and N. Sourlas, Random magnetic fields, supersymmetry, and negative dimensions. Physical
Review Letters 43, no. 11 (1979): 744.
[P36] R. Peierls, On Ising’s model of ferromagnetism, in Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philo-
sophical Society, Cambridge University Press, 1936, 477-481.
[PS23] R. Peled and Y. Spinka, Rigidity of proper colorings of Z d. Inventiones mathematicae 232, no. 1 (2023):
79-162.
[PS20] R. Peled and Y. Spinka, Long-range order in discrete spin systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03177
(2020).
[RT10] R. Rossignol and M. Théret, Lower large deviations and laws of large numbers for maximal flows
through a box in first passage percolation. In Annales de l’IHP Probabilités et statistiques, vol. 46, no. 4,
pp. 1093-1131. 2010.
[SV07] S. Shlosman and Yvon Vignaud, Dobrushin interfaces via reflection positivity. Communications in
mathematical physics 276, no. 3 (2007): 827-861.
[T88] M. Talagrand, An isoperimetric theorem on the cube and the Kintchine-Kahane inequalities. Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 104 (1988), no. 3, 905–909.
[T07] M. Théret, Upper large deviations for the maximal flow in first-passage percolation. Stochastic processes
and their applications 117, no. 9 (2007): 1208-1233.
[T08] M. Théret, On the small maximal flows in first passage percolation. In Annales de la Faculté des sciences
de Toulouse: Mathématiques, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 207-219. 2008.
[T14] M. Théret, Upper large deviations for maximal flows through a tilted cylinder. ESAIM: Probability and
Statistics 18 (2014): 117-129.
[T13] Timár, Boundary-connectivity via graph theory, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 141 (2013), no. 2, 475–480.
[vB75] H. van Beijeren, Interface sharpness in the Ising system, Comm. Math. Phys. 40 (1975), no. 1, 1–6.
[W97] J. Wehr, On the number of infinite geodesics and ground states in disordered systems. Journal of
[WW16] J. Wehr and A. Wasielak, Uniqueness of translation-covariant zero-temperature metastate in disor-
dered Ising ferromagnets. Journal of Statistical Physics 162 (2016): 487-494.
[W09] M. Wouts, Surface tension in the dilute Ising model. The Wulff construction. Communications in Math-
ematical Physics 289, no. 1 (2009): 157-204.
[Z00] Y. Zhang, Critical behavior for maximal flows on the cubic. Journal of Statistical Physics 98 (2000):
799-811.
[Z18] Y. Zhang, Limit theorems for maximum flows on a lattice. Probability Theory and Related Fields 171
(2018): 149-202.
(M. Bassan) School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Email address: michalbassan@mail.tau.ac.il
(S. Gilboa) Department of Mathematics, The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel
Email address: shoni@openu.ac.il
(R. Peled) School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
School of Mathematics, Institute for Advanced Study and Department of Mathematics, Prince-
ton University, New Jersey, United States.
Email address: peledron@tauex.tau.ac.il

D Ising (X, Y) E (Z) X y

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D Ising (X, Y) E (Z) X y

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NON-CONSTANT GROUND CONFIGURATIONS IN THE DISORDERED

MICHAL BASSAN, SHONI GILBOA, AND RON PELED

Abstract. The disordered ferromagnet is a disordered version of the ferromagnetic Ising

(2) T (g(η)) = g(T (η)) for each automorphism g ∈ G.

The anisotropic disordered ferromagnet. Our proof naturally extends to an anisotropic

where e1 , e2 , . . . , eD are the standard unit vectors in ZD .

where sign denotes the sign function.

The following is an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.7 and Theorem 1.8.

c(ν , ν , d) := 2 min , 1 (1.24)

Cov(f (σ η,Dob |(u+Λ(L))×Z ), g(σ η,Dob |(v+Λ(L))×Z ))

where ζ : Zd × Z → R is an environment describing the quenched disorder. This model is

first “sub-surface-order” bounds (superconcentration) on the variance of the ground energy,

1.1.8. Translation-covariant ground metastates. As previously mentioned, Wehr–Wasielak [WW16]

instead of (1.29), a new configuration and disorder are defined by

The energy gap obtained from this definition is the difference

where τN represents some notion of N -coarse-graining of τ , with τ20 = τ1 = τ and with K

energy gap s; see Lemma 6.2),

However, we are not guaranteed that these equalities hold!

2. Notation, conventions and concentration results

3. Disorders which are constant on perpendicular plaquettes

A configuration σ is said to have no overhangs if it is interfacial and for every v ∈ Zd , there

4. Stability of the ground energy under shifts of the disorder and a

This is captured with the following notation: Given αk , α⊥ ∈ (0, ∞) let

and note that it is well defined on ΩΛ,Dob .

and for every {u, v} ∈ E(Zd ) and k ∈ Z,

• A level component of a shift τ is a connected set on which τ is constant and which is

Similarly, define the trip entropy R(E) of a set E ⊆ Zd as

4.2. Stability of the ground energy.

PI = {QI (v)}v∈(2Z)I ×Z[d]\I where QI (v) := v + {0, 1}I × {0}[d]\I .

for every positive integer s. Hence,

6. Concentration of ground-energy differences between consecutive

The perpendicular layering of σ over A is defined as

For A ⊂ Λ ⊂ Zd and integer bk , b⊥ ≥ 0, define:

(2) For every integer N ≥ 2 and t > 0,

for every integer N ≥ 2, by (6.5),

In an identical manner, it holds that

For the third bound, again in an identical manner

This concludes the proof.

Proof of Lemma 5.4. It holds that

P ({MG ≤ 2s} ∩ {∃τ ∈ AS, |G(τ )| > s})

Recall that for every u ∈ Zd , h i

where w is the unique point in Zd such that u ∈ QN (N w).

For a shift τ : Zd → Z and a set A ⊂ Zd , define

Lemma 6.11. For every {u, v} ∈ E(Zd ),

where B := N u + {0, 1, 2, . . . , N − 1}d−1 × {0}. For every x ∈ B, it holds that

rough rough rough rough

and the result follows from Lemma 6.11.

Proof. We first prove by induction on k that for every 1 ≤ k ≤ d that

Now we can conclude the proof of the Lemma.

where B := Q2 (2 w). Let

where w is the unique point in Zd such that u ∈ QI (TI (w)).

Note that for every {x, y} ∈ E(Zd ),

|τ (u) − τIrough (u)|

6.2.3. Entropy bounds.

Proof. We first show that for every a ∈ ∂ out A,

Consequently, for every finite Ω ⊂ Zd , there is an ordering ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ω|Ω| of Ω such that,

which proves (6.17).

Observation 6.18. For every bounded A ⊆ Zd and every u ∈ A it holds that

Ωi := {ui } ∪ {ω(Ã) : Ã ∈ LC(τ̃ ), i(Ã) = i}.

and for every I ∈ comp(τ ),

is clearly injective, hence

Therefore, for every positive integers k and m and real α ≥ k, by (6.24),