Scaling and partial universality of the height zero probability in the 2D Abelian sandpile

Recall from Lemma 2.2(ii) that

where g is an edge incident with z_\varepsilon, \mathcal{N}^{(g)} denotes the set of edges incident with z_\varepsilon in U_\varepsilon other than g, and

Write \mathcal{N} for the set of edges incident with z_\varepsilon in U_\varepsilon. It will be convenient to order the set \{ g \} \cup \mathcal{N} in such a way that its cyclic order remains invariant under the action of the rotation O. (For example, by increasing argument of the endpoint.) Let M^{(g)}_{e,f} denote the minor of (I - Y)_{e, f \in \mathcal{N}} with the rows g,e and columns g,f deleted. Then due to Proposition 3.1 we can write

where n(e), n(f) denotes the indices of e, f, respectively, in the fixed ordering. Since the choice of g is free, we can also write

It is easy to see that (-1)^{n(O^r e) + n(O^r f)} = (-1)^{n(e) + n(f)}, and by rotation invariance of the lattice we also have M^{(O^r g)}_{O^r e, O^r f} = M^{(g)}_{e,f} (as the matrices differ by a cyclic permutation of both the rows and columns). This gives:

Adding the J_{11} and J_{22} contributions from Lemma 3.2, and substituting into (?), we have the expression

Putting f_U = (J_{11} + J_{22}) and c_\mathcal{G} := c_0 c_1 / \pi completes the proof.

Applying the already proved bounded case to U_R, we have

We now argue that \lim_{R \to \infty} f_{U_R}(z) = f_U(z), where f_U(z) is defined by the integral in (?), and that the \mathcal{O}_R(\varepsilon^3) error term is in fact uniform in R.

For the convergence of f_{U_R}, we use a representation in terms of planar Brownian motion. Let r(z) = \inf \{ |y - z| : y \in \partial U \}. Define the function

where B is a standard planar Brownian motion, and where \xi_U = \inf \{ t \ge 0 : B_t \not\in U \}. Together with the analogous formula for F_{U_R}, we have

As a consequence of the mean-value property of harmonic functions [Evans-book, Theorem 2.2.7] we have that

where x = (x,y). Now we have

We show that the last probability goes to 0, as R \to \infty, uniformly in w such that |w - z| = r(z)/2. From Assumption 1.2 we have that we can find a curve \gamma \subset U^c with \mathrm{diam}(\gamma) > 0, such that for all sufficiently large R, we have \gamma \subset U_R^c as well. The probability that B does not visit \gamma before exiting B_R(z) goes to 0 (uniformly over w), and from this the statement follows. Thus we have \frac{\partial F_{U_R}}{\partial x} \to \frac{\partial F_{U}}{\partial x}.

A very similar argument can be applied with \Re\left(\frac{1}{v-z}\right) replaced by \Im\left(\frac{1}{v-z}\right) and \frac{\partial}{\partial x} replaced by \frac{\partial}{\partial y}, and it follows that f_{U_R}(z) \to f_U(z).

Uniformity of the error term in R follows from the uniform boundedness of the boundary data 1/(v-z).

This follows immediately from the scaling form in part (i), the estimate in Lemma 6.3, and the already established positivity of f_U in Lemma 6.2.

Using the burning bijection of Majumdar and Dhar [Majumdar1992], we have that

The second expression equals \det(\Delta_{\mathcal{G}^{(g)}_\Lambda})/\det(\Delta_\Lambda), yielding part (i). The third expression can be expressed using the Transfer-Current Theorem of Burton and Pemantle [Burton1993], [LyonsTrees, Exercise 4.41] as

The forms of the main and constant terms follow immediately from [KU08, Theorem 1.2]. (Observe that while in that theorem the constant term C_0 can depend on [w], in our case reversibility gives that it does not.) In the same theorem, it is easy to see that the coefficient of the term of order |v - w|^{-1} vanishes (in the notation of [KU08], the vectors c and c^* vanish, due to rotational symmetry). The form of the term of order |v - w|^{-2} follows from [KU08, Eqn. (15)] and the discussion following it.

Let us fix w \in \mathcal{V}. Let v \in \mathcal{V} with |v - w| \gg 1. Consider the stopping times

Using that A(w,\cdot) is discrete harmonic away from w, and using the Optional Stopping Theorem, for any N \ge 1 we have that

The upper bound of (?) and the decay bound (?) imply that the second term is exponentially small in N. Hence by (?) and monotone convergence we get

Using that

we have that

On the event \{ \tau_1 \le \sigma \} we have by (?) that

Applying Lemma 8.1 twice, once with g_1(u) = \log| u - w | and then with g_2(u) = \frac{U_2((u - w)/|u - w|)}{|u - w|^2} we have

We bound from above the two sums on the right hand side. For g_1, consider the function \tilde{g}_1 : \mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R} defined by the same formula as g_1, but made to vanish outside the ball B(v, 3|v-w|/4). Applying Lemma 8.2 to g_1 gives

where \Delta^{(c)} is the (continuous) Laplacian in \mathbb{R}^2. This gives that the first expectation on the right hand side of (?) is bounded in absolute value by

For g_2 we have \Delta^{(c)} g_2 = O(|v-w|^{-4}) so Lemma 8.2 gives

This gives that the second expectation on the right hand side of (?) is O ( |v - w|^{-4} ).

In order to complete the proof, we need to show that c_0, C_0, U_2 in fact do not depend on [w], and identify the constant in the leading term. From A(w,v) = A(v,w), and the form of the leading term, we have that c_0([w]) = c_0([v]), and hence c_0 does not depend on [w]. Subtracting the leading term from A(w,v) = A(v,w), we see that C_0 does not depend on [w] either. Now the same follows for the function U_2. To identify c_0, we transform the walk Y to a walk on \mathbb{Z}^2 by setting X_n = M^{-1} (Y_n - Y_0), where the matrix M has columns h_1, h_2. Thus the covariance matrix of X_1 equals

The determinant of \sqrt{Q} hence equals \frac{\sigma_1^2}{2 |\det(M)|}, and therefore, from [FU96, Theorem 1], we have

To determine \sigma_1^2, using the law of large numbers, we have

Writing T for a fundamental region of \mathcal{L}^w, and using the ergodicity of the finite state Markov chain on T induced by the walk S, we have that

where \mu is the invariant distribution of the Markov chain on T. On the other hand,

this gives

(i) One can prove that the u_\varepsilon are equicontinuous by the arguments given in [CS11, Appendix], that go back to [D53, B08]. Since the focus in [CS11] is isoradial graphs, we give the main steps to indicate how they extend to our setup.

Step 1. It is easy to verify the following discrete version of Green’s formula:

Step 2. Let B_{R,\varepsilon}(v) be the discrete ball of (Euclidean) radius R around v \in \varepsilon\mathcal{V}. It can be derived from the potential kernel asymptotics in Proposition 2.3 that

where the implicit constants only depend on \mathcal{G}. See the proof of [CS11, Proposition A.1].

Step 3. Now from Steps 1 and 2 follows the mean value property (see [CS11, Proposition A.2]): if H : B_{R,\varepsilon}(v) \cup \partial B_{R,\varepsilon}(v) \to \mathbb{R} is non-negative and discrete harmonic in B_{R,\varepsilon}(v), then

where we denote c_0 = c_0(\mathcal{G}) = \det(M)/(Z_T \sigma^2). Indeed, let

Due to Lemma 8.2 and Proposition 2.3 we have

Thus applying Green’s formula to F \pm C (\varepsilon^2/R^2) and H we deduce

where \partial^{\mathrm{int}} B_{R,\varepsilon} = \{ w \in B_{R,\varepsilon} : \text{f B_R,such thatw = f_-}\}. Then Step 2 and Theorem 2.5 imply the claim.

Step 4. As in [CS11, Proposition 2.7] and [CS11, Corollary 2.9], it follows from Step 3 that if H : B_{R,\varepsilon}(v) \cup \partial B_{R,\varepsilon}(v) \to \mathbb{R} is discrete harmonic in B_{R,\varepsilon}(v) (not necessarily non-negative), and v' \sim v, then

In particular, if the boundary condition satisfies \| g \|_\infty \le M, then u_\varepsilon are uniformly bounded and locally equicontinuous with a modulus of continuity only dependent on M and the distance from the boundary.

Step 5. By Step 4, subsequential limits of (u_\varepsilon) exist. Let u be any such limit. From Step 3 we get that u satisfies the (continuous) mean-value property. Indeed, after adding a suitable constant c_u to u_\varepsilon to make \tilde{u}_\varepsilon = u_\varepsilon + c_u non-negative in the ball B_{R,\varepsilon}(v), we have

The last expression converges, as \varepsilon \to 0 along the chosen subsequence, to

where \tilde{u} = u + c_u, and m is Lebesgue measure. Therefore we deduce that u is harmonic.

Step 6. One checks that u satisfies the boundary conditions of the continuous Dirichlet problem, by the arguments of [CS11, Proposition 3.3]. This uses the Beurling-type estimate of Section ?.

(ii) Let h_1, h_2 \in \mathbb{R}^2 be two linearly independent vectors such that \mathcal{V} is invariant under translations by h_1, h_2. The functions

are discrete harmonic at every x such that both x and x+h_i are in U_\varepsilon. The arguments in part (i) can be applied to see that v^{h_i}_\varepsilon are locally equicontinuous, and hence along a subsequence converge to a limit v^{h_i} locally uniformly in U. From this convergence, we deduce that u(x+\delta h_i) - u(x) = \int_0^\delta v^{h_i}(s) ds for any x and \delta such that the line segment joining x and x + \delta h_i lies in U. This implies that v^{h_i}(x) = \nabla u(x) \cdot h_i for i = 1,2, throughout U. Consequently, the convergence holds without restricting to a subsequence.

In order to pass to the corresponding statement for displacements along edges of the graph, assume that x, x+e \in \mathcal{V}. Recall the stopping time \tau_1 from Section ?, where we now take w = x. Write

Then, since u_\varepsilon is discrete harmonic, we can approximate

The error term is O( \varepsilon^2 ) if C is chosen large, due to Lemma 8.3. We also have,

Hence the statement follows from the statement about v^{h_i}, i=1,2.

(i) We recall from Lemma 2.1 that for z, w \in U_\varepsilon we have

Hence it follows that

Thus we need to estimate \partial_f^{(2)} A_\epsilon(g^+,z). We use Proposition 2.3 to get

Since |z + f - z| = \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon) and U_2 is smooth, we have that

Hence we have that

Writing w = z - g^+ and regarding f and w as complex numbers, as \epsilon \rightarrow 0 we have that

where

It follows that

Recalling the remark made after (?), and applying Theorem 2.6, the first term on the right hand side equals

By the same theorem, the second term is \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{3}), and the proposition follows.

The second equality is immediate from J_{12} = J_{21}. To see the first, from the definition of J_{e,f} in (?) we have

Due to (?) we get

Summing the coefficient of J_{11} over r we get

Using that when q \ge 3, we have

we get that the coefficient of J_{11} equals

An analogous computation for the coefficient of J_{22} gives the same expression.

For J_{12}, we compute

We get the negative of the same expression for the coefficient for J_{21}, and this completes the proof.

The statement follows immediately from the formula (?) applied with \Lambda = U_{R,\varepsilon} and the convergence \lim_{R \to \infty} G_{U_{R,\varepsilon}}(u,v) = G_{U_\varepsilon}(u,v) < \infty, where u,v range over z_\varepsilon and its neighbours. Here G_{U_\varepsilon} is the Green kernel of simple random walk on \varepsilon \mathcal{V} killed on its first crossing of \partial U_\varepsilon. This is finite due to part of Assumption 1.2 concerning \partial U.

Conformal invariance of the Green function [Conway-book-I, Theorem X.5.3] gives that

Denote F(z,w) = (\phi(z) - \phi(w))/(z-w), which is holomorphic in the z-variable in U, and non-vanishing. This implies that \bar{\partial}^{(1)} [ \log F ] = 0, and hence

where we use the Cauchy-Riemann equations in the last step. From the last equality it follows that

It remains to compute \bar{\partial}^{(1)} \partial^{(2)} k_V( \phi(z), \phi(w) ). Denote by \partial^{(1)}_{Re} the partial derivative of k_V in the real part of the first variable, and similarly write \partial^{(1)}_{Im}, \partial^{(2)}_{Re}, \partial^{(2)}_{Im} for the other partial derivatives. Then we have

Here setting w = z gives

and likewise

Noting that

completes the proof.

Due to Theorem 5.1, it is enough to show that f_{\mathbb{D}}(o) = 2. Since g_{\mathbb{D}}(z,w) = - \log ( |w - z| / |1 - z \bar{w}| ), we have k_{\mathbb{D}}(z,w) = \log | 1 - z \bar{w} |. A direct computation then yields the result.

(i) Let e be an edge incident with z_\varepsilon in U_\varepsilon. By the Transfer-Current Theorem and Proposition 3.1, we have

Due to Lemma 3.2, the right hand side equals

On the other hand, by monotonicity in the graph, see [LyonsTrees, Exercise 10.8], we have

Letting \varepsilon \to 0 we get f_U(z) \ge 0, proving part (i).

(ii) Due to monotonicity in the graph we have

and the claim follows from ? letting \varepsilon \to 0.

First assume that U is bounded. Take V \supset U to be an open disc in Lemma 6.1(ii). Then by Corollary 5.2, we have f_V(z) > 0, and the claim follows from Lemma 6.1(ii).

In the unbounded case, we can map U conformally to a bounded region satisfying Assumption 1.2(i). Indeed, there is a simple curve \gamma in the Riemann sphere \mathbb{C}_\infty starting at \infty such that U \subset V := \mathbb{C} \setminus \gamma. Then a conformal mapping of V to a bounded simply connected region exists, and this maps U conformally to a bounded region. Now the claim follows from Theorem 5.1.

Let \mathcal{N} = \{ e_1, \dots, e_N \} be an enumeration of the set of edges incident with z_\varepsilon. Averaging as in the proof of Lemma 6.1(i), we have that

Hence, for sufficiently small \varepsilon > 0, there exists 0 \le r < q such that

Without loss of generality, assume that r=0, so that

Let U_{\varepsilon,j} denote the graph obtained from U_\varepsilon by deleting e_1, \dots, e_j, and let \mathcal{G}_j denote the graph obtained similarly from \mathcal{G}. Then the left hand side of (?) equals

By monotonicity in the graph, see [LyonsTrees, Lemma 10.3], for i = 2, \dots, N-1, we also have

This gives that (?) is at least

By a Taylor expansion, we have

Due to the rotational symmetry assumed, the sum over u' \sim u of the first term on the right hand side vanishes. For the second term, fix some u'_0 \sim u and let O denote rotation by an angle 2\pi/q, where q = q_u \ge 3 is the symmetry angle of \mathcal{G} about u. Let u'_r - u = O^r (u'_0 - u). Abbreviate \cos(2\pi r/q_u) =: c(r) and \sin(2\pi r/q_u) =: s(r), and \partial_{ij} = \partial_{ij} g. Then we have

Using the identities

the sum of (?) over r = 0, \dots q-1 equals

Summing over all the orbits of neighbours of u (under the action of O) gives the claim.

Due to the rotational symmetry around every vertex of \mathcal{G}, we have that

By the same reason, we also have

This implies that

where we used (?). By the Optional Stopping Theorem, using the decay in Lemma 8.3, we get that

as claimed.