Random Domino Tilings and the Arctic Circle Theorem

A simple coupling argument shows that the evolution-rule of the S-process preserves stochastic order of measures on its state space {\cal S}. (In the interpretation of particle-configurations as lattice-paths, one state of the S-process is dominated by another if the lattice-path associated with the former never crosses above or to the right of the lattice-path associated with the latter.) Accordingly, we define a process \tilde{S} that is equal to S up until time m but at time m is replaced by

that is, all the particles that are to the left of position k+1 at time m simultaneously move as far to the right as possible, so that site k and all sites to its left become occupied. After time m, \tilde{S} again evolves in accordance with the dynamics of the S-process. One sees that {\cal L}(\tilde{S}(\cdot,m+n)) \geq {\cal L}(S(\cdot,m+n)). But, conditioned on S(k,m), the law of \tilde{S}(k+l,m+n)-S(k,m) (l \in {\mathds Z}, n \geq 0) is identical to that of S(l,n) (l \in {\mathds Z}, n \geq 0) and independent of S(k,m). Therefore {\cal L}(\tilde{S}(k+l,m+n))={\cal L}(S(k,m))*{\cal L}(S(l,n)).

Proposition 5.1, coupled with the fact that \lfloor um \rfloor + \lfloor un \rfloor \leq \lfloor u(m+n) \rfloor, gives us

The convergence statements in the Proposition follow from the Kesten-Hammersley theorem [smythe]. To prove convexity of h, we deduce from Proposition 5.1 that for \alpha,\beta > 0 with \alpha+\beta=1,

Dividing both sides by n gives

If u > \frac12, we have h(u)=0, as the lead particle moves to the right with mean speed \frac12. Similarly, the leftmost vacancy moves to the left with mean speed -\frac12, whence h(u)=-u for u < -\frac12.

We consider the functions h_n, defined by

note that h_n(v) is roughly equal to \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=\lfloor vn \rfloor}^\infty {\cal E} X(k,n).

Since for each fixed n the function k \mapsto {\cal E} X(k,n) is decreasing in k, the function v \mapsto {\cal E} X(\lfloor vn \rfloor,n) is decreasing in v, implying that h_n(v), being the integral of a decreasing function, is convex. The functions h_n(v) tend to h(\cdot) as n gets large, where h(v) = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} {\cal E} S ( \lfloor v n \rfloor, n). Hence, by an elementary lemma on convex functions of a real argument, the desired result holds. Indeed, more is true; as long as h'(u) exists, h'_n (v) \rightarrow h'(u) as v \rightarrow u, where h'_n(v) may be either the right or left derivative of h_n at v.

\mu(k+1,n) is the law of X(k+l,n), l \in {\mathds Z} under the initial condition x', where x'_i is 1 or 0 according to whether i \leq -1 or i > -1; since x' \leq x^*, (5.4) follows from the monotonicity of the dynamics.

Monotonicity also plays a role in the proof of (5.4). The position of the lead particle at time m is binomially distributed with mean \frac{m}{2}; conditioned on that position, one compares the original process with the process in which all sites behind the first particle are occupied at time m, and which evolves according to the usual dynamics after time m. (5.4) follows from (5.4), by symmetry between migration of particles and migration of vacancies.

\mu^* is stochastically larger than its image under the shift, by Proposition 5.4. Since \frac{\lfloor un \rfloor + k}{n} \rightarrow u as n \rightarrow \infty, for every fixed k, both \mu^* and its image under the shift have the same one-point correlations, namely f(u) (Proposition 5.3). It follows that \mu^* and its image under the shift are identical. But shift-invariance of \mu^* implies also its invariance under the action of the time-evolution semigroup, if one uses the second and third inequalities of Proposition 5.4. Using the main result of the previous section, we arrive at the desired result.

First let us prove (5.6). By symmetry, it suffices to handle the case u>{\overline{u}}.

Since \mu(k,n) is stochastically decreasing in k we need an upper estimate only for

But the definition of stochastic order (via coupling) gives us such an estimate:

Take \delta>0 such that h'({\overline{u}}+\delta) exists and satisfies -h'({\overline{u}}+\delta)=f({\overline{u}}+\delta) \geq f({\overline{u}}) - \frac{\epsilon}{2n} (recall that f is assumed continuous at {\overline{u}}). Proposition 5.3 gives

Hence we have, uniformly for u \leq {\overline{u}} + \delta,

This implies that (Proof) becomes eventually smaller than \epsilon, uniformly in u \leq {\overline{u}} + \delta.

This completes the proof of (5.6). The estimate (5.6) follows from (5.6) in combination with Proposition 5.4, inequalities (5.4) and (5.4), and the fact that \beta(s,\cdot) is essentially carried by a set of the form \{l: l \leq cm\} in the limit m \rightarrow \infty.

We modify the dynamics of the system as follows: when deciding whether to advance the lead particle or not, we use a biased coin, so that it advances with probability \frac b 2 with b \leq 1; the other particles advance with probability \frac 1 2 as before. Expectations with respect to this process will be denoted by {\cal E}^b, and its probability law will be denoted by P^b.

These dynamics, in terms of the Y-process, may be described as follows: The state space is the set of all sequences of positive integers (y_1,y_2,\dots). Given such a sequence, let \alpha_1 be a Bernoulli random variable with expected value \frac b 2, and for i \geq 2 let \alpha_i be a Bernoulli random variable of expected value \frac 1 2 unless y_{i-1} = 1, in which case let \alpha_i be the constant 0. (We can think of \alpha_i as the indicator function of the event in which the ith particle moves to the right.) Then the Y-process, when in state (y_1,y_2,\dots), jumps to (y_1+\alpha_1-\alpha_2,y_2+\alpha_2-\alpha_3,\dots). One can check two statements about this process: first, it preserves stochastic order; second, an invariant measure is \gamma^b, defined by the properties that all its coordinates are independent and identically distributed and that

If we compare the modified Y-process with initial condition y_1=y_2=\dots=1 and the modified Y-process with initial condition given by the stationary measure \gamma^b, we find that the law of the first process is stochastically smaller than the law of the second process at time n=0 and hence for all times. We thus get, for all k \geq 1 and n \geq 0,

If we choose k= \lfloor an \rfloor, with 0 \leq a \leq 1 fixed, and let n \rightarrow \infty, we get

In fact, using the weak law of large numbers for \gamma^b and stochastic domination, we find that for any \epsilon > 0,

as n \rightarrow \infty. For now, hold both \epsilon and a fixed. We know that Z(0,n) is binomially distributed with mean \frac b 2, so the law of large numbers, in combination with the preceding result and the fact that Z(\lfloor an \rfloor,n) = Z(0,n)-\sum_{j \leq an} Y(j,n), gives

The Z-process gets stochastically larger if b is replaced by 1; hence the preceding proposition remains true if we replace P^b by P, the probability law governing the original dynamics of the Z-process. This holds for every b. In particular, setting b=1-\sqrt{\frac{a}{1-a}}, so that

(the maximum value of \frac b 2 - a \frac{2-b^2}{2-b} as b ranges over [0,1]), we get

Expressing this in terms of the S-process one obtains

Since this is true for all \epsilon > 0,

Setting u=\frac12 - a - \sqrt{a(1-a)}, we conclude that h(u) \geq \frac{1-u}{2} - \frac12 \sqrt{\frac12 - u^2} for |u| \leq \frac12, as claimed.

First assume u>0, and put w=1/u. Assume that u is irrational and that h'(u) exists (as must be the case for a dense set of u’s in (0,\frac12)). We compute the expected value of S(\lfloor un \rfloor,n), which is the expected value of the number of particles that have passed an observer traveling at speed u, minus the number of particles that the observer has passed:

Multiplying both sides by u/k \approx 1/\lfloor kw \rfloor and taking the limit, one gets

The same argument shows that this formula holds for negative u, too. Thus this relation holds for a dense set of u’s in [-\frac12,\frac12].

Now, by Proposition 5.5, any limit of

as n \rightarrow \infty is of the form

(see the formula for the probability of the event x_0=1, x_1=0 calculated at the end of subsection ?). Hence by Jensen’s inequality we get

so that

Hence

Since 0 \leq f(u) \leq 1, we have

This is maximized at b = \frac12 - \frac{u}{\sqrt{2-4u^2}} (=f(u)). Substituting, we get