
==== Front
Commun Math Phys
Commun Math Phys
Communications in Mathematical Physics
0010-3616
1432-0916
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

39185074
5081
10.1007/s00220-024-05081-9
Article
Quantitative Disorder Effects in Low-Dimensional Spin Systems
Dario Paul paul.dario@u-pec.fr

1
Harel Matan 2
Peled Ron 34
1 https://ror.org/05ggc9x40 grid.410511.0 0000 0004 9512 4013 CNRS and Laboratoire d’Analyse et de Mathématiques Appliquées (LAMA), Université Paris-Est Créteil, Créteil, France
2 https://ror.org/04t5xt781 grid.261112.7 0000 0001 2173 3359 Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115 USA
3 https://ror.org/04mhzgx49 grid.12136.37 0000 0004 1937 0546 School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, 69978 Israel
4 grid.16750.35 0000 0001 2097 5006 School of Mathematics, Institute for Advanced Study and Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey USA
Communicated by J. Ding.

23 8 2024
23 8 2024
2024
405 9 2121 9 2023
28 6 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The Imry–Ma phenomenon, predicted in 1975 by Imry and Ma and rigorously established in 1989 by Aizenman and Wehr, states that first-order phase transitions of low-dimensional spin systems are ‘rounded’ by the addition of a quenched random field coupled to the quantity undergoing the transition. The phenomenon applies to a wide class of spin systems in dimensions d≤2 and to spin systems possessing a continuous symmetry in dimensions d≤4. This work provides quantitative estimates for the Imry–Ma phenomenon: in a cubic domain of side length L, we study the effect of the boundary conditions on the spatial and thermal average of the quantity coupled to the random field. We show that the boundary effect diminishes at least as fast as an inverse power of loglogL in general two-dimensional spin systems. For systems possessing a continuous symmetry, we show that the boundary effect diminishes at least as fast as an inverse power of L in two and three dimensions and at least as fast as an inverse power of loglogL in four dimensions. Finally, we establish a partial uniqueness results for translation-covariant Gibbs states, and prove that, for almost every realization of the random field, all such states must agree on the thermally-averaged value of the quantity coupled to the random field. Specific models of interest for the obtained results include the random-field q-state Potts model, the Edwards-Anderson spin glass model, and the random-field spin O(n) models.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000781 European Research Council 678520 Peled Ron Université Paris-Est CréteilOpen access funding provided by Université Paris-Est Créteil.

issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The large-scale properties of equilibrium statistical physics systems with quenched (frozen-in) disorder can differ significantly from those of the corresponding non-disordered systems [12, 58–60]. The present understanding of such phenomena is still lacking, in both the physical and mathematical literature, but some cases are better understood. This work focuses on the so-called Imry–Ma phenomenon, by which first-order phase transitions of low-dimensional spin systems are ‘rounded’ by the addition of a quenched random field to the quantity undergoing the transition. Imry and Ma [48] studied the Ising and spin O(n) models and predicted that, in low dimensions, the addition of a random independent magnetic field causes the systems to lose their characteristic low-temperature ordered states, even when the strength of the added field is arbitrarily weak. Specifically, they predicted this effect for the random-field Ising model at all temperatures (including zero temperature) in dimensions d≤2, and for the random-field spin O(n)-model, with n≥2, at all temperatures in dimensions d≤4. Their predictions were confirmed, and greatly extended, in the seminal work of Aizenman and Wehr [6, 7], who rigorously established the rounding phenomenon for a general class of spin systems in dimensions d≤2 and for spin systems with suitable continuous symmetry in dimensions d≤4.

Let us informally describe the Aizenman–Wehr result. Consider a spin system on Zd, with a formal translation-invariant Hamiltonian H. Let η=(ηv)v∈Zd be independent and identically distributed random variables (or random vectors). Construct a disordered spin system by modifying the Hamiltonian H toHη,λ(σ):=H(σ)-λ∑v∈Zdηv·f(T-v(σ))

where T denotes the translation operator defined by Tv(σ)u=σu-v, where f is the observable to which the random field η is coupled, and where λ is the disorder strength. Aizenman and Wehr prove that, under suitable assumptions on H, η and f, in dimensions d≤2, at all temperatures and positive disorder strengths, the limit1.1 limL→∞1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf(Tv(σ))μ

exists with probability one (in terms of η), and takes the same value for all infinite-volume Gibbs measures μ of the disordered system. The notation ·μ denotes the thermal average over the Gibbs measure μ; it should be noted that, while the set of Gibbs measures of the disordered system depends on η, Aizenman and Wehr further prove that the common limit (1.1) does not depend on η. An analogous statement is proved to hold in dimensions d≤4 when the spin system and the added disorder satisfy suitable hypotheses of continuous symmetry. Additional information on the Aizenman–Wehr setup and result, and their comparison with those of the present work, is provided in Sect. 9.

The Aizenman–Wehr theorem does not provide quantitative estimates on the rate of convergence in (1.1) and it is the goal of this work to obtain such a quantified result. Specifically, the quantity that we study is1.2 supτ1,τ21|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLf(Tv(σ))ΛL1-f(Tv(σ))ΛL2

where ·Λτ is the thermal average under the finite-volume Gibbs measure (of the disordered system) in the volume Λ⊆Zd with boundary conditions τ, where ΛL:=-L,…,Ld⊆Zd and ΛL is its cardinality, and where the supremum is taken over all choices of boundary conditions. We are thus measuring the largest discrepancy in the value of the spatially and thermally averaged observable, which may arise when changing the boundary conditions in finite volume. This quantity may be thought of as a particular kind of correlation decay rate. We emphasize that the boundary conditions τ1,τ2 appearing in (1.2) are allowed to depend on L and on the specific realization of the disorder η.

Our main results are that the following holds with high probability over η: (1) For a general class of two-dimensional spin systems the quantity (1.2) decays at least as fast as an inverse power of loglogL, (2) For a general class of spin systems with continuous symmetry, the quantity (1.2) decays at least as fast as an inverse power of L in dimensions d=2,3 and at least as fast as an inverse power of loglogL in dimension d=4. These results are shown to hold at all temperatures and positive disorder strengths.

Quantitative estimates of the type obtained here have recently been developed for the two-dimensional random-field Ising model [4, 5, 23, 34], where it was shown that correlations decay at an exponential rate (in the nearest-neighbor case) at all temperatures and positive disorder strength; see Sect. 4 for more details. However, to our knowledge, this is the only spin system for which quantitative estimates have previously been developed, and their derivation appears to crucially rely on monotonicity properties of the Ising model which are absent for general spin systems. Specific examples of interest for the results obtained here include the two-dimensional random-field q-state Potts (with q≥3) and Edwards-Anderson spin glass models, and the d-dimensional random-field spin O(n) models (with n≥2) in dimensions d≤4.

We further point out that, while the assumptions placed by our results on the spin system, disorder distribution and noised observable are different, and in many ways more restrictive than those imposed by Aizenman–Wehr, an advantage of our methods is that they apply also to systems which are not invariant under translations (see also Sect. 9).

In spin systems satisfying suitable monotonicity properties, such as the random-field Ising model, the Aizenman–Wehr result allows to conclude that the disordered system possesses a unique Gibbs measure at all temperatures. Such a conclusion is false for general spin systems, but we provide a related conjecture pertaining to the possible general behavior (Sect. 2.3.2). The conjecture extends the well-known belief that the two-dimensional Edwards-Anderson spin glass model possesses a unique ground-state pair (see, e.g., [8, 55–57] and the references therein).

The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Sect. 2 presents the setup and results for general two-dimensional spin systems. The setup and results for spin systems with continuous symmetry are presented in Sect. 3. Section 4 is devoted to an overview of related results. An outline of our proofs is given in Sect. 5. Section 6 collects preliminary properties of the spin systems that we study. The proofs of the results pertaining to general two-dimensional spin systems are presented in Sect. 7 while the proofs pertaining to spin systems with continuous symmetry are presented in Sect. 8. Section 9 discusses additional points and highlights several open problems.

Two-Dimensional Disordered Spin Systems

In this section we describe the quantitative decay rates that are obtained for a general class of two-dimensional disordered spin systems. We first describe the spin systems to which the results apply (Sect. 2.1), then proceed to a list of specific examples which clarify and add interest to the general definitions (Sect. 2.2), and finally describe the results themselves (Sect. 2.3).

The general setup

We work on the standard integer lattice Zd, in which we denote the standard orthonormal basis by e1,…,ed; we write u∼v if two vertices u, v are nearest neighbors. We let ‖·‖∞ denote the ℓ∞ distance on Zd and, for v∈Zd and an integer R≥0, set B(v,R):={w∈Zd:‖w-v‖∞≤R} to be the ball of radius R around v in the ℓ∞ distance. For integer R≥0, denote the external vertex boundary to distance R of a set Λ⊆Zd by ∂RΛ:=v∈Zd\Λ:B(v,R)∩Λ≠∅ and set Λ+R:=Λ∪∂RΛ. We also abbreviate ∂Λ:=∂1Λ and Λ+:=Λ+1.

Our general results (which do not rely on continuous symmetry) apply to disordered spin systems defined via (2.3) and (2.4) below and built as follows.

The base system: A non-disordered spin system is constructed from the following elements. State space and configuration space: let (S,A,κ) be a probability space. Configurations of the spin system are functions σ:Zd→S. Their restriction to a subset Λ⊆Zd is denoted σΛ.

Hamiltonian: for each finite Λ⊆Zd, let HΛ:Sd→R be a bounded measurable map. We assume that this family of Hamiltonians (HΛ)Λ⊆Zd satisfies the following two properties: Consistency: for each finite Λ⊆Zd, inverse temperature β>0, and boundary condition τ:Zd\Λ→S, define the finite-volume Gibbs measure μβ,Λ,τdσ:=1Zβ,Λ,τexp-βHΛ(σ)∏v∈Λκ(dσv)∏v∈Zd\Λδτvdσv,

where Zβ,Λ,τ, called the partition function, normalizes μβ,Λ,τ to be a probability measure, and δτv is the Dirac delta measure at τv. We denote by ·β,Λτ the expectation operator with respect to μβ,Λ,τ. We omit β from the notation when it is clear from context. We assume that the family of Hamiltonians (HΛ)Λ⊆Zd satisfies the following consistency relation (finite-volume Gibbs property): for each pair of finite subsets Λ′⊆Λ, each inverse temperature β>0, each boundary condition τ0:Zd\Λ→S, and each bounded measurable g:Sd→R, 2.1 g(σ)β,Λ′τβ,Λ0=g(σ)β,Λ0,

where the spin σ in the left-hand side is distributed according to the measure μβ,Λ′,τ, and the boundary condition τ is random and is distributed according to the restriction of μβ,Λ,τ0 to the set Zd\Λ′. The identity (2.1) is known as the Dobrushin, Lanford and Ruelle (DLR) equation for Gibbs measures (see [42, Chapters 1 and 2]). If Λ={-L,⋯,L}d, for some L, we can also define a periodic measure μβ,Λ,Perdσ. Let PerΛ be the set of configurations σ which are (2L+1) periodic — i.e. σu=σu+v for every u∈Λ and v∈(2L+1)·Zd. There is a natural bijection between the spaces SΛ and PerΛ obtained by extending periodically functions defined on Λ to Zd. We then let κPer,Λ be the pushforward of the measure ∏v∈Λκ(dσv) by the extension mapping, and define μβ,Λ,Perdσ:=1Zβ,Λ,Perexp-βHΛ(σ)κPer,Λ(dσ)

on the set of periodic configurations PerΛ. The periodic measure must also satisfy the same consistency conditions described above. Below, whenever we take suprema over possible boundary conditions, we include the periodic measure.

Bounded boundary effect: We assume that there exists a constant CH≥0 such that for each finite Λ⊆Zd, 2.2 HΛ(σ)-HΛ(σ′)≤CH∂Λforσ,σ′:Zd→SsatisfyingσΛ=σΛ′.

The disordered system: To form the disordered system from the base system, we add a term of the form ∑v∈Ληv·fv(σ) to the Hamiltonian, where (ηv) is a family of m-dimensional random vectors (the quenched disorder) and (fv) is a family of m-dimensional functions of the configuration such that fv(σ) depends only on the restriction of σ to a neighborhood of v of some fixed radius R. Disorder: we let η=ηvv∈Zd be a collection of independent standard m-dimensional Gaussian vectors; we use the symbols P and E to refer to the law and the expectation operator with respect to η.

Noised observables: fix integers m≥1 and R≥0. For each v∈Zd, we let fv:Sd→Rm be a measurable function satisfying Boundedness:fv(σ)≤1forσ∈Sd,Finite range:fv(σ)=fv(σ′)whenσ,σ′∈SdsatisfyσB(v,R)=σB(v,R)′.

Disordered Hamiltonian: given a finite Λ⊆Zd, a fixed realization of η:Zd→R and a disorder strength λ>0, define the disordered Hamiltonian HΛη,λ:Sd→R by 2.3 HΛη,λσ:=HΛσ-λ∑v∈Ληv·fvσ

(where the dot product denotes the Euclidean scalar product on Rm) and, for an inverse temperature β>0 and boundary condition τ∈SZd\Λ, define the finite-volume Gibbs measure 2.4 μβ,Λ,τη,λdσ:=1Zβ,Λ,τη,λexp-βHΛη,λ(σ)∏v∈Λκ(dσv)∏v∈Zd\Λδτvdσv,

where Zβ,Λ,τη,λ is the normalization constant which makes the measure μβ,Λ,τη,λ a probability measure. We denote by ·β,Λτ,η,λ the expectation with respect to the measure μβ,Λ,τη,λ and refer to it as the thermal expectation. When β,η and λ are clear from the context, we will omit them from the notation. We note that the consistency relation (2.1) implies the same identity for the disordered system: Given a pair of finite subsets Λ′⊆Λ, η:Zd→R, λ>0, β>0, τ∈SZd\Λ and any bounded measurable g:Sd→R, 2.5 g(σ)Λ′τΛ0=g(σ)Λ0,

where σ in the left-hand side is distributed as μβ,Λ′,τη,λ, and τ is random and distributed according to the restriction to Zd\Λ′ of a random spin configuration distributed as μβ,Λ,τ0η,λ.

We point out that neither the base system nor the noised observables (fv) are required to be periodic with respect to translations. Still, it is very natural to work in a translation-invariant setup, by which we mean that, for all v∈Zd and configurations σ, we have (i) HΛ(σ)=HΛ+v(Tv(σ)) for all finite Λ, where Tv is the translation by v operation: Tv(σ)u=σu-v, and (ii) fv(σ)=f0(T-v(σ)) (where 0 is the zero vector in Zd). Indeed all of the examples presented in the next section are of this type; however, we stress that such invariance is not required for our results (see Sect. 2.3). The additional flexibility of the general definitions allows for inhomogeneities in the base system and further allows to vary the noised observables (fv) periodically along a sublattice of Zd (this may make sense, e.g., in antiferromagnetic systems, where the ordered state of the base system is not invariant to all translations), or even to choose (fv) arbitrarily.

Examples

We now describe several classical examples of disordered systems which fit within the general class of systems discussed in the previous section. To the best of our knowledge, our general results are already new when specialized to these examples except for the example of the random-field ferromagnetic Ising model where stronger results are known (see Sect. 4).Random-field Ising model: the state space is S:={-1,1} equipped with the counting measure and the Hamiltonian of the base system (the ferromagnetic Ising model) is HΛ(σ):=-∑{u,v}∩Λ≠∅u∼vσuσv-∑v∈Λhσv,

for a fixed h∈R. The noised observable is fv(σ):=σv so that m=1, R=0 and the disordered Hamiltonian is HΛη,λσ:=-∑{u,v}∩Λ≠∅u∼vσuσv-∑v∈Λληv+hσv

corresponding to the addition of a quenched random field to the Ising model. One similarly forms the random-field antiferromagnetic Ising model by removing the minus sign in front of the term ∑σuσv.

Random-field q-state Potts model: let q≥3 be an integer. The state space is S:={1,…,q} equipped with the counting measure and the Hamiltonian of the base system (the ferromagnetic q-state Potts model) is HΛ(σ):=-∑{u,v}∩Λ≠∅u∼v1σu=σv-∑v∈Λ∑k=1qhk1{σv=k},

for a fixed h:=(h1,…,hq)∈Rq. The noised observable is fv(σ):=(1{σv=1},…,1{σv=q}) so that m=q, R=0 and the disordered Hamiltonian is HΛη,λ,hσ:=-∑{u,v}∩Λ≠∅u∼v1{σu=σv}-∑v∈Λ∑k=1qληv,k+hk1{σv=k}

where we write ηv=ηv,1,…,ηv,q∈Rq and h=h1,…,hq∈Rq. The effect of the disorder is to add an energetic bonus or penalty to each spin state at each vertex according to quenched random vectors of length q which are assigned independently to the vertices.

Edwards-Anderson spin glass: the state space is S:={-1,1} equipped with the counting measure and the Hamiltonian of the base system (a uniform system) is HΛ(σ):=0.

The noised observable is fv(σ):=σvσv+eii∈{1,…,d} so that m=d, R=1 and we have, in effect, a noise term η assigned to every edge of Zd. The disordered Hamiltonian is (up to a term which does not depend on the spins in Λ) HΛη,λ,hσ:=-∑{u,v}∩Λ≠∅u∼v(ληu,v+h)σuσv

corresponding to adding a random energetic bonus/penalty to satisfied edges (edges with the same spin state assigned to both endpoints) independently between the different edges.

Random-field spin O(n)-model: let n≥2 be an integer. The state space is S:=Sn-1⊆Rn equipped with the uniform measure and the Hamiltonian of the base system (the spin O(n) model) is HΛ(σ):=-∑{u,v}∩Λ≠∅u∼vσu·σv.

The noised observable is fv(σ)=σv∈Rn so that R=0, m=n and the disordered Hamiltonian is HΛη,λ,hσ:=-∑{u,v}∩Λ≠∅u∼vσu·σv-∑v∈Λληv+h·σv

corresponding to the addition of a quenched random field in a random direction, independently at each vertex, to the spin O(n)-model. We point out that while the results of the next section apply to the random-field spin O(n)-model, stronger results are obtained for it in Sect. 3 by relying on its continuous symmetry (at h=0).

Results

Main result

Throughout the section, we fix a disordered spin system of the type defined in Sect. 2.1, described by a state space (S,A,κ), a family of Hamiltonians for the base system (HΛ)Λ⊆Zd satisfying the bounded boundary effect assumption with constant CH and a family of observables (fv) with a range of R, taking values in Rm. The disorder (ηv) is a collection of independent standard m-dimensional Gaussian vectors. The results of this section apply to two-dimensional spin systems so we further fix d=2.

In the first theorem, we present estimates on the effect of the boundary condition on the thermal expectation of the spatially-averaged noised observables in a finite box, in the presence of the disorder. For the second part of the theorem, recall that the notion of translation-invariant setup was defined in Sect. 2.1.

Here and later, we let ΛL:=-L,…,Ld⊆Zd, let ΛL be its cardinality, and denote by · the Euclidean norm on Rm.

Theorem 1

Let β>0 be the inverse temperature and λ>0 be the disorder strength. There exist constants C,c>0 depending only on λ, CH, m and R such that, for each integer L≥3,2.6 Psupτ1,τ2∈SZ2\ΛL1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLfvσΛL1-fvσΛL2>ClnlnL4≤exp-cL

and moreover, in a translation-invariant setup,2.7 Psupτ∈SZ2\ΛLα-1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLf0T-vσΛLτ>ClnlnL4≤exp-cL

where α∈Rm depends only on the spin system considered, on the inverse temperature β and on the disorder strength λ (but does not depend on the disorder η and on L).

We mention that, for any fixed L, any v∈ΛL, and any boundary condition τ, the function η↦fvσΛLτ is Lipschitz continuous, uniformly in v and τ. Thus, the quantities inside the probabilities in the previous theorems and the following ones are indeed measurable.

We remark that, while we only prove the result at positive temperature, the same argument yields the following zero-temperature version of the theorem: for a given side length L and a realization of the disorder η, define an L-ground configuration as a configuration σ:Z2→S satisfyingHΛLη,λ(σ)=infσ′:Z2→Sσ′≡σinZ2\ΛLHΛLη,λ(σ′),

and let GLη be the set of L-ground configurations. Then we have2.8 Psupσ1,σ2∈GLη1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLfvσ1-fvσ2>ClnlnL4≤exp-cL

where, if GLη is empty, then the supremum is assumed to take the value negative infinity. Additionally, if we assume that the state space is compact and both the base Hamiltonian and noised observables are continuous, we can show that, for all η and all L, the set GLη of L-ground configurations is non-empty. It is straightforward that this is the case in all the example systems of Sect. 2.2.

In the translation-invariant setup, the value α is explicit for some of the models described in Sect. 2.2: for the q-state Potts model with external field h=0, one has α=1/q,…,1/q. In the case of the Edwards-Anderson spin glass, a gauge symmetry (obtained by flipping the spins on the even sublattice and changing the sign of η on all edges) implies that the density of satisfied edges is about 1/2, i.e.,limL→∞1EΛL∑x,y∈ΛLx∼y1{σx=σy}ΛLL⟶L→∞12P-almost-surely

for any collection of random boundary condition η↦τL(η)∈SZ2\ΛL and L≥1, where EΛL denotes the number of edges in the box ΛL. In both these examples, our results are novel.

We finally remark that, while our result is stated and proved in dimension d=2, it is possible to adapt the argument to treat the case of the one-dimensional disordered spin systems. In this setting, the system is subcritical and power law decays can be obtained on the expectation of the supremum over pairs of boundary conditions of the difference of the thermally and spatially averaged noised observables. We record below (and without proof) the results one obtains by adapting the techniques developed in the proof of Theorem 1:Esupτ1,τ2∈SZ\ΛL1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLfvσΛL1-fvσΛL2≤CL1/4,

and, in the translation-invariant setup,Esupτ∈SZ\ΛLα-1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLf0T-vσΛLτ≤CL1/6.

Uniqueness conjecture and additional results

Theorem 1 states that the spatial average over ΛL of the thermal expectations fvσΛLτ does not depend strongly on the boundary condition τ. It is natural to ask for a more detailed result: to what extent can the value of fvσΛLτ at a given vertex v be affected by τ? Can the values at specific vertices v not too close to the boundary of ΛL, or even at most v∈ΛL, be significantly altered by changing τ (keeping in mind that the overall spatial average does not depend strongly on τ in the sense of Theorem 1)? We conjecture that such a phenomenon cannot occur. We first state this as a conjecture, and then explain additional motivation as well as additional rigorous support (we remind that throughout the section we have fixed a disordered spin system of the type defined in Sect. 2.1 and we work in dimension d=2)

Conjecture 2.1

Let β>0 be the inverse temperature and λ>0 be the disorder strength. Then, P-almost-surely,2.9 limL→∞supτ1,τ2∈SZ2\ΛL1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLfvσΛL1-fvσΛL2=0

and moreover, in a translation-invariant setup, P-almost-surely,2.10 limL→∞supτ1,τ2∈SZ2\ΛLf0σΛL1-f0σΛL2=0.

We make several remarks about the conjecture:

In the translation-invariant setup, the pointwise statement (2.10) implies the averaged statement (2.9). This can be argued, for instance, by applying Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem to the functionsgℓ(η):=supτ1,τ2∈SZ2\Λℓf0σΛℓ1-f0σΛℓ2.

We also note that the pointwise statement (2.10) may be reformulated as a statement on the (η-dependent) set of Gibbs measures of the disordered system. Indeed, let us assume that, in addition to having a translation-invariant setup, the state space S is Polish and compact, with A the Borel sigma algebra, and the based Hamiltonian and noised observables fv are continuous (with respect to the product topology). These assumptions allow to extract a subsequential limiting Gibbs state μ out of a sequence of finite-volume Gibbs states μk on increasing domains so that f0σμk→f0σμ (where ·μ is the expectation under μ). Then, the statement (2.10) is equivalent to the claim that, at any β,λ>0, it holds P-almost surely that f0σμ takes the same value for all Gibbs measures μ of the disordered system.

In monotonic systems such that, for each i∈{1,…,d} and L∈N, there exist boundary conditions τmin,τmax such that fv,iσΛLmin≤fv,iσΛLτ≤fv,iσΛLmax for all τ and v (such as the plus and minus boundary conditions in the random-field ferromagnetic Ising model), the averaged statement (2.9) follows immediately from Theorem 1. If we additionally assume that we are in the translation-invariant setup described above, the pointwise bound (2.10) also follows.

Another statement which would be of interest to prove, and which is implied by the averaged statement (2.9), is the following: P-almost-surely,2.11 limℓ→∞limL→∞supτ1,τ2∈SZ2\ΛL1|Λℓ|∑v∈Λℓ|fvσΛL1-fvσΛL2|=0.

We also expect the following zero-temperature version of Conjecture 2.1 to hold: in both (2.9) and (2.10), replace the supremum over τ1,τ2∈SZd\ΛL by the supremum over σ1,σ2∈GLη, where GLη is the set of L-ground configurations and replace fvσΛLi by fv(σi). The zero-temperature pointwise statement would imply that, P-almost-surely, all ground configurations σ (i.e., all σ∈∩LGLη) agree on fv(σ) for all v∈Zd. In the specific case of the Edwards–Anderson spin glass model this is the same as the well-known belief that the two-dimensional model has a unique ground-state pair.

One way in which typical configurations of the system can fulfill Theorem 1 but avoid the uniqueness statement in (2.9) is if the configurations are differently ordered on the two bipartite classes of Z2 (by the two bipartite classes, we mean the vertices with even sum of coordinates and the vertices with odd sum of coordinates). Such a situation is familiar from the (non-disordered) antiferromagnetic Ising model at low temperature, in which typical configurations have a chessboard-like pattern (and the boundary conditions can decide which of the two chessboard patterns will emerge). Our next result shows, as a special case, that such behavior cannot arise for the disordered systems considered herein, by showing that the boundary conditions cannot significantly influence the average value of fvσ on any deterministic set of positive density.

Theorem 2

Let β>0 be the inverse temperature and λ>0 be the disorder strength. There exist constants C,c>0 depending only on λ, CH, m and R such that for each integer L≥3 and for each weight function w:ΛL→[-1,1]m,2.12 Psupτ1,τ2∈SZ2\ΛL1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLw(v)·fvσΛL1-fvσΛL2≤ClnlnL8≥1-exp-cL.

A second motivation for Theorem 2 comes from Parseval’s identity, which, in our setting, reads2.13 1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLfvσΛL1-fvσΛL22=∑k∈ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLe2πik·v2L+1fvσΛL1-fvσΛL22.

Consequently, if one can upgrade the statement of Theorem 2 and obtain a rate of convergence faster than 1/L (instead of the (loglogL)-1/8 term), then it would imply that the right-hand side of (2.13) is small, which would then yield (2.9).

As a corollary of Theorem 2, we obtain a quantitative estimate in the spirit of the averaged statement (2.9). The obtained result is weaker than (2.9) as it involves the expected value (in the random field) of fvσΛLτ(η).

Corollary 2.2

Let β>0 be the inverse temperature and λ>0 be the disorder strength. There exist constants C,c>0 depending only on λ, CH, m and R such that, for each integer L≥3 and each random (i.e., measurable) pair of boundary conditions η↦τ1(η),τ2(η)∈SZ2\ΛL,2.14 1ΛL∑v∈ΛLEfvσΛLτ1(η)-fvσΛLτ2(η)≤ClnlnL8.

If the weights w(v) were allowed to depend on η, Theorem 2 would imply Conjecture 2.1. A partial result in this direction is formulated in Proposition 7.8, which strengthens Theorem 2 to allow w(v) to have a restricted dependence on the disorder η.

As a second consequence of Theorem 2, we obtain a partial uniqueness result related to Conjecture 2.1. As mentioned above, in a translation-invariant setup, when the state space S is Polish and compact, when A is the corresponding Borel sigma algebra, and when the Hamiltonian and noised observables are continuous, Conjecture 2.1 is equivalent to the claim that the expectation f0(σ)μ takes the same value for every infinite volume Gibbs measures and for almost every realization of the disorder. In Theorem 3 below, we establish this result (in the setup of general spin systems introduced in Sect. 2.1) in the specific case of translation-covariant Gibbs states defined in the following paragraph.

Let us fix a disorder strength λ>0 and an inverse temperature β>0. For any realization of the random field ηvv∈Zd, an infinite-volume Gibbs measure with disorder η is a probability distribution μ on the space of configurations σ:Zd→R satisfying the consistency relations: for any finite subset Λ⊆Zd and any bounded measurable g:Sd→R,2.15 g(σ)β,Λτμ=g(σ)μ,

where ·μ denotes the expectation with respect to the measure μ, the configuration σ in the left-hand side is distributed as μβ,Λ,τη,λ, and τ is random and distributed according to the restriction to Zd\Λ of a random spin configuration distributed as μ. We denote by Pη(Sd) the set of infinite-volume Gibbs measures with disorder η.

A map η↦μη∈Pη(Sd) is measurable if, for any bounded measurable function g:Sd→R, the map η↦g(σ)μη is measurable (as a real-valued function).

A translation-covariant Gibbs state is a measurable map μ:η↦μη∈Pη(Sd) satisfying the following property:∀v∈Zd,(Tv)∗μη=μTvηP-almost-surely,

where (Tv)∗μη denotes the pushforward of the measure μη by the translation operator Tv and Tvηu:=ηu-v. This definitions generalizes the notion of translation-invariant Gibbs states to the setup of disordered systems.

Theorem 3

(Uniqueness for translation-covariant Gibbs states). In the translation-invariant setup, for any inverse temperature β>0, any disorder strength λ>0, and any pair μ1,μ2 of infinite-volume translation-covariant Gibbs measures, one has the identityf0(σ)μ1η=f0(σ)μ2ηP-almost-surely.

We note that we can produce a translation-covariant Gibbs state via compactness arguments (see Appendix I of Aizenman–Wehr [7]). However, even in the zero temperature case, it is difficult to obtain good control on the support of this measure for fixed η. An interesting question is to construct an extremal translation-covariant Gibbs state. Partial progress has been made in this direction: Cotar–Jahnel–Kulske [25] have shown the existence and measurability of a translation-invariant, extremal decomposition of translation-covariant random Gibbs states.

An example where such a construction could have far-reaching consequences is the zero-temperature Edwards–Anderson spin glass model. If one could show that there exists a translation-covariant Gibbs state supported on pairs of configurations that differ by a global sign change, then Theorem 3 implies that all translation-covariant Gibbs states are supported on such ground-state pairs.

As before, versions of Theorem 2, Corollary 2.2 and Theorem 3 hold at zero temperature. In Theorem 2, the supremum over boundary conditions should be replaced by a supremum over σ1,σ2∈GLη and fvσΛLi should be replaced by fv(σi). In Corollary 2.2, the random boundary conditions should be replaced by random σ1,σ2∈GLη and fvσΛLτi(η) should be replaced by fv(σi). In Theorem 3, the translation-covariant Gibbs states μ1,μ2 should be replaced by translation-covariant ground states σ1,σ2, that is, measurable maps σi:η→σi(η)∈∩LGLη satisfying σi(Tvη)=Tvσi(η) for any v∈Zd, and f0σμiη should be replaced by f0(σi).

Spin Systems with Continuous Symmetry

In this section, we present quantitative results for spin systems with continuous symmetry. The class of systems that we study are versions of the random-field spin O(n) model and are described similarly to Sect. 2.1 with the following additional assumptions: State space: We let S be the sphere Sn-1 for some integer n≥1, equipped with its Borel sigma algebra and the uniform measure κ.

Base Hamiltonian: we assume that, for any finite subset Λ⊆Zd, the Hamiltonian HΛ takes the form 3.1 HΛ(σ)=∑{u,v}∩Λ≠∅u∼vΨσu,σv,

where the map Ψ:Sn-1×Sn-1→R is twice continuously differentiable and rotationally invariant: for any R∈O(n) and any σ1,σ2∈Sn-1, ΨRσ1,Rσ2=Ψσ1,σ2.

Disorder: We let η=ηvv∈Zd be a collection of independent standard n-dimensional Gaussian vectors, and denote by P and E the law and the expectation operator with respect to η.

The noised observable: we assume that m=n, and that fvσ=σv. In particular the observables have range R=0.

Disordered Hamiltonian: it will turn out to be useful to incorporate a deterministic external magnetic field h∈Rn in the disordered Hamiltonian. Thus, given additionally a finite Λ⊆Zd, a fixed realization of η:Zd→R and a disorder strength λ>0, we define 3.2 HΛη,λ,hσ:=HΛσ-∑v∈Λληv+h·σv.

As we work with nearest-neighbor systems, it suffices to specify the boundary condition on the external boundary ∂Λ of the domain Λ and we will do so in the sequel (instead of specifying the boundary condition on Zd\Λ). Given an inverse temperature β>0 and a boundary condition τ∈S∂Λ, we define the finite-volume Gibbs measure 3.3 μβ,Λ,τη,λ,hdσ:=1Zβ,Λ,τη,λ,hexp-βHΛη,λ,h(σ)∏v∈Λκ(dσv)∏v∈Zd\Λδτvdσv,

where Zβ,Λ,τη,λ,h is the normalization constant. We denote by ·Λτ,h the expectation with respect to the measure μβ,Λ,τη,λ,h (omitting the parameters β,η and λ in the notation as was done in Sect. 2). We remark that the setting is sufficiently flexible to include periodic boundary conditions (i.e., taking Λ to be the discrete torus), as well as free boundary conditions. These are referred to by the notations per and free.

The following results show that, in dimensions 1≤d≤3, the spatially and thermally averaged magnetization is close to zero when the external field h is close to zero, uniformly in the boundary condition. The results depend on L through power laws. The first statement applies to deterministic boundary conditions, and has a better exponent in the power law when compared with the second statement, which is uniform in the (possibly random) boundary conditions (see Theorem 6 for more details on the case that h is large).

We use the notation a∨b:=max(a,b) and a∧b:=mina,b for a,b∈R.

Theorem 4

Let n≥2, d∈{1,2,3} and L≥1. Let β>0 be the inverse temperature, λ>0 be the disorder strength and h∈Rn be the deterministic external field. There exists a constant C>0 depending only on n, Ψ and λ such that, then for each boundary condition τ∈S∂Λ2L (allowing also free and periodic boundary conditions) and each h satisfying |h|≤L-2,3.4 E1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv2Lτ,h≤CL-12(4-d).

Moreover, for any h satisfying |h|≤L-1,3.5 Esupτ∈S∂ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσvLτ,h≤CL-4-d2(8-d).

The next result presents our quantitative estimates in dimension d=4.

Theorem 5

Let n≥2 and d=4. Let β>0 be the inverse temperature, λ>0 be the disorder strength and h∈Rn with |h|≤1 be the deterministic external field. There exists a constant C>0 depending only on n, Ψ and λ such that for each integer L≥3,3.6 Esupτ∈S∂ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσvLτ,h≤Clnln|h|-1∧L.

We again remark that, in the second part of Theorem 4 and Theorem 5, free and periodic boundary conditions are allowed as one of the options in the supremum.

We mention that versions of Theorem 4 and 5 hold also at zero temperature. To state the results, we introduce the following notations. Given L∈N and a boundary condition τ∈S∂ΛL, we define the zero-temperature free energy byFEΛ,T=0τ,λ,h(η):=infσ′:ΛL+→Sσ′≡τon∂ΛLHΛη,λ,hσ′.

We then define the set GLτ,η of L-ground configurations with boundary condition τ as the set of configurations σ:ΛL+→S satisfying σ≡τ on ∂ΛL andHΛη,λ,hσ=FEΛ,T=0τ,λ,h(η).

The continuity of the disordered Hamiltonian and the compactness of the spin space ensure that the set GLτ,η is non-empty for all realizations of the random field η. Additionally, we remark that the cardinality of the set GLτ,η is almost surely equal to 1. Indeed, this result is a consequence of the following observation: since the map η↦FEΛ,T=0τ,λ,h(η) is concave, it is differentiable almost everywhere, and, on the corresponding set of full measure, the L-ground configuration with boundary condition τ is uniquely characterised as -1λ times the η-gradient of FEΛ,T=0τ,λ,h.

The zero-temperature version of the results is then obtained by replacing the mapping η↦σv2Lτ,h in (3.4) by the map η↦σv with σ∈G2Lτ,η. In (3.5) and (3.6), the supremum over boundary conditions should be replaced by a supremum over all L-ground configurations σ∈∪τ∈S∂ΛLGLτ,η and σvLτ,h should be replaced by σv.

Lastly, we mention that a discussion of models with continuous symmetries of higher order appears in Sect. 9.

Background

This section presents a brief overview of related results.

The random-field Ising model: The question of the quantification of the Imry-Ma phenomenon was previously addressed for the two-dimensional random-field Ising model. Chatterjee [23] obtained an upper bound at the rate (lnlnL)-1/2 on the effect of boundary conditions on the magnetization at the center of a box of side length L. Aizenman and the third author [5] studied the same quantity for finite-range random-field Ising models and obtained an algebraic upper bound of the form L-γ. Exponential decay was established first at high temperature or strong disorder; results in this direction include the ones of Fröhlich and Imbrie [40], Berreti [11], Von Dreifus, Klein and Perez [64], and Camia, Jiang and Newman [21]. Exponential decay at all disorder strengths was established for the nearest-neighbor model by Ding and Xia [34] at zero temperature, and then extended to all temperatures by Ding and Xia [35] and by Aizenman, the second and third authors [4]. Other important aspects of the random-field Ising model which have been the subject of recent developments include the correlation length of the model, which has been successfully identified by Ding and Wirth [33], and the absence of replica symmetry breaking which was established by Chatterjee [22]. We further refer to the recent work of Chatterjee [24] which investigates the presence, or the absence, of various properties of the mean-field spin glass model in the random-field Ising model (such as replica symmetry breaking, non-self averaging, ultrametricity, and the existence of many pure states).

Bricmont and Kupiainen [17] introduced a hierarchical approximation to the random-field Ising model and proved that it exhibits spontaneous magnetization in three dimensions and no magnetization in two dimensions. Imbrie [47] proved that the three-dimensional ground state of the Ising model in a weak magnetic field exhibits long range order, and this was extended to the low-temperature regime by Bricmont and Kupiainen [16, 18] using a rigorous renormalization group argument. Recently, Ding and Zhuang [36] obtained a new and simple proof of the result of [16, 18], extended the result to the q-states Potts model, and obtained a lower bound for the correlation length of the two-dimensional random-field Ising model at low temperature matching the one of [33]. These results were further extended by Ding, Liu, Xia [32] who proved that the model exhibits long range ordering in three and higher dimensions for any inverse temperature β>βc (where βc is the critical inverse temperature without disorder) as long as the strength of the disorder is sufficiently weak, and by Affonso, Bissacot and Maia [1] to the long-range Ising model.

Recently in [15], Bowditch and Sun constructed a continuum version of the two-dimensional random-field Ising model by considering the scaling limit of the suitably renormalized discrete random-field Ising model, and proved that the law of the limiting magnetization field is singular with respect to the one of the continuum pure two-dimensional Ising model constructed and studied by Camia, Garban and Newman [19, 20].

Additional background on the random-field Ising model can be found in [12, Chapter 7] and [54].

Random-field induced order in the XY-model: Crawford [28–30] studied the XY-model in the presence of a random field pointing along the Y-axis, and proved that this may lead to the model exhibiting residual ordering along the X-axis. We additionally refer to the references therein for a review of the works in the physics literature investigating this phenomenon in different models of statistical physics.

Other models of statistical physics: The Imry–Ma phenomenon has also been studied in the context of random surfaces. This line of investigation was initiated by Bovier and Külske [13, 14] with later, qualitative and quantitative, contributions of Cotar, van Enter, Külske and Orlandi [26, 27, 51, 52, 63]. Additional quantitative results are obtained in [31] which studies “random-field random surfaces” of the form4.1 P(dϕ):=1Zexp-∑x∼yVϕx-ϕy+λ∑xηxϕx∏xdϕx,

where in one case ϕ is a mapping defined on the lattice and valued in R, the map V:R→R is a uniformly convex potential, and dϕx denotes the Lebesgue measure and in another case ϕ is valued in Z, V(x)=x2 and dϕx denotes the counting measure. We refer to [31] for a more detailed review of this line of investigation.

A version of the rounding effect was also studied in models of directed polymers by Giacomin and Toninelli [43, 44]. They established that, while the non-disordered model may exhibit a first- (or higher-) order phase transition, this transition is at least of second order in the presence of a random disorder. Nevertheless, the mechanism taking place is of different nature than the one underlying the Imry–Ma phenomenon [44].

Quantum systems: The arguments developed in [7] were extended by Aizenman, Greenblatt and Lebowitz [3] to quantum lattice systems. They established that, at all temperatures, the first-order phase transition of these systems is rounded by the addition of a random field in dimensions d≤2, and in every dimensions d≤4 for systems with continuous symmetry.

Strategy of the Proof

In this section, we outline the proofs of Theorem 1, Theorem 4 and Theorem 5, which contain the main ideas developed in the article. To simplify the presentation of the arguments, we assume that m=1 in the definition of the noised observable and of the random disorder, that the strength λ of the random field is equal to 1, and that the maps (fv) have range 0 (i.e., fv depends only on the value of the spin σv).

Outline of the proof of theorem 1

The proof relies on a thermodynamic approach and requires the introduction of the finite-volume free energy of the system as follows: for each side length L≥2, each boundary condition τ∈SZd\ΛL, inverse temperature β>0, and magnetic field η:ΛL→R, we define the finite-volume free energy to be the suitably renormalized logarithm of the partition function5.1 FELτ(η):=-1βΛLlnZβ,ΛL,τη,1.

The proofs then rely on the following standard observations:By decomposing the random field according to η=η^L,ηL⊥ with η^L:=ΛL-1∑v∈ΛLηv and ηL⊥:=η-η^L, we see that the the observable ΛL-1∑v∈ΛLfvσΛLτ can be characterized as the derivative of the free energy with respect to the averaged external field η^L, i.e., ∂∂η^LFELτ(η)=-1ΛL∑v∈ΛLfvσΛLτ.

For each realization of ηL⊥, the mapping η^L↦-FELτ(η^L,ηL⊥) is convex, differentiable and 1-Lipschitz. Moreover, for any pair of boundary conditions τ1,τ2∈SZd\ΛL, the finite-volume free energy satisfies the relation 5.2 FEL1(η)-FEL2(η)≤CL.

The averaged external field η^L is a Gaussian random variable whose variance is equal to ΛL-1. In two dimensions, its fluctuations are of order L-1, which is the same order of magnitude as the right-hand side of (5.2).

The key input of the argument is the following general fact: for each 1-Lipschitz convex and differentiable function g:R→R and each δ>0, there exists a set Ag⊆R satisfying the two following properties: The Lebesgue measure of the set R\Ag is finite and satisfies LebR\Ag≤C/δ2.

For each point x∈Ag, and each differentiable, 1-Lipschitz and convex function g1:R→R satisfying supt∈Rg(t)-g1(t)≤1, one has g′(x)-g1′(x)≤δ.

This observation is quantified through the notion of δ-stability introduced in Sect. 7.1.

Applying this property to the free energies η^L↦-FELτ(η^L,ηL⊥), for a fixed boundary condition τ∈SZd\ΛL, using the inequality (5.2), that the averaged field η^ΛL is Gaussian and that its variance is of order L-2, we obtain, for any δ>0,5.3 Psupτ1,τ2∈SZd\ΛL1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLfvσΛL1-fvσΛL2<δ≥cδ,

where the constant cδ depends only on δ and satisfies cδ≥e-C/δ4.

The lower bound stated in (5.3) is weaker than the statement of Theorem 1. The strategy to upgrade the inequality (5.3) into the quantitative estimate (2.6) relies on the observation that the inequality (5.3) is scale invariant in two dimensions (the constant cδ does not depend on L). One can thus implement a hierarchical decomposition of the space and leverage on this property to improve the result. Specifically, we implement a Mandelbrot percolation argument which allows to cover (almost completely) the box ΛL by a collection Q of disjoint boxes (see Fig. 2), all of which satisfy the property5.4 supτ1,τ2∈SZd\Λ1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛfvσΛ1-fvσΛ2≤ClnlnL4.

Once this is achieved, an application of the domain subadditivity property for the left-hand side of (5.4) (see Sect. 6.4) yields the bound5.5 Psupτ1,τ2∈SZd\ΛL1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLfvσΛL1-fvσΛL2≥ClnlnL4≤exp-clnL.

The inequality (5.5) is slighlty weaker than Theorem 1, since the stochastic integrability (the right-hand side of (5.5)) can be improved. This is achieved by using a concentration argument implemented in Sect. 7.4.

We complete this outline with a remark regarding the rate of convergence obtained: it is related to the lower bound cδ through the formulainfδ∈(0,1):cδ:=1lnL.

The result of Lemma 7.5 gives the value cδ:=exp-Cδ4, which yields the rate 1/lnlnL4.

Outline of the proofs of theorem 4 and Theorem 5

To simplify the presentation of the argument, we make the additional assumption that h=0. The proofs of Theorem 4 and Theorem 5 rely on a Mermin-Wagner type argument (see [53]) which allows to use the continuous symmetry of the model to upgrade the inequality (5.2): the upper bound we obtain is stated in Proposition 8.4 and (a simplified version of it) reads, for any i∈{1,…,n}5.6 EFELτ,0(η)-FELτ,0(-η)|ηΛL/2,i≤CL2,

where the free energy is defined in (6.9) below, the expectation in the left-hand side of (5.6) is the conditional expectation with respect to the values of the i-th coordinate of the random field η inside the box ΛL/2 (see Sect. 6.3).

The main features of the inequality (5.6) are the following:The right-hand side of (5.6) decays like C/L2, in contrast to the upper bound C/L of (5.2) in the case of general spin systems.

The derivative with respect to the averaged field η^ΛL/2,i:=ΛL/2-1∑v∈ΛL/2ηv,i of the left-hand side of (5.6) is explicit and satisfies the equality 5.7 ∂∂η^L/2,iEFELτ,0(η)-FELτ,0(-η)|ηΛL/2,i=-1ΛL∑v∈ΛL/2Eσv,iΛLτ,0(η)+σv,iΛLτ,0(-η)|ηΛL/2,i.

In particular, using the η→-η invariance of the law of the random field, we see that the expectation of the right-hand side of (5.7) is equal to -2EΛL-1∑v∈ΛL/2σv,iΛLτ,0. The expectation of the spatially and thermally averaged magnetization can thus be characterized as the expectation of the derivative with respect to the variable η^ΛL/2,i of the left-hand side of (5.6).

In dimensions d≤3, the fluctuations of the averaged field η^ΛL/2,i are of order L-d/2, and are thus larger than the right-hand side of (5.6). Combining this observation with a variational principle (see Sect. 8.1) yields the algebraic rate of convergence stated in Theorem 4. In dimension 4, the fluctuations of the averaged field η^ΛL/2,i are of the same order of magnitude as the right-hand side of (5.6), and we implement a Mandelbrot percolation argument similar to the one presented in Sect. 5.1 to obtain the result.

We point out that there is a distinct difference between the two constructions. In the presence of a continuous symmetry, we do not rely on the criterion (5.4) to define which box should belong to the partition Q but rather on the inequality, for a box Λ⊆ΛL,E1Λ∑v∈ΛσvΛLτ,0|η^Λ≤ClnlnL,

where the conditional expectation is taken with respect to the averaged field η^Λ:=Λ-1∑v∈Ληv. This difference accounts for the slightly better rate of convergence obtained in Theorem 5: we obtain the rate 1/lnlnL instead of the rate 1/lnlnL4 in Theorem 1.

Notations, Assumptions and Preliminaries

General notation

For each real number a∈R, we use the notation ⌊a⌋ to refer to the integer part of a. A box is a subset of the form v+ΛL for v∈Zd and L∈N. We call the vertex v the center of the box Λ:=v+ΛL and the integer (2L+1) its side length. Given a box Λ⊆Zd of side length L and a real number α>0, we denote by αΛ the box with the same center as Λ and side length ⌊αL⌋, and define ΛαL:=αΛL. Given a set Λ⊆Zd and a vertex v∈Zd, we denote by dist(v,Λ):=minw∈Λ|v-w|. For each set Λ⊆Zd, we denote by 1Λ the indicator function of Λ.

Given a function g defined on either R, a subset Λ⊆Zd or the set of configurations and valued in Rm, we denote by g1,…,gm its components. In particular, we denote by fv,1,…,fv,m the components of the observable fv, and, in the case of continuous spin systems studied in Sect. 8, we denote by σv,1,…,σv,n the components of the spin σv.

For each bounded set Λ⊆Zd and each fixed boundary condition τ0∈SZd\Λ, we denote by6.1 FlucΛ(η):=supτ1,τ2∈SZd\Λ1|Λ|∑v∈ΛfvσΛ1-fvσΛ2,

and6.2 FlucΛ0(η):=supτ∈SZd\Λ1|Λ|∑v∈ΛfvσΛτ-fvσΛ0.

Similarly, for each i∈{1,…,m}, we define6.3 FlucΛ,i(η):=supτ1,τ2∈SZd\Λ1|Λ|∑v∈Λfv,iσΛ1-fv,iσΛ2,

and6.4 FlucΛ,i0(η):=supτ∈SZd\Λ1|Λ|∑v∈Λfv,iσΛτ-fv,iσΛ0.

Let us note that these quantities only depend on the value of the field inside the set Λ, and that we have the inequalities6.5 FlucΛ(η)≤∑i=1mFlucΛ,i(η),FlucΛ(η)≤2FlucΛ0(η)andFlucΛ,i(η)≤2FlucΛ,i0(η).

Additionally, by the pointwise bound fv(σ)≤1, the four quantities (6.1), (6.2), (6.3) and (6.4) are bounded by 2 for any realization of the random field η.

Structure of the random field

Given an integer i∈{1,…,m} and a vertex v∈Zd, we denote by ηi and ηv,i the i-th component of η and ηv respectively.

Given a bounded set Λ⊆Zd, we denote by ηΛ=(ηΛ,1,…,ηΛ,m) the restriction of the field η to the set Λ. We use the decomposition ηΛ:=(η^Λ,ηΛ⊥) withη^Λ:=Λ-1∑v∈ΛηvandηΛ⊥:=ηΛ-η^Λ.

More generally, given a map w:Λ→Rm, we use the decomposition ηΛ:=(η^w,Λ,ηw,Λ⊥) with, for each i∈{1,…,m},η^w,Λ,i:=1∑v∈Λwi(v)2∑v∈Λwi(v)ηv,iandηw,Λ,i⊥:=ηΛ,i-η^w,Λ,iwi.

We set η^w,Λ,i=0 if wi=0.

Since the field η is assumed to be a standard m-dimensional Gaussian vector, all the random fields listed above are Gaussian. For each i∈{1,…,m}, the variances of η^Λ,i and η^w,Λ,i are equal Λ-1 and 1/∑v∈Λwi(v)2 respectively. Moreover the fields η^Λ and ηΛ⊥ are independent, and the fields η^w,Λ and ηw,Λ⊥ are independent.

Given a function F depending on the realization of η in the set Λ and an integer i∈{1,…,m}, we may abuse notation and write F(η^Λ,ηΛ⊥), F(η^Λ,i,η^Λ,jj≠i,ηΛ⊥) or F(η^w,Λ,ηw,Λ⊥) instead of F(η) when we want to emphasize the dependence of the map F on a specific variable.

For i∈{1,…,m}, we denote by ∂F∂η^Λ,i(η) and ∂F∂η^w,Λ,i(η) the partial derivatives of the map F with respect to the variables η^Λ,i and η^w,Λ,i respectively.

Notation for conditional expectation

Assume that the random field η is defined on a probability space (Ω,F,P), and that we are given two random variables F and X depending on the random field η, such that E|F|<∞, and a σ-algebra F1⊆F. We denote by EF|X (resp. EF|F1) the conditional expectation of F with respect to X (resp. with respect to F1). Given an event A, we denote by PA|X:=E1A|X (resp. PA|F1:=E1A|F1) the conditional probability. The random variable X will frequently be the fields η^Λ, ηΛ⊥, η^w,Λ,ηw,Λ⊥, the restriction of the field η to some set Λ, or a combination of these options.

Since the random variable EF|X depends only on the realization of X, we may write EF|X(X) instead of EF|X(η) when we wish to make the dependence on the random field explicit. Similarly, we may write PA|X(X) instead of PA|X(η).

Finally, in the conditional expectations, we may omit to display the dependency in the random field to simplify the notation (e.g., we will typically write E[FEΛτ|η^Λ] instead of E[FEΛτ(η)|η^Λ]).

The domain subadditivity property

In this section, we state a domain subadditivity property satisfied by the quantity FlucΛ(η). The result is a direct consequence of the consistency property (2.5) and is used frequently in the proofs of Sects. 7 and 8.

Proposition 6.1

(Domain subadditivity property). Let β>0, η:Zd→Rm. Let Λ1′,…,ΛN′ of be a collection of disjoint bounded subsets of Zd and define Λ′:=∪j=1NΛj′. Then we haveFlucΛ′(η)≤∑j=1NΛj′Λ′FlucΛj′(η),

as well as, for any integer i∈{1,…,m},supτ∈SZd\Λ′∑v∈Λ′fv,iσΛ′τ≤∑j=1Nsupτ∈SZd\Λj′∑v∈Λj′fv,iσΛj′τ

andinfτ∈SZd\Λ′∑v∈Λ′fv,iσΛ′τ≥∑j=1Ninfτ∈SZd\Λj′∑v∈Λj′fv,iσΛj′τ.

Free energy: definition and basic properties

The finite-volume free energy of the random system is defined below (and corresponds to the one introduced in (5.1)).

Definition 6.2

(Finite-volume free energy). Given a bounded domain Λ⊆Zd, an inverse temperature β>0, a boundary condition τ∈SZd\Λ, a realization of the random field η, we define the free energy by the formulaFEΛτη:=-1βΛlnZβ,Λ,τη,λ=-1βΛln∫SΛexp-βHΛη,λ(σ)∏v∈Λκ(dσv),

where the integral is computed over the set of configurations satisfying σ=τ in Zd\Λ.

We next collect without proof some basic properties of the finite-volume free energy.

Proposition 6.3

(Properties of the free energy). For any bounded domain Λ⊆Zd, any inverse temperature β>0, and any boundary condition τ∈SZd\Λ, the map FEΛτ satisfies the properties:Concavity and regularity: the map η↦FEΛτ(η) is concave and satisfies for any pair of fields η,η′, FEΛτη-FEΛτη′≤λΛ∑v∈Ληv-ηv′.

Derivative: the mapping η↦FEΛτη is differentiable and satisfies, for any i∈{1,…,m}, 6.6 ∂FEΛτ∂η^Λ,i(η)=-λΛ∑v∈Λfv,iσΛτ.

More generally, for any map w:Λ↦Rm which is not identically 0, 6.7 ∂FEΛτ∂η^w,Λ,i(η)=-λΛ∑v∈Λwi(v)fv,iσΛτ.

Finite energy: for any boundary condition τ1∈SZd\Λ, and any realization of random field η, 6.8 FEΛτη-FEΛ1η≤C∂ΛΛ+CλΛ∑v∈Λdist(v,∂Λ)≤Rηv.

The proof of these results is a direct consequence of the formula for the free energy stated in Definition 6.2, the assumption |fv(σ)|≤1 on the noised observable, the fact that the map fv has range R and the inequality (2.2).

In the case of systems equipped with a continuous symmetry, we make the dependence in the parameter h explicit, and refer to the free energy using the notation6.9 FEΛτ,hη:=-1βΛlnZβ,Λ,τη,λ,h=-1βΛln∫SΛexp-βHΛη,λ,h(σ)∏v∈Λκ(dσv).

For any realization of the random field η, and any boundary condition τ∈S∂Λ, the mapping h↦FEΛτ,h(η) is concave, 1-Lipschitz, differentiable, and satisfies, for any i∈{1,…,n},6.10 ∂FEΛτ,h(η)∂hi=-1Λ∑v∈Λσv,iΛτ,h.

As it will be used in the proofs below, we record that, since the identity (6.10) is valid for any deterministic field η and any boundary condition τ∈S∂Λ, it implies the following result: for any random (measurable) boundary condition η↦τ(η)∈S∂Λ,∂∂hiEFEΛτ(η),h(η)=-E1Λ∑v∈Λσv,iΛτ(η),h.

Moreover, the continuous symmetry of the systems manifests in the following ways: using the η→-η invariance of the law of the random field, we see that, for any random boundary condition η↦τ(η)∈S∂Λ,6.11 ∀v∈Λ,EσvΛτ(η),h=-EσvΛτ~(η),-h,

where we used the notation τ~:η↦-τ(-η)∈S∂Λ. In the case of the periodic boundary condition, the expected value of the magnetization does not depend on the vertex v, i.e.,6.12 ∀v∈Λ,EσvΛper,h=Eσ0Λper,h,

and when the magnetic field h is equal to 0, its value is equal to 0,6.13 ∀v∈Λ,EσvΛper,0=0.

Convention for constants

Throughout this article, the symbols c and C denote positive constants which may vary from line to line, with C increasing larger than 1 and c decreasing smaller than 1. These constants may depend only on the strength of the random field λ, the parameter m, the constant CH and the radius R. In the setup of spin system with continuous symmetry, they may depend on the strength of the random field λ, the dimension of the sphere n and the map Ψ.

Proofs for Two-Dimensional Disordered Spin Systems

In this section, we study the general spin systems presented in Sect. 2 and prove Theorem 1, Theorem 2, Corollary 2.2 and Theorem 3.

In Sect. 7.1, we introduce the notion of δ-stability for λ-Lipschitz convex function and quantify the Lebesgue and Gaussian measures of the δ-stability set (see Proposition 7.3 and Corollary 7.4 below).

The next four sections are devoted to the proof of Theorem 1 following the outline of Sect. 5: Sect. 7.2 contains the proof of the estimate (5.3), in Sect. 7.3, we implement the Mandelbrot percolation argument and prove the inequality (5.5), and in Sect. 7.4 we complete the proof of Theorem 1 (in the general case) by upgrading the stochastic integrability of (5.5). Finally Sect. 2.7 is devoted to the proof of the inequality (2.7) of Theorem 1 (in the translation-invariant setup).

Three remaining sections (Sects. 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8) are devoted to the proofs of Theorem 2, Corollary 2.2 and Theorem 3 respectively.

A notion of δ-stability for real-valued convex functions

The following statement is a general result about real-valued convex functions; it asserts that if two λ-Lipschitz continuous, convex and differentiable functions are close (in the L∞-norm), then their derivatives cannot be too distant from each other on a set of large Lebesgue measure. We first introduce the following set.

Definition 7.1

Fix λ>0. For each λ-Lipschitz, convex function g:R→R, and each parameter r>0, we define the setNλ,r(g):=g1:R→R:g1isconvex,λ-Lipschitzcontinuous,differentiableandsatisfiessupt∈Rg(t)-g1(t)≤r.

We then define the δ-stability set of the function g as follows.

Definition 7.2

(δ-stability set) For each triplet of parameters λ,δ,r>0, and each function g:R→R convex, λ-Lipschitz and differentiable, we define the setStab(λ,δ,r,g):=t∈R:∃g1∈Nλ,r(g)suchthatg1′(t)-g′(t)>δ.

The next proposition estimates the Lebesgue measure of the set Stab(λ,δ,r,g).

Proposition 7.3

(δ-stability for λ-Lipschitz convex functions). There exists a constant C≥1 such that, for each λ>0, each function g:R→R convex, λ-Lipschitz and differentiable, and each pair of parameters r,δ>0,7.1 LebStab(λ,δ,r,g)≤Cλrδ2.

Fig. 1 The figure represents a λ-Lipshitz convex function F1. The area in purple represents the surface where functions in the set Nλ,r(F1) must lie. An example of a function F2∈Nλ,r(F1) is drawn in red, and the set Stab(λ,δ,r,g) is drawn in orange

Proof

We fix three parameters λ,δ,r>0, a λ-Lipschitz, convex and differentiable function g:R→R, and observe that if a point t∈R belongs to the set Stab(λ,δ,r,g) then there exists a function g1∈Nλ,r(g) (which may depend on the value of t), such that either: The inequality g1′(t)-g′(t)>δ holds;

Or the inequality g′(t)-g1′(t)>δ holds.

Let us first assume that the inequality (1) is satisfied; we claim that it implies the estimate7.2 g′t+4rδ≥g′(t)+δ2.

To prove (7.2), note that the assumption supt∈Rg(t)-g1(t)≤r implies, for any s∈R,7.3 g(s)-r≤g1(s)≤g(s)+r.

Using the inequality g1′(t)-g′(t)>δ and the convexity of the map g, we see that, for any s>t,7.4 g1(s)≥g1(t)+g1′(t)(s-t)>g1(t)+g′(t)+δ(s-t)>g(t)-r+g′(t)+δ(s-t).

A combination of the estimates (7.3) and (7.4) yieldsg(s)-g(t)s-t>g′(t)+δ-2rs-t.

Choosing the value s=t+4r/δ in the previous inequality and using the convexity of g showsg′t+4rδ≥gt+4rδ-g(t)4r/δ>g′(t)+δ-δ2≥g′(t)+δ2.

The proof of the claim (7.2) is complete. In the case when the inequality (2) is satisfied, a similar argument yields the estimate7.5 g′t-4rδ≤g′(t)-δ2.

A combination of (7.2) and (7.5), and the assumption that g is convex (which implies that its derivative is increasing) shows that, for any point t∈Stab(λ,δ,r,g),7.6 g′t+4rδ≥g′t-4rδ+δ2.

Using that the map g is convex and λ-Lipschitz, we see that, for any triplet of real numbers t-,t,t+∈R satisfying t-<t<t+,7.7 -λ≤g′(t-)≤g′(t)≤g′(t+)≤λ.

The estimates (7.6) and (7.7) imply that there cannot exist a family t1,…,t⌊4λδ⌋+1 of ⌊4λδ⌋+1-points satisfying the following properties: For any pair of distinct integers i,j∈1,…,⌊4λ/δ⌋+1, one has |ti-tj|>8rδ;

For any integer i∈1,…,⌊4λ/δ⌋+1, the point ti belongs to the set Stab(λ,δ,r,g).

This property implies that the set Stab(λ,δ,r,g) is included in the union of (at most) ⌊4λδ⌋ intervals of length 16r/δ which implies the upper boundLebStab(λ,δ,r,g)≤Cλrδ2.

This is (7.1). The proof of Proposition 7.3 is complete. □

Proposition 7.3 implies a lower bound on the Gaussian measure of the set Stab(λ,δ,r,g).

Corollary 7.4

There exists a constant C≥1 such that for each λ>0, each λ-Lipschitz, convex and differentiable function g:R→R, each pair of parameters δ,r>0, and each variance σ2>0 such that r≥σδ2/λ,12πσ2∫Stab(λ,δ,r,g)e-t22σ2dt≤1-e-Cλ2r2σ2δ4.

Proof

The proof is a consequence of the following inequality: there exists a constant C>0 such that, for any σ2∈(0,1), any real number α≥σ,7.8 supA⊆R,LebA≤α12πσ2∫Ae-t22σ2dt=12πσ2∫-α2α2e-t22σ2dt≤1-e-Cα2σ2.

Corollary 7.4 is then obtained by combining the inequality (7.8) with the value α=Cλr/δ2 and the estimate (7.1). □

A lower bound for the effect for the boundary condition on the averaged magnetization

In this section, we apply the result of Proposition 7.3 to the free energy associated with a discrete spin system and obtain the inequality (5.3). As it will be useful in the rest of the proof of Theorem 1, we establish the result both in the case of boxes (see (7.9)) and annuli (see (7.10)). The lower bound is stated in the following lemma, and we recall the notations FlucΛ(η), FlucΛ0(η), FlucΛ,i(η) and FlucΛ,i0(η) introduced in Sect. 6.1, as well as the notation R for the range of the observables (fv).

Lemma 7.5

Fix d=2, β>0, λ>0, and L≥2. There exists a positive constant C≥1 depending on the parameters λ, CH, m and R such that, for any δ>0,7.9 PFlucΛL(η)<δ+CL>exp-Cδ4.

Additionally, for each vertex v∈ΛL and each integer L′≤L2 such that v+ΛL′⊆ΛL,7.10 PFlucΛL\(v+ΛL′)(η)<δ+CL>exp-Cδ4.

Remark 7.6

Before giving the proof, we mention that, under the additional assumption that the Hamiltonians (HΛ) satisfy the upper bounds HΛ≤CΛ (as is the case for the models presented in Sect. 2.2), the free energy is a locally Lipschitz continuous function of the inverse temperature β, and thus, a small perturbation of the parameter β only slightly modifies the free energy. Consequently, the argument given below (which relies on the notion of δ-stability introduced in Sect. 7.1) can be extended so that the result of Lemma 7.5 holds uniformly over the parameter β when this quantity belongs to a small open set.

Proof

The argument relies on Proposition 7.3 and Corollary 7.4. Using the upper bound FlucΛL(η)≤2, we may assume that δ≤2 without loss of generality. First, by the inequalities (6.5), we see that, to prove the inequality (7.9), it is sufficient to show, for any i∈{1,…,m} and any fixed boundary condition τ0∈SZ2\ΛL,7.11 PFlucΛL,i0(η)<δ+CL>exp-Cδ4.

We now fix an integer i∈{1,…,m} and prove (7.11). We assume, without loss of generality, that L≥2R.

We introduce the notation7.12 Fluc¯ΛL,i0(η):=supτ∈SZ2\ΛL1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛL-Rfv,iσΛLτ-fv,iσΛL0,

and make a few observations pertaining to this quantity. First, we have the volume estimates7.13 ΛL-R≥cΛLandΛL\ΛL-R≤CΛL/L.

Additionally, if we decompose the field ηΛL according to ηΛL:=η^w,ΛL,ηw,ΛL⊥, where w is the weight function given by w:=1Λ(L-R), then we have7.14 ∂FEL0∂η^w,ΛL,i(η)=-λ|ΛL|∑v∈ΛL-Rfv,iσΛL0,

and the random variable η^w,ΛL is independent of the realization of the random field η in the boundary layer ΛL\ΛL-R. Moreover, using that the maps (fv) are bounded by 1, we have7.15 FlucΛL,i0(η)-Fluc¯ΛL,i0(η)≤CL.

We then claim that the inequality (7.9) is implied by the conditional inequality7.16 PFluc¯ΛL,i0<δ|η^w,ΛL,jj≠i,ηw,ΛL⊥>exp-Cδ41+LΛL∑v∈ΛL\ΛL-Rηv2P-a.s.

Indeed, taking the expectation in (7.16) shows7.17 PFluc¯ΛL,i0(η)<δ=EPFluc¯ΛL,i0<δ|η^w,ΛL,jj≠i,ηw,ΛL⊥>Eexp-Cδ41+LΛL∑v∈ΛL\ΛL-Rηv2>exp-Cδ4.

where we used that the random variables ηvv∈ΛL\ΛL-R are Gaussian, independent, and the second volume estimate stated in (7.13). Combining (7.17) with the pointwise bound (7.15) completes the proof of (7.9).

We now focus on the proof of (7.16). To this end, let us fix a realization of the averaged fields η^w,ΛL,jj≠i and of the orthogonal field ηw,ΛL⊥. We define7.18 g:η^w,ΛL,i↦-FEL0η^w,ΛL,i,η^w,ΛL,jj≠i,ηw,ΛL⊥andr:=C∂ΛLΛL+CλΛL∑v∈ΛL\ΛL-Rηv,

where C is the constant appearing the right-hand side of (6.8). We note that, by Proposition 6.3, the function g is convex, λ-Lipschitz, differentiable and its derivative is given by the formula (7.14).

The estimate (6.8) can be rewritten as follows: for any boundary condition τ∈SZ2\ΛL, the map η^w,ΛL,i↦-FELτη^w,ΛL,i,η^w,ΛL,jj≠i,ηw,ΛL⊥ belongs to the space Nλ,r(g).

The previous observation combined with the identity (6.7) yields the inclusion of setsη^ΛL,w,i∈R:Fluc¯ΛL,i0(η^w,ΛL,i,η^w,ΛL,jj≠i,ηw,ΛL⊥)>δ⊆Stab(λ,λδ,r,g).

Applying Proposition 7.3 and the formula for the parameter r stated in (7.18), we deduce7.19 Lebη^w,ΛL,i∈R:Fluc¯ΛL,i0(η^w,ΛL,i,η^w,ΛL,jj≠i,ηw,ΛL⊥)≥δ≤C∂ΛLδ2ΛL+Cδ2ΛL∑v∈ΛL\ΛL-Rηv≤Cδ2L+Cδ2ΛL∑v∈ΛL\ΛL-Rηv,

where we used the upper bound ∂ΛL/ΛL≤C/L in the second inequality. Using that the random variable η^w,ΛL,i is Gaussian of variance ΛL-R-1≥cL-2, that the random variables η^w,ΛL,i, η^w,ΛL,jj≠i and ηw,ΛL⊥ are independent, and Corollary 7.4, we obtain that the inequality (7.19) implies the estimate (7.16).

The proof of the inequality (7.10) only requires a notational modification of the previous argument, we thus omit the details. □

Mandelbrot percolation argument

In this section, we combine the result obtained in Lemma 7.5 with a Mandelbrot percolation argument to obtain the quantitative estimate (5.5). The result is stated in the following lemma.

Lemma 7.7

Fix d=2, β>0, λ>0 and L≥3. There exist two positive constants c∈(0,1) and C∈(1,∞) such that7.20 PFlucΛL(η)<ClnlnL4≥1-exp-clnL.

Proof

We set δ:=(C0/lnlnL4)∧4, for some large constant C0≥8 whose value will be selected later in the proof. Using the estimate (7.10) and the inequality lnlnL≤L, for any L≥3, we assume that the constant C0 is large enough so that: for any box Λ⊆Zd of side length ℓ≥L, and any box Λ′⊆Λ whose side length is smaller than ℓ/2,7.21 PFlucΛ\Λ′(η)<δ2>exp-Cδ4.

The strategy is to implement a Mandelbrot percolation argument. To this end, we define the following notion of good box: a box Λ′⊆ΛL is good if and only if7.22 FlucΛ′(η)≤δ.

We say that a box is bad if it is not good. Let us recall that the event (7.22) only depends on the realization of the random field η inside the box Λ′ (since the random variable FlucΛ′ only depends on the value of the field η inside the box Λ′).

Let us first introduce a few additional notations. Given an odd integer k≥3, we denote by lmax the largest integer which satisfies klmax≤L, i.e., lmax=⌊lnL/(2lnk)⌋. For each integer l∈0,…,lmax, we introduce the set of boxes7.23 Tl:=z+-Lkl,Lkl2∩ΛL:z∈2LklZ2∩[-L,L]2.

We note that that, for each integer l∈{0,…,lmax}, the collection of boxes Tl forms a partition of the box ΛL. Additionally, two boxes of the collection ⋃l=0maxTl are either disjoint or included in one another. For each vertex v∈ΛL, and each integer l∈{0,…,lmax}, we denote by Λl(v) the unique box of the set Tl containing the point v.

We select the integer k to be the smallest odd integer larger or equal to 3 such that the following properties are satisfied for any L≥9:lmax≥1and∀v∈ΛL,∀l∈{0,…,lmax-1},Λl+1(v)≤δ4Λl(v).

We remark that this integer always exists if the constant C0 is chosen large enough, and that there exist two constants C, c such that cδ-12≤k≤Cδ-12.

We then construct recursively a (random) sequence of collection of good boxes Ql⊆Tl, for l∈{0,…,lmax}, according to the following algorithm:Initiation: we set Q0=ΛL if ΛL is a good box and Q0=∅ otherwise;

Induction step: we assume that the sets Q0,…,Ql-1 have been constructed, and wish to construct the collection Ql. We consider the set of boxes Tl to which we remove all the boxes which are included in a box of the collection ⋃i=0l-1Qi, that is, we define the set Tl′:=Λ′∈Tl:∀Λ′′∈⋃i=0l-1Qi,Λ′⊈Λ′′.

We define the set Ql to be the set of boxes which are good and belong to Tl′, i.e., Ql:=Λ′∈Tl′:Λ′isgood.

We then define Q:=∪l=0maxQl. Let us note that two boxes in the set Q are either equal or disjoint. The collection of boxes Q is not in general a partition of the box ΛL, and there is a non-empty set of uncovered points which can be characterized by the following criterion:7.24 v∈ΛLisuncovered⟺∀l∈0,…,lmax,Λl(v)isabadbox.

We next show that the set of uncovered points is small. To this end, we show the following upper bound on the probability of a vertex v∈ΛL to be uncovered: there exists a constant c∈(0,1) such that7.25 Pvisuncovered≤exp-clnL.

To prove the inequality (7.25), we fix a vertex v∈ΛL, and rewrite the equivalence (7.24) as follows:7.26 visuncovered=⋂l=0lmaxFlucΛl(v)(η)>δ.

The strategy is then to prove that the (lmax+1) events in the right side of (7.26) are well-approximated by independent events, and to use the independence in order to estimate the probability of their intersection. By the domain subadditivity property stated in Proposition 6.1, and the pointwise bound FlucΛ≤2, we have, for any v∈ΛL and any l∈{0,…,lmax-1},7.27 FlucΛl(v)(η)≤Λl(v)\Λl+1(v)Λl(v)FlucΛl(v)\Λl+1(v)(η)+Λl+1(v)Λl(v)FlucΛl+1(v)(η)≤FlucΛl(v)\Λl+1(v)(η)+2|Λl+1(v)||Λl(v)|≤FlucΛl(v)\Λl+1(v)(η)+δ2,

where we used in the last inequality that, by the definition of the integer k, the ratio of the volumes of the boxes Λl+1(v) and Λl(v) is smaller than 4/δ. The estimate (7.27) implies the inclusion of events7.28 visuncovered⊆⋂l=0lmax-1FlucΛl(v)\Λl+1(v)(η)≥δ2.

Using that the annuli Λl(v)\Λl+1(v)l∈{0,…,lmax-1} are disjoint and that the random variables FlucΛl(v)\Λl+1(v)(η) depend only on the restriction of the random field to the annulus Λl(v)\Λl+1(v), we obtain that the events in the right side of (7.28) are independent. We deduce thatPvisuncovered≤∏l=0lmax-1PFlucΛl(v)\Λl+1(v)(η)≥δ2.

We recall the definition of the parameter δ and of the integer lmax stated at the beginning of the proof. Using (7.21), we obtain the following dichotomy:If C0/lnlnL4<4 (i.e., if L is sufficiently large so that δ<4), then Pvisuncovered≤1-exp-Cδ4lmax≤1-1lnLC/C04clnLlnlnlnL.

If C0/lnlnL4≥4, then δ=4 and thus all the boxes are good (as FlucΛ′ is smaller than 2 almost-surely for any box Λ′ by assumption, the condition (7.22) is always satisfied). This gives Pvisuncovered=0.

Choosing the constant C0 large enough, e.g., larger than 4C4, we obtain (in both cases)Pvisuncovered≤exp-clnL.

The proof of (7.25) is complete. We now use the inequality (7.25) to complete the proof of the estimate (7.20). By the domain subadditivity property for the quantity FlucΛ and the pointwise bound FlucΛ≤2, we have7.29 FlucΛL(η)≤∑Λ∈QΛΛLFlucΛ(η)+2ΛL\⋃Λ∈QΛ|ΛL|≤∑Λ∈QΛΛLδ+2ΛL\⋃Λ∈QΛ|ΛL|≤δ+2ΛL\⋃Λ∈QΛ|ΛL|.

By using (7.25) and Markov’s inequality, we have7.30 PΛL\⋃Λ∈QΛ|ΛL|≥δ≤E1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛL1{visuncovered}δ≤∑v∈ΛLPvisuncovered|ΛL|δ≤exp-clnLδ≤Cexp-clnL,

by reducing the value of the constant c in the last inequality. We have thus obtainedPFlucΛL(η)>3δ≤Cexp-clnL.

The inequality (7.20) can then be obtained by adjusting the values of the constants C and c. The proof of Lemma 7.7 is complete. □

Fig. 2 A realization of the Mandelbrot percolation with the values k=3 and lmax=3. The bad cubes are drawn in black

Upgrading the stochastic integrability

This section is the final step of the proof of Theorem 1 (in the general case). We use a concentration argument combined with the domain subadditivity property applied to the quantity FlucΛ to upgrade the stochastic integrability obtained in Lemma 7.7.

Proof of (2.6) of Theorem 1

We split the box ΛL into (approximately) N≃L32 boxes of side length of order L14. We denote these boxes by Λ~1,…,Λ~N. By the domain subadditivity property for the quantity FlucΛ, we have the inequality7.31 FlucΛL(η)≤1N∑i=1NFlucΛ~i(η).

Since the boxes Λ~1,…,Λ~N are disjoint, the sum in the right side is a sum of independent random variables, to which we can apply a concentration argument. To implement this strategy, we fix an integer i∈{1,…,N}, apply the inequality (7.20) to the box Λ~i (the result was proved for the boxes of the form ΛL for L≥3 but can be extended to any box of Zd by translation invariance of the random field), together with the bound FlucΛ~i≤2, and the fact that that the side length of the box Λ~i is larger than cL14. We obtain, for any integer i∈{1,…,N},7.32 EFlucΛ~i(η)≤ClnlnL1/44≤ClnlnL4.

We use the inequalities (7.31), (7.32) to obtain, for any K≥0,PFlucΛL(η)≥ClnlnL4+K≤P1N∑i=1NFlucΛ~i(η)-EFlucΛ~i(η)≥K.

Using that the random variables FlucΛ~1(η),…,FlucΛ~N(η) are i.i.d., non-negative, bounded by 2 almost surely together with Hoeffding’s inequality, we obtain, for any K≥0,PFlucΛL(η)≥ClnlnL4+K≤Ce-cNK2.

Recalling that N is comparable to L32, and choosing K=ClnlnL4, we have obtainedPFlucΛL(η)≥2ClnlnL4≤Cexp-cL3/2lnlnL≤Cexp-cL.

The estimate (2.6) is then obtained by adjusting the values of the constants C and c. □

The translation-invariant setup

In this section, we prove the estimate (2.7) pertaining to the translation-invariant setup and thus complete the proof of Theorem 1.

Proof of (2.7) of Theorem 1

We assume in this proof that the model is translation invariant and satisfies the corresponding additional assumptions stated in Sect. 2.1. We fix an integer i∈{1,…,m}.

First, using the upper bound |fv|≤1 and the estimate (2.6) of Theorem 1, we obtain, for any integer L≥3,7.33 Esupτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ-Einfτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ≤Esupτ1,τ2∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0TvσΛL1-f0TvσΛL2≤ClnlnL4.

In the translation-invariant setup, we may combine the inequalities stated in Proposition 6.1 with a subadditivity argument to obtain the following convergences7.34 Esupτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ⟶L→∞infL∈NEsupτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ,Einfτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ⟶L→∞supL∈NEinfτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ.

Using the inequality (7.33), we see that the two limits in the right-hand sides of (7.34) are equal. In particular, we may defineαi:=infL∈NE1ΛLsupτ∈SZ2\ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ=supL∈NEinfτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ.

Additionally, we see that, for any integer L∈N,7.35 Einfτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ≤αi≤Esupτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ.

A combination of (7.33) and (7.34) thus yieldsEsupτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ-αi≤ClnlnL4,Einfτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ-αi≤ClnlnL4.

Consequently, using the inequalities stated in Proposition 6.1 together with the same concentration argument as the one developed in the proof of (2.6) of Theorem 1, we obtain the inequalities7.36 Psupτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ-αi≥ClnlnL4≤exp-cL,Pinfτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ-αi≤-ClnlnL4≤exp-cL.

We then note that the following inclusion of events holds7.37 supτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ-αi≥ClnlnL4⊆supτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ-αi≥ClnlnL4⋃infτ∈SZ2\ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ-αi≤-ClnlnL4.

A combination of (7.36), (7.37) and a union bound then yield7.38 Psupτ∈SZ2\ΛLαi-1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLf0,iTvσΛLτ>ClnlnL4≤exp-cL.

Since the inequality (7.38) is valid for any integer i∈{1,…,m}, we obtain the inequality (2.7) of Theorem 1 with the value α:=α1,…,αm. □

Proof of theorem 2

The objective of this section is to generalize Theorem 1. We prove that for any L≥3, any box Λ⊆Zd of side length L, and any deterministic weight function w:Λ→[-1,1]m, the quantityFlucw,Λ(η):=supτ1,τ2∈SZ2\Λ1|Λ|∑v∈Λw(v)·fvσΛ1-fvσΛ2

is smaller than lnlnL8 with high probability. Let us note that the quantity Flucw,Λ(η) depends only on the realization of the field η inside the box Λ, satisfies the same domain subadditivity property as the one stated in Proposition 6.1, and that, by the assumption w(v)≤2m/2 (which follows from w(v)∈[-1,1]m), one has the bound 0≤Flucw,Λ(η)≤2m/2+1 for any realization of the random field η.

The argument is similar to the one developed in the proof of Theorem 1, the main difference is that we rely on the identity (6.7) to obtain information on the observable Flucw,ΛL(η) instead of (6.6). The fact that the map w can take small values must be taken into account in the argument and causes a slight deterioration of the rate of convergence: we obtain the quantitative rate lnlnL8 instead of the rate lnlnL4 obtained in Theorem 1.

Proof of Theorem 2

The strategy of the argument is similar to the proof of Theorem 1. We only present a detailed sketch of the argument pointing out the main differences with the proof of Theorem 1. The first step is to prove the estimate: for any box Λ⊆ΛL of side length larger than L such that ∑v∈Λw(v)2≥Λ/lnlnL and any δ>,7.39 PFlucw,Λ(η)<δ≥exp-ClnlnLδ4.

The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma 7.5; the main differences are that we need to decompose the random field η according to the formula, for each i∈{1,…,m}, η:=η^w,Λ,i,η^w,Λ,jj≠i,η^w,Λ⊥ (following the notation introduced in Sect. 6.2), use the identity (6.7) (instead of (6.6)), and use Corollary 7.4 with the variance σ2:=1/∑v∈Λwi(v)2 instead of σ2=1/Λ.

The second step of the argument corresponds to Sect. 7.3. We combine the inequality (7.39) with a Mandelbrot percolation argument and prove the estimate7.40 PFlucw,ΛL(η)<ClnlnL8≥1-exp-clnL.

To this end, we set δ:=(C0/lnlnL8)∧2m/2+1, for some large constant C0≥8, and define the following notion of good box: a box Λ⊆ΛL is said to be good if and only if7.41 Flucw,Λ(η)≤δor1Λ∑v∈Λ|w(v)|2≤14lnlnL.

Let us note that, for any box Λ⊆ΛL, the assumption f(σ)≤1 and the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality yieldFlucw,Λ(η)≤1Λ∑v∈Λ|w(v)|212supτ1,τ2∈SZ2\Λ1|Λ|∑v∈ΛfvσΛ1-fvσΛ2212≤21Λ∑v∈Λ|w(v)|2≤1lnlnL4.

Using that Flucw,Λ(η)≤2m/2+1, we obtain thatFlucw,Λ(η)≤1lnlnL4∧2m/2+1≤δ.

This implies that, if a box Λ is good, then Flucw,Λ(η)≤δ (as both options in (7.41) lead to this inequality).

Following the argument presented in the proof of Lemma 7.7, we may construct a collection Q of good boxes such that the set of uncovered points is small. The only difference is that we need to select the integer k so as to satisfy the (more restrictive) properties:lmax≥1and∀v∈ΛL,∀l∈{0,…,lmax-1},Λl+1(v)≤C08lnlnL∧1Λl(v).

Proceeding this way, we obtain the inequality7.42 Pvisuncovered≤exp-clnL.

We now use the estimate (7.42) to prove the inequality (7.40). Using the domain subadditivity property for the quantity Flucw,Λ and the upper bound Flucw,Λ≤2, we have7.43 Flucw,ΛL(η)≤∑Λ∈QΛΛLFlucw,Λ(η)+2ΛL\⋃Λ∈QΛ|ΛL|≤δ+2ΛL\⋃Λ∈QΛ|ΛL|.

We then estimate the second term in the right side of (7.43) by combining Markov’s inequality with the estimate (7.42) as was done in the computation (7.30). The concentration argument is essentially identical to the one presented in the proof of Theorem 1, we thus omit the details. □

We conclude this section by recording a stronger version of Theorem 2 where the weight are allowed to be (partially) random. The result is used in the proof of Theorem 3. Before stating the result, we introduce the following definition. We fix ε∈(0,1) and, for v∈Z2, let ηvε,ηv1-ε be m-dimensional Gaussian random vectors of mean zero and covariance matrix εIm and (1-ε)Im, respectively. We assume that the Gaussian vectors are independent, and set η:=ηε+η1-ε. In this setup, η satisfies the assumptions required by the random disorder. We also let F1-ε be a σ-algebra such that η1-ε is F1-ε-measurable and ηε is F1-ε-independent. Finally, we define the event7.44 W1-ε,L,R=∑v∈(x+ΛL0)\(x+Λ(L0-R))|ηv1-ε|≤16RL0:∀x∈Z2,L0∈[L,L]suchthatx+ΛL0⊆ΛL.

This events allows to control the L1-norm of the field η1-ε in the boundary layer of every cube Λ whose sidelength is at least L and is contained in the cube ΛL. Whenever η1-ε∈W1-ε,L,R, the maximal contribution of this part of the field to the Hamiltonian restricted to a box of size L0 cannot exceed a constant multiple of L0, mimicking the boundary dependence of the deterministic portion of the Hamiltonian.

We additionally note that, since the number of boxes contained in the box ΛL with side length larger than L grows as a power of L, a union bound combined with a large deviation estimate implies the following lower bound on the probability of the event W1-ε,L,R7.45 PW1-ε,L,R≥1-Cexp(-cL).

The next proposition extends the result of Theorem 2 by allowing the weight function to be partially random.

Proposition 7.8

Fix d=2, β>0, λ>0 and L≥3. Fix ε∈(0,1) and consider the two random disorders η1-ε and ηε as defined above. There exist constants C,c>0 depending only on λ, CH, m and R such that, for any integer L≥3, any realization η1-ε in W1-ε,L,R, and any F1-ε-measurable weight function w:ΛL→[-1,1]m,Psupτ1,τ2∈SZ2\ΛL1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLw(v)·fvσΛL1-fvσΛL2≤CεlnlnL8|F1-ε≥1-exp-cL.

Proof

Fix a finite set Λ⊆Zd. Using the decomposition η:=η1-ε+ηε, we may write the disordered Hamiltonian HΛη as followsHΛη(σ)=HΛ(σ)-λ∑v∈Λη1-ε·fv(σ)-λ∑v∈Ληε·fv(σ).

For any realization of the random field η1-ε, let us define the Hamiltonian H~Λ(σ)=HΛ(σ)-λ∑v∈Λη1-ε·fv(σ). Setting η~=ηε/ε, we thus have7.46 HΛη(σ)=H~Λ(σ)-λ∑v∈Λη~v·(εfv(σ)).

Fix a sidelength L≥3. The definition of the event W1-ε,L,R ensures that the following property holds: for each η1-ε∈W1-ε,L,R and each box Λ′⊆ΛL of sidelength at least L, we have that7.47 |H~Λ′(σ)-H~Λ′(σ′)|≤CH+λ16R|∂Λ′|,forσ,σ′:Z2↦SsatisfyingσΛ′=σ′′.

The representation (7.46) is the sum of a F1-ε-measurable Hamiltonian and a F1-ε-independent Gaussian random vector of mean zero and covariance matrix Im. For any fixed realization η1-ε∈W1-ε,L,R, the Hamiltonian H~ satisfies all the assumptions listed in Sect. 2 except one: the bound (2.2) does not hold for all finite subsets Λ⊆Zd, but, by the inequality (7.47), only holds when the subset Λ is a box of sidelength at least L and contained in ΛL. An inspection of the proof of Theorem 1 (in particular, the arguments developed in Sect. 7.3) shows that this property is sufficient for the conclusion of Theorem 1 to hold. A similar argument shows that Theorem 2 holds under the assumption (7.47). We thus conclude that, for any η1-ε∈W1-ε,L,R,Psupτ1,τ2∈SZ2\ΛL1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLw(v)·εfvσΛL1-εfvσΛL2≤ClnlnL8|F1-ε≥1-exp-cL.

Dividing through by ε in the probability completes the proof. □

Proof of corollary 2.2

As a corollary of Theorem 2, we show that the absolute value of the expectation (with respect to the random field) of the thermal expectations fvσΛL0 and fvσΛL1 is quantitatively small for any pair of random boundary conditions η↦τ0(η),τ1(η).

Proof of Corollary 2.2

We select a pair of random (measurable) boundary conditions η↦τ0η,τ1η∈SZ2\ΛL, and define the deterministic weight function w according to the formula7.48 ∀v∈ΛL,∀i∈{1,…,m},wi(v):=signEfv,iσΛLτ0η-fv,iσΛLτ1η,

where sign(x)=1 for x≥0 and -1 otherwise. Applying Theorem 2 yields7.49 E1ΛL∑v∈ΛLw(v)·fvσΛLτ0(η)-fvσΛLτ1(η)≤EFlucw,ΛL(η)≤ClnlnL8.

We can then estimate the left-hand side of (7.49). We obtainE1ΛL∑v∈ΛLw(v)·fvσΛLτ0(η)-fvσΛLτ1(η)=1ΛL∑v∈ΛLw(v)·EfvσΛLτ0(η)-fvσΛLτ1(η)s≥1ΛL∑v∈ΛLEfvσΛLτ0(η)-fvσΛLτ1(η).

A combination of the two previous displays completes the proof of Corollary 2.2. □

Proof of theorem 3

This section contains the proof of Theorem 3. The argument relies on an application of Proposition 7.8 combined with Levy’s zero–one law.

Proof of Theorem 3

For every v∈Zd and k≥1, let Gv,k be m-dimensional Gaussian random vectors of mean zero and covariance matrix 2-kIm. The random vectors are assumed to be independent. The fields η and η(ℓ) are defined byηv=∑k=1∞Gv,k,andηv(ℓ)=∑k=1ℓGv,k.

We note that the covariance matrix of η is Im, that η-η(ℓ) is a normal random vector of mean zero and covariance matrix 2-ℓIm which is independent of η(ℓ), and that η is measurable with respect to the σ-algebra generated by {η(ℓ)}ℓ≥1. For ℓ∈N∪{∞}, we denote by Fℓ the σ-algebra generated by the collection of random variables (η(k))k≤ℓ.

Let μ1 and μ2 be two translation-covariant Gibbs measures, and define the weight function wη(ℓ):Zd→Rm according to the formula7.50 ∀v∈Zd,∀i∈{1,…,m},wη(ℓ),i(v)=signEfv,iσμ1η-fv,iσμ2η|Fℓ,

where sign(x)=1 for x≥0 and -1 otherwise.

Since we assume that μ1 and μ2 are translation-covariant, it is straightforward to see that wη(ℓ) is also translation-covariant — that is,7.51 Tvwη(ℓ)=wTvη(ℓ).

For notational convenience, we introduce the eventEℓ:=supτ1,τ2∈SZ2\ΛL1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLwη(ℓ)(v)·fvσΛL1-fvσΛL2≤C2-ℓ2lnlnL8.

Applying Proposition 7.8 with the value ε:=2-ℓ, recalling the definition of the event  (7.44) and the lower bound (7.45), we deduce that7.52 P(Eℓ)=E[P(Eℓ∣Fℓ)]≥E[1W1-ε,L,RP(Eℓ∣Fℓ)]≥P(W1-ε,L,R)(1-exp-cL)≥1-Cexp-cL.

Using that the weight function wη(ℓ) and the observable fv are bounded by 1, we obtain the upper bound7.53 Esupτ1,τ2∈SZ2\ΛL1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLwη(ℓ)(v)·fvσΛL1-fvσΛL2≤C2-ℓ/2lnlnL8PEℓ+C(1-PEℓ)≤C2-ℓ/2lnlnL8+Cexp(-cL)≤C2-ℓ/2lnlnL8.

The consistency relations (2.15) for the infinite-volume Gibbs measures imply, for any sidelength L≥3 and any realization of the random field,7.54 1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLwη(ℓ)(v)·fvσμ1η-fvσμ2η≤supτ1,τ2∈SZ2\ΛL1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLwη(ℓ)(v)·fvσΛL1-fvσΛL2,

and therefore7.55 E1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLwη(ℓ)(v)·fvσμ1η-fvσμ2η≤C2-ℓ/2lnlnL8.

By the translation-covariance of wη(ℓ) and of the measures μ1 and μ2, we see that, P-almost-surely,wη(ℓ)(v)·fvσμ1η-fvσμ2η=wT-vη(ℓ)(0)·f0σμ1T-vη-f0σμ2T-vη.

Since the field η is made up of i.i.d. random variables, the expectation of the righthand side over η is independent of v. Therefore, for any L≥3,7.56 Ewη(ℓ)(0)·f0σμ1η-f0σμ2η=E1|ΛL|∑v∈ΛLwη(ℓ)(v)·fvσμ1η-fvσμ2η≤C2-ℓ/2lnlnL8.

Taking the limit as L goes to infinity, we deduce that, for any ℓ≥1,Ewη(ℓ)(0)·f0σμ1η-f0σμ2η=0.

Since η is measurable with respect to the σ-algebra F∞, Levy’s zero–one law implies that, almost surely on the set {f0,iσμ1η-f0,iσμ2η≠0} (so that the sign function is continuous),limℓ→∞signEf0,iσμ1η-f0,iσμ2η|Fℓ=signEf0,iσμ1η-f0,iσμ2η|F∞=signf0,iσμ1η-f0,iσμ2η,

as the thermal expectations of the noised observables f0,i are η-measurable. Since both w and f0 are bounded by 1, the dominated convergence theorem implies that7.57 Ef0σμ1η-f0σμ2η=limℓ→∞Ewη(ℓ)(0)·f0σμ1η-f0σμ2η=0.

This implies that the thermal expectation of the noised observable f0(σ) is the same for any pair of translation-covariant infinite-volume Gibbs measures, and thus completes the proof. □

Proofs for Spin Systems with Continuous Symmetry

In this section, we study the spin systems with continuous symmetry presented in Sect. 3 and prove Theorem 4 and Theorem 5. The section is organized as follows:In Sect. 8.1, we establish two variational lemmas on the set of bounded functions whose integral on any interval of the real line R is bounded.

In Sect. 8.2, we implement a Mermin-Wagner type argument to prove an upper bound on the free energy (see Proposition 8.4).

Sect. 8.3 is devoted to the proof of Theorem 4 in the subcritical dimensions d=1,2,3. In Subsection 8.3.1, we combine the Mermin-Wagner upper bound obtained in Proposition 8.4 with Proposition 8.1 to prove the algebraic decay of the thermally and spatially averaged magnetization with fixed boundary condition stated in (3.4). In Subsection 8.3.1, we build upon the results of Subsection 8.3.1 and prove the inequality (3.5), thus completing the proof of Theorem 4.

Sect. 8.4 is devoted to the proof of Theorem 5 following the outline of Sect. 5 and is divided into three subsections. In Subsection 8.6, we combine the Mermin-Wagner upper bound of Proposition 8.4 and Proposition 8.2 and establish that, given a box Λ⊆ΛL, if the averaged field η^Λ,i is negative enough, then the thermally and spatially averaged magnetization must be small (see Lemma 8.6). In Subsection 8.3.1, we combine the result of Proposition 8.1 with a Mandelbrot percolation argument and obtain the quantitative estimate stated in Lemma 8.7 on the expectation of the spatially and thermally averaged magnetization with a fixed boundary condition. Finally in Subsection 8.4.3, we upgrade the result of Lemma 8.7 to include a supremum over all the possible boundary conditions, and complete the proof of Theorem 5.

Variational lemmas

In this section, we state and prove two variational lemmas on the set of measurable bounded functions defined on R and whose integral on every interval is bounded in absolute value by 1, i.e.,8.1 G:={g:R→R:gismeasurable,boundedand,foranyrealintervalI⊆R,∫Ig(t)dt≤1}.

The first result we asserts that the Gaussian expectation of any map g∈G is bounded by an explicit constant.

Proposition 8.1

One has the inequality8.2 supg∈G∫Rg(t)e-t22dt≤2∫0∞te-t22dt.

Proof

We fix a function g∈G, and let G(t):=∫0tg(s)ds. By the definition of the set G, the map G satisfies G(t)≤1 for any t∈R, the identity G(0)=0, and is Lipschitz continuous. By performing an integration by parts, we obtain∫Rg(t)e-t22dt=∫RG(t)te-t22dt≤∫R|t|e-t22dt=2∫0∞te-t22dt.

□

The next proposition provides a lower bound on the Gaussian measure of the set g≤δ, for any map g∈G satisfying g≥-1, and any δ>0.

Proposition 8.2

There exists a constant C>0 such that, for any δ∈(0,1],8.3 infg∈Gg≥-1∫R1g(t)≤δe-t2/2dt≥e-C/δ2.

Proof

We select a function g∈G and let G0,G:R→R be the maps defined by the formulas∀t∈R,G0(t):=∫0t1g(s)≤δdsandG(t):=∫-tt1g(s)≤δds.

Note that the functions G0 and G are increasing, 1 and 2-Lipschitz continuous respectively, and satisfy the identity G(t)=G0(t)-G0(-t). By performing an integration by parts and a change of variable, we see that8.4 ∫R1g(t)≤δe-t22dt=∫RG0(t)te-t22dt=∫0∞G0(t)-G0(-t)te-t22dt=∫0∞G(t)te-t22dt.

We next claim that the map G satisfies the lower bound8.5 ∀t≥0,Gt≥max0,2δt-11+δ.

To prove (8.5), we use the assumption g≥-1 and writeg≥δ1{g>δ}-1{g≤δ}≥δ1-1{g≤δ}-1{g≤δ}≥δ-(1+δ)1{g≤δ}.

Integrating this inequality over the interval [-t,t] and using the properties on the function g, we obtain8.6 1≥2δt-(1+δ)G(t)⟺G(t)≥2δt-11+δ.

We conclude the proof of (8.5) by using that G is non-negative. A combination of (8.4) and (8.5) implies the inequality8.7 infg∈Gg≥-1∫R1g(t)≤δe-t22dt≥∫12δ∞2δt-11+δte-t22dt≥e-C/δ2.

□

A mermin–wagner upper bound for the free energy

In this section, we obtain an upper bound on the free energy of a spin system equipped with a continuous symmetry by implementing a Mermin-Wagner type argument. We recall that the spin space is assumed to be the sphere Sn-1, for some n≥2, as well as the notation for conditional expectations and probabilities introduced in Sect. 6.3 (as they will be used frequently in the proofs below). Before stating the result, we introduce the following definition.

Definition 8.3

(Free energy). Let Λ0,Λ be two boxes of Zd such that Λ⊆Λ0. For any field η:Λ0→R, we denote by8.8 η~Λ0,Λ,v:=ηvifv∈Λ0\Λ,-ηvifv∈Λ.

We define the free energy, for any η:Λ0→R,FE~Λ0,Λτ,h(η):=FEΛ0τ,hη~Λ0,Λ.

The main result of this section is an upper bound on the difference of the free energies FEΛ0τ,h and FE~Λ0,Λτ,h conditionally on the values of the field in the box Λ and outside the box 2Λ.

Proposition 8.4

(Mermin-Wagner upper bound for the energy). Let n≥2, d∈{1,2,3,4} and i∈{1,…,n}. Let β>0 be the inverse temperature, λ>0 be the disorder strength and h∈Rn be the deterministic external field. Fix a box Λ0⊆Zd of side length L, and let τ∈S∂Λ0 be a boundary condition. For any box Λ of side length ℓ such that 2Λ⊆Λ0, we have the estimate8.9 EFE~Λ0,Λτ,h-FEΛ0τ,h|ηΛ0\2Λ∪Λ,i≤Cℓd-2Ld+CℓdLdhP-almost-surely,

Proof

Let us fix two boxes Λ0,Λ satisfying 2Λ⊆Λ0, of side lengths L and ℓ respectively, and a boundary condition τ∈S∂Λ0. We recall the notations e1,…,en for the canonical basis of Rn and Λ0+:=Λ0∪∂Λ0. All the configurations σ∈SΛ0+ in this proof are implicitly assumed to satisfy σ∂Λ0=τ.

Let us consider a smooth map r:R→O(n), where O(n) denotes the orthogonal group of Rn, satisfying r0=r2π=In, for any pair θ1,θ2∈R, rθ1∘rθ2=rθ1+θ2, and such that rπ(ei)=-ei. For each vertex v∈Zd, we denote by8.10 θv:=0ifv∈Zd\2Λ,π2distv,∂2Λℓ∧1ifv∈2Λ.

This definition implies that, for any v∈Λ, θv=π. We then define two rotations R,R~ on the space of configurations by the formulas, for any σ∈SΛ0+ and any vertex v∈Zd,Rσv=rθvσvandR~σv=r-θvσv.

We extend the domain of the rotations R,R~ to the set of fields, and write, for any realization of the random field η and any vertex v∈Λ0,Rηv=rθvηvandR~ηv=r-θvηv.

For any realization of the field η and any configuration σ∈SΛ0+, we have the identities8.11 ∑v∈Λ0(Rη)v·(Rσ)v=∑v∈Λ0ηv·σvand∑v∈Λ0(R~η)v·(R~σ)v=∑v∈Λ0ηv·σv.

Additionally, since the two rotations R and R~ are equal to the identity outside the box 2Λ, we have8.12 ∑v∈Λ0h·(Rσ)v-∑v∈Λ0h·σv+∑v∈Λ0h·(R~σ)v-∑v∈Λ0h·σv≤Cℓd|h|.

We next prove the inequality, for any configuration σ∈SΛ0+,8.13 ∑v,w∈Λ0+v∼wΨrθvσv,rθwσw+∑v,w∈Λ0+v∼wΨr-θvσv,r-θwσw≤2∑v,w∈Λ0+v∼wΨσv,σw+Cℓd-2,

for some constant C depending only on the map Ψ and the rotation r. To prove the inequality (8.13), we first use that the map Ψ is invariant under the rotations rθv and r-θv, and the properties of the map r. We obtain8.14 ∑v,w∈Λ0+v∼wΨrθvσv,rθwσw+∑v,w∈Λ0+v∼wΨr-θvσv,r-θwσw=∑v,w∈Λ0+v∼wΨσv,rθw-θvσw+∑v,w∈Λ0+v∼wΨσv,rθv-θwσw.

Using that the map Ψ is assumed to be twice continuously differentiable and bounded, that the map r is smooth and that the state space Sn-1 is compact, we can perform a Taylor expansion and obtain that there exists a constant C, depending on the maps Ψ and r such that, for each θ∈R, and each pair of spins σ1,σ2∈Sn-1,8.15 Ψσ1,rθσ2+Ψσ1,r-θσ2-2Ψσ1,σ2≤Cθ2.

Applying the inequality (8.15) with the values θ=θv-θw, σ1=σv, σ2=σw, and summing over all the pairs of neighboring vertices v, w in Λ0+ yields8.16 ∑v,w∈Λ0+v∼wΨσv,rθw-θvσw+∑v,w∈Λ0+v∼wΨσv,rθv-θwσw≤2∑v,w∈Λ0+v∼wΨσv,σw+C∑v,w∈Λ0+v∼wθv-θw2.

By the definition of the map θ stated in (8.10), we have, for any pair of neighboring vertices v,w∈Λ0+,8.17 θv-θw=0ifv,w∈Λ∪Λ0\2Λ,θv-θw≤Cℓif{v,w}∩2Λ\Λ≠∅.

Combining the estimates (8.16), (8.17), and using that the volume of the annulus 2Λ\Λ is of order ℓd, we obtain8.18 ∑v,w∈Λ0+v∼wΨσv,rθw-θvσw+∑v,w∈Λ0+v∼wΨσv,rθv-θwσw≤2∑v,w∈Λ0+v∼wΨσv,σw+Cℓd-2.

Combining the identity (8.14) and the inequality (8.18) completes the proof of (8.13). Combining the estimates (8.11), (8.12) and (8.13) with the definition of the noised Hamiltonian (3.2), we have obtained the inequality: for any realization of the random field η and any configuration σ∈SΛ0+,8.19 H0Rη,hRσ+H0R~η,hR~σ≤2H0η,hσ+Cℓd-2+Cℓd|h|.

We now use the inequality (8.19) to prove the estimate (8.9). By the rotational invariance of the measure κ and the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we obtain, for any realization of the field η,FEΛ0τ,hRη+FEΛ0τ,hR~η=-1βΛ0ln∫SΛ0exp-βH0Rη,h(σ)∏v∈Λ0κdσv∫SΛ0exp-βH0R~η,h(σ)∏v∈Λ0κdσv=-1βΛ0ln∫SΛ0exp-βH0Rη,h(Rσ)∏v∈Λ0κdσv∫SΛ0exp-βH0R~η,h(R~σ)∏v∈Λ0κdσv≤-2βΛ0ln∫SΛ0exp-βH0Rη,h(Rσ)+H0R~η,h(R~σ)2∏v∈Λ0κdσv.

We then use the estimate (8.19) and obtain8.20 FEΛ0τ,hRη+FEΛ0τ,hR~η2≤-1βΛ0ln∫SΛ0exp-βH0η,h(σ)-βCℓd-2-βCℓd|h|∏v∈Λ0κdσ≤FEΛ0τ,hη+Cℓd-2Ld+CℓdLd|h|.

Moreover, by the definition of the rotations R and R~, we have Rη=R~η in the box Λ, (Rη)i=(R~η)i=-ηi along the i-th component of the field inside the box Λ, and Rη=R~η=η inside the annulus Λ0\2Λ. Using the rotational invariance of the law of the field η, we obtain the identities8.21 EFEΛ0τ,hR·|ηΛ0\2Λ∪Λ,i=EFEΛ0τ,hR~·|ηΛ0\2Λ∪Λ,i=EFE~Λ0,Λτ,h|ηΛ0\2Λ∪Λ,i.

Taking the conditional expectation with respect to the field ηΛ0\2Λ∪Λ,i in the inequality (8.20) and using the identity (8.21) completes the proof of (8.9). □

Proof of theorem 4

In this section, we obtain an algebraic rate of convergence for the expectation of the spatially and thermally averaged magnetization in the subcritical dimensions d∈{1,2,3}. We prove the following more refined version of Theorem 4, which takes into account the dependence in the external magnetic field h. Theorem 4 is a direct consequence upon taking |h|≤L-2 and |h|≤L-1.

Theorem 6

Let d∈{1,2,3}, L≥2 be an integer, λ>0 and β>0 and h∈Rn be a magnetic field satisfying |h|≤1. Let τ∈S∂Λ2L be a boundary condition (which may be the free or periodic boundary condition) and set ℓ:=|h|-12∧L. There exists a constant C>0 depending on λ, n and Ψ such that,8.22 E1Λℓ∑v∈Λℓσv2Lτ,h≤Cℓd2-2.

Additionally, for any magnetic field h∈Rn,8.23 Esupτ∈S∂ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσvLτ,h≤C|h|∨L-14-d2(8-d),

where the free and periodic boundary conditions are included in the supremum.

The proof of Theorem 6 is decomposed into two subsections: in Subsection 8.3.1, we establish the inequality (8.22), and in Subsection 8.3.2, we prove the upper bound (8.23).

Algebraic decay of the magnetization with fixed boundary condition

In this section, we combine Proposition 8.4 with Proposition 8.1 to obtain the algebraic decay of the magnetization with a fixed boundary condition stated in (8.22).

Proof of Theorem 6: estimate (8.22)

Let us fix an integer L≥2, a boundary condition τ∈S∂Λ2L, an external magnetic field h∈Rn such that |h|≤1 and an integer i∈{1,…,n}. We introduce the notation ℓ:=|h|-12∧L. Applying Proposition 8.4 with Λ0=Λ2L and Λ=Λℓ, we have the inequality8.24 EFE~Λ2L,Λℓτ,h-FEΛ2Lτ,h|η^Λℓ,i≤Cℓd-2LdP-almost-surely.

Let us note that the conditional expectation depends only on the realization of the averaged field η^Λ; it can thus be seen as a function defined on R and valued in R (see Sect. 6.3). By the definition of the free energy FE~Λ2L,Λℓτ,h and the η→-η invariance of the law of the random field, we have the identity8.25 EFE~Λ2L,Λℓτ,h|η^Λℓ,iη^Λℓ,i=EFEΛ2Lτ,h|η^Λℓ,i-η^Λℓ,i.

To ease the notation, let us define the map G:R→R by the formulaG(η^Λℓ,i):=EFEΛ2Lτ,h|η^Λℓ,i-η^Λℓ,i-EFEΛ2Lτ,h|η^Λℓ,iη^Λℓ,i.

We note that, by Proposition 6.3 and the Gaussianity of the field, the derivative of the map G is explicit and we have8.26 G′(η^Λℓ,i)=λE1Λ2L∑v∈Λℓσv,i2Lτ,h|η^Λℓ,i-η^Λℓ,i+λE1Λ2L∑v∈Λℓσv,i2Lτ,h|η^Λℓ,iη^Λℓ,i.

The strategy is to apply Proposition 8.1 with the map g:R→R defined by the formula8.27 g(η^Λℓ,i):=Ld2Cℓd-2Λℓ1/2G′η^Λℓ,iΛℓ1/2,

where C is the constant appearing in the right side of (8.24). Let us first verify that the map g belongs to the set G introduced in (8.1). We fix an interval I=[t0,t1]⊆R. By the inequality (8.24), we have∫Ig(t)dt=Ld2Cℓd-2Gt1Λℓ1/2-Gt0Λℓ1/2≤1.

Consequently, the map g belongs to the set G. We can thus apply Proposition 8.1 and obtain8.28 ∫Rg(t)e-t22dt≤C,

for some constant C>0. Using the definition of g stated in (8.27) and performing the change of variable t→Λℓ12t, we obtain the inequality∫RG′(t)e-Λℓt22dt≤Cℓd-2Ld.

Using that the random variable η^Λℓ,i is Gaussian of variance Λℓ-1 and the identity (8.26), we obtain the equalityΛℓ2π∫RG′(t)e-Λℓt22dt=2λE1Λ2L∑v∈Λℓσv,i2Lτ,h.

Combining the two previous displays shows8.29 E1Λℓ∑v∈Λℓσv,i2Lτ,h≤Cℓd2-2.

Since the inequality (8.29) holds for any i∈{1,…,n}, it implies the inequality (8.22). □

Algebraic Decay of the Magnetization Uniform Over the Boundary Conditions

In this section, we use the results established in Subsection 8.3.1 to obtain an algebraic decay for the magnetization which holds uniformly over the boundary condition.

Proof of Theorem 6: estimate (8.23)

Fix a side length L≥2. We consider the system with periodic boundary condition and note that, for any vertex v∈ΛL and any h∈Rn,8.30 EσvLper,h=Eσ0Lper,h.

Let us now fix h∈Rn such that h≤1 and set ℓ:=|h|-12∧L2. Applying (8.22) with the boxes ΛL and Λℓ, and using (8.30), we obtainEσ0Lper,h=E1Λℓ∑v∈ΛℓσvLper,h≤Cℓd2-2≤C(|h|∨L-2)1-d4.

Using the identity (6.10), we obtain, for any h∈Rn such that |h|≤1,8.31 EFELper,h(η)-FELper,0(η)≤∑i=1n∫01E1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLper,th|hi|dt≤∑i=1n∫01Eσ0,iLper,th|hi|dt≤Chh∨L-21-d4≤Ch∨L-22-d4,

where we used h≤h∨L-2 in the last inequality. Let us then fix an integer i∈{1,…,n}. For each realization of the random field η and each h∈Rn, we let τi(η,h)∈S∂ΛL be a boundary condition satisfying8.32 1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτi(η,h),h=supτ∈S∂ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτ,h.

Note that, by the inequality (6.8) of Proposition 6.3 (with R=0), we have, for any h,h′∈Rn,8.33 EFELτi(η,h),h′(η)-EFELper,h′(η)≤CL.

A combination of the inequalities (8.31) and (8.33) yields, for any h,h′∈Rn satisfying |h′|≤1,8.34 EFELτi(η,h),h′(η)-EFELτi(η,h),0(η)≤Ch′∨L-22-d4+CL.

Let us fix h=(h1,…,hn)∈Rn such that h≤1, set α:=2/(8-d) and denote byh~:=h1,…,hi-1,hi+|h|∨L-2α,hi+1,…,hn.

We note that we have |h~|≤2h∨L-2α≤2. We next introduce the functionG:h′↦-EFELτi(η,h),h′(η).

Observe that the map G is convex and that its derivative with respect to the i-th variable satisfies∂G∂hi′(h′)=E1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτi(η,h),h′,

and that, by (8.34) and the inequalities h~≤2h∨L-2α and L≥|h|∨L-2-1/2,G(h~)-G(h)≤Ch~∨L-22-d4+Ch∨L-22-d4+CL≤Ch∨L-2α2-d4+Ch∨L-212.

Combining the previous observations with (8.32) and (8.34) and using the value α=2/(8-d), we obtain8.35 Esupτ∈S∂ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτ,h=E1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτi(η,h),h=∂G∂hi′(h)≤G(h~)-G(h)|h|∨L-2α≤Ch∨L-24-d2(8-d).

We next upgrade (8.35) by obtaining stronger concentration properties. To this end, we implement an argument similar to the one presented in Sect. 7.4 and partition the box ΛL into Λ~1,…,Λ~N boxes of sidelength L, with N≃Ld/2. Using the Hoeffding concentration inequality and the inequality (8.35) for boxes of side length L, we have the upper boundP1N∑k=1Nsupτ∈S∂Λ~k1Λ~k∑v∈Λ~kσv,ikτ,h≥Ch∨L-14-d2(8-d)+L-4-d2(8-d)≤exp-cLd2-4-d(8-d).

Using that the exponent d/2-(4-d)/(8-d) is always strictly positive and the inequalitysupτ∈S∂ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτ,h≤1N∑k=1Nsupτ∈S∂Λ~k1Λ~k∑v∈Λ~kσv,ikτ,h,

we obtain the (weaker) bound8.36 Psupτ∈S∂ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτ,h≥Ch∨L-14-d2(8-d)≤Ch∨L-14-d2(8-d).

To complete the argument, let us consider the random boundary condition τi,-(η,h) defined so as to satisfy8.37 1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτi,-(η,h),h=infτ∈S∂ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτ,h,

and define τ~i,-(η,h):=-τi,-(-η,h). Using a similar computation as the one performed in (8.35), we obtain8.38 E1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτ~i,-(η,h),-h≤Ch∨L-24-d2(8-d).

Combining (8.37), (8.38) with the identity (6.11) yields8.39 Einfτ∈S∂ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτ,h=-E1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτ~i(η,h),-h≥-Ch∨L-24-d2(8-d).

Using the same partition of the box ΛL as for the supremum above, we obtain the concentration inequality8.40 Pinfτ∈S∂ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτ,h≤-Ch∨L-14-d2(8-d)≤Ch∨L-14-d2(8-d).

Combining (8.36) and (8.40) implies8.41 Esupτ∈S∂ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτ,h≤Ch∨L-14-d2(8-d).

Using that the inequality (8.41) holds for any integer i∈{1,…,n} completes the proof of the estimate (8.23). □

Proof of theorem 5

The objective of this section is to prove Theorem 5 following the outline presented at the beginning of Sect. 8.

A lower bound on the conditional expectation of the spatially-averaged magnetization

In the first step of the proof, we show that, if the averaged value of the field η in a box Λ is negative enough, then the thermally and spatially averaged magnetization of the continuous spin system with periodic boundary conditions in the box Λ must be small. The argument relies on a combination of the variational lemma stated in Proposition 8.2 and of the Mermin-Wagner upper bound for the free energy (Proposition 8.4). Before stating the result, we introduce a notation for the quantile of the normal distribution which will be used in the statement and proof of Lemma 8.6.

Definition 8.5

(Quantile of the normal distribution). For each δ>0, we define the exp-1δ2-quantile of the normal distribution by the formula8.42 tδ:=mint∈R:12π∫t∞e-s22ds≤1-exp-1δ2,

Let us note that there exist two constants c,C∈(0,∞) such that for any δ∈(0,1/2],-Cδ-1≤tδ≤-cδ-1.

Lemma 8.6

Let d=4. Fix β>0, λ>0 and i∈{1,…,n} and a box Λ0⊆Zd. Let τ∈S∂Λ0 be a boundary condition (which may be the free or periodic boundary conditions). For any box Λ of side length ℓ such that 2Λ⊆Λ0, any δ>0, h∈Rn satisfying h≤1/ℓ2, we have the estimateE1Λ∑v∈Λσv,i0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i≤Cδontheeventη^Λ,i≤ℓ-2tδ.

Proof

We denote by L the side length of the box Λ0. By Proposition 8.4 and using the assumption h≤1/ℓ2, we have the inequality8.43 EFE~Λ0,Λτ,h-FEΛ0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i≤Cℓ2L4P-almostsurely.

As in (8.25), we have the identityEFE~Λ0,Λτ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i(η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i)=EFEΛ0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i(-η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i).

We first claim that there exists a constant C>0 such that, for every δ>0,8.44 PE1Λ∑v∈Λσv,i0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i≤Cδ|ηΛ0\2Λ,i≥exp-1δ2P-almostsurely.

To prove the inequality (8.44), we introduce the following mapGΛ:(η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i)↦EFEΛ0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i(-η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i)-EFEΛ0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i(η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i).

Let us note that the map GΛ satisfies the identity8.45 ∂GΛ∂η^Λ,i(η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i)=λE1Λ0∑v∈Λσv,i0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i(η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i)+λE1Λ0∑v∈Λσv,i0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i(-η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i).

We next show the following inequality: for every δ>0,8.46 P∂GΛ∂η^Λ,i≤Cℓ4L4δ|ηΛ0\2Λ,i≥exp-1δ2P-almost-surely.

To prove the estimate (8.46), we fix a realization of the field ηΛ0\2Λ,i, and apply Proposition 8.2 with the choice of functiong:η^Λ,i↦L42C(1∨λ)ℓ4∂GΛ∂η^Λ,iη^Λ,iℓ2,ηΛ0\2Λ,i,

where the constant C is the one which appears in the right side of (8.43). We first verify that the map g belongs to the set G (defined in (8.1)). The result is a consequence of the following computation: by (8.43), we have, for any interval I=[t0,t1]⊆R,∫Ig(t)dt=L42C(1∨λ)ℓ2GΛt1ℓ2,ηΛ0\2Λ,i-GΛt0ℓ2,ηΛ0\2Λ,i≤1.

The fact that the map g is larger than -1 is obtained as consequence of the assumption that the spin space is the sphere Sn-1 (and thus the norm of a spin is always equal to 1).

Applying Proposition 8.2 yields, for any δ∈(0,1],∫R1g(t)≤δe-t2/2dt≥e-Cδ2.

Rescaling the previous inequality, using that the averaged field η^Λ,i is Gaussian of variance ℓ-4, and that it is independent of the field ηΛ0\2Λ,i gives the estimate (8.46). We then reformulate the inequality (8.46): using the formula (8.45) and a union bound, we obtain that there exists a constant C>0 such that, P-almost surely,8.47 PE1ℓ4∑v∈Λσv,i0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i≤Cδ|ηΛ0\2Λ,i+PE1ℓ4∑v∈Λσv,i0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i(-η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i)≤Cδ|ηΛ0\2Λ,i≥exp-1δ2.

Since the law of the random variable η^Λ,i is invariant under the involution η^Λ,i→-η^Λ,i, the two terms in the left side of (8.47) are equal. We thus obtain, for any δ>0,8.48 PE1Λ∑v∈Λσv,i0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i≤Cδ|ηΛ0\2Λ,i≥12exp-1δ2P-a.s.

Since the estimate (8.48) is valid for any δ>0, it implies the inequality (8.44) by increasing the value of the constant C if necessary. We then observe that, for each fixed realization of the field ηΛ0\2Λ,i, the mapη^Λ,i↦-EFEΛ0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i(η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i)

is convex and that its derivative is the functionη^Λ,i↦E1Λ0∑v∈Λσv,i0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i(η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i).

Since the derivative of a convex function is increasing, we obtain that the mapη^Λ,i↦E1Λ∑v∈Λσv,i0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i(η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i)

is increasing. Combining this observation with the inequality (8.44), the definition of the quantile tδ stated in (8.42), and the fact that the random variable η^Λ,i is Gaussian of variance ℓ-4, we obtain, for any δ>0,8.49 E1Λ∑v∈Λσv,i0τ,h|η^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,iη^Λ,i,ηΛ0\2Λ,i≤Cδontheeventη^Λ,i≤ℓ-2tδ.

The proof of Lemma 8.6 is complete. □

Mandelbrot percolation argument

In this section, we combine the result of Lemma 8.6 with a Mandelbrot percolation argument to obtain a quantitative rate of convergence on the expected value (with respect to the random field) of the spatially and thermally averaged magnetization with a fixed boundary condition.

Lemma 8.7

Let d=4. Fix β>0, λ>0, a box Λ0⊆Zd, an integer L≥3 such that Λ2L⊆Λ0, and an external magnetic field h∈Rn satisfying |h|≤L-2. Let τ∈S∂Λ0 be a boundary condition (which may be the free and periodic boundary conditions). There exists a constant C>0 depending only on λ, n and Ψ such that8.50 E1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv0τ,h≤ClnlnL.

Proof of Lemma 8.7

First, let us note that, by the identity (6.11), it is sufficient, in order to prove (8.50), to prove, for any integer i∈{1,…,n},8.51 E1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,i0τ,h≤ClnlnL.

Additionally, it is sufficient to prove the inequality (8.51) when L is large enough.

We now fix an integer i∈{1,…,n} and prove the inequality (8.51). To this end, we set δ=(C0/(lnlnL)12)∧(1/2) for some large constant C0 whose value is decided at the end of the proof. The strategy is to implement a Mandelbrot percolation argument in the box ΛL with the following definition of good box:

a box Λ⊆ΛL of side length ℓ is good if η^Λ,i≤ℓ-2tδ.

We let k:=2⌊explnL4⌋+1, assume that L is large enough so that k≥5, and denote by lmax the largest integer which satisfies klmax≤L (and select L sufficiently large so that lmax≥1). We introduce the set of boxesTl:=z+-Lkl,Lkl4∩ΛL:z∈2LklZ4∩[-L,L]4.

and implement the Mandelbrot percolation argument developed in the second step of the proof of Lemma 7.7. We obtain a collection Q⊆∪l=0maxTl of good boxes. We need to prove the following two properties pertaining to the collection Q. First, we show that the set of uncovered points is typically small: we prove the inequality, for any vertex v∈ΛL,8.52 Pvisnotcovered≤exp-clnL.

Second, we prove that the expected value of the spatially and thermally averaged magnetization on a box of the collection Q is small: we show the estimate, for each box Λ∈∪l=0maxTl,8.53 E1{Λ∈Q}1Λ∑v∈Λσv,i0τ,h≤CδE1{Λ∈Q}+C(lnL)2.

We first focus on the proof of the inequality (8.52). To this end, we fix a vertex v∈ΛL, let Λ0(v),…,Λlmax(v) be the boxes of the collections T0,…,Tlmax containing the vertex v, and denote their side length by ℓ0,…,ℓmax respectively. For any l∈{0,…,lmax-1}, we denote by kl:=ℓl/ℓl+1 the ratio between the two side length ℓl and ℓl+1 and note that there exist constants c, C such that ck≤kl≤Ck as soon as L is large enough. We denote byη^l:=1Λl(v)∑u∈Λl(v)\Λl+1(v)ηu,i.

Note that the random variables η^Λl(v),i and η^l are typically close to each other: the law of the random variable η^l-η^Λl(v),i is Gaussian and its variance is equal to 1/(kl4ℓl4). We also note that the random variable η^l is independent of the restriction field η to the box Λl+1(v).

We have the identity of events8.54 visnotcovered=⋂l=0lmaxη^Λl(v),i>ℓl-2tδ.

We then show that the (lmax+1) events in the right side of (8.54) are well-approximated by independent events, and use the independence to estimate the probability of their intersection. To this end, we use the identity η^l+η^Λl+1(v),ikl4=η^Λl(v),i, and note that the following inclusion holds8.55 ⋂l=0lmaxη^Λl(v),i≥ℓl-2tδ⊆⋂l=0lmax-1η^l≥ℓl-2tδ-δ⋂η^Λlmax(v),i≥ℓlmax-2tδ⋃⋃l=0lmax-1η^Λl+1(v),i≥kl4δℓl-2.

Using that the random variables η^l1≤l≤lmax-1 are independent and a union bound, we obtain8.56 P⋂l=0lmaxη^Λl(v),i≥ℓj-2tδ≤∏l=0lmax-1Pη^l≥ℓl-2tδ-δ⏟(8.56)-(i)+∑l=0lmax-1Pη^Λl+1(v),i≥kl4δℓl-2⏟(8.56)-(ii).

We estimate the terms (8.56)-(i) and  (8.56)-(ii) separately. For the term (8.56)-(i), we note that the quantile tδ satisfies the inequality -c/δ≥tδ≥-C/δ. An explicit computation shows that there exist two constants c,C∈(0,∞) such thatPη^l≥ℓl-2tδ-δ≤1-cexp-Cδ21+δ22≤1-cexp-Cδ2.

We recall that we have set k=2⌊explnL4⌋+1, δ=(C0/(lnlnL)12)∧(1/2), and lmax:=⌊lnL/(2lnk)⌋≃lnL3/4. Consequently, if the constant C0 is chosen large enough,8.57 ∏l=0lmax-1Pη^l≥ℓl-2tδ-δ≤1-cexp-Cδ2lmax≤exp-clnL.

We now estimate the term (8.56)-(ii). The lower bound kl≥ck and an explicit computation give, for each l∈{0,…,lmax},Pη^Λl+1(v),i≥kl4ℓl-2δ≤Pη^Λl+1(v),i≥kl2ℓl+1-2δ≤exp-ck4δ2,

and thus8.58 ∑l=0lmax-1Pη^Λl+1(v),i≥kl4ℓl-2δ≤lmaxexp-ckl4δ2≤exp-clnL.

A combination of (8.56), (8.57) and (8.58) implies (8.52).

We now focus on the proof of the inequality (8.53). We fix an integer l∈{1,…,lmax}, consider a box Λ′∈Tl and denote its side length by ℓl. We denote by Λ0′,…,Λl-1′ the family of boxes which contain the box Λ′ and belong to the sets T0,…,Tl-1 respectively. We denote the side length of these boxes by ℓ0,…,ℓl-1. By construction of the collection Q, we have the identityΛ′∈Q=η^Λ′,i≤ℓl-2tδ⋂⋂j=0l-1η^Λj′,i>ℓj-2tδ.

Our objective is to prove that this event is well-approximated by an event which belongs to the σ-algebra generated by the random variables η^Λ′,i and ηΛ0\2Λ′,i. To this end, let us define, for any integer j∈{0,…,l-1},η^j′:=1Λj′∑u∈Λj′\2Λ′ηu,i.

Let us note that the random variable η^j′ depends only on the realization of the field outside the box 2Λ′, and that it satisfies the identityη^Λj′,i=η^j′+|2Λ′||Λj′|η^2Λ′,i.

We additionally note that, by the definitions of the cube Λj′, the ratio between the side length of the boxes Λj′ and 2Λ′ is at least of order k: there exists a constant c such that ℓj≥ckℓl.

As a consequence of the previous definitions and observations, we have the inclusion8.59 η^Λj′,i>ℓj-2tδΔη^j′>ℓj-2tδ⊆η^j′-tδℓj2≤1ℓj2lnL3⏟(8.59)-(i)∪η^2Λ′,i≥ck2ℓl2lnL3⏟(8.59)-(ii),

where the symbol Δ denotes the symmetric difference between the events η^Λj′,i>ℓj-2tδ and η^j′>ℓj-2tδ. We estimate the probabilities of the two events in the right side of (8.59). For the event (8.59)-(i), we note that the random variable η^j′ is Gaussian and that its variance satisfiesvarη^j′=Λj′\2Λ′Λj′2≥12Λj′=12ℓj4,

where we have used the inequality Λj′\2Λ′≥Λj′/2, which is a consequence of the definition of the box Λj′ together with the assumption k≥5. We obtain8.60 Pη^j′-tδℓj2≤1ℓj2lnL3≤Pη^j′≤1ℓj2lnL3≤ClnL3.

For the event (8.59)-(ii), we use that the random variable η^2Λ′,i is Gaussian and that its variance is comparable to ℓl-4 to write8.61 Pη^2Λ′,i≥ck2ℓl2lnL3≤Cexp-ck4lnL6≤ClnL3.

This result implies8.62 Λ′∈QΔη^Λ′,i≤ℓl-2tδ⋂⋂j=0l-1η^j′>ℓj-2tδ⊆η^2Λ′,i≥ck2ℓl2lnL3⋃⋃j=0l-1η^j′-ℓj-2tδ≤1ℓj2lnL3.

Let us introduce the notationEΛ′:=η^Λ′,i≤ℓl-2tδ⋂⋂j=0l-1η^j′>ℓj-2tδ.

A consequence of the inclusion (8.62) is the inequality of indicator functions8.63 1Λ′∈Q-1EΛ′≤1η^2Λ′,i≥ck2ℓl2lnL3+∑j=0l-11η^j′-ℓj-2tδ≤1ℓj2lnL3.

We note that the event EΛ′ is measurable with respect to the σ-algebra generated by the random variables η^Λ′,i and ηΛ0\2Λ′,i. Using Lemma 8.6 and the fact that the event EΛ′ is contained in the event η^Λ′,i≤ℓl-2tδ, we see that8.64 E1EΛ′1|Λ′|∑v∈Λ′σv,i0τ,h=EE1EΛ′1|Λ′|∑v∈Λ′σv,i0τ,h|η^Λ′,i,ηΛ0\2Λ′,i=E1EΛ′E1|Λ′|∑v∈Λ′σv,i0τ,h|η^Λ′,i,ηΛ0\2Λ′,i≤CδE1EΛ′.

We can now conclude the proof of the inequality (8.53). Applying the estimates (8.60), (8.61), (8.63), the computation (8.64), and the upper bound l≤ClnL, we obtainE1{Λ′∈Q}1Λ′∑v∈Λ′σv,i0τ,h≤E1EΛ′1Λ′∑v∈Λ′σv,i0τ,h+E1η^2Λ′,i≥ck2ℓl2lnL3+∑j=0l-11η^j′-tδℓj2≤1ℓj2lnL3≤CδE1EΛ′+E1η^2Λ′,i≥ck2ℓl2lnL3+∑j=0l-11η^j′-tδℓj2≤1ℓj2lnL3≤CδE1{Λ′∈Q}+2E1η^2Λ′,i≥ck2ℓl2lnL3+∑j=0l-11η^j′-tδℓj2≤1ℓj2lnL3≤CδE1{Λ′∈Q}+Cl(lnL)3≤CδE1{Λ′∈Q}+C(lnL)2.

The proof of (8.53) is complete.

We now use the two properties (8.52) and (8.53) of the collection Q of good boxes to complete the proof of Lemma 8.7. We write ∑Λ′⊆ΛL to refer to the sum ∑l=0max∑Λ′∈Tl. We decompose the expectation and write8.65 E1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,i0τ,h=E∑Λ′⊆ΛL|Λ′|ΛL1{Λ′∈Q}1Λ′∑v∈Λ′σv,i0τ,h+E1ΛL∑v∈ΛL1{visuncovered}σv,i0τ,h=∑Λ′⊆ΛL|Λ′|ΛLE1{Λ′∈Q}1Λ′∑v∈Λ′σv,i0τ,h⏟(8.65)-(i)+1ΛL∑v∈ΛLE1{visuncovered}σv,i0τ,h.⏟(8.65)-(ii)

We then estimate the two terms in the right side separately. We begin with the term (8.65)-(i), use the inequality (8.53) and the observations∑Λ′⊆ΛL|Λ′|1{Λ′∈Q}≤ΛLand∑Λ′⊆ΛL|Λ′|=∑l=0lmax∑Λ′∈Tl|Λ′|=(lmax+1)ΛL≤ClnLΛL.

We obtain∑Λ′⊆ΛL|Λ′|ΛLE1{Λ′∈Q}1Λ′∑v∈Λ′σv,i0τ,h≤Cδ∑Λ′⊆ΛL|Λ′|ΛLE1{Λ′∈Q}+C∑Λ′⊆ΛL|Λ′|ΛL1lnL2≤CδΛLE∑Λ′⊆ΛL|Λ′|1{Λ′∈Q}+ClnLlnL2≤Cδ.

There only remains to treat the term (8.65)-(ii). We use to the estimate (8.52) and write1ΛL∑v∈ΛLE1{visuncovered}σv,i0τ,h≤1ΛL∑v∈ΛLPvisuncovered≤exp-clnL≤ClnlnL.

A combination of the two previous displays with the identity (8.65) completes the proof of Lemma 8.7. □

Proof of Theorem 5

In this section, we combine the result of Lemma 8.7 (applied with the periodic boundary condition) with an argument similar to the one developed in Subsection 8.3.2 to complete the proof of Theorem 5.

Proof of Theorem 5

Fix a side length L≥10, h∈Rn such that h≤1/10, and set ℓ:=(L/2)∧|h|-1/2. We consider the system with periodic boundary condition and apply Lemma 8.7 with the boxes Λ0:=ΛL and ΛL=Λℓ. We obtainEσ0Lper,h=E1Λℓ∑v∈ΛℓσvLper,h≤C1lnlnℓ≤ClnlnL∧|h|-1,

where we used the inequality lnℓ≥clnL∧|h|-1. Integrating over h as it was done in (8.31), we deduce that8.66 EFELper,h(η)-FELper,0(η)≤C|h|lnlnL∧|h|-1.

Let us then fix an integer i∈{1,…,n}. For each realization of the random field η and each h∈Rn, we let τi(η,h)∈S∂ΛL be a boundary condition satisfying8.67 1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτi(η,h),h=supτ∈S∂ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτ,h.

Using the inequality (6.8) of Proposition 6.3, we have, for any h,h′∈Rn,8.68 EFELτi(η,h),h′(η)-EFELper,h′(η)≤CL.

A combination of the inequalities (8.66) and (8.68) yields, for any h,h′∈Rn satisfying |h′|≤1/10,8.69 EFELτi(η,h),h′(η)-EFELτi(η,h),0(η)≤C|h′|lnlnL∧|h′|-1+CL.

We then fix |h|≤1/10, and denote byh~:=h1,…,hi-1,hi+|h|∨L-1,hi+1,…,hn.

We note that |h~|≤2|h|∨L-1≤1, and that, if |h| and 1/L are sufficiently small (e.g., smaller than 1/400), then |h~| is smaller than 1/10 and we may apply the bound (8.69).

We introduce the function G:h′↦-EFELτi(η,h),h′(η), observe that the map G is convex, and that its derivative with respect to the i-th variable satisfies∂G∂hi′(h′)=E1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτi(η,h),h′.

Additionally, by (8.69) and the definition of h~ (assuming that |h| and 1/L are sufficiently small), we haveG(h~)-G(h)≤CL-1∨|h|lnlnL∧|h|-1+CL≤CL-1∨|h|lnlnL∧|h|-1,

which then yieldsE1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτi(η,h),h≤G(h~)-G(h)|h|∨L-1≤ClnlnL∧|h|-1.

Using the definition of the random boundary condition τiη,h, we obtainEsupτ∈S∂ΛL1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv,iLτ,h≤ClnlnL∧|h|-1.

The proof of Theorem 5 can be completed by using the same arguments as the one presented in the proof of the estimate (8.23) of Theorem 4 in Sect. 8.3.2, we thus omit the details. □

Discussion and Open Problems

This work initiates the study of quantitative versions of the Aizenman–Wehr [6, 7] result on the Imry–Ma rounding phenomenon [48]. In this section we discuss some of the remaining problems:

Uniqueness conjecture: As discussed in Sect. 2, we believe that a stronger qualitative statement than the one provided by Aizenman–Wehr [6, 7] is valid. Namely, that in two dimensions the thermal averages fvσΛLτ cannot be significantly altered by changing τ in the sense of Conjecture 2.1. We again point out that Conjecture 2.1 would imply as a special case the well-known belief that the two-dimensional Edwards–Anderson spin glass model has a unique ground-state pair. It would be very interesting to make additional progress in this direction.

It is also possible that analogous uniqueness statements hold in dimensions d=3,4 for the spin systems with continuous symmetry discussed in Sect. 3 (the case d=2 is covered by Conjecture 2.1).

Quantitative decay rate and possible phase transitions: It is very natural to seek the optimal rates in our quantitative results. We first discuss the general two-dimensional disordered spin systems of Sect. 2. When the base Hamiltonian has finite range, exponential decay of correlations and uniqueness of the infinite-volume Gibbs measure follow in all dimensions in the high-temperature regime (β≪1), and for certain systems also in the strong disorder regime (λ≫1), from the disagreement percolation methods of van den Berg–Maes [62] and their adaptations by Gielis–Maes [45] (suitable versions of Dobrushin’s condition [37] should also be applicable). The main interest is thus in the low-temperature (or even zero temperature) regime. We then believe that the correct rate in two dimensions should be much faster than the inverse power of log-log rate obtained in Theorem 1. Without assuming translation invariance, the decay cannot hold at a faster than power-law rate (e.g., as the noised observables (fv) can be identically zero at all but one vertex), but it is possible that such a rate indeed holds in general. In the translation-invariant setup, it is even possible that exponential decay holds (noting that for a faster than power-law decay one needs to perform the spatial average in (2.7) over a smaller domain, say ΛL/2, to avoid boundary effects), as proved for the nearest-neighbor ferromagnetic random-field Ising model [4, 34] (though exponential decay is still open for the non-nearest-neighbor version for which only a power-law upper bound is known [5]).

We proceed to discuss the spin systems with continuous symmetry of Sect. 3. Exponential decay in the high-temperature regime (β≪1) again follows in all dimensions [45, 62]. This is also expected in the strong disorder regime (λ≫1); see [38] for the zero-temperature case. The interest is thus in the low-temperature and weak disorder regime. One might expect exponential decay to hold in the sub-critical dimensions d=2,3, and arguments have been given both in favor [2, 61] and, in the three dimensional case, against [39, 46] this possibility in the physics literature. Power-law decay would imply a transition of the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless type [9, 10, 41, 49, 50] as the temperature or disorder strength varies and would thus be of great interest.

Higher-order continuous symmetries: The form of continuous-symmetry that the spin O(n) model enjoys is that its formal HamiltonianH(σ):=∑v∼w|σv-σw|2,

where σ:Zd→Sn-1, satisfies H(Rσ)=H(σ) for the operation R which rotates all spins in σ by the same angle. One can also envision spin systems enjoying higher-order symmetries in the sense that we now explain for the n=2 case (analogous symmetries may exist for n>2 but we have not explored this possibility). We embed the circle S1 in C and write σv=eiθv (where the angle θ is defined modulo 2π). For a polynomial P:Rd→R and configuration σ:Zd→S1 define the ‘polynomial rotation’ RP(σ) by RP(σ)v=ei(θv+P(v)). A Hamiltonian H on configurations σ:Zd→S1 is then said to enjoy a continuous symmetry of order k if H(RP(σ))=H(σ) for all polynomials P:Rd→R of degree at most k. In particular, the case k=0 corresponds to the usual notion of continuous symmetry. As an example of a Hamiltonian enjoying continuous symmetries of order 1, we propose9.1 H(σ):=∑vcos((Δθ)v)

where Δ is the discrete Laplacian operator: (Δθ)v:=∑w:w∼v(θw-θv). Similarly, an example of a Hamiltonian enjoying continuous symmetry of order k=2ℓ-1 is obtained by replacing Δ with Δℓ (the composition of Δ with itself ℓ times) in (9.1) and an example enjoying continuous symmetries of order k=2ℓ is furnished by9.2 H(σ):=∑v∼wcos((Δℓθ)v-(Δℓθ)w).

We do not know if these spin models have received attention in the literature.

Higher-order symmetries reduce the surface tension of finite-range spin systems with smooth energy. Specifically, we believe that an analog of Proposition 8.4 holds for a spin system having a smooth, finite-range Hamiltonian enjoying a higher-order symmetry of order k with the factor ℓd-2 replaced by ℓd-2k-2. To prove this fact, one may follow the steps of Proposition 8.4 with the following modifications:References to Ψ should be replaced by corresponding references to the Hamiltonian.

The spin wave in equation (8.10) needs to be replaced by a function θ satisfying θ≡0 on Zd\2Λ, θ≡π in Λ and all discrete derivatives of order k+1 of θ are uniformly bounded by Ck+1ℓ-(k+1). Such a function may be obtained by choosing a smooth function ψ:Rd→R satisfying that ψ≡0 outside the box B(2), ψ≡1 on the box B(1) (where B(r):={x∈Rd:‖x‖∞≤r}) and then setting θ(v):=πψ(v/ℓ) for v∈Zd.

Instead of the expression (8.14) one notes that a discrete Taylor expansion may be performed to write θw=θv+Pk,v(w-v)+εk,v,w where Pk,v is a polynomial of degree at most k and then the higher-order symmetry of the Hamiltonian allows to replace the expression θw-θv on the right-hand side of (8.14) by εk,v,w which is of order at most Ck+1ℓ-(k+1) by our assumptions on θ.

The reduced surface tension allows to push the Imry–Ma phenomenon to higher dimensions. Specifically, spin systems with a finite-range smooth Hamiltonian enjoying a higher-order symmetry of order k will lose their low-temperature ordered phase upon introduction of a random field of arbitrarily weak intensity, of the form in our theorems, in all dimensions d≤4(k+1). Moreover, the strategy used in this paper to obtain a quantitative decay rate can be followed to yield that (at h=0)9.3 E1ΛL∑v∈ΛLσv2Lτ,0≤CL-2(k+1)+d/2

in dimensions d<4(k+1). It is further possible that the strategy used in the proof of Theorem 5 can be adapted to yield a bound in dimension d=4(k+1).

Comparison with the results of Aizenman–Wehr: The seminal result of Aizenman–Wehr [6, 7] establishes rigorously the rounding of the first-order phase transitions of low-dimensional spin systems upon the addition of a quenched disorder. Our work presents a quantified version of the Aizenman–Wehr theorem, but applies in somewhat different generality than the original result. While we expect that the techniques developed in this work may be extended to a more general setup, closer to that of [6, 7], we have not pursued this direction. In this section, we elaborate on the various assumptions made:Translation-invariance of the systems: While the proof of Aizenman and Wehr requires to work in a translation-invariant setup, the techniques developed in this article apply to spin systems which do not satisfy this assumption.

Distribution of the disorder: The result of Aizenman–Wehr applies to a wide class of disorder distributions while our result is presented only for the Gaussian case.

Range of the interaction: The results of [6, 7] apply also to disordered systems with long-range interactions (in which case one-dimensional systems are also of interest) as long as these decay at a sufficiently fast rate. Our results for general two-dimensional disordered spin systems (Sect. 2) allow the base system to have arbitrary interactions as long as the bounded boundary effect condition (2.2) holds. However, we have opted to restrict to finite-range dependencies in the noised observables (fv)v∈Zd (Sect. 2.1).

Uniformity of the results in the temperature and external field: The results of Aizenman–Wehr apply not only for a fixed value of the temperature and external magnetic field (the latter is incorporated into the models there) but also uniformly when these parameters are themselves allowed to depend on the disorder η. This uniformity shows that there cannot be deviations from the proven behavior at random critical points. In comparison, our results are stated only for a fixed value of the temperature and, in the general two-dimensional setup, without an external magnetic field (though one can be included in the base Hamiltonian). Still, a uniform version of our results may be obtained with minor modifications of the proof, as indicated in Remark 7.6.

Systems with continuous symmetry: For systems with continuous symmetries, Aizenman and Wehr allow the spins to take values in a subset of Rn which is invariant under the action of a closed connected subgroup G of O(n), and require the base Hamiltonian to take the form ∑x,yJx-yΨx-y(σx,σy) where each Ψz is required to be bounded by 1, to be invariant under the same subgroup, to satisfy certain differentiability properties and the coupling constants Jz are required to satisfy ∑z:z≤LJz|z|2≤CL(4-d)/2. The noised observables are taken to be the spins themselves and the conclusion is then that in all dimensions d≤4, a suitable spatially and thermally averaged magnetization value is invariant under all elements of G for all Gibbs measures of the model, almost surely. It is further mentioned that the technique should generalize to a suitable class of many-body interactions. Our results for spin systems with continuous symmetry (Sect. 3) are presented, again for simplicity, only for the case that the spins take values in the sphere Sn-1 in the setup of nearest-neighbor interactions which are invariant under all rotations in O(n), and when the noised observables are fixed to be the spins themselves.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Michael Aizenman, Ronald Fisch, David Huse, Charles M. Newman, Thomas Spencer and Daniel L. Stein for encouragement and helpful conversations on the topics of this work. We also thank Antonio Auffinger, Wei-Kuo Chen, Izabella Stuhl and Yuri Suhov for the opportunity to present these results in online talks and for useful discussions. We would like to thank an anonymous referee for many helpful comments which helped us improve the presentation of the article. The research of the authors was supported in part by Israel Science Foundation grants 861/15 and 1971/19 and by the European Research Council starting grant 678520 (LocalOrder).

Funding

Open access funding provided by Université Paris-Est Créteil. This work was supported in part by Israel Science Foundation grants 861/15 and 1971/19 and by the European Research Council starting grant 678520 (LocalOrder).

Data availability

No data has been used in the research described here.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no Conflict of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Financial or non-financial interests

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Financial or proprietary interests

The authors have no financial or proprietary interests to disclose.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Affonso, L., Bissacot, R., Maia, J.: Phase transition for long-range random field Ising model in higher dimensions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.14150 (2023)
2. Aharony A Pytte E Infinite susceptibility phase in random uniaxial anisotropy magnets Phys. Rev. Lett. 1980 45 19 1583
Aharony, A., Pytte, E.: Infinite susceptibility phase in random uniaxial anisotropy magnets. Phys. Rev. Lett. 45(19), 1583 (1980)
3. Aizenman M Greenblatt RL Lebowitz JL Proof of rounding by quenched disorder of first order transitions in low-dimensional quantum systems J. Math. Phys. 2012 53 2 023301
Aizenman, M., Greenblatt, R.L., Lebowitz, J.L.: Proof of rounding by quenched disorder of first order transitions in low-dimensional quantum systems. J. Math. Phys. 53(2), 023301 (2012)
4. Aizenman M Harel M Peled R Exponential decay of correlations in the 2D random field Ising model J. Stat. Phys. 2020 180 1–6 304 331
Aizenman, M., Harel, M., Peled, R.: Exponential decay of correlations in the random field Ising model. J. Stat. Phys. 180(1–6), 304–331 (2020)
5. Aizenman M Peled R A power-law upper bound on the correlations in the 2d random field Ising model Commun. Math. Phys. 2019 372 3 865 892
Aizenman, M., Peled, R.: A power-law upper bound on the correlations in the random field Ising model. Commun. Math. Phys. 372(3), 865–892 (2019)
6. Aizenman M Wehr J Rounding of first-order phase transitions in systems with quenched disorder Phys. Rev. Lett. 1989 62 21 2503 10040005
Aizenman, M., Wehr, J.: Rounding of first-order phase transitions in systems with quenched disorder. Phys. Rev. Lett. 62(21), 2503 (1989)10040005
7. Aizenman M Wehr J Rounding effects of quenched randomness on first-order phase transitions Commun. Math. Phys. 1990 130 3 489 528
Aizenman, M., Wehr, J.: Rounding effects of quenched randomness on first-order phase transitions. Commun. Math. Phys. 130(3), 489–528 (1990)
8. Arguin L-P Damron M Newman CM Stein DL Uniqueness of ground states for short-range spin glasses in the half-plane Commun. Math. Phys. 2010 300 3 641 657
Arguin, L.-P., Damron, M., Newman, C.M., Stein, D.L.: Uniqueness of ground states for short-range spin glasses in the half-plane. Commun. Math. Phys. 300(3), 641–657 (2010)
9. Berezinskii V Destruction of long-range order in one-dimensional and two-dimensional systems having a continuous symmetry group I. Classical systems Sov. Phys. JETP 1971 32 3 493 500
Berezinskii, V.: Destruction of long-range order in one-dimensional and two-dimensional systems having a continuous symmetry group I. Classical systems. Sov. Phys. JETP 32(3), 493–500 (1971)
10. Berezinskii V Destruction of long-range order in one-dimensional and two-dimensional systems possessing a continuous symmetry group. II. Quantum systems Sov. Phys. JETP 1972 34 3 610 616
Berezinskii, V.: Destruction of long-range order in one-dimensional and two-dimensional systems possessing a continuous symmetry group. II. Quantum systems. Sov. Phys. JETP 34(3), 610–616 (1972)
11. Berretti A Some properties of random Ising models J. Stat. Phys. 1985 38 3–4 483 496
Berretti, A.: Some properties of random Ising models. J. Stat. Phys. 38(3–4), 483–496 (1985)
12. Bovier, A.: Statistical mechanics of disordered systems, volume 18 of Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. A mathematical perspective (2006)
13. Bovier A Külske C A rigorous renormalization group method for interfaces in random media Rev. Math. Phys. 1994 6 3 413 496
Bovier, A., Külske, C.: A rigorous renormalization group method for interfaces in random media. Rev. Math. Phys. 6(3), 413–496 (1994)
14. Bovier A Külske C There are no nice interfaces in (2+1)-dimensional SOS models in random media J. Stat. Phys. 1996 83 3–4 751 759
Bovier, A., Külske, C.: There are no nice interfaces in (2+1)-dimensional SOS models in random media. J. Stat. Phys. 83(3–4), 751–759 (1996)
15. Bowditch A Sun R The two-dimensional continuum random field Ising model Ann. Probab. 2022 50 2 419 454
Bowditch, A., Sun, R.: The two-dimensional continuum random field Ising model. Ann. Probab. 50(2), 419–454 (2022)
16. Bricmont J Kupiainen A Lower critical dimension for the random-field Ising model Phys. Rev. Lett. 1987 59 16 1829 10035342
Bricmont, J., Kupiainen, A.: Lower critical dimension for the random-field Ising model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59(16), 1829 (1987)10035342
17. Bricmont J Kupiainen A The hierarchical random field Ising model J. Stat. Phys. 1988 51 5–6 1021 1032
Bricmont, J., Kupiainen, A.: The hierarchical random field Ising model. J. Stat. Phys. 51(5–6), 1021–1032 (1988)
18. Bricmont J Kupiainen A Phase transition in the 3d random field Ising model Commun. Math. Phys. 1988 116 4 539 572
Bricmont, J., Kupiainen, A.: Phase transition in the random field Ising model. Commun. Math. Phys. 116(4), 539–572 (1988)
19. Camia F Garban C Newman CM Planar Ising magnetization field I. Uniqueness of the critical scaling limit Ann. Probab. 2015 43 2 528 571
Camia, F., Garban, C., Newman, C.M.: Planar Ising magnetization field I. Uniqueness of the critical scaling limit. Ann. Probab. 43(2), 528–571 (2015)
20. Camia F Garban C Newman CM Planar Ising magnetization field II. Properties of the critical and near-critical scaling limits Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat. 2016 52 1 146 161
Camia, F., Garban, C., Newman, C.M.: Planar Ising magnetization field II. Properties of the critical and near-critical scaling limits. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat. 52(1), 146–161 (2016)
21. Camia F Jiang J Newman CM A note on exponential decay in the random field Ising model J. Stat. Phys. 2018 173 2 268 284
Camia, F., Jiang, J., Newman, C.M.: A note on exponential decay in the random field Ising model. J. Stat. Phys. 173(2), 268–284 (2018)
22. Chatterjee S Absence of replica symmetry breaking in the random field Ising model Commun. Math. Phys. 2015 337 1 93 102
Chatterjee, S.: Absence of replica symmetry breaking in the random field Ising model. Commun. Math. Phys. 337(1), 93–102 (2015)
23. Chatterjee S On the decay of correlations in the random field Ising model Commun. Math. Phys. 2018 362 1 253 267
Chatterjee, S.: On the decay of correlations in the random field Ising model. Commun. Math. Phys. 362(1), 253–267 (2018)
24. Chatterjee, S.: Features of a spin glass in the random field Ising model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07634 (2023)
25. Cotar C Jahnel B Külske C Extremal decomposition for random Gibbs measures: from general metastates to metastates on extremal random Gibbs measures Electron. Commun. Probab. 2018 23 95
Cotar, C., Jahnel, B., Külske, C.: Extremal decomposition for random Gibbs measures: from general metastates to metastates on extremal random Gibbs measures. Electron. Commun. Probab. 23, 95 (2018)
26. Cotar C Külske C Existence of random gradient states Ann. Appl. Probab. 2012 22 4 1650 1692
Cotar, C., Külske, C.: Existence of random gradient states. Ann. Appl. Probab. 22(4), 1650–1692 (2012)
27. Cotar C Külske C Uniqueness of gradient Gibbs measures with disorder Probab. Theory Rel. Fields 2015 162 3–4 587 635
Cotar, C., Külske, C.: Uniqueness of gradient Gibbs measures with disorder. Probab. Theory Rel. Fields 162(3–4), 587–635 (2015)
28. Crawford N On random field induced ordering in the classical XY model J. Stat. Phys. 2011 142 1 11 42
Crawford, N.: On random field induced ordering in the classical model. J. Stat. Phys. 142(1), 11–42 (2011)
29. Crawford N Random field induced order in low dimension EPL (Europhys. Lett.) 2013 102 3 36003
Crawford, N.: Random field induced order in low dimension. EPL (Europhys. Lett.) 102(3), 36003 (2013)
30. Crawford N Random field induced order in low dimension I Commun. Math. Phys. 2014 328 1 203 249
Crawford, N.: Random field induced order in low dimension I. Commun. Math. Phys. 328(1), 203–249 (2014)
31. Dario P Harel M Peled R Random-field random surfaces Probab. Theory Rel. Fields 2023 186 1–2 91 158
Dario, P., Harel, M., Peled, R.: Random-field random surfaces. Probab. Theory Rel. Fields 186(1–2), 91–158 (2023)
32. Ding, J., Liu, Y., Xia, A.: Long range order for three-dimensional random field Ising model throughout the entire low temperature regime. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.13998 (2022)
33. Ding J Wirth M Correlation length of the two-dimensional random field Ising model via greedy lattice animal Duke Math. J. 2023 1 1 1 31
Ding, J., Wirth, M.: Correlation length of the two-dimensional random field Ising model via greedy lattice animal. Duke Math. J. 1(1), 1–31 (2023)
34. Ding, J., Xia, J.: Exponential decay of correlations in the two-dimensional random field Ising model at zero temperatures. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.05651 (2019)
35. Ding J Xia J Exponential decay of correlations in the two-dimensional random field Ising model Invent. Math. 2021 224 3 999 1045
Ding, J., Xia, J.: Exponential decay of correlations in the two-dimensional random field Ising model. Invent. Math. 224(3), 999–1045 (2021)
36. Ding, J., Zhuang, Z.: Long range order for random field Ising and Potts models. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. (2023)
37. Dobruschin P The description of a random field by means of conditional probabilities and conditions of its regularity Theory Probab. Appl. 1968 13 2 197 224
Dobruschin, P.: The description of a random field by means of conditional probabilities and conditions of its regularity. Theory Probab. Appl. 13(2), 197–224 (1968)
38. Feldman D Nonexistence of quasi-long-range order in strongly disordered vortex glasses: a rigorous proof Phys. Rev. B 2000 62 9 5364
Feldman, D.: Nonexistence of quasi-long-range order in strongly disordered vortex glasses: a rigorous proof. Phys. Rev. B 62(9), 5364 (2000)
39. Feldman D Quasi-long range order in glass states of impure liquid crystals, magnets, and superconductors Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 2001 15 22 2945 2976
Feldman, D.: Quasi-long range order in glass states of impure liquid crystals, magnets, and superconductors. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 15(22), 2945–2976 (2001)
40. Fröhlich J Imbrie JZ Improved perturbation expansion for disordered systems: beating Griffiths singularities Commun. Math. Phys. 1984 96 2 145 180
Fröhlich, J., Imbrie, J.Z.: Improved perturbation expansion for disordered systems: beating Griffiths singularities. Commun. Math. Phys. 96(2), 145–180 (1984)
41. Fröhlich J Spencer T Kosterlitz–Thouless transition in the two-dimensional plane rotator and Coulomb gas Phys. Rev. Lett. 1981 46 15 1006 1009
Fröhlich, J., Spencer, T.: Kosterlitz–Thouless transition in the two-dimensional plane rotator and Coulomb gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 46(15), 1006–1009 (1981)
42. Georgii, H.-O.: Gibbs measures and phase transitions. Walter de Gruyter (de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, vol. 9), Berlin-New York (1988)
43. Giacomin G Toninelli F Smoothing of depinning transitions for directed polymers with quenched disorder Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006 96 7 070602 16606071
Giacomin, G., Toninelli, F.: Smoothing of depinning transitions for directed polymers with quenched disorder. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96(7), 070602 (2006)16606071
44. Giacomin G Toninelli FL Smoothing effect of quenched disorder on polymer depinning transitions Commun. Math. Phys. 2006 266 1 1 16
Giacomin, G., Toninelli, F.L.: Smoothing effect of quenched disorder on polymer depinning transitions. Commun. Math. Phys. 266(1), 1–16 (2006)
45. Gielis G Maes C The uniqueness regime of Gibbs fields with unbounded disorder J. Stat. Phys. 1995 81 3–4 829 835
Gielis, G., Maes, C.: The uniqueness regime of Gibbs fields with unbounded disorder. J. Stat. Phys. 81(3–4), 829–835 (1995)
46. Gingras MJ Huse DA Topological defects in the random-field XY model and the pinned vortex lattice to vortex glass transition in type-II superconductors Phys. Rev. B 1996 53 22 15193
Gingras, M.J., Huse, D.A.: Topological defects in the random-field XY model and the pinned vortex lattice to vortex glass transition in type-II superconductors. Phys. Rev. B 53(22), 15193 (1996)
47. Imbrie JZ The ground state of the three-dimensional random-field Ising model Commun. Math. Phys. 1985 98 2 145 176
Imbrie, J.Z.: The ground state of the three-dimensional random-field Ising model. Commun. Math. Phys. 98(2), 145–176 (1985)
48. Imry Y Ma S-K Random-field instability of the ordered state of continuous symmetry Phys. Rev. Lett. 1975 35 21 1399
Imry, Y., Ma, S.-K.: Random-field instability of the ordered state of continuous symmetry. Phys. Rev. Lett. 35(21), 1399 (1975)
49. Kosterlitz JM Thouless D Long range order and metastability in two dimensional solids and superfluids (application of dislocation theory) J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 1972 5 11 124
Kosterlitz, J.M., Thouless, D.: Long range order and metastability in two dimensional solids and superfluids (application of dislocation theory). J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 5(11), 124 (1972)
50. Kosterlitz JM Thouless DJ Ordering, metastability and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 1973 6 7 1181
Kosterlitz, J.M., Thouless, D.J.: Ordering, metastability and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems. J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 6(7), 1181 (1973)
51. Külske C Orlandi E A simple fluctuation lower bound for a disordered massless random continuous spin model in D=2 Electron. Commun. Probab. 2006 11 200 205
Külske, C., Orlandi, E.: A simple fluctuation lower bound for a disordered massless random continuous spin model in . Electron. Commun. Probab. 11, 200–205 (2006)
52. Külske C Orlandi E Continuous interfaces with disorder: even strong pinning is too weak in two dimensions Stoch. Process. Appl. 2008 118 11 1973 1981
Külske, C., Orlandi, E.: Continuous interfaces with disorder: even strong pinning is too weak in two dimensions. Stoch. Process. Appl. 118(11), 1973–1981 (2008)
53. Mermin ND Wagner H Absence of ferromagnetism or antiferromagnetism in one-or two-dimensional isotropic Heisenberg models Phys. Rev. Lett. 1966 17 22 1133
Mermin, N.D., Wagner, H.: Absence of ferromagnetism or antiferromagnetism in one-or two-dimensional isotropic Heisenberg models. Phys. Rev. Lett. 17(22), 1133 (1966)
54. Nattermann, T.: Theory of the random field Ising model. In: Spin glasses and random fields, pp. 277–298. World Scientific (1998)
55. Newman C Stein D Nature of ground state incongruence in two-dimensional spin glasses Phys. Rev. Lett. 2000 84 17 3966 11019251
Newman, C., Stein, D.: Nature of ground state incongruence in two-dimensional spin glasses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84(17), 3966 (2000)11019251
56. Newman CM Stein D Spatial inhomogeneity and thermodynamic chaos Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996 76 25 4821 10061389
Newman, C.M., Stein, D.: Spatial inhomogeneity and thermodynamic chaos. Phys. Rev. Lett. 76(25), 4821 (1996)10061389
57. Newman, C. M., Stein, D. L.: Are there incongruent ground states in 2D Edwards–Anderson spin glasses? vol. 224, pp. 205–218 (2001) Dedicated to Joel L. Lebowitz
58. Stein, D. L., Newman, C. M.: Spin glasses and complexity, vol. 4. Princeton University Press (2013)
59. Talagrand, M.: Mean field models for spin glasses. Volume I, volume 54 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas. 3rd Series. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2011). Basic examples
60. Talagrand, M.: Mean field models for spin glasses. Volume II, volume 55 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas. 3rd Series. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics]. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Advanced replica-symmetry and low temperature
61. Tissier M Tarjus G Unified picture of ferromagnetism, quasi-long-range order, and criticality in random-field models Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006 96 8 087202 16606218
Tissier, M., Tarjus, G.: Unified picture of ferromagnetism, quasi-long-range order, and criticality in random-field models. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96(8), 087202 (2006)16606218
62. Van Den Berg J Maes C Disagreement percolation in the study of Markov fields Ann. Probab. 1994 22 2 749 763
Van Den Berg, J., Maes, C.: Disagreement percolation in the study of Markov fields. Ann. Probab. 22(2), 749–763 (1994)
63. van Enter AC Külske C Nonexistence of random gradient Gibbs measures in continuous interface models in d=2 Ann. Appl. Probab. 2008 18 1 109 119
van Enter, A.C., Külske, C.: Nonexistence of random gradient Gibbs measures in continuous interface models in . Ann. Appl. Probab. 18(1), 109–119 (2008)
64. Von Dreifus H Klein A Perez JF Taming Griffiths’ singularities: infinite differentiability of quenched correlation functions Commun. Math. Phys. 1995 170 1 21 39
Von Dreifus, H., Klein, A., Perez, J.F.: Taming Griffiths’ singularities: infinite differentiability of quenched correlation functions. Commun. Math. Phys. 170(1), 21–39 (1995)
