format: text

text:
# References

The enigma of the scalar mesons may be boiled down to an essential question: what are the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$? Do they have a common origin and, if so, what is it? Understanding the $`f_0(980)`$ in particular is a central problem for identifying the dynamics associated with the long sought scalar glueball.

There have even been suggestions that the $`f_0(980)`$ itself may be the eponymous glueball, perhaps mixed with $`q\overline{q}`$; in such a case the mass degeneracy with the $`a_0(980)`$ would be somewhat accidental and the two mesons not clearly related. An interpretation of the $`f_0(980)`$ as a $`q\overline{q}`$ state is still consistent with the present data (see for example ref. ). By contrast, there is a large body of work drawing on the observation that the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ are very close to the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold, and that the $`K\overline{K}`$ channel drives the dynamics . As an extreme, there is the possibility that these mesons are truly bound states of $`K\overline{K}`$ .

Traditionally in strong interactions isospin is believed to be a nearly exact symmetry, broken only by the slightly different masses of the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks and/or electroweak effects. The small difference in mass between $`K^\pm `$ and $`K^0`$ is a particular example. However, the mass gaps between the $`f_0(980)/a_0(980)`$ and the $`K^+K^{}`$ and $`K^0K^0`$ thresholds are substantially different with the result that the dynamics of bound $`K\overline{K}`$ states can be described better in a basis specified by mass eigenstates. Such dynamics would give rise to a violation of isospin and lead to mixing of states with different G-parities.

The possibility of such an effect was suggested long ago in ref. . In ref.  a study was performed of the production of the $`a_0(980)`$ in the reaction $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\eta \pi `$ which due to G parity is forbidden and can only occur through $`f_0(980)a_0(980)`$ mixing. This showed that (6–33)% of the $`a_0(980)`$ cross section in $`\pi ^{}p`$ reactions could be due to $`f_0(980)a_0(980)`$ mixing. Further discussions along this line have been made by ref.  who have specifically drawn attention to the relation between the existence of $`K\overline{K}`$ molecular bound states and large violations of isospin. Very recently, attention has been drawn to such mixings having observable effects in threshold photoproduction, such as at CEBAF . These papers have all concentrated on the production of the $`f_0(980)/a_0(980)`$ by flavoured mesons or photons; in this paper we propose that their production by gluonic systems, such as the $`IP`$(Pomeron)-induced production in the central region at high energy: $`pppp+f_0(980)/a_0(980)`$, may provide rather clean tests of the mixing. Furthermore, we shall suggest that new data from the WA102 collaboration at CERN  are already consistent with a significant mixing. We shall consider alternative interpretations and suggest ways of eliminating these in future experiments.

These data potentially may help to elucidate the nature of the $`f_0(980)/a_0(980)`$ states. Our hypothesis is based on recent breakthroughs in understanding the dynamics and topology (momentum and spatial distributions) of meson production in the central region of rapidity, $`pppMp`$ . In particular, we shall focus on the description of the observed $`\varphi `$ dependences , where $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the $`p_T`$ vectors of the two outgoing protons. In such processes at high energy, where $`IP`$$`IP`$ fusion dominates the meson production, $`C=+,I=0`$ resonances such as the $`f_0(980)`$ are very strongly produced  whereas in general isospin 1 states are suppressed . Even at the energies of the WA102 data, there is considerable evidence that $`IP`$$`IP`$ fusion is an important part of the production dynamics . It is tantalising therefore that recent data from the WA102 collaboration on the centrally produced $`\eta \pi `$ final state  show interesting effects in that they are in accord with substantial $`f_0(980)a_0(980)`$ mixing.

In particular it is instructive to compare the systematics of the well understood $`f_2(1270)/a_2(1320)`$ $`(^3P_2q\overline{q})`$ states with the $`f_0(980)/a_0(980)`$ states. In the reaction $`ppp(\eta \pi ^o)p`$ the centrally produced $`a_0(980)`$ and $`a_2(1320)`$ are suppressed relative to their $`I=0`$ partners, as expected for $`I=1`$ states. Nonetheless, there appears to be an extra affinity for $`a_0(980)`$ production here, since

$$\frac{\sigma (pppp[a_0^0(980)\eta \pi ])}{\sigma (pppp[a_2^0(1320)\eta \pi ])}2.0\pm 0.4$$
(1)
By contrast, when the charged members of these isovectors are produced, as in $`ppp(\eta \pi ^{})\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$, $`a_0^{}(980)`$ and $`a_2^{}(1320)`$ production rates are found to be similar. Fits to the $`\eta \pi ^{}`$ mass spectrum in central production give

$$\frac{\sigma (ppp\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}[a_0^{}(980)\eta \pi ^{}])}{\sigma (ppp\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}[a_2^{}(1320)\eta \pi ^{}])}0.8\pm 0.2$$
(2)
The significance of these ratios becomes more apparent when compared with the case of the charge exchange reaction, where (as in eq. (2)) $`I=1`$ exchanges are necessarily present. In this case the $`a_2(1320)`$ meson dominates the mass spectrum, and the ratio

$$\frac{\sigma (\pi ^{}p[a_0(980)\eta \pi ]n)}{\sigma (\pi ^{}p[a_2(1320)\eta \pi ]n)}0.15$$
(3)
at 38 GeV/c beam momentum.

First we shall explain this hierarchy and motivate the enhancement in (1) as indicative of direct $`f_0(980)`$ production with $`f_0(980)a_0(980)`$ mixing. Then we show how the characteristic momentum and $`\varphi `$ dependences of $`f_0(980)`$ production will, through mixing, spill over to $`a_0(980)`$ production. Finally we shall see that such signatures are indeed present in the $`a_0(980)`$ production data and consistent with a substantial $`f_0(980)a_0(980)`$ mixing.

In $`\pi ^{}pa_{0,2}n`$ (3), it is easy to make the $`a_2(1320)`$ via $`\rho `$ exchange. However in order to produce the $`a_0(980)`$, $`\rho _2`$ and/or $`b_1`$ exchange is needed which is relatively suppressed . In $`ppp(\eta \pi ^{})\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ (2) the $`a_2`$ production is again consistent with $`\pi \rho `$ fusion . Fig. 1b) shows the observed $`\varphi `$ distribution for the $`a_2^{}(1320)`$ . As can be seen the distribution is isotropic in $`\varphi `$, as expected for $`\pi `$ exchange , and the $`t`$ slopes  are consistent with $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ being produced at either vertex, (it is known that the $`\rho `$ can be produced at the $`p\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ vertex from the WA102 data on $`ppp\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\rho ^{}`$ ). However, some other mechanism is needed to explain the relatively enhanced $`a_0(980)`$ signal. The $`\varphi `$ distribution for the $`a_0^{}(980)`$ is shown in fig. 1a) and as can be seen it is also isotropic.

There are four particular exchanges that can enhance the $`a_0(980)`$ signal in $`ppp(\eta \pi ^{})\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ (2)relative to its suppressed rate in charge exchange (3). First, I=0 exchange ($`\eta `$) can occur at the proton vertex and cause $`\pi \eta a_0(980)/a_2(1320)`$. Though $`\eta `$ exchange will be isotropic in $`\varphi `$, in accord with data, it is generally agreed to be small and hence unlikely on its own to drive the enhanced $`a_0(980)`$ signal.

The second possibility is production by $`\pi b_1`$ fusion. Although the $`ppb_1`$ vertex is small, for $`p\mathrm{\Delta }b_1`$ the quantum numbers match in $`S`$wave and so $`\pi b_1`$ fusion could be significant in $`ppp\mathrm{\Delta }a_{0,2}`$. Because of the $`\pi `$ exchange, the $`\varphi `$ distribution will be isotropic , as in the data. However, empirically $`\sigma (ppppa_2(1320))\sigma (ppp\mathrm{\Delta }a_2(1320))`$ which suggests that $`b_1`$ exchange is not the major mode and further points to $`\pi \rho a_2(1320)`$ as the dominant dynamics. If $`a_0(980)=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}(q\overline{q})`$ then in the quark model the ratio of amplitudes $`\pi b_1a_0(980)/a_2(1320)1`$ and we would still be left with the mystery of its production. Even if $`a_0(980)`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}(q\overline{q})`$, the $`\pi b_1`$ production would be expected to be minimal in $`pp`$ and so the enigma of $`a_0(980)`$ production there would remain.

The third possibility is that $`\rho `$ from the $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex fuses with $`\omega `$ from the $`pp`$ vertex. This can feed both $`a_0(980)`$ and $`a_2(1320)`$. Empirically the $`a_2(1320)`$ is produced polarised with $`\lambda =1`$ ; however, $`VV2^{++}(\lambda =1)`$ would contain a characteristic $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi /2)`$ component  in marked contrast to the observed isotropy. This suggests that $`\rho \omega a_2(1320)`$ is not a major mechanism and to the extent that $`a_{0,2}`$ are related as $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0,2}^{}`$ $`q\overline{q}`$ states, would also argue against a strong $`a_0(980)`$ signal. Furthermore, the empirical absence of $`a_2(1320)(^3P_2q\overline{q})`$ with $`(\lambda =0)`$ would in turn also imply a suppressed production of $`a_0(980)(^3P_0q\overline{q})`$. However, it is possible that the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold disturbs the $`a_0(980)`$ such that $`\rho \omega a_0(980)`$ is controlled by this and not by the $`q\overline{q}`$ content; in this case the production strength and properties could be independent of the $`a_2(1320)`$. In general the $`\varphi `$ dependence for a $`0^{++}`$ state produced by vector-vector fusion (where $`L`$ is the the longitudinal component of the vector and $`T`$ is the transverse component) has the following structure :

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt_1dt_2d\varphi }[1+\frac{\sqrt{t_1t_2}}{\mu ^2}\frac{a_T}{a_L}e^{(b_Lb_T)(t_1+t_2)/2}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )]^2e^{b_L(t_1+t_2)}$$
(4)
The ratio $`a_T/a_L`$, which determines the relative importance of the $`0^+`$ production by $`T`$ or $`L`$ components,can be positive or negative, or in general even complex; its value is determined, inter alia, by the internal dynamics of the produced meson. To the extent that the $`\varphi `$ distributions empirically are consistent with being isotropic, it would appear that longitudinal-scalar amplitudes dominate the production for the $`a_0(980)`$; this might be natural were it a $`K\overline{K}`$ molecule where $`K`$ exchange dominated the production vertex.

The fourth possibility is that $`IP`$ exchange plays a role at the $`pp`$ vertex. In principle there could be significant $`a_{0,2}`$ $`IP`$$`a_{0,2}`$. If these were dominant, one would expect similar production rates of $`a_0(980)`$ in both $`ppa_0(980)`$ and $`p\mathrm{\Delta }a_0(980)`$ processes and also a rapid fall off in the $`a_0(980)/a_2(1320)`$ production ratio with increasing energy. As the data are only at a single value of $`s`$ one cannot immediately eliminate this. However there are two features that argue against this. First, $`a_0(980)`$ $`IP`$$`a_0(980)`$ will give an isotropic $`\varphi `$ distribution; while this is seen in the $`p\mathrm{\Delta }a_0(980)`$ production (fig. 1a), the reaction $`ppa_0(980)`$ is $`\varphi `$ dependent (fig. 2a). Second; the $`x_F`$ distributions of the $`a_0^{}(980)`$ and $`a_2^{}(1320)`$ formed in $`p\mathrm{\Delta }a_{0,2}`$ are shown in fig 1c) and d) respectively. As can be seen the distributions are flat for $`x_F0.1`$ (do not peak as $`x_F0`$) which may indicate that there is a significant presence of non-central production. Fig 2c) and d) show the $`x_F`$ distributions for the $`a_0^0(980)`$ and $`a_2^0(1320)`$ formed in $`ppa_{0,2}`$. The distribution for the $`a_2^0(1320)`$ is similar to that observed for the $`a_2^{}(1320)`$ whereas that for the $`a_0^0(980)`$ is significantly different and peaks at $`x_F=0`$. Indeed this is the only state with $`I=1`$ that is observed to have a $`x_F`$ distribution peaked at zero , and moreover the distribution for the $`a_0^0(980)`$ looks similar to the central production of states that are accessible to $`IP`$$`IP`$ fusion, in particular $`IP`$$`IP`$$`f_0(980)`$, see fig 3c) and d). If we restrict ourselves to the central production region $`x_F0.1`$, then the relative ratio of $`a_0/a_2`$ production rates in eq. (1) is even more enhanced and becomes $`3.4\pm 0.4`$ .

In summary, we are unable to find an explanation of the production of $`a_0`$ in $`ppp\mathrm{\Delta }a_0`$ if $`a_0=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}q\overline{q}`$. We will now show evidence that there is significant mixing between $`a_0^0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$ in $`ppppa_0/f_0`$, which reveals a marked affinity of these states for $`K\overline{K}`$.

In the process $`ppp(\eta \pi ^0)p`$ (1), there is a prominent new feature allowed, namely $`IP`$$`IP`$ fusion due to $`IP`$ emission at each proton vertex. As this will feed only $`I=0`$ channels, such as the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`f_2(1270)`$, one would not expect this to affect $`a_{0,2}`$ production unless isospin is broken. As we noted earlier, the $`a_0(980)/a_2(1320)`$ ratio in the WA102 data is significantly larger in reaction (1) than in reaction (2), especially so when $`x_F0.1`$. Furthermore, the $`x_F`$ distribution of the $`a_0(980)`$ production is, within the errors, identical to that of the $`f_0(980)`$ (see fig. 3d)). In reaction (2) the $`\varphi `$ dependencies for both the $`a_0(980)`$ and $`a_2(1320)`$ are flat (fig. 1a) and b) respectively). In reaction (1) although the $`\varphi `$ dependence of the $`a_2(1320)`$ remains flat (fig. 2b)) that of the $`a_0(980)`$ is peaked as $`\varphi 0`$ (fig. 2a)). In fact the $`\varphi `$ distribution for the $`a_0(980)`$ looks very similar to that observed for the $`f_0(980)`$ (fig. 3a) and c)). Qualitatively this is what would be expected if part of the centrally produced $`a_0^0(980)`$ is due to $`IP`$$`IP`$$`f_0(980)`$ followed by mixing between the $`f_0(980)`$ and the $`a_0(980)`$.

In order to estimate the amount of the $`a_0^0(980)`$ that has been produced by mixing we have performed a fit to the $`\varphi `$ distribution of the $`a_0^0(980)`$ assuming it to be the sum of two incoherent components: (i) a flat distribution similar to the $`a_0^{}(980)`$ and (ii) a distribution of the form $`(4+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ))^2`$ which describes the $`\varphi `$ distribution of the $`f_0(980)`$ as shown in fig 3a). We have determined from the fit to fig. 2a) that 80 $`\pm `$ 25 % of the $`a_0^0(980)`$ comes from the $`f_0(980)`$. Combining this result with the relative total cross sections for the production the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0^0(980)`$  we find the $`f_0(980)a_0(980)`$ mixing intensity to be 8 $`\pm `$ 3 %.

Technically our analysis only sets an upper limit on the isospin breaking until such time as the energy dependence is determined and the $`IP`$$`IP`$ production thereby confirmed. Subject to this caveat our analysis adds weight to the hypothesis that the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ are siblings that strongly mix, and that the $`a_0(980)`$ is not simply a $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}q\overline{q}`$ partner of the $`a_2(1320)`$. A natural explanation of these results would be that the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold plays an essential role in the existence and properties of these states. The question of whether they are $`K\overline{K}`$ bound states or whether it is merely the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold which is driving these effects is still to be resolved.

Other lines of study are now warranted. Experimentally to confirm these ideas requires measuring the production of the $`\eta \pi `$ channel at a much higher energy, for example, at LHC, Fermilab or RHIC where Reggeon exchanges such as $`\rho \omega `$ would be effectively zero and hence any $`a_0(980)`$ production must come from isospin breaking effects. In addition, “pure” flavour channels should now be explored. Examples are $`D_s`$ decays  where the weak decay leads to a pure I=1 light hadron final state. Thus $`\pi f_0(980)`$ will be (and is ) prominent, while our analysis would suggest that $`\pi a_0`$ should also be present at $`8\pm 3`$ % intensity. We recommend that these be studied with high statistics data sets now emerging from E791, FOCUS and BaBar. In addition, we encourage studies of $`J/\psi `$ decays at Beijing, in particular to the “forbidden” final states $`\omega a_0`$ and $`\varphi a_0`$ where we predict branching ratios of $`O(10^5)`$. On the theory side, detailed predictions are needed in specific models in order to resolve precisely how the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold relates to the $`f_0(980)/a_0(980)`$ states.

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to H.J.Lipkin for comments on heavy flavour decays. This work is supported, in part, by grants from the British Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, the British Royal Society, and the European Community Human Mobility Program Eurodafne, contract NCT98-0169.

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3


text:
# 0.1 General background and heuristics

## 0.1 General background and heuristics

We begin with an informal description; full definitions will be given below. Consider the stochastic Ising model (Glauber dynamics) in an $`l\times l`$ box $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$, below the critical temperature. At equilibrium, the typical configuration resembles one of the two infinite-volume pure phases (plus phase or minus phase) except very near the boundary. That is, the equilibrium distribution $`\mu =\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta `$ (at inverse temperature $`\beta `$, under boundary condition $`\omega `$) is roughly either the plus phase, the minus phase or a distributional mixture of the two. This equilibrium may take a long time to be reached, if the box is large. The rate of convergence is described by the spectral gap, denoted $`\mathrm{gap}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega ,\beta )`$, which is the smallest positive eigenvalue of the negative of the generator of the dynamics. More precisely, for $`S()`$ the associated semigroup and $`_\mu `$ the $`L^2(\mu )`$ norm, $`\mathrm{gap}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega ,\beta )`$ is the largest constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that

$$S(t)ff𝑑\mu _\mu ff𝑑\mu _\mu e^{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\text{for all }fL^2(\mu )\text{ and }t0.$$

For pure boundary conditions, say all plus, at subcritical temperatures the spectral gap is believed to be of order $`l^2`$ \[FH87\]. The spectral gap can be very sensitive to the boundary condition, however. For example, removing as few as $`O(\mathrm{log}l)`$ plus spins near each corner of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ (leaving the boudary there free, or minus) yields a gap much smaller than $`l^2`$, and removing $`ϵl`$ plus spins from each corner, for some positive $`ϵ`$, yields a gap which decreases exponentially in $`l`$ \[Al00\]. These phenomena are outgrowths of the fact that the boundary conditions are not well mixed, the free boundary or minus spins being concentrated in short intervals at the corners. More mixed boundary conditions are considered in \[HY97\], where it is shown that if the boundary condition $`\omega `$ satisfies

$$|\underset{yI}{}\omega _y|\delta l/2\text{for every interval }I\text{ in }_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)$$
(0.1)
with $`\delta <1`$, then

$$\mathrm{gap}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega ,\beta )B_{\text{0.2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta l/C_{\text{0.2}}\right),l=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(0.2)
where $`B_{\text{0.2}}=B_{\text{0.2}}(\beta )>0`$ and $`C_{\text{0.2}}>0`$. Here $`_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ denotes the exterior boundary; see (0.8). One can allow the boundary spins $`\omega _y`$ to take values in the continuum $`[1,1]`$, with $`\omega _y=0`$ representing the free boundary condition at site $`y`$. The condition (0.1) is somewhat restrictive, however; for example, it does not allow the long intervals of boundary plus spins which appear in the above-mentioned results from \[Al00\]. In this paper we establish (0.2) under a “mixed boundary” hypothesis much weaker than (0.1).

The importance of the geometry of boundary spin locations can be seen in comparing the result in \[Al00\], giving exponential decay of the gap when $`ϵl`$ plus spins are removed at each corner, to a result of Martinelli \[Mar94\] which states that when one side of the square has all-plus boundary condition, and the other 3 sides have free boundary, at sufficiently low temperatures one has

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(C(\beta ,ϵ)l^{\frac{1}{2}+ϵ}\right)\mathrm{gap}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega ,\beta )\text{for }ϵ>0,l=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(0.3)
In the latter case there are many fewer plus spins but the gap is much larger, meaning the convergence to the equilibrium plus phase is much faster.

The heuristics of the gap are rooted in the ideas of energy barriers and traps. From certain starting configurations, to reach a typical equilibrium configuration, one must pass through a set of configurations for each of which the total energy is greater than either the typical starting or equilibrium total energies. An energy barrier is such a set of high-energy configurations; the height of the barrier is the typical additional energy of the barrier configurations relative to the starting configurations. A trap is a set of starting configurations from which one cannot reach equilibrium without crossing an energy barrier. (We do not make formal definitions here, as we will not use these concepts other than descriptively.) Typically one expects the gap to be exponentially small in the height of the energy barrier that must be crossed, for a trap of which the probability is “not too small.” Often traps are related to the existence of macroscopic regions of the “wrong phase,” that is, say, regions of minus phase when the equilibrium is purely the plus phase. For example, in the “corners-removed” context of \[Al00\], a trap is formed by the configurations in which there is an “X” of minus phase connecting the four free-boundary corner regions, and the height of the associated energy barrier is proportional to the length of the corner regions. In the above “three-sides-free” example of Martinelli, however, say with the plus spins on the right side of the square, there is no real energy barrier because, starting from the minus phase, a region of plus phase can sweep leftward, maintaining an approximately vertical interface, until it covers the full square.

Consider now a boundary condition $`\omega `$ which is “well-mixed” in the sense that

$$|\underset{yI}{}\omega _y|\delta |I|$$
(0.4)
for every “sufficiently long” interval $`I`$ in the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$, with $`\delta <1`$, and suppose $`\omega `$ favors the plus phase (more precisely, the magnetization at the center of the square is nonnegative.) If the system is started entirely in the minus phase, we expect the region of minus phase (the “droplet”) to pull away from the boundary and then shrink to nothing, at which time equilibrium is essentially reached. When the droplet initially fills $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$, the energy associated to its surface (this surface being essentially $`_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$) is at most $`8\delta l`$, by (0.4). When the droplet has pulled only slightly away from the boundary, however, the surface energy becomes essentially twice the droplet boundary length (provided the temperature is very low), hence is at least about $`8l`$. Thus there is an energy barrier; the droplet will tend to stick to the boundary, meaning the minus phase is a trap. Though we do not make these particular heuristics rigorous in our proofs, they are what underlie our main result.

For fixed $`\omega `$ satisfying (0.4), at higher but still subcritical temperatures, one does not expect this phenomenon of sticking to the boundary to occur. This is because the surface energy (appropriately defined using surface tension and coarse-graining) of the droplet is no longer essentially twice its length; a diagonal interface has significantly less surface energy than combined horizontal and vertical interfaces having the same endpoints. This means the droplet should be able to pull away from the boundary, first from the corners, without the crossing of an energy barrier. We will not investigate this type of behavior here.

Additional existing results at subcritical temperatures include the following. Thomas \[Tho89\] proved that in general dimension $`d`$, for free boundary conditions ($`\omega 0`$), for sufficiently large $`\beta `$,

$$\mathrm{gap}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega ,\beta )B_{\text{0.5}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta l^{d1}/C_{\text{0.5}}\right)l=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(0.5)
where $`B_{\text{0.5}}=B_{\text{0.5}}(\beta ,d)>0`$ and $`C_{\text{0.5}}=C_{\text{0.5}}(d)>0`$. For $`d=2`$, Cesi et al \[CGMS96\] prove (0.5) with $`\omega 0`$ for all $`\beta >\beta _c`$, where $`\beta _c`$ is the inverse critical temparature. For $`d=2`$, in contrast with (0.5), it is known that for $`\beta >\beta _c`$ and $`\omega +1`$,

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\phi (l)\right)\mathrm{gap}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega ,\beta ),l=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(0.6)
with a function $`\phi (l)=o(l^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}+ϵ})`$ as $`l\mathrm{}`$, for all $`ϵ>0`$. This result was first obtained by F. Martinelli \[Mar94, Mar97\]. More recently, Y. Higuchi and J. Wang \[HW99\] showed (0.6) with $`\phi (l)=C(\beta )(l\mathrm{ln}l)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}`$. Schonmann \[Sch94, Theorem 5\] showed that $`\mathrm{gap}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega )`$ can shrink no faster than exponential of $`O(l^{d1})`$; specifically, the spectral gap has the following general lower bound for all $`d2`$ and $`\beta >0`$:

$$\underset{¯}{q}(\beta )l^d\mathrm{exp}\left(4\beta \underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}l^j\right)\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{inf}\mathrm{gap}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega ,\beta ),l=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(0.7)
Here $`\underset{¯}{q}(\beta )`$ is a uniform lower bound for all flip rates.

## 0.2 Basic definitions

The lattice.  For $`x=(x_1,x_2)𝐙^2`$, we will use both the $`l_1`$-norm $`x_1=|x_1|+|x_2|`$ and the $`l_{\mathrm{}}`$-norm $`x_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{max}\{|x_1|,|x_2|\}`$. A set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2`$ is said to be $`ł_p`$-connected ($`p=1`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$) if for each distinct $`x,y\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we can find some $`\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_n\}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`x_0=x`$, $`x_n=y`$ and $`x_jx_{j1}_p=1`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$). The interior and exterior boundaries of a set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2`$ will be denoted respectively by

$`_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\{x\mathrm{\Lambda };xy_1=1\text{ for some }y\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ }\},`$
$`_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\{y\mathrm{\Lambda };xy_1=1\text{ for some }x\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ }\}.`$ (0.8)
The number of points contained in a set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2`$ will be denoted by $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$. We will use the notation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2`$ to indicate that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2`$ with $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|<\mathrm{}`$. A cube with the side-length $`l`$ will be denoted by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)=(l/2,l/2]^d𝐙^d.$$
(0.9)
An $`ł_{\mathrm{}}`$-connected subset of $`_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ will be called an interval of $`_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$.

The configurations and the Gibbs states.  We define two kind of spin configurations;

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\{\sigma =(\sigma _x)_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }};\sigma _x=\text{+1 or }1\},\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\omega =(\omega _y)_{y𝐙^2};\omega _y[1,1]\}.`$
We are mainly interested in $`\omega _y\{1,0,1\}`$, but there is no extra work in allowing $`\omega _y[1,1]`$. We will refer an element $`\omega `$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ as a boundary condition. The set of all real functions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is denoted by $`𝒞_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2`$ and $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$, the Hamiltonian  $`H_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega :\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐑`$ is defined by

$$H_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega (\sigma )=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\begin{array}{c}x,y\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ }\\ xy_1=1\end{array}}{}\sigma _x\sigma _y\underset{\begin{array}{c}x\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{}y\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ }\\ xy_1=1\end{array}}{}\sigma _x\omega _y.$$

A finite-volume Gibbs state  on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with the boundary condition $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ is defined to be a probability distribution $`\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega `$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, in which the probability of each configuration $`\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by

$$\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega (\{\sigma \})=\frac{1}{Z_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega }\mathrm{exp}\beta H_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega (\sigma ),$$

where $`\beta >0`$ is the inverse temparature and $`Z_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega `$ is the normalizing constant.

Stochastic Ising Models.  For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2`$, we consider a function $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }:\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}]0,\mathrm{}[`$ which satisfies the following conditions;

Boundedness : There exist positive constants $`\underset{¯}{q}(\beta )`$ and $`\overline{q}(\beta )`$ such that

$$\underset{¯}{q}(\beta )q_\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,\sigma ,\omega )\overline{q}(\beta ),$$
(0.10)
for all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2`$, and $`(x,\sigma ,\omega )\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$.

the Detailed Balance Condition:

$$q_\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,\sigma ,\omega )\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta H_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega (\sigma )\right)=q_\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,\sigma ^x,\omega )\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta H_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega (\sigma ^x)\right),$$
(0.11)
for all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2`$ and $`(x,\sigma ,\omega )\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$, where $`\sigma ^x`$ is the configuration obtained from $`\sigma `$ by replacing $`\sigma _x`$ by $`\sigma _x`$.

An example of such $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,\sigma ,\omega )`$ is given by;

$`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,\sigma ,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left((\beta /2)\{H_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega (\sigma ^x)H_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega (\sigma )\}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \sigma _x\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{y\mathrm{\Lambda }:xy_1=1}{}}\sigma _y+{\displaystyle \underset{y\mathrm{\Lambda }:xy_1=1}{}}\omega _y\right\}\right).`$
Now, fix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2`$ and $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$. We define a linear operator $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega :𝒞_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒞_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by

$$A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega f(\sigma )=\underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}q_\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,\sigma ,\omega )\{f(\sigma ^x)f(\sigma )\},f𝒞_\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

Thus $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,\sigma ,\omega )`$ represents the rate at which the spin at $`x`$ flips to the opposite spin, when the configuration is $`\sigma `$. It can easily be seen from (0.11) that

$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\omega }^\beta (fA_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega g)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }}{}\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\omega }^\beta (\sigma )q_\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,\sigma ,\omega )\{f(\sigma ^x)f(\sigma )\}\{g(\sigma ^x)g(\sigma )\}.$$

Next, we define

$$\mathrm{gap}(\mathrm{\Lambda },\omega ,\beta )=inf\left\{\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\omega }^\beta (fA_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega f)}{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\omega }^\beta (|f\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\omega }^\beta f|^2)};f𝒞_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right\},$$
(0.12)
which is the smallest positive eigenvalue of $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\omega `$. Considering only indicator functions in (0.12) we obtain

$$\mathrm{gap}(\mathrm{\Lambda },\omega ,\beta )\frac{\overline{q}(\beta )}{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }^c)}\underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}{}\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }:\sigma ^x\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\sigma ).$$
(0.13)
Thus any fixed event $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ gives an upper bound for the gap. Roughly, to obtain a good bound one wants to choose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be a trap.

## 0.3 Statement of main results

The following is our main result, improving on the condition (0.1).

###### Theorem 0.1

Consider a stochastic Ising model on a square $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ satisfying (0.10) and (0.11). Suppose that $`0<\delta <1`$ and the boundary condition $`\omega _y[1,+1]`$, $`y_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ satisfies

$$|\underset{yI}{}\omega _y|\delta |I|\text{for every interval }I_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)\text{ with }|I|=l\text{.}$$
(0.14)
Then, there exists $`\beta _0=\beta _0(\delta )>0`$ such that

$$\mathrm{gap}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega ,\beta )B_{\text{0.15}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta l/C_{\text{0.15}}),$$
(0.15)
for $`\beta \beta _0`$ and $`l=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, where $`B_{\text{0.15}}=B_{\text{0.15}}(\beta ,\delta )>0`$ and $`C_{\text{0.15}}=C_{\text{0.15}}(\delta )>0`$.

Condition (0.14) is much milder than (0.1). For example, (0.14) allows a boundary condition which is $`+1`$ for 99 % of the boundary with 1 % zero on each side. Moreover, condition (0.14) turns out to be optimal in the following example. For $`\delta >0`$, consider a boundary condition $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ defined by

$$\omega _x=\{\begin{array}{cc}+1\hfill & \text{ if }x_1=[l/2]+1\text{ and }\frac{\delta l}{2}<x_2\frac{\delta l}{2}\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(0.16)
In this example, we see the transition from (0.2) to (0.3) depending on the value of $`\delta `$. By Theorem 0.1, one sees that (0.2) is true for all $`\delta <1`$. On the other hand, it follows from \[Mar94, Corollary 4.1\] that (0.3) holds true for $`\delta =1`$.

Theorem 0.1 has the following application to random boundary conditions.

###### Corollary 0.2

Suppose that $`d=2`$ and that $`\omega _y[1,1]`$, $`y𝐙^2`$ are i.i.d. random variables with the mean $`m(1,1)`$. Then, there exists $`\beta _0=\beta _0(m)>0`$ as follows. For $`\beta \beta _0`$, there are constants $`B_{\text{0.17}}=B_{\text{0.17}}(\beta ,m)>0`$ and $`C_{\text{0.17}}=C_{\text{0.17}}(m)>0`$ such that almost surely;

$$\mathrm{gap}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega ,\beta )B_{\text{0.17}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta l/C_{\text{0.17}})\text{for }l=1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(0.17)
Proof of Corollary 0.2 is similar to that of \[HY97, Corollary 2.2.\] and hence is omitted.

SSPreliminaries for the proof of Theorem 1.1

## 0.4 Contours

The set $`𝐁`$ of all bonds in $`𝐙^2`$ is defined by

$$𝐁=\{\{x,y\}𝐙^2;xy_1=1\}.$$

For a set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we define

$`𝐁_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\{\{x,y\}𝐁;(x,y)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\},`$
$`𝐁_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\{\{x,y\}𝐁;(x,y)\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \mathrm{\Lambda }^c\},`$
$`\overline{𝐁}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`𝐁_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐁_\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$
The *dual lattice* $`(𝐙^2)^{}`$ is $`𝐙^2`$ shifted by $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$; sites and bonds of this lattice are called *dual sites* and *dual bonds*. $`x^{}`$ denotes $`x+(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$. When necessary for clarity, bonds of $`𝐙^2`$ are called *regular bonds*. To each regular bond $`b`$ there is associated a unique dual bond $`b^{}`$ which is its perpendicular bisector. For $`A𝐁`$ we write $`A^{}`$ for $`\{e^{}:eA\}`$. For $`\gamma \overline{𝐁}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ we set

$$V(\gamma )=_{e=\{x,y\}:e^{}\gamma }\{x,y\},V_{\mathrm{ex}}(\gamma )=V(\gamma )_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

When convenient we view bonds and dual bonds as closed intervals in $`𝐑^2`$, as when referrring to a connected set of (dual) bonds. The number of dual bonds contained in a set $`\gamma 𝐁^{}`$ will be denoted by $`|\gamma |`$.

For $`x𝐑^2`$ let $`Q(x)=_{j=1}^2[x_j\frac{1}{2},x_j+\frac{1}{2}]`$, and for $`\mathrm{\Theta }𝐙^2`$ let $`Q(\mathrm{\Theta })=_{x\mathrm{\Theta }}Q(x)`$. A contour is a finite subset $`\gamma 𝐁^{}`$ which is of the form $`Q(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ for some finite $`\mathrm{\Theta }𝐙^2`$ for which both $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^c`$ are $`l_1`$-connected. The set $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is uniquely determined by $`\gamma `$ and hence is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\gamma )`$. As is well known, for each $`b𝐁`$ and $`m=1,2,\mathrm{}`$,

$$\mathrm{}\{\gamma :\gamma \text{ is a contour with }|\gamma |=m\text{ and }\gamma b\text{ }\}3^{m1}.$$
(0.18)
If a contour $`\gamma `$ is a subset of $`\overline{𝐁}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ for some $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2`$, we say $`\gamma `$ is a contour in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For $`\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\epsilon =+\text{ or }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2`$, an ($`ϵ`$)-cluster in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at $`\sigma `$ is an $`l_1`$-connected component of $`\{x𝐙^2:\sigma _x=ϵ1\}`$. The outer boundary of a bounded subset $`A`$ of $`𝐑^2`$ is the unique connected component of $`A`$ which is contained in the closure of the unique unbounded component of $`A^c`$. A contour $`\gamma `$ is said to be an ($`\epsilon `$)-contour in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at $`\sigma `$ if $`\gamma `$ is the outer boundary of $`Q(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ for some ($`\epsilon `$)-cluster $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. A contour $`\gamma `$ is said to be a contour in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at $`\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if it is either (+)-contour in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at $`\sigma `$ or ($``$)-contour in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at $`\sigma `$. Note that the boundary condition does not affect whether a given $`\gamma `$ is an ($`\epsilon `$)-contour in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, under our definition.

## 0.5 Reductions

We may assume slightly more restrictive condition than (0.14) to prove Theorem 0.1.

First, we may replace (0.14) with

$$|\underset{yI}{}\omega _y|\delta _{\text{0.19}}|I|\text{for every interval }I_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)\text{ with }|I|l\text{.}$$
(0.19)
This is because (0.14) for a given $`\delta `$ implies (0.19) with $`\delta _{\text{0.19}}=(1+\delta )/2`$. We may next strengthen (0.19) as follows: there exists $`0<\delta _{\text{0.20}}<1`$ such that

$$|\underset{yI}{}\omega _y|\delta _{\text{0.20}}|I|\text{for every interval }I_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)\text{ with }|I|\delta _{\text{0.20}}l\text{.}$$
(0.20)
In fact, suppose that the boundary condition $`\omega `$ satisfies (0.19) for some $`\delta <1`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }<1`$ satisfy

$$\delta +(1+\delta )(1\stackrel{~}{\delta })\stackrel{~}{\delta }^1<\stackrel{~}{\delta }<1.$$
(0.21)
Then (0.20) with $`\delta _{\text{0.20}}=\stackrel{~}{\delta }`$ holds. To see this, take an arbirary interval $`I_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ with $`|I|\stackrel{~}{\delta }l`$. By expanding $`I`$, if necessary, we get an interval $`\stackrel{~}{I}I`$ such that $`|\stackrel{~}{I}|l`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{I}\backslash I|(1\stackrel{~}{\delta })l(1\stackrel{~}{\delta })\stackrel{~}{\delta }^1|I|`$. We then have $`|\stackrel{~}{I}|(1+(1\stackrel{~}{\delta })\stackrel{~}{\delta }^1)|I|`$, so

$`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{yI}{}}\omega _y\right|`$ $``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{y\stackrel{~}{I}}{}}\omega _y\right|+(1\stackrel{~}{\delta })\stackrel{~}{\delta }^1|I|,`$
$``$ $`\delta |\stackrel{~}{I}|+(1\stackrel{~}{\delta })\stackrel{~}{\delta }^1|I|`$
$``$ $`\left(\delta +(1+\delta )(1\stackrel{~}{\delta })\stackrel{~}{\delta }^1\right)|I|`$
$``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }|I|.`$
## 0.6 Outline of the proof of Theorem 1.1

We may and will assume (0.20). The basic strategy to prove Theorem 0.1 is rather standard \[Tho89, HY97\]. We define an event $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}`$ in which a “large” contour is present; by (0.13),

$`\mathrm{gap}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega ,\beta )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}(\beta )}{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_l)\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^c)}}{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_l:\sigma ^x\mathrm{\Gamma }_l}{}}\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\sigma ).`$ (0.22)
To prove Theorem 0.1, we will show that for large $`\beta `$, $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_l)`$ is uniformly positive in $`l`$ (Lemma 0.3 below) and

$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^c)^1\underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}{}\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_l,\sigma ^x\mathrm{\Gamma }_l}{}\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\sigma )$$

is exponentially small in $`l`$ (Lemma 0.4 below).

To define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$, we choose $`ϵ_{l,\omega }=\pm `$ as follows;

$$ϵ_{l,\omega }=\{\begin{array}{cc}+\hfill & \text{if }\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\sigma _0)0\text{,}\hfill \\ \hfill & \text{if }\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\sigma _0)<0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(0.23)
We fix $`\delta _1`$ such that $`\delta _{\text{0.20}}<\delta _1<1`$. The event $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_l=\{\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)};C_l(\sigma )\mathrm{}\},$$
(0.24)
where

$$C_l(\sigma )=\{\gamma ;\begin{array}{c}\gamma \text{ is an (}ϵ_{l,\omega }\text{)-contour in }\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)\text{ at }\sigma \text{ such that }\hfill \\ \text{ }\gamma Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))\mathrm{}\text{ and }|\gamma |2\delta _1l\hfill \end{array}\}.$$
(0.25)
To bound (0.22) from above, we use the following two lemmas.

###### Lemma 0.3

Assume (0.19). There exists $`\beta _1=\beta _1(\delta _{\text{0.20}})>0`$ such that

$$\underset{l1}{inf}\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_l)\frac{1}{3}\text{for }\beta \beta _1.$$
(0.26)
###### Lemma 0.4

Assume (0.19). There exists $`\beta _2=\beta _2(\delta _{\text{0.20}})>0`$ such that

$$\underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}{}\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_l:\sigma ^x\mathrm{\Gamma }_l}{}\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\sigma )\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^c)B_{\text{0.27}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta l/C_{\text{0.27}}\right)$$
(0.27)
for $`\beta \beta _2`$ and $`l=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, where $`B_{\text{0.27}}=B_{\text{0.27}}(\beta ,\delta _{\text{0.20}})>0`$ and $`C_{\text{0.27}}=C_{\text{0.27}}(\delta _{\text{0.20}})>0`$.

Theorem 0.1 follows immediately by plugging (0.26) and (0.27) into (0.22). In fact, we have for $`\beta \mathrm{max}\{\beta _1,\beta _2\}`$ that

$$\mathrm{gap}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega ,\beta )3\overline{q}(\beta )B_{\text{0.27}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta l/C_{\text{0.27}}\right).$$
(0.28)
$`\mathrm{}`$

SSProof of Lemmas 0.3 and 0.4

## 0.7 Energy estimates for contours

The proofs of Lemma 0.3 and Lemma 0.4 are based on energy estimates for contours, which we present in this subsection. We have to introduce additional definitions. The right, left, top and bottom sides of the square $`Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))`$ are denoted by $`F_l^{+1},F_l^1,F_l^{+2}`$ and $`F_l^2`$, respectively. A set of dual bonds $`\gamma \overline{𝐁}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ is said to be horizontally crossing if

$$AF_l^1\mathrm{}\text{and}AF_l^1\mathrm{}.$$
(0.29)
Similarly, $`\gamma `$ is said to be vertically crossing if

$$AF_l^2\mathrm{}\text{and}AF_l^2\mathrm{}.$$
(0.30)
The set $`A`$ is said to be crossing if it is either horizontally crossing or vertically crossing.

Suppose that $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p`$ are contours in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$. We set

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )=H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (T_{\gamma _1}\mathrm{}T_{\gamma _p}\sigma ),\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}$$
(0.31)
where we have defined a map $`T_\gamma :\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}`$ for a contour $`\gamma `$ by

$$(T_\gamma \sigma )_x=\{\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _x,\hfill & \text{if }x\mathrm{\Theta }(\gamma )\hfill \\ \sigma _x,\hfill & \text{if }x\mathrm{\Theta }(\gamma ).\hfill \end{array}$$
(0.32)
Suppose that a contour $`\gamma `$ is non-crossing. Then $`\gamma \left(F_l^iF_l^j\right)=\mathrm{}`$ for some $`i,j`$ with $`|i|=1`$ and $`|j|=2`$. Then there exists a unique connected component $`\underset{¯}{\gamma }`$ of $`\gamma \backslash Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))`$ which divides $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ into two $`l_1`$-connected components $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)\backslash \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\gamma )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ and $`F_l^iF_l^jQ\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)\backslash \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\right)`$. We define $`\overline{\gamma }Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))`$ and the interval $`I(\gamma )_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ respectively by

$`\overline{\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))Q(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}),`$ (0.33)
$`I(\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`V_{\mathrm{ex}}(\overline{\gamma }).`$ (0.34)
Note that

$$\overline{\gamma }\gamma Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)).$$
(0.35)
Note also that bonds in $`\overline{\gamma }`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with sites in $`I(\gamma )`$ in an obvious way.

###### Lemma 0.5

Let $`\gamma `$ be a a non-crossing ($`ϵ`$)-contour at a configuration $`\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}`$. Then

$`|\gamma \backslash Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))|`$ $``$ $`\frac{1}{2}|\gamma |+\frac{1}{2}|\gamma \backslash (Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))\underset{¯}{\gamma })|,`$ (0.36)
$`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )`$ $``$ $`\frac{1}{2}|\gamma |+\frac{1}{2}|\gamma \backslash (Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))\underset{¯}{\gamma })|ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{yV_{\mathrm{ex}}(\gamma )}{}}\omega _y,`$ (0.37)
$`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )`$ $``$ $`|\underset{¯}{\gamma }|ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{yV_{\mathrm{ex}}(\overline{\gamma })}{}}\omega _y0.`$ (0.38)
Suppose $`\{\gamma _j\}_{j=1}^p`$ are ($`ϵ`$)-contours in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ at $`\sigma `$ such that

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )c_1lc_2\text{for some }c_i0\text{ (}i=1,2\text{). }$$
(0.39)
Then,

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )\frac{c_1}{c_1+8}\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}|\gamma _j|c_2.$$
(0.40)
Let $`\gamma `$, $`\gamma _1`$, …, $`\gamma _p`$ be non-crossing ($`ϵ`$)-contours at a configuration $`\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}`$. Suppose that condition (0.20) is satisfied and that $`I`$ is an interval in $`_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ such that

$`_{j=1}^pI(\gamma _j)`$ $``$ $`I,`$ (0.41)
$`\delta _{\text{0.20}}l`$ $``$ $`|I|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}}|\underset{¯}{\gamma _j}|+c,`$ (0.42)
where $`c0`$ is a constant. Then

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )\epsilon _{\text{0.43}}\mathrm{max}\{l,\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}|\gamma _j|\}c,$$
(0.43)
where the constant $`\epsilon _{\text{0.43}}>0`$ depends only on $`\delta _{\text{0.20}}`$.

Proof of part (a): We have the following relations:

$`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`|\gamma \backslash Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))|ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{yV_{\mathrm{ex}}(\gamma )}{}}\omega _y,`$ (0.44)
$`|I(\gamma )|`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{\gamma }||\underset{¯}{\gamma }|,`$ (0.45)
$`|\overline{\gamma }\backslash \gamma |`$ $``$ $`|\gamma \backslash (Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))\underset{¯}{\gamma })|.`$ (0.46)
The equality (0.44) is obvious. The inequalities (0.45) and (0.46) can be seen from geometric considerations as follows. We decompose $`\gamma \backslash Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))`$ into connected components $`\{\lambda _i\}_{i0}`$, where $`\lambda _0=\underset{¯}{\gamma }`$. Let $`\tau _0=\overline{\gamma }`$ and let $`\{\tau _i\}_{i1}`$ be connected components of $`\overline{\gamma }\backslash \gamma `$. We can arrange the enumeration so that $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\tau _i`$ have common endpoints for each $`i0`$. From this observation and the fact that $`\gamma `$ is non-crossing, it follows that $`|\lambda _i||\tau _i|`$ for each $`i0`$. In particular, $`|\lambda _0||\tau _0|`$ and $`_{i1}|\tau _i|_{i1}|\lambda _i|`$ which prove, respectively, (0.45) and (0.46). By (0.35) and (0.45), we have that $`|\underset{¯}{\gamma }||\gamma Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))|`$ and hence that

$`2|\gamma \backslash Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))|`$ $`=`$ $`2|\underset{¯}{\gamma }|+2|\gamma \backslash (Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))\underset{¯}{\gamma })|`$
$``$ $`|\underset{¯}{\gamma }|+|\gamma Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))|+2|\gamma \backslash (Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))\underset{¯}{\gamma })|`$
$`=`$ $`|\gamma |+|\gamma \backslash (Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))\underset{¯}{\gamma })|.`$
This proves (0.36), which together with (0.44) implies (0.37).

On the other hand, we have by (0.46) that $`|\overline{\gamma }\backslash \gamma ||\gamma \backslash Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))||\underset{¯}{\gamma }|`$ and hence that

$`|{\displaystyle \underset{yV_{\mathrm{ex}}(\gamma )}{}}\omega _y{\displaystyle \underset{yI(\gamma )}{}}\omega _y|`$ $`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \underset{yV_{\mathrm{ex}}(\overline{\gamma }\backslash \gamma )}{}}\omega _y|`$ (0.47)
$``$ $`|\gamma \backslash Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))||\underset{¯}{\gamma }|.`$
The inequality (0.38) follows from (0.44) and (0.47).
Proof of part (b): Let $`\alpha =1/(c_1+8)`$.
Case 1: $`\alpha _{j=1}^p|\gamma _j|l`$. In this case, we obviously have that

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )c_1\alpha \underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}|\gamma _j|c_2.$$

Case 2: $`\alpha _{j=1}^p|\gamma _j|l`$. In this case,

$`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )`$ $``$ $`_{j=1}^p\left(|\gamma _j\backslash Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))||\gamma _jQ(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))|\right)`$
$`=`$ $`_{j=1}^p\left(|\gamma _j|2|\gamma _jQ(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))|\right)`$
$``$ $`_{j=1}^p|\gamma _j|8l`$
$``$ $`(18\alpha )_{j=1}^p|\gamma _j|.`$
Therefore (0.40) follows.
Proof of part (c): It is enough to prove (0.39) with some $`c_1>0`$ and $`c_2=c`$. Recall that $`\delta _{\text{0.20}}<\delta _1<1`$.
Case 1: $`_{j=1}^p|I(\gamma _j)|\delta _1|I|`$. In this case,

$`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\left(|\underset{¯}{\gamma _j}||I(\gamma _j)|\right)`$
$``$ $`|I|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}}|I(\gamma _j)|c`$
$``$ $`(1\delta _1)|I|c`$
$``$ $`(1\delta _1)\delta _{\text{0.20}}lc,`$
which implies (0.39) with $`c_1=(1\delta _1)\delta _{\text{0.20}}`$.
Case 2: $`_{j=1}^p|I(\gamma _j)|\delta _1|I|`$. We set $`A=I\backslash _{j=1}^pI(\gamma _j)`$ so that $`|A|(1\delta _1)|I|`$. We then have by (0.38), (0.42), (0.20) that

$`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\left(|\underset{¯}{\gamma _j}|ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{yI(\gamma _j)}{}}\omega _y\right)`$
$``$ $`|I|cϵ{\displaystyle \underset{yI}{}}\omega _y|A|`$
$``$ $`|I|c\delta _{\text{0.20}}|I|(1\delta _1)|I|`$
$``$ $`(\delta _1\delta _{\text{0.20}})\delta _{\text{0.20}}lc,`$
which implies (0.39) with $`c_1=(\delta _1\delta _{\text{0.20}})\delta _{\text{0.20}}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 0.6

Let $`\gamma `$ be an ($`ϵ`$)- contour in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ at a configuration $`\sigma `$.

If $`\gamma `$ intersects with exactly one of the sides $`F_l^j`$ ($`j=\pm 1,\pm 2`$), then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )\{\begin{array}{cc}|\{\text{horizontal bonds in }\gamma \}|\hfill & \text{if }j=\pm 1\text{,}\hfill \\ |\{\text{vertical bonds in }\gamma \}|\hfill & \text{if }j=\pm 2\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(0.48)
If $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\gamma )0`$ and $`|\gamma |<2l`$, then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )2|\gamma |/9.$$
(0.49)
Proof of part (a): Suppose for example that $`\gamma `$ intersects only with $`F_l^1`$. Then,

$`\{\text{horizontal bonds in }\gamma \}`$ $``$ $`\gamma \backslash Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)),`$
$`|\gamma F_l^1|`$ $``$ $`|\{\text{vertical bonds in }\gamma \backslash \mathrm{\Lambda }(l)\}|.`$
Therefore,

$`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )`$ $``$ $`|\{\text{horizontal bonds in }\gamma \}|`$
$`+|\{\text{vertical bonds in }\gamma \backslash Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))\}||\gamma F_l^1|`$
$``$ $`|\{\text{horizontal bonds in }\gamma \}|.`$
Proof of part (b): If $`\gamma _{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)=\mathrm{}`$, then (0.49) is obvious. We therefore assume that $`\gamma Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))\mathrm{}`$. Since $`0\mathrm{\Theta }(\gamma )`$ and $`|\gamma |<2l`$, $`\gamma `$ must intersect with exactly one of $`F_l^j`$ ($`j=\pm 1,\pm 2`$). Therefore, we see from (0.48) that $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )l`$, which implies (0.49) by Lemma 0.5. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 0.8 Proof of Lemma 2.1

We have that

$`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_l)`$ $``$ $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\{\sigma _0=ϵ_{l,\omega }1\}\mathrm{\Gamma }_l)`$ (0.50)
$`=`$ $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\{\sigma _0=ϵ_{l,\omega }1\})\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\{\sigma _0=ϵ_{l,\omega }1\}\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^c)`$
$``$ $`\frac{1}{2}\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\{\sigma _0=ϵ_{l,\omega }1\}\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^c).`$
At a configuration $`\sigma \{\sigma _0=ϵ_{l,\omega }1\}\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^c`$, the point $`0`$ is enclosed by a ($`ϵ_{l,\omega }`$)-contour $`\gamma `$ such that either $`\gamma Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))=\mathrm{}`$ or $`|\gamma |<2\delta _1l`$. If $`\gamma Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))=\mathrm{}`$, then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )=2|\gamma |.$$

If otherwise, $`\gamma `$ satisfies the condition for (0.49). We therefore have in both cases

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )2|\gamma |/9.$$

By the standard Peierl’s argument,

$`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\{\sigma _0=ϵ_{l,\omega }1\}\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^c)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta \left\{\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}(\sigma )2|\gamma |/9\right\}`$ (0.51)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\beta |\gamma |/9\right),`$
where $`_\gamma `$ stands for summation over all contours $`\gamma `$ which satisfies $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\gamma )0`$. By using the counting inequality (0.18), we see that

$$\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{\gamma }{}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\beta |\gamma |/9\right)=0,$$

which, together with (0.50) and (0.51), implies Lemma 0.3. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 0.9 Proof of Lemma 2.2

We may assume that $`ϵ_{l,\omega }=+`$.

Step 1: Suppose that $`\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$ and $`\sigma ^x\mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$ for some $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$. We consider two cases separately at first: $`\sigma _x=1`$ and $`\sigma _x=1`$.

Consider first $`\sigma _x=1`$. Let $`\gamma `$ be the outer boundary of the (+)-cluster at $`\sigma `$ which contains $`x`$. The way the transition from $`\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$ to $`\sigma ^x\mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$ occurs is that the set $`C_l(\sigma )`$ contains only the one element $`\gamma `$, and the flipping of $`\sigma _x`$ shortens $`\gamma `$ or separates $`\gamma `$ from $`Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))`$ or makes $`\gamma `$ break into new shorter contours. Some of these shorter contours may include dual bonds which were not part of $`\gamma `$ at $`\sigma `$, but rather were part of ($``$)-contours inside $`\gamma `$ at $`\sigma `$. We have then

$$C_l(\sigma )=\{\gamma \},$$
(0.52)
$$x\text{ is in or adjacent to }V(\gamma );$$
(0.53)
in fact if either (0.52) or (0.53) fails, then $`C_l(\sigma )=C_l(\sigma ^x)`$, contradicting our assumption that $`\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$ and $`\sigma ^x\mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$. Further, there are (+)-contours $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m`$ and $`\gamma _1^{},\mathrm{},\gamma _n^{}`$ ($`m0`$, $`n0`$, $`1m+n4`$) at the flipped configuration $`\sigma ^x`$, and ($``$)-contours $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k`$ ($`0k2`$) inside $`\gamma `$ at $`\sigma `$, such that

$`\gamma _jQ(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))\mathrm{},|\gamma _j|<2\delta _1l,\text{for }j=1,\mathrm{},m\text{,}`$ (0.54)
$`\gamma _j^{}Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))=\mathrm{},\text{for }j=1,\mathrm{},n\text{,}`$ (0.55)
$`\left(\gamma \left(_{j=1}^k\alpha _j\right)\right)\mathrm{}\left(\left(_{j=1}^m\gamma _j\right)\left(_{j=1}^n\gamma _j^{}\right)\right)Q(x),`$ (0.56)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }(\gamma )\mathrm{}\left(\left(_{j=1}^m\mathrm{\Theta }(\gamma _j)\right)\left(_{j=1}^n\mathrm{\Theta }(\gamma _j^{})\right)\left(_{j=1}^k\mathrm{\Theta }(\alpha _j)\right)\right)=\{x\},`$ (0.57)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ stands for the symmetric difference of two sets. Each $`\alpha _j,\gamma _j`$ and $`\gamma _j^{}`$ must surround at least one neighbor of $`x`$. $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m`$ and $`\gamma _1^{},\mathrm{},\gamma _n^{}`$ are precisely the (+)-contours at $`\sigma _x`$ which include bonds of $`\gamma `$. Let

$$S_{}=_{j=1}^m|\gamma _j|+_{j=1}^n|\gamma _j^{}|,S_+=|\gamma |+_{j=1}^k|\alpha _j|.$$

Using (0.56) it is easy to see that

$$S_+S_{}S_++4.$$
(0.58)
We will show that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )\epsilon _{\text{0.59}}S_+C_{\text{0.59}},$$
(0.59)
where $`\epsilon _{\text{0.59}}=\epsilon _{\text{0.59}}(\delta )>0`$ and $`C_{\text{0.59}}=C_{\text{0.59}}(\delta )>0`$, by using (0.56) and studying the contours $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m`$ and $`\gamma _1^{},\mathrm{},\gamma _n^{}`$.

Now consider $`\sigma _x=1`$. In this case, one possibility is that the flipping of $`\sigma _x`$ connects together two or three (+)-clusters to create a (+)-cluster which has a shorter outer boundary than the longest of the original (+)-clusters had. If we let $`\gamma `$ denote the outer boundary of the (+)-cluster of $`x`$ at $`\sigma ^x`$, this means there are again (+)-contours $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m`$ and $`\gamma _1^{},\mathrm{},\gamma _n^{}`$ ($`m0`$, $`n0`$, $`1m+n2`$), and ($``$)-contours $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k`$ ($`0k2`$) inside $`\gamma `$, such that (0.55)–(0.57) hold, but now $`\gamma `$ and the $`\alpha _j`$ exist at $`\sigma ^x`$ and the $`\gamma _j`$ and $`\gamma _j^{}`$ exist at $`\sigma `$. Further, $`|\gamma |<2\delta _1l`$, and in place of (0.54),

$$\gamma _jQ(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))\mathrm{},\text{for }j=1,\mathrm{},m\text{,}|\gamma _j|2\delta _1l\text{for some }j\text{.}$$
(0.60)
(The other possiblity when $`\sigma _x=1`$ is that only one (+)-cluster (call it $`C`$) at $`\sigma `$ is contained in the (+)-cluster of $`x`$ at $`\sigma ^x`$, and the flipping of $`\sigma _x`$ to 1 shortens the boundary of $`C`$; this may be taken as another case of the above with $`m+n=1`$ and $`0k3`$.) Here in place of (0.52) we have

$$C_l(\sigma )=\{\gamma _j:1jm,|\gamma _j|2\delta _1l\}.$$
(0.61)
Statement (0.53) still holds, and in place of (0.59) we will prove

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m,\gamma _1^{},\mathrm{},\gamma _n^{}}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )\epsilon _{\text{0.62}}S_{}C_{\text{0.62}},$$
(0.62)
It is easy to see that for fixed $`x`$, both for $`\sigma _x=1`$ and for $`\sigma _x=1`$, the sets $`\{\gamma _1,\mathrm{}\gamma _m,`$ $`\gamma _1^{},\mathrm{}\gamma _n^{}\}`$ and $`\{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k\}`$ uniquely determine each other.

We now turn to the proof of (0.59) for $`\sigma _x=1`$ and (0.62) for $`\sigma _x=1`$. For $`\sigma _x=1`$ we have using (0.57) that

$`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )`$ $``$ $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )4`$ (0.63)
$``$ $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m,\gamma _1^{},\mathrm{},\gamma _n^{}}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma ^x)8`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma ^x)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1^{},\mathrm{},\gamma _n^{}}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (T\sigma ^x)8`$
where $`T=T_{\gamma _1}\mathrm{}T_{\gamma _m}`$ (Recall (0.32)). Each contour in $`\{\gamma _j\}`$ is non-crossing, since $`|\gamma _j|<2\delta _1l`$. Therefore, we see from (0.37) that for any $`0pm`$,

$`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma ^x)`$ $``$ $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma ^x)+_{j=p+1}^m\left(\frac{1}{2}|\gamma _j||\gamma _j\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)|\right)`$ (0.64)
$``$ $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma ^x)`$
$``$ $`0.`$
On the other hand, we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1^{},\mathrm{},\gamma _n^{}}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (T\sigma ^x)=2_{j=1}^n|\gamma _j^{}|,$$
(0.65)
since $`\gamma _j^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)=\mathrm{}`$. We have as a consequence that

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma ^x)+_{j=1}^n|\gamma _j^{}|8.$$
(0.66)
Note also that the first term on the right-hand-side of (0.66) is non-negative by (0.64). For $`\sigma _x=1`$, $`\gamma `$ is non-crossing since $`|\gamma |<2\delta _1l`$, and each $`\alpha _j`$ is inside $`\gamma `$, so it follows from (0.56) that

$$Q(x)\left(_{j=1}^m\gamma _j\right)\text{ is non-crossing in }Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l));$$
(0.67)
in particular each $`\gamma _j`$ is non-crossing. Therefore (0.63)–(0.66) remain valid but with $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^x`$ interchanged; in fact we may replace (0.66) with

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m,\gamma _1^{},\mathrm{},\gamma _n^{}}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )+_{j=1}^n|\gamma _j^{}|.$$
(0.68)
To bound (0.66) or (0.68) from below, we pick a number $`\delta _2`$ such that $`\delta _{\text{0.20}}<\delta _2<\delta _1`$ and consider the following three cases separately.
Case 1: $`S_+9l`$. Here the possible energy gain along $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ when $`T`$ is applied is not enough to cancel the energy reduction in the interior. Specifically, for $`\sigma _x=1`$,

$`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma ^x)`$ $``$ $`_{j+1}^m|\gamma _j\backslash Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))|{\displaystyle \underset{y\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}{}}|\omega _y|`$ (0.69)
$``$ $`_{j+1}^m|\gamma _j|8l.`$
With (0.58) and (0.66) this shows

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )S_+8l8\frac{1}{9}S_+8,$$
(0.70)
which proves (0.59). The same argument with (0.68) replacing (0.66) proves (0.62) when $`\sigma _x=1`$.
Case 2: $`_{j=1}^m|\gamma _j|(\delta _2/\delta _1)S_+`$. Consider first $`\sigma _x=1`$. Here by (0.58)

$$_{j=1}^n|\gamma _j^{}|S_+_{j=1}^m|\gamma _j|\left(1\frac{\delta _2}{\delta _1}\right)S_+,$$
(0.71)
which, together with (0.66), proves (0.59) in this case. Using again (0.58), the same argument with (0.68) replacing (0.66) proves (0.62) when $`\sigma _x=1`$.
Case 3: $`_{j=1}^m|\gamma _j|>(\delta _2/\delta _1)S_+`$ and $`S_+<9l`$. By (0.58), (0.66) and (0.68) it is enough to prove that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma ^x)\epsilon lc$$
(0.72)
for some $`\epsilon >0`$, $`c0`$ and $`1pm`$. We consider several subcases as follows.
Case 3.1: $`_{j=1}^m|\gamma _jQ(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))|\delta _{\text{0.20}}l`$. Consider first $`\sigma _x=1`$. Since

$$\delta _2l\frac{1}{2}(\delta _2/\delta _1)|\gamma |\frac{1}{2}(\delta _2/\delta _1)S_+\frac{1}{2}_{j=1}^m|\gamma _j|,$$
(0.73)
we have by (0.64) that

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma ^x)(\delta _2\delta _{\text{0.20}})l$$

which proves (0.72). For $`\sigma _x=1`$, in place of (0.73) we use (0.60) to obtain

$$\delta _2l\delta _1l\frac{1}{2}_{j=1}^m|\gamma _j|;$$

otherwise the argument for (0.72) is the same.
Case 3.2: The set $`Q(x)\left(_{j=1}^m\gamma _j\right)`$ is non-crossing in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ and

$$_{j=1}^m|\gamma _jQ(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))|\delta _{\text{0.20}}l.$$
(0.74)
In this case we have

$$\left(_{j=1}^m\gamma _j\right)\left(F_l^iF_l^k\right)=\mathrm{}$$

for some $`i,k`$ with $`|i|=1`$ and $`|k|=2`$. Then there exists a connected subset, say $`\lambda `$, of

$$\left(_{j=1}^m\underset{¯}{\gamma _j}\right)Q(x)$$

which divides $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ into two connected components $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)\backslash \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ such that $`_{j=1}^m\mathrm{\Theta }(\gamma _j)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ and $`F_l^iF_l^k_{\mathrm{ex}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)\backslash \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\right)`$. Note that the set $`I`$ defined by $`I=_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ is an interval. To prove (0.72) by applying (0.43), let us check (0.41) and (0.42) with $`p=m`$. We see from the construction of $`I`$ that

$`_{j=1}^mI(\gamma _j)`$ $``$ $`I,`$
$`|I|`$ $``$ $`|\lambda |{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}|\underset{¯}{\gamma _j}|+4.`$
On the other hand, we see from (0.74) that

$$|I|\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}|\gamma _j\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)|\delta _{\text{0.20}}l.$$

We therefore have (0.41) and (0.42) with $`p=m`$.
Case 3.3: The set $`Q(x)\left(_{j=1}^m\gamma _j\right)`$ is crossing in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$. By (0.67) this is possible only when $`\sigma _x=1`$. There exist $`1i<j4`$ and $`k\{1,2\}`$ such that

$$\gamma _iF_l^k\mathrm{}\text{and}\gamma _jF_l^k\mathrm{}.$$
(0.75)
Let us assume (0.75) with $`i=1`$, $`j=2`$, and $`k=1`$. Then, the set $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ cannot be vertically crossing, since $`|\gamma _1|+|\gamma _2|<4\delta _1l`$ and $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ is already horizontally crossing. Let us therefore assume that

$$\left(\gamma _1\gamma _2\right)F_l^2=\mathrm{}.$$
(0.76)
We are now left with two possibilities.
Case 3.3.1: $`\gamma _1F_l^2\mathrm{}`$ and $`\gamma _2F_l^2\mathrm{}`$. In this case, $`I=I(\gamma _1)I(\gamma _2)F_l^2`$ is an interval. To prove (0.72) by applying (0.43), we will check (0.41) and (0.42) with $`p=2`$. We obviously have

$`_{j=1}^2I(\gamma _j)`$ $``$ $`I,`$
$`|I|`$ $``$ $`l.`$
On the other hand, it is easy to see we have the following injections:

$`I(\gamma _1)F_l^1`$ $``$ $`\{\text{vertical dual bonds in }\underset{¯}{\gamma _1}\},`$
$`I(\gamma _2)F_l^1`$ $``$ $`\{\text{vertical bonds in }\underset{¯}{\gamma _2}\},`$
$`F_l^2`$ $``$ $`\{\text{horizontal bonds in }(\underset{¯}{\gamma _1}\underset{¯}{\gamma _2})Q(x)\}.`$
We get $`|I||\underset{¯}{\gamma _1}|+|\underset{¯}{\gamma _2}|+4`$ as a consequence. We therefore have (0.41) and (0.42) with $`p=2`$.
Case 3.3.2: $`\gamma _1F_l^2=\mathrm{}`$ or $`\gamma _2F_l^2=\mathrm{}`$. Let us assume $`\gamma _1F_l^2=\mathrm{}`$, so that $`\gamma _1`$ does not intersect with $`F_l^j`$, $`j1`$. The distance from $`x`$ to $`F_l^1`$ is at most $`\delta _1l`$, and hence the distance from $`x`$ to $`F_l^1`$ is at least $`(1\delta _1)l`$. This implies that $`\gamma _1`$ deviates from $`F_l^1`$ at least by distance $`(1\delta _1)l1`$. Therefore, by (0.48),

$`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _1}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )`$ $``$ $`|\{\text{horizontal bonds in }\gamma \}|`$
$``$ $`2(1\delta _1)l2,`$
which establishes (0.72) with $`p=1`$.
Step 2: Suppose again that $`\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$ and $`\sigma ^x\mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$. If $`\sigma _x=1`$, then every (+)-contour outside $`\gamma `$ at $`\sigma `$ has length at most $`2\delta _1l`$, and every (+)- or ($``$)-contour inside $`\gamma `$ does not intersect $`Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }(l))`$. It follows that

$$T_\gamma T_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}T_{\alpha _k}\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_l^c.$$
(0.77)
Similarly if $`\sigma _x=1`$ then

$$T_{\gamma _1}\mathrm{}T_{\gamma _m}T_{\gamma _1^{}}\mathrm{}T_{\gamma _n^{}}\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_l^c.$$
(0.78)
Step 3: For $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ and $`\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$ with $`\sigma ^x\mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$, let $`𝒞_+(\sigma ,x)`$ denote the set of contours $`\{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k\}`$, defined previously, if $`\sigma _x=1`$, and let $`𝒞_{}(\sigma ,x)=\{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m,\gamma _1^{},\mathrm{},\gamma _n^{}\}`$ if $`\sigma _x=1`$. We have by obervations made in Step 1 that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_l:\sigma ^x\mathrm{\Gamma }_l,\sigma _x=1}{}}\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\sigma )`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k}{}}\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta \{\sigma :𝒞_+(\sigma ,x)=\{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k\},\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )\epsilon _{\text{0.59}}S_+C_{\text{0.59}}\}`$
where $`_{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k}`$ stands for the summation over all possible values of $`𝒞_+(\sigma ,x)`$. Now for fixed $`x`$ and $`n`$ there are at most $`c3^n`$ possible values of $`𝒞_+(\sigma ,x)`$ for which $`S_+=n`$. By the standard Peierl’s argument and the obervation made in Step 2, we can proceed as follows, provided $`\beta `$ is sufficiently large:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k}{}}\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta \{\sigma :𝒞_+(\sigma ,x)=\{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k\},\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k}H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}^\omega (\sigma )\epsilon _{\text{0.59}}S_+C_{\text{0.59}}\}`$ (0.80)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta (\epsilon _{\text{0.59}}S_+C_{\text{0.59}})\right)`$
$`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta \{T_\gamma T_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}T_{\alpha _k}\sigma :𝒞_+(\sigma ,x)=\{\gamma ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k\}\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n2\delta _1l}{}}c3^n\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta (\epsilon _{\text{0.59}}nC_{\text{0.59}})\right)\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^c)`$
$``$ $`B_{\text{0.80}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta l/C_{\text{0.80}}\right)\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^c).`$
Essentially the same argument, using $`𝒞_{}(\sigma ,x)`$ and $`S_{}`$ in place of $`𝒞_+(\sigma ,x)`$ and $`S_+`$, shows that

$$\underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)}{}\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_l:\sigma ^x\mathrm{\Gamma }_l,\sigma _x=1}{}\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\sigma )B_{\text{0.81}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta l/C_{\text{0.81}}\right)\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(l),\omega }^\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^c).$$
(0.81)
We conclude (0.27) from (0.9), (0.80) and (0.81). $`\mathrm{}`$

Acknowledgement: The authors thank Y. Higuchi and N. Sugimine for helpful discussions.