text:
# Separated-Occurrence Inequalities for Dependent Percolation and Ising Models

## 1. Introduction and Preliminaries

We begin with an informal description; full definitions will be given below. The van den Berg-Kesten inequality , generalized by Reimer in , is among the most powerful tools available for the study of independent percolation. This inequality deals with disjoint occurrence of two events, which for bond percolation means loosely that in some configuration, there are two disjoint sets of bonds, one responsible for the occurrence of an event $`A`$ and the other for the occurrence of another event $`B`$. These disjoint sets need not be deterministic—they may depend on the configuration. For example if, for some $`x`$ and $`y`$, $`A`$ is the event that there is a path of open bonds from $`x`$ to $`y`$, then any such path is a set of bonds responsible for the occurrence of $`A`$. Letting $`AB`$ denote the event that $`A`$ and $`B`$ occur disjointly, the van den Berg-Kesten inequality (specialized to the context of independent percolation) states that if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are either increasing or decreasing, then

(1.1)
$$P(AB)P(A)P(B),$$

complementing the Harris-FKG inequality  which states that if $`A,B`$ are both increasing or both decreasing,

$$P(AB)P(A)P(B).$$

Reimer’s generalization extends (1.1) to arbitrary $`A`$ and $`B`$. For dependent percolation, such as the Fortuin-Kasteleyn random cluster model (briefly, the *FK model*), and for spin systems, (1.1) cannot be true in general, even for increasing events. For example, in the FK model with (in standard notation) $`q>1`$, if $`A`$ is the event that some bond $`e`$ is open and $`B`$ is the event that some other bond $`f`$ is open, then $`A`$ and $`B`$ by definition can only occur disjointly, but they may be strictly positively correlated. Grimmett  proved a version of (1.1) for the FK model, but with two different probability measures on the right side.

If a lattice model has good mixing properties, though, we may hope that (1.1) is approximately true if we require that $`A`$ and $`B`$ occur not just disjointly but well-separated from each other. Specifically, we seek inequalities of the form

$$P(A\text{ and }B\text{ occur at separation }r\text{ or more })(1+Ce^{\lambda r})P(A)P(B),$$

where $`C,\lambda `$ are constants not depending on $`A,B`$; the precise definition of the above event will be given below. We call such an inequality a *separated-occurrence inequality*. Existing results in this direction either require that the locations where $`A`$ and $`B`$ occur be deterministic  or restrict $`A`$ or $`B`$ to be a quite special type of event . Our aim here is mainly to prove extensions of (1.1) which do not have these restrictions.

Turning to more formal definitions, let $`J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be finite sets and $`A,BJ^\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For $`\omega J^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we say that $`A`$ *occurs on* $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in the configuration $`\omega `$ if

$$\omega ^{}J^\mathrm{\Delta },\omega _x^{}=\omega _x\text{ for all }x\mathrm{\Theta }\text{ implies }\omega ^{}A.$$

For a (possibly random) set $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega )\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we say that $`A`$ *occurs only on* $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ if $`\omega A`$ implies that $`A`$ occurs on $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega )`$ in $`\omega `$. $`A`$ and $`B`$ are said to *occur disjointly* in $`\omega `$ if there exist disjoint $`\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`A`$ occurs on $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in $`\omega `$ and $`B`$ occurs on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`\omega `$. The event that $`A`$ and $`B`$ occur disjointly is denoted $`AB`$. A linear ordering of $`J`$ induces the coordinate-wise partial ordering on $`J^\mathrm{\Delta }`$; we then say an event $`A`$ is *increasing* if $`\omega A,\omega \omega ^{}`$ imply $`\omega ^{}A`$. $`A`$ is *decreasing* if its complement $`A^c`$ is increasing. The van den Berg-Kesten inequality  states that (1.1) holds for every product measure $`P`$ on $`J^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and all $`A,B`$ which are either increasing or decreasing.

We consider now analogous concepts suited to dependent percolation and lattice random fields. By a *site* we mean an element of $`^d`$; sites $`x`$ and $`y`$ are *adjacent* if $`|yx|=1`$. Here $`||`$ denotes the Euclidean norm. By a *bond* we mean an unordered pair $`xy`$ of adjacent sites. When convenient we view a bond as a closed line segment in $`^d`$. For $`R^d`$ we let $`(R)=\{b(^d):bR\}`$, except that for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$ we let $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\{xy:x,y\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$; the context will prevent any ambiguity. We also write $`\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\{xy:x\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$, and

$$V()=\{x^d:xy\text{ for some }y\}.$$

For $`𝒰,𝒱(^d)`$ we say that $`𝒰`$ *abuts* $`𝒱`$ if $`𝒰𝒱=\varphi `$ but $`V(𝒰)V(𝒱)\varphi `$. A *bond configuration* on a set $``$ of bonds is an element $`\omega \{0,1\}^{}`$; when convenient we view $`\omega `$ as a subset of $``$ or as a subgraph of $`(V(),)`$. A bond $`e`$ is *open* in the configuration $`\omega `$ if $`\omega _e=1`$, and *closed* if $`\omega _e=0`$. Given $`\rho \{0,1\}^^c`$ we define $`(\omega \rho )=(\omega \rho )_{}`$ to be the bond configuration on the full lattice which coincides with $`\omega `$ on $``$ and with $`\rho `$ on $`^c`$.

For $`x^d`$ let $`Q(x)=x+[\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]^d`$, and for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$ let $`Q(\mathrm{\Lambda })=_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}Q(x)`$. A *dual plaquette* (or *dual bond*, in two dimensions) is a face of a cube $`Q(x)`$ for some $`x^d`$. A *dual site* is a point $`x+(\frac{1}{2},..,\frac{1}{2})`$ with $`x^d`$.; the set of all dual sites is denoted $`(^d)^{}`$. Each dual plaquette perpendicularly bisects a unique bond $`e`$; we then denote the dual plaquette by $`e`$. The dual plaquette $`e`$ is defined to be open precisely when $`e`$ is closed; in this way we obtain a dual configuration $`\omega `$ of dual plaquettes for each bond configuration $`\omega `$. A *dual surface* (or *dual circuit*, in two dimensions) is the boundary of a set $`Q(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ for some $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$ for which $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is connected. A dual surface is *open* if all its dual plaquettes are open.

A *path* is a sequence $`\gamma =(x_0,x_0x_1,x_1,\mathrm{}x_{n1},x_{n1}x_n,x_n)`$ of alternating sites and bonds. The path $`\gamma `$ is called *open* if all bonds in $`\gamma `$ are open. Let $`xy`$ denote the event that there is an open path from $`x`$ to $`y`$. The *cluster* of a set $`\mathrm{\Theta }^d`$ in a configuration $`\omega `$ is

$$C(\mathrm{\Theta },\omega )=\{x^d:x\mathrm{\Theta }\text{ in }\omega \}.$$

We write $`C_x(\omega )`$ for $`C(\{x\},\omega )`$, and when a bond $`e`$ is open in $`\omega `$ we write $`C_e(\omega )`$ for $`C(V(e),\omega )`$.

For $``$ a set of bonds and $`x,yV()`$ we let $`d_{}(x,y)`$ denote the minimum length among all paths in $``$ from $`x`$ to $`y`$. This determines a distance between sets of sites, and for sets $`,`$ of bonds we define $`d_{}(,)=d_{}(V(),V())`$. $`\mathrm{diam}_{}()`$ denotes diameter for the distance $`d_{}`$. For $`A,B\{0,1\}^{}`$ and $`r>0`$ we say that $`A`$ and $`B`$ *occur at separation* $`r`$ in the bond configuration $`\omega `$ if there exist $`,`$ with $`d_{}(,)r`$ such that $`A`$ occurs on $``$ in $`\omega `$ and $`B`$ occurs on $``$ in $`\omega `$. The event that $`A`$ and $`B`$ occur at separation $`r`$ is denoted $`A_rB`$.

By a *bond percolation model* we mean a probability measure $`P`$ on $`\{0,1\}^{}`$ for some $`(^d)`$. When $`=(^d)`$, the conditional distributions for the model are denoted

$$P_{,\rho }=P(\omega _e=\rho _e\text{ for all }e^c),$$

where $`(^d)`$. We write $`\rho ^i`$ for the bond configuration consisting of all $`i`$’s, $`i=0,1`$. When used as boundary conditions, $`\rho ^1`$ and $`\rho ^0`$ are called *wired* and *free* respectively, and we sometimes write $`P_{,w},P_{,f}`$ for $`P_{,\rho ^1},P_{,\rho ^0}`$ respectively. Write $`\omega _𝒟`$ for $`\{\omega _e:e𝒟\}`$, and let $`𝒢_𝒟`$ denote the $`\sigma `$-algebra generated by $`\omega _𝒟`$.

For $`P`$ a bond percolation model on $`(^d)`$, we say that $`P`$ has *bounded energy* if there exists $`p_0>0`$ such that

(1.2)
$$p_0<P\left(\omega _e=1(\omega _b,be)\right)<1p_0\text{for all }e\text{ and all }(\omega _b,be).$$

We say that $`P`$ has *exponential decay of connectivity* if there exist $`C,\lambda >0`$ such that

$$P(xy)Ce^{\lambda |yx|}\text{for all }x,y^d.$$

In two dimensions, $`P`$ has *exponential decay of dual connectivity* if there exist $`C,\lambda >0`$ such that

$$P(xy\text{ via a path of open dual bonds})Ce^{\lambda |yx|}\text{for all }x,y(^d)^{}.$$

$`P`$ has the *weak mixing property* if for some $`C,\lambda >0`$, for all finite sets $`𝒟,`$ with $`𝒟`$,

$`sup\{\mathrm{Var}(`$ $`P_{,\rho }(\omega _𝒟),P_{,\rho ^{}}(\omega _𝒟)):\rho ,\rho ^{}\{0,1\}^^c\}`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{xV(𝒟),yV(^c)}{}}e^{\lambda |xy|},`$
where $`\mathrm{Var}(,)`$ denotes total variation distance between measures. Roughly, weak mixing means that the influence of the boundary condition on a finite region decays exponentially with distance from that region. Equivalently, for some $`C,\lambda >0`$, for all sets $`,(^d)`$,

(1.3) $`sup\{|`$ $`P(EF)P(E)|:E𝒢_{},F𝒢_{},P(F)>0\}`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{xV(),yV()}{}}e^{\lambda |xy|}.`$
$`P`$ has the *ratio weak mixing property* if for some $`C,\lambda >0`$, for all sets $`,(^d)`$,

(1.4) $`sup`$ $`\left\{\left|{\displaystyle \frac{P(EF)}{P(E)P(F)}}1\right|:E𝒢_{},F𝒢_{},P(E)P(F)>0\right\}`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{xV(),yV()}{}}e^{\lambda |xy|},`$
whenever the right side of (1.4) is less than 1. Note that (1.4) is much stronger than (1.3) for $`E,F`$ for which the probabilities on the left side of (1.3) are much smaller than the right side of (1.3). Also, the right side of (1.3) or (1.4) is small when $`d(,)`$ is a sufficiently large multiple of $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{min}(||,||)`$. Here $`d(,)`$ dentoes Euclidean distance. It was shown in  that for the FK model in two dimensions, exponential decay of connectivity (in infinite volume, with wired boundary) implies ratio weak mixing.

We can consider spin systems as well as percolation models, but because the properties of increasing and decreasing events are central to our arguments, we must restrict attention to systems in which the common spin space at each site is (at least partially) ordered. We will in fact consider only the most natural example of this type: the *Ising model* on $`^d`$, with single-spin space $`\{1,1\}`$ and Hamiltonian

$$H_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }(\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{xy\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{}\delta _{[(\sigma \eta )_\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=(\sigma \eta )_\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)]}h\underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\sigma _x$$

for the model on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with external field $`h`$ and boundary condition $`\eta `$. Here for site configurations $`\sigma ,\eta \{1,1\}^^d`$ we write $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for $`(\sigma _x,x\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, and $`(\sigma \eta )_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for the configuration which coincides with $`\sigma `$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and with $`\eta `$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^c`$. The corresponding finite-volume Gibbs distribution at inverse temperature $`\beta `$ is given by

$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^{\beta ,h}(\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{1}{Z_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^{\beta ,h}}e^{\beta H_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }(\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda })},$$

where $`Z_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^{\beta ,h}`$ is the partition function. When $`h=0`$ we denote the critical inverse temperature of the model by $`\beta _c(d)`$. The above definitions given for bond percolation models extend straightforwardly to the Ising model, as do the definitions to come in this section; we formulate things here mainly for bond models to avoid unnecessary repetition. Let $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denote the $`\sigma `$-algebra generated by $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Throughout the paper, $`c_1,c_2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2,\mathrm{}`$ denote constants which depend only on the infinite-volume model, or family of finite-volume models, under consideration. We reserve $`ϵ_i`$ for constants that are “sufficiently small.”

Weak mixing for a spin system or bond percolation model has a variety of useful consequences, particularly in two dimensions; see . It directly implies for a bond percolation model that for some constants $`c_i`$, for $`,(^d),d(,)rc_1\mathrm{log}\mathrm{min}(||,||)`$ and $`A𝒢_{},B𝒢_{}`$,

(1.5)
$$P(A_rB)=P(AB)P(A)P(B)+c_2e^{ϵ_1r}\mathrm{min}(P(A),P(B)).$$

Ratio weak mixing, in contrast, directly implies the stronger statement that under the same conditions,

(1.6)
$$P(AB)=P(A_rB)(1+c_3e^{ϵ_2r})P(A)P(B).$$

Inequality (1.6) has been applied in  and  in the context of coarse-graining of interfaces and their FK-model analogs in two dimensions, to obtain approximate independence of separated segments of the interface. But (1.6) suffers from two deficiencies—first, it is a statement about the infinite-volume measure and does not immediately apply when $`P`$ is a finite-volume measure under a boundary condition. More important, it requires that the locations $``$ and $``$ be deterministic. This is problematic, for example, when one event, say $`A`$, is the event that $`xy`$ for some $`x,y`$, because one cannot say in advance where the path will be. If $``$ can be random, by contrast, one can take $``$ to be the path itself. This particular event $`A`$ occurs on the cluster of a fixed deterministic $`x`$, so the situation is remedied for $`d=2`$ by Lemma 3.2 of . This lemma states that if $`P`$ (on $`\{0,1\}^{(^2)}`$) has the FKG property and exponential decay of connectivity, and satisfies other mild assumptions, if $`(^2),B𝒢_{},rc_4\mathrm{log}||,x^2`$, and $`A`$ is an event which occurs only on the cluster $`C_x`$, then

$$P(A_rB)(1+c_5e^{ϵ_3r})P(A)P(B).$$

But such an event $`A`$ is a very special type; we seek here separated-occurrence inequalities covering general increasing and decreasing events. In generalizing the inequality in (1.6) to a separated-occurrence inequality, in which $``$ and $``$ are random, the hypothesis $`rc_6\mathrm{log}\mathrm{min}(||,||)`$ is no longer appropriate, so one must ask, how large should one require the separation $`r`$ to be? When working in a finite region $``$ of the lattice, $`rc\mathrm{log}||`$ for some $`c`$ may be reasonable, in view of the preceding, but for infinite $``$ there is no obvious choice. A solution from , which we choose here, is to restrict one of the events $`A,B`$ to occur on a random subset of some deterministic finite region $`𝒟`$ and allow the other event to occur anywhere on $``$, including on another part of $`𝒟`$. We then require roughly that $`rc\mathrm{log}\mathrm{diam}(𝒟)`$, where $`\mathrm{diam}()`$ denotes Euclidean diameter. (Using $`\mathrm{diam}(𝒟)`$ instead of $`|𝒟|`$ avoids problems with geometrically irregular $`𝒟`$.)

We will need a version of the Markov property for open dual surfaces, adapted to finite volumes. Specifically, a *blocking partition* of a set $``$ of bonds is an ordered partition $`(𝒳,𝒴,𝒵)`$ of $``$ such that every path from $`𝒳`$ to $`𝒵`$ includes at least one bond of $`𝒴`$; we call $`𝒴`$ a *blocking set*. A probability measure $`P`$ on $`\{0,1\}^{}`$ has the *Markov property for blocking sets* if for every blocking partition $`(𝒳,𝒴,𝒵)`$ of $``$,

(1.7) the configuration $`\omega _𝒳`$ and $`\omega _𝒵`$ are conditionally independent
given that all bonds in $`𝒴`$ are closed.
(In infinite volume the usual Markov property takes $`𝒴`$ to be the set of bonds crossing some dual surface; our definition is a natural analog in finite volumes.) This Markov property says roughly that there is no “communication via the boundary” from one side of a blocking set to the other. Note we may have $`𝒴=\varphi `$ if no component of $``$ intersects both $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒵`$. If for some fixed $`𝒲`$, (1.7) is valid under the additional assumption that either $`𝒳`$ or $`𝒵`$ contains $`𝒲`$, we say that the probability measure has the *Markov property for sets blocking* $`𝒲`$. For $`𝒲`$, we say that $`𝒲`$ is *blockable in* $``$ *under* $`P`$ if $`P(\omega _{}\omega _\backslash =\rho _\backslash ^i)`$ has the Markov property for sets blocking $`𝒲`$, for $`i=0,1`$. This says roughly that if we view $`\backslash `$ as part of the boundary for $``$, when the boundary condition on this partial boundary is free or wired, there is no communication via the partial boundary from $`𝒲`$ to the other side of a barrier blocking $`𝒲`$ in $``$; see Lemma 2.1.

Figure 1 depicts a situation for the FK model in which the Markov property holds for sets blocking $`𝒲`$, but not for general blocking sets. Let $``$ be the union of the horizontal rectangle $`𝒮`$ and the vertical rectangle $`𝒲`$. The boundary condition on $``$ consists of open bonds on the horseshoe-shaped regions comprising $`\backslash (𝒮𝒲)`$, and all bonds outside $``$ closed. The Markov property does not hold for the horizontal blocking set $`𝒴_1`$, because the presence or absense of a connection from one component of $`\backslash (𝒮𝒲)`$ to the other component underneath $`𝒴_1`$ affects the probability of a connection between these components above $`𝒴_1`$. However, the Markov property does hold for sets blocking $``$, such as $`𝒴_2,𝒴_3`$ or $`𝒴_2𝒴_3`$; in fact $`𝒲`$ is blockable in $``$ under $`𝒲`$.

For $`(^d),r>0`$ and $`xV()`$ define the $`d_{}`$-ball

$$B_{}(x,r)=\{b=yz:d_{}(x,y)r,d_{}(x,z)r\}.$$

For $`c>1,r1`$, a $`c`$-*approximate r-neighborhood* of a point $`x^d`$ in $``$ is a set $`𝒩`$ of bonds satisfying $`B_{}(x,r/c)𝒩B_{}(x,r)`$. A $`c`$-approximate $`r`$-neighborhood of a bond $`b`$ is a $`c`$-approximate $`r`$-neighborhood of an endpoint of $`b`$, say the one closest to the origin. We make analogous definitions for a set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of sites in place of the set $``$ of bonds.

A separated-occurrence inequality for finite volumes, in the form (1.6), is most meaningful if the constants $`c_3,ϵ_2`$ are uniform over some class of finite volumes and/or boundary conditions; for a single finite-volume measure $`P`$ with bounded energy, there is always some choice of $`c_3,ϵ_2`$ that makes the inequality trivially true. As seen in the related context of  for the FK model, properties like exponential decay and mixing may hold in infinite volume but fail to hold (appropriately reformulated) uniformly in finite volumes under certain kinds of boundary conditions. Therefore it is necessary to restrict to special classes of boundary conditions. To give a unified presentation without excessive numbers of cases, we use the following formulation for bond models. $``$ is a collection of finite subsets of $`(^d)`$, and for each $``$ we have a collection $`𝔐_{}`$ of probability measures on $`\{0,1\}^{}`$. We seek separated-occurrence inequalities which are uniform over $`𝔐=_{}𝔐_{}`$, that is, the constants $`c_3,ϵ_2`$ (as in (1.6)) do not depend on $`P𝔐`$. Typically, each $`𝔐_{}`$ might consist of some class of bond or site boundary conditions, on $``$, for some fixed bond percolation model on $`(^d)`$. In addition we use auxiliary collections $`𝔙_{}𝔖_{}`$ of subsets of $``$ and an auxiliary collection $`𝔑`$ not depending on $``$; we write $`𝔙=\{𝔙_{}:\}`$ and $`𝔖=\{𝔖_{}:\}`$. For technical convenience we require that $`|𝒱|2`$ for all $`𝒱𝔙_{}`$. We will refer to this setup—that is, to a designation of collections $`,𝔙,𝔖,𝔐,𝔑`$ as described—as our *standard bond percolation setup*. As we have mentioned, one of the two events in the separated-occurrence inequality may be restricted to occur on a particular $`𝒟`$; the sets in $`𝔙_{}`$ are neighborhoods of such $`𝒟`$ in $``$, the sets in $`𝔖_{}`$ are subsets of such neighborhoods, and the sets in $`𝔑`$ are approximate neighborhoods in sets $`𝒮𝔖_{}`$. (One can take $`𝒟=`$ and hence $`𝔙_{}=\{\}`$ if desired, but allowing smaller $`𝒟`$ means we may reduce the required separation $`r`$ between the events in question.)

Like the proof in  of the van den Berg-Kesten inequality, our proofs of separated-occurrence inequalities involve a process of splitting bonds one at a time. In our context the bonds to be split are those in some neighborhood $`𝒱𝔙_{}`$ of $`𝒟`$ in $``$. We may view this procedure as the filling of $`𝒱`$ sequentially with split bonds. As this filling process proceeds we require, among other things, that the set $`𝒮𝒱`$ of split bonds always satisfy $`𝒮𝔖_{}`$. We will need assumptions not just on the original collections $`,𝔐`$ but also on $`𝔙,𝔖`$ and certain augmented collections of measures derived from $`𝔐`$. We have no general method for specifying the collections $`𝔙,𝔖`$ given a choice of original collections $``$ and $`𝔐`$, but in the specific examples we will consider, it is not particularly difficult to do so, as we will see, though the methods are rather ad hoc.

###### Definition 1.1.

Let $`,𝔙,𝔖,𝔐`$ be as above: $``$ is a collection of subsets of $`(^d)`$, and for each $`,𝔙_{}𝔖_{}`$ are collections of subsets of $``$ and $`𝔐_{}`$ is a collection of probability measures on $`\{0,1\}^{}`$. A collection $`𝔑`$ of subsets of $`(^d)`$ is a *neighborhood collection for* $`𝔖`$ if there exists $`c>0`$ such that for every $`𝒮(_{}𝔖_{}),xV(𝒮)`$ and $`r>0`$, $`𝔑`$ contains a $`c`$-approximate $`r`$-neighborhood of $`x`$ in $`𝒮`$. The corresponding *augmented collections of measures* are

$$𝔐_w^+(𝔑,)=\{P(\omega _𝒩\omega _{\backslash 𝒩}=\rho _{\backslash 𝒩}^1):𝒩𝔑,,𝒩,P𝔐\}$$

and

$$𝔐^+(𝔖,)=\{P(\omega _𝒮\omega _{\backslash 𝒮}=\rho _{\backslash 𝒮}^i):,𝒮𝔖_{},P𝔐,i=0,1\}.$$

Let $`c>1`$ and $`r>0`$; given $``$, $`P𝔐_{}`$, $`𝒮`$ and $`e\backslash 𝒮`$ we say that $`e`$ is *neighborhood-appendable to* $`𝒮`$ for $`(c,r,,P,𝔑)`$ if there exists a $`c`$-approximate $`r`$-neighborhood $`𝒲𝔑`$ of $`e`$ in $``$ such that either $`𝒲`$ or $`𝒲\backslash 𝒮`$ is blockable in $`𝒮𝒲`$ under $`P`$ (see Figure 1.) We say that $`𝒱`$ is *fillable compatibly with* $`(c,r,,P,𝔖_{},𝔑)`$ if there exists an ordering $`b_1,..,b_n`$ of the bonds of $`𝒱`$ such that for all $`0k<n`$, we have (i) $`𝒮_k=\{b_1,..,b_k\}𝔖_{}`$, (ii) $`b_{k+1}`$ is neighborhood-appendable to $`𝒮_k`$ for $`(c,r,,P,𝔑)`$, and (iii) every $`e\backslash 𝒮`$ is neighborhood-appendable to $`𝒮_k`$ for $`(c,r/4,,P,𝔑)`$. For $`R>1`$ we say that $`(,𝔙,𝔖,𝔐,𝔑)`$ is *filling-compatible at scale* $`R`$ if for some $`c>1`$, for every $`,𝒱𝔙_{},P𝔐_{}`$ and $`1r<R`$, $`𝒱`$ is fillable compatibly with $`(c,r,,P,𝔖_{},𝔑)`$. In this context we refer to such $`c`$ as *suitable*. We omit the wording “at scale $`R`$” when $`R=\mathrm{}`$.

Let us consider such properties for some natural classes $`,𝔙,𝔖,𝔐`$. It is worth pointing out that we would certainly like the class $``$ to be as large as possible, but it is less important that the classes $`𝔙_{}`$ be large, since the sets $`𝒱𝔙_{}`$ are used only to in effect enclose a neighborhood of the set $`𝒟`$, where one of the events $`A,B`$ occurs, in a “nice” set that can serve as the set of split bonds.

For $`(^d)`$ and $`kd`$ let $`_k`$ be the union of all $`k`$-dimensional unit cubes having all edges in $``$, and let $`^{\mathrm{solid}}=_{kd}_k`$. We say that $``$ is *simply lattice-connected*, abbreviated *SLC*, if $`^{\mathrm{solid}}`$ is simply connected. For $`d=2`$, it is easy to see that $``$ is SLC if and only if both $``$ and $`(^c)^{}`$ are connected sets of bonds and dual bonds respectively, which was the definition used in . For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$ we say $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is simply lattice-connected if $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is simply lattice-connected. For $`d=2`$ simple lattice-connectedness is a natural assumption in the context of uniform exponential decay and strong mixing, in view of . The SLC property also fits well with our need to form enlarged collections, as Example 1.2 below shows. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a self-avoiding lattice circuit let $`\mathrm{Int}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ denote the set of all bonds strictly inside $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (excluding endpoints). For $`d=2`$, we say that $``$ is *circuit-bounded* if there exists a self-avoiding lattice circuit, denoted $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$, such that $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{Int}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{})`$. For $``$ circuit-bounded and $`\mathrm{Int}()`$, the *boundary closure* of $``$ in $``$ is $`\{xy\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}:x,yV()\}`$. We say that $``$ is *lattice-convex* if it has the form $`\{b(^d):bC\}`$ for some convex $`C`$. If $`C`$ is a rectangle (which we may assume has vertices in $`^d`$) then we call $``$ a *lattice rectangle*, and we let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ denote the outer surface $`\{b:bC\}`$ and let $`\mathrm{Int}()=\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. If $``$ is a lattice rectangle (or a circuit-bounded set, or a $`d_𝒜`$-ball for some $`𝒜`$), $``$ and every bond of $`\backslash `$ abuts $`^c`$, then we call $``$ an *approximate lattice rectangle* (or *approximate circuit-bounded set*, or *approximate* $`d_𝒜`$-*ball*.) and we refer to $``$ as the *completed* lattice rectangle (or circuit-bounded set, or $`d_𝒜`$-ball.) A lattice rectangle or a circuit-bounded set of bonds $``$ is *minimally fat* if $`\mathrm{Int}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{})`$ is connected. An approximate lattice rectangle $``$, with completed lattice rectangle $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, is *regular* if for every bond $`e\mathrm{\Gamma }_\stackrel{~}{}`$, all bonds in $`\mathrm{Int}(\stackrel{~}{})`$ which abut $`e`$ (note there are at most two) are in $``$.

###### Example 1.2.

Let $``$ be the class of all minimally fat lattice rectangles in $`(^d)`$, let $`𝔖_{}`$ be the class of all approximate lattice rectangles $`𝒮`$ with $`\backslash 𝒮`$ connected, and let $`𝔙_{}`$ be the class of all lattice rectangles $`𝒱`$ such that $`\backslash 𝒱`$ is connected and $`|𝒱|2`$. (Note that for $`d=2`$ this excludes those $`𝒱`$ which intersect $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ only in two opposite faces.) Let $`𝔑`$ be the class of all approximate lattice rectangles in $`(^d)`$. Let $`P`$ be an FK model on $`(^2)`$ (see Section 2 for a description), and let $`𝔐`$ be the class of all the associated finite-volume FK measures $`P_,`$ with $``$ and with $`=w`$ or $`f`$. Assume that either $`i=1`$ or there are no external fields. In view of Lemma 2.1 below, given $`,𝒱𝔙_{}`$ and $`r1`$, we want to fill $`𝒱`$ in such a way that for all $`k`$, for $`𝒮_k`$ as in Definition 1.1 and $`e\backslash 𝒮_k`$, for some $`d`$-approximate $`r`$-neighborhood $`𝒲`$ of $`e`$ in $``$, we have the following: (a) $`𝒮_k`$ is an approximate lattice rectangle, (b) $`\backslash 𝒮_k`$ is connected, and (c) each component of $`𝒮_k\backslash 𝒲`$ is an approximate latttice rectangle which abuts at most one component of $`\backslash (𝒮_k𝒲)`$. We can always choose $`𝒲`$ to be a lattice rectangle which either does not intersect $`𝒮_k`$ or intersects the interior of the completed $`𝒮_k`$; this means that within (c) there are two cases: (c) $`\backslash (𝒮_k𝒲)`$ is connected and (c<sup>′′</sup>) $`\backslash (𝒮_k𝒲)`$ has two components ($`𝒲`$ “slices through” $``$.) It follows from Lemma 2.1 that under (c), $`𝒲\backslash 𝒮_k`$ is blockable in $`𝒮_k𝒲`$ under $`P_,`$, while under (c<sup>′′</sup>), $`𝒲`$ is blockable in $`𝒮_k𝒲`$ under $`P_,`$. (Here $`=w`$ or $`f`$.) It will follow that $`(,𝔙,𝔖,𝔐,𝔑)`$ is filling-compatible.

In fact, to obtain (a), (b), (c), we can fill $`𝒱`$ by first filling $`𝒱\mathrm{Int}()`$ and then filling $`𝒱\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. It is not hard to see that during the filling of $`𝒱\mathrm{Int}()`$ we can keep $`𝒮_k`$ an SLC regular approximate lattice rectangle so that all of $`\backslash 𝒮_k`$ is connected to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$, which ensures that $`\backslash 𝒮_k`$ is connected. Since $`𝒲`$ is a lattice rectangle, $`\backslash 𝒲`$ has at most 2 components $`𝒞_i`$, and $`𝒞_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ is nonempty and connected for each $`i`$. If there are 2 components $`𝒞_i`$, then, since $`𝒮_k`$ is regular, each $`𝒮_k𝒞_i`$ is an approximate lattice rectangle and (c<sup>′′</sup>) holds. If there is only one component $`𝒞_1=\backslash 𝒲`$, then, since $`𝒮_k\mathrm{Int}()`$, we have $`\backslash (𝒮_k𝒲)`$ connected, i.e. (c) holds. (Note that for $`d3`$, when there is only one component $`𝒞_1`$, we could have $`𝒮_k\backslash 𝒲`$ connected but not SLC, meaning (c) fails.) Thus all of our conditions (a), (b) and (c) remain satisfied during the filling of $`𝒱\mathrm{Int}()`$. If $`𝒱\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ is empty we are done; if $`𝒱\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ is nonempty then by assumption we have $`\backslash 𝒱`$ connected. But then it is not hard to see that we can fill the rest of $`𝒱`$ (i.e. fill $`𝒱\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$) keeping $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒮_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\backslash 𝒮_k`$ both connected, with $`𝒮_k`$ having an approximately rectangular intersection with each face of $``$. Following this procedure we see that our preceding verification of (a), (b) and (c) remains valid as we fill $`𝒱\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$.

It is “straightforward but tedious” to extend Example 1.2 to allow general lattice-convex sets in $``$ and $`𝔙_{}`$, instead of just rectangles. In two dimensions we can be much more general, as the next example shows.

###### Example 1.3.

Let $``$ be class of all circuit-bounded subsets of $`(^2)`$. For $``$ let

$`𝔙_{}=\{𝒱:𝒱`$ is the boundary closure of
$`\text{some }d_{\mathrm{Int}()}\text{ball in },\backslash 𝒱\text{ is connected, and }|𝒱|2\},`$
and let $`𝔖_{}`$ be the class of all SLC $`𝒮`$ with $`\backslash 𝒮`$ connected. Let $`𝔐`$ be the class of all the associated finite-volume FK measures $`P_,`$ with $``$ and with $`=w`$ or $`f`$, and let $`𝔑`$ be the class of all finite SLC subsets of $`(^2)`$. Similarly to Example 1.2, given $``$ and $`𝒱=\{b_1,..,b_n\}𝔙_{}`$ we want to fill $`𝒱`$ so that (a) $`𝒮_k=\{b_1,..,b_k\}`$ is SLC, (b) $`\backslash 𝒮_k`$ is connected, and (c) for $`e\backslash 𝒮_k`$, for some $`d_{}`$-ball $`𝒲`$ centered at an endpoint of $`e`$, each component of $`𝒮_k\backslash 𝒲`$ abuts at most one component of $`\backslash (𝒮_k𝒲)`$.

A useful observation about $`d_{}`$-balls in the plane (also valid for $`d_{\mathrm{Int}()}`$-balls) is as follows. The “outer surface inside $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$” for a ball $`B_{}(z,k)`$, by which we mean $`\{wV()\backslash V(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}):d_{}(z,w)=k\}`$, must fall along diagonal lines, i.e. it cannot contain two adjacent sites, as is easily seen.

We first fill $`𝒱\mathrm{Int}()`$. We order the bonds of $`𝒱\mathrm{Int}()=\{b_1,..,b_m\}`$ in order of increasing $`d_{\mathrm{Int}()}`$-distance from $`x`$, breaking ties in such a way that $`𝒮_k=\{b_1,..,b_k\}`$ remains SLC. This means that each $`𝒮_k`$ is an approximate $`d_{\mathrm{Int}()}`$-ball. Now (a) is clear, and (b) follows from the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\backslash 𝒮_k`$. For (c), let $`𝒲=B_{}(y,l)`$ for an endpoint $`y`$ of $`e`$ and some $`l>1`$, and suppose $`𝒮_k`$ is an approximate $`d_{\mathrm{Int}()}`$-ball, for which the completed $`d_{\mathrm{Int}()}`$-ball is $`B_{\mathrm{Int}()}(x,m)`$ for some $`m>1`$. If $`𝒲𝒮_k=\varphi `$ then after shrinking $`𝒲`$ slightly (say, decrease $`l`$ by 2), $`\backslash (𝒮_k𝒲)`$ becomes connected, and then (c) is trivial. Hence we assume $`𝒲𝒮_k\varphi `$. If we enlarge $`𝒲`$ slightly (say, increase $`l`$ by 2), this ensures that $`𝒮_k𝒲`$ is connected, which means that each component of $`\backslash (𝒮_k𝒲)`$ contains at most one segment of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. We claim that every component of $`\backslash (𝒮_k𝒲)`$ contains exactly one segment of $`\gamma `$. Suppose instead that some component $`𝒜`$ of $`\backslash (𝒮_k𝒲)`$ does not intersect $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$; since $`𝒮_k`$ and $`𝒲`$ are SLC, loosely speaking we conclude that $`𝒮_k`$ and $`𝒲`$ must intersect on two sides of $`𝒜`$ in such a way that their union surrounds $`𝒜`$. More precisely, there must exist sites $`u,vV(𝒮_k)V(𝒲)`$ and lattice paths $`\gamma _{xu},\gamma _{xv},\gamma _{yu},\gamma _{yv}`$ of minimal length (at most $`m,m,l,l`$ respectively), with the union of these paths containing a circuit surrounding $`𝒜`$. Here $`\gamma _{gh}`$ denotes a path from $`g`$ to $`h`$. (Note that for general SLC $`𝒲`$ and $`𝒮_k`$, $`\backslash (𝒮_k𝒲)`$ could include one or more components consisting of a single bond with one endpoint in $`V(𝒲)`$ and the other in $`V(𝒮_k)`$, not surrounded by such lattice paths, but that is not possible for in the present situation, due to our observation about the outer surface inside $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ for a ball.) For lattice paths $`\gamma ,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ in $``$ having the same endpoints, we say that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ is *directly obtainable from* $`\gamma `$ *by contraction* if we can change $`\gamma `$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ by one of the following two procedures: (1) select a lattice square $`Q`$ such that two sides of $`Q`$ are consecutive bonds of $`\gamma `$, and replace these two bonds with the other two sides of $`Q`$ (equivalently, replace the common site of the two bonds with the opposite corner of $`Q`$, if we view the path as a sequence of sites), or (2) select a lattice square $`Q`$ such that three sides of $`Q`$ are consecutive bonds of $`\gamma `$, and replace them with the other side of $`Q`$ (i.e., shortcut the trip around $`Q`$.) Again for paths $`\gamma `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ having the same endpoints $`g,h`$, we say that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ is *obtainable from* $`\gamma `$ *by contraction in* $``$ if there is a sequence of lattice paths in $``$, each from $`g`$ to $`h`$, starting with $`\gamma `$ and ending with $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$, each directly obtainable from the previous one by contraction. We may assume the paths $`\gamma _{xu},\gamma _{xv},\gamma _{yu},\gamma _{yv}`$ are disjoint; if not, we replace the starting site $`x`$ with the last common site of $`\gamma _{xu}`$ and $`\gamma _{xv}`$ on the way to $`u`$ and $`v`$, respectively, from $`x`$, and similarly for $`y`$. Consider the two paths $`\alpha _0=\gamma _{xu}\gamma _{yu}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0=\gamma _{xv}\gamma _{yv}`$, each from $`x`$ to $`y`$. It is easy to see that there is a path $`\alpha `$ between these two paths which is obtainable from both paths by contraction in $``$. The various paths, call them $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i`$, obtained along the way from $`\alpha _0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0`$ to $`\alpha `$ are each no longer than the original paths $`\alpha _0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0`$, and every bond between $`\alpha _0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0`$ is on one of the paths $`\alpha _i`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha _i}`$. The contraction aspect means that $`\alpha _i,\stackrel{~}{\alpha _i}B_{}(x,m)𝒲`$, so we conclude that $`𝒜B_{}(x,m)𝒲`$, in contradiction to the definition of $`𝒜`$. This establishes our claim that each nontrivial component of $`\backslash (𝒮_k𝒲)`$, and therefore also each component of $`\backslash (𝒮_k𝒲)`$, contains exactly one segment of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. We thus have the following picture: $``$ and $`𝒲`$ are SLC, so each component $`𝒞`$ of $`\backslash 𝒲`$ includes exactly one segment, call it $`\gamma _𝒞`$, of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. When we remove the set $`𝒮_k`$ to obtain $`\backslash (𝒮_k𝒲)`$, the remaining portion $`𝒞\backslash 𝒮_k`$ of $`𝒞`$ is all connected to $`\gamma _𝒞`$ and is the only component of $`\backslash (𝒮_k𝒲)`$ which abuts $`𝒮_k𝒞`$. This proves (c), and we have (a), (b), (c) while filling $`\mathrm{Int}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{})`$.

Since $`𝒱`$ and $`\backslash 𝒱`$ are connected, $`𝒱\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ is a single segment, so after $`𝒱\mathrm{Int}()`$ is filled, we can fill $`𝒱\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ by starting at one end of this segment and proceeding to the other end. This keeps the part of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ outside $`𝒮_k`$ connected, and the above proof of (a), (b), (c) remains valid (though now, in (c<sup>′′</sup>), there may be more than two components.) As in Example 1.2, this shows that $`(,𝔙,𝔖,𝔐,𝔑)`$ is filling-compatible.

As Examples 1.2 and 1.3 show, it is sometimes necessary to augment a natural collection, like the rectangles or the circuit-bounded sets, to obtain classes $`𝔖,𝔙,𝔑`$ having filling-compatibility, but this seems to be only a minor technical obstactle to the applicability of our results to natural cases.

When dealing with the Ising model we will not have to restrict boundary conditions, so in place of Definition 1.1 we can use the following simpler ideas. We say that a collection $`𝔏`$ of finite subsets of $`^d`$ has the *approximate neighborhood property* if for some $`c>1`$, for every $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔏`$ and $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`𝔏`$ includes a $`c`$-approximate $`r`$-neighborhood of $`x`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (A similar property termed *inheriting* was used in ; the two are interchangeable for our purposes.) We say that $`𝔏`$ is *fillable* if for every $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔏`$ there exists and ordering $`x_1,..,x_n`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that for all $`1kn,\{x_1,..,x_k\}𝔏`$. Note that, in contrast to the analogous properties (Definition 1.1) for bond models, here we need not incorporate collections of measures into the definitions, because our collection of measures will always consist of all Ising models on all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔏`$ with arbitrary boundary conditions.

We turn now to some definitions related to further conditions we will impose on the collection $`𝔐`$ of measures. For ordered $`J`$, a probability measure $`P`$ on $`J^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for some finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is said to have the *FKG property* if $`A,B`$ increasing implies $`P(AB)P(A)P(B)`$. $`P`$ is said to satisfy the *FKG lattice condition* if

(1.8)
$$P(\omega \omega ^{})P(\omega \omega ^{})P(\omega )P(\omega ^{})\text{for all }\omega ,\omega ^{},$$

where $``$ and $``$ denote the coordinatewise maximum and minimum, respectively. This implies that $`P(\omega _\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega _{\mathrm{\Delta }\backslash \mathrm{\Lambda }}=\eta _{\mathrm{\Delta }\backslash \mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ has the FKG property for all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\eta `$ . In a mild abuse of notation, for a bond $`e`$ we write $`\omega e`$ for the configuration taking value 1 at $`e`$ and agreeing with $`\omega `$ at all other bonds. Then (1.8) is equivalent to

$$\frac{P(\omega e)}{P(\omega )}\text{ is an increasing function of }\omega \text{ for each fixed }e.$$

For $`Q`$ another probability measure, we say that $`P`$ *FKG-dominates* $`Q`$ if for every nondecreasing function $`f`$ on $`J^\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$f𝑑Pf𝑑Q.$$

We say that the collection $`𝔐=_{}𝔐_{}`$ has *uniform exponential decay of connectivity* if there exist $`C,\lambda >0`$ such that for every $``$ and $`P𝔐_{}`$,

$$P(xy\text{ via a path in })Ce^{\lambda d_{}(x,y)}\text{for all }x,yV().$$

The finite-volume analog of ratio weak mixing can be formulated for a collection $`𝔐=_{}𝔐_{}`$ of measures, as follows. We say that $`𝔐`$ has the *ratio strong mixing property* if there exist $`C,\lambda >0`$ such that for all $`,P𝔐_{}`$ and $`,`$,

(1.9) $`sup`$ $`\left\{\left|{\displaystyle \frac{P(AB)}{P(A)P(B)}}1\right|:A𝒢_{},B𝒢_{},P(A)P(B)>0\right\}`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{xV(),yV()}{}}e^{\lambda d_{}(x,y)},`$
whenever the right side of (1.9) is less than 1. This definition was given in  for the special case of a fixed bond percolation model with some class of site or bond boundary conditions.

A *coupling* of two probability measures $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ on some set $`J^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a probability measure $``$ on $`J^\mathrm{\Delta }\times J^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with marginals $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ (in order).

For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$ and $`r>0`$ let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^r(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\{x\mathrm{\Lambda }:d_{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(x,\mathrm{\Delta })r\},\mathrm{\Delta }^r=\mathrm{\Delta }^r(^d).$$

Similarly for $`𝒟(^d)`$ let

$$𝒟^r()=\{b:d_{}(b,𝒟)r\},𝒟^r=𝒟^r((^d)).$$

## 2. Specific Models

The *FK model* (, , ; see also , ) is a graphical representation of the Potts model. For a configuration $`\omega `$ on $`(^d)`$, let $`K(\omega )`$ denote the number of open clusters in $`\omega `$ which do not abut $`^c`$. For $`p[0,1]`$ and $`q>0`$, the FK model $`P_{,w}^{p,q}`$ (without external fields) on $``$ with parameters $`(p,q)`$ and wired boundary condition is defined by the weights

(2.1)
$$W(\omega )=p^{|\omega |}(1p)^{|||\omega |}q^{K(\omega )}.$$

Here $`|\omega |`$ means the number of open bonds in $`\omega `$. Let $`K(\omega \rho )`$ be the number of open clusters of $`(\omega \rho )`$ which abut or intersect $``$. The FK model $`P_{,\rho }^{p,q}`$ with bond boundary condition $`\rho `$ is given by the weights in (2.1) with $`K(\omega )`$ replaced by $`K(\omega \rho )`$. When $`\rho =\rho ^0`$ or $`\rho ^1`$ we replace $`\rho `$ with $`f`$ or $`w`$ in our notation. The infinite-volume measures

$$P^{p,q}=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }^d}{lim}P_{\mathrm{\Lambda },}^{p,q}$$

on $`\{0,1\}^{(^d)}`$ exist for $`=w`$ or $`f`$ and are translation-invariant. For $`p`$ below the percolation critical point $`p_c(q,d)`$ we have $`P_w^{p,q}=P_f^{p,q}`$ so we omit the subscript. For a summary of basic properties of the FK model, see . In particular, for $`q1`$ the FK model satisfies the FKG lattice condition, and we consider only these values of $`q`$.

We also need to consider site boundary conditions, when we use the FK model as a graphical representation of the Ising model. Given $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$ and $`\eta \{1,1\}^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ define

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{x\mathrm{\Lambda }^c:x\text{ adjacent to }y\text{ for some }y\mathrm{\Lambda }\},$$

$$U(\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta )=\{\omega \{0,1\}^{\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })}:\eta _x=\eta _y\text{ for every }x,y\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ for which }xy\text{ in }\omega \}.$$

The FK model $`P_{\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }),\eta }^{p,q}`$ with site boundary condition $`\eta `$ is given by the weights in (2.1), multiplied by $`\delta _{U(\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta )}(\omega )`$.

For the FK model with external fields $`h_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},q`$ and free boundary, the factor $`q^{K(\omega )}`$ in the weight $`W(\omega )`$ is replaced by

(2.2)
$$\underset{C𝒦(\omega )}{}\left((1p)^{h_1s(C)}+(1p)^{h_2s(C)}+\mathrm{}+(1p)^{h_qs(C)}\right),$$

where $`𝒦(\omega )`$ is the set of open clusters in $``$ in the configuration $`\omega `$ and $`s(C)`$ denotes the number of sites in the cluster $`C`$. The parameters are then $`(p,q,\{h_i\})`$; $`q`$ must be an integer, and we may omit $`\{h_i\}`$ when all external fields are 0. The percolation critical point is denoted $`p_c(q,d,\{h_i\})`$. We need only consider $`0=h_1h_2\mathrm{}h_q`$, so we henceforth assume this in our notation. Species $`i`$ is called *stable* if $`h_i`$ is maximal, i.e. $`h_i=h_1=0`$. For bond boundary conditions $`\rho `$ we replace (2.2) with

(2.3)
$$\underset{C𝒦(\omega \rho )}{}\left((1p)^{h_1s(C)}+(1p)^{h_2s(C)}+\mathrm{}+(1p)^{h_qs(C)}\right),$$

where $`𝒦(\omega \rho )`$ is the set of finite open clusters of $`(\omega \rho )`$ which intersect $`V()`$. For general site boundary conditions $`\eta `$ for the model on $`\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ the factor (2.2) is multiplied by

(2.4) $`{\displaystyle \underset{C𝒦_{int}(\omega )}{}}`$ $`\left((1p)^{h_1s(C)}+(1p)^{h_2s(C)}+\mathrm{}+(1p)^{h_qs(C)}\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{C𝒦_{}(\omega )}{}}(1p)^{h_{i(C)}s(C)}\times \delta _{U(\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta )}(\omega ),`$
where $`𝒦_{}(\omega )`$ (respectively $`𝒦_{int}(\omega )`$) is the set of clusters in the configuration $`\omega `$ which do (respectively don’t) intersect $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`i(C)`$ is the species for which $`\eta _x=i`$ for all $`i\mathrm{\Lambda }C`$. (The existence of such an $`i`$ is forced by the event $`U(\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta )`$.)

If $`\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })^c`$ is connected then for stable $`i`$ the wired boundary condition is equivalent to the all-$`i`$ site boundary condition. For $`q1`$, the FK model with external fields satisfies the FKG lattice condition, under any bond boundary condition. We say that $`\rho \{0,1\}^^c`$ is a *unique-cluster bond boundary condition* if all open bonds in $`\rho `$ are part of one cluster. We have seen (Figure 1) that in the absense of external fields, an FK model $`P_{,\rho }^{p,q}`$ need not in general have the Markov property for blocking sets, but we have the following sufficient conditions.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`(^d)`$ and consider an FK measure $`P_{,\rho }^{p,q,\{h_i\}}`$.

(i) Suppose $`\rho `$ is a unique-cluster bond boundary condition, and suppose that either (a) there are no external fields, (b) there is a unique nonsingleton cluster in $`\rho `$ and this cluster is infinite, or (c) $`\rho =\rho ^0`$. Then $`P_{,\rho }^{p,q,\{h_i\}}`$ has the Markov property for blocking sets.

(ii) If $`\rho `$ is arbitrary, there are no external fields, $``$ and each component of $`\backslash `$ abuts at most one nonsingleton cluster of $`\rho `$, then $`P_{,\rho }^{p,q,\{h_i\}}`$ has the Markov property for sets blocking $``$.

###### Proof.

We first prove (i). The FK weight can be written as a product over clusters,

$$\underset{C𝒦(\omega \rho )}{}\left(\frac{p}{1p}\right)^{b(C)}\left((1p)^{h_1s(C)}+(1p)^{h_2s(C)}+\mathrm{}+(1p)^{h_qs(C)}\right),$$

where $`s(C)`$ and $`b(C)`$ are the number of sites and bonds, respectively, in the cluster $`C`$. Let $`C_u`$ denote the unique nonsingleton cluster in $`\rho `$, when this exists. Let $`(𝒳,𝒴,𝒵)`$ be a blocking partitiion of $``$, and suppose $`\omega =0`$ on $`𝒴`$. Note that a group of clusters $`C_1,..,C_n`$ of $`\omega `$ may be part of the same cluster, say $`\widehat{C}`$, in $`(\omega \rho )`$, if $`C_1,..,C_n`$ are connected together by $`C_u`$; in particular this can occur with some of the $`C_i`$’s on each side of the blocking set $`𝒴`$. However, under (a), (b) or (c), the weight of $`\widehat{C}`$ factors into a product of a weight for each $`C_i`$, and thus the clusters on each side of the blocking set occur independently, yielding the Markov property. The proof of (ii) is similar. ∎

Lemma 2.1 is part of what requires us to use augmented collections instead of using a single $``$ and $`𝔐`$ throughout; in Example 1.2, for example, we restrict $`𝔐`$ to free and wired boundary conditions to guarantee the Markov property for blocking sets, but such a restriction would be unnecessary and technically awkward for $`𝔐_w^+(𝔑,)`$, which does not need the Markov property in our proofs.

The following facts about the FK model are known for $`d=2`$. For $`q=1,q=2,`$ and $`q25.72`$, we have $`p_c(q,2)=\frac{\sqrt{q}}{1+\sqrt{q}}`$ , and the connectivity decays exponentially for all $`p<p_c(q,2)`$ . This is believed to be true for all $`q`$; for $`2<q<25.72`$ the connectivity is known to decay exponentially at least for all $`p<\frac{\sqrt{q1}}{1+\sqrt{q1}}`$, and analogous results hold for other planar lattices . For general $`q1`$, if the connectivity decays exponentially then the model has the ratio weak mixing property . (This result is actually given assuming a nonnegative external field applied to at most one species, but the proof carries over without change to arbitrary external fields; the necessary FKG property is proved in .)

As shown in , for $`\beta `$ given by $`p=1e^\beta `$, a configuration of the Ising model on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with boundary condition $`\eta `$ at inverse temperature $`\beta `$ can be obtained from a configuration $`\omega `$ of the FK model at $`(p,2)`$ with site boundary condition $`\eta `$, by choosing a label for each cluster of $`\omega `$ independently and uniformly from $`\{1,1\}`$; this *cluster-labeling construction* yields a joint site-bond configuration for which the sites are an Ising model and the bonds are an FK model. When the parameters are related in this way, we call the Ising and FK models *corresponding*. Alternatively, if one selects an Ising configuration $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and does independent percolation at density $`p`$ on the set of bonds

$$\{xy\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }):(\sigma \eta )_x=(\sigma \eta )_y\},$$

the resulting bond configuration is a realization of the corresponding FK model. We call this the *percolation construction* of the FK model.

For the Ising model at inverse temperature $`\beta <\beta _c(d)`$, for $`p=1e^\beta `$ and for the FK model without external fields at $`(p,2)`$, the covariance in the Ising model and the connectivity in the FK model are related by

(2.5)
$$\mathrm{cov}(\sigma _0,\sigma _x)=P(0x);$$

see  or . Thus exponential decay of connectivities in the FK model is equivalent to exponential decay of correlations in the corresponding Ising model. Further, $`\beta _c(d)`$ and the percolation critical point $`p_c(2,d)`$ of the FK model are related by

$$p_c(2,d)=1e^{\beta _c(d)};$$

again see  or . For $`h0`$ we make this a definition, that is, $`\beta _c(d,h)`$ is defined by

$$p_c(2,d,h)=1e^{\beta _c(d,h)},$$

where $`p_c(2,d,h)`$ is the percolation threshhold of the corresponding FK model. (The notation is not meant to imply that $`\beta _c(d,h)`$ is a true critical point.)

## 3. Statements of Main Theorems

All proofs appear in Section 4. Our first theorem covers bond percolation models in finite volumes $``$. Note that as discussed in the introduction, one of the two events $`A,B`$ is restricted to occur somewhere on a fixed set $`𝒟`$, and the required separation $`r`$ depends on the size of $`𝒟`$. The location of the other event is unrestricted and in particular this location may also be a part of $`𝒟`$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`,𝔙,𝔖,𝔐`$ be as in the standard bond percolation setup and let $`𝔑`$ be a neighborhood collection for $`𝔖`$. Suppose that $`(,𝔙,𝔖,𝔐,𝔑)`$ is filling-compatible, each measure in $`𝔐`$ satisfies the FKG lattice condition, each measure in $`𝔐𝔐^+(𝔖,)`$ has the Markov property for blocking sets, and $`𝔐_w^+(𝔑,)`$ has uniform exponential decay of connectivity. There exist $`c_i,ϵ_i`$ such that for all $`,P𝔐_{},𝒱𝔙_{}`$, and $`rc_7\mathrm{log}|𝒱|`$, all $`𝒟`$ with $`𝒟^r()𝒱`$ and all increasing or decreasing events $`A𝒢_{}`$ and $`B𝒢_𝒟`$,

$$P(A_rB)(1+c_8e^{ϵ_4r})P(A)P(B).$$

If in Theorem 3.1 we only assume filling-compatibility at a particular scale $`R>1`$, then the conclusion is valid provided we further restrict to $`rR`$.

In the case of the FK model on $`(^d)`$, Theorem 3.1 will yield the next theorem. Site boundary conditions cannot be allowed in Theorem 3.2, as the corresponding measures need not in general have the FKG property. Multiple-cluster bond boundary conditions cannot be allowed due to the phenomenon, dubbed *tunneling* in , that such boundary conditions may create long-range dependencies, even when the locations of the events $`A,B`$ are nonrandom. In other words, the strong mixing property may fail. In fact we restrict ourselves to wired boundary conditions, in order to obtain the filling-compatible property in a straightforward way, but one can presumably allow more general unique-cluster bond boundary conditions.

We say that an event $`A𝒢_{\overline{}(^d)}`$ is *locally-occurring* if $`\omega A`$ implies that $`A`$ occurs in $`\omega `$ on some finite set of bonds; for site models an analogous definition is made for $`A_^d`$.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $``$ be the collection of all lattice rectangles, and $`\overline{}`$ the class of all approximate lattice rectangles, in $`(^d)`$, and for $``$ let $`𝔙_{}`$ be the collection of all lattice rectangles $`𝒱`$ with $`\backslash 𝒱`$ connected. Let $`P=P^{p,q,\{h_i\}}`$ be an FK model on $`(^d)`$. Suppose $`P`$ has uniform exponential decay of connectivity for the class $`\overline{}`$ with wired boundary conditions. There exist $`c_i,ϵ_i`$ such that the following hold.

(i) For all $``$ and $`𝒱𝔙_{}`$, for all $`𝒟`$ with $`𝒟^r()𝒱`$, for all increasing or decreasing events $`A𝒢_{},B𝒢_𝒟`$, for all $`rc_9\mathrm{log}|𝒱|`$, and for $`=w`$ or $`f`$,

$$P_{𝒟,}(A_rB)(1+c_{10}e^{ϵ_5r})P_{𝒟,}(A)P_{𝒟,}(B).$$

(ii) For all increasing or decreasing events $`A,B`$ with $`A`$ locally-occurring and $`B𝒢_𝒟`$, and for all $`rc_9\mathrm{log}\mathrm{diam}(𝒟)`$,

$$P(A_rB)(1+c_{10}e^{ϵ_5r})P(A)P(B).$$

A sufficient condition for the uniform exponential decay hypothesized in Theorem 3.2 is that $`p`$ be below the percolation critical point $`p_c(1,d)`$ for independent percolation on $`(^d)`$. The FK model at $`(p,q,\{h_i\})`$ is FKG-dominated by independent percolation at density $`p`$, since $`q1`$, and independent percolation at every density $`p<p_c(1,d)`$ has (uniform) exponential decay of connectivity .

Using Lemma 2.1, one could presumably extend Theorem 3.2 beyond free and wired boundary conditions to general unique-cluster bond boundary conditions, by using a more elaborate filling algorithm than the one in Example 1.2. If $`𝒞`$ is the unique nonsingleton cluster in a boundary condition $`\rho `$, one would have to keep $`𝒞(\backslash 𝒮)`$ connected as the filling proceeds, so that the effective boundary condition on $`𝒮`$ when we condition $`P_{,\rho }`$ on the event $`\omega _{\backslash 𝒮}=\rho _{\backslash 𝒮}^1`$ still has a unique nonsingleton cluster. But since we have no specific example as motivation for undertaking the additional technicalities, we will not do so here.

One can readily extend Theorem 3.2(ii) to allow $`A`$ to be a limit in an appropriate sense of locally-occurring events, but considering completely general increasing $`A`$ creates technical difficulties; lacking again a motivating example we have not attempted to surmount these.

###### Remark 3.3.

In Theorem 3.2, as will be apparent from the proof, we need not require $``$ to be a lattice rectangle if the following condition is satisfied: $``$ is connected and there exists a lattice rectangle $`𝒱^{\prime \prime }`$ such that $`𝒟^r𝒱^{\prime \prime }`$. We then let $`𝒱,𝒱^{}`$ be lattice rectangles which have the same center as $`𝒱^{\prime \prime }`$ but are respectively $`r`$ and $`r/2`$ units shorter in each direction, meaning $`𝒱𝒟^{r/2}`$; we use $`r/4`$ in the proof in place of $`r`$. When $`𝒱`$ is being filled, the relevant sets $`𝒮_k𝒲`$ as in Definition 1.1 are contained in $`𝒱^{}`$. When we condition in a way that forces $`\omega _{\backslash 𝒱^{}}=\rho _{\backslash 𝒱^{}}^i`$ for $`i=0`$ or 1, the effective boundary condition for configurations on $`𝒱^{}`$ is free or wired, respectively, regardless of what is outside $`𝒱^{\prime \prime }`$.

For $`d=2`$ we have the following stronger result; we need not explicitly assume *uniform* exponential decay of connectivity because, in SLC sets, it follows from the usual infinite-volume exponential decay of connectivity .

###### Theorem 3.4.

Let $``$ be the collection of all circuit-bounded subsets of $`(^2)`$, let $`𝔙_{}`$ be as in Example 1.3 for $``$, and let $`P=P^{p,q,\{h_i\}}`$ be an FK model on $`(^2)`$. Suppose $`p<p_c(q,d,\{h_i\})`$ and $`P`$ has exponential decay of connectivity (in infinite volume.) There exist $`c_j`$ such that for all $``$, all $`𝒱𝔙_{}`$, all $`rc_{11}\mathrm{log}|𝒱|`$, and all $`𝒟`$ with $`𝒟^r()𝒱`$, for all increasing or decreasing events $`A𝒢_{},B𝒢_𝒟`$, and for $`=w`$ or $`f`$,

(3.1)
$$P_,(A_rB)(1+c_{12}e^{ϵ_6r})P_,(A)P_,(B).$$

###### Remark 3.5.

Theorem 3.4 extends straighforwardly to the case in which $``$ has multiple components, each circuit-bounded, using the fact that under free and wired boundary conditions, the configurations on the various components are independent.

It is possible to allow general site and bond boundary conditions for the FK model if we resrict one of the two events to occur well-separated from the boundary, specifically the event restricted to occur on a particular $`𝒟`$. This means we assume $`𝒟^r𝒱`$ instead of $`𝒟^r()𝒱`$.

###### Theorem 3.6.

Let $``$ be the collection of all circuit-bounded subsets of $`(^2)`$, let $`𝔙_{}`$ be as in Example 1.3 for $``$, and let $`P=P^{p,q,\{h_i\}}`$ be an FK model on $`(^2)`$. Suppose $`p<p_c(q,d,\{h_i\})`$ and $`P`$ has exponential decay of connectivity (in infinite volume.) There exist $`c_j`$ such that for all $``$, all $`𝒱𝔙_{}`$, all $`rc_{11}\mathrm{log}|𝒱|`$, and all $`𝒟`$ with $`𝒟^r𝒱`$, for all increasing or decreasing events $`A𝒢_{},B𝒢_𝒟`$, and for all site or bond boundary conditions $`\rho `$,

$$P_{,\rho }(A_rB)(1+c_{14}e^{ϵ_7r})P_{,\rho }(A)P_{,\rho }(B).$$

The last two of our main theorems cover the Ising model. An *absorbing sequence* in $`^d`$ is an increasing sequence of subsets whose union is $`^d`$.

###### Theorem 3.7.

Let $`\mu =\mu ^{\beta ,h}`$ be an Ising model on $`^d`$, let $`𝔏`$ be a collection of finite subsets of $`^d`$ which is fillable and has the neighborhood component property. Suppose the corresponding FK model has uniform exponential decay of connectivity for the class $`\{(\mathrm{\Lambda }):\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔏\}`$ with wired boundary conditions. There exist $`c_i,ϵ_i`$ such that for all finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }^d`$, the following hold.

(i) For all $`\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔏`$ with $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Theta }|2`$, for all $`rc_{15}\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Theta }|`$, for all boundary conditions $`\eta `$, for all $`\mathrm{\Delta }^d`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^r(\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and for all increasing or decreasing events $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda },B_\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }(A_rB)(1+c_{16}e^{ϵ_8r})\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }(A)\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }(B).$$

(ii) Assume $`𝔏`$ contains an absorbing sequence. Then for all $`\mathrm{\Theta }𝔏`$ and all $`rc_{15}\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Theta }|`$, for all $`\mathrm{\Delta }^d`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^r\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and for all increasing or decreasing events $`A,B`$ with $`B_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`A`$ locallly-occurring,

$$\mu (A_rB)(1+c_{16}e^{ϵ_8r})\mu (A)\mu (B).$$

We now specialize to SLC subsets in two dimensions. As noted above, it is proved in  that the hypothesis in Theorem 3.8 of uniform exponential decay of connectivity in the corresponding FK model is satisfied whenever that FK model has exponential decay of connectivity in infinite volume. If $`h=0`$, then by (2.5) this exponential decay of connectivity in infinite volume holds whenever there is a unique Gibbs distribution and this distribution has exponential decay of correlations, i.e. whenever $`\beta <\beta _c(2,0)`$ .

###### Theorem 3.8.

Let $`\mu =\mu ^{\beta ,h}`$ be an Ising model on $`^2`$ and let $`𝔏`$ be the classs of all finite SLC subsets of $`^2`$ with arbitrary boundary condition. Suppose that either (a) $`\beta <\beta _c(2,0)`$ and $`h=0`$, (b) $`\beta >\beta _c(2,0)`$ and $`h0`$, (c) $`\beta <\beta _c(2,h)`$ and the corresponding FK model has exponential decay of connectivities (in infinite volume), or (d) $`\beta >\beta _c(2,h)`$ and the corresponding FK model has exponential decay of dual connectivities (in infinite volume). There exist $`c_i,ϵ_i`$ such that for all $`\mathrm{\Delta }^d`$ with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|3`$, the following hold.

(i) For all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔏`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, for all boundary conditions $`\eta `$, for all increasing or decreasing events $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda },B_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and for all $`rc_{17}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{diam}_{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$,

$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }(A_rB)(1+c_{18}e^{ϵ_9r})\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }(A)\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }(B).$$

(ii) For all increasing or decreasing events $`A,B`$ with $`B_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`A`$ locally-occurring, and for all $`rc_{17}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$,

$$\mu (A_rB)(1+c_{18}e^{ϵ_9r})\mu (A)\mu (B).$$

## 4. Proofs

We begin with the proof of Theorem 3.1. Since $`|𝒱|2`$, we need only consider “sufficiently large”$`r`$; we do this tacitly throughout. Our proof will be based on an elaboration of the “bond-splitting” proof, given by van den Berg and Fiebig in , of the van den Berg-Kesten inequality , so we begin with a brief review of the basic idea of . For independent percolation on a finite set $``$ of bonds, one may take $`𝒱`$ and “split” each bond in $`𝒱`$ into, say, a left and a right bond; the left and right bonds receive open/closed states independently. For increasing or decreasing events $`A`$ and $`B`$, one considers the event that $`A`$ and $`B`$ occur disjointly, with $`A`$ occuring in the configuration of unsplit and left bonds, and $`B`$ occurring in the configuration of unsplit and right bonds. One shows that splitting an additional bond never decreases the probability of this form of disjoint occurrence. When all bonds are split, $`A`$ and $`B`$ become independent, yielding the inequality.

For dependent models this does not work in general. For example, if one considers the FK model on a graph with some set $`𝒮𝒱`$ of split bonds, the marginal distribution of the configuration on the unsplit and left bonds is not the same as the distribution of the original model on the fully-unsplit graph. Instead, for a bond percolation model $`P`$ on a set $``$ of bonds, writing $`𝒯`$ for $`\backslash 𝒮`$, we consider $`𝒮`$-*split configurations* $`(\omega _𝒯,\omega _𝒮,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮)\{0,1\}^𝒯\times \{0,1\}^𝒮\times \{0,1\}^𝒮`$ under the probability measure

$$P_𝒮(\omega _𝒯,\omega _𝒮,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮)=P(\omega _𝒯)P(\omega _𝒮\omega _𝒯)P(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮\omega _𝒯),$$

which we call the $`𝒮`$-*split measure*. Note $`\omega _𝒮,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮`$ are conditionally independent given $`\omega _𝒯`$. For $`A,B\{0,1\}^{}`$ and $`(\omega _𝒯,\omega _𝒮,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮)\{0,1\}^𝒯\times \{0,1\}^𝒮\times \{0,1\}^𝒮`$, we say that $`A`$ and $`B`$ *occur* $`𝒮`$-*split at separation* $`r`$ in $`(\omega _𝒯,\omega _𝒮,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮)`$ if there exist $`,`$ with $`d_{}(,)r`$ such that $`A`$ occurs on $``$ in $`(\omega _𝒯,\omega _𝒮)`$ and $`B`$ occurs on $``$ in $`(\omega _𝒯,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮)`$. We denote this event by $`A_{r,𝒮}B`$. Let $`𝒱=\{b_1,..,b_n\}`$ be a filling sequence. If we can show that for some $`c_{19},ϵ_{10}`$, for each $`kn`$, for $`𝒮=\{b_1,..,b_{k1}\}`$ and $`e=b_k`$, we have

(4.1)
$$P_𝒮(A_{r,𝒮}B)(1+c_{19}e^{ϵ_{10}r})P_{𝒮\{e\}}(A_{r,𝒮\{e\}}B),$$

then we obtain by iterating (4.1) that

(4.2) $`P(A_rB)`$ $`=P_\varphi (A_{r,\varphi }B)`$
$`(1+c_{19}e^{ϵ_{10}r})^{|𝒱)|}P_𝒱(A_{r,𝒱}B).`$
Now since $`B`$ occurs only on $`𝒟`$, and $`𝒟𝒱`$,

(4.3) $`P_𝒱`$ $`(A_{r,𝒱}B)`$
$`P_𝒱(A\text{ occurs in }(\omega _{\backslash 𝒱},\omega _𝒱))P_𝒱(A_{r,𝒱}BA\text{ occurs in }(\omega _{\backslash 𝒱},\omega _𝒱))`$
$`P(A)\underset{\rho _{\backslash 𝒱}}{sup}P(B\omega _{\backslash 𝒱}=\rho _{\backslash 𝒱}).`$
Finally we can apply Proposition 4.2 below to the collection $`𝔖_0=\{\{\}:\}`$, noting that $`𝔐^+(𝔖_0,)=𝔐`$ and $`d_{}(𝒟,\backslash 𝒱)r`$, to conclude that ratio strong mixing applies, and the right side of (4.3) is bounded by

$`P(A)P(B)\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{xV(𝒟),yV(\backslash 𝒱)}{}}c_{20}e^{ϵ_{11}d_{}(x,y)}\right)`$
$`P(A)P(B)\left(1+c_{21}e^{ϵ_{12}r}\right).`$
Since

$$(1+c_{19}e^{ϵ_{10}r})^{|𝒱|}1+c_{22}e^{ϵ_{13}r},$$

this will complete the proof.

The main difficulty in proving (4.1) is that the properties which can be established for the model $`P`$, particularly weak mixing, do not immediately carry over to the $`𝒮`$-split measure.

Our proof of (4.1) will involve a coupling construction which we now describe. Fix $`A`$ and $`B`$. If one of $`A,B`$ is increasing and the other is decreasing, then since $`P`$ has the FKG property, the separated-occurrence inequality is trivial:

$$P(A_rB)P(AB)P(A)P(B),$$

so we may assume $`A,B`$ are both increasing or both decreasing. Let $`𝒰=𝒯\backslash \{e\}`$. Suppose that for each $`\zeta _𝒰\{0,1\}^𝒰`$ we have a measure $`\widehat{P}_{\zeta _𝒰}`$ on $`\{0,1\}^𝒮\times \{0,1\}^𝒮`$, which is a coupling of $`P(\omega _𝒮\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰,\omega _e=1)`$ and $`P(\omega _𝒮\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰,\omega _e=0)`$ satisfying

(4.4)
$$\widehat{P}_{\zeta _𝒰}\left(\{(\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0):\omega _𝒮^1\omega _𝒮^0\}\right)=1.$$

A coupling for which (4.4) holds is called an *FKG coupling*. An FKG coupling always exists when the first measure FKG-dominates the second, as is the case here; see . Define $`_{𝒮,e}`$ on $`\{0,1\}^𝒰\times \{0,1\}^2\times (\{0,1\}^𝒮)^4`$ by

(4.5) $`_{𝒮,e}`$ $`(\zeta _𝒰,\zeta _e,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_e,\zeta _𝒮^1,\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0)`$
$`=P(\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰)P(\omega _e=\zeta _e\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰)P(\omega _e=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_e\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰)\widehat{P}_{\zeta _𝒰}\left((\zeta _𝒮^1,\zeta _𝒮^0)\right)\widehat{P}_{\zeta _𝒰}\left((\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0)\right).`$
To explain, for events $`A,B\{0,1\}^{}`$ the measure $`_{𝒮,e}`$ arises in the following construction. First choose $`\omega _𝒰`$ under the measure $`P`$. Then choose what we will call the $`A`$ *pair* $`(\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0)`$ using the coupling measure $`\widehat{P}_{\omega _𝒰}`$, and then independently (given $`\omega _𝒰`$) the $`B`$ *pair* $`(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0)`$ again using the coupling measure $`\widehat{P}_{\omega _𝒰}`$. We refer to $`\omega _𝒮^1`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1`$ as the *top layer*, and to $`\omega _𝒮^0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0`$ as the *bottom layer*, in its respective pair. We then choose $`\omega _e,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e`$ independently (given $`\omega _𝒰`$) under the measure $`P(\omega _e=\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰)`$ and use these values to determine which layer to use from each pair in forming an $`(𝒮\{e\})`$-split configuration. If, for example, $`\omega _e=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e=0`$, we form an $`(𝒮\{e\})`$-split configuration out of $`\omega _𝒰,\omega _e,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e`$, the top layer of the $`A`$ pair and the bottom layer of the $`B`$ pair, and we may look for the event $`A_{r,𝒮\{e\}}B`$ in this configuration. Other values of $`\omega _e,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e`$ give corresponding different choices of top or bottom layers to use in the $`(𝒮\{e\})`$-split configuration. Note that $`\omega _𝒮^i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^j`$ are conditionally independent given $`\omega _𝒰`$, for each $`i,j=0,1`$; from this it is easy to see that the constructed configuration $`(\omega _𝒰,(\omega _e,\omega _𝒮^{\omega _e}),(\omega _e,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e}))`$ has the $`(𝒮\{e\})`$-split measure as its distribution. By contrast, as a different construction, instead of using $`\omega _e,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e`$ to choose a layer in each pair, we may use a single variable, say $`\omega _e`$, and use it to choose a layer in both pairs; that is, we use the top layer in both pairs if $`\omega _e=1`$, and the bottom layer in both pairs if $`\omega _e=0`$. The resulting configuration $`((\omega _𝒰,\omega _e),\omega _𝒮^{\omega _e},\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^{\omega _e})`$ has the $`𝒮`$-split measure as its distribution. The split-occurrence events corresponding to these two constructions are

$`C(A,B,r,𝒮\{e\})=`$
$`\{(\omega _𝒰,\omega _e,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0):(\omega _𝒰,(\omega _e,\omega _𝒮^{\omega _e}),(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e}))A_{r,𝒮\{e\}}B\},`$
$`C(A,B,r,𝒮)=`$
$`\{(\omega _𝒰,\omega _e,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0):((\omega _𝒰,\omega _e),\omega _𝒮^{\omega _e},\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^{\omega _e})A_{r,𝒮}B\}.`$
Thus we have

(4.6) $`_{𝒮,e}(C(A,B,r,𝒮\{e\}))`$ $`=P_{𝒮\{e\}}(A_{r,𝒮\{e\}}B),`$
$`_{𝒮,e}(C(A,B,r,𝒮))`$ $`=P_𝒮(A_{r,𝒮}B).`$
For fixed $`\zeta _𝒰,\zeta _𝒮^1,\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0`$ we may ask, which of these constructions gives the greater probability for split occurrence at separation $`r`$? (The proof of the van den Berg-Kesten inequality is based on the fact that in the independent context the first construction—with two separate variables $`\omega _e,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e`$—always gives the higher probability; in that context only one layer is needed for each of $`A,B`$ instead of two.) To approach this question in the present context, note that at least one of the sets $`,`$ where $`A,B`$ occur must be outside $`\{e\}^{r/3}`$. Suppose now that $`A,B`$ are increasing; the decreasing case is similar. For $`i,j=0,1`$ set

$$C_{ij}=\{(\omega _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0):(\omega _𝒰,(i,\omega _𝒮^i),(j,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^j))A_{r,𝒮\{e\}}B\}.$$

This is the event that, loosely, “if the $`i`$ and $`j`$ layers are chosen in the $`A`$ and $`B`$ pairs respectively, then $`A_{r,𝒮\{e\}}B`$ will occur.” We add a superscript $`A`$ or $`B`$ to $`C_{ij}`$ to designate which event occurs outside $`\{e\}^{r/3}`$, so that for example $`C_{ij}^A`$ is the event that “if the $`i`$ and $`j`$ layers are chosen, then $`A_{r,𝒮\{e\}}B`$ will occur with $`A`$ occurring outside $`\{e\}^{r/3}`$.” $`C_{ij}^A`$ and $`C_{ij}^B`$ are not necessarily disjoint, but

(4.7)
$$C_{ij}=C_{ij}^AC_{ij}^B.$$

If $`A`$ (or $`B`$) occurs on some $``$ in the bottom layer of the $`A`$ (or $`B`$) pair, then by (4.4), $`A`$ (or $`B`$) occurs on the same $``$ in the top layer of the same pair. Hence

$$C_{00}C_{10}C_{01}C_{10}C_{01}C_{11}.$$

It follows that $`\{0,1\}^𝒰\times (\{0,1\}^𝒮)^4`$ is the disjoint union of the sets

$$C_{11}^c,C_{00},C_{10}\backslash C_{01},C_{01}\backslash C_{10},(C_{10}C_{01})\backslash C_{00},C_{11}\backslash (C_{10}C_{01}).$$

We next consider conditioning on each of these.

If $`(\zeta _𝒰,\zeta _𝒮^1,\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0)C_{11}^c`$, then split occurrence cannot occur no matter what layers are chosen, and

(4.8) $`_{𝒮,e}`$ $`\left(C(A,B,r,𝒮\{e\})\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1=\zeta _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0=\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0\right)`$
$`=0`$
$`=_{𝒮,e}\left(C(A,B,r,𝒮)\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1=\zeta _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0=\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0\right).`$
If $`(\zeta _𝒰,\zeta _𝒮^1,\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0)C_{00}`$, then split occurence will occur regardless of what layers are chosen, and

(4.9) $`_{𝒮,e}`$ $`\left(C(A,B,r,𝒮\{e\})\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1=\zeta _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0=\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0\right)`$
$`=1`$
$`=_{𝒮,e}\left(C(A,B,r,𝒮)\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1=\zeta _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0=\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0\right).`$
If $`(\zeta _𝒰,\zeta _𝒮^1,\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0)C_{10}\backslash C_{01}`$, then for split occurrence we must choose the top layer in the $`A`$ pair; we have

(4.10) $`_{𝒮,e}`$ $`\left(C(A,B,r,𝒮\{e\})\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1=\zeta _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0=\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0\right)`$
$`=P(\omega _e=1\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰)`$
$`=_{𝒮,e}\left(C(A,B,r,𝒮)\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1=\zeta _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0=\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0\right).`$
and similarly if $`(\zeta _𝒰,\zeta _𝒮^1,\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0)C_{01}\backslash C_{10}`$, where we must choose the top layer in the $`B`$ pair.

If $`(\zeta _𝒰,\zeta _𝒮^1,\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0)(C_{10}C_{01})\backslash C_{00}`$, then we must choose the top layer in at least one pair, and

(4.11) $`_{𝒮,e}`$ $`\left(C(A,B,r,𝒮\{e\})\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1=\zeta _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0=\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0\right)`$
$`=_{𝒮,e}(\omega _e=1\text{ or }\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e=1\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰)`$
$`=1P(\omega _e=0\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰)^2`$
$`P(\omega _e=1\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰)`$
$`=_{𝒮,e}\left(C(A,B,r,𝒮)\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1=\zeta _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0=\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0\right).`$
If $`(\zeta _𝒰,\zeta _𝒮^1,\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0)C_{11}\backslash (C_{10}C_{01})`$, then we must choose the top layer in both pairs, so the analog of (4.11) fails because we would have to replace “or” with “and” in the second line; the third line would be $`P(\omega _e=1\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰)^2`$ and the inequality would then go the wrong way. However, by (4.7),

(4.12)
$$(\zeta _𝒰,\zeta _𝒮^1,\zeta _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_𝒮^0)\left(C_{11}^A\backslash (C_{01}C_{01})\right)\left(C_{11}^B\backslash (C_{01}C_{01})\right).$$

Combining (4.8)–(4.12) we see that

(4.13) $`P_𝒮`$ $`(A_{r,𝒮}B)`$
$`=_{𝒮,e}\left(C(A,B,r,𝒮)\right)`$
$`_{𝒮,e}\left(C(A,B,r,𝒮\{e\})\right)+_{𝒮,e}\left((\omega _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0)C_{11}^A\backslash (C_{10}C_{01}),\omega _e=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e=1\right)`$
$`+_{𝒮,e}\left((\omega _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0)C_{11}^B\backslash (C_{10}C_{01}),\omega _e=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e=1\right)`$
$`=P_{𝒮\{e\}}(A_{r,𝒮\{e\}}B)+_{𝒮,e}\left((\omega _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0)C_{11}^A\backslash (C_{10}C_{01}),\omega _e=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e=1\right)`$
$`+_{𝒮,e}\left((\omega _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0)C_{11}^B\backslash (C_{10}C_{01}),\omega _e=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e=1\right).`$
To obtain (4.1) it is now sufficient to show that the couplings $`\widehat{P}_{\zeta _𝒰}`$ can be chosen so that

(4.14)
$$_{𝒮,e}\left((\omega _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0)C_{11}^A\backslash (C_{10}C_{01}),\omega _e=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e=1\right)c_{23}e^{ϵ_{14}r}P_𝒮(A_{r,𝒮}B),$$

and similarly for $`C_{11}^B`$ in place of $`C_{11}^A`$. By virtue of (4.6), (4.14) says roughly that given that $`A_{r,𝒮}B`$ occurs in the configuration using the top layer of each pair, with $`A`$ occurring far from $`e`$, it is exponentially unlikely that $`A_{r,𝒮}B`$ fails to occur (on the same separated sets of bonds $``$ and $``$ for $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively, actually) when the top layer is replaced by the bottom layer in the $`A`$ pair. This, we will see, is because the top and bottom layers are likely equal far from $`e`$.

For the proof of (4.14) one key is the next proposition. The idea is as follows. We wish to consider the effect of the configuration in a region $``$ on probabilities of events occurring on a distant region $``$, with $`,`$ contained in some larger region $``$. In ordinary (unsplit) configurations, this effect is exponentially small provided the ratio strong mixing property holds. Suppose, though, that we have split the configuration on a subset $`𝒮`$ of $``$, and suppose that $``$ consists of unsplit bonds. We then have *two* configurations on the split portion of $``$ exerting their influence on probabilities for events occurring on $``$, and it is not *a priori* clear under ratio strong mixing that this influence is still exponentially small. The proposition guarantees this smallness, at least when the influence is measured additively, not using the “ratio” form of influence.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`,𝔖,𝔐`$ be as in the standard bond percolation setup and let $`𝔑`$ be a neighborhood collection for $`𝔖`$. Suppose each measure in $`𝔐`$ satisfies the FKG lattice condition, each measure in $`𝔐𝔐^+(𝔖,)`$ has the Markov property for blocking sets, and $`𝔐_w^+(𝔑,)`$ has uniform exponential decay of connectivity. There exist $`c_{24},ϵ_{15}`$ as follows. Let $`,P𝔐_{}`$ and $`𝒮𝔖_{}`$, and let $`𝒯=\backslash 𝒮`$. Suppose that or some $`c>1`$, for all $`r>0`$ and $`e𝒯`$, $`e`$ is neighborhood-appendable to $`𝒮`$ for $`(c,r,,P)`$. Let $`𝒯,`$ and $`G𝒢_{}`$. Then for every choice of configurations $`\rho _𝒯,\rho _𝒮,\stackrel{~}{\rho }_𝒮`$,

$`|P_𝒮`$ $`(G\omega _𝒯=\rho _𝒯,\omega _𝒮=\rho _𝒮,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_𝒮)P(G)|`$
$`c_{24}{\displaystyle \underset{xV(),yV()}{}}e^{ϵ_{15}d_{}(x,y)}.`$
For the proof we need the following.

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`,𝔖,𝔐`$ be as in the standard bond percolation setup and let $`𝔑`$ be a neighborhood collection for $`𝔖`$. Suppose each measure in $`𝔐`$ satisfies the FKG lattice condition, each measure in $`𝔐^+(𝔖,)`$ has the Markov property for blocking sets, and $`𝔐_w^+(𝔑,)`$ has uniform exponential decay of connectivity. Then $`𝔐^+(𝔖,)`$ has the ratio strong mixing property.

###### Proof.

This is proved in (, Theorem 1.6) in the special case of the FK model with site boundary conditions, with $`𝔖_{}=\{\}`$. In that special case, not all measures in $`𝔐`$ satisfy the FKG lattice condition, and the following property of the FK model under site boundary conditions is implicitly used instead: for every $``$, every $`P𝔐_{}`$, every $`𝒮`$ and every configuration $`\rho _{\backslash 𝒮}`$ with $`P(\omega _{\backslash 𝒮}=\rho _{\backslash 𝒮})>0`$, the measure $`P(\omega _{\backslash 𝒮}=\rho _{\backslash 𝒮})`$ is FKG-dominated by the wired-boundary measure conditioned on $`\omega _{\backslash 𝒮}=\rho _{\backslash 𝒮}`$, which does satisfy the FKG lattice condition. The arguments used in , including those from  cited in , are essentailly unchanged under the assumptions of the present proposition. ∎

###### Remark 4.3.

The proof of Proposition 4.2, as given in  and , shows that under the hypotheses given, the ratio weak mixing statement (1.9) actually holds for measures $`Q𝔐^+(𝔖,)`$, of form $`Q=P(\omega _𝒮\omega _{\backslash (𝒮)}=\rho _{\backslash (𝒮)}^i)`$ for some $`,𝒮𝔖_{},`$ and $`P𝔐_{}`$, so long as $`Q`$ has the Markov property for sets blocking $``$. That is, if we consider configurations on the region $`𝒮`$ and view $`\backslash 𝒮`$ as part of the “partial boundary” $`\backslash 𝒮`$ of $`𝒮`$, then we can limit the influence of both the boundary and non-boundary portions ($`\backslash 𝒮`$ and $`𝒮)`$ of $``$ on distant events, so long as the influence of $``$ can be blocked by a barrier of closed bonds. Further, in this situation, we need not assume that all of $`𝔐^+(𝔖,)`$ has the Markov property for blocking sets; the Markov property for $`Q`$ for sets blocking $``$ is sufficient. For example, if $`𝔖_{}`$ consists of all SLC subsets of $``$ then it is not necessary that $`𝒮`$ be SLC; instead it suffices that $`𝒮`$ be SLC, so long as $`Q`$ has the Markov property for sets blocking $``$. See Figure 1.

###### Proof of Proposition 4.1..

First observe that $`P_𝒮(G)=P(G)`$, since $`G`$ occurs on unsplit bonds only. Also, for fixed $`e`$ the measure $`P_𝒮(\omega _e)`$ is FKG-dominated by $`P_𝒮(\omega _e\omega _𝒯=\rho _𝒯^1,\omega _𝒮=\rho _𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_𝒮^1)`$, and it FKG-dominates $`P_𝒮(\omega _e\omega _𝒯=\rho _𝒯^0,\omega _𝒮=\rho _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_𝒮^0)`$. It follows that there exists a 3-way FKG coupling of these measures, that is, a coupling in which the configuration under $`P_𝒮(\omega _e)`$ is always sandwiched between the other two configurations, in the usual partial ordering of configurations. A similar 3-way “sandwiching” coupling can be created using $`P_𝒮(\omega _e\omega _𝒯=\rho _𝒯,\omega _𝒮=\rho _𝒮,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_𝒮)`$ in place of $`P_𝒮(\omega _e)`$. It follows easily from the existence of these sandwiching couplings that

(4.15) $`|P_𝒮`$ $`(G\omega _𝒯=\rho _𝒯,\omega _𝒮=\rho _𝒮,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_𝒮)P_𝒮(G)|`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{e}{}}(P_𝒮(\omega _e=1\omega _𝒯=\rho _𝒯^1,\omega _𝒮=\rho _𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_𝒮^1)`$
$`P_𝒮(\omega _e=1\omega _𝒯=\rho _𝒯^0,\omega _𝒮=\rho _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_𝒮^0)).`$
Thus we may assume $``$ consists of a single bond $`e𝒯`$ and $`G=[\omega _e=1]`$. Define $`𝒰=𝒯\backslash \{e\}`$ and $`r=d_{}(e,)`$. Since by assumption $`e`$ is neighborhood-appendable to $`𝒮`$, there exist $`c_{25}>1`$ and a $`c_{25}`$-approximate $`r/4`$-neighborhood $`𝒲`$ of $`e`$ in $``$ such that either $`𝒲`$ or $`𝒲\backslash 𝒮`$ is blockable in $`𝒮𝒲`$ under $`P`$. By enlarging $``$ if necessarily, we may assume that

(4.16)
$$=(𝒰\backslash 𝒲)(𝒮\backslash _{}(e,r));$$

see Figure 2. Then

(4.17)
$$d_{}(𝒯\backslash ,𝒮)>\frac{r}{2}.$$

Write $`P_𝒮^i`$ for $`P_𝒮(\omega _𝒯=\rho _𝒯^i,\omega _𝒮=\rho _𝒮^i,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_𝒮^i),i=0,1`$. To obtain the desired bound on (4.15), it is thus sufficient to show that

(4.18)
$$|P_𝒮^1(\omega _e=1)P_𝒮^0(\omega _e=1)|c_{26}\underset{xV(e),yV()}{}e^{ϵ_{15}d_{}(x,y)}.$$

Define

$$g(\rho _e,\rho _{𝒰\backslash })=P(\omega _𝒮=\rho _𝒮^1\omega _𝒰=\rho _𝒰^1,\omega _{𝒰\backslash }=\rho _{𝒰\backslash },\omega _e=\rho _e).$$

Then by the nature of the $`𝒮`$-split measure,

(4.19)
$$P_𝒮^1(\omega _e=1)=\frac{E(\delta _{[\omega _e=1]}g\omega _{}=\rho _{}^1)}{E(g\omega _{}=\rho _{}^1)},$$

where $`E`$ denotes expectation with respect to $`P`$. Let $`P_1=P(\omega _{\backslash (𝒰)}\omega _𝒰=\rho _𝒰^1)`$, so that $`g(\rho _e,\rho _{𝒰\backslash })=P_1(\omega _𝒮=\rho _𝒮^1\omega _{𝒰\backslash }=\rho _{𝒰\backslash },\omega _e=\rho _e)`$. By Proposition 4.2, $`𝔐^+(𝔖,)`$ has the ratio strong mixing property, and we would like to apply this property to control the effect of this conditioning of $`P_1`$, but the location $`\backslash (𝒰)=𝒮𝒲`$ of the configurations under $`P_1`$ need not be in $`𝔖_{}`$. However, by Remark 4.3 (with $`𝒲`$ or $`𝒲\backslash 𝒮`$, whichever is blockable under the admissibility assumption, in place of $``$) this is not a problem. Thus we have for all $`\rho _e,\rho _{𝒯\backslash }`$,

$$\left|\frac{g(\rho _e,\rho _{𝒯\backslash })}{P_1(\omega _𝒮=\rho _𝒮^1)}1\right|c_{27}\underset{xV(𝒯\backslash ),yV(𝒮)}{}e^{\lambda d_{}(x,y)}c_{28}e^{ϵ_{16}r},$$

so that $`g`$ is nearly a constant in (4.19), and we obtain

$$\left|\frac{P_𝒮^1(\omega _e=1)}{P(\omega _e=1\omega _{}=\rho _{}^1)}1\right|c_{29}e^{ϵ_{17}r}.$$

Similarly,

$$\left|\frac{P_𝒮^0(\omega _e=1)}{P(\omega _e=1\omega _{}=\rho _{}^0)}1\right|c_{29}e^{ϵ_{17}r}.$$

Next we apply Proposition 4.2 to the collection $`𝔖_0=\{\{\}:\}`$, noting that $`𝔐^+(𝔖_0,)=𝔐`$, to obtain

$$\left|\frac{P(\omega _e=1\omega _{}=\rho _{}^0)}{P(\omega _e=1\omega _{}=\rho _{}^1)}1\right|c_{30}e^{ϵ_{18}r}.$$

Combining the last 3 inequalities we obtain

$$|P_𝒮^1(\omega _e=1)P_𝒮^0(\omega _e=1)|c_{31}e^{ϵ_{19}r},$$

which establishes (4.16). ∎

We now turn to the proof of (4.14). Since $`𝔐_w^+(𝔑,)`$ has uniform exponential decay of connectivity, it follows easily using the FKG property that if we take the class of balls $`𝔅=𝔅()=\{B_{}(x,s):,xV(),s>1\}`$ in place of $`𝔑`$, the class $`𝔐^+(𝔅,)`$ has uniform exponential decay as well, that is, there exists $`C,\lambda >0`$ such that

$$P(xy\text{ via a path in }\omega _\backslash =\rho _\backslash )Ce^{\lambda d_{}(x,y)}$$

for all $``$, all $``$ in $`𝔅`$, all $`x,yV()`$ and all boundary conditions $`\rho `$.

Recall that for (4.14) we have a fixed $``$, a filling sequence $`𝒱=\{b_1,..,b_n\}`$ and $`𝒮=\{b_1,..,b_{k1}\},e=b_k`$. Let $`m=r/24`$. For $`xV()`$ let $`𝒬_x=B_{}(x,3m)𝒯`$ and $`𝒜_x=\backslash B_{}(x,3m)`$, and for each configuration $`\rho _{𝒬_x}`$ let

$$\varphi _x(\rho _{𝒬_x})=P(xy\text{ for some }yV()\text{ with }d_{}(x,y)m|\omega _{𝒬_x}=\rho _{𝒬_x},\omega _{𝒜_x}=\rho _{𝒜_x}^1).$$

Then since $`B_{}(x,3m)𝔅`$,

(4.20) $`E_{,w}(\varphi _x(\omega _{𝒬_x}))`$ $`P(xy\text{ for some }yV()\text{ with }d_{}(x,y)m|\omega _{𝒜_x}=\rho _{𝒜_x}^1)`$
$`c_{32}m^{d1}Ce^{\lambda m}.`$
We say that $`𝒬_x`$ is *connection–inducing* in a configuration $`\rho _{𝒬_x}`$ if $`\varphi _x(\rho _{𝒬_x})Ce^{\lambda m/2}`$. Roughly speaking, $`𝒬_x`$ is connection-inducing if $`\rho _{𝒬_x}`$ either contains a long open path starting in $`Q_m(x)`$, or contains enough segments of such a path that the conditional probability for such a path given $`\rho _{𝒬_x}`$ is greatly increased above the unconditional probability. If $`𝒬_x`$ is not connection–inducing we say it is *insulating*. Note that $`\varphi _x`$ is an increasing function. Hence using the FKG inequality and (4.20), for every $`x`$ and $`\zeta `$,

(4.21) $`P_{,\zeta }(𝒬_x\text{ is connection–inducing})`$ $`=P_{,\zeta }(\varphi _x(\omega _{𝒬_x})Ce^{\lambda m/2})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{,w}(\varphi _x(\omega _{𝒬_x}))}{Ce^{\lambda m/2}}}`$
$`c_{33}e^{\lambda m/3}.`$
The idea can now be sketched as follows. Recall that $`𝒰=𝒯\backslash \{e\}`$. Suppose $`A`$ and $`B`$ occur $`(𝒮\{e\})`$-split at separation $`r`$ in $`(\omega _𝒰,(1,\omega _𝒮^1),(1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1))`$ with $`A`$ occurring far from $`e`$, that is, $`(\omega _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0)C_{11}^A`$, with $`A`$ occuring on some set $``$ and $`B`$ on some set $``$, with $`d_{}(e,)r/3`$. Since $`P`$ has the FKG property and the Markov property for blocking sets, the FKG couplings $`\widehat{P}_{\zeta _𝒰},\zeta _𝒰\{0,1\}^𝒰`$, of the two layers of the $`A`$ pair can be chosen so that $`\omega _𝒮^1=\omega _𝒮^0`$ outside $`C_e=C_e((\zeta _𝒰,1,\omega _𝒮^1))`$, which is the cluster of $`e`$ for the top layer together with the unsplit bonds. (The construction of such couplings is standard–see e.g. , .) Suppose now that the $`A`$ pair fails to couple on $``$, that is, $`\omega _𝒮^1\omega _𝒮^0`$. This means that the cluster $`C_e`$ intersects $``$, i.e. there is an open path from $`e`$ to $``$ in the top layer of the $`A`$ pair. Since $`d(,)r`$, a segment of this path is far from $`,`$ and $`e`$. This segment may be partly in $`𝒰`$ and partly in $`𝒮`$. There are two possibilities: either the segment is substantially helped to exist by some connection-inducing region of $`𝒰`$, or the portion in $`𝒮`$ exists without such help, that is, the relevant regions of $`𝒰`$ are insulating. The first is exponentially unlikely, even conditionally on the occurrence of $`A_{r,𝒮}B`$ on $``$ in the top layers of the $`A`$ and $`B`$ pairs, by Proposition 4.1. The second is also (conditionally) exponentially unlikely, by the definition of insulating and the ratio strong mixing property.

Turning to the details, we let $`D_{11}^A`$ denote the set of all $`(\omega _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0)`$ such that there exist $`,`$ for which $`A`$ and $`B`$ occur $`(𝒮\{e\})`$-split at separation $`r`$ (which is at least $`24m`$) in $`(\omega _𝒰,(1,\omega _𝒮^1),(1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1))`$, i.e. using the two top layers, with $`A`$ occuring on $``$, $`B`$ occurring on $``$, $`d_{}(e,)>8m`$, and $`\omega _{}^1\omega _{}^0`$, and for some $`zV(𝒟^r())`$, we have that $`𝒬_z`$ is connection-inducing, $`d_{}(z,e)>3m`$ and $`d_{}(z,)>4m`$. Let $`E_{11}^A`$ be the set of all $`(\omega _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0)`$ such that there exist $`,`$ for which $`A`$ and $`B`$ occur $`(𝒮\{e\})`$-split at separation $`r`$ in $`(\omega _𝒰,(1,\omega _𝒮^1),(1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1))`$ with $`A`$ occuring on $``$, $`B`$ occurring on $``$, $`d_{}(e,)>8m`$, and $`\omega _{}^1\omega _{}^0`$, but for no choice of such $`,`$ does there exist $`z`$ as above. $`D_{11}^B`$ and $`E_{11}^B`$ are defined analogously. Then

$$C_{11}^A\backslash (C_{01}C_{10})D_{11}^AE_{11}^A,$$

and similarly with $`B`$in place of $`A`$. Therefore provided $`c_7`$ is sufficiently large, by Proposition 4.1 and (4.21),

(4.22) $`_{𝒮,e}`$ $`((\omega _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0)D_{11}^A,\omega _e=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e=1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{zV(𝒟^r()):d_{}(z,e)>3m}{}}_{𝒮,e}(\omega _e=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e=1,𝒬_z\text{ is connection-inducing in }(\omega _𝒰,1),`$
$`A_{r,𝒮}B\text{ occurs on }B_{}(z,4m)^c)\text{ in }(\omega _𝒰,(1,\omega _𝒮^1),(1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1)))`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{zV(𝒱)}{}}P_𝒮(A_{r,𝒮}B)(_{𝒮,e}\left(𝒬_z\text{ is connection-inducing }\right)`$
$`+C{\displaystyle \underset{xV(B_{}(z,3m)),yV(B_{}(z,4m)^c))}{}}e^{\lambda d_{}(x,y)})`$
$`c_{34}|𝒱|e^{ϵ_{20}r}P_𝒮(A_{r,𝒮}B)`$
$`c_{35}e^{ϵ_{21}r}P_𝒮(A_{r,𝒮}B).`$
Here we have used the fact that when $`d_{}(z,e)>3m`$ we have $`e𝒬_z`$, so whether or not $`𝒬_z`$ in connection-inducing in $`(\omega _𝒰,\omega _e)`$ does not depend on $`\omega _e`$. Next, let $`H_z`$ denote the event that $`zy\text{ in }(\omega _𝒰,1,\omega _𝒮^1)`$ for some $`y`$ with $`|yz|m`$, $`I_z`$ the event that $`𝒬_z`$ is insulating in $`(\omega _𝒰,1)`$ and $`J_z`$ the event that $`A_{r,𝒮}B`$ occurs on $`B_{}(z,4m)^c`$ in $`(\omega _𝒰,(1,\omega _𝒮^1),(1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1))`$. Observe that if $`(\omega _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0)E_{11}^A`$ then there is an open path from $`e`$ to $``$ in the top layer of the $`A`$ pair, and this path must path through a site $`z`$ at $`d_{}`$-distance approximately $`4m`$ from $``$; this forces the event $`H_zI_zJ_z`$ to occur. (Here we use the fact that $`\omega _𝒮^1=\omega _𝒮^0`$ outside $`C_e`$.) Hence using the conditional independence inherent in the $`𝒮`$-split structure,

(4.23) $`_{𝒮,e}`$ $`((\omega _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0)E_{11}^A,\omega _e=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e=1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{zV(𝒟^r()):d_{}(z,e)>3m}{}}_{𝒮,e}(H_zI_zJ_z,\omega _e=1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{zV(𝒟^r()):d_{}(z,e)>3m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\zeta _𝒰I_z}{}}_{𝒮,e}(J_z,\omega _e=1,\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰)_{𝒮,e}(H_zJ_z,\omega _e=1,\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰).`$
From the definition of insulating and the FKG property we have

$$_{𝒮,e}(H_zJ_z,\omega _e=1,\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰)<Ce^{\lambda m/2},$$

so (4.23) yields

(4.24) $`_{𝒮,e}`$ $`((\omega _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0)E_{11}^A,\omega _e=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e=1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{zV(𝒱)}{}}Ce^{\lambda m/2}_{𝒮,e}(J_z,\omega _e=1)`$
$`c_{36}|𝒱|e^{\lambda m/2}P_𝒮(A_{r,𝒮}B)`$
$`c_{37}e^{ϵ_{22}r}P_𝒮(A_{r,𝒮}B).`$
Now (4.22) and (4.24) show that

$$_{𝒮,e}\left((\omega _𝒰,\omega _𝒮^1,\omega _𝒮^0,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_𝒮^0)C_{11}^A\backslash (C_{01}C_{10}),\omega _e=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_e=1\right)c_{38}e^{ϵ_{23}r}P_𝒮(A_{r,𝒮}B)$$

and a similar bound holds for $`C_{11}^B`$, so we have established (4.14), and thus also (4.1) and then (4.2). This proves Theorem 3.1.

###### Proof of Theorem 3.2..

Let $`,𝔖,𝔙,𝔐,𝔑`$ be as in Example 1.2.

Suppose first that $`\rho `$ is wired or all external fields are 0. As noted in Example 1.2, $`(,𝔖,𝔙,`$ $`𝔐,𝔑)`$ is then filling-compatible. All finite-volume measures $`P_{,\rho }`$, with $``$ finite and $`\rho `$ a bond boundary condition, satisfy the FKG lattice condition (; see ). It follows that $`P`$ has uniform exponential decay of connectivity for the class $`\overline{}`$ with arbitrary bond boundary conditions, not just wired. By Lemma 2.1, since the set $`\backslash 𝒮`$ is connected and abuts $`^c`$ for all $``$ and $`𝒮𝔖_{}`$, every measure in $`𝔐𝔐^+(𝔖,)`$ has the Markov property for blocking sets. Thus in this case (i) follows from Theorem 3.1.

For the remaining case, suppose $`\rho `$ is free and not all external fields are 0. Consider a measure $`Q=P_{,f}(\omega _𝒮\omega _{\backslash 𝒮}=\rho _{\backslash 𝒮}^1)𝔐^+(𝔖,)`$. As we have noted, $`\backslash 𝒮`$ is connected so the effective boundary condition on $`𝒮`$ given by $`Q`$ is a unique-cluster one. Let $`(𝒳,𝒴,𝒵)`$ be a blocking partition of $`𝒮`$, and suppose $`\omega =0`$ on $`𝒴`$. We use the notation of the proof of Lemma 2.1. Note that the set of bonds in $`C_u`$ is $`\backslash 𝒮`$. The factoring of the weight of a cluster $`\widehat{C}`$ described in that proof is not necessarily valid; the clusters $`C_i`$ effectively interact via the value $`s(\widehat{C})`$. More precisely, conditionally on $`\{C_j,ji\}`$, the effective weight attached to $`C_i`$ depends on $`s(C_u)+_{ji}s(C_j)`$; since some $`C_m`$’s may be in $`𝒳`$ and others in $`𝒵`$, this means the Markov property for blocking sets need not hold. However, letting $`h_k`$ be the largest strictly negative external field, the effective weight of $`C_i`$ is always between 1 and $`1+O(e^{c|h_k|s(C_u)})`$, that is, the maximum influence of $`\{C_j,ji\}`$ on $`C_i`$ is exponentially small in $`s(C_u)`$. Roughly speaking, we have two situations. If $`s(C_u)`$ is small relative to $`r`$ then since $`\mathrm{diam}_{}(C_u)s(C_u)`$ the interaction between clusters $`C_i`$ of $`\omega `$ only occurs over length scales which are small relative to $`r`$. If $`s(C_u)`$ is of order $`r`$ or greater, then the above-mentioned maximum influence of $`\{C_j,ji\}`$ on $`C_i`$ is exponentially small in $`r`$. Either way, though we do not fully have the Markov property for blocking sets, the proofs of Proposition 4.1, Example 1.2 and then Theorem 3.1 go through; we omit the full details. See (, Lemma 2.11(iii)) for a similar result. Thus (i) is proved in all cases.

For (ii) let $`_n=([n,n]^d)`$ and let $`A_n`$ be the event that $`A`$ occurs on $`_n`$. By the uniform exponential decay assumption, $`P`$ is the unique infinite-volume random cluster measure at $`(p,q,\{h_i\})`$. Therefore by (i),

$`P(A_n_rB)`$ $`=\underset{m}{lim}P_{_m,w}(A_n_rB)`$
$`(1+c_9e^{ϵ_5r})\underset{m}{lim}P_{_m,w}(A_n)P_{_m,w}(B)`$
$`=(1+c_9e^{ϵ_5r})P(A_n)P(B).`$
Since $`A`$ is locally-occurring we can now take a limit as $`n\mathrm{}`$ to obtain (ii). ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 3.4..

Let $`𝔖_{},𝔑`$ and $`𝔐`$ be as in Example 1.3. Since $`d=2`$, uniform exponential decay of connectivity for the class $`𝔐^+(𝔖,)`$ with wired boundary conditions follows from the assumed infinite-volume exponential decay . As we have noted, all finite-volume measures $`P_{,\rho }`$, with $``$ finite and $`\rho `$ a bond boundary condition, satisfy the FKG lattice condition (; see ). We consider the case in which the boundary is wired ($`i=1`$) or there are no external fields; the case of free boundary with external fields can be handled as in the proof of Theorem 3.2. Example 1.3 establishes filling-compatibility of $`(,𝔙,𝔖,𝔐,𝔑)`$. The Markov property for blocking sets for $`𝔐𝔐^+(𝔖,𝔑)`$ follows from Lemma 2.1. The theorem now follows from Theorem 3.1. ∎

We write $`\mathrm{Int}(\gamma )`$ and $`\mathrm{Ext}(\gamma )`$ for the interior and exterior of a simple closed curve $`\gamma `$ in the plane.

###### Proof of Theorem 3.6..

For a configuration $`\omega `$ on $``$ we define the *boundary cluster* $`C_{}(\omega )`$ to be the set of open bonds which are connected to $`V(^c)`$ by a path of open bonds. (This is a mild abuse of terminology since $`C_{}`$ does not necessarily consist of a single connected cluster.) Then $`(C_{})^{}`$ includes a finite collection of open dual circuits; these circuits have disjoint interiors. Let $`𝔇=𝔇(\omega )`$ be the set of dual circuits in this collection which contain bonds of $`𝒟^{}`$. Let $`=(𝔇(\omega ))=_{\gamma 𝔇}(\mathrm{Int}(\gamma )),𝒥=𝒥(𝔇(\omega ))=_{\gamma 𝔇}(\mathrm{Ext}(\gamma ))`$. Conditionally on $`[𝔇=𝔻]`$ for some $`𝔻`$, the configuration on $`(𝔻)`$ is a free-boundary FK configuration. Let $`I_{AB}`$ denote the event that $`A_rB`$ occurs with $`B`$ occuring on $``$ at distance $`r/4`$ or more from $`^c`$, that is, there exist $`,𝒟`$ with $`d(,)r,d(,^c)r/4`$ such that $`A`$ occurs on $``$ and $`B`$ occurs on $``$. Let $`G_x`$ be the event that there is an open path in $``$ from $`x`$ to $`y`$ for some $`yV()`$ with $`d_{}(x,y)r/4`$.

Suppose $`\omega (A_rB)\backslash I_{AB}`$, with $`A,B`$ occuring on $`,`$ respectively. Then there is an open path from the boundary $`V(^c)V()`$ to $`^{r/4}`$, and since $`d(,)r`$ a portion of length $`r/4`$ of this path must be separated from both $``$ and $``$ by a distance of more than $`r/4`$. More precisely, for some $`xV(𝒟^r)`$ on this path at distance approximately $`r/2`$ from $``$ we have $`\omega G_xH_x`$, where $`H_x`$ is the event that $`A_rB`$ occurs on $`\backslash B_{}(x,3r/8)`$. Therefore using the FKG property,

(4.25) $`P_{,\rho }\left((A_rB)\backslash I_{AB}\right)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{xV(𝒟^r)}{}}P_{,\rho }(G_xH_x)P_{,\rho }(H_x)`$
$`P_{,\rho }(A_rB){\displaystyle \underset{xV(𝒟^r)}{}}P_{B_{}(x,3r/8),w}(G_x).`$
Since $`P`$ has exponential decay of connectivity, it has uniform exponential decay for the class of all SLC subsets  and therefore

$$P_{B_{}(x,3r/8),w}(G_x)c_{39}e^{ϵ_{24}r}.$$

Thus provided $`c_{11}`$ is large enough we have

(4.26)
$$P_{,\rho }\left((A_rB)\backslash I_{AB}\right)c_{40}e^{ϵ_{25}r}P_{,\rho }(A_rB).$$

Next we bound $`P_{,\rho }(I_{AB})`$. Given $``$ and a configuration $`\zeta _\backslash `$ on $`\backslash `$, let

$$A(\zeta _\backslash )=\{\zeta _{}:(\zeta _\backslash \zeta _{})A\}.$$

Next let $`_{r/4}(𝔻)=\{b(𝔻),d(b,𝔻)r/4\}`$ and let $`B(𝔻)`$ be the event that $`B`$ occurs on $`_{r/4}(𝔻)`$. We have

(4.27) $`P_{,\rho }(I_{AB})`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝔻}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\zeta _{𝒥(𝔻)}}{}}P_{,\rho }\left(I𝔇=𝔻,\omega _{𝒥(𝔻)}=\zeta _{𝒥(𝔻)}\right)P_{,\rho }\left(𝔇=𝔻,\omega _{𝒥(𝔻)}=\zeta _{𝒥(𝔻)}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝔻}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\zeta _{𝒥(𝔻)}}{}}P_{(𝔻),f}(A(\zeta _{𝒥(𝔻)}\rho _𝔻^0)_rB(𝔻))P_{,\rho }\left(𝔇=𝔻,\omega _{𝒥(𝔻)}=\zeta _{𝒥(𝔻)}\right).`$
We would like to apply Theorem 3.4 to the first probability on the right side of (4.27), but $`(𝔻)`$ need not be a circuit-bounded set. However, for each connected component $`G`$ of the interior of $`(𝔻)^{\mathrm{solid}}`$, $`(\overline{G})`$ is circuit-bounded, the relevant circuit being the boundary of $`G`$. We let $`_{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻)`$ denote the union of all such $`(\overline{G})`$. Then $`_{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻)`$ is a finite union of circuit-bounded sets, and $`d_{}(_{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻)^c,_{r/4}(𝔻))r/4`$. Since $`(𝔻)`$ has SLC components, for each $`(\overline{G})`$, each connected component of $`(𝔻)\backslash (\overline{G})`$ can intersect $`(\overline{G})`$ in at most a single site. This means that under a free boundary condition on $`(𝔻)`$, for each $`\overline{G}`$, regardless of the configuration on $`(𝔻)\backslash (\overline{G})`$, the effective boundary condition on $`(\overline{G})`$ is free. Therefore

(4.28) $`P_{(𝔻),f}`$ $`(A(\zeta _{𝒥(𝔻)}\rho _𝔻^0)_rB(𝔻))`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\zeta _{(𝔻)\backslash _{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻)}}{}}P_{_{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻),f}\left(A(\zeta _{𝒥(𝔻)}\rho _𝔻^0\zeta _{(𝔻)\backslash _{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻)})_rB(𝔻)\right)`$
$`P_{(𝔻),f}(\omega _{(𝔻)\backslash _{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻)}=\zeta _{(𝔻)\backslash _{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻)})`$
By Theorem 3.4 and Remark 3.5 we have

(4.29) $`P_{_{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻),f}`$ $`\left(A(\zeta _{𝒥(𝔻)}\rho _𝔻^0\zeta _{(𝔻)\backslash _{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻)})_rB(𝔻)\right)`$
$`(1+c_{12}e^{ϵ_6r})P_{_{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻),f}(A(\zeta _{𝒥(𝔻)}\rho _𝔻^0\zeta _{(𝔻)\backslash _{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻)}))P_{_{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻),f}(B(𝔻)).`$
Since $`P`$ has exponential decay of connectivity, it has uniform exponential decay for the class of all SLC subsets  and therefore by Proposition 4.1,

(4.30)
$$P_{_{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻),f}(B(𝔻))(1+c_{41}e^{ϵ_{26}r})P_{,\rho }(B(𝔻))(1+c_{37}e^{ϵ_{26}r})P_{,\rho }(B).$$

Combining (4.27)–(4.30) we obtain

(4.31) $`P_{,\rho }`$ $`(I_{AB})`$
$`(1+c_{42}e^{ϵ_{27}r})P_{,\rho }(B)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝔻}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\zeta _{𝒥(𝔻)}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\zeta _{(𝔻)\backslash _{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻)}}{}}P_{_{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻),f}(A(\zeta _{𝒥(𝔻)}\rho _𝔻^0\zeta _{(𝔻)\backslash _{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻)}))`$
$`P_{,\rho }(𝔇=𝔻,,\omega _{𝒥(𝔻)}=\zeta _{𝒥(𝔻)},\omega _{(𝔻)\backslash _{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻)}=\zeta _{(𝔻)\backslash _{\mathrm{main}}(𝔻)})`$
$`=(1+c_{42}e^{ϵ_{27}r})P_{,\rho }(B)P_{,\rho }(A).`$
This and (4.26) complete the proof. ∎

The proof of Theorem 3.7 is generally similar to that of Theorem 3.1, except that the couplings of the top and bottom layers are obtained by a different construction. We will need two lemmas to replace Proposition 4.2.

###### Lemma 4.4.

 Let $`\mu ^{\beta ,h}`$ be the Ising model at $`(\beta ,h)`$ on $`^d`$, with $`\beta <\beta _c(d,h)`$. Let $`𝔏`$ be a class of subsets of $`^d`$ which has the neighborhood component property. Suppose that the corresponding FK model has uniform exponential decay of finite-volume connectivities for the class $`\{(\mathrm{\Lambda }):\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔏\}`$ with wired boundary conditions. Then $`\mu ^{\beta ,h}`$ has the ratio strong mixing property for the class $`𝔏`$ and arbitrary boundary conditions.

###### Lemma 4.5.

Let $`\mu ^{\beta ,h}`$ be the Ising model at $`(\beta ,h)`$ on $`^2`$ and let $`𝔏`$ be the class of all finite SLC subsets of $`^2`$ with arbitrary boundary condition. Suppose that either (a) $`\beta <\beta _c(2,0)`$ and $`h=0`$, (b) $`\beta >\beta _c(2,0)`$ and $`h0`$, (c) $`\beta <\beta _c(2,h)`$ and the corresponding FK model has exponential decay of connectivities (in infinite volume), or (d) $`\beta >\beta _c(2,h)`$ and the corresponding FK model has exponential decay of dual connectivities (in infinite volume). Then $`\mu ^{\beta ,h}`$ has the ratio strong mixing property for the class $`𝔏`$.

###### Proof.

Under (c) and (d) this is proved in . Suppose (a) holds; then the Ising model has exponential decay of correlations , so by 2.5 the corresponding FK model has exponential decay of connectivities, and (a) follows from (c). Next suppose (b) holds; we may assume $`h>0`$. The Ising model then FKG-dominates the plus phase at $`(\beta ,0)`$. In the plus phase at $`(\beta ,0)`$, the probability that there is a path from 0 to $`x`$ on which all sites $`y`$ have $`\sigma _y=1`$ decays exponentially in $`|x|`$ , so the same is true at $`(\beta ,h)`$. It follows that the corresponding ARC model (an alternate graphical representation of the Ising model—see ) at $`(\beta ,h)`$ has exponential decay of connectivities (in infinite volume), which in turn implies that $`\mu ^{\beta ,h}`$ has the ratio strong mixing property for the class $`𝔏`$ . ∎

It is plausible that the exponential decay assumptions in Lemma 4.5(c) and (d) are valid for all $`\beta `$ below and above $`\beta _c(2,h)`$, respectively, but this is not known rigorously for all $`h0`$.

We next construct the coupling that will be used in the $`A`$ and $`B`$ pairs for the Ising model.

###### Lemma 4.6.

Suppose $`\mu `$ is an Ising model on $`^d`$ having the ratio strong mixing property for some class $`𝔏`$ of finite subsets of $`^d`$ with arbitrary boundary conditions. There exist $`c_i,ϵ_i`$ as follows. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔏`$, $`\alpha \{1,1\}^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`rc_{43}\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$, and $`\eta _\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\{1,1\}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$. There exists an FKG coupling $`\widehat{\mu }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }`$ of $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }}\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\eta _\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }}\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\eta _\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ with the property that

(4.32) $`\widehat{\mu }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }\left(\{(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }},\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }}^{}):\sigma _x\sigma _x^{}\text{ for some }x\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }^r(\mathrm{\Lambda })\}\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }^r(\mathrm{\Lambda })}=\eta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }^r(\mathrm{\Lambda })}\right)`$
$`c_{44}e^{ϵ_{28}r}\text{for every }\eta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }^r(\mathrm{\Lambda })}\{1,1\}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }^r(\mathrm{\Lambda })}.`$
If it were not for the conditioning on $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }^r(\mathrm{\Lambda })}=\eta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }^r(\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$, Lemma 4.6 would be a standard result saying that there is at most an exponentially small probability that the two coupled configurations, given $`\eta _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and given $`\eta _\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, are unequal far from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This standard result leaves open the possibility, though, that there are a few rare “hard-to-couple-to” configurations $`\eta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }}`$ which greatly increase the probability of unequal configurations when they occur, say, in the top layer of the coupled configuration. Lemma 4.6 rules out this possibility.

Lemma 4.6 extends straightforwardly to any bond or site model having the ratio strong mixing property. If the model lacks the FKG property, the coupling will not be an FKG coupling in general.

We will refer to a coupling of the type guaranteed by Lemma 4.6 as an *RSM coupling*.

###### Proof of Lemma 4.6.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }^r(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{near}}=\mathrm{\Delta }^r(\mathrm{\Lambda })\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }`$; we will refer to configurations on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{near}}`$ as far and near configurations, respectively. Define a measure $`\nu `$ on far configurations by

$$\nu (\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}})=\mathrm{min}(\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}=\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\eta _\mathrm{\Delta }),\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}=\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\eta _\mathrm{\Delta }^{})),$$

and let

$$\nu _0=\nu \left(\{1,1\}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}\right),$$

$$\tau ()=\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\eta _\mathrm{\Delta })\nu ()}{1\nu _0},\tau ^{}()=\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\eta _\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\nu ()}{1\nu _0}.$$

We may assume $`\nu _0<1`$, since otherwise the two measures to be coupled are identical. Then $`\nu /\nu _0,\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ are probability measures,

(4.33)
$$\mathrm{min}(\tau (\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}),\tau ^{}(\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}))=0\text{for all }\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}},$$

and by the ratio strong mixing property,

(4.34)
$$(1\nu _0)\mathrm{max}(\frac{\tau (\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}})}{\nu (\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}})},\frac{\tau ^{}(\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}})}{\nu (\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}})})c_{45}e^{ϵ_{29}r}\text{ for all }\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}.$$

Let $`(\chi ,\chi ^{}),\xi `$ and $`X`$ be independent, with $`\mathrm{Pr}(X=1)=\nu _0,\mathrm{Pr}(X=0)=1\nu _0`$, with $`\xi `$ having distribution $`\nu /\nu _0`$, and with $`(\chi ,\chi ^{})`$ having as its distribution an FKG coupling of $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$, and with

$$\mathrm{Pr}(X=1)=\nu _0,\mathrm{Pr}(X=0)=1\nu _0,$$

where $`\mathrm{Pr}`$ denotes the distribution of $`(\chi ,\chi ^{},\xi ,X)`$. Note that $`\chi \chi ^{}`$, by (4.33). Set

$$(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}},\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\xi ,\xi ),\hfill & \text{ if }X=1\text{;}\hfill \\ (\chi ,\chi ^{}),\hfill & \text{ if }X=0\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$

and let $`\widehat{\mu }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}`$ be the distribution of $`(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}},\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}^{})`$. Then $`\widehat{\mu }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}`$ is an FKG coupling of far configurations, and we have by (4.34), for all $`\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}`$,

(4.35) $`\widehat{\mu }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}`$ $`(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}^{}\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}=\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{Pr(\chi =\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}},X=0)}{Pr(\xi =\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}},X=1)}}`$
$`=(1\nu _0){\displaystyle \frac{\tau (\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}})}{\nu (\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}})}}`$
$`c_{45}e^{c_{30}r}.`$
Now we extend $`\widehat{\mu }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}`$ to an FKG coupling $`\widehat{\mu }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }`$ of $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }}\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\eta _\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }}\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\eta _\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$, by specifying that for each choice of configurations $`\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}^{}`$, the distribution of $`(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{near}}},\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{near}}}^{})`$ given $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}=\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}},\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}^{}=\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}^{}`$ is given by an FKG coupling of $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{near}}}\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\eta _\mathrm{\Delta },\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}=\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}})`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }}\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\eta _\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}=\zeta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}^{})`$. It is easily seen that

(4.36) $`\widehat{\mu }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }\left(\{(\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }},\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }}^{}):\sigma _x\sigma _x^{}\text{ for some }x\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}\}\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}=\eta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}\right)`$
$`c_{46}e^{ϵ_{30}r}\text{for every }\eta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}\{1,1\}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}},`$
since this is only a statement about the coupling of far configurations, equivalent to (4.35). However, under $`\widehat{\mu }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha }`$ the near configuration in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and the far configuration in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ are conditionally independent given the far configuration in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }}`$. This means that the probability on the left side of (4.36) is unchanged if the conditioning is changed from $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}=\eta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{far}}}`$ to $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }}=\eta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }}`$. Thus (4.36) is equivalent to (4.32). ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 3.7..

We follow the method of (4.1)–(4.14), but we use a different coupling within the $`A`$ and $`B`$ pairs. Recall (see the discussion after (4.21)) that the key property of the coupling for bond models was that $`\omega _𝒮^1=\omega _𝒮^0`$ outside $`C_e=C_e((\zeta _𝒰,1,\omega _𝒮^1))`$, which is the cluster of $`e`$ for the top layer. In the present case, we do not couple with agreement outside a specified cluster. Instead, by Lemma 4.4, $`\mu `$ has the ratio strong mixing property for the class $`𝔏`$ with arbitrary boundary conditions, so Lemma 4.6 guarantees the existence of an RSM coupling of the measures $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }(\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }=\zeta _\mathrm{\Gamma },\sigma _x=1)`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }(\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }=\zeta _\mathrm{\Gamma },\sigma _x=0)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the set of unsplit sites (the analog of $`𝒰`$) and $`x`$ is the site currently being split (the analog of $`e`$.) Using an RSM coupling guarantees that the analog of (4.14) holds, which, as in the bond case, leads to (4.3), completing the proof of (i). Then (ii) follows as in the proof of Theorem 3.2. ∎

It should be pointed out that we cannot use an RSM coupling in the proofs of our theorems on bond models, because typically the ratio strong mixing property will not apply to the measures $`P(\omega _𝒮\omega _𝒰=\zeta _𝒰)`$, unless the configuration $`\zeta _𝒰`$ is a special type. In the FK case, for example, with $`P=P_{,\rho }`$ for some $``$ and $`\rho `$, the ratio strong mixing property cannot be guaranteed unless the effective boundary condition $`(\rho _^c\zeta _𝒰)`$ on $`(𝒮\{e\})^c`$ is unique-cluster, which it will not be, for typical $`\zeta _𝒰`$. As mentioned previously, the possible failure of ratio strong mixing is due to the phenomenon of tunneling, discussed in . An RSM coupling can be used in the Ising case only because the ratio strong mixing property holds for arbitrary boundary conditions.

###### Proof of Theorem 3.8..

By Lemma 4.5, $`\mu `$ has the ratio strong mixing property for the class $`𝔏`$ with arbitrary boundary conditions. Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be a $`d_{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$-ball of radius $`\mathrm{diam}_{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ centered at some site in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Provided $`c_{17}`$ is large enough, we then have $`rc_{15}\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Theta }|`$, for the $`c_{15}`$ of Theorem 3.7. Now the proof can be completed similarly to that of Theorem 3.7. ∎