Monotone cellular automata Robert Morris IMPA, Rio de Janeiro - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

monotone cellular automata
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Monotone cellular automata Robert Morris IMPA, Rio de Janeiro - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Monotone cellular automata Robert Morris IMPA, Rio de Janeiro (Based on joint work with Paul Balister, J ozsef Balogh, B ela Bollob as, Hugo Duminil-Copin, Ivailo Hartarsky, Fabio Martinelli, Paul Smith, and Cristina Toninelli.) May


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Monotone cellular automata

Robert Morris IMPA, Rio de Janeiro

(Based on joint work with Paul Balister, J´

  • zsef Balogh, B´

ela Bollob´ as, Hugo Duminil-Copin, Ivailo Hartarsky, Fabio Martinelli, Paul Smith, and Cristina Toninelli.)

May 26, 2017

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Motivation: kinetically constrained spin models

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Motivation: kinetically constrained spin models

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either “empty” or “occupied”

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Motivation: kinetically constrained spin models

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either “empty” or “occupied”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Motivation: kinetically constrained spin models

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either “empty” or “occupied”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates (randomly) its state, as long as it has “enough space” to do so.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Motivation: kinetically constrained spin models

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either “empty” or “occupied”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates (randomly) its state, as long as it has “enough space” to do so. If it updates, it becomes empty with probability p, and occupied with probability 1 − p, independently of all other events.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Motivation: kinetically constrained spin models

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either “empty” or “occupied”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates (randomly) its state, as long as it has “enough space” to do so. If it updates, it becomes empty with probability p, and occupied with probability 1 − p, independently of all other events. Example: The 2-neighbour (2-FA) model:

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Motivation: kinetically constrained spin models

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either “empty” or “occupied”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates (randomly) its state, as long as it has “enough space” to do so. If it updates, it becomes empty with probability p, and occupied with probability 1 − p, independently of all other events. Example: The 2-neighbour (2-FA) model: A site can update if at least two of its four nearest neighbours are empty.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Motivation: kinetically constrained spin models

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either “empty” or “occupied”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates (randomly) its state, as long as it has “enough space” to do so. If it updates, it becomes empty with probability p, and occupied with probability 1 − p, independently of all other events. Example: The 2-neighbour (2-FA) model: A site can update if at least two of its four nearest neighbours are empty. Question: How long does it take for the system to “relax”?

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Motivation: kinetically constrained spin models

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either “empty” or “occupied”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates (randomly) its state, as long as it has “enough space” to do so. If it updates, it becomes empty with probability p, and occupied with probability 1 − p, independently of all other events. Example: The 2-neighbour (2-FA) model: A site can update if at least two of its four nearest neighbours are empty. Question: How long does it take for the origin to change state?

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Motivation: kinetically constrained spin models

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either “empty” or “occupied”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates (randomly) its state, as long as it has “enough space” to do so. If it updates, it becomes empty with probability p, and occupied with probability 1 − p, independently of all other events. Example: The 2-neighbour (2-FA) model: A site can update if at least two of its four nearest neighbours are empty. Question: How long does it take for the origin to change state? Note that this is a random variable, and is also a function of the initial state, and of p. An interesting particular case is when the initial state is chosen randomly (e.g., with density p of empty sites), and p → 0.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-12
SLIDE 12

More motivation: the (zero-temperature) Ising model

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-13
SLIDE 13

More motivation: the (zero-temperature) Ising model

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either in state “+” or “−”

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-14
SLIDE 14

More motivation: the (zero-temperature) Ising model

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either in state “+” or “−”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-15
SLIDE 15

More motivation: the (zero-temperature) Ising model

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either in state “+” or “−”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates its state, depending on the current state of its “neighbourhood”.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-16
SLIDE 16

More motivation: the (zero-temperature) Ising model

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either in state “+” or “−”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates its state, depending on the current state of its “neighbourhood”. Example: The 2-neighbour model:

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-17
SLIDE 17

More motivation: the (zero-temperature) Ising model

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either in state “+” or “−”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates its state, depending on the current state of its “neighbourhood”. Example: The 2-neighbour model: A site updates to agree with the majority of its four nearest neighbours; if it has two neighbours in each state, then it chooses a new state randomly.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-18
SLIDE 18

More motivation: the (zero-temperature) Ising model

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either in state “+” or “−”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates its state, depending on the current state of its “neighbourhood”. Example: The 2-neighbour model: A site updates to agree with the majority of its four nearest neighbours; if it has two neighbours in each state, then it chooses a new state randomly. Suppose that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of +s.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-19
SLIDE 19

More motivation: the (zero-temperature) Ising model

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either in state “+” or “−”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates its state, depending on the current state of its “neighbourhood”. Example: The 2-neighbour model: A site updates to agree with the majority of its four nearest neighbours; if it has two neighbours in each state, then it chooses a new state randomly. Suppose that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of +s. Question: What happens in the long run?

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-20
SLIDE 20

More motivation: the (zero-temperature) Ising model

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either in state “+” or “−”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates its state, depending on the current state of its “neighbourhood”. Example: The 2-neighbour model: A site updates to agree with the majority of its four nearest neighbours; if it has two neighbours in each state, then it chooses a new state randomly. Suppose that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of +s. Question: What happens in the long run? Conjecture: If p > 1/2 then the system “fixates” at +.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-21
SLIDE 21

More motivation: the (zero-temperature) Ising model

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either in state “+” or “−”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates its state, depending on the current state of its “neighbourhood”. Example: The 2-neighbour model: A site updates to agree with the majority of its four nearest neighbours; if it has two neighbours in each state, then it chooses a new state randomly. Suppose that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of +s. Question: What happens in the long run? Conjecture: If p > 1/2 then the system “fixates” at +. Only known when p > 1 − 10−10 (!!)

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-22
SLIDE 22

More motivation: the (zero-temperature) Ising model

Suppose each site of the lattice Z2 is either in state “+” or “−”, and has an independent exponential clock which rings randomly at rate 1. When a clock rings, the corresponding site updates its state, depending on the current state of its “neighbourhood”. Example: The 2-neighbour model: A site updates to agree with the majority of its four nearest neighbours; if it has two neighbours in each state, then it chooses a new state randomly. Suppose that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of +s. Question: What happens in the long run? Conjecture: If p > 1/2 then the system “fixates” at +. Only known when p > 1 − 10−10 (Fontes, Schonmann, Sidoravicius, 2002)

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-23
SLIDE 23

A monotone model: bootstrap percolation

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-24
SLIDE 24

A monotone model: bootstrap percolation

In either of the previous two models, suppose that we only allow sites to change in one direction (from occupied to empty, or from − to +, say).

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-25
SLIDE 25

A monotone model: bootstrap percolation

In either of the previous two models, suppose that we only allow sites to change in one direction (from occupied to empty, or from − to +, say). In other words, once a site is “infected”, it stays infected forever.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-26
SLIDE 26

A monotone model: bootstrap percolation

In either of the previous two models, suppose that we only allow sites to change in one direction (from occupied to empty, or from − to +, say). In other words, once a site is “infected”, it stays infected forever. Example: The 2-neighbour model:

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-27
SLIDE 27

A monotone model: bootstrap percolation

In either of the previous two models, suppose that we only allow sites to change in one direction (from occupied to empty, or from − to +, say). In other words, once a site is “infected”, it stays infected forever. Example: The 2-neighbour model: A site becomes infected if it has (at least) two infected neighbours.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-28
SLIDE 28

A monotone model: bootstrap percolation

In either of the previous two models, suppose that we only allow sites to change in one direction (from occupied to empty, or from − to +, say). In other words, once a site is “infected”, it stays infected forever. Example: The 2-neighbour model: A site becomes infected if it has (at least) two infected neighbours. (Note that the process is now deterministic!)

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-29
SLIDE 29

A monotone model: bootstrap percolation

In either of the previous two models, suppose that we only allow sites to change in one direction (from occupied to empty, or from − to +, say). In other words, once a site is “infected”, it stays infected forever. Example: The 2-neighbour model: A site becomes infected if it has (at least) two infected neighbours. (Note that the process is now deterministic!) Let A = A0 denote the set of initially infected sites, and define At+1 = At ∪

v ∈ Z2 : |N(v) ∩ At| 2

  • for each t 0.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-30
SLIDE 30

A monotone model: bootstrap percolation

In either of the previous two models, suppose that we only allow sites to change in one direction (from occupied to empty, or from − to +, say). In other words, once a site is “infected”, it stays infected forever. Example: The 2-neighbour model: A site becomes infected if it has (at least) two infected neighbours. (Note that the process is now deterministic!) Let A = A0 denote the set of initially infected sites, and define At+1 = At ∪

v ∈ Z2 : |N(v) ∩ At| 2

  • for each t 0.

We say that A percolates if [A] :=

  • t0

At = Z2. That is, if every site is eventually infected.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-31
SLIDE 31

The 2-neighbour model: an example

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-32
SLIDE 32

The 2-neighbour model: an example

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-33
SLIDE 33

The 2-neighbour model: an example

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-34
SLIDE 34

The 2-neighbour model: an example

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-35
SLIDE 35

The 2-neighbour model: an example

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-36
SLIDE 36

The 2-neighbour model: an example

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-37
SLIDE 37

The 2-neighbour model: an example

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-38
SLIDE 38

The 2-neighbour model: an example

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-39
SLIDE 39

The 2-neighbour model: an example

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-40
SLIDE 40

The 2-neighbour model: an example

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-41
SLIDE 41

The 2-neighbour model: an example

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-42
SLIDE 42

The 2-neighbour model: an example

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-43
SLIDE 43

The 2-neighbour model with random initial state

Recall that we say that A percolates if [A] :=

  • t0

At = Z2. That is, if every site is eventually infected.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-44
SLIDE 44

The 2-neighbour model with random initial state

Recall that we say that A percolates if [A] :=

  • t0

At = Z2. That is, if every site is eventually infected. Suppose that the sites are initially infected independently at random with probability p, and define the critical probability pc(Z2, 2) := inf

  • p ∈ (0, 1) : Pp

A percolates = 1

  • .

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-45
SLIDE 45

The 2-neighbour model with random initial state

Recall that we say that A percolates if [A] :=

  • t0

At = Z2. That is, if every site is eventually infected. Suppose that the sites are initially infected independently at random with probability p, and define the critical probability pc(Z2, 2) := inf

  • p ∈ (0, 1) : Pp

A percolates = 1

  • .

Question: What is pc(Z2, 2)?

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-46
SLIDE 46

The 2-neighbour model with random initial state

Recall that we say that A percolates if [A] :=

  • t0

At = Z2. That is, if every site is eventually infected. Suppose that the sites are initially infected independently at random with probability p, and define the critical probability pc(Z2, 2) := inf

  • p ∈ (0, 1) : Pp

A percolates = 1

  • .

Question: What is pc(Z2, 2)? Answer: pc(Z2, 2) = 0 (!!)

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-47
SLIDE 47

The 2-neighbour model with random initial state

Recall that we say that A percolates if [A] :=

  • t0

At = Z2. That is, if every site is eventually infected. Suppose that the sites are initially infected independently at random with probability p, and define the critical probability pc(Z2, 2) := inf

  • p ∈ (0, 1) : Pp

A percolates = 1

  • .

Question: What is pc(Z2, 2)? Answer: pc(Z2, 2) = 0 (van Enter, 1987)

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-48
SLIDE 48

van Enter’s proof that pc(Z2, 2) = 0 (sketch)

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-49
SLIDE 49

van Enter’s proof that pc(Z2, 2) = 0 (sketch)

With probability 1, there exists a very large completely infected square S (a critical droplet) somewhere in Z2:

S

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-50
SLIDE 50

van Enter’s proof that pc(Z2, 2) = 0 (sketch)

Since S is very large, it is likely to have infected sites on its sides, and hence to be able to grow by one in each direction:

S

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-51
SLIDE 51

van Enter’s proof that pc(Z2, 2) = 0 (sketch)

Since S is very large, it is likely to have infected sites on its sides, and hence to be able to grow by one in each direction:

S

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-52
SLIDE 52

van Enter’s proof that pc(Z2, 2) = 0 (sketch)

Since S is very large, it is likely to have infected sites on its sides, and hence to be able to grow by one in each direction:

S

The probability that the square fails to grow from size n × n to size (n + 2) × (n + 2) is at most 4(1 − p)n and is therefore summable.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-53
SLIDE 53

van Enter’s proof that pc(Z2, 2) = 0 (sketch)

Since S is very large, it is likely to have infected sites on its sides, and hence to be able to grow by one in each direction:

S

The probability that the square fails to grow from size n × n to size (n + 2) × (n + 2) is at most 4(1 − p)n and is therefore summable. (To make the proof rigorous, sprinkle.)

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-54
SLIDE 54

The 2-neighbour model on the torus Z2

n

We define the critical probability on an n × n torus to be pc(Z2

n, 2) := inf

  • p ∈ (0, 1) : Pp

A percolates 1/2

  • .

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-55
SLIDE 55

The 2-neighbour model on the torus Z2

n

We define the critical probability on an n × n torus to be pc(Z2

n, 2) := inf

  • p ∈ (0, 1) : Pp

A percolates 1/2

  • .

van Enter’s proof shows that pc(Z2

n, 2) → 0 as n → ∞.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-56
SLIDE 56

The 2-neighbour model on the torus Z2

n

We define the critical probability on an n × n torus to be pc(Z2

n, 2) := inf

  • p ∈ (0, 1) : Pp

A percolates 1/2

  • .

van Enter’s proof shows that pc(Z2

n, 2) → 0 as n → ∞.

Question: At what rate does pc(Z2

n, 2) tend to zero?

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-57
SLIDE 57

The 2-neighbour model on the torus Z2

n

We define the critical probability on an n × n torus to be pc(Z2

n, 2) := inf

  • p ∈ (0, 1) : Pp

A percolates 1/2

  • .

van Enter’s proof shows that pc(Z2

n, 2) → 0 as n → ∞.

Theorem (Aizenman and Lebowitz, 1988)

pc(Z2

n, 2) = Θ

  • 1

log n

  • .

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-58
SLIDE 58

The 2-neighbour model on the torus Z2

n

We define the critical probability on an n × n torus to be pc(Z2

n, 2) := inf

  • p ∈ (0, 1) : Pp

A percolates 1/2

  • .

van Enter’s proof shows that pc(Z2

n, 2) → 0 as n → ∞.

Theorem (Aizenman and Lebowitz, 1988)

pc(Z2

n, 2) = Θ

  • 1

log n

  • .

This was the first major result on bootstrap percolation

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-59
SLIDE 59

The 2-neighbour model on the torus Z2

n

We define the critical probability on an n × n torus to be pc(Z2

n, 2) := inf

  • p ∈ (0, 1) : Pp

A percolates 1/2

  • .

van Enter’s proof shows that pc(Z2

n, 2) → 0 as n → ∞.

Theorem (Aizenman and Lebowitz, 1988)

pc(Z2

n, 2) = Θ

  • 1

log n

  • .

This was the first major result on bootstrap percolation; the proof is not very complicated, but contains some key ideas that have played a crucial role in the later development of the subject.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-60
SLIDE 60

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch)

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-61
SLIDE 61

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch)

The upper bound follows from a more careful analysis of van Enter’s argument, so we will instead focus on the (more interesting) lower bound.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-62
SLIDE 62

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch)

The upper bound follows from a more careful analysis of van Enter’s argument, so we will instead focus on the (more interesting) lower bound. The key idea is to control the growth of critical droplets using an algorithm called the rectangles process.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-63
SLIDE 63

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch)

The upper bound follows from a more careful analysis of van Enter’s argument, so we will instead focus on the (more interesting) lower bound. The key idea is to control the growth of critical droplets using an algorithm called the rectangles process. The rectangles process:

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-64
SLIDE 64

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch)

The upper bound follows from a more careful analysis of van Enter’s argument, so we will instead focus on the (more interesting) lower bound. The key idea is to control the growth of critical droplets using an algorithm called the rectangles process. The rectangles process: We begin with a collection of |A| rectangles, each consisting of a single site of A.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-65
SLIDE 65

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch)

The upper bound follows from a more careful analysis of van Enter’s argument, so we will instead focus on the (more interesting) lower bound. The key idea is to control the growth of critical droplets using an algorithm called the rectangles process. The rectangles process: We begin with a collection of |A| rectangles, each consisting of a single site of A. At each step of the process, we choose two rectangles that lie within distance 2 of one another, and combine them to form a larger (entirely infected) rectangle.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-66
SLIDE 66

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch)

The upper bound follows from a more careful analysis of van Enter’s argument, so we will instead focus on the (more interesting) lower bound. The key idea is to control the growth of critical droplets using an algorithm called the rectangles process. The rectangles process: We begin with a collection of |A| rectangles, each consisting of a single site of A. At each step of the process, we choose two rectangles that lie within distance 2 of one another, and combine them to form a larger (entirely infected) rectangle. We stop when we can no longer find such a pair of rectangles.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-67
SLIDE 67

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch)

The upper bound follows from a more careful analysis of van Enter’s argument, so we will instead focus on the (more interesting) lower bound. The key idea is to control the growth of critical droplets using an algorithm called the rectangles process. The rectangles process: We begin with a collection of |A| rectangles, each consisting of a single site of A. At each step of the process, we choose two rectangles that lie within distance 2 of one another, and combine them to form a larger (entirely infected) rectangle. We stop when we can no longer find such a pair of rectangles. The union of the final collection of rectangles is equal to [A].

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-68
SLIDE 68

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch)

The upper bound follows from a more careful analysis of van Enter’s argument, so we will instead focus on the (more interesting) lower bound. The key idea is to control the growth of critical droplets using an algorithm called the rectangles process. The rectangles process: We begin with a collection of |A| rectangles, each consisting of a single site of A. At each step of the process, we choose two rectangles that lie within distance 2 of one another, and combine them to form a larger (entirely infected) rectangle. We stop when we can no longer find such a pair of rectangles. The union of the final collection of rectangles is equal to [A]. Every rectangle R that appears at some point in the rectangles process is internally filled by A, i.e., [A ∩ R] = R.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-69
SLIDE 69

The rectangles process

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-70
SLIDE 70

The rectangles process

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-71
SLIDE 71

The rectangles process

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-72
SLIDE 72

The rectangles process

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-73
SLIDE 73

The rectangles process

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-74
SLIDE 74

The rectangles process

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-75
SLIDE 75

The rectangles process

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-76
SLIDE 76

The rectangles process

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-77
SLIDE 77

The rectangles process

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-78
SLIDE 78

The rectangles process

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-79
SLIDE 79

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch, continued)

Using the rectangles process, we can prove the following key lemma.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-80
SLIDE 80

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch, continued)

Using the rectangles process, we can prove the following key lemma.

The Aizenman–Lebowitz Lemma

If A percolates in Z2

n, then there exists a rectangle R ⊂ Z2 n, with

log n long(R) 2 log n, that is “internally filled”, i.e., [A ∩ R] = R.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-81
SLIDE 81

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch, continued)

Using the rectangles process, we can prove the following key lemma.

The Aizenman–Lebowitz Lemma

If A percolates in Z2

n, then there exists a rectangle R ⊂ Z2 n, with

log n long(R) 2 log n, that is “internally filled”, i.e., [A ∩ R] = R. Proof: Run the rectangles process until a rectangle with long(R) log n appears for the first time.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-82
SLIDE 82

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch, continued)

Using the rectangles process, we can prove the following key lemma.

The Aizenman–Lebowitz Lemma

If A percolates in Z2

n, then there exists a rectangle R ⊂ Z2 n, with

log n long(R) 2 log n, that is “internally filled”, i.e., [A ∩ R] = R. Proof: Run the rectangles process until a rectangle with long(R) log n appears for the first time. This rectangle is internally filled, by the definition of the process.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-83
SLIDE 83

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch, continued)

Using the rectangles process, we can prove the following key lemma.

The Aizenman–Lebowitz Lemma

If A percolates in Z2

n, then there exists a rectangle R ⊂ Z2 n, with

log n long(R) 2 log n, that is “internally filled”, i.e., [A ∩ R] = R. Proof: Run the rectangles process until a rectangle with long(R) log n appears for the first time. This rectangle is internally filled, by the definition of the process. Moreover, it was obtained from two rectangles with long(R) < log n, so we have long(R) 2 log n, as required.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-84
SLIDE 84

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch, final calculation)

The Aizenman–Lebowitz Lemma

If A percolates in Z2

n, then there exists a rectangle R ⊂ Z2 n, with

log n long(R) 2 log n, that is “internally filled”, i.e., [A ∩ R] = R. To finish the proof, we simply bound the expected number of such rectangles.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-85
SLIDE 85

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch, final calculation)

The Aizenman–Lebowitz Lemma

If A percolates in Z2

n, then there exists a rectangle R ⊂ Z2 n, with

log n long(R) 2 log n, that is “internally filled”, i.e., [A ∩ R] = R. To finish the proof, we simply bound the expected number of such

  • rectangles. To do so, note that if R is internally filled then it must contain

at least one element of A in each pair of consecutive rows or columns.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-86
SLIDE 86

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch, final calculation)

The Aizenman–Lebowitz Lemma

If A percolates in Z2

n, then there exists a rectangle R ⊂ Z2 n, with

log n long(R) 2 log n, that is “internally filled”, i.e., [A ∩ R] = R. To finish the proof, we simply bound the expected number of such

  • rectangles. To do so, note that if R is internally filled then it must contain

at least one element of A in each pair of consecutive rows or columns. If p = ε log n for some small constant ε > 0, then we obtain P

[A ∩ R] = R 4p log n log n/2 (4ε)log n/2 1

n3 .

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-87
SLIDE 87

Aizenman and Lebowitz’s proof (sketch, final calculation)

The Aizenman–Lebowitz Lemma

If A percolates in Z2

n, then there exists a rectangle R ⊂ Z2 n, with

log n long(R) 2 log n, that is “internally filled”, i.e., [A ∩ R] = R. If p = ε log n for some small constant ε > 0, then we obtain P

[A ∩ R] = R 4p log n log n/2 (4ε)log n/2 1

n4 . There are n3(log n)O(1) choices for R, so by Markov’s inequality P

A percolates → 0

as n → ∞, as required.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-88
SLIDE 88

An application to the Ising model

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-89
SLIDE 89

An application to the Ising model

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of +s

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-90
SLIDE 90

An application to the Ising model

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of +s, and when a clock rings a site updates to agree with the majority of its four nearest neighbours; if it has two neighbours in each state, then it chooses a new state randomly.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-91
SLIDE 91

An application to the Ising model

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of +s, and when a clock rings a site updates to agree with the majority of its four nearest neighbours; if it has two neighbours in each state, then it chooses a new state randomly.

Conjecture (Folklore)

If p > 1/2 then the system fixates.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-92
SLIDE 92

An application to the Ising model

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of +s, and when a clock rings a site updates to agree with the majority of its four nearest neighbours; if it has two neighbours in each state, then it chooses a new state randomly.

Theorem (Fontes, Schonmann and Sidoravicius, 2002)

If p > 1 − 10−10 then the system fixates.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-93
SLIDE 93

An application to the Ising model

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of +s, and when a clock rings a site updates to agree with the majority of its four nearest neighbours; if it has two neighbours in each state, then it chooses a new state randomly.

Theorem (Fontes, Schonmann and Sidoravicius, 2002)

If p > 1 − 10−10 then the system fixates. The proof uses multi-scale analysis, and the induction step uses the results

  • f Aizenman and Lebowitz.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-94
SLIDE 94

An application to the Ising model

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of +s, and when a clock rings a site updates to agree with the majority of its four nearest neighbours; if it has two neighbours in each state, then it chooses a new state randomly.

Theorem (Fontes, Schonmann and Sidoravicius, 2002)

If p > 1 − 10−10 then the system fixates. The proof uses multi-scale analysis, and the induction step uses the results

  • f Aizenman and Lebowitz. Roughly speaking, if the density of “bad”

squares at a certain scale is small enough, then they can be contained in “well-separated” rectangles of size at most log n.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-95
SLIDE 95

An application to the Ising model

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of +s, and when a clock rings a site updates to agree with the majority of its four nearest neighbours; if it has two neighbours in each state, then it chooses a new state randomly.

Theorem (Fontes, Schonmann and Sidoravicius, 2002)

If p > 1 − 10−10 then the system fixates. The proof uses multi-scale analysis, and the induction step uses the results

  • f Aizenman and Lebowitz. Roughly speaking, if the density of “bad”

squares at a certain scale is small enough, then they can be contained in “well-separated” rectangles of size at most log n. These small rectangles are likely to be “eaten” quickly by the sea of + surrounding them.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-96
SLIDE 96

An application to the Ising model

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of +s, and when a clock rings a site updates to agree with the majority of its four nearest neighbours; if it has two neighbours in each state, then it chooses a new state randomly.

Theorem (Fontes, Schonmann and Sidoravicius, 2002)

If p > 1 − 10−10 then the system fixates. Combining the proof of this theorem with some more advanced techniques from bootstrap percolation (see Balogh, Bollob´ as and M., 2009) one can prove the following result in high dimensions.

Theorem (M., 2011)

If p > 1 2 and d d0(p), then on Zd the system fixates.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-97
SLIDE 97

An application to kinetically constrained spin models

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-98
SLIDE 98

An application to kinetically constrained spin models

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of “empty” sites

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-99
SLIDE 99

An application to kinetically constrained spin models

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of “empty” sites, and when a clock rings a site updates randomly if at least two of its four nearest neighbours are empty.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-100
SLIDE 100

An application to kinetically constrained spin models

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of “empty” sites, and when a clock rings a site updates randomly if at least two of its four nearest neighbours are empty. Define τ

Z2, 2 := inf t > 0 : the origin changes state .

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-101
SLIDE 101

An application to kinetically constrained spin models

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of “empty” sites, and when a clock rings a site updates randomly if at least two of its four nearest neighbours are empty. Define τ

Z2, 2 := inf t > 0 : the origin changes state .

Theorem (Martinelli and Toninelli, 2017+)

There exist constants C > c > 0 such that exp

c

p

  • τ

Z2, 2 exp log(1/p) C

p

  • with high probability as p → 0.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-102
SLIDE 102

An application to kinetically constrained spin models

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of “empty” sites, and when a clock rings a site updates randomly if at least two of its four nearest neighbours are empty. Define τ

Z2, 2 := inf t > 0 : the origin changes state .

Theorem (Martinelli and Toninelli, 2017+)

There exist constants C > c > 0 such that exp

c

p

  • τ

Z2, 2 exp log(1/p) C

p

  • with high probability as p → 0.

The lower bound is a straightforward consequence of the theorem of Aizenman and Lebowitz

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-103
SLIDE 103

An application to kinetically constrained spin models

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of “empty” sites, and when a clock rings a site updates randomly if at least two of its four nearest neighbours are empty. Define τ

Z2, 2 := inf t > 0 : the origin changes state .

Theorem (Martinelli and Toninelli, 2017+)

There exist constants C > c > 0 such that exp

c

p

  • τ

Z2, 2 exp log(1/p) C

p

  • with high probability as p → 0.

The lower bound is a straightforward consequence of the theorem of Aizenman and Lebowitz (the upper bound is much more difficult).

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-104
SLIDE 104

Sharp thresholds and higher dimensions

For the 2-neighbour bootstrap model, much more precise bounds are known.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-105
SLIDE 105

Sharp thresholds and higher dimensions

For the 2-neighbour bootstrap model, much more precise bounds are

  • known. Recall the Aizenman–Lebowitz theorem:

Theorem (Aizenman and Lebowitz, 1988)

pc(Z2

n, 2) = Θ(1)

log n.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-106
SLIDE 106

Sharp thresholds and higher dimensions

For the 2-neighbour bootstrap model, much more precise bounds are

  • known. Holroyd proved a sharp threshold for the 2-neighbour model:

Theorem (Holroyd, 2003)

pc(Z2

n, 2) =

π2

18 + o(1)

  • 1

log n.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-107
SLIDE 107

Sharp thresholds and higher dimensions

For the 2-neighbour bootstrap model, much more precise bounds are

  • known. Gravner and Holroyd later refined the upper bound argument, and

together with them we proved an almost matching lower bound:

Theorem (Gravner–Holroyd, 2008; Gravner–Holroyd–M., 2012)

There exist constants C > c > 0 such that π2 18 log n − C(log log n)3 (log n)3/2 pc(Z2

n, 2)

π2 18 log n − c (log n)3/2 for every sufficiently large n ∈ N.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-108
SLIDE 108

Sharp thresholds and higher dimensions

For the 2-neighbour bootstrap model, much more precise bounds are

  • known. Finally, with Hartarsky, we have managed to determine the order
  • f the second term:

Theorem (Hartarsky and M., 2017+)

pc(Z2

n, 2) =

π2 18 log n − Θ(1) (log n)3/2

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-109
SLIDE 109

Sharp thresholds and higher dimensions

For the 2-neighbour bootstrap model, much more precise bounds are

  • known. Finally, with Hartarsky, we have managed to determine the order
  • f the second term:

Theorem (Hartarsky and M., 2017+)

pc(Z2

n, 2) =

π2 18 log n − Θ(1) (log n)3/2 The proof of Aizenman and Lebowitz also works in higher dimensions, but

  • nly for the 2-neighbour model:

Theorem (Aizenman and Lebowitz, 1988)

pc(Zd

n, 2) =

Θ(1)

log n

d−1

.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-110
SLIDE 110

Sharp thresholds and higher dimensions

For the 2-neighbour bootstrap model, much more precise bounds are

  • known. Finally, with Hartarsky, we have managed to determine the order
  • f the second term:

Theorem (Hartarsky and M., 2017+)

pc(Z2

n, 2) =

π2 18 log n − Θ(1) (log n)3/2 For the 3-neighbour model in three dimensions, the threshold was determined up to a constant factor by Cerf and Cirillo:

Theorem (Cerf and Cirillo, 1999)

pc(Z3

n, 3) =

Θ(1) log log n.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-111
SLIDE 111

Sharp thresholds and higher dimensions

For the 2-neighbour bootstrap model, much more precise bounds are

  • known. Finally, with Hartarsky, we have managed to determine the order
  • f the second term:

Theorem (Hartarsky and M., 2017+)

pc(Z2

n, 2) =

π2 18 log n − Θ(1) (log n)3/2 For the 3-neighbour model in three dimensions, the threshold was determined up to a constant factor by Cerf and Cirillo, and we determined the sharp threshold with Balogh and Bollob´ as:

Theorem (Balogh, Bollob´ as and M., 2009)

pc(Z3

n, 3) = λ(3, 3) + o(1)

log log n .

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-112
SLIDE 112

Sharp thresholds and higher dimensions

For the 2-neighbour bootstrap model, much more precise bounds are

  • known. Finally, with Hartarsky, we have managed to determine the order
  • f the second term:

Theorem (Hartarsky and M., 2017+)

pc(Z2

n, 2) =

π2 18 log n − Θ(1) (log n)3/2 For the r-neighbour model in d dimensions, the threshold was determined up to a constant factor by Cerf and Manzo:

Theorem (Cerf and Manzo, 2002)

pc(Zd

n, r) =

  • Θ(1)

log(r−1) n

d−r+1

.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-113
SLIDE 113

Sharp thresholds and higher dimensions

For the 2-neighbour bootstrap model, much more precise bounds are

  • known. Finally, with Hartarsky, we have managed to determine the order
  • f the second term:

Theorem (Hartarsky and M., 2017+)

pc(Z2

n, 2) =

π2 18 log n − Θ(1) (log n)3/2 For the r-neighbour model in d dimensions, the threshold was determined up to a constant factor by Cerf and Manzo, and we determined the sharp threshold with Balogh, Bollob´ as and Duminil-Copin:

Theorem (Balogh, Bollob´ as, Duminil-Copin and M., 2012)

pc(Zd

n, r) =

λ(d, r) + o(1)

log(r−1) n

d−r+1

.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-114
SLIDE 114

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

We now turn our attention to some dramatic recent developments in the study of bootstrap percolation, which were initiated a few years ago in a remarkable paper of B´ ela Bollob´ as, Paul Smith, and Andrew Uzzell. They studied the following large family of models:

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-115
SLIDE 115

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

We now turn our attention to some dramatic recent developments in the study of bootstrap percolation, which were initiated a few years ago in a remarkable paper of B´ ela Bollob´ as, Paul Smith, and Andrew Uzzell. They studied the following large family of models:

Definition (The U-bootstrap process)

Let U = {X1, . . . , Xm} be an arbitrary finite collection of finite subsets of Z2, and let A ⊂ Z2

  • n. Set A0 = A, and define, for each t 0,

At+1 = At ∪

  • x ∈ Z2

n : x + X ⊂ At for some X ∈ U

  • .

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-116
SLIDE 116

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

We now turn our attention to some dramatic recent developments in the study of bootstrap percolation, which were initiated a few years ago in a remarkable paper of B´ ela Bollob´ as, Paul Smith, and Andrew Uzzell. They studied the following large family of models:

Definition (The U-bootstrap process)

Let U = {X1, . . . , Xm} be an arbitrary finite collection of finite subsets of Z2, and let A ⊂ Z2

  • n. Set A0 = A, and define, for each t 0,

At+1 = At ∪

  • x ∈ Z2

n : x + X ⊂ At for some X ∈ U

  • .

One of the key insights of Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell was that the typical global behaviour of the U-bootstrap process (with random initial set) should be determined by the action of the process on discrete half-spaces.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-117
SLIDE 117

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (The U-bootstrap process)

Let U = {X1, . . . , Xm} be an arbitrary finite collection of finite subsets of Z2, and let A ⊂ Z2

  • n. Set A0 = A, and define, for each t 0,

At+1 = At ∪

  • x ∈ Z2

n : x + X ⊂ At for some X ∈ U

  • .

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-118
SLIDE 118

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (The U-bootstrap process)

Let U = {X1, . . . , Xm} be an arbitrary finite collection of finite subsets of Z2, and let A ⊂ Z2

  • n. Set A0 = A, and define, for each t 0,

At+1 = At ∪

  • x ∈ Z2

n : x + X ⊂ At for some X ∈ U

  • .

Define S = S(U) ⊆ S1, the collection of stable directions, to be the set S(U) :=

u ∈ S1 : [Hu]U = Hu ,

where Hu :=

x ∈ Z2 : x, u < 0}

denotes the discrete half-plane whose boundary is perpendicular to u.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-119
SLIDE 119

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (The U-bootstrap process)

Let U = {X1, . . . , Xm} be an arbitrary finite collection of finite subsets of Z2, and let A ⊂ Z2

  • n. Set A0 = A, and define, for each t 0,

At+1 = At ∪

  • x ∈ Z2

n : x + X ⊂ At for some X ∈ U

  • .

Define S = S(U) ⊆ S1, the collection of stable directions, to be the set S(U) :=

u ∈ S1 : [Hu]U = Hu ,

where Hu :=

x ∈ Z2 : x, u < 0}

denotes the discrete half-plane whose boundary is perpendicular to u. Let C denote the collection of open semicircles in S1. The following key definition is due to Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell:

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-120
SLIDE 120

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (The U-bootstrap process)

Let U = {X1, . . . , Xm} be an arbitrary finite collection of finite subsets of Z2, and let A ⊂ Z2

  • n. Set A0 = A, and define, for each t 0,

At+1 = At ∪

  • x ∈ Z2

n : x + X ⊂ At for some X ∈ U

  • .

Let C denote the collection of open semicircles in S1.

Definition (Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell)

We say that a two-dimensional update family U is:

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-121
SLIDE 121

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (The U-bootstrap process)

Let U = {X1, . . . , Xm} be an arbitrary finite collection of finite subsets of Z2, and let A ⊂ Z2

  • n. Set A0 = A, and define, for each t 0,

At+1 = At ∪

  • x ∈ Z2

n : x + X ⊂ At for some X ∈ U

  • .

Let C denote the collection of open semicircles in S1.

Definition (Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell)

We say that a two-dimensional update family U is: supercritical if there exists C ∈ C that is disjoint from S,

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-122
SLIDE 122

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (The U-bootstrap process)

Let U = {X1, . . . , Xm} be an arbitrary finite collection of finite subsets of Z2, and let A ⊂ Z2

  • n. Set A0 = A, and define, for each t 0,

At+1 = At ∪

  • x ∈ Z2

n : x + X ⊂ At for some X ∈ U

  • .

Let C denote the collection of open semicircles in S1.

Definition (Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell)

We say that a two-dimensional update family U is: supercritical if there exists C ∈ C that is disjoint from S, critical if there exists C ∈ C that has finite intersection with S, and if every C ∈ C has non-empty intersection with S,

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-123
SLIDE 123

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (The U-bootstrap process)

Let U = {X1, . . . , Xm} be an arbitrary finite collection of finite subsets of Z2, and let A ⊂ Z2

  • n. Set A0 = A, and define, for each t 0,

At+1 = At ∪

  • x ∈ Z2

n : x + X ⊂ At for some X ∈ U

  • .

Let C denote the collection of open semicircles in S1.

Definition (Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell)

We say that a two-dimensional update family U is: supercritical if there exists C ∈ C that is disjoint from S, critical if there exists C ∈ C that has finite intersection with S, and if every C ∈ C has non-empty intersection with S, subcritical if every C ∈ C has infinite intersection with S.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-124
SLIDE 124

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell)

We say that a two-dimensional update family U is: supercritical if there exists C ∈ C that is disjoint from S, critical if there exists C ∈ C that has finite intersection with S, and if every C ∈ C has non-empty intersection with S, subcritical if every C ∈ C has infinite intersection with S.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-125
SLIDE 125

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell)

We say that a two-dimensional update family U is: supercritical if there exists C ∈ C that is disjoint from S, critical if there exists C ∈ C that has finite intersection with S, and if every C ∈ C has non-empty intersection with S, subcritical if every C ∈ C has infinite intersection with S. Note that this is a partition of the two-dimensional update families.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-126
SLIDE 126

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell)

We say that a two-dimensional update family U is: supercritical if there exists C ∈ C that is disjoint from S, critical if there exists C ∈ C that has finite intersection with S, and if every C ∈ C has non-empty intersection with S, subcritical if every C ∈ C has infinite intersection with S. Note that this is a partition of the two-dimensional update families. Note also that the 1-neighbour model is supercritical, the 2-neighbour model is critical, and the 3-neighbour model is subcritical.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-127
SLIDE 127

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell)

We say that a two-dimensional update family U is: supercritical if there exists C ∈ C that is disjoint from S, critical if there exists C ∈ C that has finite intersection with S, and if every C ∈ C has non-empty intersection with S, subcritical if every C ∈ C has infinite intersection with S. Note that this is a partition of the two-dimensional update families. Note also that the 1-neighbour model is supercritical, the 2-neighbour model is critical, and the 3-neighbour model is subcritical. The first two parts of the following theorem were proved by Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell; the proof for subcritical families was obtained slightly later by Balister, Bollob´ as, Przykucki and Smith.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-128
SLIDE 128

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell)

We say that a two-dimensional update family U is: supercritical if there exists C ∈ C that is disjoint from S, critical if there exists C ∈ C that has finite intersection with S, and if every C ∈ C has non-empty intersection with S, subcritical if every C ∈ C has infinite intersection with S.

Theorem (BSU (supercritical & critical); BBPS (subcritical))

For every two-dimensional update family U,

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-129
SLIDE 129

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell)

We say that a two-dimensional update family U is: supercritical if there exists C ∈ C that is disjoint from S, critical if there exists C ∈ C that has finite intersection with S, and if every C ∈ C has non-empty intersection with S, subcritical if every C ∈ C has infinite intersection with S.

Theorem (BSU (supercritical & critical); BBPS (subcritical))

For every two-dimensional update family U, if U is supercritical then pc(Z2

n, U) = n−Θ(1).

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-130
SLIDE 130

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell)

We say that a two-dimensional update family U is: supercritical if there exists C ∈ C that is disjoint from S, critical if there exists C ∈ C that has finite intersection with S, and if every C ∈ C has non-empty intersection with S, subcritical if every C ∈ C has infinite intersection with S.

Theorem (BSU (supercritical & critical); BBPS (subcritical))

For every two-dimensional update family U, if U is supercritical then pc(Z2

n, U) = n−Θ(1).

if U is critical then pc(Z2

n, U) = (log n)−Θ(1).

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-131
SLIDE 131

The Bollob´ as–Smith–Uzzell model

Definition (Bollob´ as, Smith and Uzzell)

We say that a two-dimensional update family U is: supercritical if there exists C ∈ C that is disjoint from S, critical if there exists C ∈ C that has finite intersection with S, and if every C ∈ C has non-empty intersection with S, subcritical if every C ∈ C has infinite intersection with S.

Theorem (BSU (supercritical & critical); BBPS (subcritical))

For every two-dimensional update family U, if U is supercritical then pc(Z2

n, U) = n−Θ(1).

if U is critical then pc(Z2

n, U) = (log n)−Θ(1).

if U is subcritical then pc(Z2, U) > 0.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-132
SLIDE 132

The threshold for critical models

With Bollob´ as, Duminil-Copin and Smith, we proved the following much more precise bounds for critical update families:

Theorem (Bollob´ as, Duminil-Copin, M. and Smith, 2017+)

Let U be a critical two-dimensional update family.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-133
SLIDE 133

The threshold for critical models

With Bollob´ as, Duminil-Copin and Smith, we proved the following much more precise bounds for critical update families:

Theorem (Bollob´ as, Duminil-Copin, M. and Smith, 2017+)

Let U be a critical two-dimensional update family. If U is “balanced” then pc

Z2

n, U

= Θ

  • 1

log n

1/α

.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-134
SLIDE 134

The threshold for critical models

With Bollob´ as, Duminil-Copin and Smith, we proved the following much more precise bounds for critical update families:

Theorem (Bollob´ as, Duminil-Copin, M. and Smith, 2017+)

Let U be a critical two-dimensional update family. If U is “balanced” then pc

Z2

n, U

= Θ

  • 1

log n

1/α

. If U is “unbalanced” then pc

Z2

n, U

= Θ (log log n)2

log n

1/α

.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-135
SLIDE 135

Difficulty and balance

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-136
SLIDE 136

Difficulty and balance

Roughly speaking:

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-137
SLIDE 137

Difficulty and balance

Roughly speaking: α is determined by the “difficulty” of growth in the “easiest direction”

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-138
SLIDE 138

Difficulty and balance

Roughly speaking: α is determined by the “difficulty” of growth in the “easiest direction” an update family U is “balanced” if and only if growth under the U-bootstrap process is (asymptotically) two-dimensional.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-139
SLIDE 139

Difficulty and balance

Roughly speaking: α is determined by the “difficulty” of growth in the “easiest direction” an update family U is “balanced” if and only if growth under the U-bootstrap process is (asymptotically) two-dimensional. More precisely, α := min

C∈C max u∈C α(u),

where C again denotes the collection of open semicircles of S1

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-140
SLIDE 140

Difficulty and balance

Roughly speaking: α is determined by the “difficulty” of growth in the “easiest direction” an update family U is “balanced” if and only if growth under the U-bootstrap process is (asymptotically) two-dimensional. More precisely, α := min

C∈C max u∈C α(u),

where C again denotes the collection of open semicircles of S1, and α(u) = min

|Z| : [Hu ∪ Z]U \ Hu is infinite

  • if u is an isolated stable direction, and α(u) = ∞ otherwise.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-141
SLIDE 141

Difficulty and balance

Roughly speaking: α is determined by the “difficulty” of growth in the “easiest direction” an update family U is “balanced” if and only if growth under the U-bootstrap process is (asymptotically) two-dimensional. More precisely, α := min

C∈C max u∈C α(u),

where C again denotes the collection of open semicircles of S1, and α(u) = min

|Z| : [Hu ∪ Z]U \ Hu is infinite

  • if u is an isolated stable direction, and α(u) = ∞ otherwise.

U is balanced if and only if there exists a closed semicircle such that α(u) α for every u ∈ C.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-142
SLIDE 142

Critical models: some examples

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-143
SLIDE 143

Critical models: some examples

The 2-neighbour model: U consists of the 2-subsets of N, where

N =

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-144
SLIDE 144

Critical models: some examples

The 2-neighbour model: U consists of the 2-subsets of N, where

N = S(U)

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-145
SLIDE 145

Critical models: some examples

The 2-neighbour model: U consists of the 2-subsets of N, where

N = S(U)

1 1 1 1

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-146
SLIDE 146

Critical models: some examples

The 2-neighbour model: U consists of the 2-subsets of N, where

N = S(U)

1 1 1 1

This update family is balanced, and α = 1.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-147
SLIDE 147

Critical models: some examples

The anisotropic model: U consists of the 3-subsets of N, where N =

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-148
SLIDE 148

Critical models: some examples

The anisotropic model: U consists of the 3-subsets of N, where N = S(U)

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-149
SLIDE 149

Critical models: some examples

The anisotropic model: U consists of the 3-subsets of N, where N = S(U)

1 1 2 2

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-150
SLIDE 150

Critical models: some examples

The anisotropic model: U consists of the 3-subsets of N, where N = S(U)

1 1 2 2

This update family is unbalanced, and α = 1.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-151
SLIDE 151

Critical models: some examples

The Duarte model: U consists of the 2-subsets of N, where

N =

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-152
SLIDE 152

Critical models: some examples

The Duarte model: U consists of the 2-subsets of N, where

N = S(U)

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-153
SLIDE 153

Critical models: some examples

The Duarte model: U consists of the 2-subsets of N, where

N = S(U)

∞ ∞ 1 ∞ ∞

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-154
SLIDE 154

Critical models: some examples

The Duarte model: U consists of the 2-subsets of N, where

N = S(U)

∞ ∞ 1 ∞ ∞

This update family is unbalanced, and α = 1.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-155
SLIDE 155

The threshold for critical models

With Bollob´ as, Duminil-Copin and Smith, we proved the following much more precise bounds for critical update families:

Theorem (Bollob´ as, Duminil-Copin, M. and Smith, 2017+)

Let U be a critical two-dimensional update family. If U is balanced then pc

Z2

n, U

= Θ

  • 1

log n

1/α

. If U is unbalanced then pc

Z2

n, U

= Θ (log log n)2

log n

1/α

.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-156
SLIDE 156

Another application to kinetically constrained spin models

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-157
SLIDE 157

Another application to kinetically constrained spin models

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of “empty” sites.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-158
SLIDE 158

Another application to kinetically constrained spin models

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of “empty” sites. Now, suppose that a site x updates randomly when its clock rings if the set x + X is entirely empty for some X ∈ U

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-159
SLIDE 159

Another application to kinetically constrained spin models

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of “empty” sites. Now, suppose that a site x updates randomly when its clock rings if the set x + X is entirely empty for some X ∈ U, and define τ

Z2, U := inf t > 0 : the origin changes state .

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-160
SLIDE 160

Another application to kinetically constrained spin models

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of “empty” sites. Now, suppose that a site x updates randomly when its clock rings if the set x + X is entirely empty for some X ∈ U, and define τ

Z2, U := inf t > 0 : the origin changes state .

We say that a critical update family U with difficulty α is rooted if there exist two non-opposite directions, each of difficulty strictly greater than α.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-161
SLIDE 161

Another application to kinetically constrained spin models

Recall that the states of sites at time zero are chosen independently at random, with density p of “empty” sites. Now, suppose that a site x updates randomly when its clock rings if the set x + X is entirely empty for some X ∈ U, and define τ

Z2, U := inf t > 0 : the origin changes state .

We say that a critical update family U with difficulty α is rooted if there exist two non-opposite directions, each of difficulty strictly greater than α.

Theorem (Martinelli, M. and Toninelli, 2017+)

For every critical unrooted update family U, τ

Z2, U = exp

  • p−α log(1/p)

O(1)

with high probability as p → 0.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-162
SLIDE 162

Another application to kinetically constrained spin models

We say that a critical update family U with difficulty α is rooted if there exist two non-opposite directions, each of difficulty strictly greater than α.

Theorem (Martinelli, M. and Toninelli, 2017+)

For every critical unrooted update family U, τ

Z2, U = exp

  • p−α log(1/p)

O(1)

with high probability as p → 0.

Conjecture (Martinelli, M. and Toninelli, 2017+)

For every critical rooted update family U, there exists β > α such that τ

Z2, U = exp

  • p−β log(1/p)

O(1)

with high probability as p → 0.

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-163
SLIDE 163

Thank you!

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017

slide-164
SLIDE 164

Universality for higher dimensions

Theorem (Balister–Bollob´ as–M.–Smith, 2017+)

Let U be a d-dimensional update family. (a) If U is supercritical then pc(Zd

n, U) = n−Θ(1),

(b) If U is critical then there exists r = r(U) ∈ {2, . . . , d} such that pc(Zd

n, U) =

  • 1

log(r−1) n

Θ(1)

, (c) If U is subcritical then pc(Zd, U) > 0. When r < d, the constant in the power is in general uncomputable (!!)

Robert Morris Monotone cellular automata May 26, 2017