Mathematical Research Letters 8, 729–744 (2001)
CRITICAL EXPONENTS FOR TWO-DIMENSIONAL PERCOLATION
Stanislav Smirnov and Wendelin Werner
Abstract. We show how to combine Kesten’s scaling relations, the determination of critical exponents associated to the stochastic Loewner evolution process by Lawler, Schramm, and Werner, and Smirnov’s proof of Cardy’s formula, in order to determine the existence and value of critical exponents associated to percolation on the triangular lattice.
1. Introduction The goal of the present note is to review and clarify the consequences of recent papers and preprints concerning the existence and values of critical exponents for site percolation on the triangular lattice. Suppose that p ∈ (0, 1) is fixed. Each vertex of the triangular lattice (or equivalently each hexagon in the honeycomb lattice) is open (or colored blue) with probability p and closed (or colored yellow) with probability 1 − p, inde- pendently of each other. It is now well-known (and due to Kesten and Wierman, see the textbooks [12, 10]) that when p ≤ 1/2, there is almost surely no infinite cluster of open vertices, while if p>1/2, there is a.s. a unique such infinite clus- ter and the probability θ(p) that the origin belongs to this infinite cluster is then positive. Arguments from theoretical physics predicted that when p approaches the critical value 1/2 fromabove, θ(p) behaves roughly like (p − 1/2)5/36. This number 5/36 is one of several critical exponents that are supposed to be inde- pendent of the considered planar lattice and that are describing the behaviour of percolation near its critical point p = pc (pc =1/2 for this particular model). Our goal in the present paper is to point out that this result, as well as other related statements, is a consequence of the combination of various papers: • In [13], Kesten has shown that in order to understand the behaviour of percolation near its critical point (and in particular existence and values of certain critical exponents), it is sufficient to study what happens at the critical point i.e. here when p = pc =1/2. In particular, many results would follow fromthe existence and the values of the exponents describing the decay when R goes to infinity of the probabilities (at p =1/2) of the 1 2 events AR and AR that if we restrict the percolation to the disc of radius R, there exist one (respectively two disjoint) blue clusters joining the vicinity
Received September 20, 2001. 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 60K35, 82B27, 82B43.
729 730 STANISLAV SMIRNOV AND WENDELIN WERNER
of the origin (say that are at distance less than two of the origin) to the circle of radius R. • In [28], Schramm defined a family of random evolution processes based on Loewner’s equation, and pointed out that one of them(the stochastic Loewner evolution process with parameter 6, referred to as SLE6 in the sequel) is the only possible conformally invariant scaling limit of discrete critical percolation cluster interfaces. In a series of papers [15, 16, 17, 21], Lawler, Schramm, and Werner have derived various properties of SLE6 (relation between radial and chordal processes, locality property etc), com- puted critical exponents associated to SLE6, and then used these expo- nents to determine the value of Brownian exponents (for instance, the Hausdorff dimension of the planar Brownian frontier is a.s. 4/3). • In [30, 31], Smirnov proved that indeed, critical site percolation on the triangular lattice has a conformally invariant scaling limit when the mesh of the lattice tends to zero, and in particular, that the discrete cluster interfaces converge to this stochastic Loewner evolution process. In the present paper, we will outline how one can combine all these results to show that the critical exponents for discrete site percolation on the triangular lattice are those predicted in the physics literature. All the results that we prove in the present paper have been conjectured (on the basis of numerics and heuristics) and predicted (using Coulomb Gas methods, Conformal Field Theory, or QuantumGravity) by physicists. See e.g., Den Nijs [8], Nienhuis et al. [22, 23], Pearson [24], Cardy [5], Sapoval-Rosso-Gouyet [27], Grossman-Aharony [11], Duplantier-Saleur [26], Cardy [6], Duplantier [9], Aizenman-Duplantier- Aharony [2] and the references in these papers. There exists a vast theoretical physics literature on this subject and we do not claimthat this list covers all important contributions to it.
Note the description of the scaling limit via SLE6 enables also to derive some results that have not appeared in the physics literature. For instance, an analogue of Cardy’s formula “in the bulk” [29], or a description of the so-called backbone exponent [21].
2. Kesten’s scaling relations Let us now introduce some notation. Denote by N the cardinality of the cluster C containing the origin. Recall that
θ(p)=Pp[N = ∞] where Pp, Ep corresponds to site percolation on the triangular lattice with pa- rameter p. Let
χ(p)=Ep[N 1N<∞]. CRITICAL EXPONENTS FOR TWO-DIMENSIONAL PERCOLATION 731
This corresponds to the average cardinality of finite clusters. Let 2 1/2 Ep[ ∈ |y| 1N<∞] ξ(p)= y C . χ(p) This is the so-called correlation length corresponding to the “typical radius” of a finite cluster. Other definitions of correlation length are possible, see e.g., [10, 13, 7]; for instance, define ξ∗(p) by the relation P[0 is connected to x by a finite cluster] = exp{−x/ξ∗(p)+o(x)} when x → +∞. If x tends to infinity along some fixed direction, existence of ξ∗ (dependent on the chosen direction) easily follows. So to make the definition rigorous, one can assume for instance that x ∈ R. On the other hand, the proof shows that the ∗ asymptotic behaviour of ξ (p) in the neighbourhood of pc =1/2 is independent of the chosen direction (i.e., (iv) holds for all given directions). Theorem 1 (Behaviour near the critical point).
• (i) When p → 1/2+, θ(p)=(p − 1/2)5/36+o(1). • (ii) When p → 1/2 χ(p)=(p − 1/2)−43/18+o(1). • (iii) When p → 1/2, ξ(p)=(p − 1/2)−4/3+o(1). • (iv) When p → 1/2, ξ∗(p)=(p − 1/2)−4/3+o(1). It has been shown by Kesten in [13] (using also the remark following Lemma 8 in [13]; it can be shown that (iv) holds once (iii) holds, using the estimates in [13], see also section 3 in [7]) that all these results hold provided that: When p =1/2 and R →∞,
1 −5/48+o(1) (1) P[AR]=R and
2 −5/4+o(1) (2) P[AR]=R . The relations between these two critical exponents and those appearing in Theorem 1 are sometimes known as scaling relations. Relation (1) is proved in [21], combining the computation of an exponent for SLE6 with the results of [30, 31]. In the rest of this paper, we fix p =1/2 and we shall see how (2) and other closely related results (we will also briefly discuss (1)) follow fromthe combinationof [30, 31] with [15, 16, 17, 21]. Independently, 732 STANISLAV SMIRNOV AND WENDELIN WERNER
Yu Zhang [33] has recently anounced a proof of (2) and of (iii) in the above Theorem, probably using similar thoughts and arguments as those that we shall present here.
3. Half-plane exponents In this section, we are going to study the decay when R →∞, of the proba- bility of the events that there exist j disjoint blue paths that stay in the upper half-plane, start at the vicinity of the origin, and reach distance R. Besides be- ing of independent interest, this section serves as a model for the determination of exponents in the plane. To be more precise, consider critical percolation with fixed mesh equal to 1, and consider the event Gj(r, R) that there exists j disjoint blue crossings of the semi-annulus A+(r, R):={z : r<|z|
• Identification between SLE6 and continuumpercolation impliesthat ex- ponents for continuumpercolation are equal to the exponents for SLE6, computed in [15]. This can be written in terms of discrete percolation: CRITICAL EXPONENTS FOR TWO-DIMENSIONAL PERCOLATION 733
−j(j+1)/6+o(1) (3) lim aj(ρ, Rρ)=R when R →∞. ρ→∞ • Crossing probabilities enjoy the following (approximate) multiplicativity property with some positive c = const(j), provided r ≥ r ≥ r>j(cf. [13, 14]):
(4) aj(r, r ) aj(r ,r ) ≥ aj(r, r ) ≥ caj(r, r ) aj(r ,r ).
In fact, as aj(r, R) is decreasing in R, to establish Theorem3 it is sufficient to show that for any fixed , there exists K>1 such that for sufficiently large n,
n −j(j+1)/6− n n −j(j+1)/6+ (5) (K ) ≤ aj(r, rK ) ≤ (K ) . To prove (5), we use (3) and choose large enough K so that
−1 −j(j+1)/6−/2 −j(j+1)/6+/2 c K ≤ aj(ρ, ρK) ≤ K , for sufficiently large ρ. Together with (4) this implies