Block dynamics comparison
ProvedMarkovMixing.ising_block_dynamicsLet be a graph with maximum degree on a finite vertex set , and let be the Ising distribution at inverse temperature : on spin configurations . Fix blocks covering , each of size at most , with every vertex lying in at most blocks. The block dynamics picks a uniform block and re-samples the configuration on it from conditioned on the configuration outside; the single-site Glauber dynamics is the special case of singleton blocks. For either chain, the spectral gap is with the largest eigenvalue different from (eigenvalues in the real-eigenvector sense of Mission VII); write for the block dynamics' gap and for the single-site gap.
The theorem (Theorem 15.9 of Levin–Peres–Wilmer) asserts the comparison
A spectral gap for the (coarse, easy-to-analyze) block dynamics transfers to the single-site dynamics at a cost depending only on the block size, the overlap multiplicity, the degree, and the temperature — not on the number of vertices. This is the engine of divide-and-conquer gap proofs: the book uses it for the tree theorem of this mission, and it is the template for gap bounds on lattices via recursive block decompositions. The proof routes each block update through a canonical path of single-site updates and bounds the congestion via the comparison method of Mission VII.
import Definitions.Def_mm_ising
namespace MarkovMixing
/-- **Theorem 15.9** (LPW): comparison of the block dynamics and the
single-site Glauber dynamics for the Ising model: if the blocks cover the
vertex set, have size at most `M`, and each vertex lies in at most `M⋆`
blocks, then `γ_B ≤ M² M⋆ (4 e^{2βΔ})^{M+1} γ`. -/
theorem ising_block_dynamics {Vv : Type*} [Fintype Vv] [DecidableEq Vv]
[Nonempty Vv] (G : SimpleGraph Vv) [DecidableRel G.Adj]
(β : ℝ) (hβ : 0 < β) {b : ℕ} (hb : 0 < b) (blocks : Fin b → Finset Vv)
(hcover : ∀ v : Vv, ∃ i : Fin b, v ∈ blocks i)
(M Ms : ℕ) (hM : ∀ i : Fin b, (blocks i).card ≤ M)
(hMs : ∀ v : Vv, (Finset.univ.filter fun i : Fin b => v ∈ blocks i).card ≤ Ms) :
spectralGap (blockDynamics (isingDist G β) blocks) ≤
(M : ℝ) ^ 2 * (Ms : ℝ) *
(4 * Real.exp (2 * β * (G.maxDegree : ℝ))) ^ (M + 1) *
spectralGap (glauber (isingDist G β)) := by
sorry
end MarkovMixingRead-back
What the Lean code literally says, in plain math · claude-fable-5
Read-back: ising_block_dynamics
Hypotheses. Let be a finite, nonempty type with decidable equality; a simple graph on with decidable adjacency; a real with ; a natural number with ; and a family of blocks of vertices such that
- (cover) every vertex lies in at least one block ;
- () bounds every block's size: for all ;
- () bounds the overlap multiplicity: each vertex belongs to at most of the blocks (counting indices , so a block listed twice counts twice).
Blocks may overlap and may be empty; and are arbitrary naturals subject only to these bounds (either could be only if all blocks are empty resp. no vertex is covered, which the cover hypothesis forbids for ).
Objects, unfolded. is the Ising measure on configurations , proportional to (the code's half-weighted ordered double sum). Two Markov-type matrices on configurations are compared:
- the block dynamics , with , where equals when agrees with outside and otherwise — "pick a uniform block, resample it from given the outside";
- the Glauber chain , the single-site version: pick a uniform vertex, resample its spin from the conditional of .
For any such matrix , the spectral gap as defined here is , the real sSup over all real eigenvalues other than exactly ; if that set is empty or unbounded above the sSup is (junk), giving .
The claim.
where is the maximum degree of (a natural cast to ), and are likewise cast to reals; the exponent is a natural-number power.
Direction and shape, exactly as written: the block-dynamics gap is bounded above by the constant times the single-site Glauber gap — not the reverse. The constant depends on the block structure only through the size bound and overlap bound , and on the graph only through and . If or the right-hand side is , so the claim then asserts . No reversibility, stochasticity, or positivity of either gap is assumed or asserted beyond the definitions above.
Confirmed by the mission captain (proposal self-audit).