WorksMathematics
An analytic lower bound for the cubic-lattice dimer constant
- OpenAI GPT-5.6-sol
- OpenAI GPT-6 Astra
- Anthropic Claude Fable 5
- Anthropic Claude Fable 5.1
Abstract
We prove that the close-packed dimer entropy per site of the simple cubic lattice satisfies This exceeds the previous best published lower bound, obtained by Csikvári of . The proof uses finite matching inequalities and elementary integration, without numerical quadrature or a computational certificate.
Introduction and result
For an even positive integer , let be the graph with vertex set , where two vertices are adjacent precisely when they differ by one in one coordinate and agree in the other two. A matching is a set of edges with no shared vertices; it is perfect if every vertex belongs to one of those edges. A perfect matching describes a close-packed dimer covering: each edge represents a dimer covering its two endpoint sites. Write for the number of perfect matchings of a finite graph . The close-packed dimer entropy per site of the simple cubic lattice, also called the cubic-lattice dimer constant, is
For even , let be the periodic counterpart of : it has the same vertices and edges, together with the edges between vertices that agree in two coordinates and have and in the third. All logarithms are natural, and entropy is normalized per vertex. Existence of the limit (1) and its equality with the periodic limit follow from Friedland and Peled [4 Theorem 4.1 and (4.7)], using Hammersley’s density-limit theorem [5].
Known bounds and approximations
Every vertex of has six neighbors, and the parity of the sum of its coordinates divides the vertices into two classes with every edge joining different classes. Schrijver’s theorem [1] states that every -regular bipartite graph on vertices, for , has at least perfect matchings. Applied to with and , and combined with the Friedland–Peled equality of free-box and periodic limits stated above, it gives the lower bound
Csikvári [2 Remark 3.4] improves this to . For comparison, a tensor-network calculation of Vanderstraeten, Vanhecke and Verstraete [6] estimates as 0.44988452, while He’s computer-assisted theorem [7] proves . The tensor-network value is a numerical estimate without rigorous error control; Csikvári’s bound, He’s bound and our Theorem 1.1 below are proved inequalities.
Theorem 1.1. For the limit in (1),
The gain over Csikvári’s displayed bound is exactly 37/10000. The proof follows Csikvári’s entropy-gap framework [2 Theorem 1.4]: a finite Heilmann–Lieb identity [2, 3] represents the relevant defect as a sum of nonnegative path terms, which controls the derivative of the entropy gap. Our new ingredient is a reflection bound, uniform in the dimer activity, for the probability that two opposite edges of a coordinate unit square are simultaneously occupied. It gives a sharper lower bound for the four-cycle terms in the path sum. Reflection methods for dimer systems have established precedents; see, for example, Starr and Williams [8]. We give the needed argument directly. Retaining a quadratic term in the elementary logarithm estimate gives an integrable gain over ; the final comparison with 47/10000 is a rational identity.
Finite matching inequalities
Fix an even integer , and put and , with coordinates interpreted modulo . As observed in the introduction, is six-regular and bipartite. Pairing consecutive vertices in the first coordinate gives a perfect matching.
For any finite graph and , define
Here is the number of edges in , and uncovered vertices are called monomers. This is the monomer–dimer partition function of [2, 3]. The parameter is known as the dimer activity. It specifies the probability on matchings of . Write for expectation with respect to this probability. For a vertex set , means the induced graph after deleting ; we also write for . Set
Translations, coordinate permutations and coordinate sign changes make all vertices equivalent and all edges equivalent. Conditioning on preserves these symmetries. A matching of size covers exactly of the vertices and occupies exactly of the edges. Hence, for any vertex , any edge , and ,
The law of total probability therefore gives
Fix an edge . Removing from a matching containing it gives a matching of ; conversely, every matching of extends uniquely by adding . Adding this edge multiplies the weight by , so the total weight of matchings containing is . A matching leaves uncovered precisely when it uses no edge incident to . Such matchings are exactly those of , with their weights unchanged, so their total weight is . Applying the same argument to and dividing by gives
for every edge . The common argument is suppressed in partition functions when no confusion is possible. At finite positive , and .
Let be two distinct coordinate unit vectors and . A coordinate plaquette is the four-vertex cycle with vertices, in cyclic order,
where coordinates are interpreted modulo . Its two pairs of opposite edges are
Define , the probability that both edges of the first pair are occupied. For either or , removing the two edges of from a matching containing them leaves a matching of , where denotes the graph obtained by deleting all four vertices of . Conversely, adding to any matching of yields a unique matching containing that pair, with weight . Therefore
In particular, both pairs have the same probability , and
The two pair events are mutually exclusive, so the probability that either pair is occupied is . Translations, coordinate permutations and coordinate sign changes carry any coordinate plaquette to any other while preserving matching weights. Hence is independent of the plaquette chosen.
The preceding definitions and identities are standard in the monomer–dimer literature. Our first new ingredient is the following quantitative inequality for the joint occupancy of opposite plaquette edges.
Lemma 2.1. For every ,
Proof. We split the torus along two cuts into halves exchanged by a reflection. Once the occupied crossing edges are fixed, the remaining matchings in the two halves are independent and have identical distributions after reflection. This lets us compare the occupancy probabilities of an edge and its reflected copy using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality.
By the symmetry noted after (5), we may take to be the plaquette with , and , so that , , and . Put and ; these are the two edges of , and they lie in the layers and respectively. The two edges and of join these layers. Reflect vertices by modulo ; this is an automorphism of with .
Let be the set of vertices whose coordinate lies in ; then consists of the vertices with , and , partition the vertex set. The edge lies inside and inside . Let be the set of edges with one endpoint in and the other in . These are exactly the -direction edges across the two cuts of the layer cycle, between layers and between layers . Each edge of joins a vertex to its reflection, so fixes every edge of ; the edges of are pairwise vertex-disjoint because ; and are the only edges of at the endpoints of . Every other edge of lies inside or inside . Write for the subgraph induced by ; then maps isomorphically onto .
Condition on , the set of occupied crossing edges. Let and denote the endpoints of in the two halves. Given , the rest of consists of a matching of and a matching of ; conversely, every such pair of matchings together with is a matching of . Since fixes and maps isomorphically onto , both residual graphs have the same partition function, which we call . Therefore
and, given , the two residual matchings are independent, each distributed with weights on its residual graph. Let be the conditional probability, given , that is occupied; by the same isomorphism, is also the conditional probability that is occupied. If covers an endpoint of , then . Conditional independence gives
Let be the set of containing neither nor ; these are exactly the covering no endpoint of . Each of is occupied with probability , and both are occupied with probability , so inclusion–exclusion gives . Since for , the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality gives
and squaring yields (6).
Put and . Here is the dimer activity and is the mean fraction of covered vertices. The quantity measures departure from the relation , which holds on the infinite six-regular tree—the connected graph with no cycles and six neighbors at every vertex [2 Proposition 6.5]. The path identity (8) below, the edge-transitive specialization of [2 Proposition 2.5(c)], expresses this departure through nonnegative contributions from cycles. The following lemma retains four plaquette terms of that sum and bounds them through the plaquette probability . In Section 3 the resulting lower bound improves the entropy lower bound.
Lemma 2.2. For every ,
Proof. For adjacent , let denote a simple path, that is, a path with no repeated vertex. Its vertex set is , and counts vertices, not edges. The finite Heilmann–Lieb identity, in the bipartite form of [2 Lemma 2.4(c)], states that
All terms have the displayed positive sign because a path between the two parity classes has an odd number of edges. Multiply by and subtract the term for the single-edge path . By (4),
The edge belongs to four coordinate plaquettes: two choices of the other coordinate and two choices of its sign; since , these four plaquettes are distinct. Going around each plaquette gives a distinct three-edge path, whose vertex set is the plaquette and whose contribution is by (5). Retaining these four terms and dropping all other paths, which contribute nonnegative terms (for these include the straight three-edge path around the torus), proves the lower inequality. The upper inequality follows from and .
Solving (6) as a quadratic inequality in gives , where
We use the polynomial lower bound below to make the final integration elementary. The coefficient is a convenient rational choice: the bound holds throughout the required density interval, and its integrated gain exceeds 47/10000.
Lemma 2.3. For every , let . Then
Proof. For , the function is strictly increasing on . Writing , direct expansion gives
Since
convexity puts below its negative endpoint chord. Consequently for , by (6), so . In particular, since , we have .
Entropy integration and proof of the theorem
The finite-volume entropy identity turns the estimate from Lemma 2.2 into an integrable gain over . For a random variable , write . Differentiating gives , so the density in (3) obeys
The variance is strictly positive because the matching with no edges and any one-edge matching both have positive probability, so is not constant.
The constant term of is 1, and its highest-degree term is . Consequently, the density identity (3) gives as and as .
Thus is a strictly increasing bijection from onto ; let be its inverse, which is continuously differentiable on . Following Csikvári [2, Sections 2–3], we define
Here is the matching entropy per vertex of that infinite tree at covered-vertex density [2 Section 3]. Thus compares the entropy on the periodic cubic graph with this tree benchmark. The bound turns the plaquette occupancy estimate into a lower bound on the derivative of this entropy gap. Use continuous endpoint values for products . For , the matching probabilities satisfy . Averaging this identity and using gives
Thus is the entropy of the matching distribution, normalized per vertex. As , the distribution concentrates on the single empty matching, whose entropy is zero. As , it becomes uniform on the perfect matchings, since all have the same weight ; this distribution has entropy . Together with and , these continuous endpoint values give
For , differentiating (10) by the chain rule yields
The bracket vanishes by the density identity (3), leaving . Direct differentiation of (11) gives
Subtracting these derivatives therefore gives
The last equality uses and , with evaluated at . By Lemma 2.2, lies in . The inequality for follows by integrating over . Applying it in (13) and then using Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3 gives
Csikvári uses the linear estimate ; here we retain the additional quadratic term. The first contribution in (14) uses and ; the second uses and . The function is continuous on with the endpoint values (12) and continuously differentiable on . Integrating (14) over , letting , and substituting gives
To evaluate , expand and use
Substitution in (15) gives
Integrating the geometric series for from to gives, for real ,
At , the first four positive terms give the strict bound
Substituting this bound into (16) gives
For orientation, , exceeding by approximately . These decimal values illustrate the margin; the strict comparison is proved by the rational bound in (17).
Proof of Theorem 1.1. Equations (15)–(17) give the same lower bound on every even periodic cubic graph , . Friedland–Peled [4 Theorem 4.1 and (4.7)] identify the periodic perfect-matching entropy with the free-box limit whenever the volume is even and every side tends to infinity. Our boxes have three even sides , and their free and periodic matchings are exactly the dimer tilings in that theorem. Hence
This proves (2).
Acknowledgments
The proof of this lower bound was carried out by GPT-5.6-sol, GPT-6 Astra, Claude Fable 5, and Claude Fable 5.1, under the guidance of the author. The author has reviewed the resulting proof arguments. Responsibility for the final text rests with the author.
References
- [1]A. Schrijver, “Counting 1-factors in regular bipartite graphs,” Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B 72 (1998), 122–135. doi:10.1006/jctb.1997.1798.DOI
- [2]P. O. Csikvári, “Matchings in vertex-transitive bipartite graphs,” Israel Journal of Mathematics 215 (2016), 99–134. doi:10.1007/s11856-016-1375-9. The cited numbering refers to the author’s V5 version, dated 31 March 2015.DOI
- [3]O. J. Heilmann and E. H. Lieb, “Theory of monomer-dimer systems,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 25 (1972), 190–232. doi:10.1007/BF01877590.DOI
- [4]S. Friedland and U. N. Peled, “Theory of computation of multidimensional entropy with an application to the monomer-dimer problem,” Advances in Applied Mathematics 34 (2005), 486–522. doi:10.1016/j.aam.2004.08.005. The cited numbering refers to arXiv:math/0402009v1 (2004).DOI
- [5]J. M. Hammersley, “Existence theorems and Monte Carlo methods for the monomer-dimer problem,” in Research Papers in Statistics: Festschrift for J. Neyman, Wiley, 1966, 125–146.
- [6]L. Vanderstraeten, B. Vanhecke and F. Verstraete, “Residual entropies for three-dimensional frustrated spin systems with tensor networks,” Physical Review E 98 (2018), 024145. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.98.042145.DOI
- [7]Q. He, “A new upper bound on the dimer constant of ℤ³,” arXiv:2607.28810v2 (2026).arxiv.org/abs/2607.28810
- [8]S. Starr and S. Williams, “Rough bounds for emptiness formation probability in the 2d dimer model using reflection positivity,” arXiv:1810.08846 (2018).arxiv.org/abs/1810.08846