Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 82 references

A phase transition for the hard sphere model on the hyperbolic plane

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The hard-sphere model on the hyperbolic plane has a phase transition for an unbounded open set of radii.

desk verdict First continuum hard-sphere phase transition, proved cleanly on H² by separating near-optimal lattice Gibbs states from weak-Poisson ones via annealed entropy. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23873 v1 pith:PJTUJ6LE submitted 2026-07-26 math-ph math.DSmath.MPmath.PR

Lewis Bowen , Marcus Michelen , Will Perkins This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.DSmath.MPmath.PR MSC 82B2682B2152C1737A3560G55
keywords hardspheremodelphasetransitionhyperbolicplaneGibbsmeasurespackingPoissonfactorsannealedentropyGlauberdynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

For more than a century the hard-sphere model—equal non-overlapping balls whose only interaction is exclusion—has been expected to freeze or break symmetry in the Euclidean plane and in three-space, yet a mathematical proof of any phase transition there remains open. This paper proves that the same model on the hyperbolic plane does undergo a phase transition: for every radius belonging to an unbounded open set (including all sufficiently large radii), there is a finite activity threshold above which at least two distinct infinite-volume Gibbs measures exist. The argument constructs one Gibbs measure of near-optimal packing density from lattice packings and another of strictly lower density as a weak limit of Poisson factors obtained from Glauber dynamics; annealed entropy then shows that the unique densest lattice packing cannot itself be a weak Poisson factor, forcing the two measures apart. The result supplies the first rigorous confirmation of a hard-sphere phase transition in any constant-curvature geometry of dimension greater than one.

What carries the argument

The density gap D_Pois(H²,r) < D_opt(H²,r) at the tight radii and nearby: lattice optimizers have annealed entropy −∞ while every weak Poisson factor has non-negative annealed entropy, so the high-density Gibbs measure built from lattices cannot coincide with the low-density Gibbs measure built from Glauber dynamics.

What would settle it

Exhibit, at one of the tight radii r_n, either a second isometry-invariant packing measure of the same optimal density or a weak Poisson factor that achieves that density; either would collapse the separation used to produce two Gibbs measures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

There exists an unbounded open set R₂ of radii such that, for every r in R₂, the hard-sphere model on the hyperbolic plane admits at least two distinct isometry-invariant Gibbs measures once the activity is large enough; in particular R₂ contains an interval (ρ, ∞).

Load-bearing premise

At a countable set of special radii the unique densest packing measure is a periodic lattice packing; if that uniqueness or periodicity failed, the density-gap argument would not start.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every radius in the open set R₂ the activity threshold λ_u(H²,r) is finite, so uniqueness fails at large chemical potential.
  • There exist completely saturated packings of strictly sub-optimal density in the hyperbolic plane.
  • Density of invariant hard-sphere measures is not a function of activity alone once activity is large.
  • The same density-gap strategy yields a phase transition for all sufficiently large radii, including the horoball (infinite-radius) limit.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the unique-optimizer property can be established for horoball packings in H³, the same argument would give a phase transition in three-dimensional hyperbolic space for large radii.
  • The gap between Poisson-factor density and optimal density quantifies how much “randomness” costs in non-amenable geometry and may bound the performance of local packing algorithms on random hyperbolic surfaces.
  • Failure of the Euclidean analogue is consistent with amenability: there the Poisson-factor density can reach the optimum, so the separation step is unavailable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proves the first phase transition for the continuum hard-sphere model in any geometry: on the hyperbolic plane there is an unbounded open set of radii R₂, containing an interval (ρ,∞), such that λ_u(H²,r) < ∞ for r ∈ R₂ (Theorem 2). The proof constructs two isometry-invariant (r,λ)-Gibbs measures of different densities at large λ. §4 (Theorem 25) builds a near-optimally-dense Gibbs measure by lifting high-activity finite-volume models on Benjamini–Schramm-convergent lattice quotients, with volume-independent activity thresholds (Lemma 27). §5 (Theorem 32) builds a Gibbs measure that is a weak Poisson factor by running empty-start spatial birth–death dynamics and driving the GNZ defect to zero via entropy/Fisher-information dissipation on quotients (Lemmas 42–45). §6 (Theorem 47) shows measures supported on lattice orbits are not weak Poisson factors: after reduction to free-group actions, lattice actions have annealed (sofic) entropy −∞ (Proposition 58) while weak Bernoulli factors have h_ann ≥ 0 (Proposition 57). Combined with uniqueness and periodicity of the optimal packing measures at the tight radii {r_n} and at ∞ (Theorems 4, 22), Lemma 59 yields D_Pois < D_opt on an open unbounded set (Theorem 6), hence non-uniqueness; Theorem 8 gives suboptimal completely saturated packings.

Significance. If correct, this is a landmark: the first proof of a phase transition in the hard-sphere model in any dimension or space, a problem open since Boltzmann and unresolved even in R²/R³. The argument is modular and largely self-contained, and it introduces two tools of independent interest: (i) entropy-dissipation control of the GNZ defect for continuum Glauber dynamics in a non-amenable setting, extending Holley–Stroock/Holley/Shriver ideas beyond amenability; (ii) the first use of annealed sofic entropy to separate structured from random-like Gibbs measures in statistical mechanics. The results are concrete and checkable: explicit tight radii with a closed-form optimal density, a corollary (Theorem 8) on completely saturated suboptimal packings that is false in R^d, and well-posed open problems (§8, e.g. Question 65 on random hyperbolic surfaces) that make the approach falsifiable in principle. The reliance on prior packing theory is clearly delineated. I verified the main reductions (§§4–7) in detail and found them sound; the soft spots are localized to imported uniqueness inputs and a definitional reconciliation, both addressable locally.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1, §3.3 (Theorem 22); Lemma 59] Lemma 59 — the linchpin of Theorems 6 and 2 — requires that at the radii used, EVERY invariant optimizer be the periodic measure. For finite tight radii this is Theorem 4, cited to [13] (adequate). But the supporting uniqueness statements in the text rest on weaker citations: §3.1 ('by uniqueness of the packing (see e.g., the remark after Theorem 2.1 [46])') and, critically, Theorem 22 ('This packing uniquely realizes the simplex bound (see, e.g., the remark after Proposition 2.2 in [46])'). The (ρ,∞) clause of Theorem 2 depends entirely on the horoball case, so its uniqueness input should not rest on remarks in [46]. Please state the equality-case rigidity of Böröczky's simplex bound (and its horoball analogue) as a lemma with a proof sketch or a theorem-level citation, and add the one-sentence ergodic-decomposition step from packing-level to measure-level uniqueness (density is affine,
  2. [Definitions 5 vs 16; Lemma 59; Remark 17] The manuscript uses two definitions of Poisson factor: Definition 5 (packings, via Isom-equivariant maps on Ω_T(X), i.e. marked Poisson processes on X×[0,T]) and Definition 16 (G-equivariant factors of a Haar–Poisson process on G). The separation argument silently identifies them: Lemma 59 bounds densities of Def-5 weak Poisson factors, while Theorem 47 (via Theorem 48 and Corollary 54) excludes Def-16 weak Poisson factors. Remark 17 only treats the unmarked case H² = G/K. What is needed is that every Def-5 weak Poisson factor is a Def-16 weak Poisson factor — i.e. that i.i.d. [0,T]-marks can be produced G-equivariantly from a Haar–Poisson process on G (e.g. using the Poisson configuration in the compact K-fibers). This is presumably routine, but as written the key lemma conflates two a priori different classes; please add an explicit reconciliation lemma.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§6.2, Proposition 57] Proposition 57 needs h_ann ≥ 0 for weak Bernoulli factors; the proof cites [48, Theorem 3.2] (completely positive sofic entropy of Bernoulli actions), and footnote 6 acknowledges that only non-negativity is needed but 'a short proof of that does not appear to be in the literature.' Since sofic entropy in [48] is a priori the quenched quantity, one sentence justifying that it yields the annealed statement for free groups (or the short direct argument alluded to) would close a small gap in the citation chain.
  2. [§1.4 vs §5.1] Definition 5 builds marks in [0,T], but the Glauber construction of §5.1 uses a Poisson process on X×R_+×R_+ (birth time and lifetime). A sentence noting that the time-t configuration is a factor of the process restricted to X×[0,t]×R_+ (and thinning the lifetime mark) would align Lemma 36 with Definition 5.
  3. [Definition 1] Definition 1: 'there are at least two distinct (r, λ)-Gibbs measure' → 'measures'. Similar number-agreement slips occur elsewhere (e.g. §1, 'there always exists at least one').
  4. [Throughout] There are recurring typesetting artifacts: missing spaces ('inR 2', 'H d', 'onR d'), 'F act 12/38/39' running into the text, and the sentence break after (11) ('...1{s∈(t,t+ℓ]} andν s ∈M r(X) is the law of ηs'). Please proofread the source.
  5. [References] Reference [43] (Jahnel–Köppl–Steenbeck–Zass) lacks a year and venue/arXiv identifier; please complete it.
  6. [§7, Theorem 8] The proof of Theorem 8 is a sketch relying on [9, Theorem 3.1]; it would help to state explicitly which lemmas of [9] (e.g. the Borel selection in [9, Lemma 4.1]) transfer verbatim to the weak-Poisson-factor setting and which need modification.
  7. [§7, Theorem 2] It may be worth stating in §7 that the argument gives λ_u(H², r) ≤ λ₀(r) with λ₀ from Theorem 25, and that no monotonicity of non-uniqueness in λ is claimed (cf. the discussion after Definition 1), to prevent misreading of the main theorem.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: phase transition is a modular existence proof using independent density constructions and annealed-entropy separation; uniqueness of tight-radius optimizers is imported prior packing theory, not defined in terms of the Gibbs claim.

  1. uniqueness imported from authors [Lemma 59; Theorem 4 citing [13]; §3.1 remark after Thm 2.1 [46]; §3.3 Thm 22 / remark after Prop 2.2 [46]]
    "Suppose there exists a unique optimally dense measure on radius ρ packings and it is periodic. Then D_Pois(H^d, ρ) < D_opt(H^d, ρ). ... By the assumption of uniqueness of the optimally dense packing, we have that µ must be a periodic weak Poisson factor. This contradicts Theorem 47."

    Lemma 59's gap at the tight radii rests on uniqueness+periodicity of the optimizer, imported from Bowen–Radin [13] (overlapping authors) and Kellerhals remarks rather than re-proved here. This is load-bearing for Thm 6 at exactly {r_n}∪{∞}, but it is not circular in the strong sense: uniqueness is a packing-theoretic input whose statement does not mention Gibbs measures, λ_u, or D_Pois, and the paper's new work (GNZ/Glauber construction and annealed-entropy separation) does not redefine or fit that uniqueness.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) §4 lifts finite-volume hard-sphere measures on BS-convergent lattice quotients to isometry-invariant (r,λ)-Gibbs measures of density arbitrarily close to D_opt (Thm 25/Cor 30); (ii) §5 runs empty-start spatial birth-death dynamics, controls GNZ defect via entropy dissipation on quotients, and obtains a weak-Poisson-factor Gibbs measure of density ≤ D_Pois (Thm 32); (iii) §6 shows lattice-supported measures have annealed entropy −∞ while weak Poisson/Bernoulli factors have h_ann ≥ 0, so optimal lattice measures µ_n are not weak Poisson factors (Thm 47); (iv) uniqueness+periodicity of optimizers at {r_n}∪{∞} (Thms 4, 22) plus continuity of D_opt and upper semi-continuity of D_Pois yield an open unbounded set where D_Pois < D_opt (Thm 6), hence distinct Gibbs measures for large λ (Thm 2). Densities D_opt, D_Pois, D_Gibbs are defined independently of one another and of λ_u; the gap is not fitted and not definitional. Self-citations ([10],[13]) and Kellerhals remarks supply packing uniqueness used as a black-box hypothesis of Lemma 59—they do not encode the phase-transition conclusion. This is ordinary dependence on prior theorems, not circular reduction. Score 1 only for the mild pattern that uniqueness is author-overlapping prior work load-bearing for the gap at the exact tight radii; the open-set and entropy arguments remain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The result is a theorem in rigorous statistical mechanics. It rests on standard measure-theoretic and geometric facts plus several deep prior theorems about hyperbolic packings and free-group entropy; no free parameters are fitted. Invented terminology (weak Poisson factor, GNZ defect) is definitional packaging of existing ideas, not new physical entities.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math DLR and GNZ characterizations of continuum Gibbs point processes are equivalent (Georgii; Nguyen–Zessin; modern treatment as in Jansen).
    Used throughout §§2.3 and 5 to identify Gibbs measures.
  • domain assumption At tight radii r_n (n≥7) and for horoballs (r=∞) there is a unique isometry-invariant optimally dense packing measure, and it is periodic (Bowen–Radin; Böröczky simplex bound).
    Theorems 4 and 22; load-bearing for the density gap at those radii (Lemma 59).
  • domain assumption In H², periodic measures are dense in the space of invariant packing measures and D_opt(H²,r)=D_per(H²,r) is continuous in r∈(0,∞] (Bowen).
    Theorems 3 and 24; used to extend the gap from {r_n}∪{∞} to an open unbounded set and to build near-optimal Gibbs measures for all r.
  • standard math Lattices in Isom(H^d) are residually finite, so finite-index subgroups yield BS-convergent quotients (standard; Fact 14).
    Used to lift finite-volume hard-sphere measures to infinite-volume Gibbs measures (Lemma 26).
  • standard math Howe–Moore ergodicity and finite topological/measure-theoretic entropy of lattice translations by free-group elements (Bowen; Handel–Kitchens).
    Proposition 49; needed so that the lattice action is finitely generated with hann=−∞ (Proposition 58).
  • standard math Annealed (sofic) entropy of free-group actions: weak Bernoulli factors have hann≥0; non-atomic finite-entropy actions have hann=−∞ (Bowen f-invariant theory).
    Propositions 57–58; the separation engine of §6.
  • domain assumption Spheres have measure zero and there exist BS-convergent uniform lattice quotients (Assumption 31).
    Standing geometric hypotheses for the Glauber construction in general G/K.
invented entities (2)
  • Weak Poisson factor (and D_Pois) independent evidence
    purpose: Class of invariant packing measures obtainable as equivariant thinnings/limits of Poisson processes; upper-bounds the density of the Glauber-constructed Gibbs measure.
    Definitional packaging of factor-of-IID / Poisson-factor ideas already standard in probability; not a new physical object.
  • GNZ defect Δ_ν(F) independent evidence
    purpose: Quantitative failure of the Georgii–Nguyen–Zessin equations, driven to zero along a subsequence of Glauber times.
    Bookkeeping device built from the classical GNZ identity; no independent ontology.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A phase transition for the hard sphere model on the hyperbolic plane." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PJTUJ6LE

@misc{pith2026260723873,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A phase transition for the hard sphere model on the hyperbolic plane},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PJTUJ6LE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23873}
}
abstract

The hard sphere model is a classical model from statistical physics in which particles are represented by equal-sized spheres. Longstanding predictions from the physics literature indicate that in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and $\mathbb{R}^3$ the system undergoes a phase transition, but it remains a major open problem to confirm this. We prove the existence of a phase transition for this model in the hyperbolic plane.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23873 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The optimal packings at radii r7, r8 and r25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The optimal horoball packing We give further details below in Section 3.1. We also have an analogue of Theorem 4 for horoball packings, i.e. packings with r = +∞; see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A sample from spatial birth-death Glauber dynamics with radius r7, activity λ = 10000 and T = 40. Spatial birth-death dynamics for the hard sphere model—and Gibbs point processes more generally— are well-studied from various different perspectives, beginning with the foundational works of Hol￾ley and Stroock [42] which constructed nearest-neighbor birth and death processes on the real line, taking inspiration from S… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [13]

    Bowen and C

    L. Bowen and C. Radin. Densest packing of equal spheres in hyperbolic space.Discrete & Computational Ge- ometry, 29:23–39, 2002

    2002

  2. [46]

    Kellerhals

    R. Kellerhals. Ball packings in spaces of constant curvature and the simplicial density function. volume 494, pages 189–203. 1998. Dedicated to Martin Kneser on the occasion of his 70th birthday

    1998

  3. [1]

    Abert, N

    M. Abert, N. Bergeron, I. Biringer, T. Gelander, N. Nikolov, J. Raimbault, and I. Samet. On the growth of L2-invariants for sequences of lattices in Lie groups.Ann. of Math. (2), 185(3):711–790, 2017

    2017

  4. [2]

    Ab´ ert and I

    M. Ab´ ert and I. Biringer. Unimodular measures on the space of all Riemannian manifolds.Geom. Topol., 26(5):2295–2404, 2022

    2022

  5. [3]

    B. J. Alder and T. E. Wainwright. Phase transition for a hard sphere system.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 27(5):1208–1209, 1957

    1957

  6. [4]

    Anari, K

    N. Anari, K. Liu, and S. O. Gharan. Spectral independence in high-dimensional expanders and applications to the hardcore model.SIAM Journal on Computing, (0):FOCS20–1, 2021

    2021

  7. [5]

    Beer.Topologies on closed and closed convex sets, volume 268 ofMathematics and its Applications

    G. Beer.Topologies on closed and closed convex sets, volume 268 ofMathematics and its Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Dordrecht, 1993

    1993

  8. [6]

    M. B. Bekka and M. Mayer.Ergodic theory and topological dynamics of group actions on homogeneous spaces, volume 269 ofLondon Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000

    2000

Show all 82 references
  1. [7]

    E. P. Bernard and W. Krauth. Two-step melting in two dimensions: First-order liquid-hexatic transition.Physical Review Letters, 107(15):155704, 2011

    2011

  2. [8]

    B¨ or¨ oczky

    K. B¨ or¨ oczky. Packing of spheres in spaces of constant curvature.Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar., 32(3-4):243–261, 1978

    1978

  3. [9]

    L. Bowen. On the existence of completely saturated packings and completely reduced coverings.Geometriae Dedicata, 98:211–226, 2003

    2003

  4. [10]

    L. Bowen. Periodicity and circle packings of the hyperbolic plane.Geom. Dedicata, 102:213–236, 2003

    2003

  5. [11]

    L. Bowen. The ergodic theory of free group actions: entropy and thef-invariant.Groups Geom. Dyn., 4(3):419– 432, 2010

    2010

  6. [12]

    L. Bowen. Non-abelian free group actions: Markov processes, the Abramov-Rohlin formula and Yuzvinskii’s formula.Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 30(6):1629–1663, 2010

    2010

  7. [14]

    Bowen and R

    L. Bowen and R. D. Tucker-Drob. On a co-induction question of Kechris.Israel J. Math., 194(1):209–224, 2013

    2013

  8. [15]

    L. P. Bowen. A measure-conjugacy invariant for free group actions.Ann. of Math. (2), 171(2):1387–1400, 2010. 40 LEWIS BOWEN, MARCUS MICHELEN, AND WILL PERKINS

    2010

  9. [16]

    R. Bowen. Entropy for group endomorphisms and homogeneous spaces.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 153:401–414, 1971

    1971

  10. [17]

    G. R. Brightwell, O. H¨ aggstr¨ om, and P. Winkler. Nonmonotonic behavior in hard-core and Widom–Rowlinson models.Journal of statistical physics, 94(3):415–435, 1999

    1999

  11. [18]

    Campos, M

    M. Campos, M. Jenssen, M. Michelen, and J. Sahasrabudhe. A new lower bound for sphere packing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10026, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Charbonneau, P

    P. Charbonneau, P. K. Morse, W. Perkins, and F. Zamponi. Three simple scenarios for high-dimensional sphere packings.Physical Review E, 104(6):064612, 2021

    2021

  13. [20]

    H. Cohn. A conceptual breakthrough in sphere packing.Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 64(2):102– 115, 2017

    2017

  14. [21]

    H. Cohn, A. Kumar, S. D. Miller, D. Radchenko, and M. Viazovska. The sphere packing problem in dimension 24.Ann. of Math. (2), 185:1017–1033, 2017

    2017

  15. [22]

    J. H. Conway and N. J. A. Sloane.Sphere packings, lattices and groups, volume 290. Springer, third edition, 1999

    1999

  16. [23]

    Dobruschin

    P. Dobruschin. The description of a random field by means of conditional probabilities and conditions of its regularity.Theory of Probability & Its Applications, 13(2):197–224, 1968

    1968

  17. [24]

    R. L. Dobrushin. The problem of uniqueness of a Gibbsian random field and the problem of phase transitions. Functional Analysis and its Applications, 2(4):302–312, 1968

    1968

  18. [25]

    Fejes T´ oth, G

    G. Fejes T´ oth, G. Kuperberg, and W. Kuperberg. Highly saturated packings and reduced coverings.Monatsh. Math., 125(2):127–145, 1998

    1998

  19. [26]

    Fejes T´ oth.Regular figures

    L. Fejes T´ oth.Regular figures. A Pergamon Press Book. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1964

    1964

  20. [27]

    Finkelshtein, Y

    D. Finkelshtein, Y. Kondratiev, and O. Kutoviy. Correlation functions evolution for the Glauber dynamics in continuum. InSemigroup Forum, volume 85, pages 289–306. Springer, 2012

    2012

  21. [28]

    Finkelshtein, Y

    D. Finkelshtein, Y. Kondratiev, and O. Kutoviy. Semigroup approach to birth-and-death stochastic dynamics in continuum.Journal of Functional Analysis, 262(3):1274–1308, 2012

    2012

  22. [29]

    Finkelshtein, Y

    D. Finkelshtein, Y. Kondratiev, and O. Kutoviy. Statistical dynamics of continuous systems: perturbative and approximative approaches.Arabian Journal of Mathematics, 4(4):255–300, 2015

    2015

  23. [30]

    Friedli and Y

    S. Friedli and Y. Velenik.Statistical mechanics of lattice systems: a concrete mathematical introduction. Cam- bridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  24. [31]

    Galvin and J

    D. Galvin and J. Kahn. On phase transition in the hard-core model onZ d.Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 13(2):137–164, 2004

    2004

  25. [32]

    Gamarnik and M

    D. Gamarnik and M. Sudan. Limits of local algorithms over sparse random graphs.Annals of Probability, pages 2353–2376, 2017

    2017

  26. [33]

    N. L. Garcia. Birth and death processes as projections of higher-dimensional poisson processes.Advances in applied probability, 27(4):911–930, 1995

    1995

  27. [34]

    N. L. Garcia and T. G. Kurtz. Spatial birth and death processes as solutions of stochastic equations.ALEA Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat., 1:281–303, 2006

    2006

  28. [35]

    G¨ obel, M

    A. G¨ obel, M. Jenssen, M. Michelen, M. Pappik, W. Perkins, and L. Schiller. Uniqueness, analyticity and mixing for Gibbs point processes via spectral gaps.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.28009, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  29. [36]

    H.-O. Georgii. Canonical and grand canonical Gibbs states for continuum systems.Communications in Mathe- matical Physics, 48(1):31–51, 1976

    1976

  30. [37]

    Georgii and T

    H.-O. Georgii and T. K¨ uneth. Stochastic comparison of point random fields.Journal of Applied Probability, 34(4):868–881, 1997

    1997

  31. [38]

    Greschonig and K

    G. Greschonig and K. Schmidt. Ergodic decomposition of quasi-invariant probability measures.Colloq. Math., 84/85(part 2):495–514, 2000. Dedicated to the memory of Anzelm Iwanik

    2000

  32. [39]

    Hadas and R

    D. Hadas and R. Peled. On the critical fugacity of the hard-core model on regular bipartite graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.27144, 2026

    2026

  33. [40]

    Handel and B

    M. Handel and B. Kitchens. Metrics and entropy for non-compact spaces.Israel J. Math., 91(1-3):253–271, 1995. With an appendix by Daniel J. Rudolph

    1995

  34. [41]

    R. Holley. Free energy in a Markovian model of a lattice spin system.Comm. Math. Phys., 23:87–99, 1971

    1971

  35. [42]

    R. A. Holley and D. W. Stroock. Nearest neighbor birth and death processes on the real line.Acta Math., 140(1-2):103–154, 1978. A PHASE TRANSITION FOR THE HARD SPHERE MODEL ON THE HYPERBOLIC PLANE 41

    1978

  36. [43]

    Jahnel, J

    B. Jahnel, J. K¨ oppl, Y. Steenbeck, and A. Zass. Reversible birth-and-death dynamics in continuum: Free-energy dissipation and attractor properties

  37. [44]

    S. Jansen. Gibbsian point processes.preprint, 2018

    2018

  38. [45]

    S. Jansen. Cluster expansions for Gibbs point processes.Advances in Applied Probability, 51(4):1129–1178, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    F. P. Kelly. Stochastic models of computer communication systems.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 47(3):379–395, 1985

    1985

  40. [48]

    D. Kerr. Bernoulli actions of sofic groups have completely positive entropy.Israel J. Math., 202(1):461–474, 2014

    2014

  41. [49]

    J. F. C. Kingman.Poisson processes, volume 3. Clarendon Press, 1992

    1992

  42. [50]

    B. Klartag. Lattice packing of spheres in high dimensions using a stochastically evolving ellipsoid.Inventiones mathematicae, pages 1–29, 2026

    2026

  43. [51]

    Kondratiev and E

    Y. Kondratiev and E. Lytvynov. Glauber dynamics of continuous particle systems. InAnnales de l’IHP Proba- bilit´ es et statistiques, volume 41, pages 685–702, 2005

    2005

  44. [52]

    R. T. Kozma and J. Szirmai. Optimally dense packings for fully asymptotic coxeter tilings by horoballs of different types.Monatshefte f¨ ur Mathematik, 168(1):27–47, 2012

    2012

  45. [53]

    W. Krieger. On entropy and generators of measure-preserving transformations.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 149:453–464, 1970

    1970

  46. [54]

    O. E. Lanford III and D. Ruelle. Observables at infinity and states with short range correlations in statistical mechanics.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 13(3):194–215, 1969

    1969

  47. [55]

    Last and M

    G. Last and M. Penrose.Lectures on the Poisson process, volume 7. Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  48. [56]

    H. L¨ owen. Melting, freezing and colloidal suspensions.Physics Reports, 237(5):249–324, 1994

    1994

  49. [57]

    H. L¨ owen. Fun with hard spheres. InStatistical physics and spatial statistics, volume 554, pages 295–331. Springer, 2000

    2000

  50. [58]

    Magee and D

    M. Magee and D. Puder. The asymptotic statistics of random covering surfaces.Forum Math. Pi, 11:Paper No. e15, 51, 2023

    2023

  51. [59]

    Michelen and W

    M. Michelen and W. Perkins. Analyticity for classical gasses via recursion.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 399(1):367–388, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Michelen and W

    M. Michelen and W. Perkins. Potential-weighted connective constants and uniqueness of Gibbs measures.Com- munications in Mathematical Physics, 406(2):32, 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    L. Monk. Benjamini-Schramm convergence and spectra of random hyperbolic surfaces of high genus.Anal. PDE, 15(3):727–752, 2022

    2022

  54. [62]

    D. W. Morris.Introduction to arithmetic groups. Deductive Press, [place of publication not identified], 2015

    2015

  55. [63]

    Mossel, D

    E. Mossel, D. Weitz, and N. Wormald. On the hardness of sampling independent sets beyond the tree threshold. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 143(3-4):401–439, 2009

    2009

  56. [64]

    Mulero.Theory and simulation of hard-sphere fluids and related systems

    ´A. Mulero.Theory and simulation of hard-sphere fluids and related systems. Springer, 2008

    2008

  57. [65]

    Nevo and E

    A. Nevo and E. M. Stein. Analogs of Wiener’s ergodic theorems for semisimple groups I.Annals of mathematics, 145(3):565–595, 1997

    1997

  58. [66]

    X. X. Nguyen and H. Zessin. Integral and differential characterizations of the Gibbs process.Mathematische Nachrichten, 88(1):105–115, 1979

    1979

  59. [67]

    Parisi and F

    G. Parisi and F. Zamponi. Mean-field theory of hard sphere glasses and jamming.Reviews of Modern Physics, 82(1):789, 2010

    2010

  60. [68]

    Peled and W

    R. Peled and W. Samotij. Odd cutsets and the hard-core model onZ d. InAnnales de l’IHP Probabilit´ es et statistiques, volume 50, pages 975–998, 2014

    2014

  61. [69]

    Rahman and B

    M. Rahman and B. Vir´ ag. Local algorithms for independent sets are half-optimal.The Annals of Probability, 45(3):1543–1577, 2017

    2017

  62. [70]

    Richthammer

    T. Richthammer. Translation-invariance of two-dimensional Gibbsian point processes.Comm. Math. Phys., 274:81–122, 2007

    2007

  63. [71]

    C. A. Rogers. The packing of equal spheres.Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 3(4):609–620, 1958

    1958

  64. [72]

    Ruelle.Statistical mechanics: Rigorous results

    D. Ruelle.Statistical mechanics: Rigorous results. World Scientific, 1999

    1999

  65. [73]

    C. Shriver. Free energy, Gibbs measures, and Glauber dynamics for nearest-neighbor interactions.Comm. Math. Phys., 398(2):679–702, 2023. 42 LEWIS BOWEN, MARCUS MICHELEN, AND WILL PERKINS

    2023

  66. [74]

    A. Sly. Computational transition at the uniqueness threshold. In2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foun- dations of Computer Science, pages 287–296. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  67. [75]

    F. Spitzer. Markov random fields on an infinite tree.The Annals of Probability, 3(3):387–398, 1975

    1975

  68. [76]

    F. Spitzer. Stochastic time evolution of one dimensional infinite particle systems.Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 83(5):880–890, 1977

    1977

  69. [77]

    J. Tits. Free subgroups in linear groups.J. Algebra, 20:250–270, 1972

    1972

  70. [78]

    G. F. T¨ oth and W. Kuperberg. Packing and covering with convex sets. InHandbook of Convex Geometry, pages 799–860. Elsevier, 1993

    1993

  71. [79]

    M. S. Viazovska. The sphere packing problem in dimension 8.Ann. of Math. (2), 185:991–1015, 2017

    2017

  72. [80]

    D. Weitz. Counting independent sets up to the tree threshold. InProceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2006, pages 140–149. ACM, 2006

    2006

  73. [81]

    Wood and J

    W. Wood and J. Jacobson. Preliminary results from a recalculation of the Monte Carlo equation of state of hard spheres.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 27(5):1207–1208, 1957

    1957

  74. [82]

    R. J. Zimmer.Ergodic theory and semisimple groups, volume 81 ofMonographs in Mathematics. Birkh¨ auser Verlag, Basel, 1984. University of Texas at Austin, Department of Mathematics Email address:lpbowen@math.utexas.edu Northwestern University, Department of Mathematics Email a...

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.