Antiferromagnetic models are clique-minimizing

Jaehyeon Seo; Joonkyung Lee

Antiferromagnetic models are clique-minimizing

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every antiferromagnetic spin model is clique-minimizing: for any graph G, the weighted homomorphism count into H is at least a product of clique counts determined by the degrees of G.

desk verdict A genuinely general clique-minimization theorem with a coherent proof; the main risk is the entropy-contraction lemma, but it is proved and the induction closes. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.17920 v1 pith:OHDFFGKP submitted 2026-08-18 math.CO

Joonkyung Lee , Jaehyeon Seo This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.CO MSC 05C3505C1505A2094A17

keywords antiferromagneticmodelsclique-minimizinggraphhomomorphismsLorentzianpolynomialsrelativeentropycontractionoptimizedpressurepartitionfunctionsvertex-inhomogeneousinequalities

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

This paper identifies a single spectral condition that forces complete graphs to be extremizers in counting problems on graphs. A model is called antiferromagnetic when its symmetric weight matrix is entrywise nonnegative and has at most one positive eigenvalue; the paper proves that every such model is clique-minimizing. That is, for every graph $G$, $\operatorname{hom}(G,H)$ is at least the product, over vertices $v$ of degree $d_v$, of $\operatorname{hom}(K_{d_v+1},H)^{1/(d_v+1)}$. The proof works with a stronger vertex-inhomogeneous inequality that permits a separate fugacity vector at each vertex, and this stronger form actually characterizes antiferromagnetism. The result matters because it unifies the known lower-bound inequalities for independent sets, proper $q$-colorings, semiproper colorings with at most two proper colors, and antiferromagnetic Ising models, and settles open conjectures about them through one mechanism: relative entropy contraction for exchangeable Lorentzian laws.

What carries the argument

The engine is the one-coordinate relative entropy contraction for exchangeable Lorentzian laws, Lemma 3.5: if $\mu$ and $\nu$ are exchangeable laws on $A^m$ and the count-generating polynomial of $\nu$ is Lorentzian, then $D(\mu_1\|\nu_1) \le \frac{1}{m} D(\mu\|\nu)$. From this the paper derives a strengthened delete-one entropy inequality, which feeds into an optimized-pressure function $F_m$ satisfying the monotonicity $mF_{m-1} \ge (m-2)F_m$. This pressure monotonicity resolves the local membership problem that blocks the inductive proof, replacing the model-specific case checks of earlier work with a general argument. The supporting algebraic fact is that clique partition functions of entrywise-positive antiferromagnetic models are Lorentzian, so their normalized $d$-th roots are concave.

What would settle it

Fix $A=\{0,1\}$, $m=3$, let $\nu$ be the exchangeable product of three independent Bernoulli(1/2) coordinates (a Lorentzian law), and let $\mu$ be the exchangeable law placing mass $1/3$ on each word with exactly one 1. Compute $D(\mu_1\|\nu_1)$ and $(1/3)D(\mu\|\nu)$; if the first exceeds the second, Lemma 3.5 is false and the proof collapses. A direct check of inequality (1.1) by exhaustive search over all graphs on at most six vertices for a specific antiferromagnetic $H$, such as the $2\times 2$ Ising matrix with off-diagonal entry $B=1/2$, would also test the main theorem computationally.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1.2: for every antiferromagnetic model $H$, every graph $G$, and every collection of fugacity vectors $\lambda^{(v)}$ attached to the vertices of $G$, the vertex-inhomogeneous partition function satisfies $\widetilde{Z}_G(\lambda^{(v)} : v\in V(G)) \ge \prod_{v\in V(G)} Z_{d_v+1}(\lambda^{(v)})^{1/(d_v+1)}$. Setting every fugacity vector to the all-ones vector turns this into Theorem 1.1, $\operatorname{hom}(G,H) \ge \prod_{v\in V(G)} \operatorname{hom}(K_{d_v+1},H)^{1/(d_v+1)}$, which is the statement that antiferromagnetic models are clique-minimizing. The inequality is sharp: equality occurs when $G$ is a disjoint union of cliques and the fugacity vector is constant on each connected component. The vertex-inhomogeneous formulation is not merely a proof device: on the two-vertex graph it reduces to $(x^\top H y)^2 \ge (x^\top H x)(y^\top H y)$ for all nonnegative $x,y$, a condition equivalent to $H$ being antiferromagnetic, so the strong inequality precisely characterizes the class.

Load-bearing premise

If the one-coordinate relative entropy contraction for exchangeable Lorentzian laws — $D(\mu_1\|\nu_1) \le \frac{1}{m}D(\mu\|\nu)$ whenever $\nu$ is Lorentzian — fails for some pair of laws, then the monotonicity of the optimized pressure breaks and the induction in the proof of Theorem 1.2 cannot close.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every $d$-regular graph $G$ and every antiferromagnetic Ising model with edge activity in $[0,1]$, the normalized homomorphism count $\operatorname{hom}(G,H)^{1/|V(G)|}$ is at least the clique value $\operatorname{hom}(K_{d+1},H)^{1/(d+1)}$, with equality for disjoint unions of $K_{d+1}$.
The lower-bound inequalities for independent sets, proper $q$-colorings, and semiproper colorings with at most two proper colors, including their irregular-degree versions, follow from a single theorem with no model-specific arguments.
The vertex-inhomogeneous inequality yields bounds for weighted list-coloring and multivariate independence-polynomial problems with arbitrary vertex fugacities, and its fugacity derivatives control one-vertex marginal probabilities (occupancy fractions).
A model satisfying the vertex-inhomogeneous inequality for all graphs and all fugacity vectors must be antiferromagnetic, so the strong inequality gives a complete structural characterization; the homogeneous inequality alone is strictly weaker, since tensor products of antiferromagnetic models are clique-minimizing without being antiferromagnetic.

Reading between the lines

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

The relative entropy contraction is a statement about exchangeable Lorentzian laws with no reference to graphs; the same optimized-pressure monotonicity may yield extremal inequalities for other counting problems whose generating polynomials are Lorentzian, such as bases of matroids or matchings in bipartite graphs.
The complementary upper-bound direction — biclique-maximizing for antiferromagnetic models — is left open, and the same entropy toolkit, applied with a reversed inequality or a different support family, is a natural candidate route to settle it.
Because the vertex-inhomogeneous inequality characterizes antiferromagnetism exactly, any future clique-minimizing model outside this class must violate the two-vertex inequality with unequal fugacities; this gives a concrete test for broader conjectures.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: this paper proves a real theorem, and the proof appears to hold together. Every antiferromagnetic model is clique-minimizing, and the vertex-inhomogeneous inequality is new and strictly stronger than the homogeneous cases that were known before. It settles conjectures from Lee–Seo and Davies–LeBlanc, and it subsumes the independent-set, q-coloring, semiproper-coloring, and Ising results under one spectral condition. That is a genuine advance, not a repackaging.

What the paper does well: the main induction is fully written out, the local membership reduction is clean, and the entropy machinery is developed carefully rather than cited as a black box. The key technical premise, Lemma 3.5 (relative entropy contraction for exchangeable Lorentzian laws), is proved in detail, and the proof looks correct. I checked the reduction from D(µ||ν) to D(πµ||πν), the use of concavity of h^{1/m}, and the variational argument; the 1/m factor comes out honestly. The stress-test note agrees, and on reading the paper I do not see a load-bearing flaw. The reduction to entrywise-positive H by adding ε rr^T is sound, and the continuity argument is legitimate.

Soft spots, in proportion: the paper leans on the Lorentzian polynomial framework of Brändén–Huh, so a reader who does not trust that framework will have to accept a substantial external dependency. Lemma 3.5 is the engine, and while it is proved, it is intricate; that is where a subtle error would most likely hide. The paper is not formally verified, so a skeptical referee should spend time there. The self-citations to [LS26] and [LOS25] are appropriate: the localization strategy is theirs, but the decisive steps are reproduced in this paper, and Lemma 2.7 is explicitly credited to [LOS25]. The LLM-use disclosure is unusual but transparent; it does not affect the mathematics as far as I can tell.

Who this is for: anyone working in extremal graph homomorphisms, entropy methods in combinatorics, or Lorentzian polynomials. It is a significant paper within the field and deserves a serious referee. The referee should be asked to verify Lemma 3.5 and the reduction in Section 5.1 carefully, but I would expect the proof to survive scrutiny.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves Theorem 1.2: for every antiferromagnetic edge-weighted model H (entrywise nonnegative symmetric matrix with at most one positive eigenvalue), every graph G, and every collection of vertex fugacity vectors λ^(v), the vertex-inhomogeneous partition function satisfies eZ_G(λ^(v)) ≥ ∏_v Z_{d_v+1}(λ^(v))^{1/(d_v+1)}. Setting all fugacities to 1 gives Theorem 1.1, i.e., every antiferromagnetic model is clique-minimizing. The proof combines Lorentzian polynomial techniques with a new relative-entropy contraction for exchangeable Lorentzian laws (Lemma 3.5), a strengthened delete-one Han/Shearer inequality (Lemma 3.7), and a monotonicity principle for an optimized pressure (Proposition 4.2) to resolve the local membership problem in an inductive localization argument (Section 5). The results recover and generalize known inequalities for independent sets, q-colorings, and semiproper colorings, and confirm conjectures of the authors and of Davies and LeBlanc.

Significance. The main theorem is a clean and broad unification: a single spectral condition implies clique minimization for a large class of graph homomorphism models, including the hard-core model, q-colorings, and the antiferromagnetic Ising model. The vertex-inhomogeneous strengthening is not artificial generality; it is needed for the induction and yields new consequences such as the Davies–LeBlanc conjecture. The proof is essentially self-contained and introduces a genuinely new tool—the one-coordinate relative entropy contraction for exchangeable Lorentzian laws—which is likely to be useful beyond this paper. The authors are transparent about relying on prior work, and they provide full proofs of the needed Lorentzian property, the entropy inequalities, and the local membership resolution. I checked the key contraction lemma (Lemma 3.5), its consequences (Lemma 3.7 and Proposition 4.2), and the induction closing in Section 5, and found no gaps or circularity. The paper ships complete derivations with no fitted parameters and a falsifiable main statement, which are notable strengths.

minor comments (5)

[Section 5 (after Corollary 2.3)] The reduction to an entrywise-positive model H^(ε) is sound, but the logical order of the two limiting arguments (perturbing H and extending to nonnegative fugacity vectors) is easy to misread as taking place inside the induction step; explicitly stating that the induction is run for H^(ε) for all graphs before letting ε→0 would clarify the exposition.
[Lemma 3.5] In the statement of Lemma 3.5, the notation D(µ1∥ν1) relies on the earlier definition of µ_i as the i-th marginal; a parenthetical reminder that µ1 and ν1 are the one-coordinate marginals would improve readability.
[Lemma 5.5] The proof of Lemma 5.5 uses the bijection between {x∈(R_+)^I : D_{m,s}(x)=1} and P_+(A) several times; writing the inverse map explicitly (x_σ = α(σ)s_σ^{-(m-1)}) would help the reader verify the normalization.
[Remark 3.8] The assertion that polarization makes both the law ρ and its complementary law ρ* log-concave is stated without proof; since this remark is not used in the main argument, either add a one-sentence justification or note that it is a sketch.
[Throughout] There are some typographical artifacts in the rendered equations (for example, missing spaces around sums in Section 3); these should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proof is self-contained and the target inequality is not assumed.

full rationale

The derivation chain for Theorem 1.2 is self-contained. The Lorentzian property of clique partition functions (Lemma 2.7) is proved by induction in the text, with the entrywise-positive case sufficient because Section 5 reduces the general antiferromagnetic model first to the no-zero-rows case via deleting zero rows and columns and then to the entrywise-positive case via the perturbation H^(ε)=H+εrr^T, which is verified to remain antiferromagnetic. The entropy engine, Lemma 3.5, is proved directly: exchangeability gives D(µ||ν)=D(π_µ||π_ν), concavity of h_ν^{1/m} gives the tangent bound (3.6), and the variational formula gives the 1/m contraction. Lemma 3.7 then follows by induction using the closure properties of exchangeable Lorentzian laws (Lemma 3.4). The optimized-pressure identity (Lemma 4.1) is derived from the Gibbs variational formula and symmetrization, and Proposition 4.2 combines these with Lemma 3.7 to obtain monotonicity mF_{m-1}≥(m-2)F_m. The local membership problem is resolved by Lemma 5.4 from the tangent-plane inequality for Φ_{m+1}, then pushed from clique size d+1 to Δ+1 by the monotonicity of the optimized pressure, exactly as described in Section 5.2. At no point is the target inequality (1.2) or (1.1) assumed; the only self-citations to [LS26] and [LOS25] are for the localization strategy and for a stronger Lorentzian lemma, and the paper reproduces the specific arguments it needs or reduces to the case it proves. There are no fitted parameters and no quantity is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof introduces no free parameters and no new physical or mathematical entities. It relies on the Lorentzian polynomial framework, the Perron-Frobenius theorem, standard entropy variational formulas, and one external matrix characterization used only for a remark.

assumptions (5)

standard math Lorentzian polynomial framework of Branden and Huh: f^{1/d} is concave, with closure under scaling, coordinate scaling, and directional derivatives.
Imported from [BH20]; used in Lemma 2.7 and throughout Sections 3 and 5.
standard math Perron-Frobenius theorem for nonnegative irreducible matrices.
Used to reduce to entrywise-positive H by perturbing along a positive eigenvector in Section 5.
domain assumption Characterization of matrices with at most one positive eigenvalue via a reverse Cauchy inequality for nonnegative vectors.
Cited as [COSW04, Theorem 5.3]; used only in Section 1.1 to show that (1.2) characterizes antiferromagnetic models, not needed for the main theorem.
standard math Standard entropy identities, the Donsker-Varadhan variational formula, the Gibbs variational formula, and the chain rule for relative entropy.
Used in Section 3 and Lemma 4.1 as standard information-theoretic facts.
standard math Closure of exchangeable Lorentzian laws under deletion and conditioning, using count-generating polynomials.
Proved in Lemma 3.4 using Proposition 2.5; underpins Lemmas 3.5 and 3.7.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Antiferromagnetic models are clique-minimizing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OHDFFGKP

@misc{pith2026260817920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Antiferromagnetic models are clique-minimizing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OHDFFGKP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.17920}
}

abstract

An edge-weighted graph $H$, possibly with loops, is antiferromagnetic if its adjacency matrix is entrywise nonnegative and has at most one positive eigenvalue, counted with multiplicity. We show that, for any graph $G$ with $d_v:=\operatorname{deg}_G(v)$, $$\operatorname{hom}(G,H) \ge \prod_{v\in V(G)} \operatorname{hom}(K_{d_v+1},H)^{\frac{1}{d_v+1}},$$ whenever $H$ is antiferromagnetic. In fact, we prove a vertex-inhomogeneous strengthening of this inequality, allowing a different fugacity vector at each vertex of $G$. This gives a common generalization of the lower-bound inequalities of Sah, Sawhney, Stoner, and Zhao for independent sets, of Csikv\'{a}ri for $q$-colorings, and of the authors for semiproper colorings with at most two proper colors. Furthermore, it confirms recent conjectures of the authors and of Davies and LeBlanc. A key ingredient, of independent interest, is a strengthening of the delete-one form of Shearer's inequality for Lorentzian measures, which provides a new approach to graph homomorphism inequalities.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

Math.73.2 (1991), pp

[Alo91] Noga Alon.Independent sets in regular graphs and sum-free subsets of finite groups.Israel J. Math.73.2 (1991), pp. 247–256. doi:10.1007/BF02772952.(Cited on p

work page doi:10.1007/bf02772952.(cited 1991
[2]

[CGFS86] F. R. K. Chung, R. L. Graham, P. Frankl, and J. B. Shearer.Some intersection theorems for ordered sets and graphs.J. Combin. Theory Ser. A43.1 (1986), pp. 23–37. doi:10.1016/ 0097-3165(86)90019-1.(Cited on pp. 4,

work page 1986
[3]

Spencer.The probabilistic method

[AS16] Noga Alon and Joel H. Spencer.The probabilistic method. Fourth. Wiley Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2016, pp. xiv+375. (Cited on p

work page 2016
[4]

Math.221.2 (2020), pp

[SSSZ20] Ashwin Sah, Mehtaab Sawhney, David Stoner, and Yufei Zhao.A reverse Sidorenko inequal- ity.Invent. Math.221.2 (2020), pp. 665–711. doi:10.1007/s00222-020-00956-9.(Cited on pp. 2, 3,

work page doi:10.1007/s00222-020-00956-9.(cited 2020
[5]

[BH20] Petter Brändén and June Huh.Lorentzian polynomials.Ann. of Math. (2)192.3 (2020), pp. 821–891. doi:10.4007/annals.2020.192.3.4.(Cited on pp. 3, 4, 6, 9,

work page doi:10.4007/annals.2020.192.3.4.(cited 2020
[7]

Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics746, 341–346 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j

[EM11] Joanna A. Ellis-Monaghan and Iain Moffatt.The Tutte-Potts connection in the presence of an external magnetic field.Adv. in Appl. Math.47.4 (2011), pp. 772–782. doi:10.1016/j. aam.2011.02.004.(Cited on p

work page doi:10.1016/j 2011
[8]

Elements of Information Theory

[CT06] Thomas M. Cover and Joy A. Thomas.Elements of information theory. Second. Wiley- Interscience[JohnWiley&Sons],Hoboken,NJ,2006,pp.xxiv+748.doi:10.1002/047174882X. (Cited on pp. 7,

work page doi:10.1002/047174882x 2006
[9]

2022 , isbn =

[Ana+22] Nima Anari, Vishesh Jain, Frederic Koehler, Huy Tuan Pham, and Thuy-Duong Vuong. Entropic independence: optimal mixing of down-up random walks.STOC ’22—Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, 2022, pp. 1418–1430. doi:10.1145/3519935.3520048.(Cited on pp. 4, 11,

work page arXiv 2022

Show all 26 references

[10]

[DJPR17] Ewan Davies, Matthew Jenssen, Will Perkins, and Barnaby Roberts.Independent sets, matchings, and occupancy fractions.J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2)96.1 (2017), pp. 47–66. doi: 10.1112/jlms.12056.(Cited on p

2017 doi
[12]

[CR14] Jonathan Cutler and A. J. Radcliffe.The maximum number of complete subgraphs in a graph with given maximum degree.J. Combin. Theory Ser. B104 (2014), pp. 60–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jctb.2013.10.003.(Cited on p

2014 doi
[13]

Ellis.A weak convergence approach to the theory of large de- viations

[DE97] Paul Dupuis and Richard S. Ellis.A weak convergence approach to the theory of large de- viations. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics: Probability and Statistics. A Wiley- Interscience Publication. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1997, pp. xviii+479. doi: 10.1...

1997 doi
[14]

Friedli and Y

[FV18] S. Friedli and Y. Velenik.Statistical mechanics of lattice systems. A concrete mathematical introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018, pp. xix+622. doi:10.1017/ 9781316882603.(Cited on p

2018
[16]

133–156.(Cited on p

[Han78] Te Sun Han.Nonnegative entropy measures of multivariate symmetric correlations.Infor- mation and Control36.2 (1978), pp. 133–156.(Cited on p

1978
[18]

[Kah01] Jeff Kahn.An entropy approach to the hard-core model on bipartite graphs.Combin. Probab. Comput.10.3 (2001), pp. 219–237. doi:10.1017/S0963548301004631.(Cited on p

2001 doi
[21]

Meyer.Matrix analysis and applied linear algebra

[Mey23] Carl D. Meyer.Matrix analysis and applied linear algebra. Second. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 2023, pp. xiv+991.(Cited on p

2023
[22]

J.170.16 (2021), pp

[AOV21] Nima Anari, Shayan Oveis Gharan, and Cynthia Vinzant.Log-concave polynomials, I: en- tropy and a deterministic approximation algorithm for counting bases of matroids.Duke Math. J.170.16 (2021), pp. 3459–3504. doi:10.1215/00127094-2020-0091.(Cited on pp. 13,

2021 doi
[23]

[SSSZ19] Ashwin Sah, Mehtaab Sawhney, David Stoner, and Yufei Zhao.The number of independent sets in an irregular graph.J. Combin. Theory Ser. B138 (2019), pp. 172–195. doi:10.1016/ j.jctb.2019.01.007.(Cited on pp. 1, 3,

2019
[24]

Scott and Alan D

[SS05] Alexander D. Scott and Alan D. Sokal.The repulsive lattice gas, the independent-set poly- nomial, and the Lovász local lemma.J. Stat. Phys.118.5-6 (2005), pp. 1151–1261. doi: 10.1007/s10955-004-2055-4.(Cited on p

2005 doi
[25]

[Zha10] Yufei Zhao.The number of independent sets in a regular graph.Combin. Probab. Comput. 19.2 (2010), pp. 315–320. doi:10.1017/S0963548309990538.(Cited on p

2010 doi
[26]

[Zha17] Yufei Zhao.Extremal regular graphs: independent sets and graph homomorphisms.Amer. Math. Monthly124.9 (2017), pp. 827–843. doi:10.4169/amer.math.monthly.124.9.827. (Cited on p

2017 doi
[32]

Special issue on the Tutte polynomial

1-2. Special issue on the Tutte polynomial. 2004, pp. 88–187. doi:10.1016/S0196-8858(03)00078-2.(Cited on p

2004 doi
[63]

Discrete Math

DIMACS Ser. Discrete Math. Theoret. Comput. Sci. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2004, pp. 97–104. doi:10.1090/dimacs/063/07.(Cited on p

2004 doi
[493]

London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2024, pp. 55–88. doi:10.1017/9781009490559.004.(Cited on p

2024 doi
[2024]

arXiv:2412.18070.(Cited on pp. 1,

arXiv
[2025]

arXiv:2506.13659.(Cited on pp. 3, 7,

arXiv
[2026]

1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 17,

arXiv:2602.02450.(Cited on pp. 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 17,

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Math.73.2 (1991), pp

[Alo91] Noga Alon.Independent sets in regular graphs and sum-free subsets of finite groups.Israel J. Math.73.2 (1991), pp. 247–256. doi:10.1007/BF02772952.(Cited on p

work page doi:10.1007/bf02772952.(cited 1991

[2] [2]

[CGFS86] F. R. K. Chung, R. L. Graham, P. Frankl, and J. B. Shearer.Some intersection theorems for ordered sets and graphs.J. Combin. Theory Ser. A43.1 (1986), pp. 23–37. doi:10.1016/ 0097-3165(86)90019-1.(Cited on pp. 4,

work page 1986

[3] [3]

Spencer.The probabilistic method

[AS16] Noga Alon and Joel H. Spencer.The probabilistic method. Fourth. Wiley Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2016, pp. xiv+375. (Cited on p

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Math.221.2 (2020), pp

[SSSZ20] Ashwin Sah, Mehtaab Sawhney, David Stoner, and Yufei Zhao.A reverse Sidorenko inequal- ity.Invent. Math.221.2 (2020), pp. 665–711. doi:10.1007/s00222-020-00956-9.(Cited on pp. 2, 3,

work page doi:10.1007/s00222-020-00956-9.(cited 2020

[5] [5]

[BH20] Petter Brändén and June Huh.Lorentzian polynomials.Ann. of Math. (2)192.3 (2020), pp. 821–891. doi:10.4007/annals.2020.192.3.4.(Cited on pp. 3, 4, 6, 9,

work page doi:10.4007/annals.2020.192.3.4.(cited 2020

[6] [7]

Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics746, 341–346 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j

[EM11] Joanna A. Ellis-Monaghan and Iain Moffatt.The Tutte-Potts connection in the presence of an external magnetic field.Adv. in Appl. Math.47.4 (2011), pp. 772–782. doi:10.1016/j. aam.2011.02.004.(Cited on p

work page doi:10.1016/j 2011

[7] [8]

Elements of Information Theory

[CT06] Thomas M. Cover and Joy A. Thomas.Elements of information theory. Second. Wiley- Interscience[JohnWiley&Sons],Hoboken,NJ,2006,pp.xxiv+748.doi:10.1002/047174882X. (Cited on pp. 7,

work page doi:10.1002/047174882x 2006

[8] [9]

2022 , isbn =

[Ana+22] Nima Anari, Vishesh Jain, Frederic Koehler, Huy Tuan Pham, and Thuy-Duong Vuong. Entropic independence: optimal mixing of down-up random walks.STOC ’22—Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, 2022, pp. 1418–1430. doi:10.1145/3519935.3520048.(Cited on pp. 4, 11,

work page arXiv 2022