Tight Bounds for Sampling q-Colorings via Coupling from the Past
Extracted source text · arXiv 2511.04982
\section{CFTP for \texorpdfstring{$q$}{q}-Colorings with \texorpdfstring{$q>2.5\Delta$}{q > 2.5Δ}}
\label{sec:algorithm}
In this section, we present the construction of a perfect sampler for proper $q$-colorings within the classical
\emph{Coupling From The Past (CFTP)} framework, implemented using the grand couplings developed in \Cref{sec:coupling-design}.
We show that this construction gives an efficient CFTP algorithm for exact sampling from the uniform distribution over proper $q$-colorings,
under the condition $\Delta>(2.5+\eta)\Delta$ where $\eta=2\sqrt{(\log\Delta+1)/\Delta}=o(1)$, thus completing the proof of \Cref{thm:main}.
\subsection{Algorithm overview}
\label{subsec:algorithm-overview}
%Our perfect sampling algorithm follows the standard CFTP paradigm, but it is expressed in terms of a \emph{blocked grand coupling}.
Let $\Omega$ be a finite configuration space endowed with the uniform measure $\mu_\Omega$,
and let $F : \Omega\times[0,1]\to\Omega$ be a randomized \emph{update operator} driven by a random seed $U\in[0,1]$.
Associated with $F$ is a \emph{coalescence predicate} $\Phi_F : [0,1]\to\Omega\cup\{\bot\}$,
which detects whether the update $F(\cdot,U)$ maps all initial configurations in $\Omega$ to a common state.
%
Specifically, $\Phi_F(U)=\conf^*\neq\bot$ indicates that all trajectories under $F(\cdot,U)$ coalesce at the same configuration $\conf^*\in\Omega$.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{CFTP Sampler}
\label{alg:blocked-cftp-sampler}
\SetKwInput{KwAssertion}{Assertion}
\KwIn{Random seed $U\sim\uniform[0,1]$, interpreted as i.i.d.\ $U_{-1},U_{-2},\ldots\sim\uniform[0,1]$; update operator $F:\Omega\times[0,1]\to\Omega$; coalescence predicate $\Phi_F:[0,1]\to\Omega\cup\{\bot\}$.}
\KwOut{A configuration $\conf^{*}$ from $\Omega$.}
\For{$t=1,2,\cdots$}{
Generate an independent $U_{-t}\sim\uniform[0,1]$ using the random seed $U$\;
\If{$\Phi_F(U_{-t}) \neq \bot$}{
\Return $\conf^* =
F(\cdot,U_{-1}) \circ F(\cdot,U_{-2}) \circ \cdots \circ
F(\cdot,U_{-t+1})\circ \Phi_F(U_{-t})$
}
}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:blocked-cftp-sampler}
Let $F : \Omega\times[0,1] \to \Omega$ and $\Phi_F:[0,1]\to \Omega\cup\{\bot\}$ satisfy:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*), ref=\alph*]
\item \label{grand-a} For independent $\conf \sim \mu_\Omega$ and $U\sim\uniform[0,1]$, the random variable $F(\conf, U)$ is distributed according to $\mu_\Omega$.
\item \label{grand-b} If $\Phi_F(U) \neq \bot$, then $F(\cdot, U)$ is constant over $\Omega$, and $\Phi_F(U)$ equals its unique image.
\item \label{grand-c} $\Pr[U\sim\uniform{[}0,1{]}]{\Phi_F(U) \neq \bot} \ge 1/2$.
\item \label{grand-d}
The predicate $\Phi_F(U)$ can be evaluated in expected time $T_1$, and $F(\omega,U)$ in expected time $T_2$.
\end{enumerate}
Then \Cref{alg:blocked-cftp-sampler} terminates in expected time $O(T_1 + T_2)$
and outputs an exact sample from $\mu_\Omega$, with exponentially decaying tail bounds on its runtime.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\conf_0 \sim \mu_\Omega$ be a initial configuration drawn independently to $U$, and let
\[
\conf_t = F(\cdot, U_{-1}) \circ F(\cdot, U_{-2}) \circ \cdots \circ F(\cdot, U_{-t})(\conf_0)
\]
denote the configuration obtained after applying $t$ grand couplings from the past. By condition~(\ref{grand-a}), the distribution of $\conf_t$ remains uniform over $\Omega$ for all $t$.
Define $\conf_t^*$ to be the output of Algorithm~\ref{alg:blocked-cftp-sampler} truncated at step $t$ (and $\omega^*_t=\bot$ if algorithm does not halt).
Let $\mu_{\conf_t}$ and $\mu_{\conf_t^*}$ denote the distributions of $\conf_t$ and $\conf_t^*$, respectively.
Under conditions~(\ref{grand-b}) and~(\ref{grand-c}),
$$
\DTV{\mu_{\conf_t}}{\mu_{\conf_t^*}}
= \Pr[U]{\conf_t \neq \conf_t^*}
= \Pr[U]{\conf_t^*=\bot}
= \Pr[U]{\forall i \le t : \Phi_F(U_{-i}) = \bot}
\le 2^{-t},
$$
by the independence of the seeds $U_{-1}, U_{-2}, \ldots, U_{-t}$.
Taking the limit as $t \to \infty$ yields
$$
\DTV{\mu_\Omega}{\mu_{\conf^*}}
= \lim_{t \to \infty} \DTV{\mu_{\conf_t}}{\mu_{\conf_t^*}} = 0,
$$
so the output $\conf^*$ is distributed exactly according to $\mu_\Omega$.
Since each iteration halts independently with probability at least $p\ge 1/2$,
the number of iterations follows a geometric distribution with mean $O(1)$.
Therefore, the total expected runtime is $O(T_1 + T_2)$,
and the probability that the algorithm exceeds $t$ iterations decays exponentially.
\end{proof}
The above lemma provides a general CFTP framework applicable to any update operator satisfying conditions~(\ref{grand-a})–(\ref{grand-d}).
We next instantiate this framework for the Glauber dynamics on $q$-colorings.
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:blocked-grand-coupling-glauber}
In our setting, the randomized update operator $F$ in Lemma~\ref{lemma:blocked-cftp-sampler}
is realized as a finite composition of single-site grand couplings
for the Glauber dynamics (cf.~\Cref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}).
Because the uniform measure $\mu_\Omega$ is stationary for the Glauber dynamics,
condition~(\ref{grand-a}) is automatically satisfied.
Moreover, with the bounding chains, the corresponding coalescence predicate $\Phi_F$
inherently satisfies condition~(\ref{grand-b}).
Consequently, to prove \Cref{thm:main},
it suffices to construct an explicit family of such grand couplings
that ensure the coalescence probability in~(\ref{grand-c}) and the efficiency guarantees in~(\ref{grand-d}).
\end{remark}
%Our algorithm builds on the bounding chain approach developed in~\cite{bhandari2020improved,jain2021perfectly}, where the Markov chain used in CFTP is partitioned into multiple phases. Each phase is designed to further reduce the expected size of the bounding chain at each vertex.
%Specifically, the algorithm of~\cite{bhandari2020improved} consists of two phases: in the first phase, the size of the bounding chain at every vertex is reduced to $2$, and in the second phase, it is further reduced to $1$.
%In contrast, the algorithm of~\cite{jain2021perfectly} first applies the algorithmic Lovász Local Lemma~\cite{moser2010constructive} to partition the vertex set $V$ of the input graph $G = (V, E)$ into two subsets $S$ and $V \setminus S$. It then proceeds in four phases: first reducing the bounding chain sizes of vertices in $S$ from arbitrary size to $3$, and then to $2$; followed by reducing the bounding chain sizes of vertices in $V \setminus S$ to $2$; and finally, all bounding chains are reduced to size $1$.
%The key improvement over the earlier CFTP-based algorithm of~\cite{huber1998exact} lies in the construction of a more refined grand coupling, which allows the bounding chain sizes to be kept minimal throughout the process.
%In fact, designing the grand coupling for each phase constitutes a distinct and technically intricate combinatorial problem.
%We improve upon the seeding phase in Algorithm~3 of~\cite{jain2021perfectly} by designing an optimal grand coupling that minimizes the expectation of bounding chain size during this step.
%A key bottleneck in the algorithm of~\cite{jain2021perfectly} under the condition $q \geq (8/3+o(1))\Delta$ lies in the seeding phase, where two separate phases are required to reduce the bounding chain sizes of certain vertices from $3$ to $2$. By designing an improved, optimal grand coupling, we are able to merge these two phases into one, while simultaneously relaxing the coloring threshold to $q \geq (2.5+o(1))\Delta$.
%In this class of algorithms based on progressively reducing the size of the bounding chains, the specific step of reducing the size from $2$ to $1$ is unavoidable, regardless of how earlier phases are designed. The algorithm of~\cite{bhandari2020improved} encountered a barrier at $q > 3\Delta$ due to limitations in their grand coupling. Subsequently,~\cite{jain2021perfectly} improved this step through a refined grand coupling, referred to as the disjoint phase (Algorithm~4 in~\cite{jain2021perfectly}), pushing the threshold down to $q > 2.5\Delta$.
%In~\cite{jain2021perfectly}, it is conjectured that this particular phase might represent a fundamental bottleneck for further progress, suggesting that achieving $q < 2.5\Delta$ could be impossible via this approach. We provide a more concrete justification of this conjecture by constructing a worst-case instance, under which we prove that no grand coupling can reliably reduce all bounding chains from size $2$ to $1$ when $q < 2.5\Delta$.
%To summarize, we design an improved and optimal grand coupling that achieves bounding chain size $2$ for all vertices in the first phase. This is followed by the second phase from~\cite{jain2021perfectly}, which reduces all bounding chains from size $2$ to $1$. Notably, both phases operate tightly up to the threshold $q > 2.5\Delta$, which appears to be the fundamental limit of this approach.
%\todo{The following discussion should be placed in another place}
%While our lower bound analysis establishes $q = 2.5\Delta$ as a fundamental barrier for bounding chain based perfect sampling in the worst case, our study also identifies a potential path forward in circumventing this limitation. In particular, we observe that the adversarial configurations responsible for blocking contraction are statistically rare. By leveraging this fact, we perform a refined average-case analysis that extends the algorithm’s applicability to $q > (2.5 - \eps)\Delta$ for some fixed $\eps > 0$, under the assumption that $\Delta = \Omega(\log n)$.
%This result should not be interpreted as a full resolution of the $2.5\Delta$ barrier. On the contrary, our findings reinforce its tightness in the worst-case regime, while also illustrating that average-case perspectives may offer a promising direction for future progress—particularly in high degree settings where rare configurations can be effectively avoided.
%\todo{reconstruct : remove analysis of grand coupling and get more self contain}
%We now present an overview of our perfect sampling algorithm, which builds on the Coupling from the Past (CFTP) framework, instantiated using Glauber dynamics in combination with the bounding chain method. The central goal is to construct a sequence of randomized update functions $F = f_t \circ \cdots \circ f_1$, where each $f_i$ corresponds to a single-vertex Glauber update equipped with an appropriate grand coupling, such that the overall composition $F$ becomes constant over the state space $\Omega$. This ensures that the CFTP process terminates with an exact sample from the target distribution.
%A key technical challenge is to guarantee that the bounding chain induced by these updates collapses rapidly to a singleton. Since the sequence of Glauber updates must be determined independently of the current state (whether an exact coloring or a bounding list), our design space is constrained to specifying a fixed update schedule and selecting an appropriate coupling at each step.
%Each Glauber update in our construction is paired with a carefully designed \emph{grand coupling}, which is used both to determine the updated color and to track the evolution of the bounding chain. To systematically handle this process, each coupling is implemented via three components:
%\begin{itemize}
% \item \texttt{gen}: A randomized generator that produces a shared randomness tuple independent of the current coloring.
% \item \texttt{decode}: A deterministic decoder that, given a fixed coloring, interprets the randomness tuple to simulate a Glauber update consistent with the current coloring.
% \item \texttt{predict}: A symbolic predictor that determines the worst-case outcome of the update, i.e., the new bounding set, without knowing the specific coloring.
%\end{itemize}
%This decomposition ensures that the update behavior remains consistent across all states in the bounding chain, and it allows us to track the bounding list deterministically without explicitly simulating each trajectory.
%To achieve contraction within a polylogarithmic number of steps, we follow the phased strategy proposed by Jain et al.~\cite{jain2021perfectly}, with several crucial modifications. The update sequence is partitioned into two distinct phases, each targeting a specific structural reduction in the bounding list:
\subsection{Global grand couplings from local updates}
\label{subsec:construct-grand-coupling}
We now explicitly construct the global grand coupling
$F^* = F(\cdot, U)$ on the configuration space $\Omega$
and its associated coalescence predicate $\Phi_F(U)$,
by composing local grand couplings corresponding to single-site updates.
\subsubsection{Representing global coupling via composition of local couplings.}
Recall from \Cref{sec:grand-coupling-applications} and \Cref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain} that for each vertex $v\in V$, we have defined several types of local grand couplings $f_v:\mathcal{P}_v\times[0,1]\to[q]$ corresponding to single-site updates in Glauber dynamics,
including \seeding{}, \compress{}, and \disjoint{}.
We now describe how these local updates are composed into a global coupling according to a carefully designed schedule.
Throughout this construction, the algorithm has access to a global random seed $U\sim\uniform[0,1]$,
where each bit of $U$ is sampled i.i.d.\ uniformly so that all randomness is derived from this single source.
In addition, the construction maintains two global data structures:
\begin{itemize}
\item A \textbf{bounding list} $\mathcal{L}=(\mathcal{L}(v))_{v\in V}$,
where each $\mathcal{L}(v)\subseteq[q]$ records the current set of possible color at vertex~$v$;
\item A \textbf{composition list} $F^*$, which stores the sequence of local updates used to construct the overall mapping $F(\cdot,U)$.
Each entry of $F^*$ takes the form $(v,f_v,U_v)$, where $v$ is the vertex being updated, $f_v$ is the local grand coupling, and $U_v\in[0,1]$ is the independent random seed used in that update (generated from the global seed $U$).
\end{itemize}
The following subroutine \textsc{Update}$(v,f)$ modifies the bounding list $\mathcal{L}$ at $v$ and appends a new entry to the composition list $F^*$, given a vertex $v\in V$ and a local grand coupling rule $f=(f_u)_{u\in V}$ specifying at each vertex $u$ a local update function $f_u:\mathcal{P}_u\times[0,1]\to[q]$, as in \Cref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{\textsc{Update}$(v, f)$}
\label{alg:update}
\SetKwInput{KwGlobal}{Global Variable}
\KwIn{Vertex $v\in V$; local grand coupling rule $f=(f_u)_{u\in V}$.}
\KwGlobal{Bounding list $\mathcal{L}$; composition list $F^*$; global random seed $U\sim\uniform[0,1]$.}
Generate an independent $U' \sim \uniform[0,1]$ using the random seed $U$\;
$\mathcal{L}(v) \gets \{f_v(p,U'): p\in\mathcal{P}_v\}$\;
Append tuple $(v,f,U')$ to the end of $F^*$\;
\end{algorithm}
Each call to \textsc{Update} modifies only the bounding list $\mathcal{L}(v)$ at vertex~$v$,
and appends one new record $(v,f_v,U_v)$ representing the local update $f_v(\cdot, U_v)$ to $F^*$.
Intuitively, each such tuple in $F^*$ specifies a single atomic update applied to the current bounding chain.
The resulting global coupling $F^*:\Omega\to\Omega$ is the composition of all local updates in the order they appear in the list.
Given an initial configuration $\conf\in\Omega$, its image under $F^*$ can be evaluated as follows.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
a\caption{Evaluation of $F^*(\conf)$ for initial configuration $\conf$}
\label{alg:evaluate-F}
\KwIn{Configuration $\conf \in \Omega$; composition list $F^* = [(v_1,f_1,U_1),\dots,(v_T,f_T,U_T)]$.}
\KwOut{Updated configuration $F^*(\conf)$.}
\For{$i=1$ \KwTo $T$}{
$\conf_{v_i} \gets f_{v_i}(p_{v_i}^\conf, U_i)$, where $p_{v_i}^\conf=\uniform([q]\setminus\conf_{\Gamma(v_i)})$ is the Glauber dynamics update\;
}
\Return $\conf$\;
\end{algorithm}
%The procedure above defines how a composition list $F^*$ is applied to any input configuration.
%The \textsc{update}$(v, f)$ routine in \Cref{alg:update} assumes access to several global variables, including a configuration of bounding lists $\bl=(\bl(v))_{v\in V}$, where each $\bl(v)\subseteq[q]$, and a composition list data structure $F^*$ which records a list of tuples $((v_i,f_i,U_{i}))_i$ for constructing and evaluating the composed mapping later.
%The routine also accesses to a global seed $U\sim\uniform[0,1]$ where each bit is sampled i.i.d.~uniformly, such that all randomness used throughout is derived from this single random seed.
%It may also modify the $\mathcal{L}(u)$ on the neighbors $u\in\Gamma(v)$, which is realized by memorizing $f_v(\cdot,U_v)$ in the list $F^*$ and maintain afterward.
%$\{\mathcal{L}(u):u\in\Gamma(v)\}$, thereby translating the local rule $f_v$ into a step of the global transformation recorded in $F^*$.
\subsubsection{Neighborhood maintenance via \textsc{CleanUp}.}
We define an auxiliary routine \textsc{CleanUp}$(v,P)$ that applies a sequence of
$\compress$-type updates around $v$ relative to a reference color set $A\subseteq[q]$ built
from the bounding lists of a preserved set $P\subseteq V$. Intuitively, this
aligns the neighborhoods not currently being updated so that subsequent
\textsc{Update} calls meet the required invariants.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{\textsc{CleanUp}$(v,P)$}
\label{alg:cleanup}
\SetKwInput{KwGlobal}{Global Variable}
\KwIn{Vertex $v$ to be cleaned; subset $P \subseteq V$ of vertices to preserve.}
\KwGlobal{Bounding list $\mathcal{L}$; composition list $F^*$; global random seed $U\sim\uniform[0,1]$.}
$A\gets \textsc{Greedy}(\bl_P=(\bl(w))_{w\in P})$\;
\ForEach{$w \in \Gamma(v)\setminus P$}{
\textsc{Update}$(w, \compress^{A})$\;
}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{remark}[The \textsc{Greedy} subroutine in \Cref{alg:cleanup}]
The reference set $A$ used in \textsc{CleanUp} is chosen greedily
based on the current bounding information $\bl_P$:
the idea is to include as many colors as possible from the target color sets
until reaching size $\Delta$; and if the total size of the targets is less than $\Delta$,
we include all of them and fill the remaining slots with arbitrary colors.
This ensures $|A|=\Delta$ while maximizing coverage over the currently active neighborhood.
The specific priority rule of this greedy selection may vary across different
stages of the algorithm, as the construction of $A$ will be adapted to the
particular coupling objective of each stage.
The detailed forms of these greedy strategies will be provided later in the
proofs corresponding to each phase of the algorithm.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:adaptive-A}
It is important to note that while the vertex $v$ in each
\textsc{update} or \textsc{CleanUp} call
must be selected independently of the current configuration,
the auxiliary set $A$ \emph{may} depend adaptively on the current state
of the bounding chain.
The reason is that choosing $A$ only determines
which specific member of the family of grand couplings
$\{\compress^{A}:A\subseteq [q],|A|=\Delta\}$ is applied;
it does not modify the underlying Glauber dynamics itself.
In other words, the Glauber update rule remains unchanged,
and adaptively choosing $A$ merely specifies
which valid grand coupling realization to use at that step.
Since grand couplings are by definition allowed to be adaptively chosen, this adaptivity does not introduce bias nor affect correctness.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Construction of grand coupling and coalescence predicate.}
We now define the global coupling $F(\cdot, U)$ by composing the atomic local updates according to a two-phase schedule.
The resulting operator $F:\Omega \to \Omega$ is represented by the composition list $F^*$, which records the ordered sequence of local updates together with their corresponding random seeds, as described in \Cref{alg:evaluate-F}.
For convenience, we write $F^* \equiv F(\cdot, U)$ to emphasize that the composition list fully specifies the coupling induced by the global seed~$U$.
At the end, if every bounding list $\mathcal{L}(v)$ for $v\in V$ reduces to a singleton, a coalescence is detected and we set $\Phi_F(U)$ to be the corresponding unique configuration.
Otherwise, we set $\Phi_F(U) = \bot$.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Construction of $F(\cdot,U)$ and evaluation of $\Phi_F(U)$}
\label{alg:construct-F}
\KwIn{Graph $G(V,E)$ with maximum degree $\Delta$; $q\ge 2$; global random seed $U\sim\uniform[0,1]$.}
\KwOut{Grand coupling $F(\cdot,U)$, represented as a composition list $F^*\equiv F(\cdot,U)$; outcome of coalescence predicate $\Phi_F(U)$.}
\let\oldnl\nl% Store \nl in \oldnl
\newcommand{\nonl}{\renewcommand{\nl}{\let\nl\oldnl}}% Remove line number for one line
\BlankLine
\nonl
\textbf{Initialization:}
Initialize the global variables $\mathcal{L}(v) \gets [q]$ for all $v \in V$, and $F^*\gets()$ to be an empty list\;
$S \gets \textsc{VertexPartition}(G,\Delta)$ \tcp*[r]{Provided by Lemma~\ref{lemma:lll}}
\BlankLine
\nonl
\textbf{Phase I (Seeding Phase):}
\Indp
\label{line:seeding-init-start}\ForEach{$v_i \in S$ in fixed order}{
$\textsc{CleanUp}(v_i,\{v_1,\ldots,v_{i-1}\})$\;
$\update(v,\seeding)$\; \label{line:seeding-init-end}
}
\label{line:seeding-drift-start}\For{$t = 1$ \KwTo $T_1 = 5|S|\log |S|$}{
Choose $v \in S$ uniformly at random\;
$\textsc{CleanUp}(v,S)$\;
$\update(v,\seeding)$ } \label{line:seeding-drift-end}
\Indm
\BlankLine
\nonl
\textbf{Phase II (Converting and Drifting Phase):}
\Indp
\label{line:convert-start}\ForEach{$v_i \in V \setminus S$ in fixed order}{
$\textsc{CleanUp}(v_i,S\cup \{v_1,\ldots,v_{i-1}\})$\;
$\update(v,\disjoint)$\; \label{line:convert-end}
}
\label{line:drift-start}\For{$t = 1$ \KwTo $T_2 = \frac{2(q - \Delta)n \log n}{q - 2.5\Delta}$}{
Choose $v \in V$ uniformly at random\;
$\update(v,\disjoint)$\; \label{line:drift-end}
}
\Indm
\BlankLine
\nonl
\textbf{Check coalescence:}
\eIf{$|\mathcal{L}(v)| = 1$ for all $v \in V$}{
$\Phi_F(U) \gets$ unique configuration $\conf\in\bigotimes_{v\in V}\mathcal{L}(v)$\;
}{
$\Phi_F(U) \gets \bot$\;
}
\Return $(F^*, \Phi_F(U))$\;
\end{algorithm}
\begin{lemma}[Efficiency and coalescence]
\label{lemma:construct-F}
Suppose $q>(2.5+\eta)\Delta$ with $\eta=2\sqrt{(\log\Delta+1)/\Delta}$. Then \Cref{alg:construct-F} returns a $(F^*,\Phi_F(U))$ in time $\tilde{O}(n\Delta^2)$,
and it holds $\Pr{\Phi_F(U)\neq\bot}\ge 1/2$.
\end{lemma}
The proof of \cref{lemma:construct-F} is deferred to the next subsections.
\begin{lemma}[Evaluation cost]
\label{lemma:evaluate-F}
Given the composition list $F^*$ returned by \Cref{alg:construct-F},
the mapping $F^*(\conf)=F(\conf,U)$ can be evaluated by
Algorithm~\ref{alg:evaluate-F} for any configuration $\conf\in\Omega$ in time $\tilde{O}(n\Delta^2)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By \Cref{lem:compress,lem:seeding,lem:disjoint}, each local update costs
$O(\Delta\log\Delta)$ in time. Since \cref{alg:construct-F} performs at most
$O(n\Delta\log n)$ updates across both phases, the total time cost is
$O(n\Delta^2\log n\log \Delta)$.
\end{proof}
Combining \cref{lemma:construct-F,lemma:evaluate-F}
with \cref{lemma:blocked-cftp-sampler},
we conclude that the perfect sampling algorithm
terminates in expected time $\tilde{O}(n\Delta^2)$
and outputs an exact sample from the uniform distribution $\mu_\Omega$.
This establishes \cref{thm:main}.
\subsection{Vertex partition via algorithmic LLL}
\label{subsec:vertex-partition}
As a preprocessing step for the global coupling construction in \Cref{alg:construct-F}, we partition the vertex set $V$ into a \emph{seeding set} $S$ and its complement $V \setminus S$.
The goal is to ensure that each vertex has a well-balanced neighborhood across $S$ and $V \setminus S$.
The seeding set $S$ is used in Phase~I of \Cref{alg:construct-F} to guarantee that the neighborhoods involved in local updates remain sufficiently sparse, which in turn enables efficient list reduction and coalescence guarantees in subsequent phases.
% As a preprocessing step for the global coupling construction
% in \Cref{alg:construct-F}, we partition the vertex set
% $V$ into two parts: a \emph{seeding set} $S \subseteq V$ and its complement $V
% \setminus S$. This partition enables the two-phase update schedule in
% Algorithm~\Cref{alg:construct-F}, where vertices in $S$ are processed first using
% aggressive list reduction, followed by the rest of the graph.
% Our goal is to ensure that each vertex has a well-balanced neighborhood across
% $S$ and $V \setminus S$, so that the local coupling guarantees in both phases
% remain valid.
The following lemma shows that such a partition always exists and can be constructed efficiently.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:lll}
Let $G = (V, E)$ be a graph with maximum degree $\Delta$.
Then for $\eta = 2\sqrt{(\log \Delta + 1)/\Delta}$, there exists a subset $S \subseteq V$ such that for every vertex $v \in V$,
$$
|\Gamma(v) \cap S| \le \tfrac{1}{2}\Delta,
\qquad
|\Gamma(v) \cap (V \setminus S)| \le \left( \tfrac{1}{2} + \eta \right)\Delta.
$$
Moreover, such a set $S$ can be computed in expected time $O(n \Delta)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We construct $S$ by including each vertex $v \in V$ independently with
probability $p_0 = \tfrac{1}{2} - \tfrac{\eta}{2}$.
For each $u \in V$, let $I_u$ be the indicator for the event $u \in S$,
and for any vertex $v$, define
$$
I(v) \defeq \sum\nolimits_{u \in \Gamma(v)} I_u,
\qquad
\E{I(v)} = p_0\, \deg(v) = \left(\tfrac{1}{2} - \tfrac{\eta}{2}\right) \deg(v).
$$
We say that a vertex $v$ is \emph{violating} if either
$|\Gamma(v)\cap S| > \tfrac{1}{2}\Delta$ or
$|\Gamma(v)\cap (V\setminus S)| > (\tfrac{1}{2}+\eta)\Delta$.
Both violations correspond to $|I(v) - \E{I(v)}| > \frac{\eta}{2} \Delta$. By a Chernoff bound, for all $v$,
$$
\Pr{|I(v) - \E{I(v)}| > \tfrac{\eta}{2}\Delta}
\le 2 \exp\left( -\frac{(\eta \Delta)^2}{2\deg(v)} \right)
\le \frac{2}{e^2 \Delta^2}
$$
since $\deg(v) \le \Delta$.
Let $p = 2/(e^2 \Delta^2)$ be the failure probability per vertex, and note that
each bad event (i.e., vertex $v$ violating the bounds) depends only on the
random choices of vertices in $\Gamma(v)$, and thus at most $d \defeq \Delta$
other events. The symmetric Lovász Local Lemma (LLL) condition holds because
$$
e p (d + 1) \le \frac{2e(\Delta + 1)}{e^2 \Delta^2} < 1.
$$
Therefore, with positive probability, no vertex violates the condition, and such a partition exists.
To obtain such a partition efficiently, we apply the Moser-Tardos
resampling algorithm~\cite{moser2010constructive}. We associate with each vertex
$v \in V$ a random bit $s_v \in \{0,1\}$ indicating its membership in $S$
(initialized to $1$ independently with probability $p_0$), and a counter
$c_v = |\Gamma(v) \cap S|$.
We maintain a queue $Q$ of currently violating vertices. Initially, all vertices are placed into $Q$. While $Q$ is nonempty, we:
\begin{itemize}
\item Dequeue a vertex $v$ and check whether $c_v$ violates the desired bounds.
\item If so, we resample the bits $\{s_u : u \in \Gamma(v)\}$.
\item For each $w \in \Gamma(u)$ where $u \in \Gamma(v)$, update $c_w$, and enqueue $w$ into $Q$.
\end{itemize}
Each resampling step affects at most $O(\Delta^2)$ entries. By the analysis of
Moser and Tardos, the expected number of resamplings is $O(n / \Delta)$, so the
total expected runtime is $O(n\Delta)$.
\end{proof}
% The goal of the seeding phase is to construct a $2$-bounded configuration over a designated seed set $S \subseteq V$, serving as the initial condition for the subsequent contraction phase. To achieve this, we design a two-stage process combining two distinct coupling strategies:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \textsc{Compress} updates are used to control and stabilize the uncertainty introduced by a vertex’s neighborhood.
% \item \textsc{Seeding} updates are specifically tailored to reduce the size of a vertex’s bounding list.
% \end{itemize}
% These updates are coordinated through a deterministic initialization phase followed by a randomized drifting phase, both of which ensure the validity of the required preconditions for applying the \textsc{Seeding} coupling.
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \textbf{Initialization pass.}
% Let $S = \set{v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_i}$ be an arbitrary but fixed ordering of the seeding set $S$. We process each vertex $v_i \in S$ in this order, performing the following operations: Let $V_i=\set{v_1,v_2,\cdots,v_m}$, for every neighbor $w \in \Gamma(v_i)\setminus V_i$, we perform a \textsc{Compress} update on $w$, using a color set $A \subseteq [q]$ of size $\Delta$ that includes all colors in $\mathcal{L}(u)$ for each $u \in V_i$. This ensures that $\abs\slv\le \max(3|\Gamma(v)\cup V_i|,\Delta)+|\Gamma(v)\setminus V_i|\le 2\Delta$. After all such neighboring compressions are performed, we apply a \textsc{Seeding} update to $v_i$.
% \end{itemize}
% By construction, the ordering guarantees that each \textsc{Compress} operation has full knowledge of prior updates and bounding sets for earlier vertices. The result is that, after this pass, every vertex $v \in S$ has bounding set size at most $3$.
% The second stage is a randomized iterative process that reinforces the reduction of bounding set sizes for vertices in $S$ from at most $3$ down to exactly $2$. The objective is to eliminate any residual uncertainty introduced by partial dependencies and random update orderings.
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \textbf{Random Drifting}
% At each iteration, a vertex $v \in S$ is selected uniformly at random. We then update all neighbors $w \in \Gamma(v) \setminus S$ by applying the \textsc{Compress} coupling. For each such $w$, we select a color set $A \subseteq [q]$ of size $\Delta$ that contains all colors in $\mathcal{L}(u)$ for $u \in \Gamma(w)$. This ensures that $\abs\slv\le 2\Delta$. After these compressions, we perform a \textsc{Seeding} update on vertex $v$.
% \end{itemize}
% This process is repeated for $T$ independent rounds. The randomness of vertex selection and the repeated application of the coupling serve to "smooth out" inconsistencies in the bounding chain and accelerate convergence. Intuitively, by continually reintroducing compressed noise into the neighborhood and reapplying the seeding update, the bounding set for each $v \in S$ is gradually driven toward size $2$.
% In \cref{subsubsec:drifing-seeding}, we prove that setting $T \ge 5m \log m$, where $m = |S|$, suffices to guarantee that, with probability at least $3/4$, the bounding set satisfies $|\mathcal{L}(v)| = 2$ for all $v \in S$. This concludes the seeding phase and provides a uniform $2$-bounded configuration over the seed set $S$, which is crucial for completing the coalescence in random drifting stage.
%\subsubsection{Coupling Design: \textsc{Compress}}
%We first present the \textsc{Compress} coupling, originally introduced in~\cite{huber1998exact} and later refined by~\cite{bhandari2020improved, jain2021perfectly}. For clarity and modularity, we rephrase this coupling using the structured three-component format (\textsc{gen}, \textsc{decode}, \textsc{predict}) described earlier.
%\begin{algorithm}[H]
%\caption{Compress} \label{Alg:compress}
% \SetKwProg{Fn}{Function}{:}{}
% \SetKwInput{KwAssertion}{Assertion}
% \Fn{\textsc{Compress.gen}}{ \label{Alg:compress:gen}
% \KwIn{Bounding list $\mathcal{L}$, a vertex $v\in V(G)$ chosen independently to $\mathcal{L}$, and an arbitrary subset of colors $A\subseteq [q]$ with $|A|=\Delta$.}
% \KwOut{Randomness tuple $(\pi,x,\tau)$ for updating color on $v$.}
% \KwAssertion{ $q\ge\Delta+1$.}
% $\pi\gets\uniform(\text{permutation of }A)$
% $x\gets\uniform([q]\setminus A)$
% $\tau\gets\uniform([0,1])$
% \Return $(\pi,x,\tau)$
% }
% \Fn{\textsc{Compress.decode}}{ \label{Alg:compress:decode}
% \KwIn{Tuple $(\pi,x,\tau)$ and an arbitrary proper coloring $\conf$ contained in $\mathcal{L}$. }
% \KwOut{The decoded chosen color for updating $v$ in Glauber dynamics.}
% \If{$x\notin\gwv$ and $\tau\le\frac{q-\Delta}{q-\abs\gwv}$}{
% \Return $x$
% }\Else{
% The first available color $y\in\pi$ not in $\gwv$
% }
% }
% \Fn{\textsc{Compress.predict}}{ \label{Alg:compress:predict}
% \KwIn{Tuple $(\pi,x,\tau)$. }
% \KwOut{The new bounding set of $v$.}
% \Return $A \cup \set{x}$
% }
% \end{algorithm}
% \begin{lemma} \label{lem:compress2}
% Assume $q \ge \Delta + 1$. Let $L$ be the bounding list, and $\conf$ be an arbitrary proper coloring contained in $L$. If we choose $v\in V(G)$ independently of $L$, and $A\subseteq [q]$ with $|A|=\Delta$ arbitrarily. Let $s(\pi,x,\tau)\gets\textsc{Compress.gen}(L,v,A)$ be the generated randomness, then the following properties hold:
% \begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*), ref=\alph*]
% \item \label{compress-a} $\textsc{Compress.decode}(s,\conf)\sim\uniform([q]\setminus \Gamma_{\conf}(v))$.\hfill(Glauber dynamics)
% \item \label{compress-b} $\textsc{Compress.decode}(s,\conf)\in \textsc{Compress.predict}(s)$.\hfill(Consistency)
% \item \label{compress-c} $\textsc{Compress.predict}(s)=A\cup\set{c}$ where $c\sim \uniform([q]\setminus A)$.
% \item \label{compress-d} All operations can be implemented in expected time $O(\Delta \log \Delta)$.
% \end{enumerate}
% \end{lemma}
% \begin{proof}
% For fixed $s(\pi,x,\tau)\gets \textsc{Compress.gen}(\mathcal{L},v,A)$, and $\conf \in \mathcal{L}$, let $Y\gets \textsc{Compress.decode}(s,\conf)$.
% To prove property (\ref{compress-a}), note that $\gwv$ has size at most $\Delta$ and $q\ge \Delta$, then $0\le \frac{q-\Delta}{q-\abs\gwv}\le 1$ is a proper probability. Note that $x$ is chosen uniformly from $[q]\setminus A$ where $|A| = \Delta$, if $x\notin \gwv$ and $\tau \le \frac{q-\Delta}{q - \abs\gwv}$, then $Y = x$ is returned with probability
% \[
% \Pr[s]{Y=x}=\frac{1}{q - \Delta} \cdot \frac{q - \Delta}{q - \abs\gwv} = \frac{1}{q - \abs\gwv}.
% \]
% Otherwise, the decoder returns the first $y \in \pi$ with $y \notin \gwv$; since $\pi$ is a uniform permutation of $A$, each such $y$ has equal chance, and again $\Pr[s]{Y = y} = \frac{1}{q - \abs\gwv}$. Therefore, $Y$ follows the uniform distribution over $[q] \setminus \gwv$, which establishes property (\ref{compress-a}).
% For property (\ref{compress-b}), observe that in both branches of the decoder, the returned color is either $x$ or some $y \in \pi$, so $Y \in A \cup \set{x} = \textsc{Compress.predict}(s)$.
% Property (\ref{compress-c}) follows directly from the definition of \textsc{Compress.predict}, which returns $A \cup \set{x}$ with $x \sim \text{Uniform}([q]\setminus A)$.
% Finally, property (\ref{compress-d}) holds since: \textsc{Compress.gen} samples a permutation and one color in $[q]\setminus A$, both in $O(\Delta)$; \textsc{Compress.decode} requires at most $\Delta$ operations to search through $\pi$, each check taking $O(\log\Delta)$ time; \textsc{Compress.predict} returns a set union of size $\Delta + 1$ in time $O(\Delta)$.
% \end{proof}
% \subsubsection{Coupling Design: Seeding}
% \label{subsubsec:seeding}
% We now introduce the key coupling used to reduce the bounding list size for vertices in the seeding set $S$. Unlike the \textsc{Compress} coupling, which is primarily used to control the growth of uncertainty from neighborhood interactions, the \textsc{Seeding} coupling is designed to directly \emph{shrink} the size of $\mathcal{L}(v)$ for a chosen vertex $v \in S$.
% \begin{algorithm}[H]
% \caption{Seeding} \label{Alg:seeding}
% \SetKwProg{Fn}{Function}{:}{}
% \SetKwInput{KwAssertion}{Assertion}
% \Fn{\textsc{Seeding.gen}}{ \label{Alg:seeding:gen}
% \KwIn{Bounding list $\mathcal{L}$, a vertex $v\in V(G)$ chosen independently to $\mathcal{L}$.}
% \KwOut{Randomness tuple $(x,y,z,\tau_1,\tau_2)$ for updating color on $v$.}
% \KwAssertion{ $q\ge 7/3\Delta$ and $\slv\le 2\Delta$.}
% $x\gets\uniform([q]\setminus \slv)$
% $y\gets\uniform(\slv)$
% $z\gets\uniform(\slv\setminus\set{y})$
% $\tau_1,\tau_2\gets\uniform([0,1])$
% \Return $(x,y,z,\tau_1,\tau_2)$
% }
% \Fn{\textsc{Seeding.decode}}{ \label{Alg:seeding:decode}
% \KwIn{Tuple $(x,y,z,\tau_1,\tau_2)$ and an arbitrary proper coloring $\conf$ contained in $\mathcal{L}$. }
% \KwOut{The real chosen color for updating $v$.}
% $P_1\gets\max\left(1-\frac{\abs\slv}{q-\abs\gwv},0\right)$,
% $P_2\gets\min\left(1-\frac{(\abs\slv+\abs\gwv-q)(\abs\slv-1)}{(q-\abs\gwv)\abs\gwv},1\right)$
% \IfThen{$\tau_1\le P_1$}{\Return $x$}
% \IfThen{$y\notin\gwv$}{\Return $y$}
% \IfThen{$\tau_2\le P_2$}{\Return $x$}
% \IfThen{$z\notin\gwv$}{\Return $z$}
% \Return $x$
% }
% \Fn{\textsc{Seeding.predict}}{ \label{Alg:seeding:predict}
% \KwIn{Tuple $(x, y, z,\tau_1, \tau_2)$.}
% \KwOut{The new bounding set of $v$.}
% $Q_1\gets \max\left(1-\frac{\abs\slv}{q-\Delta},0\right)$,
% $Q_2\gets \min\left(1-\frac{(\abs\slv+\Delta-q)(\abs\slv-1)}{(q-\Delta)|\Delta},1\right)$
% \IfThen{$\tau_1\le Q_1$}{\Return $\set{x}$}
% \IfThen{$\tau_2\le Q_2$}{\Return $\set{x,y}$}
% \Return $\set{x,y,z}$ \label{line:ret-3}
% }
% \end{algorithm}
% \begin{lemma} \label{lem:seeding2}
% Assume $q\ge 7/3\Delta$. Let $\mathcal{L}$ be the bounding list, and $\conf$ be an arbitrary $q$-coloring contained in $\mathcal{L}$. If we choose $v\in V(G)$ independently of $\mathcal{L}$. Let $s(x,y,z,\tau_1,\tau_2)\gets\textsc{Seeding.gen}(\mathcal{L},v,A)$ be the generated randomness, if $\slv\le 2\Delta$ then the following properties hold:
% \begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*), ref=\alph*]
% \item \label{seeding-a} $\textsc{Seeding.decode}(s,\conf)\sim\uniform([q]\setminus \gwv)$.\hfill(Glauber dynamics)
% \item \label{seeding-b} $\textsc{Seeding.decode}(s,\conf)\in \textsc{Compress.predict}(s)$.\hfill(Consistency)
% \item \label{seeding-c} $|\textsc{Seeding.predict}(s)|=3$ with probability at most $\frac{(\abs\slv+\Delta-q)(\abs\slv-1)}{(q-\Delta)\Delta}$, otherwise $=2$.
% \item \label{seeding-d} All operations can be implemented in expected time $O(\Delta \log \Delta)$.
% \end{enumerate}
% \end{lemma}
% \begin{proof}
% We consider two cases:
% \textbf{Case 1}: When $\abs\slv\le q-\Delta$. In this case, $P_2=Q_2=1$, and the algorithm behaves identically to the contract algorithm from \cite{bhandari2020improved}, so the four properties follow immediately.
% \textbf{Case 2}: When $\abs\slv > q - \Delta$. In this case, $P_1 = Q_1 = 0$, so we ignore statements associated with $P_1$ and $Q_1$.
% Let $s(\pi,x,\tau)\gets \textsc{Compress.gen}(\mathcal{L},v)$ and let $\conf \in \mathcal{L}$. Define $Y\gets \textsc{Compress.decode}(s,\conf)$.
% We now show that $P_2 = 1 - \frac{(\abs\slv+\abs\gwv-q)\abs\slv}{(q-\abs\gwv)\abs\gwv}$ is always within $[0,1]$. Since $\abs\slv > q - \Delta$ and $q \ge \frac{7}{3}\Delta > \Delta \ge \abs\gwv$, the numerator and denominator of the fraction are both positive. Consider the function
% $$
% f(q,s,\gamma) = \frac{(s+\gamma-q)s}{(q-\gamma)\gamma} = \frac{1}{q-\gamma} - \frac{(q-s)s}{(q-\gamma)\gamma}.
% $$
% It is increasing in $\gamma$ when $\gamma \le \frac{q}{2}$. Since $0<\gamma\le \Delta\le \frac{q}{2}$, we have
% $$
% f(q,s,\gamma)\le f(q,s,\Delta)=\frac{(s+\Delta-q)s}{(q-\Delta)\Delta} \defeq g(q,s).
% $$
% Moreover, $g(q,s)$ is decreasing in $q$ and increasing in $s$, so for $q\ge \frac{7}{3}\Delta$ and $s\le 2\Delta$,
% $$
% g(q,s) \le g\left(\tfrac{7}{3}\Delta, 2\Delta\right)=\frac{(2\Delta+\Delta-7/3\Delta)\cdot2\Delta}{(7/3\Delta-\Delta)\cdot\Delta} = 1.
% $$
% This shows that $P_2\in[0,1]$.
% Next, since $x$ is chosen uniformly from $[q]\setminus \slv$, and $y,z$ are chosen uniformly from $\slv$, for all $t\in\slv\setminus\gwv$, the decoder returns $Y=t$ if and only if:
% \begin{enumerate}
% \item $y=t$, or
% \item $y\in\gwv$, $z=t$, and $\tau_2 > P_2$.
% \end{enumerate}
% Hence, by the law of total probability,
% $$
% \Pr[s]{Y=t} = \frac{1}{\abs\slv} + \frac{\abs\gwv}{\abs\slv}\cdot\frac{1}{\abs\slv-1}\cdot\frac{(\abs\slv+\abs\gwv-q)(\abs\slv-1)}{(q-\abs\gwv)\abs\gwv} = \frac{1}{q - \abs\gwv}.
% $$
% This confirms that $Y$ is uniformly distributed over $[q]\setminus \gwv$, establishing the property (\ref{seeding-a}).
% For property (\ref{seeding-b}): From the above, $Q_2=1-g(q,\abs\slv)\le 1-f(q,\abs\slv,\abs\gwv)= P_2$, so if the predictor returns $\set{x, y}$, then $\tau_2 \le Q_2 \le P_2$, that is to say, the decoder halts without considering $z$, ensuring that the prediction is consistent.
% For property (\ref{seeding-c}): $|\textsc{Seeding.predict}(s)|=3$ if and only if $\tau\ge Q_2$, which happens with probability $\frac{(\abs\slv+\Delta-q)\abs\slv}{(q-\Delta)|\Delta}$.
% Finally, for property (\ref{seeding-d}): Since $\slv\le 2\Delta$, both computing $\slv$ and sampling the colors from it take an expected time $O(\Delta\log \Delta)$. Likewise, computing $\gwv$ also takes $O(\Delta\log\Delta)$, and prediction requires only constant time operations.
% \end{proof}
% \subsubsection{Drifting Analysis in Seeding Phase}
% \label{subsubsec:drifing-seeding}
\subsection{Phase I: {Seeding}}
\label{subsec:seeding-phase}
Phase~I transforms the initial bounding lists into size-two lists on the seeding set $S$ obtained from \Cref{lemma:lll}.
It consists of two stages:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[i.] \emph{Initialization stage:} a deterministic pass over $S$ that ensures $|\mathcal{L}(v)|\in\{2,3\}$ for every $v\in S$;
\item[ii.] \emph{Randomized drifting stage:} repeated applications of the
\textsc{Seeding} coupling to uniformly random vertices in $S$, which drive
all lists in $S$ to satisfy $|\mathcal{L}(v)|=2$ with constant probability.
\end{enumerate}
We first establish the deterministic initialization property and then analyze the convergence of the drifting stage.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:seeding-init}
Assume $q \ge (2.5+\eta)\Delta$, and let $S$ be the seeding set constructed in \Cref{lemma:lll}.
After the initialization stage of Phase~I (Lines~\ref{line:seeding-init-start}--\ref{line:seeding-init-end} in \Cref{alg:construct-F}),
every vertex $v \in S$ satisfies $|\mathcal{L}(v)|\in\{2,3\}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We prove by induction on the fixed update order of vertices in $S$.
Assume that before processing $v_i$, every $v\in P=\{v_1,\ldots,v_{i-1}\}$ satisfies $|\bl(v)|\in \{2,3\}$.
The procedure $\textsc{CleanUp}(v_i,P)$ chooses a $A\subseteq[q]$ of size $\Delta$ from
$$
\slv_P \defeq \bigcup_{u\in \Gamma(v_i)\cup P}\bl(u),
$$
greedily: include as many colors as possible from $\slv_P$, and if $|\slv_P|<\Delta$, fill the remaining slots arbitrarily from
$[q]\setminus \slv_P$.
Next, $\compress^{A}$ is applied to every $w\in\Gamma(v_i)\setminus P$.
By \Cref{lem:compress}, after this step each such neighbor satisfies $\bl(w)=A\cup\{c_w\}$ for some $c_w\in[q]\setminus A$.
Hence, at this moment
$$
\slv \defeq \bigcup_{u\in\Gamma(v_i)}\bl(u)
= (A\cup \slv_P)\cup \{c_w:w\in\Gamma(v_i)\setminus P\}.
$$
Therefore,
$$
|\slv|
\le \max(|A|,\,3|\Gamma(v_i)\cap P|)+|\Gamma(v_i)\setminus P|
\le 2\Delta,
$$
where the first inequality uses $|A|=\Delta$ and the inductive assumption $|\bl(v)|\le 3$ for all $v\in P$, and the second inequality follows from $|\Gamma(v_i)|\le\Delta$ and $|\Gamma(v_i)\cap P|\le \tfrac{1}{2}\Delta$ by \Cref{lemma:lll}.
Thus the precondition of \Cref{lem:seeding}, namely $|\slv|<2\Delta$, holds. Applying the \textsc{Seeding} grand coupling then gives $|\bl(v_i)|\in\{2,3\}$, preserving the induction hypothesis. The claim follows for all $v_i\in S$.
\end{proof}
This completes the deterministic initialization of Phase~I:
after processing all vertices in $S$, each $v \in S$ satisfies
$|\mathcal{L}(v)| \in \{2,3\}$.
In the subsequent \emph{drifting stage}, we repeatedly apply the
\textsc{Seeding} coupling to uniformly random vertices of $S$,
which further reduces each list to size~$2$ with constant probability.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:drifting}
Assume $q \ge (2.5 + \eta)\Delta$, and let $S$ be the seeding set constructed in \Cref{lemma:lll}.
Let $m = |S|$ and $T_1 = 5 m \log m$.
Starting from a configuration in which $|\mathcal{L}(v)| \in \{2,3\}$ for all $v \in S$
(as ensured by \Cref{lem:seeding-init}),
after $T_1$ iterations of the drifting step in Phase~I (Lines~\ref{line:seeding-drift-start}--\ref{line:seeding-drift-end} in \Cref{alg:construct-F}),
we have $|\mathcal{L}(v)| = 2$ for all $v \in S$ with probability at least $3/4$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{L}_t$ denote the bounding list configuration after $t$ randomized drifting step, and define
$$
V_t \defeq \{v \in S : |\mathcal{L}_t(v)| = 3\},
$$
be the set of vertices whose lists have not yet been reduced to size $2$. We introduce the potential function $\Phi_t = |V_t|$ which measures the number of unresolved vertices at time~$t$.
For each vertex $v\in S$, let
$$
\slv_{t}(v) \defeq \bigcup_{u\in\Gamma(v)} \mathcal{L}_t(u)
$$
denote the \emph{slack color set} of $v$ at iteration~$t$, i.e., the union of bounding lists over its neighborhood at that time.By property~(\ref{seeding-size}) of \Cref{lem:seeding}, the probability that vertex $v$ remains in the $|\mathcal{L}_t(v)|=3$ state after one update is
$$
p_{t,v}
= \frac{(\,|\slv_{t}(v)| + \Delta - q\,)\,(|\mathcal{S}_t(v)| - 1\,)}{(\,q - \Delta\,)\,\Delta}
\le\frac{2|\slv_t(v)|}{q-\Delta}-2
$$
by assuming $|\slv_t(v)|\le 2\Delta$. The expected change in the potential at each iteration can be expressed as
$$
\E{\Phi_{t+1}-\Phi_t \mid V_t}
\le \frac{1}{m}
\left(
\sum_{v\in S\setminus V_t} p_{t,v}
- \sum_{v\in V_t}(1-p_{t,v})
\right)
\le \frac{1}{m}\left(
2\left(\frac{\sum_{v\in S}|\slv_t(v)|}{q-\Delta} -m\right)- \Phi_t
\right),
$$
Next, we bound the neighborhood slack sizes $|\slv_t(v)|$ that appear in $p_{t,v}$.
By the greedy construction of the reference set $A$ in \Cref{lem:seeding-init}, the $\textsc{CleanUp}$ operation ensures that
$$
|\slv_t(v)|
\le
\max\!\bigl(\Delta,\,
2|\Gamma(v)\cap S|
+ |\Gamma(v)\cap V_t|
\bigr)
+ |\Gamma(v)\setminus S|\le (1.5+\eta)\Delta+|\Gamma(v)\cap V_t|
$$
by applying the degree bounds from \Cref{lemma:lll}, namely $|\Gamma(v)\cap S|\le \tfrac{1}{2}\Delta$ and $|\Gamma(v)\setminus S|\le (\tfrac{1}{2}+\eta)\Delta$.
Summing over all $v\in S$ yields the aggregate bound
$$
\sum_{v\in S} |\slv_t(v)|
\le (1.5+\eta)m\Delta + \sum_{v\in S}|\Gamma(v)\cap V_t|\le(1.5+\eta)m\Delta+\tfrac{1}{2}\Phi_t\Delta.
$$
Plugging into the drift expression and applying $q\ge (2.5+\eta)\Delta$:
$$
\E{\Phi_{t+1} - \Phi_t \mid V_t}
\le \frac{1}{m} \left( 2m\left(\frac{(1.5+\eta)\Delta}{(2.5+\eta)\Delta - \Delta} -1\right) + \frac{\Phi_t \Delta}{q - \Delta} - \Phi_t \right)
= -\frac{\Phi_t}{m} \left( 1 - \frac{\Delta}{q - \Delta} \right).
$$
Let $\delta \defeq \frac{1 - \frac{\Delta}{q - \Delta}}{m}$. Then we have $\E{\Phi_{t+1} \mid \Phi_t} \le \Phi_t (1 - \delta)$,i.e., the potential decreases in expectation by a multiplicative factor. Since $ \delta T = \left(1 - \frac{\Delta}{q - \Delta} \right) \cdot 5\log m \ge \log(4m) $ for all $ q \ge (2.5 + \eta)\Delta $, applying the Multiplicative Drift Theorem and Markov's inequality yields:
$$
\Pr{\Phi_T \ge 1} \le \E{\Phi_T} \le m e^{-\delta T} \le \frac{1}{4}.
$$
Thus, with probability at least $3/4$, we have $\Phi_T = 0$, meaning all vertices in $S$ have label size 2.
\end{proof}
The two-stage analysis above completes Phase~I:
after the initialization pass (\cref{lem:seeding-init}) and the drifting stage
(\cref{lem:drifting}), all vertices in the seeding set $S$ are $2$-bounded with probability at least $3/4$.
This configuration that is $2$-bounded on seeding vertices serves as the starting point for Phase~II.
\subsection{Phase II: Converting and Drifting}
\label{subsec:phase-II}
Phase~II begins with the $|\bl(v)|=2$ for all vertex in seeding set $S$ by Phase~I and completes the coalescence of the bounding chain.
It consists of two stages:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[i] \emph{Conversion stage:} a deterministic pass over $V \setminus S$ that ensures $|\mathcal{L}(v)| \in \{1,2\}$ for every $v \in V \setminus S$;
\item[ii] \emph{Drifting stage:} randomized updates on all vertices
that drive every list to size~$1$ with constant probability.
\end{enumerate}
We begin with the conversion stage.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:conversion}
Assume $q \ge (2.5+\eta)\Delta$, and let $S$ be the seeding set constructed in \Cref{lemma:lll}.
After the conversion stage of Phase~II (Lines~\ref{line:convert-start}--\ref{line:convert-end} in \Cref{alg:construct-F}), every vertex $v \in V \setminus S$ satisfies $|\mathcal{L}(v)|\in\{1,2\}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We prove by induction on the fixed update order of vertices in $V\setminus S$.
Assume that before processing $v_i$, every $v\in P=S\cup\{v_1,\ldots,v_{i-1}\}$
satisfies $|\bl(v)|\le2$. The procedure $\textsc{CleanUp}(v_i,P)$ constructs a reference set
$A\subseteq[q]$ of size~$\Delta$ as follows.
Define
\[
\slv_P \defeq \bigcup_{u\in \Gamma(v_i)\cup P}\bl(u),
\qquad
\dlv_P \defeq
\bigcup_{\substack{
u\in \Gamma(v_i)\cup P:\\
\forall w\in\Gamma(v_i),\,w\neq u,
\ \bl(u)\cup\bl(w)=\varnothing
}}
\bl(u),
\]
where $\slv_P$ collects all colors currently active in the neighborhood of
$v_i$ and the processed vertices $P$, while $\dlv_P$ collects those colors
belonging to \emph{disjoint} bounding lists in this neighborhood. \textsc{Greedy} try to build $A$ including as many colors as possible from $\slv_P\setminus\dlv_P$, and then $\dlv_P$.
Let $x$ denote the number of bounding lists $\bl(u)$ for preserved neighbors $u\in P$ that are not contained in $\dlv_P$, and let $y$ be the number of those that are contained in $\dlv_P$.
Further, let $z = |\Gamma(v_i)\setminus P|$ be the number of unprocessed neighbors of $v_i$. By definition, $x + y + z = |\Gamma(v_i)| \le \Delta$.
From \Cref{lemma:lll}, we also have $z = |\Gamma(v_i)| - x - y\le \left(\tfrac{1}{2} + \eta\right)\Delta.$
Next, $\compress^{A}$ is applied to each $w\in\Gamma(v_i)\setminus P$.
By \Cref{lem:compress}, after this step every such neighbor satisfies
$\bl(w) = A \cup \{c_w\}$ for some $c_w\in[q]\setminus A$.
Accordingly, the disjoint and slack color sets at $v_i$ can be written as
$$
\dlv
\defeq
\bigcup_{\substack{
u\in \Gamma(v_i):\\
\forall w\in\Gamma(v_i),\,w\neq u,\
\bl(u)\cup\bl(w)=\varnothing
}}
\bl(u)
= \dlv_P \setminus A \setminus
\{\,c_w : w\in\Gamma(v_i)\setminus P\,\},
$$
and
$$
\slv
\defeq \bigcup_{u\in\Gamma(v_i)} \bl(u)
= (A \cup (\slv_P\setminus\dlv_P)\cup \dlv_P)
\cup (\{\,c_w : w\in\Gamma(v_i)\setminus P\,\}\setminus A\setminus\dlv_P).
$$
Let $u =
\bigl|\{\,c_w : w\in\Gamma(v_i)\setminus P\,\}
\cup (\dlv_P\setminus A)\bigr|$
be the number of distinct colors newly introduced outside $A$
interact to $\dlv$ during \textsc{CleanUp}.
By definition of $x,y,z$ and the structure of $\slv$ and $\dlv$ above, we have
$$
|\slv|
\le \max(\Delta,\,1.5x + 2y) + z - u,
\qquad
|\dlv|
\ge \max\bigl(0,\,2y - \max(0,\,\Delta - 1.5x)\bigr) - u,
$$
since every bounding list $\bl(v)$ not contained in $\dlv$
contributes at most $1.5$ colors to $\slv$ by \cite{jain2021perfectly}.
Combining the two inequalities yields
$$
|\slv| - \tfrac{1}{2}|\dlv|
\le
\max(\Delta,\,1.5x + 2y)
- \max\left(0,\,y - \max(0,\,\tfrac{1}{2}\Delta - 0.75x)\right)+z
- \tfrac{1}{2}u.
$$
We now upper bound the right-hand side of the above inequality under the constraints
$$
x+y+z\le \Delta,\qquad
z\le \bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}+\eta\bigr)\Delta,\qquad
u\ge 0.
$$
Since the expression is decreasing in $u$, it suffices to consider $u=0$.
For fixed $z$, the feasible region for $(x,y)$ is the triangle
$\{\,x,y\ge 0,\; x+y\le \Delta-z\,\}$, on which the objective
$$
f(x,y,z)
= \max(\Delta,\,1.5x+2y)
- \max\left(0,\,y-\max(0,\tfrac{1}{2}\Delta-0.75x)\right)+z
$$
is piecewise linear. When $1.5x\ge\Delta$, $f(x,y,z)=1.5x+y+z\le 1.5\Delta$. When $1.5+2y\le\Delta$, $f(x,y,z)=\Delta+z\le(1.5+\eta)\Delta$. Otherwise $f(x,y,z)=2.25x+y+z-0.5\Delta\le 1.5\Delta$.
Substituting this extremal configuration gives
$$
|\slv|-\tfrac{1}{2}|\dlv|
\le (1.5+\eta)\Delta.
$$
This establishes the desired bound and verifies that the precondition of \Cref{lem:disjoint} holds for every vertex $v_i$ during the conversion stage.
%
% which arises by adding the baseline contribution from all bounding sets, plus the worst-case addition from new bounding sets brought into $\slv$ through \textsc{Compress}. This reduces to the following optimization problem:
% \begin{align*}
% \max_{x, y} \min_{a, b} \quad & (1 - x - y) + 1.5x + y + (1 - 1.5a - 2b) \\
% \text{subject to} \quad & \left(\frac{1}{2} - \eta\right)\Delta \le x + y \le \Delta, \\
% & a \le x,\quad b \le y, \\
% & 1.5a + 2b \le \Delta,\\
% & a,b,x,y \in \mathbb{N}.
% \end{align*}
%
% Since this is an integer program over a constant number of variables, we may relax it to a linear program with continuous variables, incurring at most an additive $O(1)$ loss in the objective. We normalize all quantities by $\Delta$, so $x, y, a, b$ now denote fractions in $[0,1]$:
% \begin{align*}
% \max_{x, y} \min_{a, b} \quad & 2+0.5x-1.5a-2b \\
% \text{subject to} \quad & \frac{1}{2} - \eta \le x + y \le 1, \\
% & 1.5a + 2b \le 1,\\
% & \quad 0 \le a \le x\le 1,\quad 0 \le b \le y\le 1, \\
% \end{align*}
%
% For fixed $x,y$ the inner minimisation over $a,b$ is equivalent to maximising $1.5a+2b$. The maximum of $1.5a+2b$ under these bounds is $M(x,y)=\min(1,1.5x+2y)$. Hence the outer problem becomes
% \begin{align*}
% \max_{x,y}\quad&G(x,y)=2+0.5x-\min(1,1.5x+2y)\\
% \text{subject to}\quad& 0.5-\eta\le x+y\le 1,\\
% &0\le x,y\le 1.
% \end{align*}
%
% We analyze two cases:
%
% \textbf{Case 1:} If $1.5x + 2y \le 1$, then $G(x,y) = 2 - x - 2y$, which is strictly decreasing in both $x$ and $y$. Since $x + y \ge 0.5 - \eta$, the maximum occurs at $x = 0.5 - \eta$, $y = 0$, yielding $G = 2 - (0.5 - \eta) = 1.5 + \eta$.
%
% \textbf{Case 2:} If $1.5x + 2y \ge 1$, then $M(x,y) = 1$, so $G(x,y) = 1 + 0.5x$, which is increasing in $x$. The maximum occurs at $x = 1$, $y = 0$, giving $G = 1.5$.
%
% In both cases, we have $G(x,y) \le 1.5 + \eta$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
Having completed the deterministic conversion stage, we now analyze the subsequent randomized drifting process.
Starting from the globally $2$-bounded configuration produced above, we repeatedly apply the $\textsc{Disjoint}$ coupling on uniformly random vertices until full coalescence.
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Theorem~5.1]{jain2021perfectly}}]
\label{lem:disjoint-drifting}
Assume the process starts from a globally $2$-bounded configuration and that $q > (2.5+\eta)\Delta$, where $\eta=2\sqrt{(\log\Delta+1)/\Delta}$.
Then, after $T_2=\frac{2(q-\Delta)n\log n}{q-2.5\Delta}$ iterations of the \textsc{Disjoint} coupling, the bounding chain collapses to a singleton with probability at least $3/4$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
The proof of \Cref{lem:disjoint-drifting} follows the same potential-based
argument used in the drifting stage of Phase~I.
The potential function $\Phi_t=|\{v:|\bl_t(v)|=2\}|$ decreases
geometrically under the contraction bound provided by
\Cref{lem:disjoint}, leading to exponential convergence in expectation.
\end{remark}
Combining \Cref{lem:conversion} and \Cref{lem:disjoint-drifting} establishes that, for $q \ge (2.5+\eta)\Delta$, Phase~II succeeds with a probability of $3/4$, thereby completing the proof of coalescence.
\subsection{Wrapping up}
\label{subsec:put-together}
We now combine the results established in the preceding subsections. Assume $q \ge (2.5+\eta)\Delta$.
\Cref{lem:seeding-init,lem:drifting}
show that Phase~I (Seeding phase) produces a configuration that is $2$-bounded over the seeding set $S$
with probability at least $3/4$.
Then, \Cref{lem:conversion,lem:disjoint-drifting}
ensure that, starting from such a configuration,
Phase~II (Converting and Drifting phase) reduces all bounding lists to singletons, also with probability at least $3/4$.
By a union bound, a successful coalescence occurs with probability at least $1/2$.
Together with \Cref{lemma:evaluate-F},
the total expected computation time is $O(n\Delta^2 \log \Delta)$,
which completes the proof of \Cref{lemma:construct-F}.
Combining \Cref{lemma:construct-F,lemma:blocked-cftp-sampler},
we obtain the correctness and efficiency guarantees of the CFTP algorithm, thereby completing the proof of \Cref{thm:main}.
%Together, these results imply Lemma~\ref{lemma:construct-F}:
%the blocked grand coupling $F(\cdot,U)$ and its predicate $\Phi_F(U)$ can be constructed and evaluated in expected time
%$\tilde{O}(n\Delta^2)$ and satisfy $\Pr[\Phi_F(U)\neq\bot]\ge 1/2$.
% Combining Lemma~\ref{lemma:construct-F},
% Lemma~\ref{lemma:evaluate-F},
% and Lemma~\ref{lemma:blocked-cftp-sampler},
% thereby completing the proof of the perfect sampling algorithm.
% The second phase completes the coalescence of the bounding chain by reducing all bounding lists to singleton sets. We assume that the seeding phase has already established a configuration in which every vertex $v \in S$ has a bounding list of size exactly $2$.
% To achieve full contraction, we adopt the two-stage procedure from~\cite{jain2021perfectly}—namely, the \emph{conversion step} and the \emph{drifting step}—with only minor adjustments to accommodate our improved initialization. Both stages rely on the \textsc{Disjoint} and \textsc{Compress} couplings introduced in their work, along with a carefully constructed color set $A$ decomposition involving the current $\mathcal{L}$.
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \textbf{Conversing Scan.}
% Let $S = \set{v_1, \dots, v_{m}}$ be the seed set established in Phase I. Let $V \setminus S = \set{v_{m+1}, \dots, v_n}$ be an arbitrary ordering of the remaining vertices. For each vertex $v_i$ with $i > m$, we perform the following operations: For each unmarked neighbor $w \in \Gamma(v_i)$, we apply a \textsc{Compress} update, using a color set $A \subseteq [q]$ of size $\Delta$ constructed greedily from the current bounding list $\mathcal{L}$ by combining the sets $\dlv$ (as defined in~\cite{jain2021perfectly}), which collect the colors that appear in the bounding sets of neighbors of $v$.
% \end{itemize}
% By the end of this step, all vertices have bounding set of size at most $2$, yielding a globally $2$-bounded configuration. The second stage then drives this configuration to full coalescence.
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \textbf{Drifting Step.}
% At each iteration, a vertex $v \in V$ is selected uniformly at random, and we apply the \textsc{Disjoint} coupling to $v$.
% \end{itemize}
% This step is repeated for $T = \frac{2(q - \Delta)n \log n}{q - 2.5\Delta}$ rounds, where $k = q$ denotes the number of colors. As shown in~\cite[Lemma 5.2]{jain2021perfectly}, this suffices to ensure that the entire bounding chain collapses to a singleton with high probability, provided the process begins from a $2$-bounded configuration when $q>2.5\Delta$.
% The only remaining gap is that the analysis of the conversion step in~\cite{jain2021perfectly} applies only when $q \ge (\frac{8}{3} + \eta)\Delta$. In our setting, we aim to work with significantly smaller values of $q$. In particular, we provide a new analysis that lowers this threshold to $q \ge (2.5 + \eta)\Delta$, thereby extending the validity of the framework into a previously inaccessible regime. See \Cref{appendix:A} for the full details of this argument.
\section{Proof of conversion step under \texorpdfstring{$q > (2.5 + \eta)\Delta$}{q > (2.5 + η)Δ}}
\label{appendix:A}
\begin{lemma}
Assume $q \ge (2.5 + \eta)\Delta$ for some constant $\eta > 0$. Then, for each vertex $v \in V \setminus S$, there exists a way to construct the color set $A \subseteq [q]$ of size $\Delta$—depending only on the current bounding list $\mathcal{L}$—such that after applying \textsc{Compress} updates to all unmarked neighbors of $v$, the effective constraint set for $v$ satisfies:
$$
\abs\slv - \frac{1}{2}\abs\dlv < (1.5 + \eta)\Delta,
$$
which suffices to guarantee the success of the subsequent \textsc{Disjoint} update on $v$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix a vertex $v \in V \setminus S$ and let $\Gamma(v)$ denote its neighbors. Let $x$ be the number of neighboring bounding sets not contained in $\dlv$, and let $y$ be the number of bounding sets that are in $\dlv$. By definition, we have $x + y \le \Delta$ and $x + y \ge \left(\frac{1}{2} - \eta\right)\Delta$.
We now choose a color set $A$ of size $\Delta$ to minimize the expression $\abs\slv - \frac{1}{2}\abs\dlv$. Suppose $A$ include $a$ bounding sets from outside $\dlv$ and $b$ bounding sets from inside $\dlv$. Then we can upper bound:
\[
\abs\slv - \frac{1}{2}\abs\dlv \le (1 - x - y) + 1.5x + y + (1 - 1.5a - 2b),
\]
which arises by adding the baseline contribution from all bounding sets, plus the worst-case addition from new bounding sets brought into $\slv$ through \textsc{Compress}. This reduces to the following optimization problem:
\begin{align*}
\max_{x, y} \min_{a, b} \quad & (1 - x - y) + 1.5x + y + (1 - 1.5a - 2b) \\
\text{subject to} \quad & \left(\frac{1}{2} - \eta\right)\Delta \le x + y \le \Delta, \\
& a \le x,\quad b \le y, \\
& 1.5a + 2b \le \Delta,\\
& a,b,x,y \in \mathbb{N}.
\end{align*}
Since this is an integer program over a constant number of variables, we may relax it to a linear program with continuous variables, incurring at most an additive $O(1)$ loss in the objective. We normalize all quantities by $\Delta$, so $x, y, a, b$ now denote fractions in $[0,1]$:
\begin{align*}
\max_{x, y} \min_{a, b} \quad & 2+0.5x-1.5a-2b \\
\text{subject to} \quad & \frac{1}{2} - \eta \le x + y \le 1, \\
& 1.5a + 2b \le 1,\\
& \quad 0 \le a \le x\le 1,\quad 0 \le b \le y\le 1, \\
\end{align*}
For fixed $x,y$ the inner minimisation over $a,b$ is equivalent to maximising $1.5a+2b$. The maximum of $1.5a+2b$ under these bounds is $M(x,y)=\min(1,1.5x+2y)$. Hence the outer problem becomes
\begin{align*}
\max_{x,y}\quad&G(x,y)=2+0.5x-\min(1,1.5x+2y)\\
\text{subject to}\quad& 0.5-\eta\le x+y\le 1,\\
&0\le x,y\le 1.
\end{align*}
We analyze two cases:
\textbf{Case 1:} If $1.5x + 2y \le 1$, then $G(x,y) = 2 - x - 2y$, which is strictly decreasing in both $x$ and $y$. Since $x + y \ge 0.5 - \eta$, the maximum occurs at $x = 0.5 - \eta$, $y = 0$, yielding $G = 2 - (0.5 - \eta) = 1.5 + \eta$.
\textbf{Case 2:} If $1.5x + 2y \ge 1$, then $M(x,y) = 1$, so $G(x,y) = 1 + 0.5x$, which is increasing in $x$. The maximum occurs at $x = 1$, $y = 0$, giving $G = 1.5$.
In both cases, we have $G(x,y) \le 1.5 + \eta$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We developed a general framework for constructing and analyzing grand couplings based on bounding chains, and applied it to the problem of perfect sampling of proper $q$-colorings via the coupling-from-the-past (CFTP) method. This framework allows us to formulate the design of bounding chains as an optimization problem, unifying prior constructions and enabling systematic analysis.
Using this approach, we established that $q = 2.5\Delta$ is the tight threshold for bounding-chain–based CFTP algorithms. Our upper bound is achieved through an explicit grand coupling that minimizes the expected size of bounding lists, while the matching lower bound proves that no contractive bounding chain can succeed below this threshold. Together, these results reveal that the bounding chain paradigm is inherently limited by worst-case local configurations that block contraction.
This insight suggests that surpassing the $2.5\Delta$ barrier will likely require moving beyond the bounding-chain framework itself, or at least beyond worst-case contraction analysis.
%Our work locates the current algorithmic limits and lays the groundwork for exploring new approaches for design and analysis of algorithms based on grand couplings.
% We have introduced a new perfect‐sampling algorithm for uniform $q$‐colorings of graphs with maximum degree~$\Delta$, achieving exact samples whenever $q \geq (2.5 + o(1))\Delta$. Our method is based on the Coupling from the Past (CFTP) framework instantiated via Glauber dynamics and refined by the bounding‐chain method. The central technical advance is an optimal grand coupling for the seeding step, formulated as a constrained color‐assignment problem over the unit interval and solved via a moment‐based linear program.
% Importantly, we give a two‐sided analysis of the grand‐coupling problem within this framework. In Section~\ref{sec:optimal-seeding} we prove an upper bound showing that our coupling is optimal for shrinking bounding lists from size~3 to~2 in a single update. In Section~\ref{sec:coupling} we exhibit a matching lower bound at $q=2.5\Delta$ by constructing explicit worst‐case lists for which no coupling can guarantee contraction from size~2 to~1. Together these yield tight thresholds under the CFTP and bounding chain paradigm.
% CFTP is a foundational perfect‐sampling approach whose goal is to detect coalescence of all trajectories by some time in the past. Bounding chains have been the predominant mechanism for realizing this detection since Huber’s pioneering work~\cite{huber1998exact}, because they record just enough “partial information’’ to certify global coalescence. Our results show that, for $q$‐coloring, bounding‐chain couplings hit an inherent barrier at $2.5\Delta$. By contrast, monotone systems such as the ferromagnetic Ising model admit grand couplings that directly test pairwise coalescence of extremal states, bypassing bounding chains entirely. Unfortunately, graph coloring lacks monotonicity, relying instead on color‐symmetry, so extending CFTP beyond bounding chains remains an open challenge.
% A natural open problem is whether one can design a non–bounding‐chain CFTP algorithm for $q$‐coloring that efficiently detects global coalescence and breaks the $2.5\Delta$ barrier. More broadly, it is worth exploring perfect‐sampling approaches outside the CFTP paradigm. Recent connections between perfect sampling and approximate counting suggest alternative routes.
% In summary, within the CFTP and bounding chain framework we have achieved matching upper and lower bounds, pinpointing the fundamental threshold $q=2.5\Delta$. Surpassing this barrier for graph coloring will likely require fundamentally new ideas—either a novel form of grand coupling or an entirely different perfect‐sampling paradigm.
\section{Grand Coupling via Bounding Chains}
\label{sec:coupling}
% Perfect sampling via Coupling from the Past (CFTP) provides an exact and principled method for simulating the stationary distribution of a Markov chain.
% In the context of graph colorings, the underlying chain is typically the Glauber dynamics, which updates the color of a randomly selected vertex with a uniformly chosen valid color.
% While the conceptual idea of CFTP is simple—running the chain backward from the infinite past until all trajectories coalesce—the main algorithmic challenge lies in designing a coupling that achieves such coalescence efficiently.
% To address this, most existing CFTP algorithms for graph colorings rely on the bounding-chain method, first introduced by Huber~\cite{huber1998exact}.
% Instead of tracking all possible configurations explicitly, the bounding chain maintains, for each vertex $v$, a bounding list $\bl(v) \subseteq [q]$ representing all colors that $v$ may still take given the randomness revealed so far.
% As the process evolves, these lists gradually shrink; the algorithm terminates once every list becomes a singleton, yielding a unique proper coloring.
In this section, we formalize a unified framework for grand couplings arising from bounding chains.
We begin by formally defining the notion of a grand coupling.
%The central idea is to construct a unified update rule—a grand coupling—that jointly couples all local update distributions using a shared source of randomness.
%In the CFTP framework, perfect sampling is achieved by composing a sequence of randomized update functions
%$F = f_t \circ \cdots \circ f_1$, where each $f_i$ corresponds to a single-vertex Glauber update.
%The goal is to ensure that this composition becomes constant over the state space~$\Omega$,
%so that the CFTP process terminates with an exact sample from the target distribution.
%To realize this within the bounding-chain method, we represent the uncertainty at each vertex~$v$ by a bounding list $\bl(v) \subseteq [q]$.
%At each update step, the update rule for~$v$ depends on the current bounding lists of its neighbors, $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$,
%which collectively determine all feasible local configurations around~$v$.
%Instead of sampling from a single Glauber distribution,
%the bounding-chain view requires us to simultaneously consider \emph{all} possible local distributions
%that could arise from these neighbor configurations.
%The key idea is to design a unified update rule—a \emph{grand coupling}—that jointly couples all these local distributions using a shared source of randomness.
\begin{definition}[Grand coupling]
\label{def:grand-coupling}
Let $\Omega$ be a finite sample space, and let $\mathcal{P}$ be a family of probability distributions on $\Omega$.
A measurable function $f: \mathcal{P} \times [0,1] \to \Omega$ is called a \emph{grand coupling} on $\mathcal{P}$ if,
for a uniform random variable $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$, it holds that for every $p \in \mathcal{P}$ and every $y \in \Omega$,
\[
\Pr{f(p,U) = y} = p(y).
\]
Equivalently, for each fixed $p \in \mathcal{P}$, the random variable $f(p,U)$ has the distribution $p$.
\end{definition}
A grand coupling thus provides a unified deterministic rule that simultaneously generates a family of probability distributions on the same sample space $\Omega$ using shared randomness $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$.
In particular, the grand coupling for a Markov chain transition $P$ defined in~\eqref{eq:grand-coupling-intro} is a special case of \Cref{def:grand-coupling},
where the family $\mathcal{P}$ consists of the update distributions $P(x,\cdot)$ for all $x \in \Omega$.
% In many perfect-sampling schemes based on CFTP,
% the underlying Markov chain is a \emph{single-site} dynamics: at each step only one site~$v$
% is updated according to a local transition distribution that depends on the configuration
% of its neighborhood~$\Gamma(v)$.
% The \emph{locality} of this update allows us to restrict the coupling problem to the
% neighborhood of a single site.
% Within a bounding-chain view, the uncertainty of each neighbor~$u$ is summarized by
% a set~$\bl(u)$ of feasible local states, which in turn induces a family of admissible
% \emph{marginal distributions} for updating~$v$.
% The goal is to design a unified local coupling that jointly realizes all these
% marginals using a common random seed.
%We next instantiate this general notion in the setting of Glauber dynamics for the $q$-coloring problem.
%In this context, each grand coupling corresponds to one update step that jointly defines the color update rules for all possible local neighborhood configurations of a vertex.
%We now specialize this notion to the bounding-chain framework for the $q$-coloring problem.
%At each vertex~$v$, the neighboring bounding lists $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$
%induce a family of feasible local distributions $\mathcal{P}_v$, one for each possible neighbor color configuration.
%A \emph{grand coupling on the bounding chain} jointly couples these distributions,
%allowing all possible updates of~$v$ to be determined by the same random seed.
%Operationally, each grand coupling $f_v$ proceeds in two conceptual stages:
%\begin{itemize}
% \item \textbf{generating stage.} Once a random seed $x \in [0,1]$ is fixed, the function $f_v$ determines, for every possible local distribution $p \in \mathcal{P}_v$,
% a corresponding outcome $f_v(p,x)$.
% The collection $\{ f_v(p,x) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}$ defines the updated bounding list $\bl'(v)$,
% representing all colors that could possibly be assigned under the shared randomness.
% \item \textbf{Decoding stage.} When the actual neighbor configuration (and hence the specific distribution $p \in \mathcal{P}_v$) becomes known,
% the updated color of~$v$ is deterministically obtained as $f_v(p,x)$,
% ensuring consistency with the generating stage.
%\end{itemize}
%This formulation captures how all feasible Glauber updates at~$v$ can be realized in a single, coupled process,
%thereby providing a principled way to analyze how uncertainty propagates in the bounding chain.
%We now formalize this concept in the following definition.
%While the previous section establishes the correctness and efficiency of our perfect sampling algorithm under the condition $q > 2.5\Delta$, a natural question arises: is this threshold tight? Can we hope to extend the applicability of the algorithm to smaller values of $q$?
%In this section, we develop an abstract interval-based model for analyzing grand couplings under the bounding chain framework. This model captures the combinatorial structure of how uncertainty propagates across neighbor configurations, and provides a unifying language to study coupling behavior independent of specific trajectories.
%Using this model, we show that our coupling construction in the Seeding Phase (\Cref{Alg:seeding}) is optimal among all randomized update schemes that preserve uniform marginals. Furthermore, we identify a class of worst-case configurations arising in Converting and Drifting Phase(see section \ref{subsec:phase-II}), and prove that when $q<2.5\Delta$, no valid grand coupling can achieve full contraction under these configurations. This establishes a fundamental barrier for bounding-chain-based perfect sampling algorithms below the $q<2.5\Delta$ threshold.
% In this section, we present a unified formulation of the grand coupling problem under the bounding‐chain framework.
% At the heart of the CFTP (Coupling From The Past) algorithm lies the simulation of a Glauber dynamics process through a sequence of grand couplings.
% In each update step at a vertex~$v$, rather than sampling from a single distribution, we consider all possible local distributions that may arise from different configurations consistent with the current bounding chain.
% The goal is to \emph{couple} these distributions jointly—i.e., to construct a grand coupling—so as to make the update at~$v$ as deterministic as possible, thereby reducing the uncertainty propagated in the bounding chain.
% Under this formulation, a grand coupling provides a unified view of how multiple distributions in~$P$ can be realized using a single shared source of randomness~$x \in [0,1]$.
% In the context of CFTP algorithms, each grand coupling corresponds to a single update step in the simulated Glauber dynamics.
% The coupling defines a joint rule that simultaneously updates all possible states, determining how uncertainty is propagated in the bounding chain.
% We now instantiate this notion for the $q$-coloring problem under the bounding chain framework.
%\begin{definition}[Grand Coupling over Bounding Chain]
%\label{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}
%Let $v \in V$ be a vertex to be updated, and let $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$ denote the current bounding lists specifying the possible colors of each neighbor~$u$.
%Define the set of feasible neighbor color configurations as
%\[
%\mathsf{Conf}(v) = \{ (\conf_u)_{u \in \Gamma(v)} : \conf_u \in \bl(u) \}.
%\]
%For each configuration $\conf \in \mathsf{Conf}(v)$, let
%$\gwv(\conf) = \{ \conf_u : u \in \Gamma(v) \}$
%be the set of colors appearing on the neighbors of~$v$, and let the feasible color set for~$v$ be $A(\gwv(\conf)) = [q]\setminus \gwv(\conf).$
%Then define $\mathcal{P}_v = \{ \uniform(A(\gwv(\conf))) : \conf \in \mathsf{Conf}(v) \}$ as the family of possible update distributions for~$v$. A \emph{grand coupling on the bounding chain} at vertex~$v$ is a deterministic function $f_v : \mathcal{P}_v \times [0,1] \to \Omega$ such that $f_v$ is a grand coupling on~$\mathcal{P}_v$ in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling}.
%\end{definition}
\subsection{Local grand coupling via bounding chains}
We introduce a general formulation for grand couplings constructed using bounding chains, which applies to single-site dynamics.
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and $[q]=\{1,2,\ldots,q\}$ a set of $q\ge 2$ colors.
Recalle that a single-site dynamics on a state space $\Omega \subseteq [q]^V$ is specified via a collection of local update distributions:
$\left\{p_v^\conf:v\in V,\conf\in[q]^{\Gamma(v)}\right\}$.
%where $p_v^\conf$ defines the distribution over $[q]$ for recoloring vertex $v$ when it is chosen to update, given the neighborhood configuration $\conf \in [q]^{\Gamma(v)}$.
In the bounding-chain framework, we maintain for each vertex $v \in V$ a \emph{bounding list} $\bl(v) \subseteq [q]$, representing the set of possible colors that $v$ may take across coupled trajectories.
The grand coupling is then constructed based on these bounding lists.
\begin{definition}[Grand coupling via bounding chain]
\label{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and $q \ge 2$.
Consider a single-site dynamics on the state space $\Omega \subseteq [q]^V$ with local update distributions
$\left\{p_v^\conf:v\in V,\conf\in[q]^{\Gamma(v)}\right\}$.
%where each $p_v^\conf$ is a distribution over $[q]$, specifying how $v$ is recolored when it is chosen to update given the neighborhood configuration $\conf$.
Fix a vertex $v \in V$ and a bounding list configuration $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$, with each $\bl(u) \subseteq [q]$.
% Let $v$ be a site to be updated, and let $(\bl(u))_{u\in\Gamma(v)}$
% denote the current bounding sets describing the feasible states of its neighbors.
% Define the set of feasible neighborhood configurations as
% \[
% \mathsf{Conf}(v)
% = \{ (\conf_u)_{u\in\Gamma(v)} : \conf_u \in \bl(u) \}.
% \]
% Each configuration $\conf\in\mathsf{Conf}(v)$ determines a local transition
% distribution $p_\conf$ on the possible new states of~$v$
% (e.g., the conditional distribution of the Glauber update given~$\conf$).
Define
\begin{align}\label{eq:bounding-box-local-distribution}
\mathcal{P}_v \defeq \left\{ p_v^\conf : \conf \in \bigotimes_{u\in\Gamma(v)}\bl(u)\right\},
\end{align}
% \mathcal{P}_v = \{ p_\conf : \conf \in \mathsf{Conf}(v) \}
the family of all possible local update distributions at $v$ consistent with the bounding lists.
A \emph{local grand coupling} at vertex $v$ given the bounding list $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$ is a measurable mapping
$$f_v : \mathcal{P}_v \times [0,1] \to [q]$$
such that $f_v$ is a valid grand coupling on $\mathcal{P}_v$ in the sense of \Cref{def:grand-coupling}.
\end{definition}
Previous bounding-chain based algorithms
(e.g.,~\cite{bhandari2020improved,jain2021perfectly})
implicitly employ two stages.
These stages can be unified in our framework for grand couplings via bounding chains.
%Intuitively, the random variable $x \in [0,1]$ represents the shared randomness used in this update step.
%Each feasible neighbor configuration~$\conf \in \mathsf{Conf}(v)$ corresponds to a distribution $\uniform(A(\gwv(\conf))$, and the grand coupling ensures these distributions are jointly realized through the same random input~$x$.
%Under this perspective, we can naturally interpret the two-step structure adopted in previous CFTP-based perfect sampling algorithms~\cite{bhandari2020improved, jain2021perfectly}.
%In their construction, the \emph{generating} stage and the \emph{decoding} stage correspond precisely to the two functional roles of $f_v$ in Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}.
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Generating stage:}
Once a random seed $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$ is generated, the function $f_v$ determines, for every $p \in \mathcal{P}_v$, a possible update outcome of $v$.
The collection of all outcomes $\{ f_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}$ forms the new bounding list $\bl'(v)$ of vertex $v$, representing all colors that could be assigned under the current randomness.
\item \emph{Decoding stage:}
Once the actual neighbor configuration $\conf \in [q]^{\Gamma(v)}$ (and thus the corresponding update distribution $p_v^\conf \in \mathcal{P}_v$) is revealed, the updated color of $v$ is determined by $f_v(p_v^\conf, U)$.
\end{itemize}
This formulation unifies the generating–decoding paradigm into a single mathematical framework, enabling an analysis of the optimality of grand coupling designs.
\subsubsection{Grand coupling for Glauber dynamics}
%\label{sec:warm-up}
% \begin{remark}
Now consider the Glauber dynamics on proper $q$-colorings.
For each vertex $v$ and neighborhood configuration $\conf \in [q]^{\Gamma(v)}$, the local update distribution $p_v^{\conf}$ at $v$ given $\conf$ is uniform over the set of colors available to $v$ given $\conf$, that is, $p_v^{\conf} = \uniform([q] \setminus \conf)$, where we adopt the abuse of notation as in~\eqref{eq:glauber-dynamics-update}.
%Each local update distribution $p_v^{\conf}$ is uniform over the set of available colors at $v$ given the neighborhood coloring $\conf$:
% \begin{align}\label{eq:glauber-dynamics-update}
% p_v^{\conf} = \uniform([q] \setminus \conf),
% % p_v^{\conf} = \uniform([q] \setminus \{\conf(u): u \in \Gamma(v)\}).
% \end{align}
% where, by slight abuse of notation, we treat the tuple $\conf$ as the set of colors used by $v$'s neighbors, so that $[q] \setminus \conf$ denotes $[q] \setminus \{\conf(u) : u \in \Gamma(v)\}$.
Under this specialization, the grand coupling~$f_v$ in \Cref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain} admits an \emph{interval-based} model:
%For the grand coupling $f_v$ in \Cref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}, fix any distribution $p \in \mathcal{P}_v$.
The preimages of $f_v(p, \cdot)$ induce a measurable partition of $[0,1]$ corresponding to the outcomes of~$p$.
%This observation motivates an \emph{interval-based} interpretation of grand couplings.
%
Let $k \defeq |[q]\setminus\conf|$ denote the number of available colors at~$v$.
The mapping $f_v(p_v^{\conf}, \cdot)$ defines a partition of the unit interval $[0,1]$ into $k$ subsets of equal measure~$1/k$, each labeled by a distinct available color.
A shared random seed $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$ specifies a point in~$[0,1]$,
and the update color $f_v(p_v^{\conf}, U)$ is the color assigned to that point in the partition corresponding to~$p_v^{\conf}$.
%
% Intuitively, this process is analogous to first choosing a ``column''
% (corresponding to the shared randomness $U$)
% and then selecting a ``row''
% (corresponding to the neighborhood coloring~$\conf$),
% whose intersection determines the updated color of~$v$.
% \end{remark}
%To illustrate the above formulation, we introduce a simple example that highlights the intuition behind the construction of a grand coupling.
%The problem defined in Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain} can be conveniently represented using an \emph{interval-based} model.
\begin{example}
Suppose $q = 5$, and vertex~$v$ has two neighbors with bounding lists $\{1,2\}$ and $\{2,3\}$, respectively.
Then the possible sets of colors used by these two neighbors are $\set{2,3}, \set{1,3}, \set{1,2}, \set{2}$;
and the corresponding sets of available colors at~$v$ are their complements $\{1,4,5\},\{2,4,5\},\{3,4,5\},\{1,3,4,5\}$.
%For each such configuration, the available colors for $v$ are given by $[q] \setminus \gwv$. For example, when $\gwv = \set{1,2}$, the allowed colors are $\set{3,4}$.
In the interval-based model, the grand coupling~$f_v$ associates each case with a colored partition of~$[0,1]$, where the available colors are distributed uniformly over the interval.
%and the corresponding available colors are distributed over that interval.
Given the shared randomness $U \in [0,1]$, a new color for~$v$ is determined in each case by the color at position~$U$.
The updated bounding list~$\bl'(v)$ at vertex~$v$ is then the set of all such colors across all cases.
This is illustrated in \Cref{fig:grand-coupling-intervals}.
\end{example}
%
%Now the design of the grand coupling over the bounding chain can be equivalently modeled as the combinatorial construction problem over intervals.
\input{figure/figure2}
\subsubsection{Classical construction of grand coupling for \texorpdfstring{$q$}{q}-colorings}
\label{sec:warm-up}
We next illustrate how the formulation in \Cref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain} specializes to the classical grand coupling of~\cite{huber1998exact}.
%This serves as a warm-up example before we move on to more sophisticated constructions.
%
% \medskip
In this coupling, the shared randomness is a uniformly random permutation $\pi$ of $[q]$.
%The shared randomness is given by a uniformly random permutation $\pi$ of $[q]$.
For each vertex $v$ with neighborhood coloring $\conf\in[q]^{\Gamma(v)}$, the local rule $f_v$ outputs the first color in $\pi$ that does not appear in $\conf$.
It is straightforward to verify that, for any $\conf$, this rule samples uniformly from the set of available colors $[q] \setminus \conf$.
% Given a neighborhood coloring $\conf$ at vertex~$v$, the coupling outputs the first color in $\pi$ that does not appear in $\conf$.
% the local map $f_v$ selects the first color in $\pi$ that does not appear in $\conf$.
% It is easy to verify that, given any neighborhood coloring $\conf$, the outcome of this grand coupling follows the uniform distribution over the available colors in $[q]\setminus\{\conf(u):u\in\Gamma(v)\}$.
%Equivalently, the random seed $\pi$ jointly determines, for all possible neighborhood configurations, the color assigned under the corresponding local update distribution.
%It is easy to verify that, once $\gwv$ is fixed, the output of this grand coupling follows the uniform distribution over $[q]\setminus \gwv$.
% \medskip
%\paragraph{Interpretation under the interval-based model.}
In the interval-based interpretation, the unit interval $[0,1]$ is partitioned uniformly into $q!$ subintervals, each corresponding to a distinct permutation of $[q]$.
%Let $\pi$ denote the permutation associated with the subinterval containing the shared random seed $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$.
For each neighborhood coloring $\conf$, and for each subinterval, let $\pi$ denote the permutation associated with that subinterval;
the subinterval is then assigned the first color in $\pi$ that does not appear in $\conf$.
%
Given a shared random seed $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$, the subinterval containing $U$ determines the color selected for each local update distribution $p \in \mathcal{P}_v$.
Ideally, the new bounding list at vertex $v$ is
\[
\bl'(v)=\{ f_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \},
\]
%as the possible outcomes of the update at vertex~$v$, which together define the new bounding list for this vertex.
where $\mathcal{P}_v$ contains all local update distributions given the current bounding lists, as defined in~\eqref{eq:bounding-box-local-distribution}.
% \medskip
% \paragraph{Combinatorial implementation.}
Although $|\mathcal{P}_v|$ may be exponentially large, it is not necessary to evaluate $f_v(p,U)$ for every $p \in \mathcal{P}_v$.
A key observation here is that including extra colors into $\bl'(v)$ does not affect correctness of CFTP (though it may slow down coalescence).
Let $\pi$ denote the permutation corresponding to the interval containing $U$.
Since the number of distinct colors in a neighborhood satisfies $|\{\conf(u): u \in \Gamma(v)\}| \le \Delta$, at least one of the first $\Delta+1$ entries of $\pi$ is available for $v$.
Hence, it suffices to take
\[
\{ \pi_1, \pi_2, \ldots, \pi_{\Delta+1} \},
\]
as the updated bounding list $\bl'(v)$, since $\{ f_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}\subseteq\{ \pi_1, \pi_2, \ldots, \pi_{\Delta+1} \}$.
%
%which necessarily contains all possible outcomes $\{ f_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}$.
%
%Note that the bounding list must include every color that can appear as $f_v(p, U)$ for some $p \in \mathcal{P}_v$.
%Including extra colors does not affect correctness but may enlarge the bounding chain and slow coalescence.
For further refinement, observe that if a color $c$ does not appear in the bounding list $\bl(u)$ of any neighbor $u \in \Gamma(v)$, then $c$ cannot appear in any neighborhood coloring $\conf \in \bigotimes_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \bl(u)$.
Let $C$ denote the set of all such colors.
If there exists an index $i \le \Delta+1$ such that $\pi_i \in C$, it suffices to take
\[
\{ \pi_1, \pi_2, \ldots, \pi_i \}
\]
as the updated bounding list.
Indeed, $\pi_i \in C$ guarantees that for every neighborhood coloring $\conf \in \bigotimes_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \bl(u)$, the grand coupling outcome $f_v(p_v^{\conf}, U)$ never appears after position $i$ in $\pi$.
Hence, $\{ f_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}\subseteq \{ \pi_1, \pi_2, \ldots, \pi_i \}$.
%\medskip
The grand coupling described above, together with this refinement, precisely recovers the bounding chain of~\cite{huber1998exact} for $q$-colorings.
%
The effectiveness of a bounding chain depends on how well it tracks the bounding list
$
\{ f_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \} %\quad\text{ for }U \sim \uniform[0,1].
$.
%for a random seed $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$, which directly corresponds to the size of the updated bounding list $\bl'(v)$.
Smaller bounding lists may result in a tighter bounding chain and thus faster coalescence in the CFTP process.
%
Subsequent works~\cite{bhandari2020improved, jain2021perfectly} refined this idea by designing more sophisticated grand couplings.
Their algorithms partition the process into multiple \emph{phases}, each employing a distinct grand coupling, allowing the bounding lists to shrink gradually across phases.
Despite differences in implementation, all such couplings admit a natural interpretation within the framework in Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}.
Within this formulation, designing an effective grand coupling can be quantitatively phrased as minimizing the size of
$
\{ f_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}
$
for $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$.
In the following sections, we analyze this objective under specific structural assumptions on the neighboring bounding lists $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$ and establish both upper and lower bounds for grand couplings within this model.
%The effectiveness of the bounding chain update is then determined by the size of the union of possible outcomes $\{ f_v(p, x) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}$ for a fixed~$x$, which corresponds to the size of the updated bounding list~$\bl'(v)$.
%Let $v \in V$ be a vertex undergoing a Glauber update, and suppose that the current bounding lists $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$ specify the possible color sets of its neighbors. Each realization of the neighboring colorings defines a feasible configuration $\gwv \subseteq [q]$, corresponding to the set of colors appearing on the neighbors of $v$. The set of available colors for $v$ is then given by $[q] \setminus \gwv$.
% A \emph{grand coupling} in this setting consists of:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item a common random variable $x \sim \uniform[0,1]$, and
% \item a deterministic mapping from $x$ to an output color for each feasible neighbor configuration $\gwv$, such that the output color lies within the corresponding set of available colors.
% \end{itemize}
% Equivalently, the coupling can be represented by assigning disjoint subintervals of $[0,1]$ to available colors for each configuration, such that the marginal distribution of the output is uniform over the respective feasible color set.
% The objective is to construct such a grand coupling that minimizes the cardinality of the union of output colors over all configurations for a fixed $x \in [0,1]$. This quantity determines the size of the updated bounding list $\bl'(v)$.
% %\end{definition}
% \subsubsection{Construction of $f_v$.}
% We encode the internal randomness of the \compress procedure into the single seed $x\in[0,1]$ (measurably). Concretely, for the seed $x$ we deterministically extract a triple $(\pi,x',\tau)$ where
% \begin{itemize}
% \item $\pi$ is a uniformly random permutation of $A$,
% \item $x'$ is a uniformly random element of $[q]\setminus A$,
% \item $\tau$ is an independent uniform draw from $[0,1]$.
% \end{itemize}
% For each feasible neighbor configuration $\conf\in\mathsf{Conf}(v)$ (with induced forbidden set $\Gamma_\conf(v)$ and corresponding distribution $p_\conf=\uniform([q]\setminus\Gamma_\conf(v))\in \mathcal{P}_v$), define
% \[
% f_v(p_\conf,x) =
% \begin{cases}
% x', & \text{if } x' \notin \Gamma_\conf(v)\ \text{and}\ \tau \le \dfrac{q-\Delta}{\,q-|\Gamma_\conf(v)|\,},\\[6pt]
% \text{the first } y \text{ in } \pi \text{ with } y \notin \Gamma_\conf(v), & \text{otherwise.}
% \end{cases}
% \]
% \subsubsection{Verification.}
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \emph{Grand coupling property (marginal correctness).} Fix a configuration $\conf$ and let $\Gamma=\Gamma_\conf(v)$. Conditional on $(\pi,x')$ (or marginalizing over them), the above rule returns $x'$ with probability
% \[ \Pr{x'\notin\Gamma} \cdot \Pr{\tau \le \tfrac{q-\Delta}{q-|\Gamma|}}
% = \frac{1}{q-\Delta}\cdot \frac{q-\Delta}{q-|\Gamma|} = \frac{1}{q-|\Gamma|}. \]
% If the first branch is not taken, the decoder returns the earliest element of $\pi$ outside $\Gamma$; since $\pi$ is a uniform permutation of $A$ and $A$ has size~$\Delta$, each such color in $[q]\setminus\Gamma$ (that lies inside $A$) is equally likely to be the first available, and its probability is again $1/(q-|\Gamma|)$. Hence marginally $f_v(p_\conf,x)\sim \uniform([q]\setminus\Gamma)$, so $f_v$ satisfies Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}.
% \item \emph{Bounding property.} For any fixed seed (equivalently fixed $(\pi,x',\tau)$) the image of $\mathcal{P}_v$ under $f_v(\cdot,x)$ is contained in $A\cup\{x'\}$. Conversely, $x'$ itself is attainable (for those configurations with $x'\notin\Gamma$ and the event on $\tau$), and every element of $A$ is attainable (for configurations that force the decoder to use $\pi$). Thus for each seed the image equals $A\cup\{c\}$ for some $c\in[q]\setminus A$, and the distribution of $c$ over seeds is uniform on $[q]\setminus A$. This establishes item (a) of the lemma.
% \item \emph{Efficiency.} The seed decoding (recovering $(\pi,x',\tau)$) and producing the predicted set $A\cup\{x'\}$ is $O(\Delta)$ time; given a concrete configuration $\conf$, decoding the chosen color requires scanning $\pi$ until the first element not in $\Gamma$, which can be implemented in expected $O(\Delta \log \Delta)$ time using standard hashing/lookup techniques. This yields item (b).
% \end{itemize}
% This completes the construction and verification of the \compress coupling in our grand-coupling framework.
% \subsection{Constructing Grand Couplings for the Bounding Chain}
% \label{sec:compress}
% Building upon the intuition from the warm-up example, we now present a series of explicit grand coupling constructions tailored for the $q$-coloring problem under the bounding-chain framework.
% Each construction specifies how to couple the family of local update distributions~$\mathcal{P}_v$ at a vertex~$v$,
% given the current neighboring bounding lists $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$.
% These couplings are designed to progressively reduce the uncertainty of the bounding chain i.e., to make the updated list~$\bl'(v)$ as small as possible—while preserving correctness of the underlying Glauber dynamics.
% For clarity and later reference in our algorithmic analysis,
% we formalize each coupling as a separate lemma.
\subsubsection{An optimization problem on grand coupling}
% The grand coupling function $\compress$ constructed in the previous subsection applies universally, without imposing any restriction on the bounding lists $(L(u))_{u\in \Gamma(v)}$ of the neighbors of~$v$.
% During the execution of the CFTP algorithm, however, these bounding lists gradually shrink as the process evolves.
% When this occurs, it becomes advantageous to design a more refined grand coupling that explicitly adapts to the current neighborhood structure $(L(u))_{u\in \Gamma(v)}$.
As discussed above, the performance of a grand coupling is naturally quantified by the size of its updated bounding list:
\[
\bl'(v) = \{\, f_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \,\}, \qquad U \sim \uniform[0,1].
\]
%A smaller expected size of $\bl'(v)$ leads to faster convergence of the coupling-from-the-past procedure. Thus, our goal in this phase is to optimize the grand coupling to minimize the expected size of the updated bounding list. To formalize this objective, we introduce the following combinatorial optimization problem, which captures the optimal design of local grand couplings under the bounding-chain framework.
A smaller expected size of $\bl'(v)$ leads to faster coalescence in the coupling-from-the-past procedure.
This motivates designing grand couplings that minimize the updated bounding list given the current neighborhood bounding lists.
%
We formalize this task as the following optimization problem.
\begin{problem}[Local grand coupling optimization]
\label{prob:optimal-grand-coupling}
Fix a vertex $v \in V$ and a bounding list configuration $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$, with each $\bl(u) \subseteq [q]$.
%
%Let $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$ be the current bounding lists of the neighbors of~$v$.
%Recalling from~\eqref{eq:bounding-box-local-distribution},
%$\mathcal{P}_v = \left\{ p_v^\conf: \conf \in \bigotimes_{u\in\Gamma(v)}\bl(u) \right\}$,
%where each local update distribution $p_v^\conf$ is the uniform distribution over available colors:
%$$p_v^\conf=\uniform([q]\setminus \{\conf(u): u \in \Gamma(v)\}.$$
%which denote the set of all feasible update distributions at vertex~$v$,
%where $\mathsf{Conf}(v) = \{ (\conf_u)_{u \in \Gamma(v)} : \conf_u \in \bl(u) \}$ and $\gwv(\conf) = \{\conf_u : u \in \Gamma(v)\}$.
Let
\begin{align}\label{eq:bounding-glauber-dynamics-updates}
\mathcal{P}_v = \left\{\uniform([q] \setminus \conf): \conf \in \bigotimes_{u\in\Gamma(v)}\bl(u)\right\}
\end{align}
%$$\mathcal{P}_v = \left\{\uniform([q] \setminus \conf): \conf \in \bigotimes_{u\in\Gamma(v)}\bl(u)\right\},$$
%\quad\text{ where each }p_v^\conf=\uniform([q] \setminus \{\conf(u): u \in \Gamma(v)\})$$
denote the set of all possible local update distributions %$p_v^\conf=\uniform([q] \setminus \{\conf(u): u \in \Gamma(v)\})$
at $v$ in the Glauber dynamics on $q$-colorings. %where each $p_v^\conf$ is as defined in \eqref{eq:glauber-dynamics-update}.
%Consider the local update distributions for the Glauber dynamics on proper $q$-colorings, as defined in \eqref{eq:glauber-dynamics-update}.
The objective is to design a local grand coupling $f_v : \mathcal{P}_v \times [0,1] \to [q]$ at vertex $v$ given the bounding lists $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$ (cf.\ \Cref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}) that minimizes
\[
\mathbb{E}_{U \sim \uniform[0,1]}\!\bigl[\,|\{ f_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}|\,\bigr].
\]
That is, $f_v$ seeks to minimize the expected size of the updated bounding list at $v$.
%where the expectation is taken over $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$.
%i.e., the expected size of the updated bounding list produced by~$f_v$.
\end{problem}
\subsection{Lower bounds for grand coupling}
\label{sec:grand-coupling-lower-bound}
In this subsection we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:no-bounding-chain} by establishing a fundamental lower bound for Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling}.
Our analysis reveals an intrinsic obstacle that limits the effectiveness of all known bounding-chain constructions~\cite{huber1998exact,bhandari2020improved,jain2021perfectly}:
\begin{center}
\emph{The difficulty of reducing every bounding list from size~$2$ to~$1$.}
\end{center}
This step represents the critical bottleneck in coalescence of bounding chains.
To understand this limitation, we focus on the configuration where each neighbor $u \in \Gamma(v)$
has a bounding list $\bl(u)$ of size~$2$.
This setting captures the worst-case local uncertainty at vertex~$v$,
and hence determines the strongest contraction that any grand coupling can possibly attain.
Our lower-bound argument is therefore developed under this extremal configuration.
% From Huber's original work~\cite{huber1998exact} to the later developments in~\cite{bhandari2020improved, jain2021perfectly},
% the bounding-chain framework has been consistently built upon designing grand couplings on bounding chains (formalized in Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain})
% that gradually shrink the bounding lists at all vertices to singletons.
% For the $q$-coloring problem under the regime where $q$ is a constant multiple of~$\Delta$,
% the grand coupling constructed in Section~\ref{sec:warm-up} can easily reduce the bounding list size to~$O(\Delta)$,
% and the series of couplings developed in~\cite{bhandari2020improved, jain2021perfectly} can further shrink it to size~$2$.
% However, all of these approaches eventually face the same bottleneck: reducing every bounding list from size~$2$ to~$1$.
% To better understand this limitation, we analyze the configuration in which each neighbor $u \in \Gamma(v)$
% has a bounding list $\bl(u)$ of size~$2$.
% This configuration represents the most challenging regime for the grand coupling at~$v$,
% as it maximizes the uncertainty among all feasible local updates and thus determines the strongest possible contraction achievable by any coupling.
% Our lower-bound analysis will therefore focus on this worst-case setting.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:no-coupling-2}
Let $q < 2.5\Delta-1$, and let $v$ be a vertex with degree $|\Gamma(v)| = \Delta$.
There exists a bounding list configuration
$(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$ with $|\bl(u)| = 2$ for all $u \in \Gamma(v)$
such that, for every local grand coupling $f_v : \mathcal{P}_v \times [0,1] \to [q]$ of the Glauber dynamics update at $v$ given $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$, where $\mathcal{P}_v$ is as in~\eqref{eq:bounding-glauber-dynamics-updates},
%where $\mathcal{P}_v$ is as defined in \eqref{eq:bounding-box-local-distribution},
\[
\mathbb{E}_{U \sim \uniform[0,1]}\!\bigl[\,|\{ f_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}|\,\bigr] > 2.
\]
\end{theorem}
\Cref{thm:no-coupling-2} is established by explicitly constructing a bounding-list configuration exhibiting a structural bottleneck, formalized as follows.
\begin{definition}[Worst-case triangle configuration]
\label{def:worst-case}
We say that two vertices $u, v \in V$ form a \emph{triangle} on a bounding list configuration $\bl$
if $|\bl(u)| = |\bl(v)| = 2$ and $|\bl(u) \cup \bl(v)| = 3$.
For a vertex $v \in V$, we say that $\bl$ is in a \emph{worst-case configuration at~$v$}
if the neighbors of~$v$ can be partitioned into disjoint pairs, each forming a triangle on~$\bl$.
\end{definition}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{thm:no-coupling-2}]
We consider the \emph{worst-case configuration at $v$} from Definition~\ref{def:worst-case}, which realizes the scenario where no grand coupling can reduce the expected bounding list size at $v$ to $2$ or below.
Without loss of generality, assume $\Delta$ is even, write $\Delta = 2m$ and express $q = 3m + r$ for some integer $r \ge 0$.
Partition $v$'s neighbors into $m$ disjoint pairs. Index the pairs by $i=1,\dots,m$. For the $i$-th pair in each side we assign bounding lists as follows:
the two vertices in the $i$-th pair receive bounding lists $\{3i-2,\,3i-1\}$ and $\{3i-1,\,3i\}$ respectively.
The colors $\{1,2,...,3m\}$ are called the \emph{constrained} colors, while the remaining $r$ colors are called \emph{free} colors.
We first note that the construction above indeed satisfies Definition~\ref{def:worst-case}: each neighbor pair indexed by $i=1,\dots,m$ has bounding lists
$\{3i-2,3i-1\}$ and $\{3i-1,3i\}$, so the two vertices in the pair form a triangle in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:worst-case}.
Let $f_v$ be an arbitrary grand coupling for the Glauber update at $v$, and write
\[
\mathcal{L}_U(v) \;=\; \{\, f_v(p,U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \,\}
\]
for the bounding list produced by $f_v$ when the shared seed equals $U\sim\uniform[0,1]$.
For $i=1,\dots,m$, define the following events, where all probabilities are over $U\sim\uniform[0,1]$:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{A}_i &:= \{\, \mathcal{L}_U(v) \cap \{3i-2,3i\} \neq \varnothing \,\},\\
\mathcal{B}_i &:= \{\, 3i-1 \in \mathcal{L}_U(v) \,\},\\
\mathcal{C}_i &:= \{\, \{3i-2,3i\} \subseteq \mathcal{L}_U(v) \,\},
\end{align*}
% \end{aligned}
% \]
and let $\mathcal{D} := \{\, \mathcal{L}_U(v) \cap \{3m+1,\dots,3m+r\} \neq \varnothing \,\}$
denote the event that at least one \emph{free} color (a color in $\{3m+1,\dots,3m+r\}$) appears in $\mathcal{L}_U(v)$.
We claim the following two lower bounds:
\begin{align}
\label{prop:A} \Pr{\mathcal{A}_i} &\ge \dfrac{2}{m+r+1}, &\forall i\in\{1,2,...,m\};\\
\label{prop:B} \Pr{\mathcal{B}_i} &\ge \dfrac{1}{m+r}, &\forall i\in\{1,2,...,m\};
\end{align}
and a covering property:
\begin{align}
\label{prop:cover}
\Pr{\mathcal{C}_1 \,\vee\, \cdots \,\vee\, \mathcal{C}_m \,\vee\, \mathcal{D}} &= 1, \quad\text{ and consequently, }\sum_{i=1}^m \Pr{\mathcal{C}_i} \;+\; \Pr{\mathcal{D}} \;\ge\; 1.
\end{align}
Assuming these inequalities, we obtain a lower bound on the expected bounding list size.
Observe
\[
\Pr{3i-2 \in \mathcal{L}_U(v)} + \Pr{3i \in \mathcal{L}_U(v)}
\;=\; \Pr{\mathcal{A}_i} + \Pr{\mathcal{C}_i}, \qquad \forall i\in\{1,2,...,m\};
\]
since the left-hand side counts the indicators of the two events and the right-hand side decomposes that sum into the indicator of ``at least one" plus the indicator of ``both". Hence
\[
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\bigl[\,|\mathcal{L}_U(v)|\,\bigr]
&= \sum_{c\in[q]} \Pr{c \in \mathcal{L}_U(v)} \\
&\ge \left(\sum_{c\in\{1,...,3m\}} \Pr{c \in \mathcal{L}_U(v)}\right) + \Pr{\mathcal{L}_U(v) \cap \{3m+1,\dots,3m+r\} \neq \varnothing}\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^m \bigl(\Pr{3i-2 \in \mathcal{L}_U(v)} + \Pr{3i-1 \in \mathcal{L}_U(v)} + \Pr{3i \in \mathcal{L}_U(v)}\bigr) + \Pr{\mathcal{D}}\\
&= \left(\sum_{i=1}^m \Pr{\mathcal{A}_i} \right) + \left(\sum_{i=1}^m \Pr{\mathcal{B}_i} \right) + \left(\sum_{i=1}^m \Pr{\mathcal{C}_i} \right) + \Pr{\mathcal{D}}.
\end{aligned}
\]
Applying the bounds from \eqref{prop:A}--\eqref{prop:cover} yields
\[
\mathbb{E}\bigl[\,|\mathcal{L}_U(v)|\,\bigr]
\;\ge\; \frac{2m}{m+r+1} + \frac{m}{m+r} + 1.
\]
Since $q < 2.5\Delta$ implies $r < 2m$, it follows that
\[
\frac{2m}{m+r+1} + \frac{m}{m+r} + 1 \;>\; \frac{2m}{3m} + \frac{m}{3m} + 1 \;=\; 2.
\]
Hence for every $q < 2.5\Delta$ we have
$\mathbb{E}\bigl[\,|\mathcal{L}_U(v)|\,\bigr] \;>\; 2$
as claimed.
It remains to prove \eqref{prop:A}--\eqref{prop:cover}.
These are simple consequences of the marginal correctness of the grand coupling and the explicit worst-case assignment of neighbor lists:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Proof of \eqref{prop:A}.}
Fix $i\in\{1,\dots,m\}$. For every pair $j\neq i$, assigns the two neighbors the colors $3j-2$ and $3j$, and for the $i$-th pair assigns both neighbors the color $3i-1$. Let $\conf$ be the neighborhood coloring constructed above.
Then $|\conf| = \Delta-1 = 2m-1$,
so the update distribution is $\uniform([q]\setminus \conf)$, which places mass
$1/(q-(2m-1))=1/(m+r+1)$ on each of the two colors $3i-2$ and $3i$.
By marginal correctness for this fixed distribution, each of the events ``$3i-2\in\mathcal{L}_U(v)$'' and ``$3i\in\mathcal{L}_U(v)$'' has measure at least $1/(m+r+1)$, hence
\[
\Pr{\mathcal{A}_i} \;\ge\; \Pr{3i-2 \in \mathcal{L}_U(v)} + \Pr{3i \in \mathcal{L}_U(v)}
\;\ge\; \frac{2}{m+r+1}.
\]
\item \textbf{Proof of \eqref{prop:B}.}
Fix $i\in\{1,\dots,m\}$. Let $\conf$ be the neighbor configuration that, for every pair $j$, assigns the two neighbors the colors $3j-2$ and $3j$. Then $|\conf|=\Delta$, so the update distribution is $\uniform([q]\setminus \conf)$, which places mass
$1/(q-\Delta)=1/(m+r)$ on each middle color $3i-1$.
By marginal correctness for this fixed distribution we obtain
\[
\Pr{\mathcal{B}_i} \;\ge\; \Pr{3i-1 \in \mathcal{L}_U(v)} \;\ge\; \frac{1}{m+r}.
\]
\item \textbf{Proof of \eqref{prop:cover}.}
Suppose for contradiction that for some $U$ none of $\mathcal{C}_1,\dots,\mathcal{C}_m,\mathcal{D}$ occurs. Then for every $i$ at most one of the colors $3i-2,3i$ belongs to $\mathcal{L}_U(v)$, and no free color appears in $\mathcal{L}_U(v)$. For each pair $i$ choose neighbor colors from the lists $\{3i-2,3i-1\}$ and $\{3i-1,3i\}$ so as to ensure every element of $\mathcal{L}_U(v)\cap\{3i-2,3i-1,3i\}$ is included in the resulting neighborhood set; this is always possible when at most one of $\{3i-2,3i\}$ is present. Doing this for all $i$ yields a neighborhood coloring $\conf$ with
$\mathcal{L}_U(v) \subseteq \omega.$
But the coupling output $f_v([q]\setminus \omega,U)$ must lie in $[q]\setminus \omega$, contradicting the definition of $\mathcal{L}_U(v)$ as the set of possible outputs at seed $U$. Hence the assumption is false, so for every $U$ at least one of $\mathcal{C}_1,\dots,\mathcal{C}_m,\mathcal{D}$ occurs, thus
\[
\Pr{\mathcal{C}_1 \,\vee\, \cdots \,\vee\, \mathcal{C}_m \,\vee\, \mathcal{D}} \;=\; 1.
\]
\end{itemize}
Combining the three items completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:no-coupling-2}.
\end{proof}
% Each neighborhood configuration determines a set of available colors.
% Under any grand coupling $f_v$ (Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}), the unit interval $[0,1]$ is colored using available colors, and a shared random variable $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$ determines the outcome of the coupling.
% The key observation is that for any $U\in [0,1]$, if only constrained colors appear at $U$, then there must exist a triangle $1\leq i \leq \Delta/2$ such that the pair of colors $\{3i-2,3i\}$ appear simultaneously at $U$, otherwise some neighbor configuration is not satisfied.
% Moreover, for each triangle $1 \le i \le \Delta/2$, for $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$, the probability that at least one of $\{3i-2,3i\}$ appears at $U$ is at least $\frac{2}{\Delta/2 + m + 1}$, and the probability that color $3i-1$ appears is at least $\frac{1}{\Delta/2 + m}$.
% By inclusion-exclusion, for any two colors $a,b$, the probability that both appear plus the probability that either appears equals the sum of the individual probabilities. Applying this over all $\Delta/2$ triangles, we obtain
% \[
% \mathbb{E}_{U \sim \uniform[0,1]}\!\bigl[\,|\{ f_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}|\,\bigr]
% \ge 1 + \frac{2}{\Delta/2 + m + 1} \cdot (\Delta/2) + \frac{1}{\Delta/2 + m} \cdot (\Delta/2).
% \]
% By contradiction, suppose the value of this expectation is $\le 2$.
% Solving this inequality yields $m > \Delta-1$. Since $m$ is an integer, we obtain $m \ge \Delta$, i.e., $q = 1.5\Delta + m \ge 2.5\Delta$.
% This contradicts the assumption $q < 2.5\Delta$, completing the proof.
% Recall the grand coupling mechanism described in Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}: each neighbor configuration induces a color subset, and for coupling, we assign colors to subintervals of $[0,1]$ such that, for a shared random $x \sim \uniform[0,1]$, each trajectory selects a color based on where $x$ falls.
% The key observation is that for all $x\in [0,1]$, if only \emph{constrained} colors appear at $x$ and there does not exist an integer $1\leq i \leq 0.5\Delta$ such that both color $3i-2$ and color $3i$ appear at $x$, there exists at least one neighbor configuration that is not satisfied.
% Another observation is that for all $x\in [0,1]$, the probability that either color $3i-2$ or color $3i$ appears at $x (x \sim \uniform[0,1])$ is at least $\frac{2}{0.5\Delta+m+1}$ and the probability that color $3i-1$ appears at $x (x \sim \uniform[0,1])$ is at least $\frac{1}{0.5\Delta+m}$ for $1\leq i \leq 0.5\Delta$.
% For any two colors $a,b$, the probability that both color $a$ and color $b$ appear at $x$ plus the probability that either color $a$ or color $b$ appear at $x$ equals the sum of the individual probabilities that color $a$ appear at $x$ and that color $b$ appear at $x$, where $(x \sim \uniform[0,1])$. Thus, we obtain:
% $$
% 1+\frac{2}{0.5\Delta + m+1} \cdot 0.5\Delta +\frac{1}{0.5\Delta + m} \cdot 0.5\Delta\le 2,
% $$
% which implies $m > \Delta-1$. Since both $m$ and $\Delta$ are integers, it follows that $m \ge \Delta$, i.e., $q = 1.5\Delta + m \ge 2.5\Delta$. This contradicts the assumption $q < 2.5\Delta$, thereby completing the proof.
We now present a global version of the above lower bound, which extends the local obstruction in Theorem~\ref{thm:no-coupling-2} to the entire graph, thereby proving Theorem~\ref{thm:no-bounding-chain}.
\begin{theorem}[Worst-case lower bound]
\label{thm:global-no-coupling}
Let $\Delta \ge 3$, $q < 2.5\Delta-1$, and let $n$ be sufficiently large.
%For every integer $\Delta \ge 3$, $2\le q < 2.5\Delta$, and all sufficiently large $n$,
There exists a $\Delta$-regular graph $G = (V, E)$ with $|V| = n$, together with a bounding list configuration $\bl=(\bl(u))_{u \in V}$ satisfying $|\bl(u)| = 2$ for all $u \in V$, such that
for every vertex $v \in V$ and every local grand coupling
$f_v : \mathcal{P}_v \times [0,1] \to [q]$ of the Glauber dynamics update at~$v$ given $\bl$, where $\mathcal{P}_v$ is as in~\eqref{eq:bounding-glauber-dynamics-updates},
%where $\mathcal{P}_v$ is as defined in \eqref{eq:bounding-box-local-distribution},
\[
\mathbb{E}_{U \sim \uniform[0,1]}\!\bigl[\,|\{ f_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}|\,\bigr] > 2.
\]
Moreover, the worst-case configuration at each vertex (defined in \Cref{def:worst-case}) can be simultaneously realized across all vertices of~$G$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}%[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:global-no-coupling}]
Without loss of generality assume $\Delta$ is even and write $\Delta = 2m$.
We first construct a $\Delta$-regular graph on $2\Delta$ vertices that realizes the worst-case
bounding-list configuration at every vertex, and then obtain larger graphs by taking disjoint copies.
Let $G = (V_1 \cup V_2, E)$ be the complete bipartite graph with bipartition sets
$V_1$ and $V_2$, where $|V_1| = |V_2| = \Delta$. Then $G$ is $\Delta$-regular.
Partition the vertices of $V_1$ into $m$ disjoint pairs and likewise partition $V_2$ into $m$ disjoint pairs.
Index the pairs by $i=1,\dots,m$. For the $i$-th pair in each side we assign bounding lists as follows:
the two vertices in the $i$-th pair receive bounding lists $\{3i-2,\,3i-1\}$ and $\{3i-1,\,3i\}$ respectively.
Do this assignment independently for $V_1$ and $V_2$ (using the same indexing convention).
By construction each bounding list has size~$2$. Moreover, for any fixed vertex $v\in V_1$ its neighborhood $\Gamma(v)=V_2$ is partitioned into the $m$ disjoint pairs on $V_2$, and each such pair forms a triangle in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:worst-case}: the two lists in the pair each have size~$2$ and their union has size~$3$.
Hence the collection of bounding lists on $G$ is in the worst-case configuration at every $v\in V_1$.
The same argument applies to every $v\in V_2$ because the construction on $V_1$ is symmetric.
Therefore every vertex of $G$ is in the worst-case configuration of Definition~\ref{def:worst-case}.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:no-coupling-2}, for any vertex $v$ in such a worst-case configuration
and for any grand coupling $f_v$ for the single-site Glauber update at $v$ we have
\[
\mathbb{E}_{U \sim \uniform[0,1]}\!\bigl[\,|\{ f_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}|\,\bigr] > 2.
\]
Thus the $2\Delta$-vertex graph $G$ constructed above satisfies the claimed property for every vertex.
Finally, for any sufficiently large $n$ that is a multiple of $2\Delta$ we obtain an $n$-vertex
$\Delta$-regular graph with the same property by taking the disjoint union of $n/(2\Delta)$
independent copies of $G$, and by carrying the same bounding-list assignment on each copy.
Every vertex in this disjoint union is in the same local worst-case configuration, hence the
conclusion of the theorem holds simultaneously for every vertex of the $n$-vertex graph.
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
As noted in \Cref{sec:preliminary-bounding-chains}, any bounding-chain–based grand coupling selects a vertex $v$ at random in each step and then applies a local grand coupling at $v$.
Thus \Cref{thm:global-no-coupling} is in fact a formal restatement of \Cref{thm:no-coupling-informal},
and the latter can be derived as a straightforward corollary of the former.
% We now derive Theorem~\ref{thm:no-coupling-informal} from
% Theorem~\ref{thm:global-no-coupling}.
% \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:no-coupling-informal}]
% Let $\Delta\ge 3$, $q<2.5\Delta$, and let $n$ be sufficiently large.
% By Theorem~\ref{thm:global-no-coupling} there exists a $\Delta$-regular graph
% $G=(V,E)$ with $|V|\ge n$ and a collection of bounding lists
% $\mathcal{L}=(\mathcal{L}(v))_{v\in V}$ such that $|\mathcal{L}(v)|=2$ for every
% $v\in V$, and moreover for every vertex $v\in V$ and every grand coupling
% $f_v:\mathcal{P}_v\times[0,1]\to[q]$ that implements the single-site Glauber
% update at $v$ we have
% \begin{equation}\label{eq:local-increase}
% \mathbb{E}_{U}\!\bigl[\,|\{f_v(p,U):p\in\mathcal{P}_v\}|\,\bigr] > 2,
% \end{equation}
% where the expectation is over $U\sim\uniform[0,1]$.
% Consider any bounding-chain–based scheme satisfying the setup of
% Condition~\ref{cond:bounding-chain-overall}; in particular each update step
% $t$ is given by a random vertex selection $v_t$ (sampled according to the
% algorithm's predetermined rule) together with a grand coupling
% $f_{v_t}$ for the Glauber update at $v_t$. Fix a time $t$ and suppose the
% algorithm's bounding lists at time $t-1$ equal the constructed worst-case
% configuration, i.e. $(\mathcal{L}_{t-1}(v))_{v\in V} = \mathcal{L}$. By the
% definition of the bounding-chain evolution, the update $h_t=(v_t,f_{v_t})$
% only changes the bounding list at the chosen vertex $v_t$; all other lists
% remain identical to $\mathcal{L}$.
% Condition~\ref{cond:bounding-chain-overall} requires that for every such
% possible previous state $(\mathcal{L}_{t-1}(v))_{v\in V} = \mathcal{L}$ we have
% \[
% \mathbb{E}\!\left[\sum_{v\in V} |\mathcal{L}_t(v)| \;\Big|\;
% (\mathcal{L}_{t-1}(v))_{v\in V}=\mathcal{L}\right]
% \le \sum_{v\in V} |\mathcal{L}(v)|.
% \]
% But when $(\mathcal{L}_{t-1}(v))_{v\in V}=\mathcal{L}$ the left-hand side is
% computed by first sampling the random vertex $v_t$ (as discussed in \Cref{remark:coupling-random-vt}) and then taking the expectation over
% the internal randomness of the corresponding grand coupling. For any fixed
% choice $v\in V$ the expected size of the updated list at $v$ equals the left
% side of \eqref{eq:local-increase}, which is strictly larger than $2$, while
% for all $u\neq v$ the list sizes remain $|\mathcal{L}(u)|=2$. Hence for any
% choice of the (predetermined) distribution of $v_t$ we obtain
% \[
% \mathbb{E}\!\left[\sum_{v\in V} |\mathcal{L}_t(v)| \;\Big|\;
% (\mathcal{L}_{t-1}(v))_{v\in V}=\mathcal{L}\right]
% = \sum_{u\in V} |\mathcal{L}(u)| - 2 +
% \mathbb{E}_{U}\!\bigl[\,|\{ f_{v_t}(p, U) : p\in\mathcal{P}_{v_t}\}|\,\bigr].
% \]
% By \eqref{eq:local-increase} the final term is $>2$ for every possible
% choice of $v_t$, so the right-hand side is strictly greater than
% $\sum_{u\in V} |\mathcal{L}(u)|$. Therefore the inequality required by
% Condition~\ref{cond:bounding-chain-overall} is violated whenever
% $(\mathcal{L}_{t-1}(v))_{v\in V}=\mathcal{L}$.
% Since Theorem~\ref{thm:global-no-coupling} provides such a graph $G$ and
% bounding-list configuration $\mathcal{L}$ with $|V|\ge n$, we conclude that
% for this instance no bounding-chain–based grand coupling that uses single-site
% Glauber updates at each step can satisfy the contraction property
% \eqref{eq:potential-function-decay}. This completes the proof of
% Theorem~\ref{thm:no-bounding-chain}.
% \end{proof}
%Finally, we will prove Theorem~\ref{thm:global-no-coupling}.
% From Huber's original work~\cite{huber1998exact} to the later developments in~\cite{bhandari2020improved, jain2021perfectly}, the bounding-chain framework has been consistently based on constructing suitable grand couplings on bounding chains (which we have formalized in Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}) to ensure that the bounding lists at all vertices gradually shrink to singletons.
% The grand coupling constructed in Section~\ref{sec:warm-up} can easily reduce the bounding list size to $O(\Delta)$, and our \seeding\ coupling in Lemma~\ref{lem:seeding} (as well as the series of couplings developed in~\cite{bhandari2020improved, jain2021perfectly}) can further shrink it to size~2.
% However, all of these approaches eventually face the same bottleneck: reducing every bounding list from size~2 to~1.
% To better understand this limitation, consider the following scenario.
% Suppose the current update vertex~$v$ has neighbors whose bounding lists all satisfy $|\bl(u)| = 2$.
% Can one design a grand coupling that guarantees $|\bl'(v)| \le 2$?
% We present a counterexample showing that, in the regime $q < 2.5\Delta$, no such grand coupling exists for $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$ in the worst case.
% \begin{theorem} \label{thm:no-coupling}
% Let $q < 2.5\Delta$.
% For a vertex $v$ with $|\Gamma(v)| = \Delta$, there exists a configuration of bounding lists
% $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$ such that $|\bl(u)| = 2$ for all $u \in \Gamma(v)$,
% for which no grand coupling $f_v : \mathcal{P}_v \times [0,1] \to \Omega$ (cf.\ Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain})
% can satisfy
% \[
% \forall x\in [0,1],\quad \bigl|\{\, f_v(p, x) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \,\}\bigr| \le 2
% \]
% \end{theorem}
%\todo{Needs to be updated to be consistent with the current definition}
%In other words, when $q < 2.5\Delta$, there exists an explicit local configuration around $v$ such that every grand coupling on $v$’s update space must produce more than two possible outcomes for some random seed $x$.
% \begin{theorem}
% \label{thm:no-coupling}
% Let $q < 2.5\Delta$. If the bounding list $\bl$ is in worst-case configuration at some vertex $v \in V$ (as defined in Definition~\ref{def:worst-case}), then there exists no grand coupling for a Glauber update at $v$ that ensures $|\bl(v)'| \le 2$ with probability 1.
% \end{theorem}
% This theorem demonstrates that even when all neighbors $u \in \Gamma(v)$ satisfy $|\bl(u)| \le 2$, the contraction property required by Phase II (see Section~\ref{subsec:phase-II}) may fail when $q < 2.5\Delta$. In particular, there exist adversarial configurations that force $|\bl(v)| > 2$ regardless of the coupling strategy.
% \begin{proof}
% Assume $q = 1.5\Delta + m$ for some $m \ge 0$, and without loss of generality, assume $\Delta$ is even. Construct the worst-case configuration as follows: let the neighbors of $v$ have bounding lists
% $$
% \set{1,2}, \set{2,3}, \set{4,5}, \set{5,6}, \cdots, \set{3i-2,3i-1},\set{3i-1,3i},\cdots,\set{1.5\Delta - 1, 1.5\Delta},
% $$
% which form $\Delta$ neighbors grouped into $\Delta/2$ disjoint triangles, using the first $1.5\Delta$ colors. These colors are considered \emph{constrained}, while the remaining $m$ colors are \emph{free}.
% Recall the grand coupling mechanism described in Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}: each neighbor configuration induces a color subset (e.g., $\set{1,4}$, $\set{2,4}$, etc.), and for coupling, we assign colors to subintervals of $[0,1]$ such that, for a shared random $x \sim \uniform[0,1]$, each trajectory selects a color based on where $x$ falls.
% The key observation is: for any two constrained colors $a,b \in [1.5\Delta]$, there exists at least one neighbor configuration whose available color set excludes both $a$ and $b$. Hence, if both $a$ and $b$ appear at the same $x$, then some trajectory must select a third color $c$ to preserve correctness, leading to a bounding set of size at least 3.
% To avoid this, the coupling must guarantee that no two constrained colors $a,b \in [1.5\Delta]$ ever appear together at the same point $x$. This means the intervals for these colors must be disjoint. But since each color must occupy at least $1/(0.5\Delta + m)$ of the unit interval, we obtain:
% $$
% \frac{1}{0.5\Delta + m} \cdot 1.5\Delta \le 1,
% $$
% which implies $m \ge \Delta$, i.e., $q = 1.5\Delta + m \ge 2.5\Delta$. This contradicts the assumption $q < 2.5\Delta$, completing the proof.
% \end{proof}
% \begin{remark}
% While \cref{thm:no-coupling} shows that it is impossible to guarantee a bounding set of size at most 2 in worst-case configurations when $q < 2.5\Delta$, the same interval-based model can be used to derive stronger impossibility results. In particular, a more refined analysis shows that even achieving an \emph{expected} bounding set size at most 2 is impossible for sufficiently large $\Delta$ under the same condition. This further supports the intrinsic tightness of the $2.5\Delta$ threshold.
% \end{remark}
% \begin{theorem}
% \label{thm:no-coupling-2}
% Let $q < 2.5\Delta$. If the bounding list $\bl$ is in the worst-case configuration at some vertex $v \in V$ (as defined in Definition~\ref{def:worst-case}), then there exists no grand coupling for a Glauber update at $v$ that ensures $\mathbb{E}[|\bl(v)'|] \le 2$ .
% \end{theorem}
%This theorem demonstrates that even when all neighbors $u \in \Gamma(v)$ satisfy $|\bl(u)| \le 2$, the contraction property required by Phase II (see Section~\ref{subsec:phase-II}) may fail when $q < 2.5\Delta$. In particular, there exist adversarial configurations that force $\mathbb{E}[|\bl(v)'|] \le 2$ regardless of the coupling strategy.
\section{Design of Grand Couplings}
\label{sec:coupling-design}
In this section, we explore the design of grand couplings with desirable contraction properties, a key ingredient for CFTP algorithms that succeed near the critical threshold.
\subsection{A simplified formulation for grand coupling design}
\label{sec:grand-coupling-seeding}
Based on the bounding-chain framework, we formulated in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling} an optimization problem for designing grand couplings.
To obtain a more tractable and intuitive formulation, we approximate $\mathcal{P}_v$ by considering only the set of colors
$\slv = \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \bl(u)$ appearing in the neighborhood bounding list of $v$, which coarsely tracks the local uncertainty around $v$.
%
This motivates the following simplified grand coupling design problem, which serves as an approximation of \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling}.
\begin{problem}[Grand coupling design problem]
\label{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}
Fix a subset of colors $\slv \subseteq [q]$ and an integer $\Delta$.
%let $\mathcal{S}_v$ denote the collection of all subsets of $\slv$ of size at most~$\Delta$, i.e., $\mathcal{S}_v = \{\, C \subseteq \slv : |C| \le \Delta \,\}.$
Let $\mathcal{S}_\Delta \defeq \{\, C \subseteq \slv : |C| \le \Delta \,\}$ denotes the collection of all subsets of $\slv$ of size at most~$\Delta$,
and define
\[
\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}(\slv_{\Delta}) \defeq \set{\, \uniform([q]\setminus C) : C \in \mathcal{S}_\Delta \,}.
\]
The objective is to design a grand coupling
$f : \mathcal{P} \times [0,1] \to [q]$
(cf.\ Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling}) that minimizes
\[
\mathbb{E}_{U \sim \uniform[0,1]}\!\bigl[\,|\{\, f(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P} \,\}|\,\bigr].
\]
\end{problem}
It is straightforward to verify that
any grand coupling $f : \mathcal{P} \times [0,1] \to [q]$ that is a feasible solution to \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} on an instance $(\slv, \Delta)$
is also a feasible solution to \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling} for any vertex $v \in V$ with neighborhood bounding list configuration $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$ satisfy $|\Gamma(v)| = \Delta$ and $\slv = \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \bl(u)$.
% also induces a valid grand coupling on the family $\mathcal{P}_v$ of local update distributions defined in \eqref{eq:bounding-glauber-dynamics-updates}, when $|\Gamma(v)| = \Delta$ and $\slv = \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \bl(u)$.
% Hence, $f$ is also a feasible solution to \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling} on any vertex $v \in V$ with neighborhood bounding lists $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$ satisfying $|\Gamma(v)| = \Delta$ and $\slv = \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \bl(u)$.
% and hence a feasible solution to \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling} on the instance of vertex $v \in V$ with neighborhood bounding list $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$,
% as long as satisfying $|\Gamma(v)| = \Delta$ and $\slv = \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \bl(u)$.
%
Indeed, for any $\conf \in \bigotimes_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \bl(u)$, we have
\[
\{\, \conf_u : u \in \Gamma(v) \,\}
\subseteq \slv
\quad \text{and} \quad
|\{\, \conf_u : u \in \Gamma(v) \,\}| \le |\Gamma(v)| = \Delta.
\]
Hence $\mathcal{P}_v \subseteq \mathcal{P}(\slv_\Delta)$,
where $\mathcal{P}_v$ denotes the family of local update distributions at $v$ defined in \eqref{eq:bounding-glauber-dynamics-updates}.
Consequently, any grand coupling $f$ constructed on $\mathcal{P}(\slv_\Delta)$ in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}
remains a valid grand coupling on $\mathcal{P}_v$ in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling}.
% It is straightforward to verify that
% any grand coupling $f:\mathcal{P} \times [0,1] \to [q]$ that is a feasible solution to \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} on an instance $\slv\subseteq[q]$ with integer $\Delta$,
% must also provide a valid grand coupling on $\mathcal{P}_v$ that is a feasible solution to \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling} on an instance $v\in V$ and $(\bl(u))_{u\in\Gamma(v)}$ satisfying $|\Gamma(v)|=\Delta$ and $\slv = \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \bl(u)$.
% %
% This is because, for any $\conf \in \bigotimes_{u\in\Gamma(v)}\bl(u)$,
% \[
% \{\, \conf_u : u \in \Gamma(v) \,\}
% \subseteq \slv
% \quad \text{and} \quad
% |\{\, \conf_u : u \in \Gamma(v) \,\}| \le |\Gamma(v)| = \Delta.
% \]
% Hence, $\mathcal{P}_v\subseteq \mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}(\svl_\Delta)$, and any grand coupling $f$ constructed on $\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}(\svl_\Delta)$ in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}
% remains a valid grand coupling on $\mathcal{P}_v$ in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling}.
% for every neighborhood coloring $\conf\in \bigotimes_{u\in\Gamma(v)}\bl(u)$ in
% \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling}, the set of colors $\{\, \conf_u : u \in \Gamma(v) \,\}$ used by the neighbors must equal to some $C \in \mathcal{S}_\Delta$ considered in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}.
% Therefore, the family of distributions $\mathcal{P}_v$ in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling} is a subset of $\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}(\svl_\Delta)$ in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}.
% Consequently, any grand coupling $f$ constructed on $\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}(\svl_\Delta)$ in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}
% remains a valid grand coupling on $\mathcal{P}_v$ in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling}.
The simplified formulation in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} is not only conceptually cleaner, but also captures the key structure underlying previous designs.
In particular, the core grand couplings employed in the algorithms of Bhandari et al.~\cite{bhandari2020improved} (Algorithm~3, \textsc{Contract}) and Jain et al.~\cite{jain2021perfectly} (Algorithm~3, \textsc{Seeding}) can both be viewed within the framework of \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}.
%Building on this observation, we conduct a more systematic and in-depth study of this simplified setting, and establish the optimal construction for Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}.
Building on this connection, we present a new construction that optimally solves \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}.
%Now we construct a grand coupling $\seeding_v$, that addresses Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} under suitable restrictions on the current bounding lists $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$.
%Then, under a uniform random distribution over $\gwv$ formed by selecting $\Delta$ colors uniformly at random from $\slv$, the expected size $\mathbb{E}[|\bl'(v)|]$ under any valid grand coupling is lower-bounded by a convexity-constrained linear program, whose optimal solution places nonzero probability mass on at most two consecutive integer values of $|\bl'(v)|$.
\subsection{Optimal design of grand coupling}
\label{sec:optimal-seeding}
In this subsection, we present an optimal construction of the grand coupling for \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}, focusing on the nontrivial case where $\Delta < |\slv| < q$.
% We formulate \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} as a linear program.
% Specifically, we derive a set of linear constraints that every valid grand coupling satisfying \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} must obey, thereby reducing the problem of finding an optimal grand coupling to solving a linear program.
For a grand coupling $f:\mathcal{P}\times [0,1] \to [q]$ that is feasible for \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2},
define, for each $U\in[0,1]$, the bounding set of possible outcomes
$$\mathcal{L}_U \defeq \{\, f(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P} \,\}.$$
The grand coupling $f$ naturally induces a probability distribution $\{r_k\}_{k\ge 1}$ over the sizes of $\bl_U$, where
$$r_k = \Pr[{U\sim\uniform[0,1]}]{\,|\mathcal{L}_U| = k\,}.$$
%, where the probability is taken over $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$.
We next present a system of linear constraints on the probabilities $\{r_k\}$ which correspond to the grand couplings that are feasible for \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}.
\begin{lemma}[Linear system for grand couplings]
\label{lem:rk-constraints}
Fix an instance $(\slv,\Delta)$ for \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}, and let $\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}(\slv_\Delta)$.
Let $\{r_k\}_{k=1}^\Delta$ be a probability distribution on $\{1,2,\dots,\Delta\}$ (so that $\sum_{k=1}^\Delta r_k = 1$).
Consider the system of linear constraints %for each $j=1,2,\dots,\Delta$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:linear-constraint-rk-j}
\sum_{k=1}^{\Delta} r_k \cdot
\frac{\binom{j}{k-1}}{\binom{|\slv|}{k-1}}
\le \frac{q - |\slv|}{q - j},\qquad \forall 1\le j\le \Delta.
\end{align}
Then the following statements hold:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\arabic*),wide]
\item \textbf{(Necessity)}
\label{LP-Necessity}
Let $f : \mathcal{P}\times[0,1]\to[q]$ be a grand coupling that is feasible for Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} on
$(\slv,\Delta)$.
%For $U\sim \uniform[0,1]$,
%define $\mathcal{L}_U=\{\,f(p,U):p\in\mathcal{P}\,\}$ and let
The sequence of probabilities $r_k=\Pr[{U\sim \uniform[0,1]}]{\,|\mathcal{L}_U|=k\,}$, for $k=1,\dots,\Delta$, satisfies \eqref{eq:linear-constraint-rk-j}. %for every $j\in\{1,\dots,\Delta\}$.
\item \textbf{(Sufficiency)}
\label{LP-Sufficiency}
Conversely, if a probability distribution $\{r_k\}_{k=1}^\Delta$ satisfies \eqref{eq:linear-constraint-rk-j}, then there exists a grand coupling $f : \mathcal{P}\times[0,1]\to[q]$ that is feasible for Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} on
$(\slv,\Delta)$ and realizes the size law
\[
\Pr[{U\sim \uniform[0,1]}]{\,|\mathcal{L}_U| = k\,} = r_k, \quad k=1,2,\dots,\Delta.
\]
%when $U\sim \uniform[0,1]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:Delta-constraint}
In Lemma~\ref{lem:rk-constraints} we restrict attention to grand couplings for which the random bounding list $\mathcal{L}_U$ always has size at most $\Delta$. This restriction is without loss of generality: the permutation-based ``unconstrained'' coupling from Section~\ref{sec:warm-up} already produces a bounding list of size $\Delta+1$ for every seed.
Thus, any coupling that sometimes outputs size $\Delta+1$ can be treated separately as the straightforward (unrefined) case. Consequently, when searching for non-straightforward, size-reducing couplings, it suffices to consider laws supported on $\{1,2,\dots,\Delta\}$.
\end{remark}
Since the objective of \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} is to minimize $\mathbb{E}[|\mathcal{L}_U|] = \sum_{k} k \cdot r_k$ where $r_k = \Pr{|\mathcal{L}_U| = k}$,
%and Lemma~\ref{lem:rk-constraints} provides both necessary and sufficient conditions for a sequence $\{r_k\}_{k=1}^\Delta$ to correspond to a valid grand coupling via the linear constraints, as in \eqref{eq:linear-constraint-rk-j}.
we can equivalently reformulate \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} as a linear program over $\{r_k\}$ subject to~\eqref{eq:linear-constraint-rk-j}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:lp-characterization}
Fix integers $\Delta \ge 1$ and $q > \Delta$, and let $\slv \subseteq [q]$ satisfy $\Delta < |\slv| < q$.
For each $j,k \in \{1,2,\dots,\Delta\}$, define
\[
z_j(k) \;\defeq\; \frac{\binom{j}{k-1}}{\binom{|\slv|}{k-1}}.
%\qquad k=1,2,\dots,\Delta.
\]
Consider the linear program
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rk-lp-full}
\text{minimize}\quad & \sum_{k=1}^\Delta k\cdot r_k \\
\text{subject to}\quad & \sum_{k=1}^\Delta r_k = 1, \nonumber\\
& \sum_{k=1}^\Delta r_k \cdot z_j(k) \le \dfrac{q-|\slv|}{q-j}
&&j=1,2,\dots,\Delta, \nonumber\\
& r_k \ge 0 &&k=1,2,\dots,\Delta. \nonumber
\end{align}
Let $\mathrm{OPT}_{\mathrm{LP}}$ denote the optimal objective value of \eqref{eq:rk-lp-full}.
Then $\mathrm{OPT}_{\mathrm{LP}}$ equals the minimum expected number of coupling outcomes over all grand couplings $f : \mathcal{P}(\slv_\Delta)\times [0,1] \to [q]$ that are feasible for
Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} on the instance $(\slv,\Delta)$, i.e.,
\[
\mathrm{OPT}_{\mathrm{LP}}=\min_{f:\text{ a grand coupling on }\mathcal{P}(\slv_\Delta)}\mathbb{E}_{U \sim \uniform[0,1]}\!\bigl[|\{f(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}\}|\bigr].
\]
% achievable value of
% $\mathbb{E}_{U \sim \uniform[0,1]}\!\bigl[|\{f(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}\}|\bigr]$
% over all grand couplings $f : \mathcal{P} \times [0,1] \to [q]$ that are feasible for
% Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} on the instance $(\slv,\Delta)$.
%,where $\mathcal{L}_U = \{ f(p,U) : p \in \mathcal{P} \}$.
% Moreover:
% \begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*),wide]
% \item For every feasible grand coupling $f$ define $r_k = \Pr{\,|\mathcal{L}_U| = k\,}$ (probability over $U\sim\uniform[0,1]$). Then the vector $(r_k)_{k=1}^\Delta$ is feasible for \eqref{eq:rk-lp-full}, and its objective value equals the expected bounding-list size produced by $f$.
% \item Conversely, for every feasible solution $(r_k)_{k=1}^\Delta$ of \eqref{eq:rk-lp-full} there exists a feasible grand coupling $f$ for Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} that realizes $\Pr{\,|\mathcal{L}_U| = k\,}=r_k$ for every $k$; in particular the minimum expected bounding-list size over all grand couplings equals $\mathrm{OPT}_{\mathrm{LP}}$.
% \end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\Cref{thm:lp-characterization} follows directly from \Cref{lem:rk-constraints}, since \Cref{lem:rk-constraints} provides both necessary and sufficient conditions for any sequence $\{r_k\}_{k=1}^\Delta$ that correspond to a feasible solution to \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}.
We next provide a proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:rk-constraints}, addressing both the necessity and sufficiency of the linear constraints.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{lem:rk-constraints}]
We split the proof into two parts corresponding to the two statements of the lemma.
\paragraph{\textbf{Proof of \cref{LP-Necessity}}}
% Note that in our settings, $|\slv| > \Delta$ and $[q] \setminus \slv$ is nonempty.
% Recall
% \[
% \mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}(\slv_{\Delta}) \defeq \set{\, \uniform([q]\setminus C) : C \in \mathcal{S}_\Delta \,},
% \]
% where $\mathcal{S}_\Delta \defeq \{\, C \subseteq \slv : |C| \le \Delta \,\}$.
% Our goal is to design a grand coupling
% $f : \mathcal{P} \times [0,1] \to [q]$
% that minimizes the expected number of coupling outcomes, which we formalize by the objective
% \[
% \score^{\mathcal{P}}(f)
% = \mathbb{E}_{U \sim \uniform[0,1]}\!\bigl[\,|\{\, f(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P} \,\}|\,\bigr].
% \]
Let $f : \mathcal{P}\times[0,1]\to[q]$ be a grand coupling that is feasible for Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} on
$(\slv,\Delta)$.
For each $U \in [0,1]$, recall that
$\mathcal{L}_U \defeq \{\, f(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}\,\}$
denote the bounding set of possible outcomes of the grand coupling $f$ for the random seed $U$.
For convenience, define $\tlv \defeq [q]\setminus \slv.$
Intuitively, $\tlv$ consists of colors that are guaranteed to be unused by neighbors, as they do not appear in the neighborhood bounding list.
% To analyze the structure of an optimal coupling, consider the set of colors
% $$\tlv \defeq [q]\setminus \slv.$$
% Intuitively, $\tlv$ consists of colors that are guaranteed to be unused by neighbors, as they do not appear in the neighborhood bounding list.
% A key structural property of any optimal solution to \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} is that, for every $U \in [0,1]$, the corresponding bounding set $\mathcal{L}_U$ contains \emph{at most one} color from $\tlv$.
% To analyze the structure of the optimal coupling,
% consider the set of colors $\tlv = [q]\setminus \slv$,
% which represent those colors that never appear in any neighbor's bounding list.
% We first establish a simple but crucial structural property of any optimal solution. For any grand coupling $f: \mathcal{P} \times [0,1] \to [q]$ that minimizes $\score^{\mathcal{P}}(f)$, the corresponding bounding list $\mathcal{L}_U$ contains \emph{at most one} color from $\tlv$ for every $U \in [0,1]$.
% \begin{lemma}
% \label{lem:single-outside-color}
% Let $f$ be a grand coupling on $\mathcal{P} = \mathcal{P}(\slv_\Delta)$ that is feasible for \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}.
% Suppose there exists a measurable set $\mathcal{M} \subseteq [0,1]$ with positive Lebesgue measure such that, for every $U \in \mathcal{M}$, the bounding set
% \[
% \mathcal{L}_U = \{\, f(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P} \,\}
% \]
% contains two or more colors from $\tlv = [q] \setminus \slv$.
% Then there exists another grand coupling $f'$ on $\mathcal{P}$ such that
% \[
% \score^{\mathcal{P}}(f') < \score^{\mathcal{P}}(f),
% \]
% i.e., the expected size of the bounding set produced by $f'$ is strictly smaller than that of $f$.
% \end{lemma}
% \begin{proof}%[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:single-outside-color}]
% Let $f : \mathcal{P} \times [0,1] \to [q]$ be a grand coupling satisfying the condition of Lemma~\ref{lem:single-outside-color},
% We first introduce a new auxiliary color $c^*$ representing all colors in $\tlv$. For each distribution $p \in \mathcal{P}$, define a corresponding distribution $p^* \in \mathcal{P}^*$ on $\slv \cup \{c^*\}$ by
% \[
% p^*(c) =
% \begin{cases}
% p(c), & \text{if } c \in \slv,\\[1mm]
% \sum_{x \in \tlv} p(x), & \text{if } c = c^*.
% \end{cases}
% \]
% Using this mapping, we construct a collapsed grand coupling
% \[
% f^* : \mathcal{P}^* \times [0,1] \to \slv \cup \{c^*\}
% \]
% by mimicking $f$: for any input $(p^*, U)$, let
% \[
% f^*(p^*, U) =
% \begin{cases}
% f(p, U), & \text{if } f(p, U) \in \slv,\\
% c^*, & \text{if } f(p, U) \in \tlv,
% \end{cases}
% \]
% where $p$ is the original distribution corresponding to $p^*$. By construction, for any $p^* \in \mathcal{P}^*$, the marginal distribution of $f^*(p^*, U)$ matches $p^*$, so $f^*$ is a valid grand coupling.
% Next, we expand the auxiliary color $c^*$ back into the original set $\tlv$ by introducing an independent random color $c \sim \uniform(\tlv)$ together with a new uniform seed $U' \sim \uniform[0,1]$. Define
% \[
% f'(p, (U',c)) =
% \begin{cases}
% f^*(p^*, U'), & \text{if } f^*(p^*, U') \in \slv,\\
% c, & \text{if } f^*(p^*, U') = c^*.
% \end{cases}
% \]
% where $p^*$ is the original distribution corresponding to $p$.
% By construction, for each $p \in \mathcal{P}$, the marginal distribution of $f'(p, (U',c))$ coincides with $p$, so $f'$ is a valid grand coupling. Moreover, for any $(U',c)$, the bounding list
% \[
% \{ f'(p, (U',c)) : p \in \mathcal{P} \}
% \]
% contains at most one color from $\tlv$, because all original $\tlv$ colors are mapped to $c$ for that seed.
% To compare the expected bounding-list sizes, we couple the random seeds of $f$ and $f'$ by letting $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$ for $f$ correspond to $(U',c)$ for $f'$, where $U' = U$ and $c \sim \uniform(\tlv)$ is independent. Under this coupling, for every $p \in \mathcal{P}$, the outputs on colors in $\slv$ are identical:
% \[
% f(p, U) \in \slv \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad f'(p, (U',c)) = f(p,U) \in \slv.
% \]
% On the measurable set $\mathcal{M} \subseteq [0,1]$ where the output bounding list $\mathcal{L}_U$ of $f$ contains two or more colors from $\tlv$, the corresponding bounding list of $f'$ collapses all such colors to the single color $c$, strictly reducing the number of distinct $\tlv$ colors. Outside $\mathcal{M}$, the size of the bounding list restricted to $\tlv$ is identical for the outputs of $f$ and $f'$. Therefore, under this coupling,
% \[
% \score^{\mathcal{P}}(f') < \score^{\mathcal{P}}(f),
% \]
% showing that $f'$ is a grand coupling with strictly smaller expected bounding list size than $f$, completing the proof.
% \end{proof}
% In Lemma~\ref{lem:single-outside-color} we have already established that, for any optimal grand coupling, the size of the bounding list restricted to $\tlv$ must always be at most $1$.
%To further analyze the optimal construction, we can recall the simplest grand coupling constructed in Section~\ref{sec:warm-up}: in the “unconstrained” setting, its bounding list always has size $\Delta+1$.
%Therefore, without loss of generality, we can focus on bounding lists $\mathcal{L}_U$ whose size does not exceed $\Delta$.
Given any bounding list $\mathcal{L}_U$, we can always decompose it into the part contained in $\slv$ and the part contained in $\tlv$, that is,
\[
\mathcal{L}_U = \mathcal{L}^\slv_U \cup \mathcal{L}^\tlv_U,
\qquad \mathcal{L}^\slv_U \subseteq \slv,\;\; \mathcal{L}^\tlv_U \subseteq \tlv.
\]
We first show that the component $\mathcal{L}^\tlv_U$ must be non-empty for any $U\in[0,1]$.
By contradiction, suppose $\mathcal{L}^\tlv_U = \emptyset$ for some $U\in[0,1]$.
Then we have $\mathcal{L}_U = \mathcal{L}^\slv_U \subseteq \slv$ and $|\mathcal{L}_U| \le \Delta$.
Taking $C = \mathcal{L}_U$, the distribution $\uniform([q]\setminus C) \in \mathcal{P}$ would be a valid input of \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}, but all colors in its support would lie outside the bounding list $\mathcal{L}_U$, violating the correctness of the grand coupling.
Recall that the probability sequence $\{r_k\}_{k=1}^\Delta$ is defined by $r_k=\Pr[{U\sim \uniform[0,1]}]{\,|\mathcal{L}_U|=k\,}$, for $k=1,\dots,\Delta$.
Fix an integer $j \in \{1,2,\dots,\Delta\}$. Let $\mathcal{S}^*_j \defeq \{\, C \subseteq \slv : |C| \le \Delta \,\}$ denotes the collection of all subsets of $\slv$ of size exactly~$j$.
Now consider sampling a neighbor configuration $C \in \mathcal{S}^*_j$ uniformly at random.
Then for any fixed $\mathcal{L}_U$ of size $k$, note that the subset $\mathcal{L}^\slv_U \subseteq \slv$ has size at most $k-1$, since we have already established that $\mathcal{L}^\tlv_U$ is non-empty.
The probability that a uniformly sampled configuration $C$ contains all colors in $\mathcal{L}^\slv_U$ is therefore lower bounded by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:LP-nec-1}
\Pr[C \sim \uniform \mathcal{S}^*_j]{\mathcal{L}^\slv_U \subseteq C}
= \frac{\binom{j}{|\mathcal{L}^\slv_U|}}{\binom{|\slv|}{|\mathcal{L}^\slv_U|}}
\ge \frac{\binom{j}{k-1}}{\binom{|\slv|}{k-1}}.
\end{align}
%In that event all the feasible colors in $[q]\setminus C$ that lies in $\tlv$.
On the other hand,
by marginal correctness of grand coupling we therefore have, for every fixed $C$, let $p_c \defeq \uniform([q]\setminus C)$,
\[
\Pr[{U\sim\uniform[0,1]}]{ f(p_C,U)\in\tlv } \;=\; \frac{q-|\slv|}{q-j}.
\]
Averaging over $C\sim\uniform(\mathcal{S}_j)$ yields the identity
\begin{align}
\label{eq:LP-nec-2}
\Pr[{C\sim\uniform(\mathcal{S}_j),\;U\sim\uniform[0,1]}]{ f(p_C,U)\in\tlv } \;=\; \frac{q-|\slv|}{q-j}.
\end{align}
Finally observe that the event $\mathcal{L}_U^\slv \subseteq C$ implies $f(p_C,U)\in\tlv$: if every color from $\mathcal{L}_U^\slv$ is banned by $C$, then no color in $\slv$ can be produced by $f(p_C,U)$.
Combining \eqref{eq:LP-nec-1}, \eqref{eq:LP-nec-2} and the above observation, using the law of total probability yields
\begin{align*}
\frac{q-|\slv|}{q-j}
&= \Pr[{C,U}]{ f(p_C,U)\in\tlv } \\
&= \sum_{k=1}^\Delta \Pr[{U}]{\,|\mathcal{L}_U|=k\,}
\cdot \Pr[{C,U}]{ f(p_C,U)\in\tlv \;\big|\; |\mathcal{L}_U|=k } \\
&\ge \sum_{k=1}^\Delta \Pr[{U}]{\,|\mathcal{L}_U|=k\,}
\cdot \Pr[{C,U}]{ \mathcal{L}_U^\slv \subseteq C \;\big|\; |\mathcal{L}_U|=k } \\
&\ge \sum_{k=1}^\Delta r_k \cdot \frac{\binom{j}{k-1}}{\binom{|\slv|}{k-1}}.
\end{align*}
Since the above inequality holds for each fixed $j\in\{1,2,\dots,\Delta\}$,
we conclude that the collection $\{r_k\}_{k=1}^\Delta$ satisfies exactly the family of inequalities specified in~\eqref{eq:linear-constraint-rk-j}.
%by marginal consistency of the Glauber update,
% the overall probability that the grand coupling outputs a color from $\tlv$ must not exceed the
% marginal probability that the true update (for a uniformly chosen
% neighbor configuration of size $j$) is forced into $[q]\setminus\slv$.
% Consequently, for each $j=1,2,\dots,\Delta$ the probabilities
% $\{r_k\}$ governing the law of $|\mathcal{L}_U|$ must satisfy the family of linear constraints
% \begin{align}
% \label{eq:linear-constraint-rk}
% \sum_{k=1}^{\Delta} r_k \cdot
% \frac{\binom{j}{k-1}}{\binom{|\slv|}{k-1}}
% \;\le\; \frac{q - |\slv|}{q - j}
% \qquad\text{for all } j = 1,2,\dots,\Delta.
% \end{align}
\paragraph{\textbf{Proof of \cref{LP-Sufficiency}}}
% In fact, the converse also holds: if a probability vector $\{r_k\}_{k=1}^\Delta$ satisfies the normalization $\sum_k r_k=1$ and all constraints \eqref{eq:linear-constraint-rk} for $j=1,\dots,\Delta$, then one can construct a valid grand coupling that realizes
% $\Pr{|\mathcal{L}_U|=k}=r_k$ for each $k$. We formalize this statement below.
% \begin{lemma}
% \label{lem:rk-constraints}
% Let $\{r_k\}_{k=1}^\Delta$ be a probability distribution over
% $\{1,2,\dots,\Delta\}$ (so $\sum_{k=1}^\Delta r_k = 1$).
% Suppose that the linear constraints ~\eqref{eq:linear-constraint-rk} holds for the input $(\slv,\Delta)$,
% then there exists a valid grand coupling
% $f : \mathcal{P} \times [0,1] \to [q]$ that solves Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}
% and when $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$,
% \[
% \Pr{\,|\mathcal{L}_U| = k\,} = r_k
% \qquad\text{for every } k=1,2,\dots,\Delta.
% \]
% \end{lemma}
Recall that $\mathcal{S}_\Delta \defeq \{\, C \subseteq \slv : |C| \le \Delta \,\}$ and $\tlv \defeq [q]\setminus\slv$.
Let $\{r_k\}_{k=1}^\Delta$ be a probability distribution satisfies \eqref{eq:linear-constraint-rk-j}, and for each $C\in \mathcal{S}_\Delta$, define
\[
P_C \;=\; \sum_{k=1}^{\Delta} r_k \cdot \frac{\binom{|C|}{k-1}}{\binom{|\slv|}{k-1}},
\qquad
Q_C \;=\; \frac{q-|\slv|}{\,q-|C|\,}.
\]
By \eqref{eq:linear-constraint-rk-j} we have $P_C \le Q_C$ for every such $C$. (Note that $|\slv|>\Delta$ in our setting, so $Q_C<1$.)
We now construct a grand coupling $f:\mathcal{P}\times[0,1]\to [q]$ that realizes the prescribed distribution $\{r_k\}$.
Concretely, for each seed $U\in[0,1]$ we deterministically extract a where
\begin{itemize}
\item $K\in\{1,\dots,\Delta\}$ is drawn with $\Pr{K=k}=r_k$;
\item $\pi$ is a uniformly random permutation of $\slv$;
\item $c_0$ is drawn uniformly from $\tlv$;
\item $U'\sim\uniform[0,1]$ is independent of the previous choices.
\end{itemize}
As usual, such independent randomness can be encoded measurably into a single uniform seed $U$.
Given an input distribution $p=\uniform([q]\setminus C)\in\mathcal{P}$ (where $C\in \mathcal{S}_\Delta$), and given the internal randomness $(K,\pi,c_0,U')$ obtained from $U$, let $A=\{\pi_1,\dots,\pi_{K-1}\}$ denote the prefix of $\pi$ of length $K-1$. Define
\[
\alpha_C \;=\; \frac{1-Q_C}{1-P_C} \in (0,1].
\]
We then set
\begin{align}
\label{eq:bounding-chain-opt}
f\bigl(\uniform([q]\setminus C),U\bigr)=
\begin{cases}
\text{the first element of $A$ that lies in $\slv\setminus C$,} & \text{if } A \not\subseteq C \text{ and } U' < \alpha_C,\\[4pt]
c_0, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
We verify that $f$ is a valid grand coupling and that it realizes the law $\Pr{|\mathcal{L}_U|=k}=r_k$.
First we check marginal correctness.
Let $X$ denote the random variable corresponding to the output of $f$ above.
Condition on $C$. By construction,
\[
\Pr{A\subseteq C} \;=\; \sum_{k=1}^\Delta r_k \cdot \frac{\binom{|C|}{k-1}}{\binom{|\slv|}{k-1}} \;=\; P_C,
\]
hence $\Pr{A\not\subseteq C}=1-P_C$. The algorithm outputs a color in $\tlv$ exactly when either $A\subseteq C$ (in which case we always output $c_0$) or when $A\not\subseteq C$ but $U'\ge\alpha_C$. Therefore
\begin{align*}
\Pr{X\in \tlv}
&= \Pr{A\subseteq C} + \Pr{A\not\subseteq C}\cdot(1-\alpha_C) \\
&= P_C + (1-P_C)\Bigl(1 - \frac{1-Q_C}{1-P_C}\Bigr) \;=\; Q_C.
\end{align*}
When the output falls in $\tlv$ it equals the independent uniform color $c_0$, so conditional on this event the distribution over $\tlv$ is uniform; consequently each color $c\in\tlv$ is output with marginal probability
\[
\Pr{X=c} \;=\; \frac{Q_C}{|\tlv|} \;=\; \frac{1}{q-|C|}.
\]
It remains to check the colors in $\slv\setminus C$. The event that the output lies in $\slv\setminus C$ occurs exactly when $A\not\subseteq C$ and $U'<\alpha_C$. Conditioned on $A\not\subseteq C$ and $K=k$, the decoder returns the first element of $A$ that lies in $\slv\setminus C$. By symmetry of $\pi$, for fixed $k$ this "first-not-in-$C$" element is uniformly distributed over $\slv\setminus C$ (whenever $A\not\subseteq C$). Therefore each color $c\in\slv\setminus C$ has conditional probability $1/(|\slv|-|C|)$ given that the output is in $\slv\setminus C$. Since $\Pr{X\in\slv\setminus C} = 1-Q_C$,
we deduce that for every $c\in\slv\setminus C$
\[
\Pr{X=c} = (1-Q_C)\cdot\frac{1}{|\slv|-|C|} = \frac{1}{q-|C|}.
\]
Combining with the uniformity on $\tlv$, we conclude that the distribution of $X$ equals $\uniform([q]\setminus C)$, as required. Hence $f$ is a valid grand coupling.
Finally we verify that the coupling indeed realizes the prescribed size distribution.
Recall that the quadruple $(K,\pi,c_0,U')$ is deterministically decoded from the seed $U\sim\uniform[0,1]$,
and $A=\{\pi_1,\dots,\pi_{K-1}\}$ denote the prefix of $\pi$ of length $K-1$.
By the construction of $f$ (see~\eqref{eq:bounding-chain-opt}),
for every choice of set $C\subseteq\slv$ with $|C|\le\Delta$ the output of the decoder is either $c_0$ or the first element of $A$ that does not lie in $C$.
Consequently, the image of $\mathcal{P}$ under $f(\cdot,U)$ is contained in $A\cup\{c_0\}$.
Moreover, it can be easily verified that for each color in $A\cup\{c_0\}$ there exists some set $C$ for which the decoder outputs that color, so every element of $A\cup\{c_0\}$ is actually attainable.
Therefore for this fixed seed $U$ we have
\[
\mathcal{L}_U=\{\, f(p,U) : p\in\mathcal{P} \,\} = A\cup\{c_0\},
\]
and hence $|\mathcal{L}_U| = |A|+1 = K$.
Since $K$ was drawn according to $\Pr{K=k}=r_k$, it follows that
$\Pr{\,|\mathcal{L}_U|=k\,} = \Pr{K=k} = r_k$
for every $k=1,2,\dots,\Delta$, as required.
This completes the construction and the proof of \Cref{LP-Sufficiency}.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{\textbf{Solving the linear program in \eqref{eq:rk-lp-full}}}
We now discuss how to approach the solution of the linear program \eqref{eq:rk-lp-full},
which characterizes the optimal grand coupling via the distribution $\{r_k\}_{k=1}^\Delta$.
We begin by examining a relaxed version of the program that retains only the constraint corresponding to $j=\Delta$ in \eqref{eq:rk-lp-full}.
Set
\[
z(k)\;=\; z_\Delta(k) \;=\; \frac{\binom{\Delta}{k-1}}{\binom{|\slv|}{k-1}},
\qquad
w \;=\; \frac{q-|\slv|}{q-\Delta},
\]
and consider the reduced linear program
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rk-lp}
\text{minimize}\quad & \sum_{k=1}^\Delta k\cdot r_k \nonumber\\
\text{subject to}\quad & \sum_{k=1}^\Delta r_k = 1, \\
& \sum_{k=1}^\Delta r_k \cdot z(k) \le w, \nonumber\\
& r_k \ge 0 \quad (k=1,\dots,\Delta). \nonumber
\end{align}
The function $z(k)$ defined above is convex in $k$ for fixed $\Delta$ and $|\slv| > \Delta$. By standard extremal properties of linear programs with a single convex moment constraint (see, e.g., \cite{hardy1952inequalities} and related moment–LP arguments), any optimal solution of \eqref{eq:rk-lp} is supported on at most two consecutive values of $k$. In other words, there exists an index $1<i\le \Delta$ such that the optimal distribution $\{r_k\}$ has $r_k=0$ for all $k\not\in\{i-1,i\}$. Consequently the optimal $\{r_k\}$ (when it exists) can be constructed as follows. Let $i\in\{2,\dots,\Delta\}$ be the smallest index such that $z(i)\le w$. If such an $i$ exists, set
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rk-opt}
r_{i-1} \;=\; \frac{w - z(i)}{\,z(i-1) - z(i)\,}, \qquad
r_{i} \;=\; \frac{z(i-1) - w}{\,z(i-1) - z(i)\,},
\end{equation}
with all other $r_k=0$. By construction $r_{i-1},r_i\ge0$, $r_{i-1}+r_i=1$,
and this choice satisfies $\sum_k r_k \cdot z(k)=w$, hence is optimal for
\eqref{eq:rk-lp}.
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:lp}
The program \eqref{eq:rk-lp} is a relaxation of the original LP
\eqref{eq:rk-lp-full}. In our subsequent analysis we work with the relaxed program \eqref{eq:rk-lp} because it admits the explicit solution \eqref{eq:rk-opt}. In typical parameter regimes of interest
(e.g.\ when $q = 2\Delta$), one can verify that satisfying the $j=\Delta$ constraint (i.e.\ the single constraint used in the relaxed program) generally implies the remaining constraints for $j=1,2,\dots,\Delta-1$.
%a direct (albeit routine) verification can be carried out for concrete choices of $(q,|\slv|,\Delta)$ arising in our applications.
Thus the relaxation is non-pathological for the regimes we care about, and the explicit solution \eqref{eq:rk-opt} yields the optimal (or near-optimal) distribution of $|\mathcal{L}_U|$ in those settings.
\end{remark}
Combining the explicit probabilities in~\eqref{eq:rk-opt} with the constructive proof in Lemma~\ref{lem:rk-constraints} thus yields an explicit optimal grand coupling for Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} under the stated assumptions.
\color{black}
% This gives a linear constraint over the variables $\{r_k\}$, while the objective is to minimize $\sum_k r_k \cdot k$.
% Since the function
% $z(k) = {\binom{\Delta}{k-1}}/{\binom{|\slv|}{k-1}}$
% is convex in $k$ for fixed $\Delta$ and $|\slv| \ge \Delta$, the optimal solution to this linear program is attained when at most two consecutive $p_k$ values are nonzero (see, e.g., the extremal structure of convex moment-constrained linear programs~\cite{hardy1952inequalities}).
%Hence, the optimal grand coupling randomizes between two adjacent sizes of $\mathcal{L}^\slv_U$, minimizing the expected size $\mathbb{E}[|\mathcal{L}_U|]$ while satisfying the marginal constraint.
%Let $\bl'(v)$ denote the output of a grand coupling, i.e., the updated bounding list for vertex $v$. Any valid grand coupling must ensure that for every possible $\gwv \subseteq \slv$ with $\abs\gwv \le \Delta$, the assigned color lies in $[q] \setminus \gwv$. This implies the following structural constraint: the bounding list $\bl'(v)$ must contain at least one color in $[q] \setminus \slv$. Otherwise, there exists a configuration $\gwv = \bl'(v) \subseteq \slv$ under which no color in $\bl'(v)$ would be valid, violating the correctness of the coupling.
% Therefore, without loss of generality, we can restrict attention to couplings where
% $$
% \bl'(v) = \bl_0 \cup \set{c},
% $$
% where $\bl_0 \subseteq \slv$ and $c \in [q] \setminus \slv$ is a fixed color representing the valid complement class. Moreover, since the grand coupling can internally choose a uniform color from $[q] \setminus \slv$ ahead of time, the value of $c$ is irrelevant for the purpose of analyzing the size of $\bl'(v)$, and we may assume that exactly one such color appears in the output list.
% Let $p_k$ denote the probability that $|\bl'(v)| = k$ under a given coupling. Our objective is to minimize the expected size:
% $$
% \mathbb{E}[|\bl'(v)|] = \sum_k p_k \cdot k,
% $$
% subject to the correctness constraint derived from analyzing the coupling failure probability.
% Now consider sampling $\gwv$ uniformly at random by choosing a subset $T \subseteq \slv$ of size $\Delta$, uniformly at random. For any fixed set $\bl_0$ of size $k-1$ (so that $|\bl'(v)| = k$), the probability that $\gwv$ bans all colors in $\bl_0$ is
% $$
% \Pr{\bl_0 \subseteq \gwv} = \frac{\binom{\Delta}{k-1}}{\binom{|\slv|}{k-1}}.
% $$
% In this case, the only available color is $c \in [q] \setminus \slv$.
% On the other hand, by uniformity of the Glauber update, the total probability that the coupling selects a color in $[q] \setminus \slv$ must match the marginal probability that the true color is forced into that class. That is, the total mass across all $p_k$ must satisfy:
% $$
% \sum_k p_k \cdot \frac{\binom{\Delta}{k-1}}{\binom{|\slv|}{k-1}} \le \frac{q - |\slv|}{q - \Delta}.
% $$
% This defines a linear inequality constraint over the variables $\set{p_k}$, with the goal of minimizing the expectation $\sum_k p_k \cdot k$. Since the function $f(k) = {\binom{\Delta}{k-1}}/{\binom{|\slv|}{k-1}}$ is convex in $k$ for fixed $\Delta$ and $|\slv| \ge \Delta$, the optimal solution to this linear program is attained when at most two consecutive $p_k$ values are nonzero (see e.g., properties of moment-constrained LPs under convexity~\cite{hardy1952inequalities}).
% Thus, the optimal grand coupling minimizes expected output size by randomizing between two adjacent values of $|\bl'(v)|$, subject to the above constraint.
%In fact, Algorithm~\ref{Alg:seeding} implements exactly the two‐point mixture case in which only $p_2$ and $p_3$ are positive. Now we prove that Algorithm~\ref{Alg:seeding} achieves the optimal grand coupling.
\subsection{Constructions of grand couplings}
\label{sec:grand-coupling-applications}
In this subsection, we present several concrete constructions of grand couplings that serve as building blocks for the CFTP algorithm stated in \Cref{thm:main}.
\subsubsection{Grand coupling: \seeding}
The grand coupling \emph{\seeding} refers to the optimal construction introduced in \Cref{sec:optimal-seeding}.
This coupling is the key to our improvement of the coloring threshold, reducing from the previous bound $q > (8/3 + o(1))\,\Delta$~\cite{jain2021perfectly} to the nearly optimal bound $q > (2.5 + o(1))\,\Delta$.
\begin{lemma}[Seeding coupling]
\label{lem:seeding}
Fix any vertex $v \in V$ and neighborhood bounding lists $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$.
Let $\mathcal{P}_v$ denote the set of all possible local update distributions at $v$ in the Glauber dynamics on $q$-colorings, given the bounding lists $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$ on $v$’s neighbors. Formally,
\begin{align}\label{eq:bounding-glauber-dynamics-updates-2}
\mathcal{P}_v = \left\{\uniform([q] \setminus \conf): \conf \in \bigotimes_{u\in\Gamma(v)}\bl(u)\right\}
\end{align}
% as the set of all possible local update distributions at $v$ in the Glauber dynamics on $q$-colorings, given the bounding lists $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$.
%
Assume
%$q \ge \tfrac{7}{3}\,\Delta$ and $|\slv| \le 2\Delta$, where $\slv \defeq \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \bl(u)$.
\[
q \ge \tfrac{7}{3}\,\Delta
\quad\text{and}\quad
|\slv| \le 2\Delta,
\quad\text{where }\slv \defeq \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \bl(u).
\]
Then there exists a grand coupling $\seeding_v : \mathcal{P}_v \times [0,1] \to [q]$ satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*), ref=\alph*]
\item \label{seeding-size} (\textbf{Bounding list reduction })
For random seed $U \in [0,1]$, let $\bl_U(v) = \{ \seeding_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}$ denote the set of possible coupling outcomes. Then $|\bl_U(v)| \in \{2,3\}$, and
% For any fixed random seed $x \in [0,1]$, let $\bl'(v) = \{ \seeding_v(p, x) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}$ be the set of possible outcomes, then $|\bl'(v)|$ takes values in $\{2,3\}$, and
$$
\mathbb{E}_{U \sim \uniform[0,1]}\!\bigl[\,|\bl_U(v)|\,\bigr] \le 2 + \frac{(|\slv| + \Delta - q)(|\slv|-1)}{(q-\Delta)\,\Delta}.
$$
\item \label{seeding-efficiency} (\textbf{Efficiency})
The grand coupling $\seeding_v$ can be implemented so that each update of the bounding list can be performed in expected time $O(\Delta \log \Delta)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}%[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:seeding}]
Recall that solving Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} for the input $(\slv,\Delta)$ yields a grand coupling that is valid for any neighborhood bounding lists with union equal to $\slv$. Hence it suffices to produce an admissible probability law $\{r_k\}_{k=1}^\Delta$ satisfying the feasibility constraints of Lemma~\ref{lem:rk-constraints}. The lemma then guarantees existence of a corresponding grand coupling realizing
$\Pr{\,|\mathcal{L}_U(v)| = k\,}=r_k$ for every $k$.
We take $\{r_k\}$ to be the two-point law obtained from the explicit
formula \eqref{eq:rk-opt} with index $i=3$. Concretely define
\[
r_3 \;=\; \frac{(|\slv| + \Delta - q)(|\slv|-1)}{(q-\Delta)\,\Delta},
\qquad
r_2 \;=\; 1-r_3,
\qquad
r_k \;=\; 0 \quad (k\notin\{2,3\}).
\]
Under the parameter restrictions of the lemma ($q\ge 7/3\,\Delta$ and $|\slv|\le 2\Delta$) one checks routinely that
$r_2,r_3\in[0,1]$.
It can also be easily verified that the above choice of
$\{r_k\}$ satisfies the linear constraint~\eqref{eq:linear-constraint-rk-j} throughout this regime, as earlier mentioned in Remark ~\ref{remark:lp}.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:rk-constraints}, there exists a valid grand coupling $f$ whose explicit construction was given in the proof of that lemma.
For $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$, this coupling satisfies $\Pr{\,|\mathcal{L}_U(v)| = k\,} = r_k$ for every $k$.
We take precisely this constructed coupling as our $\seeding_v$.
\medskip\noindent\textbf{Proof of \cref{seeding-size}.}
Because $\Pr{\,|\mathcal{L}_U(v)|=k\,}=r_k$ and only $r_2,r_3$ are nonzero,
the size $|\mathcal{L}_U(v)|$ takes values in $\{2,3\}$ and its
expectation equals
\[
\mathbb{E}\bigl[\,|\mathcal{L}_U(v)|\,\bigr]
= 2\cdot r_2 + 3\cdot r_3
= 2 + r_3
= 2 + \frac{(|\slv| + \Delta - q)(|\slv|-1)}{(q-\Delta)\,\Delta},
\]
which establishes the claimed bound.
\medskip\noindent\textbf{Proof of \cref{seeding-efficiency}.}
Since $|\slv| \le 2\Delta$, constructing $\slv = \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \bl(u)$ requires $O(\Delta \log \Delta)$ time.
Within $\seeding_v$, apart from generating a random permutation of $\slv$ in $O(\Delta)$ time, all encoding and decoding operations take constant time.
Hence, the overall computational complexity is $O(\Delta \log \Delta)$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Grand Coupling: $\compress$ and $\disjoint$}
\label{sec:grand-coupling-compress}
Next, we present two canonical constructions of grand couplings, referred to as \emph{\compress} and \emph{\disjoint}, which serve as fundamental components in the CFTP algorithm discussed later.
The \compress{} and \disjoint{} algorithms were originally introduced in~\cite{bhandari2020improved} and~\cite{jain2021perfectly}, respectively. Both algorithms can be naturally interpreted as specific instances of grand couplings via the bounding chains within our framework.
% In particular, we reformulate the \compress{} construction explicitly as a grand coupling $\compress^A_v$, consistent with Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}.
% The permutation-based grand coupling proposed by Huber~\cite{huber1998exact} serves as the foundation for several later refinements.
% In particular, the \compress coupling introduced and analyzed in~\cite{bhandari2020improved, jain2021perfectly} can be interpreted in our framework as a specific instance of a grand coupling on the bounding chain.
% We now reformulate this construction directly in the form of a grand coupling~$\compress_v$, consistent with Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}.
In particular, the \compress{} coupling can be viewed as a refinement of Huber's permutation-based grand coupling~\cite{huber1998exact} discussed in~\Cref{sec:warm-up}, optimized for the bounding-chain setting.
\begin{lemma}[Compress coupling]
\label{lem:compress}
Fix any vertex $v \in V$ and neighborhood bounding lists $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$.
Let $\mathcal{P}_v$ be defined as \eqref{eq:bounding-glauber-dynamics-updates-2}.
Assume $q \ge \Delta + 1$.
For any fixed subset $A \subseteq [q]$ with $|A| = \Delta$, called a \emph{reference color set}, there exists a grand coupling $\compress^A_v:\mathcal{P}_v\times[0,1]\to[q]$ satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*), ref=\alph*]
\item \label{compress-size} (\textbf{Bounding property})
For random seed $U \sim\uniform[0,1]$, the set of possible outcomes is
\[
\set{\compress^A_v(p, U) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v} = A \cup \{ c \},
\]
where $c$ is distributed uniformly in $[q]\setminus A$ (with the randomness induced by $U$).
\item \label{compress-efficiency} (\textbf{Efficiency})
The grand coupling $\compress^A_v$ can be implemented so that each update of the bounding list can be performed in expected time $O(\Delta \log \Delta)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}%[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:compress}]
We encode the internal randomness of the $\compress$ procedure into a single random seed $U\in[0,1]$.
Concretely, for each seed~$U$ we deterministically extract a triple $(\pi,x',U')$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\pi$ is a uniformly random permutation of $A$,
\item $x'$ is a uniformly random element of $[q]\setminus A$,
\item $U'$ is an independent uniform draw from $[0,1]$.
\end{itemize}
For each feasible neighbor configuration $\conf\in\mathsf{Conf}(v)$—with induced forbidden set $\Gamma_\conf(v)$ and corresponding distribution $p_\conf = \uniform([q]\setminus\Gamma_\conf(v))\in \mathcal{P}_v$—define
\[
\compress^A_v(p_\conf,U) =
\begin{cases}
x', & \text{if } x' \notin \Gamma_\conf(v)\ \text{and}\ U' \le \dfrac{q-\Delta}{\,q-|\Gamma_\conf(v)|\,},\\[6pt]
\text{the first } y \text{ in } \pi \text{ with } y \notin \Gamma_\conf(v), & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
\noindent\textbf{Grand coupling property (correctness).}
Fix a configuration~$\conf$ and let $\Gamma=\Gamma_\conf(v)$.
Conditional on $(\pi,x')$ (or marginalizing over them), the above rule returns~$x'$ with probability
\[
\Pr{x'\notin\Gamma} \cdot \Pr{U' \le \tfrac{q-\Delta}{q-|\Gamma|}}
= \frac{1}{q-\Delta}\cdot \frac{q-\Delta}{q-|\Gamma|} = \frac{1}{q-|\Gamma|}.
\]
If the first branch is not taken, the decoder returns the first element of~$\pi$ outside~$\Gamma$; since $\pi$ is a uniform permutation of~$A$, each color in $[q]\setminus\Gamma$ (that lies within~$A$) is equally likely to be the first available, and its probability is again $1/(q-|\Gamma|)$.
Hence marginally $\compress^A_v(p_\conf,U)\sim \uniform([q]\setminus\Gamma)$, verifying that $\compress^A_v$ is a valid grand coupling in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}.
\medskip
\noindent\textbf{Proof of \cref{compress-size}.}
For any fixed seed (equivalently fixed $(\pi,x',U')$), the image of $\mathcal{P}_v$ under $\compress^A_v(\cdot,U)$ is contained in $A\cup\{x'\}$.
Conversely, $x'$ itself is attainable (for those configurations with $x'\notin\Gamma$ and satisfying the $U'$-condition), and every element of~$A$ is attainable (for configurations that force the decoder to use~$\pi$).
Thus for each seed the image equals $A\cup\{c\}$ for some $c\in[q]\setminus A$, and the distribution of $c$ over seeds is uniform on $[q]\setminus A$.
\medskip
\noindent\textbf{Proof of \cref{compress-efficiency}.}
Decoding the seed (recovering $(\pi,x',U')$) and forming the predicted set $A\cup\{x'\}$ both take $O(\Delta)$ time.
Given a concrete configuration~$\conf$, evaluating $\compress^A_v(p_\conf,U)$ requires scanning~$\pi$ until the first element not in~$\Gamma_\conf(v)$, which can be implemented in expected $O(\Delta \log \Delta)$ time using standard hashing or balanced lookup structures.
This yields the claimed efficiency bound.
This completes the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:compress}.
\end{proof}
The \disjoint{} coupling corresponds to a key step in~\cite{jain2021perfectly}, enabling the reduction of all bounding list sizes from 2 to 1 in the regime where $q>2.5\Delta$.
%\todo{import disjoint here and compare to our lower bound}
\begin{lemma}(Disjoint coupling \cite[Lemma 4.3]{jain2021perfectly})
\label{lem:disjoint}
Fix any vertex $v \in V$ and neighborhood bounding lists $(\bl(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v)}$.
Let $\mathcal{P}_v$ be defined as \eqref{eq:bounding-glauber-dynamics-updates-2}.
Define
\begin{align*}
\slv &\defeq \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \bl(u),\\
\mathcal{Q} &\defeq \bigcup_{\substack{u \in \Gamma(v):|\mathcal{L}(u)|=1}} \mathcal{L}(u),\\
\mathcal{D} &\defeq \bigcup_{\substack{u \in \Gamma(v):\\\forall w\in\Gamma(v), \mathcal{L}(u)\cup\mathcal{L}(w)=\varnothing}} \mathcal{L}(u).
\end{align*}
%$\slv \defeq \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \bl(u)$, $\mathcal{Q} \defeq \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)\cmid|\mathcal{L}(u)|=1} \mathcal{L}(u)$ and $\mathcal{D} \defeq \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)\cmid\forall w\in\Gamma(v), \mathcal{L}(u)\cup\mathcal{L}(w)=\varnothing} \mathcal{L}(u)$.
%
Assume $q \ge 2.5 \Delta$ and $|\mathcal{L}(u)| \leq 2$ for all $u\in\Gamma(v)$.
Then, there exists a grand coupling $\disjoint:\mathcal{P}_v\times[0,1]\to[q]$ satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*), ref=\alph*]
\item \label{disjoint-size} (\textbf{Bounding list reduction})
For random seed $x \in [0,1]$, let $\bl_U(v) = \{ \disjoint_v(p, x) : p \in \mathcal{P}_v \}$ denote the set of possible coupling outcomes. Then $|\bl_U(v)|\in\{1,2\}$, and
$$
\Pr[U \sim \uniform\mathrm{[}0,1\mathrm{]}]{|\bl_U(v)|=1} \ge 1-\frac{|\slv|-|\qlv|}{q-\Delta}+\frac{|\dlv|/2}{q-|\qlv|-|\dlv|/2}.
$$
\item \label{disjoint-efficiency} (\textbf{Efficiency})
The grand coupling $\disjoint_v$ can be implemented so that each update of the bounding list can be performed in expected time $O(\Delta \log \Delta)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
The disjoint coupling builds on Jerrum’s pairing coupling analysis of Glauber dynamics~\cite{jerrum1995very}, refined under the bounding-list framework.
Its key idea is to \emph{perfectly couple} the pair of colors within the same independent bounding set, making them to be regarded as single color, effectively reducing the neighborhood size to $E = |\slv| - \tfrac{1}{2}|\dlv|$.
While~\cite{bhandari2020improved} treated $E = |\slv|$ and thus required $q > 3\Delta$, the refinement of~\cite{jain2021perfectly} showed that when $|\mathcal{L}(u)| \le 2$, one has $E \le 1.5\Delta$, so $q > 2.5\Delta$ ensures contraction.
Our \cref{thm:no-coupling-2} show that this $2.5\Delta$ threshold is tight, making the disjoint coupling optimal under these assumptions.
\end{remark}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Uniform sampling of graph colorings is a fundamental problem that has attracted extensive attention in combinatorics, probability theory, and theoretical computer science.
Given a graph $G = (V, E)$ and an integer $q \geq 1$, a \emph{proper $q$-coloring} (or simply a \emph{$q$-coloring}) is a mapping $\conf: V \to [q]$ such that $\conf(u) \neq \conf(v)$ for every edge $(u, v) \in E$.
%The $q$-coloring problem asks whether such a function exists, or more generally, studies the set of all valid colorings
The set of all proper $q$-colorings of $G$ is
$$
\Omega = \set{\conf: V \to [q] \mid \forall (u,v) \in E,\ \conf(u) \neq \conf(v)}.
$$
%We denote by $\Delta = \max_{v \in V} \deg_G(v)$ the maximum degree of the graph $G$.
Let $\Delta = \Delta(G)$ denote the maximum degree of $G$.
It is well known that the condition $q \geq \Delta + 1$ guarantees the existence of a proper $q$-coloring, i.e., $\Omega\neq\emptyset$.
%The relationship between $q$ and $\Delta$ is crucial in the algorithmic and structural study of graph coloring problems \cite{frieze2007survey,chen2019improved,carlson2025flip}.
%A natural algorithmic question is how to sample uniformly from the set $\Omega$ of all proper $q$-colorings.
%This task lies at the intersection of approximation algorithms, combinatorics, and statistical physics, where uniform colorings correspond to equilibrium states of the antiferromagnetic Potts model.
A canonical approach to sampling from $\Omega$ is the \emph{Markov chain Monte Carlo} (MCMC) method,
in which a Markov chain $(X_t)$ is designed to mix rapidly to the uniform distribution $\pi$ over $\Omega$.
Starting from an arbitrary initial state $X_0\in\Omega$, simulating the chain for a sufficiently long time $T$ yields a sample $X_T$ approximately distributed as $\pi$.
A well studied chain is the \emph{Glauber dynamics}, which at each step selects a vertex uniformly at random and recolors it with a color not currently used by its neighbors.
When $q \ge \Delta+2$, the chain is ergodic and converges to the uniform distribution $\pi$ over $\Omega$.
Determining the critical threshold on $q$ for rapid mixing is a long-standing open problem.
%
%The most common approach relies on \emph{Markov chain Monte Carlo} (MCMC) methods,
%such as the \emph{Glauber dynamics}, which recolors a randomly chosen vertex using a color not appearing on its neighbors.
%When $q \ge \Delta+2$, the Glauber dynamics is ergodic and converges to the uniform distribution $\pi$ on~$\Omega$.
%However, its \emph{mixing time}—the number of steps required to approach $\pi$—can grow exponentially
%when $q$ is close to~$\Delta$, making approximate sampling computationally infeasible in this regime.
%
Over the past decades, a sequence of works has progressively improved this threshold,
from the classical bound $q > 2\Delta$~\cite{jerrum1995very,salas1997absence,bubley1997path}
to the current best bound $q > 1.809\Delta$~\cite{vigoda1999improved,chen2019improved,carlson2025flip}.
%A long line of research has progressively reduced the required ratio $q/\Delta$ for rapid mixing,
%from the classical $q > 2\Delta$ bound of Jerrum~\cite{jerrum1995very}
%to the current best threshold $q > 1.809\Delta$~\cite{salas1997absence,vigoda1999improved,chen2019improved,carlson2025flip}.
%Despite these advances, all of these algorithms provide only approximate samples and rely on convergence heuristics.
%In contrast, the \emph{coupling from the past} (CFTP) framework offers an elegant and principled alternative:
%it produces perfect samples by ensuring that the Markov chain coalesces from all possible initial states.
%Conceptually, CFTP is a \emph{Las Vegas} algorithm—its runtime is random, but whenever it terminates, the output is \emph{guaranteed} to be an exact sample from the stationary distribution.
%This built-in correctness makes CFTP particularly appealing for problems such as graph coloring, where verifying convergence of approximate samplers is notoriously difficult.
%It is a natural question to sample uniformly from the set $\Omega$, and this problem lies at the heart of several areas, including approximation algorithms, discrete mathematics, statistical physics, and the theory of phase transitions.
%Most works focus on the problem of approximately sampling from the set of valid $q$-colorings. That is, given a parameter $0 < \eps < 1$, let $\pi$ denote the uniform distribution over $\Omega$, the goal is to output a distribution whose \emph{total variation distance} from $\pi$ is at most $\eps$.
%Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods form a classical framework for approximate sampling in the $q$-coloring problem.
%One of the most natural Markov chains in this context is the \emph{Glauber dynamics}.
%At each step, let $\conf$ denote the current coloring. The chain selects a vertex $v \in V$ uniformly at random, and defines its neighborhood as $\Gamma(v) = \set{u : (u, v) \in E}$. Let $\gwv = [q] \setminus \set{\conf(u) : u \in \Gamma(v)}$ be the set of colors not used by its neighbors. Then, the chain updates the color of $v$ by choosing a new color $c$ uniformly at random from $\gwv$.
%When $q \ge \Delta + 2$, the Glauber dynamics is ergodic and converges to the unique stationary distribution $\pi$. A central open conjecture in this regime is whether there exists an algorithm running in time $\mathrm{poly}(n,q,\log(1/\eps))$ that outputs a sample within $\eps$ total‐variation distance of $\pi$. Existing algorithms, however, only achieve polynomial‐time approximate sampling once the ratio $q/\Delta$ exceeds some constant $c>1$.
%A seminal result of Jerrum~\cite{jerrum1995very} (and independently Salas and Sokal~\cite{salas1997absence}) shows that when $q > 2\Delta$, the Glauber dynamics mixes in $O(n\log n)$ time, where $n=|V|$. This work laid the groundwork for coupling techniques, notably the path coupling method of Bubley and Dyer~\cite{bubley1997path}. Vigoda~\cite{vigoda1999improved} then introduced the \emph{flip dynamics}, proving an $O(n^2)$ mixing time for Glauber dynamics when $q > \tfrac{11}{6}\,\Delta$. This bound stood for almost twenty years until Chen et al.~\cite{chen2019improved} refined it to
%$q > \left(\frac{11}{6} - \eps_0\right)\Delta$ for some explicit constant $\eps_0 = \frac{1}{84000}$.
%More recently, Carlson and Vigoda~\cite{carlson2025flip} pushed the threshold down to $q > 1.809\Delta.$
\subsection{Coupling from the past and grand coupling}
\label{subsec:cftp-grand-coupling}
The \emph{coupling from the past} (CFTP) technique, introduced by Propp and Wilson~\cite{propp1996exact}, provides a general framework for the \emph{perfect simulation} of the stationary distribution of a Markov chain.
%Since its introduction, CFTP has become a powerful tool with wide-ranging applications in probabilistic and combinatorial sampling.
%It has been successfully applied to perfect sampling in statistical physics models such as the Ising and Potts spin systems~\cite{haggstrom1998ising,huber2004perfect}.
%Within combinatorial sampling, one of the most extensively studied settings is \emph{graph colorings}~\cite{huber2004perfect,bhandari2020improved,jain2021perfectly},
%which has served as a benchmark problem for developing and analyzing perfect sampling algorithms.
%More recently, CFTP has also been extended to algorithmic frameworks inspired by the Lovász Local Lemma (LLL)~\cite{he2021perfectsamplingatomiclovasz,qiu2022perfectsamplerhypergraphindependent},
%representing an exciting new direction in perfect sampling that connects probabilistic combinatorics with algorithmic randomness.
%
The key idea is to consider an idealized Markov chain that has been running from time $-\infty$ up to time $0$, so that its final state $X_0\sim\pi$ is an exact (perfect) sample from the stationary distribution~$\pi$.
To generate such a sample, the CFTP algorithm searches for a (possibly random) time $-T$ in the past such that,
when the chain is simulated forward from every possible initial state at time $-T$ using the same random bits, all trajectories
\[
X_{-T}\to X_{-T+1}\to \cdots \to X_{-1}\to X_0
\]
coalesce into the same state at time~$0$.
%so that the final state $X_0$ is fully determined by the random bits used during the simulation, independent of the initial state at time $-T$.
Once such a coalescence time is identified, the final state $X_0\sim\pi$ is completely determined by the random bits used in the simulation, independent of the initial state at time~$-T$. Consequently, $X_0$ is a perfect sample from the stationary distribution $\pi$.
%so that all trajectories—regardless of their initial states—coalesce into a single state at time $0$.
%This is implemented by generating a sequence of randomized update functions
%\[
% F = h_{-1} \circ h_{-2} \circ \cdots \circ h_{-T},
%\]
%where each $h_t : \Omega \to \Omega$ is a random function representing one transition of the Markov chain, sampled according to the randomness of the transition kernel.
%Perfect sampling is obtained once the overall composition $F$ becomes a \emph{constant function} on the state space $\Omega$; that is, when there exists a configuration $\conf^* \in \Omega$ such that $F(\conf) = \conf^*$ for all $\conf \in \Omega$.
%When this occurs, the process terminates and outputs $\conf^*$ as an exact sample from the stationary distribution.
%To verify whether $F$ has become constant, a natural idea is to iteratively maintain, for each time step $t = -T, -T+1, \ldots, -1$,
%the set
%\[
%\mathcal{B}_t = \{ h_{t} \circ h_{t-1} \circ \cdots \circ h_{-T}(\conf) : \conf \in \Omega \},
%\]
%which represents all possible outputs at time $t$ over all initial configurations.
%By definition, $\mathcal{B}_{-T} = \Omega$, and each subsequent set $\mathcal{B}_t$ can be directly obtained from $\mathcal{B}_{t-1}$ and the update rule $h_t$.
%However, since the state space $\Omega$ is typically exponential in size, maintaining $\mathcal{B}_t$ exactly is computationally infeasible.
At the heart of CFTP lies the notion of a \emph{grand coupling},
which provides a unified probabilistic construction that simultaneously drives the evolution of the chain from all possible initial states.
%which provides a unified probabilistic construction that jointly drives the evolution of the Markov chain from all possible initial states.
Formally, for a Markov chain with transition kernel $P(x,y) = \Pr{X_{t+1}=y \mid X_t=x}$ on state space $\Omega$, a grand coupling is a mapping
$g : \Omega \times [0,1] \to \Omega$,
such that for $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$ and every $x,y \in \Omega$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:grand-coupling-intro}
\Pr{g(x,U)=y}=P(x,y).
\end{align}
In other words, $g(\cdot,U)$ simulates a single Markov chain transition under shared randomness $U$, thereby coupling all trajectories in a common probability space.
This notion extends naturally to the $T$-step transitions, represented by a grand coupling
$F : \Omega \times [0,1] \to \Omega$
for the evolution $X_{-T} \to X_0$.
The CFTP algorithm identifies a time $-T$ in the past and terminates once $F(\cdot, U)$ becomes constant,
that is, when all trajectories coalesce into a single state at time~$0$.
%Formally, one can represent the entire CFTP simulation as a single random mapping
%\[
% F : \Omega \times [0,1] \to \Omega,
%\]
%where the random variable $U \sim \uniform[0,1]$ encapsulates all the randomness of the process.
%For each realization of $U$, the map $F(\cdot, U)$ deterministically evolves every initial configuration in $\Omega$,
%thus coupling all trajectories within a common probability space.
%This global viewpoint abstracts away the individual update steps and captures the overall transformation that the CFTP procedure applies to the state space.
%From this perspective, the incremental construction of CFTP—extending the window backward and composing new updates $h_t$—can be viewed as progressively revealing the underlying randomness $U$.
%Each added update uncovers more of the random input that defines the global map $F(\cdot, U)$.
%Thus, the composition $F = h_{-1} \circ \cdots \circ h_{-T}$ and the random mapping $F : \Omega \times [0,1] \to \Omega$ are two complementary views of the same mechanism.
%The behavior of CFTP is entirely determined by the grand coupling.
%The random map $F(\cdot, U)$ specifies the joint evolution of all trajectories under shared randomness,
%and its coalescence properties govern both correctness and running time.
%Coalescence corresponds to producing a perfect sample, and the rate of coalescence governs computational efficiency.
Designing grand couplings that achieve fast coalescence is therefore the central problem in CFTP.
%
Beyond CFTP, grand couplings have found applications in a variety of contexts, including derandomization of MCMC~\cite{feng2023towards}, analytic stability (absence of complex zeros)~\cite{liu2025phase}, and local algorithms for sampling~\cite{liu2025local}.
Despite being a natural and fundamental concept, their systematic design and analysis remain poorly understood.
%particularly for non-monotone systems such as graph colorings.
%Consequently, the study of fast-coalescing grand couplings has lagged behind the extensive development of rapid mixing results for Markov chains.
While fast-coalescing grand couplings immediately imply rapid mixing of the underlying Markov chain,
essentially nothing is known about the converse in general.
This raises a fundamental question:
\begin{center}
\emph{Does fast coalescence of grand couplings require stronger conditions than rapid mixing?}
\end{center}
%In complex or non-monotone state spaces—such as proper graph colorings—constructing a coupling with rapid coalescence is particularly challenging.
%Developing a principled understanding of grand couplings and how to design them effectively is crucial for advancing the theory of perfect sampling, and is a central motivation for our work.
%In the context of sampling proper colourings of graphs, the grand coupling viewpoint has been used by previous works (e.g., bounding‐chain approaches) to unify coupling arguments. For example, in the colourings literature one often constructs a bounding chain that over‐approximates the disagreement propagation under the grand coupling. Despite these advances, several aspects remain insufficiently explored.
%\subsection{Novel local view of grand coupling}
%The first application of CFTP to the $q$-coloring problem appeared in the work of Huber~\cite{huber1998exact,huber2004perfect}, which employed the \emph{bounding chain} method to obtain a polynomial time perfect sampling algorithm under the condition $q > \Delta^2 + 2\Delta$.
%\subsection{Perfect sampling}
%\label{subsec:perfect-sampling}
%While the aforementioned works focus on approximate sampling, \emph{perfect sampling} requires generating exact samples from the stationary distribution. Unlike approximate algorithms, which only guarantee proximity to the target distribution up to a specified total variation distance, perfect sampling algorithms produce samples that are \emph{provably indistinguishable} from true draws from the target distribution, without requiring knowledge of the mixing time.
%There are several compelling motivations for studying perfect sampling beyond its intrinsic theoretical appeal. First, as observed in Huber~\cite{huber1998exact}, perfect sampling algorithms can be used to design approximate counting algorithms via self-reducibility reductions. This connection provides a principled path from sampling to counting, a foundational theme in computational complexity.
%Second, perfect samplers—such as Coupling From The Past (CFTP)—come with built-in certificates of correctness. When the algorithm terminates, the output is guaranteed to be an exact sample from the stationary distribution. This obviates the need for heuristic convergence diagnostics that are often required in Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods, where it is notoriously difficult to determine whether the chain has mixed sufficiently.
%In the context of $q$-coloring and other combinatorial sampling problems, perfect sampling provides a stronger guarantee and avoids the need to estimate convergence rates of Markov chains. As a result, it has attracted significant attention in theoretical computer science, especially in the study of coupling from the past (CFTP) and related techniques.
% The coupling from the past (CFTP) technique was introduced by Propp and Wilson~\cite{propp1996exact} as a general framework for perfect sampling from the stationary distribution of a Markov chain. The first application of CFTP to the $q$-coloring problem appeared in the work of Huber~\cite{huber1998exact,huber2004perfect}, which employed the \emph{bounding chain} method to obtain a polynomial time perfect sampling algorithm under the condition $q > \Delta^2 + 2\Delta$.
%Since the best-known approximate sampling algorithms operate under the linear regime where $q = \Theta(\Delta)$, a natural question is whether perfect sampling can also be achieved in polynomial time under similar conditions.
%As noted by Jerrum~\cite{jerrum1986random}, perfect sampling can in principle be obtained via approximate counting, using standard self-reducibility techniques. This connection has motivated a line of work on designing efficient approximate counting algorithms for the $q$-coloring problem, particularly in the regime where $q = \Theta(\Delta)$. Many of these results are based on the correlation decay method.
%A recent work by Göbel et al.~\cite{Gobel2024Perfect} establishes a general result on perfect sampling techniques grounded in Markov chains.
%The approach in \cite{Gobel2024Perfect} is based on analyzing the spectral gaps of Markov chains, which are used to establish upper bounds on the mixing time.
%For the $q$-coloring problem, combining this with the recent result of \cite{carlson2025flip}, which shows that the Glauber dynamics has a spectral gap of $\Omega(1/n)$ when $q > 1.809\Delta$, one can already obtain a perfect sampling algorithm with expected running time $O(n^2)$ under the same condition.
%However, a notable drawback of this method is that, although its expected running time is polynomial, it fails to satisfy an exponential tail bound (also known as an exponential concentration bound). Concretely, for the running time $T$ and any parameter $k$, one would like a guarantee of the form
%$$
%\Pr{T > k\,\mathbb{E}[T]} < \exp\bigl(-\Omega(k)\bigr),
%$$
%but no such bound is satisfied for this perfect sampling procedure. Without this exponential concentration, the probability of observing runs significantly longer than the expectation cannot be ruled out, which limits the practical reliability of the algorithm.
%Precisely, the perfect sampling algorithm in \cite{Gobel2024Perfect} terminates in $O(n^2)$ time with probability at least $1 - \eps$, but with probability $\eps$ it may require as much as $O\bigl(1/\eps\bigr)$ time, where $\eps = \lvert \Omega \rvert^{-4}$, which is exponentially small.
%These heavy tails further underscore the absence of strong concentration guarantees for this approach.
%In a separate line of work on perfect sampling,
%Gamarnik and Katz~\cite{gamarnik2012correlation} showed that when $q > 2.84\Delta$, there exists a polynomial-time approximate counting algorithm for triangle-free graphs. Subsequent improvements for general bounded-degree graphs were obtained by Lu and Yin~\cite{lu2013improved}, who showed that $q > 2.58\Delta$ suffices, and by Liu, Sinclair, and Srivastava~\cite{liu2019deterministic}, who further reduced the threshold to $q > 2\Delta$.
%However, despite their progress, these approaches inherently rely on local tree-like structures and decay of correlations, and therefore do not extend to general graphs.
%As a result, they do not appear to offer a viable path toward perfect sampling algorithms in the general graph setting.
%Recently, Bhandari et al.~\cite{bhandari2020improved} made the first significant progress in reducing the number of colors required for perfect sampling in the $q$-coloring problem using the CFTP framework. Building on Huber’s earlier work~\cite{huber1998exact,huber2004perfect}, they improved the bound from $q = \Theta(\Delta^2)$ to the linear regime $q > 3\Delta$. This marked the first perfect sampling result for $q$-colorings where the number of colors scales linearly with the maximum degree.
%Subsequently, Jain et al.~\cite{jain2021perfectly} further improved this bound to $q \geq \left(8/3 + o(1)\right)\Delta$, pushing the threshold even closer to that of approximate sampling algorithms.
%\cite{jain2021perfectly} further conjectured that the bottleneck for this class of methods may lie in the condition that $q > 2.5\Delta$.
%All of the aforementioned results on perfect sampling for $q$-colorings are based on the CFTP framework and the \emph{bounding chain} method introduced by Huber~\cite{huber1998exact}. This approach remains the only known technique that yields efficient perfect sampling algorithms in the $q$-coloring setting. The core of this method lies in designing a global coupling that can drive the system to coalescence from all initial states. The improvements in~\cite{bhandari2020improved, jain2021perfectly} are essentially refinements of the coupling strategy originally proposed by Huber.
%This stands in contrast to the landscape of approximate sampling. In that setting, the algorithm under study—namely, the Glauber dynamics—has remained fixed since the early works of Jerrum~\cite{jerrum1995very} and Salas and Sokal~\cite{salas1997absence}, who showed rapid mixing when $q > 2\Delta$. Subsequent progress has focused on refining the analysis of this fixed chain, notably through innovations such as flip dynamics~\cite{vigoda1999improved} and path coupling, ultimately reducing the threshold to $q > 1.809\Delta$~\cite{carlson2025flip}.
%In contrast, the bounding chain method used in perfect sampling algorithms is not tied to a single fixed Markov chain. Instead, it relies on the construction of increasingly sophisticated global couplings, which are explicitly engineered to improve the threshold on $q/\Delta$. Thus, the trajectory of progress in perfect sampling has come not from tighter analysis of a static algorithm, but from continual innovation in the design of coupling procedures themselves.
%\subsection{Bounding Chains and Our results}
%\label{subsec:our-result}
\subsection{Bounding chains for \texorpdfstring{$q$}{q}-colorings}
\label{subsec:local-grand-coupling}
A key algorithmic challenge in implementing CFTP lies in detecting coalescence,
that is, determining whether the induced random mapping on the state space $\Omega$ has become a constant function.
Formally, let $\Omega_t\subseteq\Omega$ denote the set of all possible states of $X_t$ that can be reached from different initial configurations $X_{-T}\in\Omega$ under the same randomness.
Specifically,
\[
\Omega_t \defeq \{\, g_t \circ g_{t-1} \circ \cdots \circ g_{-T}(\conf) : \conf \in \Omega \,\},
\]
where each $g_t=g_t(\cdot, U)$ denotes the grand coupling for the transition $X_t\to X_{t+1}$ with $U\sim \uniform[0,1]$.
Initially, $\Omega_{-T}=\Omega$, and clearly $\abs{\Omega_{t+1}}\le \abs{\Omega_t}$ since $g_t$ is a function.
Coalescence occurs once $\abs{\Omega_t}=1$ for some $t\le 0$.
In certain special cases, most notably in monotone systems such as the ferromagnetic Ising model, where a natural partial order on $\Omega$ is preserved by the grand coupling, checking coalescence is straightforward.
In contrast, for general systems, verifying coalescence is substantially more intricate and can be computationally intractable.
The \emph{bounding chains} method, introduced by Huber~\cite{huber1998exact,huber2004perfect}, provides an efficient way to detect coalescence by tracking a ``bounding box'' of the subset $\Omega_t$ in the space $\Omega\subseteq[q]^V$.
The bounding chain maintains, for each vertex $v \in V$, a \emph{bounding list} $\mathcal{L}_t(v) \subseteq [q]$ of colors, which contains all colors that vertex $v$ may take under any configuration in $\Omega_t$.
The corresponding bounding box is given by
\[
\mathcal{B}_t \defeq \bigotimes_{v \in V} \mathcal{L}_t(v).
\]
Initially, we set $\mathcal{L}_{-T}(v) = [q]$ for every vertex $v$.
The bounding list configuration $\mathcal{L}_t=(\mathcal{L}_t(v))_{v\in V}$ evolves as a Markov chain:
at each time step $t\ge -T$, the next bounding list $\mathcal{L}_{t+1}$ is constructed from the current list $\mathcal{L}_{t}$, under the conservative assumption that every configuration $\conf\in\mathcal{B}_t$ may appear at time~$t$.
%{\color{red}Assuming the underlying chain is the Glauber dynamics, at each time $t\ge -T$, only the bounding set $\mathcal{L}_{t+1}(v_t)$ of the vertex $v_t$ selected for update at time $t$ is modified, with its content determined based on the current bounding sets $\mathcal{L}_{t}(u)$ of its neighbors $u\in \Gamma(v_t)$, under the assumption that every neighborhood configuration $\conf\in\bigotimes_{u\in\Gamma(v_t)}\mathcal{L}_{t}(u)$ is possible at time $t$.}
%
By induction, we have $\Omega_t\subseteq\mathcal{B}_t$ for any $t\ge -T$.
Thus, coalescence at time $t$ occurs if the bounding box has collapsed to the size $\abs{\mathcal{B}_t}=1$, or equivalently, when $\abs{\mathcal{L}_t(v)}=1$ for all $v\in V$.
% Recall that in the CFTP framework, the global update operator can be written as
% $F = h_{-1} \circ h_{-2} \circ \cdots \circ h_{-T}$,
% where each $h_t$ is a random update function applied at time $t$.
% To verify whether $F$ has become constant, a natural idea is to iteratively maintain, for each time step $t = -T, -T+1, \ldots, -1$,
% the set
% \[
% \mathcal{B}_t = \{\, h_t \circ h_{t-1} \circ \cdots \circ h_{-T}(\conf) : \conf \in \Omega \,\},
% \]
% which represents all possible outputs at time $t$ over all initial configurations.
% By definition, $\mathcal{B}_{-T} = \Omega$, and each subsequent set $\mathcal{B}_t$ can be directly obtained from $\mathcal{B}_{t-1}$ and the update rule $h_t$.
% However, since the state space $\Omega$ is typically exponential in size, maintaining $\mathcal{B}_t$ exactly is computationally infeasible.
% The \emph{bounding chain} method offers a practical relaxation of this idea.
% CFTP itself can be viewed as a \emph{global grand coupling}
% \[
% F : \Omega \times [0,1] \to \Omega, \qquad F = h_{-1} \circ h_{-2} \circ \cdots \circ h_{-T},
% \]
% where each update $h_t = (v_t, f_{v_t})$ consists of a randomly selected vertex $v_t$ and a local grand coupling $f_{v_t}$.
% Our key insight is that the bounding-chain approach can be understood as a \emph{localization} of this global coupling:
% instead of reasoning about the entire configuration space $\Omega$, it focuses on the local coupling behavior around a single vertex at each step.
% This perspective reveals the intrinsic structure of bounding-chain–based CFTP algorithms and provides a unified framework for analyzing and optimizing them.
% Concretely, rather than tracking all configurations in $\mathcal{B}_t$, the bounding chain maintains for each vertex $v \in V$ a \emph{bounding list} $\mathcal{L}_t(v) \subseteq [q]$, representing all colors that vertex $v$ may take under any configuration in $\mathcal{B}_t$.
% The collection of all bounding lists defines an over-approximation
% \[
% \mathcal{B}'_t = \prod_{v \in V} \mathcal{L}_t(v),
% \]
% which satisfies $\mathcal{B}_t \subseteq \mathcal{B}'_t$ for all $t$.
% Initially, we set $\mathcal{L}_{-T}(v) = [q]$ for every vertex $v$.
% Since each $h_t$ corresponds to a single-vertex Glauber update, only $\mathcal{L}_t(v_t)$ needs to be updated at each step while all other lists remain unchanged.
% Thus, the bounding chain provides a compact and analyzable representation of the global coupling dynamics under local updates.
% %a methodology that has been employed in prior works~\cite{huber1998exact,bhandari2020improved,jain2021perfectly}, but here we reinterpret it as a \emph{local grand coupling} process.
% At each update, the algorithm observes only partial neighborhood information of $v_t$, represented by the current lists $(\mathcal{L}(u))_{u \in \Gamma(v_t)}$.
% Given this partial view, there may exist multiple feasible local update distributions for $v_t$, depending on its neighbors’ possible colors.
% The central design goal is to couple these distributions so that their outcomes coincide as often as possible—thus minimizing the size of the updated list $\mathcal{L}'(v_t)$.
% We formalize this objective as a \emph{local grand coupling problem} within the bounding-chain framework.
% Formally, we introduce a mapping
% \[
% f_v : P_v \times [0,1] \to [q],
% \]
% that simultaneously couples all feasible local update distributions using a shared random seed $x \in [0,1]$, where $P_v$ denotes the family of possible update distributions at vertex $v$.
% \paragraph{From global to local grand couplings.}
% Coupling from the past (CFTP) itself can be viewed as a \emph{global grand coupling}
% \[
% F : \Omega \times [0,1] \to \Omega, \qquad F = h_{-1} \circ h_{-2} \circ \cdots \circ h_{-T},
% \]
% where each $h_t = (v_t, f_{v_t})$ consists of a random vertex $v_t$ and a local grand coupling $f_{v_t}$.
% Under this interpretation, the bounding-chain method focuses on the \emph{local} components of this global coupling—namely, the construction and analysis of $f_{v_t}$.
% This local perspective not only clarifies the operational structure of CFTP but also enables a unified treatment of all known bounding-chain–based algorithms within a common analytical framework.
% Building on this view, we further introduce an \emph{interval-based} model that captures the behavior of local grand couplings under bounding chains (see Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}).
% This model allows a fine-grained characterization of how local random updates interact across vertices, providing a precise bridge between the global CFTP process and its local couplings.
% \paragraph{Bounding-chain dynamics and convergence.}
% Under the bounding-chain framework, the algorithm maintains a collection of lists $\{ \mathcal{L}_t(v) \}_{v \in V}$, which evolve sequentially as $t$ increases from $-T$ to $-1$.
% At each step, the chosen vertex $v_t$ is updated via a grand coupling $f_{v_t}$, resulting in a new list $\mathcal{L}'(v_t)$.
% Initially, all lists are $\mathcal{L}_{-T}(v) = [q]$, and the process terminates only when each $\mathcal{L}(v)$ becomes a singleton (i.e., $|\mathcal{L}(v)| = 1$ for all $v$).
% Our formulation provides a common mathematical foundation encompassing all previous constructions of bounding-chain–based CFTP algorithms—from the seminal work of Huber~\cite{huber1998exact} to the recent advances by Bhandari et al.~\cite{bhandari2020improved} and Jain et al.~\cite{jain2021perfectly}.
% Under this unified perspective, each step of the bounding chain is naturally induced by a grand coupling, and both the coupling construction and the resulting update rule are rigorously captured by our framework.
% We develop a unified formulation of the grand coupling problem under the bounding‐chain framework.
% We introduce a generalized and mathematically precise definition of grand coupling (Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}), which captures the task of simultaneously coupling all possible Glauber‐update distributions at a vertex, given only the “partial information’’ encoded by the bounding chain of its neighbors.
% This definition provides a common foundation that encompasses all previous constructions of bounding‐chain–based CFTP algorithms—from the early work of Huber~\cite{huber1998exact} to more recent developments~\cite{bhandari2020improved, jain2021perfectly}.
% Under this unified framework, each step of the bounding chain is induced by the grand coupling, and both the coupling construction and the resulting update rule can be precisely characterized by our generalized definition.
% Recall that the CFTP procedure can be viewed as the composition of a sequence of randomized update functions$F = h_{-1} \circ h_{-2} \circ \cdots \circ h_{-T}.$
% Under the bounding-chain framework, according to our formulation, each update function $h_t$ can be represented as a pair $(v_t, f_{v_t})$,
% where $v_t$ denotes the randomly selected vertex to be updated at time $t$,
% and $f_{v_t}$ is the \emph{grand coupling} at vertex $v_t$ (formally defined in Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}).
% The algorithm maintains, for each vertex $v$, a bounding list $\mathcal{L}_t(v)$, which evolves sequentially for $t = -T, -T+1, \ldots, -1$.
% At each time $t$, given the current neighborhood bounding lists of $v_t$, the algorithm designs a suitable grand coupling $f_{v_t}$ and applies it to generate a new random list $\mathcal{L}'(v_t)$ to replace the old $\mathcal{L}_t(v_t)$.
% Initially, all bounding lists are set to $\mathcal{L}_{-T}(v) = [q]$.
% Since the CFTP process terminates only when every list becomes a singleton (i.e., $|\mathcal{L}(v)| = 1$ for all $v$),
% We develop a unified formulation of this problem, which precisely characterizes how to couple all possible Glauber-update distributions given only the partial neighborhood information encoded by the bounding chain.
% The formal definition of this generalized grand coupling is presented in Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}.
%Our formulation provides a common mathematical foundation encompassing all previous constructions of bounding-chain–based CFTP algorithms—from the seminal work of Huber~\cite{huber1998exact} to the recent advances by Bhandari et al.~\cite{bhandari2020improved} and Jain et al.~\cite{jain2021perfectly}.
%It also allows us to derive both upper and lower bounds on the performance of bounding-chain methods for the $q$-coloring problem, thereby clarifying their algorithmic limits and potential improvements.
%Under the bounding chain framework, the algorithm maintains a sequence of lists $\{\mathcal{L}_t(v)\}_{v \in V}$ evolving over time.
%At each step $t$, the vertex $v_t$ is updated via its local grand coupling $f_{v_t}$, resulting in a new list $\mathcal{L}'(v_t)$.
%Initially, all lists are $\mathcal{L}_{-T}(v) = [q]$, and the process terminates only when each $\mathcal{L}(v)$ becomes a singleton (i.e., $|\mathcal{L}(v)| = 1$ for all $v$).
%It is natural to consider the potential function $\Phi_t = \sum_{v \in V} |\mathcal{L}_t(v)|$.
%Each update $h_t = (v_t, f_{v_t})$ involves two sources of randomness:
%the random selection of $v_t$, and the internal randomness of the grand coupling $f_{v_t}$.
%Ideally, a well-designed bounding-chain algorithm should ensure that the expected potential $\mathbb{E}[\Phi_t]$ decreases monotonically over time.
%The following condition formalizes this property.
The fast coalescence of bounding chains relies on the following standard contraction property.
\begin{condition}[Contraction of bounding chains]
\label{cond:bounding-chain-overall}
Let $(\mathcal{L}_t)$ be a bounding chain. At any time $t$, it holds
% A bounding-chain algorithm maintains a sequence of random update functions
% \[
% F = h_{-1} \circ h_{-2} \circ \cdots \circ h_{-T},
% \]
% where each $h_t = (v_t, f_{v_t})$ consists of a random vertex $v_t$ and a grand coupling $f_{v_t}$ defined in Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}.
%Let $\mathcal{L}_t(v)$ denote the bounding list of vertex $v$ at time $t$.
%For every $t$ and for every possible configuration of bounding lists $(\mathcal{L}^*(v))_{v \in V}$ at time $t-1$, the following holds:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:potential-function-decay}
%\mathbb{E}\!\left[\,\sum_{v \in V} |\mathcal{L}_t(v)| \,\middle|\, (\mathcal{L}_{t-1}(v))_{v \in V} = (\mathcal{L}^*(v))_{v \in V}\right]
\mathbb{E}\!\left[\,\sum_{v \in V} \abs{\mathcal{L}_{t+1}(v)} \,\middle|\, \mathcal{L}_{t}\right]
\leq \sum_{v \in V} \abs{\mathcal{L}_t(v)}.
\end{align}
%The expectation is taken over the randomness of $h_t$, including both the random vertex $v_t$ and the internal randomness of the grand coupling $f_{v_t}$.
\end{condition}
Intuitively, this condition requires the total size of the bounding lists to be monotonically non-increasing in expectation at each step, even in the worst case.
All existing CFTP algorithms based on bounding chains satisfy this condition, including~\cite{huber1998exact,bhandari2020improved,jain2021perfectly}.
The seminal work of Huber~\cite{huber1998exact} proposed a bounding chain algorithm for uniform sampling of $q$-coloring that is fast coalescing under the condition $q \ge (1+o(1))\Delta^2$.
For many years, this remained the best achievable bound for any CFTP algorithm for $q$-coloring, until recent breakthroughs~\cite{bhandari2020improved, jain2021perfectly} improved the condition for fast-coalescing bounding chains first down to $q >3\Delta$ and later to $q \ge (\frac{8}{3}+o(1))\Delta$.
% \begin{remark}
% In the early work of Huber~\cite{huber1998exact},
% the update vertex $v_t$ was chosen uniformly at random from $V$.
% Recent developments~\cite{bhandari2020improved, jain2021perfectly}
% consider more flexible selection rules,
% such as fixing a single vertex, sampling from a designated subset of $V$,
% or following other structured randomization schemes.
% It is important to note that, for the correctness of the algorithm,
% the rule for generating $v_t$ must be determined a priori,
% independent of the evolving bounding lists during the execution.
% \end{remark}
%Building on this formulation, we establish both upper and lower bounds on the optimality of grand couplings.
%On the constructive side, we present an (approximately) optimal grand coupling that yields an improved perfect‐sampling algorithm for the $q$‐coloring problem, achieving the following bound:
%Furthermore, we prove that this threshold is tight in the worst case: for $q < 2.5\Delta$, no bounding‐chain–based CFTP algorithm can ensure perfect coupling in all configurations.
%Formally, we establish the following lower bound:
% To ensure that the potential function
% $\Phi_t = \sum_{v \in V} |\mathcal{L}_t(v)|$
% decreases over time, our focus turns to the \emph{local} design of grand couplings.
% Specifically, once the update vertex $v_t$ is fixed, we design a grand coupling $f_{v_t}$ based on the current bounding lists of its neighbors $(\mathcal{L}{t-1}(u)){u \in \Gamma(v_t)}$, so as to minimize (in expectation) the size of the updated bounding list $\mathcal{L}_t(v_t)$.
% We formalize this as a discrete optimization problem (see Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling}).
\subsection{Our results}
We establish an asymptotically optimal threshold of $q = 2.5\Delta$ for CFTP algorithms based on bounding chains for proper $q$-colorings.
In particular, we design an efficient CFTP algorithm that samples uniform proper $q$-colorings under the improved condition
$q \ge (2.5 + o(1))\Delta$.
% We improve the condition for CFTP algorithms for uniform sampling of $q$-colorings to $q \ge (2.5 + o(1))\Delta$ by designing a novel grand coupling based on bounding chains.
% Furthermore, we prove that this bound is essentially optimal: any grand coupling based on bounding chains that satisfies the contraction property in \Cref{cond:bounding-chain-overall} requires $q \ge 2.5\Delta$.
%We present a new design of grand coupling for $q$-colorings based on bounding chains, which is fast coalescing under the improved condition $q$
\begin{theorem}[Upper bound]
\label{thm:main}
There exists a CFTP algorithm that, given an undirected graph $G = (V, E)$ with maximum degree $\Delta \ge 3$ and
$q > 2.5\Delta + 2\sqrt{(\log \Delta + 1)\Delta}$,
outputs a uniformly random proper $q$-coloring of $G$ in expected time
$\tilde{O}(n\Delta^2)$,
where $\tilde{O}(\cdot)$ hides poly-logarithmic factors.
\end{theorem}
The algorithm in \Cref{thm:main} is based on a new construction of bounding chains for the Glauber dynamics on uniform proper $q$-colorings, which coalesce rapidly using substantially fewer colors.
This result advances the state of the art for CFTP algorithms and, more broadly, for all perfect sampling algorithms for $q$-colorings that achieve exponential convergence.
\begin{remark}[Perfect sampling via deterministic counting or approximate sampling]
\label{remark:discuss-on-GLMP}
Perfect sampling can also be achieved via generic reductions to deterministic approximate counting or approximate sampling.
In the classical work of Jerrum, Valiant, and Vazirani~\cite{jerrum1986random}, a general reduction from perfect sampling to deterministic approximate counting (FPTAS) was established using a rejection-sampling framework.
More recently, G\"{o}bel, Liu, Manurangsi, and Pappik~\cite{Gobel2024Perfect} presented a reduction from perfect sampling to rapidly mixing Markov chains:
once the chain has mixed sufficiently well (so that the total variation error is exponentially small), a JVV-style filtering step (implemented via exponentially exhaustive enumeration) is applied with exponentially small probability, keeping the overall expected runtime polynomial.
Through these reductions, the known thresholds for polynomial-time perfect sampling of $q$-colorings have been improved to $q > 2\Delta$ via deterministic approximate counting~\cite{liu2019deterministic} and to $q > 1.809\,\Delta$ via rapidly mixing Markov chains~\cite{carlson2025flip}.
Despite these advances, the coupling-from-the-past (CFTP) paradigm remains of great theoretical and practical significance.
It provides a systematic framework for designing Las Vegas samplers with \emph{exponentially convergent} runtime.
Specifically, letting $T$ denote the random runtime, we have
\[
\Pr{T\ge k\cdot \mathbb{E}[T]}\le \exp(-\Omega(k)),\quad\text{for all }k\ge 1.
\]
where in our case the expected runtime satisfies $\mathbb{E}[T] = \tilde{O}(n\Delta^2)$.
This sharp concentration arises from the efficient \emph{certificate} of perfect sampling inherently provided by CFTP through coalescence, a key advantage over the certificates in~\cite{jerrum1986random,Gobel2024Perfect}, which rely on deterministic counting.
%In contrast, perfect samplers obtained via the generic reductions of~\cite{jerrum1986random,Gobel2024Perfect} require certificates whose cost is either $n^{f(\Delta)}$ or $\exp(\Omega(n))$ in the worst case, due to their reliance on deterministic approximate or exact enumeration.
% while the expected time cost $\mathbb{E}[T]$ is polynomial bounded with universal constant in the exponent, in our case it is the $\tilde{O}(n\Delta^2)$.
%In contrast, the perfect samplers through the generic reductions in~\cite{jerrum1986random,Gobel2024Perfect} either end up with large polynomial time (whose exponent depending on $\Delta$) or fails to achieve exponential convergence.
Beyond its role in perfect sampling, the grand coupling is a natural and fundamental construct for Markov chains,
and has found implications in several key aspects, including studies of derandomization~\cite{feng2023towards}, phase transitions~\cite{liu2025phase}, and local algorithms for sampling~\cite{liu2025local}.
It is therefore of central theoretical interest to understand the algorithmic power of grand couplings.
%In this work, our focus is on the power of grand coupling through the lens of a central benchmark problem: proper $q$-colorings.
% Over several decades, numerous works have explored formal reductions between approximate and perfect sampling or counting.
% The classical work of Jerrum, Valiant, and Vazirani~\cite{jerrum1986random} established that any efficient deterministic approximate counting algorithm (FPTAS) can be transformed into a perfect sampler via a simple rejection-sampling scheme.
% More recently, Göbel et al.~\cite{Gobel2024Perfect} presented a general reduction from approximate sampling to perfect sampling, thereby unifying and extending previous results.
% Together, these reductions highlight a deep algorithmic connection between the paradigms of approximate and perfect sampling.
% Despite these general reductions, the CFTP framework remains of independent interest, both theoretically and practically.
% We now compare our CFTP-based algorithm with the reduction in~\cite{Gobel2024Perfect} to highlight practical and theoretical advantages.
% The reduction in~\cite{Gobel2024Perfect} inevitably incurs an additional $O(n)$ factor. For $q$-coloring, this yields an overall complexity of $O(n^2 \Delta)$—the paper reports $O(n^2)$ under the assumption of $O(1)$ update cost, but in practice, each update requires $O(\Delta)$ time.
% In contrast, our CFTP-based algorithm runs in $\widetilde{O}(n \Delta^2)$ time, which is near-linear for constant $\Delta$.
% Another fundamental distinction lies in tail behavior.
% Our algorithm enjoys a standard exponential concentration guarantee,
% \[
% \Pr{T > k\cdot \mathbb{E}[T]} < \exp(-\Omega(k)),
% \]
% while no choice of parameters in~\cite{Gobel2024Perfect} achieves a similar tail bound.
%Although the algorithm of~\cite{Gobel2024Perfect} fails only with probability $\exp(-c n)$, we view this as a meaningful difference:
%otherwise, approximate sampling with exponentially small total variation error would already serve as an adequate replacement for perfect sampling.
%Moreover, whereas~\cite{Gobel2024Perfect} can run for exponential time with exponentially small probability, our CFTP algorithm exceeds its expected runtime only with doubly exponentially small probability—a qualitative improvement in robustness.
%Finally, in the worst-case scenarios, the space complexity of the~\cite{Gobel2024Perfect} algorithm is also necessarily exponential, whereas CFTP maintains near-linear space usage, providing a significant practical advantage.
\end{remark}
%{\color{red}TODO: Discuss the advantages to perfect samplers from \cite{jerrum1986random} and \cite{Gobel2024Perfect}. The notion of geometric convergence.}
%while maintaining polynomial expected running time.
%We study the local grand coupling optimization problem defined in Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling}.
%Through this formulation, we establish both upper and lower bounds on the effectiveness of bounding-chain–based algorithms for sampling $q$-colorings.
%Our first result shows that, for the $q$-coloring problem, no bounding-chain algorithm can satisfy Condition~\ref{cond:bounding-chain-overall} when $q < 2.5\Delta$, even for a specific configuration of bounding lists $(\mathcal{L}^*(v))_{v \in V}$.
We show that the upper bound in \Cref{thm:main} is asymptotically tight by establishing a matching lower bound for bounding-chain-based grand couplings satisfying the contraction property in \Cref{cond:bounding-chain-overall}.
\begin{theorem}[Lower bound]\label{thm:no-bounding-chain}
Let $\Delta \ge 3$, $q < 2.5\Delta-1$, and let $n$ be sufficiently large.
%
There exists a $\Delta$-regular graph $G = (V, E)$ with $|V| = n$, together with a bounding list configuration $\mathcal{L} = (\mathcal{L}(v))_{v \in V}$, such that for any bounding chain for the Glauber dynamics on proper $q$-colorings, the contraction property~\eqref{eq:potential-function-decay} in \Cref{cond:bounding-chain-overall} is violated when the bounding chain is in state $\mathcal{L}_t = \mathcal{L}$.
%
%for every random update rule $h_t = (v_t, f_{v_t})$ as defined in Condition~\ref{cond:bounding-chain-overall},
%the decay condition ~\eqref{eq:potential-function-decay} in Condition~\ref{cond:bounding-chain-overall} is violated when $(\mathcal{L}_{t-1}(v))_{v \in V} = (\mathcal{L}^*(v))_{v \in V}$.
\end{theorem}
Together, our results establish a tight bound for CFTP for $q$-colorings based on bounding chains.
%provide a nearly complete characterization of the bounding-chain framework for perfect sampling of graph colorings.
They show that contractive bounding chains require a significantly stronger condition on the number of colors $q$ than is needed for rapid mixing of the underlying Markov chain.
In particular, the critical threshold $q>2.5\Delta$ identified here is substantially stronger than the classical Dobrushin condition for $q$-colorings, which holds when $q>2\Delta$ and corresponds to the worst-case contraction condition in path coupling~\cite{jerrum1995very,salas1997absence,bubley1997path}, thereby guaranteeing rapid mixing.
% Intuitively, when the worst-case configuration described in Theorem~\ref{thm:no-coupling-informal} occurs,
% updating any vertex in the graph leads to an expected increase in the total bounding-list size.
% Consequently, no random update rule $h_t = (v_t, f_{v_t})$—regardless of how the vertex $v_t$ is sampled—can satisfy Condition~\ref{cond:bounding-chain-overall}.
% This establishes $q = 2.5\Delta$ as the fundamental lower limit for all known bounding-chain–based approaches to perfect sampling in $q$-colorings.
% The informal statements of \cref{thm:no-coupling-informal} are made formal in~\cref{thm:no-coupling-2}, with full proofs in Sections~\ref{sec:worst-case}.
% Theorem~\ref{thm:no-coupling-informal} follows from a lower-bound analysis of the combinatorial optimization problem introduced in Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling}.
% Intuitively, when the worst-case configuration described in Theorem~\ref{thm:no-coupling-informal} occurs,
% updating any vertex in the graph necessarily increases the expected total bounding-list size.
% Therefore, regardless of how the random update rule $h_t = (v_t, f_{v_t})$ selects vertices or couplings,
% Condition~\ref{cond:bounding-chain-overall} cannot be satisfied under $(\mathcal{L}^*(v))_{v \in V}$—implying Theorem~\ref{thm:no-bounding-chain}.
% Since the correctness and convergence analysis of all existing bounding-chain–based CFTP algorithms rely on satisfying Condition~\ref{cond:bounding-chain-overall},
% the above result establishes $q = 2.5\Delta$ as the fundamental lower limit for all bounding-chain–based approaches to perfect sampling in $q$-colorings.
% The informal statements of \cref{thm:no-coupling-informal} are made formal in \cref{thm:no-coupling-2}, with complete proofs in Section~\ref{sec:worst-case}.
% On the positive side, we study the same optimization problem (Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling}) and derive an essentially optimal construction of grand couplings under certain structural conditions.
% This leads to a new perfect-sampling algorithm for the $q$-coloring problem that matches the lower bound up to logarithmic factors.
% %\todo{maybe not "main result" now?}
% \begin{theorem}[upper bound result]
% \label{thm:upperbound}
% There exists a CFTP-based algorithm that, given an undirected graph $G = (V, E)$ with maximum degree $\Delta \ge 3$ and number of colors
% $
% q > 2.5\Delta + 2\sqrt{(\log \Delta + 1)\Delta},
% $
% produces a uniformly random proper $q$-coloring of $G$ in expected time
% $\tilde{O}(n\Delta^2)$,
% where the $\tilde{O}(\cdot)$ notation hides factors polynomial in $\log n$ and $\log \Delta$.
% \end{theorem}
%Together, our results provide a nearly complete characterization of the bounding-chain framework for perfect sampling of graph colorings.
%Through our generalized formulation of grand coupling, we establish both a new algorithmic upper bound and a matching (up to lower-order terms) impossibility result.
%These two findings jointly delineate the exact capability of bounding-chain–based CFTP methods: the threshold $q = 2.5\Delta$ marks, to the best of our evidence, the fundamental limit of this entire framework.
\begin{remark}
In~\cite{jain2021perfectly}, Jain, Sah, and Sawhney also identified $q = 2.5\Delta$ as a natural barrier for their bounding chain construction, reflecting a limitation of the algorithmic framework adopted in~\cite{bhandari2020improved,jain2021perfectly}.
In contrast, our lower bound shows that this threshold is inherent to all contractive bounding chains: no grand coupling based on such constructions can surpass it.
Both our general lower bound and the optimal bounding chain design arise from a new characterization of bounding-chain–based grand couplings as an optimization problem, detailed in \Cref{sec:coupling}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Overview of conceptual and technical contributions}
In the CFTP framework, the random evolution $X_{-T}\to X_{0}$ of the Markov chain $(X_t)$ is captured by a random mapping $F : \Omega \to \Omega$, generated by a grand coupling $F = F(\cdot, U)$ using a random seed $U\in[0,1]$.
Equivalently, $F$ can be expressed as a composition of single-step couplings, $F = g_{-1} \circ g_{-2} \circ \cdots \circ g_{-T}$,
where each $g_t = g_t(\cdot, U_t)$ corresponds to the grand coupling of the one-step transition at time $t$, determined by an independent random seed $U_t\sim\uniform[0,1]$.
Conceptually, the global seed $U$ can thus be viewed as an infinite sequence of independent random variables $(U_{-1}, U_{-2}, \ldots)$, each determining one step of the coupled evolution.
When the Markov chain $(X_t)$ is a single-site dynamics, each transition $g_t$ is specified by a pair $(v_t, f_{v_t})$,
where $v_t \in V$ denotes the vertex selected for update at time $t$,
and $f_{v_t}$ is a local random update function that recolors $v_t$ based on the current coloring of its neighbors.
% We now interpret the bounding-chain framework from the perspective of local update operations.
% Each random function $g_t$ can be viewed as a pair $g_t = (v_t, f_{v_t})$,
% where $v_t \in V$ denotes the randomly selected vertex to be updated at time $t$,
% and $f_{v_t}$ is the corresponding local random update function applied to that vertex.
% The randomness of $f_{v_t}$ is determined by an auxiliary variable
% $U_t \sim \uniform[0,1]$, which governs the update rule at $v_t$.
%
Once the sequence of update vertices $v_{-1},v_{-2},\ldots$ is fixed,
the CFTP process is fully determined by these local updates.
Conceptually, the bounding-chain construction can then be viewed as a \emph{localization} of this global coupling:
rather than tracking the evolution of the entire configuration space $\Omega \subseteq [q]^V$,
it maintains for each vertex $v$ a local bounding list $\mathcal{L}(v) \subseteq [q]$ of possible colors,
which compactly encodes all configurations consistent with the current stage of the coupled evolution.
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:coupling-random-vt}
In the original formulation of bounding chains for single-site dynamics~\cite{huber1998exact},
the update vertex is chosen uniformly at random from all vertices.
Subsequent developments~\cite{bhandari2020improved, jain2021perfectly} introduced more flexible update schedules to accelerate coalescence.
For correctness, however, the update schedule must be specified \emph{a priori},
independent of the evolution of the bounding lists during execution.
In the bounding-chain framework, the sequence of update vertices $(v_{-1}, v_{-2}, \ldots)$
forms part of the shared randomness and is \emph{identically coupled} across all global configurations.
That is, every coupled trajectory uses the same pre-specified sequence of update locations.
This identically coupled choice of the update sequence $(v_t)$ ensures that each update $(v_t, f_{v_t})$ acts purely locally
and that the bounding-chain coupling remains well defined regardless of how the bounding lists evolve.
\end{remark}
\paragraph{\textbf{Formulation of grand coupling via bounding chains}}
Building on the local perspective above, we introduce a unified formulation of the bounding-chain method.
In this framework, a global grand coupling of the Markov chain is specified via a collection of \emph{local grand couplings} defined over the bounding boxes of neighborhood configurations, as formalized in~\Cref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}.
This subsumes all prior constructions of bounding chains, including those based on the standard uniform random update schedule as well as more structured, designed schedules, and enables a formal analysis of the fundamental limitations of the bounding-chain approach.
% develop a unified formulation of the bounding–chain method that makes the localization precise.
% Concretely, our framework characterizes the task of simultaneously coupling all feasible Glauber update distributions at a vertex using only the {\em partial} neighborhood information encoded by the current bounding lists.
% This local grand coupling perspective transforms the global CFTP coupling into a collection of local coupling problems, one corresponding to each vertex and update time. Each such local problem must be solved using only the bounding lists of the vertex's neighbors. The formal definition of this generalized grand coupling is presented in Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}.
% Our formulation provides a common mathematical foundation encompassing all previous constructions of bounding-chain–based CFTP algorithms, from the seminal work of Huber~\cite{huber1998exact} to the recent advances by Bhandari et al.~\cite{bhandari2020improved} and Jain et al.~\cite{jain2021perfectly}.
% It also allows us to derive both upper and lower bounds on the performance of bounding-chain methods for the $q$-coloring problem, thereby clarifying their algorithmic limits and potential improvements.
\medskip
\paragraph{\textbf{Lower bound: limitations of bounding chains.}}
\Cref{thm:no-bounding-chain} establishes a lower bound for bounding chains for $q$-coloring Glauber dynamics satisfying the standard contraction condition (\Cref{cond:bounding-chain-overall}).
% We show that the regime $q < 2.5\Delta$ poses a fundamental barrier for the bounding-chain approach.
% Specifically, we prove that in this regime, the contraction condition (\Cref{cond:bounding-chain-overall}) cannot be satisfied in the worst case, demonstrating that no bounding chain can ensure global contraction for all configurations.
%
This applies to any schedule, as long as updates follow the Glauber dynamics.
It stems from a fundamental obstruction to the coalescence of bounding chains: the reduction of bounding lists from size two to one.
\begin{theorem}[Lower bound: 2-to-1 contraction]\label{thm:no-coupling-informal}
Let $\Delta \ge 3$, $q < 2.5\Delta-1$, and let $n$ be sufficiently large.
There exist a $\Delta$-regular graph $G = (V, E)$ with $|V|= n$ and a bounding list configuration $\mathcal{L}=(\mathcal{L}(v))_{v\in V}$ with $|\mathcal{L}(v)| = 2$ for all $v \in V$,
such that for any grand coupling of $q$-coloring Glauber dynamics given~$\mathcal{L}$,
the updated $\mathcal{L}'$ satisfies: there exists a $v \in V$ with
$\mathbb{E}\left[|\mathcal{L}'(v)|\right] > 2$,
while for all $u \in V\setminus\{v\}$, $|\mathcal{L}'(u)|=2$.
\end{theorem}
%
The construction in \Cref{thm:no-coupling-informal}
%which specifies the $\Delta$-regular graph and the corresponding bounding list configuration $\mathcal{L} = (\mathcal{L}(v))_{v \in V}$,
results in an expected increase in the total size
$\sum_{v}|\mathcal{L}'(v)|$ relative to $\sum_{v}|\mathcal{L}(v)|$, violating \Cref{cond:bounding-chain-overall}.
%\eqref{eq:potential-function-decay}.
Thus, \Cref{thm:no-bounding-chain} follows from \Cref{thm:no-coupling-informal}.
Moreover, since adding colors to $\bl$ can only increase size of $\bl'$, it blocks coalescence from any bounding list sizes~$>1$.
\medskip
%Theorem~\ref{thm:no-coupling-informal} constructs a $\Delta$-regular graph and a bounding-list configuration in which for each vertex $v$, any grand coupling at $v$ yields $\mathbb{E}[|\mathcal{L}'(v)|]>2$ while the other vertices' lists remain of size $2$.
\paragraph{\textbf{Upper bound: optimal design of grand coupling}}
We formalize the design of a grand coupling as an explicit optimization problem (\Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling}).
To make the problem tractable, we introduce a simplified variant (\Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}) that captures the key design issues underlying prior bounding-chain algorithms.
% We formulate the grand coupling problem in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling} and present a simplified version in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}.
% The simplified formulation in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} is conceptually cleaner, and a series of grand coupling constructions studied in prior works~\cite{bhandari2020improved,jain2021perfectly} can be viewed as cases of this problem.
Solutions to this simplified problem can be characterized via a linear program, which yields a grand coupling that optimally solves \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2}.
%
%We address the optimization problem in \Cref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling-2} by reducing it to a linear programming problem, whose solution yields an explicit construction of the optimal grand coupling.
This optimal construction, called \seeding{}, provides a key component: Combined with several existing bounding-chain building blocks, including the \compress{} coupling~\cite{bhandari2020improved} and the \disjoint{} coupling~\cite{jain2021perfectly}, we finally obtain a fast coalescing grand coupling for $q$-coloring when $q > (2.5+o(1))\Delta$, matching, up to lower-order terms, the lower bound established for any bounding-chain–based CFTP.
%The detailed construction and analysis of the algorithm leading to Theorem~\ref{thm:main} are presented in Section~\ref{sec:alg}.
%Together, these results demonstrate that our generalized grand coupling formulation not only unifies all previous bounding‐chain–based perfect‐sampling algorithms, but also reveals the intrinsic $2.5\Delta$ barrier that fundamentally limits this line of approaches.
% Finally, our framework also yields a matching lower bound that formalizes the intrinsic limitation of all bounding‐chain–based CFTP approaches.
% Specifically, we show that when $q < 2.5\Delta$, there exists a worst‐case neighborhood configuration for which no grand coupling can achieve perfect contraction:
% \begin{theorem}[Barrier for $q<2.5\Delta$ (Informal)]\label{thm:informal-lowerbound}
% Let $q < 2.5\Delta$. Consider a vertex $v$ whose neighbors $u \in \Gamma(v)$ each has bounding lists $\bl(u)\subseteq[q]$ of size $2$. Then there exists a choice of these neighbor lists—i.e.\ a worst‐case configuration—such that no grand coupling for a single‐vertex Glauber update at $v$ can guarantee that the updated bounding list $\bl'(v)$ has size at most $2$ with probability $1$.
% \end{theorem}
% Building on this optimal construction, we obtain a new perfect‐sampling algorithm for the $q$‐coloring problem that achieves the following bound:
% Compared to prior works~\cite{bhandari2020improved, jain2021perfectly}, which required $q > 3\Delta$ and $q \geq (8/3+o(1))\Delta$ respectively, this result reduces the threshold to $q \geq (2.5+o(1))\Delta$ by optimizing the grand coupling in the seeding phase.
%Our perfect‐sampling algorithm is built on the CFTP framework combined with the bounding‐chain method. A key conceptual advance is that we \emph{generalize} the grand‐coupling problem: given only the “partial information" provided by the bounding chain of a vertex’s neighbors, we must simultaneously couple all possible Glauber‐update distributions at that vertex. This general problem is formally defined in Definition~\ref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}.
%A particularly common instance arises when the bounding chain of the neighbors determines a set $\slv \subseteq [q]$ of all colors that may appear on those neighbors. We capture this in the combinatorial Problem~\ref{prob:optimal-grand-coupling}, which asks for a grand coupling minimizing the expected size of the updated bounding list $\mathcal{L}'(v)$.
%\medskip
%The informal statements of \cref{thm:informal-upperbound,thm:informal-lowerbound} are made formal in~\cref{thm:optimal-seeding-coupling} and~\ref{thm:no-coupling}, respectively, with full proofs in Sections~\ref{sec:optimal-seeding} and~\ref{sec:worst-case}.
\subsection{Related work}
\label{sec:ralated-work}
%\paragraph{\textbf{Results for sampling $q$-colorings}}
The critical condition for rapid mixing of local Markov chains on proper $q$-colorings, such as Glauber dynamics, has been a central question in the study of sampling algorithms.
A classic result of Jerrum~\cite{jerrum1995very} (and independently, Salas and Sokal~\cite{salas1997absence}) established that when $q > 2\Delta$, the Glauber dynamics mixes in $O(n \log n)$ time.
This foundational work laid the groundwork for coupling-based analyses, notably inspiring the path coupling technique of Bubley and Dyer~\cite{bubley1997path} and the coupling criterion of Hayes~\cite{hayes2006simple}.
Vigoda~\cite{vigoda1999improved} introduced a coupling for the \emph{flip dynamics} and proved an $O(n^2)$ mixing-time bound for the Glauber dynamics when $q > \tfrac{11}{6}\Delta$.
This threshold remained the state of the art for nearly two decades until Chen et al.~\cite{chen2019improved} further refined it to $q > \left(\tfrac{11}{6} - \varepsilon_0\right)\Delta$ for an explicit $\varepsilon_0 = 1/84000$.
Most recently, Carlson and Vigoda~\cite{carlson2025flip} improved the bound to $q > 1.809\Delta$, which remains the best-known rapid-mixing threshold for general graphs.
Under additional structural assumptions, such as a lower bound on the girth, sharper thresholds are known.
For instance, on triangle-free graphs, the Glauber dynamics mixes optimally whenever $q > \alpha^* \Delta$ for some constant $\alpha^* \approx 1.763$; see~\cite{hayes2006coupling,chen2021rapid,feng2022rapid,CLV21,jain2022spectral}.
Even stronger results hold for graphs of larger girth~\cite{hayes2003non,dyer2013randomly,chen2023strong}.
In particular, the recent breakthrough of Chen et al.~\cite{chen2023strong} establishes an almost tight condition $q \ge \Delta + 3$ for an $O(n \log n)$ mixing time of the Glauber dynamics on graphs with constant maximum degree $\Delta = O(1)$ and sufficiently large girth.
%
% Under additional structural assumptions (e.g., girth bounds), stronger results are known: for instance, in triangle-free graphs the Glauber dynamics mixes optimally whenever $q > \alpha^* \Delta$ for some constant $\alpha^* \approx 1.763$; see~\cite{hayes2006coupling,chen2021rapid, feng2022rapid, CLV21, jain2022spectral}. And better bounds were known for graphs with larger girths~\cite{hayes2003non,dyer2013randomly,chen2023strong}. Notably, recent breakthrough in~\cite{chen2023strong} shows that the Glauber dynamics mixes in $O_{\Delta}(n\log n)$ time when $q\ge\Delta+3$ on graphs with sufficiently large girth $g=\Omega_{\Delta}(1)$.
%{\color{red}TODO: \cite{dyer2013randomly,hayes2003non,chen2023strong} criticality and (computational) phase transition results, including WSM on tree, SSM on trees and graphs, correlation decay on computational tree, hardness, etc.}
The conjectured optimal threshold for rapid mixing is $q > \Delta$, corresponding to the uniqueness threshold of the Gibbs measure on the infinite $\Delta$-regular tree~\cite{jonasson2002uniqueness}.
In contrast, approximate sampling from $q$-colorings becomes computationally intractable when $q < \Delta$, unless $\mathrm{NP} = \mathrm{RP}$~\cite{galanis2015inapproximability}.
In a separate line of work focused on deterministic approximate counting, Gamarnik and Katz~\cite{gamarnik2012correlation} gave a polynomial-time approximate counting algorithm for proper $q$-colorings when $q > 2.84\Delta$ for bounded-degree graphs.
Subsequent improvements were obtained by Lu and Yin~\cite{lu2013improved} ($q > 2.58\Delta$) and by Liu, Sinclair, and Srivastava~\cite{liu2019deterministic} ($q > 2\Delta$).
\medskip
\paragraph{\textbf{Related works on CFTP}}
Coupling from the past (CFTP) is a central technique for perfect sampling and has been widely applied across statistical physics and combinatorial models.
Classical applications include the Ising and Potts models~\cite{haggstrom1998ising,huber2004perfect}, while extensive developments on graph colorings have leveraged the bounding-chain framework~\cite{huber2004perfect,huber2016perfect,bhandari2020improved,jain2021perfectly}.
More recently, CFTP methods have been extended to the sampling Lov\'{a}sz Local Lemma, leading to perfect samplers for solutions to atomic constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs)~\cite{he2021perfectsamplingatomiclovasz,qiu2022perfectsamplerhypergraphindependent}.
% Notable examples include perfect sampling for Ising and Potts models~\cite{haggstrom1998ising,huber2004perfect}, as well as extensive work on graph colorings using bounding-chain techniques~\cite{huber2004perfect,bhandari2020improved,jain2021perfectly}. More recent work has pushed CFTP ideas into algorithmic settings connected to the Lovász Local Lemma, yielding perfect samplers for atomic LLL-style problems and related combinatorial structures~\cite{he2021perfectsamplingatomiclovasz,qiu2022perfectsamplerhypergraphindependent}.
\medskip
\paragraph{\textbf{Other perfect sampling paradigms}}
Beyond CFTP, several alternative paradigms for perfect sampling have been developed, including the \emph{random recycler}~\cite{fill2000randomness}, \emph{partial rejection sampling}~\cite{wilson1996generating,cohn2002sink,guo2019uniform,feng2021dynamic}, and approaches based on the \emph{Bayes filter}~\cite{feng2022perfect}.
More recently, \emph{local perfect samplers} have been introduced, which generate samples from marginal distributions at a local cost.
Examples include the \emph{lazy depth-first sampler} (also known as the Anand–Jerrum algorithm)~\cite{AJ22,HWY22a} and the \emph{coupling towards the past} framework~\cite{feng2023towards,liu2025phase,liu2025local}, the latter extending the philosophy of coupling from the past to more general local settings.
% For the problem of sampling $q$-colorings, the current best-known rapid mixing threshold for general graphs is $q > 1.809\Delta$~\cite{carlson2025flip}.
% Beyond general graphs, substantial progress has been made under additional structural assumptions such as girth bounds.
% For example, in triangle-free graphs of maximum degree~$\Delta$, the Glauber dynamics is now known to mix optimally whenever $q > \alpha^* \Delta$ for some constant $\alpha^* \approx 1.763$~\cite{chen2021rapid, feng2022rapid, CLV21, jain2022spectral}.
% In a separate line of work on perfect sampling,
% Gamarnik and Katz~\cite{gamarnik2012correlation} showed that when $q > 2.84\Delta$, there exists a polynomial-time approximate counting algorithm for triangle-free graphs.
% Subsequent improvements for general bounded-degree graphs were obtained by Lu and Yin~\cite{lu2013improved}, who showed that $q > 2.58\Delta$ suffices, and by Liu, Sinclair, and Srivastava~\cite{liu2019deterministic}, who further reduced the threshold to $q > 2\Delta$.
% \todo{tag}
% Since its introduction, CFTP has become a powerful tool with wide-ranging applications in probabilistic and combinatorial sampling.
% It has been successfully applied to perfect sampling in statistical physics models such as the Ising and Potts spin systems~\cite{haggstrom1998ising,huber2004perfect}.
% Within combinatorial sampling, one of the most extensively studied settings is \emph{graph colorings}~\cite{huber2004perfect,bhandari2020improved,jain2021perfectly},
% which has served as a benchmark problem for developing and analyzing perfect sampling algorithms.
% More recently, CFTP has also been extended to algorithmic frameworks inspired by the Lovász Local Lemma ~\cite{he2021perfectsamplingatomiclovasz,qiu2022perfectsamplerhypergraphindependent},
% representing an exciting new direction in perfect sampling that connects probabilistic combinatorics with algorithmic randomness.
%\smallskip
% Beyond direct algorithmic constructions, several works have explored formal reductions between approximate and perfect sampling or counting.
% The classical work of Jerrum, Valiant, and Vazirani~\cite{jerrum1986random} established that any efficient deterministic approximate counting algorithm (FPTAS) can be transformed into a perfect sampler via a simple rejection-sampling scheme.
% More recently, Göbel, Li, Meier, and Peng~\cite{Gobel2024Perfect} presented a general reduction from approximate sampling to perfect sampling, thereby unifying and extending previous results.
% Together, these reductions highlight a deeper algorithmic connection between approximate and perfect sampling paradigms.
% \subsection{Organization of the paper}
% \label{subsec:organization}
% In \cref{sec:preliminaries}, we provide a detailed overview of the CFTP framework and describe how the bounding chain method is applied to the $q$-coloring problem. We also reduce the proof of \cref{thm:main} to the construction of a suitable grand coupling.
% \todo{recontruction: sec3 for framework of coupling, sec4 for algorithm, merge sec5 into sec6}
%In \cref{sec:alg}, we present the construction of our grand coupling. The core contribution lies in \cref{Alg:seeding}, where we design an optimal grand coupling for the first half of the algorithm. This step is crucial for pushing the CFTP-based framework down to the $q > (2.5 + o(1))\Delta$ regime.
%In \cref{sec:coupling}, we examine the tightness of the $q > 2.5\Delta$ threshold. We develop an abstract interval-based model for analyzing grand couplings (\cref{def:grand-coupling-on-bounding-chain}), and in \cref{sec:optimal-seeding} we prove the optimality of our construction in the Seeding Phase. We then characterize worst-case configurations in the Converting and Drifting Phases (\cref{def:worst-case}), and show in \cref{sec:worst-case} that no valid grand coupling can achieve full contraction when $q < 2.5\Delta$, establishing a fundamental barrier for bounding chain based perfect sampling.
%Finally, in \cref{sec:beat-worst-case}, we explore how this worst-case barrier can be circumvented through refined average-case analysis, leading to improved thresholds beyond the $q > 2.5\Delta$ regime.
%Building on this observation, we obtain improved conditions for perfect sampling beyond the $q > 2.5\Delta$ threshold. Through a refined analysis, we show that the same perfect sampling algorithm remains valid under the relaxed condition $q > (2.5 - \eps)\Delta + \log n$, where {$\eps = 0.02$} is a fixed constant.
% \begin{theorem}
% \label{thm:advanced}
% There exists a CFTP-based algorithm \pfs\ such that, given an undirected graph $G = (V, E)$ with maximum degree $\Delta$ and number of colors
% $
% q > (2.5 - \eps)\Delta + \log n
% $
% where $\eps = 0.02$, the algorithm runs in expected time $\tilde{O}(n\Delta^2)$ and returns a uniformly random proper $q$-coloring of $G$, where the $\tilde{O}(\cdot)$ notation hides factors polynomial in $\log n$ and $\log q$.
% \end{theorem}
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:preliminaries}
\subsection{Notations for coloring}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be an undirected graph and $[q] = \{1,2,\dots,q\}$ a set of $q\ge 2$ colors.
%In this work we focus on \emph{bounding-chain-based CFTP algorithms} for the single-site Glauber dynamics on proper $q$-colorings.
%Let $G=(V,E)$ be a finite graph and define the state space of proper colorings by
The configuration space of proper $q$-colorings of $G$ is
\[
\Omega=\{\omega:V\to[q]\mid \omega(u)\neq\omega(v)\text{ for all }\{u,v\}\in E\}.
\]
For each vertex $v$, let $\Gamma(v) \defeq \{u \in V \mid \{u,v\} \in E\}$ denote $v$'s neighborhood.
\subsection{Glauber dynamics}
%\subsection{Glauber dynamics}
A \emph{single-site dynamics} on $\Omega$ is defined by a predetermined \emph{update schedule}, which is a (possibly random) sequence of vertices $(v_t)$, together with a collection of \emph{local update distributions}:
$$\left\{p_v^\conf:v\in V,\conf\in[q]^{\Gamma(v)}\right\},$$
where $p_v^\conf$ specifies a distribution over $[q]$ that depends only on the vertex $v$ and the configuration $\conf$ of its neighbors.
%
The resulting dynamics $(X_t)$ evolves as follows: at each time step $t$, the vertex $v_t$ is selected according to the update schedule, and its color is updated by sampling from $p_{v_t}^{X_t(\Gamma(v_t))}$, where $X_t(\Gamma(v_t))$ denotes the restriction of the current configuration $X_t$ to the neighborhood $\Gamma(v_t)$ of $v_t$.
r
The \emph{Glauber dynamics} for proper $q$-colorings is a single-site dynamics in which, for each vertex $v \in V$ and neighborhood coloring $\conf \in [q]^{\Gamma(v)}$, the local update distribution at $v$ is uniform over the set of colors available to $v$ given $\conf$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:glauber-dynamics-update}
p_v^{\conf} = \uniform([q] \setminus \conf),
\end{align}
where $\uniform(S)$ denotes the uniform distribution over a set $S$.
Here, by slight abuse of notation, we treat the tuple $\conf$ equivalently as a set, so that $[q] \setminus \conf=[q] \setminus \{\conf(u) : u \in \Gamma(v)\}$.
% \begin{definition}[Glauber dynamics]\label{def:glauber}
% The \emph{single-site Glauber dynamics} is a Markov chain $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ on~$\Omega$
% with the following random update rule.
% In graph coloring, at each time step~$t$:
% \begin{enumerate}
% \item A vertex $v_t\in V$ is chosen according to a fixed distribution $\pi$ (typically uniform on~$V$);
% \item The color at $v_t$ is resampled uniformly from
% \[
% [q]\setminus\{\,X_t(u):u\in\Gamma(v_t)\,\},
% \]
% while all other vertices remain unchanged.
% \end{enumerate}
% \end{definition}
% Because in the CFTP framework all Glauber trajectories share
% the same vertex-selection sequence and random seeds,
% the updates of the Glauber dynamics are \emph{identically coupled} across all initial states.
% Consequently, the induced bounding process can also be viewed
% as a \emph{single-site update Markov chain} on the space of \emph{bounding lists}.
\subsection{Bounding chains}
\label{sec:preliminary-bounding-chains}
For a single-site dynamics $(X_t)$ on a state space $\Omega \subseteq [q]^V$ with update schedule $(v_t)$ and local update distributions ${p_v^\conf : v \in V,, \conf \in [q]^{\Gamma(v)}}$,
let $g_t : \Omega \times [0,1] \to \Omega$ denote a grand coupling for the transition $X_t \to X_{t+1}$, as defined in~\eqref{eq:grand-coupling-intro}.
Suppose that the randomness in the update schedule $(v_t)$ is \emph{identically coupled} across all trajectories, i.e., at each time $t$, every coupled trajectory updates the same randomly chosen vertex $v_t$.
Under this natural assumption, the coupling $g_t(\cdot, U)$ becomes a local function, such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item the image $g_t(\conf, U)$ depends only on $\conf\in\Omega$ restricted to $\Gamma(v_t)$;
\item the image $g_t(\conf, U)$ differs from $\conf\in\Omega$ only at the update vertex $v_t$.
\end{itemize}
Hence, without loss of generality, we may write
$$g_t(\conf, U)(v_t)=g_t\left(\conf_{\Gamma(v_t)}, U\right)(v_t),$$
since the outcome of $g_t(\conf, U)$ at $v_t$ depends solely on the neighborhood configuration $\conf_{\Gamma(v_t)}$.
%Moreover, since $\conf$ remains unchanged on $V \setminus {v_t}$, it suffices to track only the updated color at $v_t$, i.e., $g_t(\conf_{\Gamma(v_t)}, U)(v_t)$
This locality property of grand couplings for single-site dynamics naturally motivates the definition of \emph{bounding chains}.
A bounding chain $(\bl_t)$ is naturally constructed from a grand coupling $(g_t)$ of the single-site dynamics.
At each time step $t$, the bounding chain maintains, for every vertex $v \in V$, a \emph{bounding list} (or \emph{bounding set}) $\bl_t(v) \subseteq [q]$ representing the possible colors that $v$ may take at time~$t$ under the coupled evolution, inferred based on the bounding lists.
Formally, given the shared random seed $U_t$ and the update vertex $v_t$, the bounding chain evolves as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:transition-bounding-list}
\bl_{t+1}(v)
=
\begin{cases}
\set{g_t(\conf,U_t)(v):\conf\in\bigotimes_{u\in\Gamma(v)}\bl_t(u)}, & \text{if }v=v_t,\\
\bl_{t}(v) & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
In words, when vertex $v_t$ is updated, the new bounding list $\bl_{t+1}(v_t)$ consists of all possible colors that $v_t$ can take, given the current bounding lists of its neighbors and the shared randomness $U_t$ at time~$t$.
For all other vertices, the bounding lists remain unchanged.
In practice, one may instead maintain a superset of the set defined in~\eqref{eq:transition-bounding-list}, as it can be easier to compute.
Such relaxations preserve the correctness of sampling, though they may affect the efficiency of coalescence.
% \color{red}
% \begin{definition}[Bounding chain for the Glauber dynamics]\label{def:bounding-chain}
% Let $G=(V,E)$ and $[q]$ be as above.
% For each vertex $v\in V$ and time $t\ge0$, let
% \[
% \bl_t(v)\subseteq[q]
% \]
% denote the \emph{bounding set} of vertex~$v$, representing all colors that
% $v$ may take at time~$t$ across every Glauber trajectory coupled under the shared randomness.
% The collection
% \[
% \bl_t=(\bl_t(v))_{v\in V}\in\bigotimes_{v\in V}2^{[q]}
% \]
% is called the \emph{bounding list} at time~$t$.
% The sequence $(\bl_t)_{t\ge0}$ is a Markov chain on the space of bounding lists,
% referred to as the \emph{bounding chain over the Glauber dynamics},
% whose transition rule is given by a \emph{single-site update}:
% \begin{enumerate}
% \item initially $\bl_0(v)=[q]$ for all $v\in V$;
% \item when vertex $v_t$ is selected at time~$t$,
% \[
% \bl_{t+1}(v)=
% \begin{cases}
% \displaystyle
% \left\{X_{t+1}(v):X_t\in\bigotimes_{v\in V}\bl(v)\right\},
% & v=v_t,\\[2mm]
% \bl_t(v), & v\neq v_t.
% \end{cases}
% \]
% \end{enumerate}
% The process $(\bl_t)$ thus forms a Markov chain
% driven by the same vertex-selection sequence~$(v_t)$.
% Each $\bl_t(v)\subseteq[q]$ represents the set of colors that vertex~$v$
% may take at time~$t$ across all coupled Glauber trajectories.
% \end{definition}
In coupling from the past (CFTP), the bounding chain is initialized with full uncertainty: $\bl_{-T}(v) = [q]$ for all $v \in V$.
As the chain $(\bl_t)$ evolves forward from time $-T$ to time~$0$, the bounding lists ${\bl_t(v)}_{v\in V}$ gradually shrink as uncertainty about each vertex’s color decreases.
When all bounding lists collapse to singletons, i.e., $|\bl_t(v)| = 1$ for every $v \in V$,
the coupled single-site dynamics have coalesced to a single configuration.
At this point, the bounding-chain-based CFTP procedure outputs a perfect sample from the stationary distribution of the Glauber dynamics.
%In this section, we introduce the necessary background for our perfect sampling algorithm, which is based on the Coupling from the Past (CFTP) technique and instantiated via Glauber dynamics for $q$-colorings. We also explain how to efficiently detect coupling using the bounding chain method.
%\subsection{Coupling from the past}
%\label{sec:pre-CFTP}
%The \emph{Coupling from the Past} (CFTP) technique, introduced by Propp and Wilson~\cite{propp1996exact}, provides a method for exact sampling from the stationary distribution of a Markov chain. It achieves this by constructing a coupling of trajectories from all initial states and identifying a coalescence time at which the chain forgets its initial condition. Unlike standard MCMC approaches, CFTP yields perfect samples without requiring bounds on the mixing time.
%The central idea behind CFTP is to simulate the chain from time $-t$ (in the past) to time $0$ in such a way that, regardless of the initial state, all trajectories converge to the same value. This is achieved by designing a grand coupling over all possible initial states such that they coalesce (or couple) to the same value at time $0$. Once such a coupling occurs, the common state is guaranteed to be a perfect sample from the desired distribution.
% We describe a variant of the CFTP algorithm, formalized via the following perfect sampling procedure, where randomness is introduced through a distribution $\mathcal{D}$ over update functions $F: \Omega \to \Omega$, and the predicate $\Phi$ identifies when a function $F$ acts as a constant map.
% \begin{algorithm}[H]
% \caption{\pfs} \label{Alg:psample}
% \SetKwInput{KwAssertion}{Assertion}
% \KwIn{Oracle access to distribution $\mathcal{D}$ and predicate $\Phi$, as defined in Lemma~\ref{lemma:psample}.}
% \KwOut{A sample $\conf^{*}$ drawn exactly from the uniform distribution $\mu_{\Omega}$.}
% \For{$i=1,2,\cdots$}{
% Generate $F_{-i}$ from distribution $\mathcal{D}$\;
% \If{$\Phi(F_{-i})=\True$}{
% Choose arbitrary $\conf\in\Omega$\;
% \Return $\conf^*=F_{-1}\circ F_{-2}\circ\cdots\circ F_{-i}(\conf)$\;
% }
% }
% \end{algorithm}
% We now formally state and prove the correctness and efficiency of this procedure.
% \begin{lemma}
% \label{lemma:psample}
% Let $\Omega$ be a finite set and let $\mu_\Omega$ denote the uniform distribution over $\Omega$. Suppose $\mathcal{D}$ is a distribution over functions $F: \Omega \to \Omega$, and $\Phi: \supp(\mathcal{D}) \to \set{\True, \False}$ is a predicate satisfying the following conditions:
% \begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*), ref=\alph*]
% \item \label{cftp-a} For independent $\conf \sim \mu_\Omega$ and $F \sim \mathcal{D}$, the distribution of $F(\conf)$ is also $\mu_\Omega$.
% \item \label{cftp-b} If $\Phi(F)=\True$, then $F$ is a constant function on $\Omega$.
% \item \label{cftp-c} $\Pr[F\sim\mathcal{D}]{\Phi(F)=\True}\ge 1/2$.
% \item $F\sim\mathcal{D}$ can be generated in time $T_1$, $\conf\in\Omega$ can be generated in time $T_2$, $\Phi(F)$ can and be computed in time $T_3$, $F(\conf)$ can be computed in time $T_4$.
% \end{enumerate}
% Then Algorithm~\ref{Alg:psample} terminates with expected time $O(T_1 + T_2 + T_3 + T_4)$ and outputs an exact sample from $\mu_\Omega$, with exponential tail bounds on the runtime.
% \end{lemma}
% \begin{proof}
% Consider an infinite sequence $\boldsymbol{F} = (F_{-1}, F_{-2}, \ldots)$ of i.i.d. samples from $\mathcal{D}$ and an independent initial state $\conf_0 \sim \mu_\Omega$. These random variables determine all the randomness used by the algorithm.
% Let $\conf_t = F_{-1} \circ F_{-2} \circ \cdots \circ F_{-t}(\conf)$ be the state obtained by applying $t$ functions from the past. Property (\ref{cftp-a}) ensures that for all $t$, the distribution of $\conf_t$ remains uniform over $\Omega$. Define $\conf_t^*$ to be the output of Algorithm~\ref{Alg:psample} if it halts at step $t$. Let $\mu_{\conf_t}$ denote the distribution of $\mu_{\conf_t}$, and similarly $\mu_{\conf_t^*}$ the distribution of the output at time $t$. Then, under properties (\ref{cftp-b}) and (\ref{cftp-c}), we have
% $$\DTV{\mu_{\conf_t}}{\mu_{\conf_t^*}}=\Pr[\boldsymbol{F}]{\conf_t\neq \conf^*_t}\le\Pr[\boldsymbol{F}]{\exists i\le t:\Phi(F_{-i}=\False)}\le (1-p)^t\le 2^{-t}$$
% %by the assumption that each $\Phi(F_{-i}) = \True$ independently with probability at least $1/2$.
% where $p \ge 1/2$ is the lower bound from condition (\ref{cftp-c}). The second inequality follows from the independence of the $F_{-i}$.
% Taking the limit as $t \to \infty$, we get
% $$\DTV{\mu_\Omega}{\mu_{\conf^*}}=\lim_{t\to\infty}\DTV{\mu_{\conf_t}}{\mu_{\conf^*_t}}=0$$
% which implies that the output $\conf^*$ has distribution exactly $\mu_\Omega$.
% Moreover, since the probability of halting at each step is at least $1/2$, the expected number of iterations is $O(1)$, and hence the total expected runtime is $O(T_1 + T_2 + T_3 + T_4)$.
% \end{proof}
% Having established the general framework of CFTP, the next step is to construct a suitable family of random functions $F$ and a predicate $\Phi$ such that all conditions in Lemma~\ref{lemma:psample} are satisfied.
% \subsection{\texorpdfstring{Glauber dynamics (for $q$-coloring)}{Glauber dynamics (for q-coloring)}}
% \label{subsec:glauber-dynamics}
% To instantiate the family of update functions $F$ used in Algorithm~\ref{Alg:psample}, we adopt the framework of Glauber dynamics~\cite{glauber1963time}, a classical Markov chain widely used for sampling from the space of graph colorings.
% Consider the problem of sampling uniformly from the set $\Omega$ of all proper $q$-colorings of a finite graph $G = (V, E)$. A standard Markov chain for this task proceeds as follows: at each step, a vertex $v \in V$ is selected uniformly at random, and its color is updated by resampling uniformly from the set of colors not used by its neighbors. When $q$ is sufficiently large, this chain is ergodic and has the uniform distribution $\mu_\Omega$ as its stationary distribution.
% We define the local update operation $\update_v : \Omega \to \Omega$ as a randomized function that, given a proper coloring $\conf \in \Omega$, recolors vertex $v$ with a uniformly random color from its set of valid options (i.e., colors not appearing on its neighbors). Crucially, this operation preserves the uniform distribution over $\Omega$, as shown below.
% \begin{lemma}
% \label{lem:composition-of-Glauber-dynamics}
% Let $\conf \sim \mu_\Omega$ be a uniformly random proper $q$-coloring of a graph $G = (V, E)$, and let $v \in V$ be chosen independently of $\conf$. Then the distribution of $\update_v(\conf)$ is also $\mu_\Omega$.
% \end{lemma}
% \begin{corollary}
% \label{cor:uniform-composition}
% Let $v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_m$ be a sequence of vertices such that $v_1$ is chosen independently of $\conf \sim \mu_\Omega$, and for each $i \ge 2$, $v_i$ is chosen independently of the intermediate coloring obtained after applying the first $i-1$ updates. Define the composite function
% \[
% F \defeq \update_{v_m} \circ \update_{v_{m-1}} \circ \cdots \circ \update_{v_1}.
% \]
% Then $F(\conf)$ is distributed according to $\mu_\Omega$; that is, this construction satisfies condition (\ref{cftp-a}) of Lemma~\ref{lemma:psample}.
% \end{corollary}
% \todo{prove it using law of total probability}
% \begin{proof}
% Let $\conf \sim \mu_\Omega$, and let $v \in V$ be chosen independently of $\conf$. The update $\update_v(\conf)$ recolors $v$ uniformly at random from the set of valid colors, that is, the colors not used by its neighbors, while leaving all other vertex colors unchanged.
% To show that the resulting coloring remains uniformly distributed over $\Omega$, fix any coloring $\conf_{-v}$ of $V \setminus \set{v}$. Since $v$ is chosen independently of $\conf$, the marginal distribution of $\conf_{-v}$ is the same as under $\mu_\Omega$. Moreover, conditioned on $\conf_{-v}$, both the original color $\conf(v)$ and the updated color are uniformly distributed over the same set of available colors.
% Therefore, the conditional distribution of $\update_v(\conf)$ given $\conf_{-v}$ matches that of $\conf$, and marginalizing over all $\conf_{-v}$ implies $\update_v(\conf) \sim \mu_\Omega$.
% The corollary then follows by induction on $m$.
% \end{proof}
% \begin{remark}
% The independence between the choice of $v$ and the current coloring $\conf$ is essential. If $v$ were chosen as a function of $\conf$, such as always selecting a vertex with a specific color, then the marginal distribution of $\conf_{-v}$ would no longer be uniform, breaking the argument above.
% \end{remark}
% \subsection{Bounding Chain}
% \label{subsec:bounding-chain}
% A key computational challenge in Algorithm~\ref{Alg:psample} lies in verifying whether $\Phi(F) = \True$, i.e., checking whether $F$ is constant on $\Omega$. Naively, this would require evaluating $F(\conf)$ for every $\conf \in \Omega$, which is infeasible when $|\Omega|$ is exponential in the input size (e.g., $|\Omega| = q^n$ for $q$-colorings of an $n$-vertex graph).
% In some applications of CFTP, this difficulty can be circumvented by exploiting a natural partial order and monotonicity in the state space, which allows one to verify constancy by checking only a small number of extremal configurations~\cite{propp1996exact,Hag98}. However, in the case of $q$-colorings, the space $\Omega$ lacks a natural monotonic structure compatible with Glauber dynamics, rendering such approaches ineffective.
% To address this, we employ the \emph{bounding chain} method, introduced by Huber~\cite{huber1998exact} and independently by Häggström and Nelander~\cite{Hag98}. The key idea is to overapproximate the image of $F = f_t \circ f_{t-1} \circ \cdots \circ f_1$ over all possible initial states, rather than explicitly tracking every individual trajectory.
%\begin{definition}[Bounding Chain]
% Let $\Omega$ be the set of proper $q$-colorings of a graph $G = (V, E)$. A \emph{bounding chain} is a sequence of tuples $\bl_0, \bl_1, \dots, \b\bl_t$, referred to as the \emph{bounding list}. Each $\bl_i$ consists of sets $\bl_i(v) \subseteq [q]$ for each vertex $v \in V$, representing the possible colors that vertex $v$ may attain after $i$ updates.
% The bounding list is constructed to satisfy
% \[
% \mathrm{Im}(f_i \circ f_{i-1} \circ \cdots \circ f_1) \subseteq \prod_{v \in V} L_i(v),
% \]
% meaning that for any initial state $\conf \in \Omega$, the value of $(f_1 \circ \cdots \circ f_i)(\conf)$ lies within the product of the current color sets.
%\end{definition}
%The chain is initialized with $L_0(v) = [q]$ for all $v \in V$, and is updated deterministically based on the applied functions $f_i$.
% We declare $\Phi(F) = \True$ if the bounding chain collapses to a singleton, i.e., when $|\bl_t(v)| = 1$ for every $v \in V$. In this case, all initial states are mapped to the same final coloring under $F$, implying that $F$ is constant.
% \subsection{Notation.}
% \label{subsec:notation}
% Let $G = (V, E)$ denote an undirected graph on $n$ vertices with maximum degree $\Delta$. A $q$-coloring is a function $\conf: V \to [q]$ assigning one of $q$ colors to each vertex such that adjacent vertices receive distinct colors. For a vertex $v \in V$, we denote its neighborhood as
% $$
% \Gamma(v) \defeq \set{ u \in V \cmid (u,v) \in E }.
% $$
% Given a coloring $\conf$, we define the set of colors used in the neighborhood of $v$ as
% $$
% \gwv \defeq \set{ c \in [q] \cmid \exists u \in \Gamma(v) \text{ such that } \conf(u) = c }.
% $$
% A \emph{bounding list} is a tuple $\mathcal{L} = (\mathcal{L}(v))_{v \in V}$ where each $\mathcal{L}(v) \subseteq [q]$ denotes the set of possible colors that vertex $v$ might attain across all possible trajectories. Given a bounding list $\mathcal{L}$ and a vertex $v \in V$, we define the set of potential neighbor colors as
% $$
% S_{\bl}(v) \defeq \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)} \mathcal{L}(u).
% $$
% And import the notion used in \cite{jain2021perfectly} for disjoint coupling.
% $$
% \mathcal{Q}_{\bl}(v) \defeq \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)\cmid|\mathcal{L}(u)|=1} \mathcal{L}(u),
% $$
% $$
% \mathcal{D}_{\bl}(v) \defeq \bigcup_{u \in \Gamma(v)\cmid\forall w\in\Gamma(v), \mathcal{L}(u)\cup\mathcal{L}(w)=\varnothing} \mathcal{L}(u),
% $$
% for the set of colors that is determined or disjoint in the neighbor of $v$. When $\mathcal{L}$ and $v$ is specified, $\mathcal{L}$ and $(v)$ will be omitted in latter.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=10cm, y=1.2cm]
\definecolor{color1}{HTML}{FFD166}
\definecolor{color2}{HTML}{06D6A0}
\definecolor{color3}{HTML}{118AB2}
\definecolor{color4}{HTML}{EF476F}
\definecolor{color5}{RGB}{204,121,167}
% Labels
\node[left] at (0,2.6) {$\{\textcolor{color1}{1},\textcolor{color4}{4}\}$};
\node[left] at (0,1.9) {$\{\textcolor{color2}{2},\textcolor{color4}{4}\}$};
\node[left] at (0,1.2) {$\{\textcolor{color3}{3},\textcolor{color4}{4}\}$};
\node[left] at (0,0.5) {$\{\textcolor{color1}{1},\textcolor{color3}{3},\textcolor{color4}{4}\}$};
% Draw x line
\node[below, gray] at (0.6, 3.5) {$x=0.6$};
\draw[dotted, gray, thick] (0.6,0) -- (0.6,3.2);
% First line: {1,4}
\draw[line width=1.5, color1] (0,2.6) -- (0.5,2.6);
\draw[line width=1.5, color4] (0.5,2.6) -- (1,2.6);
\node[draw=gray, fill=color4] at (0.6,2.6) {};
% Second line: {2,4}
\draw[line width=1.5, color4] (0,1.9) -- (0.5,1.9);
\draw[line width=1.5, color2] (0.5,1.9) -- (1,1.9);
\node[draw=gray, fill=color2] at (0.6,1.9) {};
% Third line: {3,4}
\draw[line width=1.5, color3] (0,1.2) -- (0.5,1.2);
\draw[line width=1.5, color4] (0.5,1.2) -- (1,1.2);
\node[draw=gray, fill=color4] at (0.6,1.2) {};
% Fourth line: {1,3,4}
\draw[line width=1.5, color1] (0,0.5) -- (0.33,0.5);
\draw[line width=1.5, color3] (0.33,0.5) -- (0.66,0.5);
\draw[line width=1.5, color4] (0.66,0.5) -- (1,0.5);
\node[draw=gray, fill=color3] at (0.6,0.5) {};
% x-label
\node[below, gray] at (0.6,0) {$\mathcal{L}'(v)=\{\textcolor{color2}{2},\textcolor{color3}{3},\textcolor{color4}{4}\}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Illustration of grand coupling: each configuration line represents possible color sets for \(v\), and colors are assigned over \([0,1]\). A shared uniform random variable \(x\) determines the selected color for each configuration; their union gives the new bounding set for \(v\).}
\label{fig:grand-coupling-intervals}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=10cm, y=1.2cm]
% Define academic-style colors
\definecolor{color1}{HTML}{FFD166}
\definecolor{color2}{HTML}{06D6A0}
\definecolor{color3}{HTML}{118AB2}
\definecolor{color4}{HTML}{EF476F}
\definecolor{color5}{HTML}{CCCCCC}
\node[below] at (0.57, 3.2) {$U=0.57$};
\draw[dotted, thick] (0.57,0) -- (0.57,2.8);
% Line 1: {1,4,5} – coloring pattern: 1 1 4 4 5 5
\node[left] at (0,2.4) {$\{\textcolor{color1}{1}, \textcolor{color4}{4}, \textcolor{color5}{5}\}$};
\draw[line width=1.8, color1] (0.00,2.4) -- (1/6,2.4);
\draw[line width=1.8, color1] (1/6,2.4) -- (2/6,2.4);
\draw[line width=1.8, color4] (2/6,2.4) -- (3/6,2.4);
\draw[line width=1.8, color4] (3/6,2.4) -- (4/6,2.4);
\draw[line width=1.8, color5] (4/6,2.4) -- (5/6,2.4);
\draw[line width=1.8, color5] (5/6,2.4) -- (1.0,2.4);
\node[draw=black, fill=color4] at (0.57,2.4) {};
% Line 2: {2,4,5} – pattern: 4 5 2 4 2 5
\node[left] at (0,1.7) {$\{\textcolor{color2}{2}, \textcolor{color4}{4}, \textcolor{color5}{5}\}$};
\draw[line width=1.8, color4] (0.00,1.7) -- (1/6,1.7);
\draw[line width=1.8, color5] (1/6,1.7) -- (2/6,1.7);
\draw[line width=1.8, color2] (2/6,1.7) -- (3/6,1.7);
\draw[line width=1.8, color4] (3/6,1.7) -- (4/6,1.7);
\draw[line width=1.8, color2] (4/6,1.7) -- (5/6,1.7);
\draw[line width=1.8, color5] (5/6,1.7) -- (1.0,1.7);
\node[draw=black, fill=color4] at (0.57,1.7) {};
% Line 3: {3,4,5} – pattern: 4 5 4 3 5 3
\node[left] at (0,1.0) {$\{\textcolor{color3}{3}, \textcolor{color4}{4}, \textcolor{color5}{5}\}$};
\draw[line width=1.8, color4] (0.00,1.0) -- (1/6,1.0);
\draw[line width=1.8, color5] (1/6,1.0) -- (2/6,1.0);
\draw[line width=1.8, color4] (2/6,1.0) -- (3/6,1.0);
\draw[line width=1.8, color3] (3/6,1.0) -- (4/6,1.0);
\draw[line width=1.8, color5] (4/6,1.0) -- (5/6,1.0);
\draw[line width=1.8, color3] (5/6,1.0) -- (1.0,1.0);
\node[draw=black, fill=color3] at (0.57,1.0) {};
% Line 4:
\node[left] at (0,0.3) {$\{\textcolor{color1}{1},\textcolor{color3}{3}, \textcolor{color4}{4}, \textcolor{color5}{5}\}$};
\draw[line width=1.8, color1] (0.00,0.3) -- (1/6-1/24,0.3);
\draw[line width=1.8, color4] (1/6-1/24,0.3) -- (1/6,0.3);
\draw[line width=1.8, color1] (1/6,0.3) -- (2/6-1/24,0.3);
\draw[line width=1.8, color5] (2/6-1/24,0.3) -- (2/6,0.3);
\draw[line width=1.8, color4] (2/6,0.3) -- (3/6,0.3);
\draw[line width=1.8, color3] (3/6,0.3) -- (4/6-1/24,0.3);
\draw[line width=1.8, color4] (4/6-1/24,0.3) -- (4/6,0.3);
\draw[line width=1.8, color5] (4/6,0.3) -- (5/6,0.3);
\draw[line width=1.8, color3] (5/6,0.3) -- (1.0-1/24,0.3);
\draw[line width=1.8, color5] (1-1/24,0.3) -- (1,0.3);
\node[draw==black, fill=color3] at (0.57,0.3) {};
% Dashed line at x=3/6
\node[below] at (0.57,-0.1) {$\mathcal{L}'(v)=\{\textcolor{color3}{3},\textcolor{color4}{4}\}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{
%Grand coupling failure in a triangle configuration: each line corresponds to a neighbor configuration with color set \(\{a, 4, 5\}\) for \(a=1,2,3\). At \(x = 3/6\), all three lines select different colors, resulting in \(|\mathcal{L}'(v)| = 3\). This illustrates the need for at least two free colors to avoid contraction failure when \(q < 2.5\Delta\).
Each line illustrates how the unit interval~$[0,1]$ is partitioned and assigned to the available colors,
thereby defining a uniform distribution over them using the shared source of randomness $U \sim \mathrm{Uniform}[0,1]$.
A single random position~$U \in [0,1]$ determines the color selected for each case, and the union of these selected colors forms the updated bounding list~$\mathcal{L}'(v)$.
%
%each configuration line represents possible color sets for \(v\), and colors are assigned over \([0,1]\). A shared uniform random variable \(x\) determines the selected color for each configuration; their union gives the new bounding set for \(v\).
In this example, for any choice of~$U$, the updated bounding list satisfies $|\mathcal{L}'(v)| = 2$.
}
\label{fig:grand-coupling-intervals}
\end{figure}
% ams styles
\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{amsart}
\usepackage[foot]{amsaddr}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
% —— XeLaTeX font settings
\usepackage[no-math]{fontspec}
\setmainfont{Linux Libertine O}
\usepackage[libertine]{newtxmath}
\else
% —— pdfLaTeX font settings
\usepackage[tt=false]{libertine}
\usepackage{newtxmath}
\fi
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage{footnote}
\setlength\marginparwidth{2cm}
% pseudo-code
\usepackage[linesnumbered,boxed,ruled,vlined]{algorithm2e}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
% table
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{tabularx} % flexiable table
\usepackage{longtable} % cross page
\usepackage{multirow} % multirow
\usepackage{makecell} % makecell
\usepackage{tablefootnote} % footnote in tabular
\makesavenoteenv{tabular} % enable footnote in tabular
% references
\usepackage[authoryear]{natbib}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{cleveref} % cref
\hypersetup{colorlinks=true,citecolor=blue, linkcolor=blue, urlcolor=blue}
% misc
\usepackage{tcolorbox}
\usepackage{enumerate}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage[textsize=tiny]{todonotes}
% theorem environments
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{observation}[theorem]{Observation}
\newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{Claim}
\newtheorem*{claim*}{Claim}
\newtheorem{condition}[theorem]{Condition}
\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
\newtheorem{fact}[theorem]{Fact}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{property}[theorem]{Property}
\newtheorem{problem}[theorem]{Problem}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\newtheorem*{remark*}{Remark}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
% global replacement
\renewcommand{\emptyset}{\varnothing}
\renewcommand{\epsilon}{\varepsilon}
\newcommand{\E}[1]{\mathbb{E}\left[{#1}\right]}
\renewcommand{\E}[2][]{ \ifthenelse{\isempty{#1}}
{\mathop{\mathbb{E}}\left[#2\right]} {\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{#1}\left[#2\right]} }
\renewcommand{\Pr}[2][]{ \ifthenelse{\isempty{#1}}
{\mathop{\mathbf{Pr}}\left[#2\right]} {\mathop{\mathbf{Pr}}_{#1}\left[#2\right]} }
% common abbreviations
\newcommand{\norm}[1]{\left\Vert#1\right\Vert}
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left\vert#1\right\vert}
\newcommand{\set}[1]{\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\tuple}[1]{\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\ceil}[1]{\lceil #1\rceil}
\newcommand{\floor}[1]{\lfloor #1\rfloor}
\newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}
\newcommand{\cmid}{\,:\,}
\newcommand{\sharpP}{\ensuremath{\#\mathbf{P}}}
\renewcommand{\P}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{P}}}
\newcommand{\NP}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{NP}}}
\newcommand{\APX}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{APX}}}
\newcommand{\RP}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{RP}}}
\newcommand{\defeq}{:=}
\newcommand{\transpose}[1]{#1^{\top}}
\newcommand{\cvec}[2]{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}#1\\#2\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}
\newcommand{\Tmatrix}{{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1&1\\1&-1\end{smallmatrix}\right)}}
\newcommand{\dist}{\mathrm{dist}}
\newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1,#2\rangle}
\newcommand{\Var}[2]{\ensuremath{\textnormal{Var}_{#1}\left(#2\right)}}
\newcommand{\DTV}[2]{d_{\mathrm{TV}}\left({#1},{#2}\right)}
\newcommand{\Ent}[2]{\ensuremath{\textnormal{Ent}_{#1}\left(#2\right)}}
\newcommand{\KL}[2]{\ensuremath{D_{\textnormal{KL}}\left(#1\parallel#2\right)}}
\newcommand{\DF}[2]{\ensuremath{D_{f}\left(#1\parallel#2\right)}}
\newcommand{\mixingtime}[1]{\ensuremath{t_{\textnormal{mix}}(#1)}}
% bzy
\newcommand{\poly}{{\rm poly}}
\newcommand{\True}{\textnormal{True}}
\newcommand{\False}{\textnormal{False}}
\newcommand{\bl}{\mathcal{L}}
\newcommand{\slv}{\mathcal{S}}
\newcommand{\tlv}{\mathcal{T}}
\newcommand{\dlv}{\mathcal{D}}
\newcommand{\qlv}{\mathcal{Q}}
%\newcommand{\gwv}{\Gamma_\omega(v)}
\newcommand{\gwv}{\Gamma_v}
\newcommand{\score}{\mathsf{Score}}
\newcommand{\bc}{\mathcal{B}}
\newcommand{\conf}{\omega}
\newcommand{\pfs}{\texttt{PerfectSampler}}
\newcommand{\supp}{\mathop{\mathrm{Supp}}}
\newcommand{\uniform}{\mathop{\mathrm{Uniform}}}
\algnewcommand{\IfThen}[2]{\textbf{if}~#1~\textbf{then}~#2}
\newcommand{\update}{\textsc{Update}}
\newcommand{\seeding}{\textsc{Seeding}}
\newcommand{\compress}{\textsc{Compress}}
\newcommand{\disjoint}{\textsc{Disjoint}}
% meta
%\title{Optimal Bounding Chains for Graph Coloring}
\title{Tight Bounds for Sampling $q$-Colorings via Coupling from the Past}
\author{Tianxing Ding \quad Hongyang Liu \quad Yitong Yin \quad Can Zhou}
\thanks{State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, New Cornerstone Science Laboratory, Nanjing University, 163 Xianlin Avenue, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China. Emails: \url{652024330006@smail.nju.edu.cn},\url{liuhongyang@smail.nju.edu.cn},\url{yinyt@nju.edu.cn},\url{502024330075@smail.nju.edu.cn}}
%\title{Coupling from the past for graph colorings with $2.5\Delta$ colors}
\begin{document}
\begin{abstract}
%Bounding chains provide a systematic framework for designing perfect sampling algorithms within the Coupling from the Past (CFTP) paradigm.
The Coupling from the Past (CFTP) paradigm is a canonical method for perfect Sampling.
For uniform sampling of proper $q$-colorings in graphs with maximum degree $\Delta$, the bounding chains of [Huber, STOC’98] provide a systematic framework for efficiently implementing CFTP algorithms within the classical regime $q\ge (1+o(1))\Delta^2$.
This was subsequently improved to $q > 3\Delta$ by [Bhandari and Chakraborty, STOC’20] and to $q \ge (\tfrac{8}{3} + o(1))\Delta$ by [Jain, Sah, and Sawhney, STOC’21].
In this work, we establish the asymptotically tight threshold for bounding-chain–based CFTP algorithms for graph colorings.
We prove a lower bound showing that all such algorithms satisfying the standard contraction property require $q \ge 2.5\Delta$,
and we present an efficient CFTP algorithm that achieves this asymptotically optimal threshold $q \ge (2.5 + o(1))\Delta$ via an optimal design of bounding chains.
%We then show that this construction is optimal by proving a matching lower bound: no bounding-chain–based CFTP algorithm satisfying the standard contraction property can succeed when $q < 2.5\Delta$.
%This settles the optimal threshold for all bounding-chain–based CFTP algorithms for $q$-colorings.
% We study the problem of perfect sampling of a uniformly random proper $q$-coloring in graphs with maximum degree $\Delta$.
% We present a perfect sampling algorithm that succeeds under the condition $q \ge (2.5 + o(1))\Delta$, with expected running time $\tilde{O}(n\Delta^2)$.
% Our approach builds on the bounding chain method of [Huber, STOC '98] within the Coupling from the Past (CFTP) framework, and improves upon the previous best bounds of $q > 3\Delta$ by [Bhandari and Chakraborty, STOC'20] and $q \ge \bigl(\frac{8}{3} + o(1)\bigr)\Delta$ by [Jain, Sah and Sawhney STOC'21].
% Notably, the new threshold $q \ge (2.5 + o(1))\Delta$ matches a barrier that was implicitly identified in prior work.
% Moreover, we formally establish that $q > 2.5\Delta$ indeed constitutes a fundamental barrier for Coupling from the Past methods under worst-case analysis.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
%\newpage
\vspace{-1cm}
\input{chaps/intro}
\input{chaps/prelim}
\input{chaps/grandcoupling}
\input{chaps/algorithm}
\input{chaps/conclusion}
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
\bibliography{refs}
\clearpage
%\appendix
%\input{chaps/appendixA}
\end{document}
% ams styles
\pdfoutput=1
\documentclass[11pt,letterpaper]{article}
\newcommand{\ifarxiv}[2]{#2}
%\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{amsart}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\ifarxiv{
\usepackage[margin=0.9in]{geometry}
}{
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
}
\usepackage{palatino}
%\usepackage{authblk}
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage{helvet}
%\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{natbib}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{sectsty}
\allsectionsfont{\sffamily}
\usepackage[dvipsnames]{xcolor}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usepackage{mathpazo}
\usepackage{verbatim}
%\usetikzlibrary{arrows}
%\usetikzlibrary{positioning}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{tcolorbox}
\usepackage{float}
% pseudo-code
\usepackage[linesnumbered,boxed,ruled,vlined]{algorithm2e}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
% table
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{tabularx} % flexiable table
\usepackage{longtable} % cross page
\usepackage{multirow} % multirow
\usepackage{makecell} % makecell
\usepackage{tablefootnote} % footnote in tabular
%\makesavenoteenv{tabular} % enable footnote in tabular
% references
%\usepackage[authoryear]{natbib}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{cleveref} % cref
\hypersetup{colorlinks=true,citecolor=blue, linkcolor=blue, urlcolor=blue}
% misc
\usepackage{tcolorbox}
\usepackage{enumerate}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage[textsize=tiny]{todonotes}
% theorem environments
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{observation}[theorem]{Observation}
\newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{Claim}
\newtheorem*{claim*}{Claim}
\newtheorem{condition}[theorem]{Condition}
\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
\newtheorem{fact}[theorem]{Fact}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{property}[theorem]{Property}
\newtheorem{problem}[theorem]{Problem}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\newtheorem*{remark*}{Remark}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
% global replacement
\renewcommand{\emptyset}{\varnothing}
\renewcommand{\epsilon}{\varepsilon}
\newcommand{\E}[1]{\mathbb{E}\left[{#1}\right]}
\renewcommand{\E}[2][]{ \ifthenelse{\isempty{#1}}
{\mathop{\mathbb{E}}\left[#2\right]} {\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{#1}\left[#2\right]} }
\renewcommand{\Pr}[2][]{ \ifthenelse{\isempty{#1}}
{\mathop{\mathbf{Pr}}\left[#2\right]} {\mathop{\mathbf{Pr}}_{#1}\left[#2\right]} }
% common abbreviations
\newcommand{\norm}[1]{\left\Vert#1\right\Vert}
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left\vert#1\right\vert}
\newcommand{\set}[1]{\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\tuple}[1]{\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\ceil}[1]{\lceil #1\rceil}
\newcommand{\floor}[1]{\lfloor #1\rfloor}
\newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}
\newcommand{\cmid}{\,:\,}
\newcommand{\sharpP}{\ensuremath{\#\mathbf{P}}}
\renewcommand{\P}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{P}}}
\newcommand{\NP}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{NP}}}
\newcommand{\APX}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{APX}}}
\newcommand{\RP}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{RP}}}
\newcommand{\defeq}{:=}
\newcommand{\transpose}[1]{#1^{\top}}
\newcommand{\cvec}[2]{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}#1\\#2\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}
\newcommand{\Tmatrix}{{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1&1\\1&-1\end{smallmatrix}\right)}}
\newcommand{\dist}{\mathrm{dist}}
\newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1,#2\rangle}
\newcommand{\Var}[2]{\ensuremath{\textnormal{Var}_{#1}\left(#2\right)}}
\newcommand{\DTV}[2]{d_{\mathrm{TV}}\left({#1},{#2}\right)}
\newcommand{\Ent}[2]{\ensuremath{\textnormal{Ent}_{#1}\left(#2\right)}}
\newcommand{\KL}[2]{\ensuremath{D_{\textnormal{KL}}\left(#1\parallel#2\right)}}
\newcommand{\DF}[2]{\ensuremath{D_{f}\left(#1\parallel#2\right)}}
\newcommand{\mixingtime}[1]{\ensuremath{t_{\textnormal{mix}}(#1)}}
% bzy
\newcommand{\poly}{{\rm poly}}
\newcommand{\True}{\textnormal{True}}
\newcommand{\False}{\textnormal{False}}
\newcommand{\bl}{\mathcal{L}}
\newcommand{\slv}{\mathcal{S}}
\newcommand{\tlv}{\mathcal{T}}
\newcommand{\dlv}{\mathcal{D}}
\newcommand{\qlv}{\mathcal{Q}}
%\newcommand{\gwv}{\Gamma_\omega(v)}
\newcommand{\gwv}{\Gamma_v}
\newcommand{\score}{\mathsf{Score}}
\newcommand{\bc}{\mathcal{B}}
\newcommand{\conf}{\omega}
\newcommand{\pfs}{\texttt{PerfectSampler}}
\newcommand{\supp}{\mathop{\mathrm{Supp}}}
\newcommand{\uniform}{\mathop{\mathrm{Uniform}}}
\algnewcommand{\IfThen}[2]{\textbf{if}~#1~\textbf{then}~#2}
\newcommand{\update}{\textsc{Update}}
\newcommand{\seeding}{\textsc{Seeding}}
\newcommand{\compress}{\textsc{Compress}}
\newcommand{\disjoint}{\textsc{Disjoint}}
% meta
%\title{Optimal Bounding Chains for Graph Coloring}
\title{\Large Tight Bounds for Sampling $q$-Colorings via Coupling from the Past}
\date{}
\author{Tianxing Ding ~ Hongyang Liu ~ Yitong Yin ~ Can Zhou
}
\author{Tianxing Ding~\thanks{State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, New Cornerstone Science Laboratory, Nanjing University, 163 Xianlin Avenue, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China. E-mails: \url{652024330006@smail.nju.edu.cn}, \url{liuhongyang@smail.nju.edu.cn}, \url{yinyt@nju.edu.cn}, \url{502024330075@smail.nju.edu.cn}}
\and Hongyang Liu\footnotemark[1]
\and Yitong Yin\footnotemark[1]
\and Can Zhou\footnotemark[1]
}
%\title{Coupling from the past for graph colorings with $2.5\Delta$ colors}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
%Bounding chains provide a systematic framework for designing perfect sampling algorithms within the Coupling from the Past (CFTP) paradigm.
The Coupling from the Past (CFTP) paradigm is a canonical method for perfect Sampling.
For uniform sampling of proper $q$-colorings in graphs with maximum degree $\Delta$, the bounding chains of [Huber, STOC’98] provide a systematic framework for efficiently implementing CFTP algorithms within the classical regime $q\ge (1+o(1))\Delta^2$.
This was subsequently improved to $q > 3\Delta$ by [Bhandari and Chakraborty, STOC’20] and to $q \ge (\tfrac{8}{3} + o(1))\Delta$ by [Jain, Sah, and Sawhney, STOC’21].
In this work, we establish the asymptotically tight threshold for bounding-chain–based CFTP algorithms for graph colorings.
We prove a lower bound showing that all such algorithms satisfying the standard contraction property require $q \ge 2.5\Delta$,
and we present an efficient CFTP algorithm that achieves this asymptotically optimal threshold $q \ge (2.5 + o(1))\Delta$ via an optimal design of bounding chains.
%We then show that this construction is optimal by proving a matching lower bound: no bounding-chain–based CFTP algorithm satisfying the standard contraction property can succeed when $q < 2.5\Delta$.
%This settles the optimal threshold for all bounding-chain–based CFTP algorithms for $q$-colorings.
% We study the problem of perfect sampling of a uniformly random proper $q$-coloring in graphs with maximum degree $\Delta$.
% We present a perfect sampling algorithm that succeeds under the condition $q \ge (2.5 + o(1))\Delta$, with expected running time $\tilde{O}(n\Delta^2)$.
% Our approach builds on the bounding chain method of [Huber, STOC '98] within the Coupling from the Past (CFTP) framework, and improves upon the previous best bounds of $q > 3\Delta$ by [Bhandari and Chakraborty, STOC'20] and $q \ge \bigl(\frac{8}{3} + o(1)\bigr)\Delta$ by [Jain, Sah and Sawhney STOC'21].
% Notably, the new threshold $q \ge (2.5 + o(1))\Delta$ matches a barrier that was implicitly identified in prior work.
% Moreover, we formally establish that $q > 2.5\Delta$ indeed constitutes a fundamental barrier for Coupling from the Past methods under worst-case analysis.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
\newpage
\input{chaps/chap1}
\input{chaps/chapP}
\input{chaps/chap2}
\input{chaps/chap3}
\input{chaps/chap4}
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
\bibliography{refs}
\clearpage
%\appendix
%\input{chaps/appendixA}
\end{document}
\newcommand{\etalchar}[1]{$^{#1}$}
\begin{thebibliography}{FGW{\etalchar{+}}23}
\bibitem[AJ22]{AJ22}
Konrad Anand and Mark Jerrum.
\newblock Perfect sampling in infinite spin systems via strong spatial mixing.
\newblock {\em SIAM Journal on Computing}, 51(4):1280--1295, 2022.
\bibitem[BC20]{bhandari2020improved}
Siddharth Bhandari and Sayantan Chakraborty.
\newblock Improved bounds for perfect sampling of k-colorings in graphs.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing}, pages 631--642, 2020.
\bibitem[BD97]{bubley1997path}
Russ Bubley and Martin Dyer.
\newblock Path coupling: A technique for proving rapid mixing in markov chains.
\newblock In {\em FOCS}, pages 223--231, 1997.
\bibitem[CDM{\etalchar{+}}19]{chen2019improved}
Sitan Chen, Michelle Delcourt, Ankur Moitra, Guillem Perarnau, and Luke Postle.
\newblock Improved bounds for randomly sampling colorings via linear programming.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms}, pages 2216--2234, 2019.
\bibitem[CFYZ21]{chen2021rapid}
Xiaoyu Chen, Weiming Feng, Yitong Yin, and Xinyuan Zhang.
\newblock Rapid mixing of {G}lauber dynamics via spectral independence for all degrees.
\newblock In {\em FOCS}, pages 137--148, 2021.
\bibitem[CLMM23]{chen2023strong}
Zongchen Chen, Kuikui Liu, Nitya Mani, and Ankur Moitra.
\newblock Strong spatial mixing for colorings on trees and its algorithmic applications.
\newblock In {\em 2023 IEEE 64th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)}, pages 810--845, 2023.
\bibitem[CLV21]{CLV21}
Zongchen Chen, Kuikui Liu, and Eric Vigoda.
\newblock Optimal mixing of {G}lauber dynamics: entropy factorization via high-dimensional expansion.
\newblock In {\em {STOC}}, pages 1537--1550. {ACM}, 2021.
\bibitem[CPP02]{cohn2002sink}
Henry Cohn, Robin Pemantle, and James Propp.
\newblock Generating a random sink-free orientation in quadratic time.
\newblock {\em The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics [electronic only]}, 9(1):Research paper R10, 13 p.--Research paper R10, 13 p., 2002.
\bibitem[CV25]{carlson2025flip}
Charlie Carlson and Eric Vigoda.
\newblock Flip dynamics for sampling colorings: Improving (11/6—$\varepsilon$) using a simple metric.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 2025 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA)}, pages 2194--2212. SIAM, 2025.
\bibitem[DFHV13]{dyer2013randomly}
Martin Dyer, Alan~M. Frieze, Thomas~P. Hayes, and Eric Vigoda.
\newblock Randomly coloring constant degree graphs.
\newblock {\em Random Struct. Algorithms}, 43(2):181--200, 2013.
\bibitem[FGW{\etalchar{+}}23]{feng2023towards}
Weiming Feng, Heng Guo, Chunyang Wang, Jiaheng Wang, and Yitong Yin.
\newblock Towards derandomising {M}arkov chain {M}onte {C}arlo.
\newblock In {\em FOCS}, pages 1963--1990. IEEE, 2023.
\bibitem[FGY22]{feng2022perfect}
Weiming Feng, Heng Guo, and Yitong Yin.
\newblock Perfect sampling from spatial mixing.
\newblock {\em Random Structures \& Algorithms}, 61(4):678--709, 2022.
\bibitem[FGYZ22]{feng2022rapid}
Weiming Feng, Heng Guo, Yitong Yin, and Chihao Zhang.
\newblock Rapid mixing from spectral independence beyond the boolean domain.
\newblock {\em ACM Transactions on Algorithms}, 18(3):1--32, 2022.
\bibitem[FH00]{fill2000randomness}
James~Allen Fill and Mark Huber.
\newblock The randomness recycler: A new technique for perfect sampling.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings 41st annual symposium on foundations of computer science}, pages 503--511. IEEE, 2000.
\bibitem[FVY21]{feng2021dynamic}
Weiming Feng, Nisheeth~K Vishnoi, and Yitong Yin.
\newblock Dynamic sampling from graphical models.
\newblock {\em SIAM Journal on Computing}, 50(2):350--381, 2021.
\bibitem[GJL19]{guo2019uniform}
Heng Guo, Mark Jerrum, and Jingcheng Liu.
\newblock Uniform sampling through the lov{\'a}sz local lemma.
\newblock {\em Journal of the ACM (JACM)}, 66(3):1--31, 2019.
\bibitem[GK12]{gamarnik2012correlation}
David Gamarnik and Dmitriy Katz.
\newblock Correlation decay and deterministic fptas for counting colorings of a graph.
\newblock {\em Journal of Discrete Algorithms}, 12:29--47, 2012.
\bibitem[GLMP24]{Gobel2024Perfect}
Andreas Göbel, Jingcheng Liu, Pasin Manurangsi, and Marcus Pappik.
\newblock Perfect sampling from rapidly mixing markov chains, 2024.
\newblock Accessed: 2025-06-28.
\bibitem[G{\v{S}}V15]{galanis2015inapproximability}
Andreas Galanis, Daniel {\v{S}}tefankovi{\v{c}}, and Eric Vigoda.
\newblock Inapproximability for antiferromagnetic spin systems in the tree nonuniqueness region.
\newblock {\em J. ACM}, 62(6):Art. 50, 60, 2015.
\bibitem[Hay06]{hayes2006simple}
Thomas~P. Hayes.
\newblock A simple condition implying rapid mixing of single-site dynamics on spin systems.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)}, pages 39--46, 2006.
\bibitem[HLP52]{hardy1952inequalities}
Godfrey~Harold Hardy, John~Edensor Littlewood, and George P{\'o}lya.
\newblock {\em Inequalities}.
\newblock Cambridge university press, 1952.
\bibitem[HN98]{haggstrom1998ising}
O.~Häggström and K.~Nelander.
\newblock Exact sampling from anti-monotone systems.
\newblock {\em Statistica Neerlandica}, 52(3):360--380, 1998.
\bibitem[HSW21]{he2021perfectsamplingatomiclovasz}
Kun He, Xiaoming Sun, and Kewen Wu.
\newblock Perfect sampling for (atomic) lov\'asz local lemma.
\newblock arXiv:2107.03932, 2021.
\bibitem[Hub98]{huber1998exact}
Mark Huber.
\newblock Exact sampling and approximate counting techniques.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the thirtieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing}, pages 31--40, 1998.
\bibitem[Hub04]{huber2004perfect}
Mark~L. Huber.
\newblock Perfect sampling using bounding chains.
\newblock {\em The Annals of Applied Probability}, 14(2):735--753, 2004.
\bibitem[Hub16]{huber2016perfect}
M.L. Huber.
\newblock {\em Perfect Simulation}.
\newblock Chapman \& Hall/CRC Monographs on Statistics \& Applied Probability. CRC Press, 2016.
\bibitem[HV03]{hayes2003non}
Thomas~P. Hayes and Eric Vigoda.
\newblock A non-markovian coupling for randomly sampling colorings.
\newblock In {\em FOCS}, pages 618--627, 2003.
\bibitem[HV06]{hayes2006coupling}
Thomas~P. Hayes and Eric Vigoda.
\newblock Coupling with the stationary distribution and improved sampling for colorings and independent sets.
\newblock {\em Ann. Appl. Probab.}, 16(3):1297--1318, 2006.
\bibitem[HWY22]{HWY22a}
Kun He, Chunyang Wang, and Yitong Yin.
\newblock Sampling lovász local lemma for general constraint satisfaction solutions in near-linear time.
\newblock In {\em FOCS}, pages 147--158. IEEE, 2022.
\bibitem[Jer95]{jerrum1995very}
Mark Jerrum.
\newblock A very simple algorithm for estimating the number of k-colorings of a low-degree graph.
\newblock {\em Random Structures \& Algorithms}, 7(2):157--165, 1995.
\bibitem[Jon02]{jonasson2002uniqueness}
Johan Jonasson.
\newblock Uniqueness of uniform random colorings of regular trees.
\newblock {\em Statistics \& Probability Letters}, 57(3):243--248, 2002.
\bibitem[JPV22]{jain2022spectral}
Vishesh Jain, Huy~Tuan Pham, and Thuy-Duong Vuong.
\newblock Spectral independence, coupling, and the spectral gap of the glauber dynamics.
\newblock {\em Information Processing Letters}, 177:106268, 2022.
\bibitem[JSS21]{jain2021perfectly}
Vishesh Jain, Ashwin Sah, and Mehtaab Sawhney.
\newblock Perfectly sampling $k>(8/3+o(1)) \delta$-colorings in graphs.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing}, pages 1589--1600, 2021.
\bibitem[JVV86]{jerrum1986random}
Mark~R. Jerrum, Leslie~G. Valiant, and Vijay~V. Vazirani.
\newblock Random generation of combinatorial structures from a uniform distribution.
\newblock {\em Theoret. Comput. Sci.}, 43(2-3):169--188, 1986.
\bibitem[LSS19]{liu2019deterministic}
Jingcheng Liu, Alistair Sinclair, and Piyush Srivastava.
\newblock A deterministic algorithm for counting colorings with 2-delta colors.
\newblock In {\em 2019 IEEE 60th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)}, pages 1380--1404. IEEE, 2019.
\bibitem[LWY26]{liu2025local}
Hongyang Liu, Chunyang Wang, and Yitong Yin.
\newblock Local gibbs sampling beyond local uniformity.
\newblock To appear in \emph{SODA} '26, 2026.
\bibitem[LWYY25]{liu2025phase}
Jingcheng Liu, Chunyang Wang, Yitong Yin, and Yixiao Yu.
\newblock Phase transitions via complex extensions of markov chains.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing}, STOC '25, page 903–914, 2025.
\bibitem[LY13]{lu2013improved}
Pinyan Lu and Yitong Yin.
\newblock Improved fptas for multi-spin systems.
\newblock In {\em International Workshop on Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization}, pages 639--654. Springer, 2013.
\bibitem[MT10]{moser2010constructive}
Robin~A Moser and G{\'a}bor Tardos.
\newblock A constructive proof of the general {L}ov{\'a}sz local lemma.
\newblock {\em Journal of the ACM (JACM)}, 57(2):11, 2010.
\bibitem[PW96]{propp1996exact}
James~Gary Propp and David~Bruce Wilson.
\newblock Exact sampling with coupled markov chains and applications to statistical mechanics.
\newblock {\em Random Structures \& Algorithms}, 9(1-2):223--252, 1996.
\bibitem[QWZ22]{qiu2022perfectsamplerhypergraphindependent}
Guoliang Qiu, Yanheng Wang, and Chihao Zhang.
\newblock A perfect sampler for hypergraph independent sets, 2022.
\bibitem[SS97]{salas1997absence}
Jes{\'u}s Salas and Alan~D Sokal.
\newblock Absence of phase transition for antiferromagnetic potts models via the dobrushin uniqueness theorem.
\newblock {\em Journal of Statistical Physics}, 86:551--579, 1997.
\bibitem[Vig99]{vigoda1999improved}
Eric Vigoda.
\newblock Improved bounds for sampling colorings.
\newblock In {\em 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science}, pages 51--59. IEEE, 1999.
\bibitem[Wil96]{wilson1996generating}
David~Bruce Wilson.
\newblock Generating random spanning trees more quickly than the cover time.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing}, STOC '96, page 296–303, 1996.
\end{thebibliography}