arxiv: v1 [math.pr] 25 Jun 2015

Transcription

1 Random walks colliding before getting trapped Louigi Addario-Berry Roberto I. Olieira Yual Peres Perla Sousi ari: math.pr 25 Jun 215 Abstract Let P be the transition matrix of a finite, irreducible and reersible Marko chain. We say the continuous time Marko chain has transition matrix P and speed λ if it jumps at rate λ according to the matrix P. Fix λ, λ Y, λ Z, then let, Y and Z be independent Marko chains with transition matrix P and speeds λ, λ Y and λ Z respectiely, all started from the stationary distribution. What is the chance that and Y meet before either of them collides with Z? For each choice of λ, λ Y and λ Z with maxλ, λ Y >, we proe a lower bound for this probability which is uniform oer all transitie, irreducible and reersible chains. In the case that λ = λ Y = 1 and λ Z = we proe a strengthening of our main theorem using a martingale argument. We proide an example showing the transitiity assumption cannot be remoed for general λ, λ Y and λ Z. Keywords and phrases. Transitie Marko chains, mixing time, hitting times, martingale. MSC 21 subject classifications. Primary 6J1. 1 Introduction Consider three independent random walks, Y, Z oer the same finite connected graph. What is the probability that, Y meet at the same ertex before either of them meets Z? If the initial distributions of the three walkers are the same, this probability is at least 1/3 by symmetry, at least if we assume that ties i.e. triple meetings are broken symmetrically. Now consider a similar problem where the initial states, Y, Z are all sampled independently from the same distribution, but Z stays put while and Y moe. What is the probability that and Y meet before hitting Z? There are seeral examples of bounds 1, 4, 5 relating the meeting time of two random walks to the hitting time of a fixed ertex by a single random walk. These typically proide upper bounds for meeting times in terms of worst-case or aerage hitting times, sometimes up to constant factors. In light of this, it seems natural to conjecture that the probability in question is at least 1/3. Howeer, the preious argument by symmetry fails. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, no known uniersal lower bound for this probability is known. It will be conenient to consider the problem in continuous time. For the remainder of the paper let P be the transition matrix of an irreducible and reersible Marko chain on a finite state space with stationary distribution π. Let and Y be two independent continuous time Marko chains McGill Uniersity, Montréal, Canada; louigi.addario@mcgill.ca IMPA, Rio de Janeiro, Brail; rimfo@impa.br. Supported by a Bolsa de Produtiidade em Pesquisa from CNPq. Microsoft Research, Redmond, Washington, USA; peres@microsoft.com Uniersity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; p.sousi@statslab.cam.ac.uk 1

2 that jump at rate 1 according to the transition matrix P and let Z π be independent of and Y. We define M,Y We also define: to be the first time and Y meet, i.e. M,Y = inf{t : t = Y t }. M W,Z = inf{t : t = Z} W {, Y }. We write M good = M,Y and M bad = M,Z M Y,Z. 1.1 Main results Our first result proes a uniersal lower bound on the probability P M good < M bad for the class of transitie chains. First we recall the definition. Definition 1.1. Fix a chain with transition matrix P and state space E. An automorphism of P is a bijection ϕ : E E such that P, w = P ϕ, ϕw for all, w. The chain P is transitie if for all x, y E there exists an automorphism ϕ of P with ϕx = y. Theorem 1.2. Let P be the transition matrix of a finite irreducible and reersible chain with two or more states. Assume and Y are independent with law π. If P is transitie, then P M good < M bad 1 4. Next we consider a more general setup. We say that a random walk W has speed λ W and transition matrix P, if it jumps at rate λ W according to the matrix P. Suppose again that P is the transition matrix of an irreducible and reersible Marko chain on a finite state space with stationary distribution π. Let λ = 1, λ Y 1 and λ Z <. Let, Y and Z be three independent continuous time Marko chains with speeds λ, λ Y and λ Z respectiely and transition matrix P. For the remainder of the paper, we write P for the probability measure under which, Y and Z are independent with law π. We also write P a,b,c in the case when, Y, Z = a, b, c. For computations that only inole two chains we drop one index writing only P a,b ; which two chains are inoled will always be clear from context. Likewise, we write P a when only one chain is inoled. We define M,Y as aboe and redefine: M W,Z = inf{t : t = Z t } W {, Y }. M good = M,Y and M bad = M,Z M Y,Z are defined as before. Again we are interested in uniform lower bounds on the probability of the eent {M good < M bad } that hae good dependence on the three speeds. Theorem 1.3. There exists c > such that the following holds. Let P be the transition matrix of a transitie and reersible chain with stationary distribution π and at least two states. Suppose that, Y and Z are three independent continuous time Marko chains with speeds λ = 1, λ Y 1 and λ Z < and transition matrix P started from π. Then P M good < M bad c 1 + λ Z + λ Y + λ Z 2. 2

3 The proof shows that we may take c = 1/4752, which implies a ersion of Theorem 1.2 with 1/4 replaced by 1/ The constant c most likely can be improed, but the dependence of the lower bound on λ Z is sharp when λ Z +. Indeed, if P is simple random walk oer a large complete graph with n ertices, then P M good M bad = 1 + λ Y 21 + λ Y + λ Z O 1, n where the term O1/n corresponds to the possibility of meetings at time. It is natural to ask if our theorems can be extended to all transitie chains. The next theorem shows that the answer is no for the more general Theorem 1.3. The theorem essentially asserts that there are graphs where typical meeting times are much smaller than typical hitting times. Theorem 1.4. For all ε > there exists a finite connected graph G such that if P corresponds to simple random walk on G and λ = 1, λ Y = and λ Z = 1, then P M good M bad < ε. On the other hand, we beliee that for certain alues of λ, λ Y and λ Z, uniersal lower bounds are possible without transitiity. Here is a concrete conjecture, which relates to the setting of Theorem 1.2. Conjecture 1.5. If λ Y = λ = 1 and λ Z =, the inequality P M good M bad 1/3 holds for all finite irreducible and reersible chains P. Alexander Holroyd personal communication pointed out an example showing that for any δ > there exist transitie chains for which P M good M bad 1/3 + δ. We describe this example in Section 6. This means that, if true, Conjecture 1.5 is best possible een for transitie chains. Howeer, we note that any uniform lower bound P M good M bad c > for all P, and for λ, λ Y and λ Z as in Conjecture 1.5, would be a new result. Remark 1.6. Without reersibility, the conjecture fails badly. Consider a clockwise continuous time random walk on a cycle of length 2n. More precisely, with P = p ij 1 i,j n we hae p ij = 1 if j = i + 1 mod n and p ij = otherwise. The distance between independent random walkers behaes as continuous time simple symmetric random walk reflected at and n. So started from stationarity, it typically takes such walkers time of order n 2 to meet. On the other hand, the hitting time of any point is at most of order n. Before we continue, we say a few words about the main proof ideas. The unifying theme of the proofs of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 is the relationship between meeting times and hitting times of single ertices when P is transitie. Aldous and Fill 1, Chapter 14/Proposition 5 and Chapter 3 hae related the expected alues of these random ariables ia martingales, and we use similar ideas to proe Theorem 1.2. For the proof of Theorem 1.3, we need a stronger result establishing identities in distribution of meeting and hitting times, which somewhat surprisingly seems to be new: see Lemma 3.5 below. The proof of Theorem 1.3 requires seeral other tools, including small time estimates for hitting times Lemma 3.4 and an occupation time formula for product chains Lemma

4 The proof of Theorem 1.4 builds a graph with two parts: the Up part concentrates the bulk of the stationary measure, but the Down part is where meetings tend to happen, and they happen fast. As a result, only a negligible fraction of the Up part is explored before and Z meet, and the upshot is that M,Y > M,Z with high probability. 2 The 1/4 lower bound In this section we proe Theorem 1.2. The argument is fairly short, and much simpler than the one for the more general Theorem 1.3. Before presenting the proof, we recall some standard facts about hitting times which are also used later on. The hitting time of a state Ω by is the first time t at which t =, i.e. := inf{t : t = }. 2.1 We define Y similarly and we also let t hit := max E π x x Ω and t hit := max E x. 2.2 x, Ω Wheneer there is no confusion, i.e. if there is a single chain in question, we will drop the dependence on or Y from the notation of the hitting times. Lemma 2.1. For any reersible chain with two or more states we hae < t hit 2t hit. Moreoer, if is a reersible and transitie chain, then for all x, Ω and all t we hae P x t = P x t. Proof. For a proof of the first assertion in discrete time we refer the reader to 3, Lemma 1.2. A proof of the symmetry property specific to transitie chains can be found in 1, Lemma 1, Chapter 7. Lemma 2.2 Aldous. Let P be an irreducible and reersible transition matrix. Suppose that and Y are independent continuous time Marko chains that jump at rate 1 according to the transition matrix P. For all x, Ω define fx, := E x. Then ft, +t, fy t, +t and f t, Y t +2t are martingales up to time for any initial states x, y Ω 2 and any Ω. S := M good M bad = M,Y Y, For a proof of the lemma aboe we refer the reader to 1, Chapter 14/Proposition 5 and Chapter 3. Proof of Theorem 1.2. Since and Y are two independent copies of the same chain, we hae E a b = Ea Y b for all a, b. By Lemma 2.2 we now get that Gt t is a martingale up to time S, where G t := E t + EYt Et Yt t. 4

5 This martingale is bounded because the state space is finite. The fact that the chain is finite and irreducible implies S < almost surely for all initial states. We deduce from optional stopping that EG = EG S. The left hand side aboe is gien by the quantity t hit defined in 2.2. This is because EG = E π + Eπ πye π y = Eπ, 2.3 where the second equality follows from the fact that for a transitie chain, E π y is independent of y. Using this a second time yields t hit = EG S. 2.4 y Ω On the other hand, at time S we hae two alternaties. If Y M good, either S =, and then G S = E YS E Ys, or YS =, in which case G S = E S ES. In both cases GS = : this is obiously true in the second case, and follows from Lemma 2.1 in the first case. On the other hand, if M good < Y, then G S = 2E S 2thit. We deduce that Plugging this into 2.4 gies G S 2t hit 1M good < Y. t hit 2 t hit P M good < M bad. Using that t hit 2t hit from Lemma 2.1 finishes the proof. 3 Towards the general lower bound In this section we collect the tools that we will use in the proof of Theorem 1.3. We first argue that the obious fix to the proof of Theorem 1.2 does not work in all cases. Indeed, a straightforward extension of Lemma 2.2 establishes that G t := f t, Z t + fy t, Z t 1 + λ Y + 2λ Z 1 + λ Y f t, Y t is a martingale up to time S. One can see that in this case EG = 1 2λ Z t hit 1 + λ, Y which easily yields P M good < M bad λ Z. 1 + λ Y In particular, we obtain the same bound as in Theorem 1.2 proided that λ Z = and λ. Howeer, this bound becomes useless when λ Z > 1+λ Y /2. Other linear combinations of f t, Z t, fy t, Z t and f t, Y t also fail to achiee our goal when λ Z is large. So, in general a different strategy is needed. 5

6 3.1 Hitting times for states and trajectories In this section we collect some results on hitting times for a single Marko chain. Recall the quantity t hit defined in 2.2. The next lemma shows that, up to a constant factor, t hit also bounds expected hitting times of moing targets, from arbitrary initial states. This lemma is essentially due to Olieira 4, Lemma 1.1, but in this particular form it appeared in 5. Lemma 3.1. Let be a reersible Marko chain taking alues in Ω and h = h t t a deterministic, càdlàg, Ω-alued trajectory. If h := inf{t : t = h t }, then for any x Ω, E x h 11 t hit. Proof. In 5 using 4, Lemma 1.1 it is proed that E x h c t hit. for a uniersal constant c >, where t hit is as in 2.2. Inspection of the proof 5 shows that c 4 + 5/4, therefore 2c 11. Lemma 2.1 finishes the proof. For a reersible transition matrix P we let λ = max i 2 λ i, where 1 = λ 1 λ 2 λ 3,... are its eigenalues in decreasing order. We define the relaxation time ia t rel = 1 λ 1. The next lemma bounds the probability that is small for reersible chains. Clearly, if no assumption is made on and on the starting state x, such an estimate cannot be ery good think of two adjacent points on a path. The next lemma shows that if we choose the right starting state, and only consider the majority of possible target states, we can show that dominates an exponential random ariable with mean t rel. This will be used later to upper bound the probability that /t hit is ery small. Lemma 3.2. Let be a reersible chain. There exist x Ω and a subset A Ω with stationary measure πa 1/2 such that, if A := min A, then for any t >, P x A > t e t t rel. Proof. We use the spectral theory of reersible chains 1, Section 3.4. The first step is to note that P has a non-ero eigenfunction ϕ : Ω R such that P ϕ = 1 1 ϕ. t rel This eigenfunction is orthogonal to the constant eigenfunction in the inner product induced by π, so it must take both positie and negatie alues. We may assume without loss of generality that the set A := { Ω : ϕ } has measure πa 1/2 if that is not the case, replace ϕ with ϕ. Choose x Ω with ϕx > as large as possible. On one hand t >, u Ω : E u ϕ t = e tp I ϕu = e t t rel ϕu

7 In particular, for all u A we hae E u ϕ t. Since A A, the strong Marko property then gies E x ϕ t 1 A t = E x E A ϕ t A 1 A t E x 1 A t =. Plugging this into 3.1 with the choice u = x, and recalling ϕ t ϕx always, we obtain e t t rel ϕx = E x ϕ t E x ϕ t 1 A > t ϕx P x A > t. Diiding both sides by ϕx which is > finishes the proof. 3.2 Results for transitie chains In this section we proe results on hitting times under the assumption that P is transitie and reersible A small-time estimate for hitting times We start by recalling a result which follows from the complete positiity of the law of when starting from π together with bounds from Aldous and Brown 2. Lemma 3.3 Aldous-Brown. Let P be an irreducible and reersible chain. Define fs = E π s > s for all s >. Then f is an increasing function and sup fs E π + t rel. s Proof. Let Q = I P and Q be the restriction of Q to Ω \ {}. We recall the complete positiity of the law of starting from π see for instance 2, eqn. 18: there exist non-negatie constants p i, 1 i n such that for all t m P π > t = p i e γit, where < γ 1 <... < γ m are the distinct eigenalues of Q. Note that γ 1 1 = E α, where α is any quasistationary distribution on Ω \ {} corresponding to the eigenalue γ 1. Using the aboe representation we can rewrite f as follows fs = s i=1 P π > t P π > s dt = m i=1 p ie γ is /γ i m i=1 p ie γ is. A straightforward differentiation now gies that f is increasing. From the aboe expression we also deduce From 2, Corollary 4 we hae lim s fs = 1 γ 1 = E α. 3.2 E α E π + t rel. Therefore, using this and the fact that f is increasing and 3.2 we conclude that for all s which completes the proof. fs E α E π + t rel 7

8 The next lemma essentially improes upon Lemma 3.2 from Section 3.1. Lemma 3.4. Suppose that P is reersible and transitie. Then for any x Ω, there exists a subset A x Ω with πa x 1/2 such that, for any θ >, 1 πp x θ t hit 6 θ πa x A x Proof. By Lemma 3.2 there exists x Ω and a set A = A x with πa x 1/2 such that P x A > t e t t rel. Since the chain is transitie, this in fact holds for all x. We now fix x Ω and θ >. We will consider two cases separately: t rel < θ t hit and t rel θ t hit. Suppose first that t rel θ t hit. Since P x > t P x A > t for all A, we obtain 1 π P x > θ t hit e θ t hit t rel 1 θ t hit 1 θ πa t rel A which concludes the proof in this case. Suppose next that t rel < θ t hit. In this case it suffices to proe Ω : P π > θ t hit 1 3 θ. 3.3 To see that this suffices, we use the fact that P is transitie and apply Lemma 2.1 to obtain that P x > t is symmetric in x and. As a result, 3.3 implies Therefore we obtain 1 3 θ P π x > θ t hit = Ω Since πa 1/2, we conclude πp x > θ t hit = Ω πp x > θ t hit. πp x θ t hit 3 θ. 1 πa πp x θ t hit 6 θ. A It remains to proe 3.3. Since P is transitie, E π = t hit is independent of. Moreoer, we are assuming that t rel θ t hit, and hence using Lemma 2.1 we get that t rel 2 θ t hit so We now obtain for all s and for all Ω E π + t rel θ t hit. 3.4 t hit = E π s + E π s > s P π > s s + E π + t rel P π > s s θ t hit P π > s, where the second inequality follows from Lemma 3.3 and the final one from 3.4. Taking s = θ t hit gies P π > θ t hit 1 θ θ 1 2 θ. This now finishes the proof of 3.3, since for all Ω we hae P π > θt hit P π > 2θt hit θ 1 3 θ, where for the first inequality we used again Lemma

9 3.2.2 Distributional identities for meeting and hitting times Our next result shows that the distributions of hitting and meeting times are intimately related for transitie and reersible P. Lemma 3.5. Let P be a reersible and transitie transition matrix. Let, Y and Z be three independent continuous time Marko chains with speeds λ = 1, λ Y and λ Z and transition matrix P. Then for all x, Ω 2, the distribution of λ Y +λ Z under P x is the same as the distribution of M Y,Z under P x,. A special case of this lemma is when λ = λ Z = 1, in which case we obtain the following corollary of Lemma 3.5. E x, M,Z = 1 2 E x. This equality is well known and is usually proen by martingale methods such as the ones used in the proof of Theorem 1.2. Somewhat oddly, it seems that Lemma 3.5 is new, or at least was not widely known before. We also note the following corollary of Lemma 3.4 and Lemma 3.5. Corollary 3.6. Let P be a transitie and reersible transition matrix and let, Y and Z be three independent continuous time Marko chains with speeds λ = 1 and λ Y, λ Z respectiely and transition matrix P. Then for all x Ω there exists a subset A x Ω with πa x 1/2 such that: and 1 πa x 1 πa x Proof of Lemma 3.5. Define the functions π P x, M,Z θ t hit λz θ A x π P x, M Y,Z θ t hit 6 λy + λ Z θ. A x g x, t := P x λ Y + λ Z t and f x, t := P x, M Y,Z t x, Ω 2, t. We will be done once we show that g x, t = f x, t for all x, Ω 2 and t. These equalities are true by inspection when t =. We are going to show that the functions f x, x, Ω 2 and g x, x, Ω 2 satisfy the same linear system of ordinary differential equations with the deriaties at t = interpreted as right deriaties. Then the equality for all t will follow from the general uniqueness theory of linear ODE s. To proe that f and g satisfy the same system of ODE s, we will use a standard formula for the cumulatie distribution function of a hitting time. If V t t is an irreducible continuous time Marko chain oer a set Ω V with transition rates q, w, and A Ω V is a nonempty subset of the state space, the hitting time A V of A by V satisfies d dt P V A t {, A; = w V q, w P w V A t P V A t, Ω V \A. The deriatie is understood as a right deriatie at time t =. Let = {x, x : x Ω} Ω 2 be the diagonal set. We first apply 3.5 to the product chain V t t = Y t, Z t t, with Ω V = Ω 2, and A =. In this case A V = M Y,Z, and a straightforward computation with the transition rates gies: d dt f x,t =, x = λ Y x Ω P x, x f x,t f x, t +λ Z Ω P, f x, t f x, t, x

10 We now apply the same formula 3.5 with V t t = t t. Note that g x, t := P x st where st = λ Y + λ Z t, so the chain rule implies d dt g x,t = {, x = λ Y + λ Z x Ω P x, x g x,t g x, t, x. 3.7 We will now make crucial use of transitiity, which allows us to use Lemma 2.1 to deduce that P x λ Y + λ Z t is symmetric in x and, i.e. P x λ Y + λ Z t = P x λ Y + λ Z t, that is g x, = g,x for all x,. This allows us to reerse the roles of x and in 3.7 to obtain: d dt g x,t = {, x = λ Y + λ Z Ω P, g x, t g x, t, x. 3.8 We add the two formulas 3.7 and 3.8 with weights λ Y /λ Y +λ Z and λ Z /λ Y +λ Z respectiely. The upshot is: d dt g x,t =, x = λ Y x Ω P x, x g x,t g x, t +λ Z Ω P, g x, t g x, t, x. This is precisely the system of ODEs we obtained for the f s in 3.6 and it concludes the proof. 4 The general lower bound In this section we proe Theorem 1.3. Proof of Theorem 1.3. We let n = Ω denote the number of states. The transitiity assumption implies π = 1/n for all Ω. The next lemma will be used in the proof. We defer its proof until Section 4.1. Lemma 4.1. Let P be a reersible and transitie transition matrix. Let, Y and Z be three independent continuous time chains with transition matrix P and speeds λ = 1 and λ Y, λ Z. Let µ be the probability measure gien by µa := P M good, Y M good, Z M good A M good < M bad for A Ω Ω Ω. 4.1 Then + P µ t = Y t, t < M bad dt 22 t hit n. Our proof is based on the analysis of the time that, Y spend on the diagonal = {x, x : x Ω} prior to time M bad, i.e. T := M bad 1 t = Y t dt = Note that M good < M bad if and only if T >, so ET = E T M good < M bad P M good < M bad 1 t = Y t, t < M bad dt

11 = E µ 1 t = Y t, t < M bad dt P M good < M bad = P M good < M bad P µ t = Y t, t < M bad dt. 4.3 Lemma 4.1 upper bounds the integral appearing aboe. Thus in order to obtain a lower bound for P M good < M bad it suffices to lower bound ET = P t = Y t, t < M bad dt. 4.4 Using reersibility and the fact that π is uniform for a transitie chain we obtain P t = Y t, t < M bad = P t = Y t, s t, s Z s and Y s Z s = P = Y, s t, s Z s and Y s Z s P x,x, s t, s Z s and Y s Z s = = x Ω, Ω\{x} x Ω, Ω\{x} x Ω P x,x, M bad > t n 3 Ω n 3 = 1 n x, Ω πx π P x,x, M bad > t. Plugging this back into 4.4 gies E T = 1 πx π P n x,x, M bad > t dt. 4.5 At this point we recall that M bad = M,Y M Y,Z, therefore x, Ω 2 ; P x,x, M bad > t 1 P x, M,Z t P x, M Y,Z t. By Corollary 3.6, for each x Ω there exists a subset A x with πa x 1/2 for which we hae the following bound for all t > M bad > t πa x λ Z + t λ Y + λ Z. t hit A x πp x,x, Therefore, fixing ξ > and x Ω: ξ π P x,x, M bad > t dt 1 π 2 Ω πa x P x,x, M bad > t dt A x 1 ξ λ Z + t λ Y + λ Z dt 2 t hit = ξ λ Z + ξ λ Y + λ Z. 2 We can maximie the right hand side by taking ξ := t hit λ Z + λ Y + λ Z 2, 11 t hit

12 which gies the bound x Ω : Ω Combining this with 4.5 gies that π P x,x, M bad > t dt ET t hit 216 n 1 + λ Z + λ Y + λ Z 2. Therefore, using this together with Lemma 4.1 and 4.3 we conclude and this finishes the proof. P M good < M bad t hit λ Z + λ Y + λ Z λ Z + λ Y + λ Z Occupation time up to a stopping time The goal of this section is to proe Lemma 4.1. We start with a more general setting. We gie the proof of the lemma at the end of the section. It is well known that a finite irreducible chain V t t with state space Ω V, started from a point x and stopped at a stopping time > with V = x, satisfies: Ω V : E x 1 t = dt = π V E x, where π V is the unique stationary measure of V t t some simple conditions on are necessary for this. There are also extensions of this lemma to the case where V and V are not necessarily equal, but hae the same distribution 1, Proposition 2.4, Chapter 2. The following lemma extends this idea een further, and shows that may be a stopping time for a larger Marko chain. Lemma 4.2. Suppose U t t, V t t are independent, irreducible, continuous time Marko chains with finite state spaces Ω U and Ω V respectiely. Assume µ is a probability measure oer Ω U Ω V and that is a stopping time for the process U t, V t t with the following properties. 1 P µ > = 1; 2 E µ <. 3 P µ V = = P µ V =. Then for all Ω V E µ where π V is the stationary distribution of V. 1V t = dt = E µ π V Proof. In this proof we will interchange integrals, expectations and summations seeral times. Instead of justifying this at each step, we note right away that all of these interchanges are alid, because the integrands are non-negatie. 12

13 Consider the row ector h with nonnegatie coordinates h := E µ 1V t = dt = P µ V t =, > t dt Ω V. Note that V h = E µ > because > a.s.. Letting Q be the generator of V t t, we will show below that hq =. 4.6 This identity implies that h/e µ is one inariant probability distribution for V. Since π V is the unique inariant distribution, we deduce that for all Ω V which is precisely what we need to proe. We will derie hq = from the limit h E µ = π V, Ω V h e ε Q h : h Q = lim. 4.7 ε ε In order to compute the limit we recall e ε Q w, = P w ε = for all w, Ω V. Therefore h e ε Q = w Ω V hw P w V ε = = w Ω V P µ V t = w, > t P w V ε = dt. Crucially, the fact that is a stopping time for U, V implies that the eent {V t = w, > t} is measurable with respect to U s, V s s t. Using that V and U eole independently and the Marko property for V implies P µ V t = w, > t P w V ε = = P µ V t = w, > t P µ V t+ε = V t = w, > t Plugging this back in the preious display gies h e ε Q = The first term is = P µ V t+ε =, > t dt = P µ V t = w, V t+ε =, > t. P µ V t+ε =, > t + ε dt + P µ V t+ε =, t t + ε dt =: I + II. 4.8 I = ε P µ V t =, > t dt = h ε P µ V t =, > t dt, so I h P µ V = µ, > = P µ V = 4.9 ε because > always. Regarding the second term, we hae II = P µ V t =, V =, t + ε dt + 13 P µ V t =, V, t + ε dt. 4.1

14 For the first term on the right hand side aboe we obtain lim ε P µ V t =, V =, t + ε dt = P µ V = ε As for the second term in the sum in 4.1 we get = P µ V t =, V, t + ε dt = E µ 1 t + εp µ V t =, V dt. E µ P µ V t =, V, t + ε dt On the eent { t + ε} in order to hae V t = and V, there must exist at least one jump of the Marko chain in the time interal, t, which on this eent has length less than ε. Therefore, we obtain that on the eent { t + ε} Therefore we deduce Hence this together with 4.11 gies that P µ V t =, V = Oε. E µ 1 t + εp µ V t =, V dt = Oε 2. II ε Combining this with 4.9 and 4.8 gies: h e ε Q h ε P µ V = as ε. P µ V = P µ V = Our assumption that P µ V = = P µ V = implies that the right hand side aboe is ero. Plugging this back into 4.7 gies hq = and finishes the proof. Proof of Lemma 4.1. We want to eentually use Lemma 4.2 to estimate the integral, which we can rewrite as P µ t = Y t, t < M bad dt = M bad E µ 1 t = Y t = x dt x Ω This is a sum of terms of the form demanded by Lemma 4.2: just set U t t = Z t t and V t t = t, Y t t. Howeer, other conditions are needed for this lemma to apply, and one of them clearly fails: the distribution of, Y is not the same as that of M bad, Y M bad. To see this, simply note that whereas = Y under µ as we will see below, typically M bad Y M bad. It turns out that we can circument this problem by defining = inf{t M bad : t = Y t } Note that t Y t for all M bad t <. Therefore P µ t = Y t, t < M bad dt = E µ 1 t = Y t = x dt x Ω 14

15 Clearly is a stopping time for t, Y t, Z t t. We claim that and the initial distribution µ satisfy the conditions 1 3 of Lemma 4.2. First, P µ > = 1, since P µ = Y Z = 1 and P µ M bad > = 1. Hence condition 1 of Lemma 4.2 is satisfied. Next we show that E µ 22t hit, 4.15 which will imply that condition 2 is also satisfied. Recalling that = inf{t M bad : t = Y t }, we hae E µ max E x,y, M bad + max M good. x,y, x,y, E x,y, The first expectation is at most the meeting time of and Z, which is independent of Y. Lemma 3.1 implies that, conditionally on Z, this is at most 11t hit almost surely, so E x,y, M bad 11t hit. Similarly, M good is the meeting time of and the independent trajectory Y, and E x,y, M good 11t hit. Note now that by definition µ is supported on the set {x, x, : x }. One can also check that µ is inariant under the action of any automorphism ϕ of P, i.e. µx, y, = µϕx, ϕy, ϕ. This together with transitiity gie that the marginal of µ on the first two coordinates is uniform on the diagonal set = {x, x Ω 2 : x Ω}. Similarly the law of, Y is inariant under the action of any automorphism ϕ. Using transitiity again we obtain that, Y is uniform on. Therefore, condition 3 is also satisfied. We can now apply Lemma 4.2 to get that P µ t = Y t, t < M bad dt = E µ n 2 22 t hit n, x Ω where the inequality follows from This concludes the proof. 5 Non transitie chains The goal of this section is to proe Theorem 1.4. Throughout the section we fix ε > and let C = 6/ε. In what follows K r is the complete graph on r N \ {} ertices. For n N construct a graph G n as follows: begin from a clique K n+1 and n disjoint copies of K k with k = Cn. Fix a ertex K n+1 and add exactly one edge from to each copy of K k. See Figure 1 for a depiction of the graph. Let Ω be the ertex set of G n. We call Down the set of ertices belonging to K n+1 and Up = Ω\Down the rest. Let P be the transition matrix of a simple random walk oer G and π its stationary distribution. Let, Y and Z be independent random walks starting from π with transition matrix P and speeds λ = 1, λ Y = and λ Z = 1. The idea is that by choosing ε sufficiently small, the stationary measure of Down becomes arbitrarily small. So if we start, Y and Z according to π, then it is ery likely they will all start from different cliques in Up. Let T be the n-th time that isits the ertex. We will show that as n the probability that and Z collide after time T is arbitrarily small. Moreoer, we will show that the probability that and Y collide before T is arbitrarily small as n. Combining these two assertions will complete the proof. 15

16 n K k K k K k K n+1 Figure 1: The graph G For all r we define r to be the time of the r-th isit to. Formally, and for i 1 we define i = inf{t : t = } = inf{t > i 1 : t =, t }. Lemma 5.1. There exists α = αc > independent of n such that for all x, Ω and all r 1 we hae P x, M,Z > r 1 α r 1. Proof. First note that by the strong Marko property we hae for all r 1 sup P x, M,Z > r sup P, M,Z > r 1. x, Using the strong Marko property again, for r 1 we obtain sup P, M,Z > r = sup P, M,Z > r M,Z > 1 P, sup P,w w M,Z > r 1 sup P, M,Z > 1 By induction for all r 1 this yields r sup P, M,Z > r sup P, M,Z > 1. M,Z > 1 So we complete the proof by showing that sup P, M,Z > 1 1 α 5.1 for a positie constant α depending only on C. 16.

17 Let = inf{t : Z t Down \ {}} and fix w Down \ {}. By symmetry, for all we then hae P, M,Z min P w, min P a,b M,Z, a,b Down\{} where the factor 1/2 corresponds to the probability that the first time jumps it goes to Down\{}. If = a Down \ {}, then =, and hence if also b Down \ {}, then P a,b M,Z P a,b M,Z Z 1 = 2. It remains to show that for a positie constant c 1 we hae min P w, c 1 >. 5.2 If Down \ {}, then this probability is 1 and if = it is easily seen to be at least 1/4. So we assume that Up. Let x be the unique neighbour of lying in the same clique as. Then the time can be expressed as = T,x + T x, + T,Down\{}, where the time T r,s stands for the first hitting time of S starting from r. Using this, it is then not hard to see that there exists a positie constant c such that uniformly oer all Up we hae E ck 2. Moreoer, if Down \ {}, then is an exponential random ariable with mean n. By Marko s inequality we obtain P w, P 2E P w 2E 1 2 ne ns ds = 1 2 e 2nE. Note that this bound does not depend on. Since k = Cn and E ck 2 the bound in 5.2 follows. Proof of Theorem 1.4. We show that for n sufficiently large, the graph G = G n satisfies the claim of the theorem. It is not hard to erify that for n large enough, in G n we hae πdown 2 C. Let A be the set of pairs x, y such that y Up and x is not in the same clique as y. Then let E = {, Y A}. By the preceding bound PE c 3/C = ε/2 for n large enough. We then hae P M good M bad P M,Y M,Z = P M,Y M,Z, E + P M,Y M,Z, E c 2E sup P x,y, M,Y M,Z + ε x,y,: x,y A Therefore, it suffices to upper bound the last probability appearing aboe. Fix any Ω and x, y A. For r to be determined later we hae P x,y, M,Y M,Z P x,y M,Y r + P x, M,Z > r. 5.4 Because Y is not moing, we hae M,Y = y, where y = Y. Since x, y are not in the same clique of Up, if y r, then there exists 1 i r such that i 1 property and union bound we obtain P x,y M,Y r rp 17 y 1 < y i. By the strong Marko r 2n,

18 since, when =, in order to hit y Up before returning to, the first time moes it must jump into the clique that contains y. Using the aboe bound and Lemma 5.1 in 5.4 we deduce P x,y, M,Y M,Z r 2n + 1 αr 1. Taking r = n or any other function of n that goes to infinity slower than n gies that P x,y, M,Y M,Z as n. We conclude from 5.3 that P M good M bad < ε and this finishes the proof. 6 Sharpness of Conjecture 1.5 In this section we describe the example pointed out by Alexander Holroyd, mentioned in the Introduction, of a family of transitie graphs for which P M good M bad 1/3 + δ. In what follows we take λ = λ Y = 1 and λ Z =. To construct the example, fix ε, 1 and consider the chain with state space {, 1} n in which the j th coordinate changes alue from to 1 or ice-ersa at rate q j = ε j 1 1 ε/1 ε n ; note that n i=1 q i = 1. The idea is that for small ε, earlier coordinates change state much more quickly than later coordinates, so the primary obstacle to both meeting and hitting is simply the largest coordinate in which the alue differs. For u, {, 1} n, let ku, = max{i : u i i }, or ku, = if u =. We claim that for x, y, {, 1} n, if kx, y > minkx,, ky, then P x,y, M good < M bad < 2εn. Assuming this, and taking ε = δ/2n, it follows by symmetry that, starting from stationarity, P M good < M bad δ + Pk, Y < mink, Z, ky, Z < δ It thus remains to proe the preceding claim. Fix x, y, {, 1} n with kx, y > minkx,, ky,, and assume by symmetry that kx, < kx, y. For 1 k n, let k = min{t : i t = i, 1 i k} be the first time that t and agree in the first k coordinates. It is conenient to set =. Also, let σk = min{t : i k, i t i } be the first time one of the last n k + 1 coordinates of changes, and define σk Y accordingly. We will show that for all 1 k < n, P k < σ k+1 1 ε k 1 kε. 6.1 Note that k, σk+1 and σy k+1 are all independent. Furthermore, σ k+1 and σy k+1 are identically distributed, so if the preceding inequality holds as written then it also holds with σk+1 Y in place of σk+1. We finish proing the claim assuming that 6.1 holds, then conclude by proing 6.1. At time kx,, the first kx, coordinates of agree with those of. If kx, < σkx,+1 then the remaining coordinates of and also agree because they did at time and they hae not changed, 18

19 so M,Z = kx,. Similarly, if kx, < σkx,+1 and kx, < σkx,+1 Y then M bad < M good. It then follows, using 6.1 and the subsequent obseration, that P x,y, M good < M bad P σkx,+1 kx, + P σkx,+1 Y kx, 2kx, ε < 2nε, as claimed. It thus remains to proe 6.1. In what follows we write σ k = σ k. Fix 1 k < n, and note that σ k is exponential with rate n j=k q j = ε k 1 1 ε n+1 k /1 ε n. Furthermore, σ k < σ k+1 precisely if the k th coordinate of changes before any larger coordinate. It follows that Pσ k < σ k+1 = q k / n j=k q j. Suppose that k = k. In this case to hae k < σ k+1 it suffices that k 1 < σ k, so k P k < σ k+1 = k P k 1 < σ k. If k k then the k th coordinate must change before time k, so to hae k < σ k+1 it is necessary that σ k < σ k+1. By the strong Marko property, we then hae k k P k < σ k+1 k = Pσ k < σ k+1 P k < σ k+1 = k q k = k n j=k q P k < σ k+1 = k j We thus hae the unconditional bound P k < σ k+1 1 ε 1 ε n+1 k P k 1 < σ k. 1 ε 1 ε n+1 k P k 1 < σ k > 1 εp k 1 < σ k, This bound holds for all 1 k < n; since = we also hae P < σ 1 = 1, and 6.1 follows. Acknowledgements The authors thank the Bellairs Institute, Microsoft Research and the Isaac Newton Institute, where parts of this work were completed. References 1 Daid Aldous and James Fill. Reersible Marko Chains and Random Walks on Graphs. In preparation, aldous/rwg/book.html. 2 Daid J. Aldous and Mark Brown. Inequalities for rare eents in time-reersible Marko chains. I. In Stochastic inequalities Seattle, WA, 1991, olume 22 of IMS Lecture Notes Monogr. Ser., pages Inst. Math. Statist., Hayward, CA, Daid A. Lein, Yual Peres, and Eliabeth L. Wilmer. Marko chains and mixing times. American Mathematical Society, Proidence, RI, 29. With a chapter by James G. Propp and Daid B. Wilson. 19

20 4 Roberto Imbueiro Olieira. On the coalescence time of reersible random walks. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 3644: , Perla Sousi and Peter Winkler. Mixing times and moing targets. Combin. Probab. Comput., 233:46 476,