arxiv: v3 [math.pr] 10 Nov 2017

Transcription

1 Harmonic measure for biased random walk in a supercritical Galton Watson tree Shen LIN LPMA, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France -mail: shenlinmath@gmailcom arxiv:70708v3 mathpr 0 Nov 207 November 3, 207 Abstract We consider random walks λ-biased towards the root on a Galton Watson tree, whose offspring distribution (p k k is non-degenerate and has finite mean m > In the transient regime 0 < λ < m, the loop-erased trajectory of the biased random walk defines the λ- harmonic ray, whose law is the λ-harmonic measure on the boundary of the Galton Watson tree We answer a question of Lyons, Pemantle and Peres 8 by showing that the λ-harmonic measure has as strictly larger Hausdorff dimension than the visibility measure, which is the harmonic measure corresponding to the simple forward random walk We also prove that the average number of children of the vertices along the λ-harmonic ray is as bounded below by m and bounded above by m k 2 p k Moreover, at least for 0 < λ, the average number of children of the vertices along the λ-harmonic ray is as strictly larger than that of the λ-biased random walk trajectory We observe that the latter is not monotone in the bias parameter λ Keywords random walk, harmonic measure, Galton Watson tree, stationary measure AMS 200 Classification Numbers 60J5, 60J80 Introduction Consider a Galton Watson tree T rooted at e with a non-degenerate offspring distribution (p k k 0 We suppose that p 0 = 0, p k < for all k, and the mean offspring number m = k kp k (, So the Galton Watson tree T is supercritical and leafless Let T be the space of all infinite rooted trees with no leaves The law of T is called the Galton Watson measure GW on T For every vertex x in T, let ν(x stand for its number of children We denote by x the parent of x and by xi, i ν(x, the children of x For λ 0, conditionally on T, the λ-biased random walk (X n n 0 on T is a Markov chain starting from the root e, such that, from the vertex e all transitions to its children are equally likely, whereas for every vertex x T different from e, P T (X n+ = x X n = x = P T (X n+ = xi X n = x = λ ν(x + λ, ν(x + λ, for every i ν(x Supported in part by the grant ANR-4-C (ANR GRAAL

2 Note that λ = corresponds to the simple random walk on T, and λ = 0 corresponds to the simple forward random walk with no backtracking Lyons established in 5 that (X n n 0 is almost surely transient if and only if λ < m Throughout this work, we assume λ < m and hence the λ-biased random walk is always transient For a vertex x T, let x stand for the graph distance from the root e to x Let T denote the boundary of T, which is defined as the set of infinite rays in T emanating from the root Since (X n n 0 is transient, its loop-erased trajectory defines a unique infinite ray Ξ λ T, whose distribution is called the λ-harmonic measure We call Ξ λ the λ-harmonic ray in T For different rays ξ, η T, let ξ η denote the vertex common to both ξ and η that is farthest from the root We define the metric d(ξ, η := exp( ξ η for ξ, η T, ξ η Under this metric, the boundary T has as Hausdorff dimension log m Lyons, Pemantle and Peres 6, 7 showed the dimension drop of harmonic measure: for all 0 λ < m, the Hausdorff dimension of the λ-harmonic measure is as a constant d λ < log m The 0-harmonic measure associated with the simple forward random walk was called visibility measure in 6 Its Hausdorff dimension is as equal to the constant k (log kp k = GWlog ν, where we write ν = ν(e for the offspring number under GW Recently, Berestycki, Lubetzky, Peres and Sly 4 applied the dimension drop result d < log m to show cutoff for the mixing time of simple random walk on a random graph starting from a typical vertex The Hausdorff dimension of the 0-harmonic measure was similarly used in 4 and independently used by Ben-Hamou and Salez in 3 to determine the mixing time of the non-backtracking random walk on a random graph The primary result of this work answers a question of Ledrappier posed in 8 This question is also stated as Question 728 in Lyons and Peres book 9 Theorem For all λ (0, m, we have d λ > GWlog ν, meaning that the Hausdorff dimension of the λ-harmonic measure is as strictly larger than the Hausdorff dimension of the 0-harmonic measure Moreover, lim d λ 0 + λ = GWlog ν and lim d λ m λ = log m When λ increases to the critical value m, it is non-trivial that the support of the λ-harmonic measure has its Hausdorff dimension tending to that of the whole boundary Besides, Jensen s inequality implies GWlog ν > log GWν The preceding theorem thus improves the lower bound d λ > log GWν shown by Virág in Corollary 72 of The proof of Theorem originates from the construction of a probability measure µ HARMλ on T that is stationary and ergodic for the harmonic flow rule In Section 4 below, its Radon Nikodým derivative with respect to GW is given by (7 Note that an equivalent formula is also obtained independently by Rousselin 0 We derive afterwards an explicit expression for the dimension d λ, and prove Theorem in Section 5 Our way to find the harmonic-stationary measure µ HARMλ is inspired by a recent work of Aïdékon, in which he found the explicit stationary measure of the environment seen from a λ-biased random walk It renders possible an application of the ergodic theory on Galton Watson trees developed in 6 to the biased random walk After introducing the escape probability of λ-biased random walk on a tree in Section 2, we will give a precise description of Aïdékon s stationary measure in Section 3 Apart from the Hausdorff dimension of harmonic measure, another quantity of interest is the average number of children of vertices visited by the harmonic ray Ξ λ or the λ-biased random 2

3 walk (X n n 0 on T For an infinite path x = (x k k 0 in T, if the limit lim n n n ν(x k k=0 exists, we call it the average number of children of the vertices along the path x Section 6 will be devoted to comparing the average number of children of vertices along different random paths in T The main results in this direction are summarized in the following way Theorem 2 (i For all λ (0, m, the average number of children of the vertices along the λ-harmonic ray Ξ λ is as strictly larger than m, and strictly smaller than m k 2 p k ; (ii The average number of children of the vertices along the λ-biased random walk (X n n 0 is as strictly smaller than m when λ (0,, equal to m when λ = 0 or, and strictly larger than m when λ (, m; (iii For λ (0,, the average number of children of the vertices along the λ-harmonic ray Ξ λ is as strictly larger than the average number of children of the vertices along the λ-biased random walk (X n n 0 Assertion (iii above is a direct consequence of assertions (i and (ii We conjecture that the same result holds for all λ (0, m, not merely for λ (0, Assertion (i in Theorem 2 was first suggested by some numerical calculations concerning the case λ = mentioned at the end of Section 70 in 9 By the strong law of large numbers, the average number of children seen by the simple forward random walk is as equal to m On the other hand, the uniform measure on the boundary of T can be defined by putting mass uniformly on the vertices of level n in T and taking the weak limit as n We say that a random ray in T is uniform if it is distributed according to the uniform measure on T When (k log kpk <, the uniform measure on T has as Hausdorff dimension log m, and the uniform ray in T can be identified with the distinguished infinite path in a size-biased Galton Watson tree In particular, the average number of children seen by the uniform ray in T is equal to m k 2 p k For more details we refer the reader to Section 6 of 6 or Chapter 7 of 9 The FKG inequality for product measures (also known as the Harris inequality turns out to be extremely useful in proving Theorem 2 In Section 6, assertion (i will be derived from Propositions 6 and 7, while assertion (ii will be shown as Proposition 8 It is worth pointing out that the average number of children seen by the λ-biased random walk is not monotone with respect to λ, because its right continuity at 0 (established in Proposition 9, together with assertion (ii in Theorem 2, implies that the average number of children seen by the λ-biased random walk cannot be monotonic nondecreasing for all λ (0, This lack of monotonicity might be explained by two opposing effects of having a small bias λ: on one hand, it helps the random walk to escape faster to infinity, and a high-degree path is in favour of the escape of the λ-biased random walk, but on the other hand, small bias implies less backtracking, so the λ-biased random walk spends less time on high-degree vertices We close this introduction by mentioning that the following question from 8 remains open Question Is the dimension d λ of the λ-harmonic measure nondecreasing for λ (0, m? Taking into account the previous discussion, we find it intriguing to ask a similar question: Question 2 Is the average number of children of the vertices along the λ-harmonic ray nondecreasing for λ (0, m? Does the same monotonicity holds for the average number of children of the vertices along the λ-biased random walk? 3

4 2 scape probability and the effective conductance For a tree T T rooted at e, we define T as the tree obtained by adding to e an extra adjacent vertex e, called the parent of e The new tree T is naturally rooted at e For a vertex u T, the descendant tree T u of u is the subtree of T formed by those edges and vertices which become disconnected from the root of T when u is removed By definition, T u is rooted at u Unless otherwise stated, we assume λ (0, m in the rest of the paper Under the probability measure P T, let (X n n 0 denote a λ-biased random walk on T For any vertex u T, define τ u := min{n 0: X n = u} the hitting time of u, with the usual convention that min = Let β λ (T := P T (τ e = X 0 = e = P T ( n, X n e X 0 = e be the probability of never visiting the parent e of e when starting from e For notational ease, we will make implicit the dependency in λ of the escape probability by writing β(t = β λ (T For GW-ae T, 0 < β(t < By coupling with a biased random walk on N, we see that β(t > λ Moreover, Lemma 42 of shows that 0 < GW λ + β(t < ( For a vertex u T, u =, the probability that a λ-harmonic ray in T passes through u is β(t u w = β(t w If the tree T is viewed as an electric network, and if the conductance of an edge linking vertices of level n and n + is λ n, then C λ (T denotes the effective conductance of T from its root to infinity As for the escape probability, we will write C(T for C λ (T to simplify the notation Using the link between reversible Markov chains and electric networks, we know that β(t = C(T = C(T λ + C(T and C(T = λβ(t β(t (2 This relationship between β(t and C(T will be used repeatedly Since C(T > β(t, the lower bound C(T > λ also holds Moreover, for x R, λ x C(T (λ + C(T ( + λ x + λ x = β(t x λ + β(t + x Taking x = C(T for another tree T yields the following identity Using (2 we can also verify that β(t C(T λ + β(t + C(T = β(t C(T λ + β(t + C(T (3 (λ + β(t + C(T ( + λ C(T = λ( + λ C(T ( + λ C(T = (λ + β(t + C(T ( + λ C(T (4 The following integrability result will be used to prove the inequality d λ > GWlog ν Lemma 3 For 0 < λ < m, we have GW log β(t < 4

5 Proof For a λ-biased random walk (X k k 0 on the tree T, let τ n := min{k 0: X k = n} be its hitting time of level n For a vertex u T, we define β n (u := P T (τ n < τ u X 0 = u the probability to hit level n before u when starting from u If the vertex u is at level n, clearly β n (u = We write, 2,, ν(e for the children of the root e The Markov property of random walk implies that ν(e i= β n (e = β n(i λ + ν(e i= β n(i See eg, Section 4 for the derivation Taking x = λ( ν(e i= β n(i and x 0 = λν(e x in the inequality log( + x log x + log( + x 0, we deduce that ( log β n (e = log λ + ν(e i= β log( + λ ν(e + log λ + log ν(e n(i i= β n(i Let ɛ < be some positive number For the descendant tree T i, we have β(t i β n (i Then, log ( ν(e i= β n(i log ( β n ( {βn(i ɛ, i 2} + log ɛ log β n ( {β(ti ɛ, i 2} + log ɛ By convention, the indicator functions involved above are equal to on the event {ν(e = } Taking expectation gives GW log GW log(λ + ν(e + log ɛ + GW log β n (e β n (e GW q ν(e ɛ where q ɛ := GW(β(T ɛ Notice that q ɛ 0 as ɛ 0 So we can take ɛ small enough such that A ɛ := GWq ν(e ɛ < Hence, writing B ɛ := GWlog(λ + ν(e + log ɛ <, we obtain GW log β n (e B ɛ A ɛ Letting n, we have β n (e β(t An application of Fatou s lemma finishes the proof 3 Stationary measure of the tree seen from random walk We set up some notation before presenting Aïdékon s stationary measure For a rooted tree T T, its boundary T is the set of all rays starting from the root Clearly, one can identify T with T Let T := {(T, ξ T T, ξ = (ξ n n 0 T } denote the space of trees with a marked ray By definition, ξ 0 coincides with the root vertex of T If T and T 2 are two trees rooted respectively at e and e 2, we define T T 2 as the tree 5,

6 rooted at the root e 2 of T 2 formed by joining the roots of T and T 2 by an edge The root e 2 is the parent of e in T T 2, thus we will not distinguish e 2 from (e Given a ray ξ T, there is a unique tree T + such that T = T ξ T + Therefore, T is in bijection with the space { (T T +, ξ T, T + T, ξ = (ξ n n 0 T } Introducing a marked ray helps us to keep track of the past trajectory of the biased random walk In particular, the initial starting point of the random walk, towards which the bias is exerted, would be represented by the marked ray at infinity To be more precise, if we assign a vertex u T to be the new root of the tree T, the re-rooted tree will be written as ReRoot(T, u Given ξ = (ξ n n 0 T, we say that x is the ξ-parent of y in T if x becomes the parent of y in the tree ReRoot(T, ξ n for all sufficiently large n A random walk on T is λ-biased towards ξ if the random walk always moves to its ξ-parent with probability λ times that of moving to one of the other neighbors We consider the Markov chain on T that, starting from some fixed tree T with a marked ray ξ = (ξ n n 0, is isomorphic to a random walk on T λ-biased towards ξ Recall that ν(ξ 0 is the number of edges incident to the root The transition probabilities p RWλ of this Markov chain are defined as follows: If T = ReRoot(T, x and ξ = (x, ξ 0, ξ, ξ 2, with a vertex x adjacent to ξ 0 being different from ξ, p RWλ ((T, ξ, (T, ξ = ν(ξ 0 + λ ; If T = ReRoot(T, ξ and ξ = (ξ, ξ 2,, Otherwise, p RWλ ((T, ξ, (T, ξ = 0 p RWλ ((T, ξ, (T, ξ = λ ν(ξ 0 + λ ; We proceed to define the environment measure that is invariant under re-rooting along a λ-biased random walk Let T and T + be two independent Galton Watson trees of offspring distribution (p k k 0 We write e for the root vertex of T, and e + for the root vertex of T + Let ν + denote the number of children of e + in T + Similarly, let ν denote the number of children of e in T Note that the number of children of e + in T T + is ν + + Conditionally on (T, T +, let R be a random ray in T distributed according to the λ-harmonic measure on T We assume that (T T +, R is defined under the probability measure P Definition The λ-augmented Galton Watson measure AGW λ is defined as the probability measure on T that is absolutely continuous with respect to the law of (T T +, R with density c λ (λ + ν + β(t λ + β(t + C(T +, (5 where is the normalizing constant (λ + ν + β(t c λ λ + β(t + C(T + 6

7 T T + R T k e e + T + 2 T + i T ν T + T T + ν + Figure : The random tree T T + rooted at e + with a marked ray R It follows from the inequality λ + C(T + > 0 that (λ + ν + β(t c λ λ + β(t + C(T + < λ + ν + = λ + m Let T +,, T+ ν + denote the descendant trees of the children of e + in T + With a slight abuse of notation, let T, T 2,, T ν denote the descendant trees of the children of e inside T See Fig for a schematic illustration By the parallel law of conductances, C(T + = ν + β(t + i and ν C(T = i= i= β(t i (6 We will frequently use the branching property that conditionally on ν +, the collection of trees {T, T +,, T+ ν + } are independent and identically distributed according to GW According to Theorem 4 in, the λ-augmented Galton Watson measure AGW λ is the asymptotic distribution of the environment seen from the λ-biased random walk on T Proposition 4 The Markov chain with transition probabilities p RWλ AGW λ is stationary and initial distribution Proof Let F : T R + and G: T R + be nonnegative measurable functions Let ( T T +, R denote the tree with a marked ray obtained from (T T +, R by performing a one-step transition according to p RWλ It suffices to show that (λ + ν + β(t λ + β(t + C(T + F ( T + G( T, R (λ + ν + β(t λ + β(t + C(T + F (T+ G(T, R To compute the left-hand side, we need to distinguish two different situations Case I: There exists i ν + such that the root of T + i becomes the new root of T T + For each i, ν +, it happens with probability /(ν + + λ In this case, T + = T + i and T = T T + i, 7

8 where T + i stands for the tree rooted at e+ containing only the descendant trees {T + j, j ν +, j i} together with the edges connecting their roots to e + It is easy to see that T + i and T T + i are two iid Galton Watson trees Meanwhile, R T is the ray R + obtained by adding the vertex e + to the beginning of the sequence R We set accordingly (λ + ν + β(t I : λ + β(t + C(T + β(t λ + β(t + C(T + ν + i= ν + i= ν + + λ F (T+ i G(T T+ i, R+ F (T + i G(T T+ i, R+ Given T and T +, we let R i be a random ray in the tree T T + i distributed according to the λ-harmonic measure on the tree boundary Then R + can be identified with R i conditionally on {R i T} We see that I is equal to β(t λ + β(t + C(T + λ + β(t + C(T + By symmetry, we deduce further that I ν + F (T + i G(T T+ i, R C(T T + i i {R i T} β(t i= ν + i= C(T T + λ + β(t + C(T + F (T+ G(T T+ F (T + i G(T T+ i, R i {R i T}C(T T + i (, R C(T T + λ + β(t + C(T + F (T+ G(T T+, R {R T} + ν + {R T + i } i=2 As β(t + C(T + = β(t + ν + i= β(t+ i = β(t+ + C(T T+, we obtain from the previous display that C(T I λ + β(t + + C(T F (T+ G(T, R Using (3 and (2, we get therefore β(t C(T + I λ + β(t + C(T + β(t + F (T+ G(T, R β(t(λ + C(T + λ + β(t + C(T + F (T+ G(T, R Case II: The vertex e becomes the new root of T T +, which happens with probability λ/(ν + + λ In this case, if R passes through the root of T k for some integer k, ν, then T = T k and T + = T + T k, where T k stands for the tree rooted at e formed by all descendant trees {T l, l ν, l k} together with the edges connecting their roots to e As in the previous case, T k and T + T k 8

9 are two independent Galton Watson trees But R is now the ray R obtained by deleting e from the beginning of the sequence R We set thus (λ + ν + β(t II : λ + β(t + C(T + λβ(t λ + β(t + C(T + λ ν ν + F (T + T k G(T k, R + λ {R T k } k= ν F (T + T k G(T k, R {R T k } k= Given T and T +, we let R k be a random ray in the tree T k distributed according to the λ- harmonic measure It follows that ν λβ(t II λ + β(t + C(T + F (T+ T k G(T k, R k β(t k C(T k= ν β(t k (λ + β(t + C(T + ( + λ C(T F (T+ T k G(T k, R k k= Using the identity (4, we see that (λ + β(t + C(T + ( + λ C(T = ( λ + β(t + + C(T ( + λ C(T + Together with (2, it implies = ( λ + β(t k + C(T + T k ( + λ C(T + ν β(t k ( + λ C(T + II λ + β(t k= k + C(T + T k F (T+ T k G(T k, R k ν β(t k ( β(t + λ + β(t k= k + C(T + T k F (T+ T k G(T k, R k Observe that the root of T + T k has ν children For any integer m k, the conditional law of (T k, T + T k given {ν = m} is the same as that of (T, T + conditionally on {ν + = m} Hence, we obtain ν + β(t( β(t + k II λ + β(t + C(T + F (T+ G(T, R k= β(t(ν + C(T + λ + β(t + C(T + F (T+ G(T, R Finally, adding up Cases I and II, we have (λ + ν + β(t λ + β(t + C(T + F ( T + G( T, R β(t(λ + C(T + λ + β(t + C(T + F (T+ G(T, R (λ + ν + β(t λ + β(t + C(T + F (T+ G(T, R, which completes the proof of the stationarity β(t(ν + C(T + + λ + β(t + C(T + F (T+ G(T, R 9

10 We write x for an infinite path (x n n 0 in T Let RW λ AGW λ be the probability measure on the space { ( x, (T, ξ (T, ξ T, x T } that is associated to the Markov chain considered in Proposition 4 It is given by choosing a tree T with a marked ray ξ according to AGW λ, and then independently running on T a random walk λ-biased towards ξ 4 Harmonic-stationary measure Let HARM T λ be the flow on the vertices of T in correspondence with the λ-harmonic measure on T, so that HARM T λ (u coincides with the mass given by the λ-harmonic measure to the set of all rays passing through the vertex u We denote by HARM λ the transition probabilities for a Markov chain on T, that goes from a tree T to the descendant tree T u, u =, with probability HARM T β(t u λ (u = w = β(t w = β(t u C(T The existence of a HARM λ -stationary probability measure µ HARMλ that is absolutely continuous with respect to GW was established in Lemma 52 of 7 Taking into account the stationary measure of the environment AGW λ, we can construct µ HARMλ as an induced measure by considering the λ-biased random walk at the exit epochs See 6, Section 8 and 7, Section 5 for more details According to Proposition 52 of 6, µ HARMλ is equivalent to GW and the associated HARM λ - Markov chain is ergodic rgodicity implies further that µ HARMλ is the unique HARM λ -stationary probability measure absolutely continuous with respect to GW Due to uniqueness, we can identify µ HARMλ via the next result Lemma 5 For every x > 0, set β(t x κ λ (x := GW λ + β(t + x The finite measure κ λ (C(T GW(dT is HARM λ -stationary β(tx λ + β(t + x Proof The function κ λ : R + R + is bounded and strictly increasing In fact, for GW-ae T, λ + β(t > 0 The function β(t x λ + β(t + x is strictly increasing in x, and it is bounded above by β(t Thus, κ λ (x < GWβ(T < We write ν for the offspring number of the root of T Conditionally on the event {ν = k}, let T,, T k denote the descendant trees of the children of the root In order to prove the HARM λ -stationarity, we must verify that for any bounded measurable function F on T, the integral F (T κ λ (C(T GW(dT is equal to k β(t i I := p k F (T i κ λ (C(T GW(dT ν = k β(t k= i= + + β(t k β(t = kp k F (T κ λ (C(T GW(dT ν = k β(t k= + + β(t k 0

11 Using the definition of κ λ and the branching property, we see that I is given by β(t 0 β(t kp k F (T λ + β(t k= 0 + β(t + + β(t k GW(dT ν = kgw(dt 0 β(t 0 β(t = kp k F (T λ + β(t k= 0 + β(t + + β(t k GW(dT 0GW(dT GW(dT k = p k F (T β(t (β(t 0 + β(t β(t k λ + β(t k= 0 + β(t + + β(t k GW(dT 0GW(dT GW(dT k β(t C(T = F (T λ + β(t + C(T GW(dT GW(dT Hence, it follows from (3 that β(t C(T I = F (T λ + β(t + C(T GW(dT GW(dT = F (T κ λ (C(T GW(dT, which finishes the proof We deduce from the preceding lemma that the Radon Nikodým derivative of µ HARMλ with respect to GW is as dµ HARMλ dgw (T = κ λ (C(T = h λ h λ where the normalizing constant h λ = β(t C(T λ + β(t + C(T GW(dT GW(dT β(t C(T λ + β(t + C(T GW(dT, (7 β(tc(t + λ + β(t + C(T + Writing R(T = C(T for the effective resistance, one can reformulate (7 as dµ HARMλ dgw (T = h λ λ (λ R(T R(T + R(T + R(T + λ GW(dT When λ =, it coincides with the expression of the same density in Section 8 of 6 As we can see in the proof of Lemma 5, the mesure µ HARMλ defined by (7 is still HARM λ - stationary when p 0 > 0 is allowed We also point out that the proof of Proposition 73 in 9 (corresponding to the case λ = can be adapted to derive (7 from the construction of µ HARMλ by inducing In a recent work 0, Rousselin develops a general result to construct explicit stationary measures for a certain class of Markov chains on trees Applying his result to the HARM λ - Markov chain considered above gives the same formula (7, see Theorem 4 in 0 5 Dimension of the harmonic measure Let T be a random tree distributed as µ HARMλ, and let Θ be the λ-harmonic ray in T If we denote the vertices along Θ by Θ 0, Θ,, then according to the flow property of harmonic measure, the sequence of descendant trees (T Θn n 0 is a stationary HARM λ -Markov chain In what follows,

12 we write HARM λ µ HARMλ for the law of (Θ, T on the space {(ξ, T T T, ξ T } Recall that the ergodicity of HARM λ µ HARMλ results from Proposition 52 in 6 As shown in 6, Section 5, the Hausdorff dimension d λ of the λ-harmonic measure coincides with the entropy ntropy HARMλ (µ HARMλ := log HARM T λ (ξ HARM λ µ HARMλ (dξ, dt Thus, by (2 we have d λ = = log C(T β(t ξ HARM λ µ HARMλ (dξ, dt log λβ(t β(t ξ ( β(t HARM λ µ HARMλ (dξ, dt By stationarity, d λ = log λ β(t µ HARM λ (dt = log ( C(T + λ µ HARMλ (dt, (8 provided the integral log β(t µ HARMλ (dt is finite Using the explicit form (7 of µ HARMλ, we see that this integral is equal to in which the expectation is less than β(t λ + β(t Notice that for x (0,, ( C(T + log h λ β(tc(t + λ + β(t + C(T + log β(t +, β(t + Hence, the product in (9 is bounded by β(t λ + β(t 0 < x x log x < GW λβ(t λ + β(t, λβ(t + β(t + log β(t + (9 which is finite according to ( Therefore, the formula (8 is justified By (7 again, we obtain d λ = h λ = h λ log ( C(T + λ β(t C(T λ + β(t + C(T GW(dT GW(dT log(c(t + β(tc(t + + λ λ + β(t + C(T + Now let us prove Theorem by first showing d λ > GWlog ν Recall that the function κ λ is strictly increasing The FKG inequality implies that log(c(t + β(tc(t + + λ λ + β(t + C(T + > log(c(t + + λ 2 β(tc(t + λ + β(t + C(T +

13 In view of the previous formula for d λ, it suffices to prove GWlog(C(T + λ GWlog ν In fact, the strict inequality holds Recall the notation that T,, T ν stand for the descendant trees of the children of the root in T It is justified by Lemma 3 that GWlog(C(T + λ = GW log By strict concavity of the log function, ν j= = GW log C(T β(t νi= ν log β(t i β(t j λ λβ(t = GW log β(t β(t ( β(t νi= β(t i = GW log β(t ν j= with equality if and only if for all j ν, νi= β(t i = ν β(t j log ν = log ν, ν But this condition for equality cannot hold for GW-ae T Therefore, GWlog(C(T + λ = GW log ν = GW ν log j= νi= β(t i β(t νi= β(t i > GWlog ν β(t j To complete the proof of Theorem, it remains to examine the asymptotic behaviors of d λ When λ 0 +, as β(t and C(T + = ν + i= β(t+ i ν+ Since β(tc(t + λ + β(t + C(T + β(t, (0 we can use Lebesgue s dominated convergence to get lim λ 0 + h λ = Similarly, it follows from log(c(t + β(tc(t + + λ λ + β(t + C(T + log(c(t+ + λ log(ν + + m that lim λ 0 + d λ log ν + = GWlog ν When λ m, as β(t 0 and C(T + 0 We have seen that the FKG inequality yields the lower bound d λ > log(c(t + + λ Using again dominated convergence, we obtain lim λ m log(c(t+ + λ = log m On the other hand, recall that d λ < log m Consequently, d λ log m when λ m 3

14 6 Average number of children along a random path Recall that for every vertex x in a tree T, we write ν(x for its number of children Birkhoff s ergodic theorem implies that for HARM λ µ HARMλ -ae (ξ, T, n lim ν(ξ k = n n k=0 ν(eµ HARMλ (dt = h λ ν + β(tc(t + λ + β(t + C(T + The last expectation is finite, as we derive from (0 that ν + β(tc(t + λ + β(t + C(T + ν+ Since µ HARMλ is equivalent to GW, the convergence above also holds for HARM λ GWae (ξ, T Hence, the average number of children of the vertices visited by the λ-harmonic ray in a Galton Watson tree is the same as the µ HARMλ -mean degree of the root For every k, we set A(k : β(t k i= β(t + i λ + β(t + k i= β(t + i The sequence (A(k k is strictly increasing Moreover, A(k k is strictly decreasing with respect to k β(tβ(t + λ + β(t + k i= β(t + i Proposition 6 For 0 < λ < m, ν(eµ HARMλ (dt > m Furthermore, ν(eµ HARMλ (dt m as λ 0 + Proof The first assertion, reformulated as ν + β(t ν + i= β(t+ i λ + β(t + ν + i= β(t+ i > ν + is a simple consequence of the FKG inequality, since GWνA(ν > GWν GWA(ν β(t ν + i= β(t+ i λ + β(t + ν + i= β(t+ i When λ 0 +, as β(t and C(T + ν + Using Lebesgue s dominated convergence, we have seen at the end of Section 5 that lim λ 0 + h λ = The same argument applies to the convergence of towards ν + = m ν + β(tc(t + λ + β(t + C(T + Under GW we define a random variable ˆν having the size-biased distribution of ν, 4

15 Proposition 7 For 0 < λ < m, ν(eµ HARMλ (dt < GWˆν = m k 2 p k If we assume further that k 3 p k <, then ν(eµ HARMλ (dt GWˆν as λ m Proof Since ν(eµ HARMλ (dt <, we may assume k 2 p k < throughout the proof The inequality in the first assertion can be written as ν + ν + β(t ν + i= β(t+ i λ + β(t + ν + i= β(t+ i < (ν + 2 By conditioning on ν +, we see that it is equivalent to A(ˆν GWA(ˆν < GWˆν GW, ˆν which results from the FKG inequality For the second assertion, remark that ν + β(t ν + i= β(t+ i m β(t ν + i= β(t+ i m β(t ν + i= β(t+ i λ + β(t + ν + i= β(t+ i = GWν2 GWβ(T 2, m = GWν GWβ(T 2 m When the offspring distribution p admits a second moment, Proposition 3 of 2 shows that β(t GWβ(T is uniformly bounded in L 2 (GW Using this fact, we can verify that β(t ν + lim h i= λ m λ β(t+ i = m With the third moment condition k 3 p k <, we similarly have Therefore, as λ m lim λ m ν + β(t ν + i= β(t+ i λ + β(t + ν + i= β(t+ i ν(eµ HARMλ (dt GWν2 GWν ν + β(t ν + i= β(t+ i m = GWˆν = Now we turn to investigate the average number of children seen by the λ-biased random walk First of all, as remarked in 6, Section 8, the ergodicity of HARM λ µ HARM implies that RW λ AGW λ is also ergodic For a tree T rooted at e, let ν + (e denote the number of children of the root minus Since ν + (λ + ν + β(t λ + β(t + C(T + (λ + ν + C(T + λ + β(t + C(T + 5 λ + ν + <,

16 it follows from Birkhoff s ergodic theorem that for RW λ AGW λ -ae ( x, (T, ξ, n lim ν(x k = n n k=0 ν + (eagw λ (dt, dξ = c λ ν + (λ + ν + β(t λ + β(t + C(T + ( Using arguments similar to those in the last remark on page 600 of 6, we deduce that the average number of children seen by the λ-biased random walk on T is as given by the same integral ν + (eagw λ (dt, dξ Proposition 8 We have ν + (eagw λ (dt, dξ < m when 0 < λ < ; = m when λ {0, }; > m when < λ < m Proof For every integer k we set (λ + kβ(t B λ (k : λ + β(t + k i= β(t + i Clearly, we have ν + (eagw λ (dt, dξ = m GWB λ(ˆν GWB λ (ν When λ {0, }, B λ (k = for all k We will show that the sequence (B λ (k k is strictly decreasing when 0 < λ <, and strictly increasing when < λ < m Therefore, by the FKG inequality, GWB λ (ˆν > GWB λ (ν when < λ < m, and GWB λ (ˆν < GWB λ (ν when 0 < λ < To get the claimed monotonicity of the sequence (B λ (k k, notice that Simple calculations give B λ (k + (λ + kβ(t + β(t + k+ λ + β(t + k+ i= β(t+ i (λ + kβ(tβ(t + B λ (k + B λ (k k+ + β(t + k+ (λ + β(t + k i= β(t + i (λ + β(t + k+ i= β(t+ i (λ + β(t + k i= β(t + i β(t + k+ (λ ( β(t (λ + β(t + k+ i= β(t+ i (λ + β(t + k i= β(t + i kβ(t + k+ + β(t + β(t+ k+ k i= β(t + i (λ + β(t + k+ i= β(t+ i (λ + β(t + k i= β(t + i Since the last expectation vanishes, B λ (k + B λ (k < 0 if and only if λ < As a consequence, when 0 < λ, we have ν(eµ HARMλ (dt > m ν + (eagw λ (dt, dξ The next result, together with Proposition 8, shows that ν + (eagw λ (dt, dξ is not monotone with respect to λ 6

17 Proposition 9 As λ 0 +, ν + (eagw λ (dt, dξ converges to m Proof Note that β(t λ + β(t + ν + i= β(t+ i By Lebesgue s dominated convergence it follows that lim λ 0 + c λ = Similarly, we have On the other hand, lim λν + β(t λ 0 + λ + β(t + ν + i= β(t+ i (ν + 2 β(t λ + β(t + ν + i= β(t+ i = 0 ν + ν + i= β(t+ i λ + β(t + ν + i= β(t+ i to which we can apply Lebesgue s dominated convergence again to get lim (ν + 2 β(t λ 0 + λ + β(t + ν + i= β(t+ i In view of (, the proof is thus finished Proposition 0 Assume that k 3 p k < Then, lim λ m ν + = m ν + (eagw λ (dt, dξ = m2 + k 2 p k 2m Proof As for the analogous result in Proposition 7, we can use the uniform boundedness in L 2 (GW of β(t /GWβ(T to see that lim c λ m λ (λ + ν + β(t λ = = lim λ m ν + (λ + ν + β(t λ + β(t + C(T +, ν + (λ + ν + β(t λ Hence, it follows from (λ + ν + β(t ν + (λ + ν + β(t λ λ ν+ (λ + ν + λ + ν + = λm + k 2 p k λ + m that lim λ m c which finishes the proof by ( λ ν + (λ + ν + β(t λ + β(t + C(T + = lim Combining Propositions 6, 7, 9 and 0, we see that ( lim λ 0 + ν(eµ HARMλ (dt λm + k 2 p k λ m λ + m = m2 + k 2 p k, 2m ν + (eagw λ (dt, dξ = 0, and if k 3 p k <, ( lim λ m ν(eµ HARMλ (dt k ν + 2 p k m 2 (eagw λ (dt, dξ = 2m > 0 7

18 Remark If we consider the average reciprocal number of children of vertices along an infinite path in T, the FKG inequality implies that for all λ (0, m, We also have ν + (e AGW λ(dt, dξ > m ν(e µ HARM λ (dt > m for all λ (0, m, by applying the FKG inequality similarly as in the proof of Proposition 7 Acknowledgment The author wishes to express his thanks to lie Aïdékon for some related discussions, and to Pierre Rousselin for many suggestions after reading part of the first draft References Aïdékon Speed of the biased random walk on a Galton Watson tree Probab Theory Relat Fields 59 (204, G Ben Arous, Y Hu, S Olla and O Zeitouni instein relation for biased random walk on Galton Watson trees Ann Inst H Poincaré Probab Statist 49 (203, A Ben-Hamou and J Salez Cutoff for nonbacktracking random walks on sparse random graphs Ann Probab 45 (207, N Berestycki, Lubetzky, Y Peres and A Sly Random walks on the random graph To appear in Ann Probab 5 R Lyons Random walks and percolation on trees Ann Probab 8 (990, R Lyons, R Pemantle and Y Peres rgodic theory on Galton Watson trees: Speed of random walk and dimension of harmonic measure rg Theory Dynam Syst 5 (995, R Lyons, R Pemantle and Y Peres Biased random walks on Galton Watson trees Probab Theory Relat Fields 06 (996, R Lyons, R Pemantle and Y Peres Unsolved problems concerning random walks on trees IMA Vol Math Appl 84 (997, R Lyons and Y Peres Probability on Trees and Networks Cambridge University Press, New York, xvi+699, P Rousselin Invariant measures, Hausdorff dimension and dimension drop of some harmonic measures on Galton Watson trees Preprint available at arxivorg/abs/ B Virág On the speed of random walks on graphs Ann Probab 28 (2000,