arxiv: v5 [math.pr] 5 Nov 2015

Transcription

1 Shortest Path through Random Points Sung Jin Hwang Steven B. Damelin Alfred O. Hero III arxiv: v5 [math.pr] 5 Nov 2015 University of Michigan Mathematical Reviews Abstract Let M, g 1 ) be a complete d-dimensional Riemannian manifold for d > 1. Let X n be a set of n sample points in M drawn randomly from a smooth Lebesgue density f supported in M. Let x, y be two points in M. We prove that the normalized length of the power-weighted shortest path between x, y through X n converges almost surely to a constant multiple of the Riemannian distance between x, y under the metric tensor g p = f 21 p)/d g 1, where p > 1 is the power parameter. 1 Introduction The shortest path problem see e.g., Cormen et al. 2009); Dijkstra 1959)) is of interest both in theory and in applications since it naturally arises in combinatorial optimization problems, such as optimal routing in communication networks, and efficient algorithms exist to solve the problem. In this paper, we are interested in the shortest paths over random sample points embedded in Euclidean and Riemannian spaces. Many graph structures over Euclidean sample points have been studied in the context of Beardwood-Halton-Hammersley BHH) theorem and its extensions. The BHH theorem states that the law of large numbers LLN) holds for certain spanning graphs over random samples. Such graph structures include the travelling salesman path TSP), the minimal spanning tree MST), and the nearest neighbor graphs AMS 2000 subject classifications: Primary 60F15; secondary 60C05, 53B21 Keywords and phrases: shortest path, power-weighted graph, Riemannian geometry, conformal metric This work was partially supported by ARO grant W911NF and NSF grant CCF This work was supported, in part, by American Mathematical Society and grant: Computational Research Initiative in Imaging and Remote Sensing , Center for High Performance Computing, South Africa. Currently at Google Inc. 1

2 k-nng). See Steele 1997) and Yukich 1998). The BHH theorem applies to graphs that span all of the points in the random sample. This paper establishes a BHH-type theorem for shortest paths between any two points. In the last few years, the asymptotic theory for spanning graphs such as the MST, the k-nng, and the TSP has been extended to the Riemannian case, e.g., Costa and Hero 2004) extended the MST asymptotics in the context of entropy and intrinsic dimensionality estimation. More general non-euclidean extensions have been established by Penrose and Yukich 2011). This paper extends the BHH theorem in a different direction: the shortest path between random points in a Riemannian manifold. The asymptotic properties of paths through random Euclidean sample points have been studied mainly in first-passage percolation FPP) models Hammersley 1966). Shortest paths have been studied in FPP models in the context of first passage time or travel time with lattice models Kesten 1987) or homogeneous) continuum models Howard and Newman 1997). Under the FPP lattice model, LaGatta and Wehr 2010) extended these results to the non-euclidean case where interpoint distances are determined by a translation-invariant random Riemannian metric in R d. This paper makes a contribution in a different direction. We assume a non-homogeneous continuum model and establish convergence of the shortest path lengths to density-dependent deformed Riemannian distances. The convergent limit reduces to the result of Howard and Newman 2001) when specialized to a homogeneous Euclidean continuum model. 2 Main results In this paper, a smooth function is an infinitely differentiable function, i.e., f C. A smooth manifold means its transition maps are smooth. Let M, g 1 ) be a smooth d-dimensional Riemannian manifold without boundary with Riemannian metric tensor g 1 and d > 1. Recall that a Riemannian metric tensor, often simply called a Riemannian metric, on a manifold is a family of positive definite inner products on the tangent spaces of the manifold. When M = R d, g 1 is the standard Euclidean inner product. The use of the subscript on g 1 will become clear shortly. Consider a probability space M, B, P) where P is a probability distribution over Borel subsets B of the sample space M. Assume that the distribution has a Lebesgue probability density function pdf) f with respect to g 1. Let X 1, X 2,... denote an i.i.d. sequence drawn from this density and let the first n samples from this sequence be denoted by X n = {X 1,..., X n }. The sequence X n will be associated with the nodes in a undirected simple graph whose edges have weight equal to the power weighted Euclidean distance between pairs of nodes. We will use indexing by n of a generic non-random point x n M. This point is not related in any way to the random variable X n. For realizations, we will use the notation X n ω) where ω is an 2

3 elementary outcome in the sample space. For p > 1, called the power parameter, define a new metric tensor g p = f 21 p)/d g 1. That is, if Z x and W x are two tangent vectors at a point x M, then g p Z x, W x ) = fx) 21 p)/d g 1 Z x, W x ). The deformed metric tensor g p is well-defined for every x with fx) > 0, and g p is a Riemannian metric tensor when f C. In this paper, we assume p > 1 except for a few places where we compare with the undeformed case p = 1. The main result of this paper, stated as Theorem 1, establishes an asymptotic limit of the lengths of the shortest paths through locally finite point processes. A subset A M is locally finite if A B is finite for every B M of finite volume. For example, a homogeneous Poisson process in R d is locally finite with probability one. For x, y M and locally finite A M, let Lx, y; A) denote the power-weighted shortest path length from x to y through A {x, y}. Let the edge weight between two points u and v be defined as dist 1 u, v) p where dist 1 denotes the Riemannian distance under the metric tensor g 1. A path π through points x 0,..., x k has power-weighted length k 1 i=0 dist 1x i, x i+1 ) p. For x M and r > 0, we denote by Bx; r) the open ball in M of radius r centered at x, i.e., Bx; r) = {u M : dist 1 x, u) < r}. 2.1 Main result Let dist p denote the deformed distance under g p, 1) dist p x, y) = inf γ 1 0 fγ t ) 1 p)/d g 1 γ t, γ t ) dt, where the infimum is taken over all piecewise smooth curves γ : [0, 1] M such that γ 0 = x and γ 1 = y. When a curve achieves the infimum, we call the curve a g p -geodesic. The following is the main result of this paper. Theorem 1. Assume that M is compact, and that f is continuous with inf M f > 0. There exists a constant Cd, p) > 0, which only depends on d and p, satisfying the following. Let b > 0 and ε > 0. Then there exists θ 0 > 0 such that ) P sup Lx, y; X n ) n 1 p)/d Cd, p) dist p x, y) > ε exp θ 0 n 1/d+2p)), x,y for all sufficiently large n, where the supremum is taken over x, y M with dist 1 x, y) b. The constant Cd, p) is fixed throughout this paper This is the same constant that is denoted as µ in Howard and Newman 1997); Howard and Newman 2001)). When p = 1, there is no power-weighting of the edges, and Cd, 1) = 1. 3

4 The requirement dist 1 x, y) b > 0 can be relaxed. The probability upper bound exp θ 0 n 1/d+2p) ) can be written as exp θ 0 nrd n) 1/d+2p) + Olog n)) where θ 0 = θ 0b d/d+2p) and where x, y is constrained to satisfy dist 1 x, y) r n for some positive sequence r n. Therefore for the probability upper bound to be non-trivial, nr d n/ log n must go to infinity. The separation requirement dist 1 x, y) b > 0 is one sufficient condition that ensures this property. A similar convergence result holds when M is complete, but not necessarily compact, giving the almost sure limit stated below. Theorem 2. Assume that M is complete and that f is continuous with fu) > 0 for all u M. Fix x, y M. Then lim n np 1)/d Lx, y; X n ) = Cd, p) dist p x, y) a.s. The constant Cd, p) is the same constant as in Theorem 1. Remark. In the case where the pdf f C, then the deformed metric tensor g p is a Riemannian metric tensor, and dist p is a Riemannian distance. Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 connect an algorithmic quantity, power-weighted shortest path lengths, to a geometric quantity, Riemannian distances. 2.2 Discussion We use shorthand notation L λ x, y) to denote Lx, y; H λ ) where H λ is a homogeneous Poisson point process of intensity λ > 0 in R d. Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 can be compared to analogous results in the continuum FPP model of Howard and Newman 2001). The main differences are the following: i) the results of Howard and Newman 2001) are restricted to the case of uniformly distributed node locations H λ in Euclidean spaces while our results also hold for the case of non-uniformly distributed points in compact or complete manifolds; ii) our convergence rates improve upon those of Howard and Newman 2001). Specifically, Howard and Newman 2001, Theorem 2.2) establish a bound on the shortest path lengths in a homogeneous Poisson point process. Recall that L λ x, y) denotes the power-weighted shortest path length from x R d to y R d through random nodes in a homogeneous Poisson point process H λ of intensity λ > 0. Howard and Newman 2001, Theorem 2.2) state the following. Let κ 1 = min1, d/p), κ 2 = 1/4p + 3), and e 1 R d be a unit vector. For any 0 < b < κ 2, there exists a constant C 0 depending on b) such that for t > 0 and t b s t t κ2 b, ) 1 2) P t L 10, te 1 ) Cd, p) > s exp C 0 s t) κ ) 1. Note that the bound in 2) decays to zero no faster than exp C 0 t κ 1κ 2 ) where κ 1 κ 2 = t min1,d/p)/4p+3). 4

5 On the other hand, for arbitrary uniform or non-uniform) density, our Theorem 7 implies, after simple Poissonization of the sequence X n that there exists some θ > 0 such that see the appendix) ) 1 3) P t L 10, te 1 ) Cd, p) > s exp θt d/d+2p)) for all sufficiently large t. Therefore the decay is exponential in t d/d+2p). Under the condition d 1 and p > 1, the decay rate 3) is faster than the rate 2). It is interesting to compare Theorem 1 with BHH results. The convergence result established in this paper differs from previous BHH theorems in two ways. The first difference is that Theorem 1 specifies a limit of the shortest path through X n while BHH theory Steele 1997; Yukich 1998) specifies limits of the total length of a graph spanning X n, e.g., the minimal spanning tree MST) or the solution to the traveling salesman problem TSP). The second difference is that the shortest path has fixed anchor points, hence it is not translation-invariant. This is in contrast to BHH theory developed in Penrose and Yukich 2003) and Penrose and Yukich 2011) where Euclidean functionals are generalized to locally stable functionals while the translation-invariance requirement is maintained. 3 Main proofs An obvious but important property of Lx, y; A) for x, y M and locally finite A M is that if A A then Lx, y; A) Lx, y; A ). This property is used in several places in the proofs. We define the constant α = 1/d + 2p) that is used throughout the paper. 3.1 Local convergence results Theorem 1 states a convergence result applying to random variables in Riemannian manifolds. Theorem 1 is obtained by an extension of a simpler theorem on Euclidean space. We first prove an upper bound for shortest path edge lengths. Lemma 3. Let z R d and R > 0. Assume that X n is i.i.d. in R d with pdf f, and that f m = inf {fu): u Bz; R)} is strictly positive. Fix b > 0. Define the event H n i, j) for each pair 1 i j n as the intersection of the following events i) both X i and X j are in Bz; R), ii) X i X j > b α nf m ) α 1)/d, and iii) the shortest path from X i to X j over X n contains no sample point X k other than X i and X j. 5

6 Let F n = i,j Hn i, j) c), where the superscript c denotes set complement. Then there exists a constant θ 1 > 0 such that for all sufficiently large n. Proof. Define hx i, X j ; ): R d R, 1 PF n ) exp θ 1 n α) 4) hx i, X j ; u) = X i u p + X j u p X i X j p, and let ΘX i, X j ) = {u R d : hx i, X j ; u) < 0}. Note that if X k ΘX i, X j ), then X i X k X j is shorter than X i X j as measured by the sum of power-weighted edge lengths. Note that the volume of ΘX i, X j ) is a function of the distance X i X j and that a portion of ΘX i, X j ) intersects Bz; R). Therefore there exists a constant θ 1 = θ 1 d, p) > 0 such that the intersection volume is at least θ 1 X i X j d for all sufficiently large n. Suppose that event H n 1, 2) occurs. Then the shortest path from X 1 to X 2 contains no sample point other than X 1 and X 2, and the intersection of ΘX 1, X 2 ) and Bz; R) cannot contain any of X 3, X 4,..., X n. Since it is assumed that X 1 X 2 > b α nf m ) α 1)/d, P H n 1, 2) ) 1 θ 1nf m b d ) α /n ) n 2. There are nn 1)/2 n 2 pairs of sample points, hence 1 PF n ) = P i<j H ni, j) ) n 2 1 θ 1 n α /n ) n 2 where θ 1 = θ 1 f mb d ) α. Next we provide results on the number of nodes in the shortest paths Lemma 4), and the mean convergence of EL n Proposition 5). We will establish these results using the theory of Poisson processes in Section 4. Proposition 5 involves the constant Cd, p) in Theorem 1. The definition of this constant will be given in 44) in the proof of Lemma 12. Lemma 4. Let z R d, R 2 > R 1 > 0. Assume that the pdf f is uniform in Bz; R 2 ), i.e., fu) = fz) > 0 for all u Bz; R 2 ), but may have probability mass outside Bz; R 2 ). Then there exists a constant C > 0, depending only on d and p, satisfying the following. For x, y Bz; R 1 ) with x y, let #Lx, y; X n Bz; R 2 )) denote the number of nodes in the shortest path, and let G n x, y) denote the event that #Lx, y; X n Bz; R 2 )) nfz)) 1/d x y C. For any given b 0, 2R 1 ), there exists θ 2 > 0 and n 0 > 0 such that if x y b and n n 0 then 1 PG n x, y)) exp θ 2 n 1/d+2p 1)). 6

7 Proposition 5. Let z R d, R 2 > R 1 > 0. Assume that the pdf f is uniform in Bz; R 2 ) but may have probability mass outside Bz; R 2 ). Fix ε > 0 and b 0, 2R 1 ). Then there exists n 0 > 0 such that for all n n 0 and x, y Bz; R 1 ) with x y b, ELx, y; X n Bz; R 2 )) nfz)) 1 p)/d Cd, p) x y < ε. From Lemma 3, Lemma 4, and Proposition 5, we obtain the following local convergence result. Proposition 6. Let z R d, R 2 > R 1 > 0. Assume that the pdf f is uniform in Bz; R 2 ) but may have probability mass outside. Fix ε > 0 and b 0, 2R 1 ). Then there exists a constant θ 3 > 0 such that for all sufficiently large n and for all x, y Bz; R 1 ) with x y b, ) Lx, y; X n Bz; R 2 )) P nfz)) 1 p)/d Cd, p) x y > ε exp θ 3 n α). While it is possible to obtain a weakened form of Proposition 6 from Howard and Newman 2001), we provide an alternative proof with improved convergence rate. In the proof of Proposition 6, Talagrand s convex distance See Talagrand 1995, Section 4.1) is used in the following form. Let ω be an elementary outcome in the sample space, and let A be a measurable event with respect to n sample points X 1,..., X n. Define the convex distance d c ω; A) of ω from A, 5) d c ω; A) = sup s 1,...,s n min η A s i 1 {Xi ω) X i η)} where the supremum is taken over s 1,..., s n R, i s i 2 1. For t > 0 define A t as the enlargement of A by t, 6) A t = {ω : d c ω; A) t}. This notation will be used only in the proof of Proposition 6. Talagrand s concentration inequality Talagrand 1995, Theorem 4.1.1) is 7) PA)1 PA t )) exp 14 ) t2. Proof of Proposition 6. Our proof is structured similarly to that of Yukich 2000, Theorem 1.3) and Talagrand 1995, Section 7.1). For convenience define τ n = bnfz)) 1/d and ζ n = τ α n nfz)) 1/d. Let F n be the event that all the edges of the shortest path have distances at most ζ n See Lemma 3 for F n ), i 7

8 G n be the event that #L n x n, y n ) C τ n where the constant C is specified in Lemma 4, H n be the event that at every point u Bz; R 2 ), at least one of the sample points is in Bu; ζ n ). All these events occur with high probability. Both 1 PF n ) and 1 PG n ) are exponentially small in n α by Lemma 3 and Lemma 4, respectively. The probability 1 PH n ) may be shown to be exponentially small as well by an argument similar to the proof to Lemma 3, which we will outline here. Let {Bw i ; 2 1 ζ n, 1 i m} be an open cover of Bz; R 2 ) with m = On). The probability that at least one of the open balls comprising the cover does not contain any sample point is bounded above by m1 4 d fz)v d ζn) d n, where V d denotes the volume of a unit ball. This upper bound is exponentially small in nfz)ζn d = nfz)b d ) α, hence exponentially small in n α as n goes to infinity. We use shorthand notation L B n for Lx, y; X n Bz; R 2 )). For a > 0, define W n a) to be the event that L B n a. Let ω F n G n and η H n W n a) be two elementary outcomes in the sample space. If the shortest path L n ω) from x to y through the realization X n ω) = {X 1 ω),..., X n ω)} is the sequence x n = π 0 ω) π 1 ω) π k+1 ω) = y n, where k = #L B n ω), then we may build a path πη) from x to y through another realization X 1 η),...,x n η) as follows. For each i {1,..., k}, let j denote the index where X j ω) = π i ω). If X j ω) = X j η), then set π i η) = π i ω). Otherwise, since η H n W n a) H n, there exists some l such that X l η) is in Bz; R 2 ) and X l η) π i ω) < ζ n. Set π i η) = X l η). Then it follows that π i η) π i ω) ζ n for all i = 1,..., k. At the same time, π i ω) π i+1 ω) ζ n for all i = 1,..., k since ω F n. It follows from the triangle inequality that π i η) π i+1 η) π i η) π i ω) + π i ω) π i+1 ω) + π i+1 ω) π i+1 η) 3ζ n. Let I be the set of indices i where π i ω) π i η). Then the power-weighted length of the path πη) is at most k π i η) π i+1 η) p i=0 k i=0 π i ω) π i+1 ω) p + i I or i+1 I L B n ω) + 2 I 3ζ n ) p. On the other hand, η W n a), i.e., L B n η) a. Hence a L B n ω) + 2 I 3ζ n ) p. π i η) π i+1 η) p 8

9 Let d c ω; H n W n a)) be the convex distance as defined in 5). By choosing s i in 5) as { 1/ #L s i = B n ω), if X i is in the path L B n ω), 0 otherwise, there exists η H n W n a) such that I d c ω; H n W n a)) #L B n ω). Therefore L B n ω) a 2 3ζ n ) p d c ω; H n W n a)) #L B n ω). In particular, if L B n ω) a u for u > 0, then 8) u d c ω; H n W n a)) 2 3ζ n ) p #L B n ω) u 2 3ζ n ) p C τ n since ω G n. Let t > 0 equal to the right side of 8), and let H n W n a)) t denote the enlargement of H n W n a) as defined in 6), i.e., the collection of all elementary outcomes whose convex distance from H n W n a) is at most t. Then 8) implies that 9) P {L B n a u} F n G n ) 1 P Hn W n a)) t ). Let M n be the median of L B n. Note that PH n W n M n )) is arbitrarily close to 1/2 for sufficiently large n since PW n M n )) = PL B n M n ) = 1/2, and PH n ) approaches one as n by Lemma 3. In particular, for n sufficiently large, PH n W n M n )) 1/3. Set a = M n in 9), and apply Talagrand s inequality 7) with A = H n W n M n ) to obtain P{L B n M n u} 3 exp C 2u 2 ) ζn 2p + 1 PF n ) ) + 1 PG n ) ), τ n for sufficiently large n, where C 2 = p C ) 1. To obtain an upper bound, set a = M n +u. From 9), 1 P ) H n W n a)) t 1/3 for sufficiently large n since both PF n ) and PG n ) converge to one as n. Apply Talagrand s inequality again for A = H n W n a) = H n {L B n M n + u}. This gives P{L B n M n + u} 3 exp C 2u 2 ζn 2p τ n ) + 1 PH n ) ) for sufficiently large n. Combine the above two inequalities above and x y b to obtain L B ) n M n P 10) nfz)) 1 p)/d x y > u 6 exp C 2 nfz)b d ) α u 2) + h n = 6 exp C 3 n α u 2) + h n, 9

10 where h n = 1 PF n ) ) + 1 PG n ) ) + 1 PH n ) ), and C 3 = C 2 fz)b d ) α. The reader can verify the inequality by recalling the definitions τ n = bnfz)) 1/d, ζ n = τ α n nfz)) 1/d, and α = 1/d + 2p). Note that P L B n M n > u) = 0 when u x y p. Integrate the right side of 10) for u 0 to obtain the upper bound EL B n M n π p 1hn nfz)) 1 p)/d x y 6 C 3 n α + nfz)) 1/d x y ). Since PF n ), PG n ), and PH n ) approach one exponentially fast in n α, so does h n. Furthermore, the convergence rate is independent of the choice x, y. Therefore lim n EL B n M n nfz)) 1 p)/d x y = 0. By Proposition 5, for all sufficiently large n and x y b, L B ) n P nfz)) 1 p)/d Cd, p) x y > ε P L B n M n nfz)) 1 p)/d x y > ε 2 Thus the proposition follows from 10), Lemma 3, and Lemma 4. Theorem 7. Let z R d, R > 0, and b 0, R/2). Assume that the pdf f is uniform in Bz; R) but may have probability mass outside. Choose ε > 0 sufficiently small so that Cd, p) + ε)/2 < Cd, p) ε)5/8. Denote by E n ε) the event that for all x Bz; R/4) and u / Bz; R), ). 11) Lx, u; X n ) 5 > Cd, p) ε) nfz))1 p)/d 8 R. Denote by E nε) the event that for all x, y Bz; R/4) with x y b, 12) and 13) Lx, y; X n ) = Lx, y; X n Bz; R)), Lx, y; X n ) nfz)) 1 p)/d Cd, p) x y ε. Then there exists θ 4 > 0 such that for all sufficiently large n. 1 PE n ε) E nε)) exp θ 4 n α) Theorem 7 asserts that with high probability, for sufficiently large n the shortest path between the points x, y in the open ball Bz; R/4) does not exit Bz; R). We first prove a lemma that will be used to prove Theorem 7. 10

11 Lemma 8. Suppose the assumptions in Theorem 7 hold. Let u, v, x, y Bz; R). If C.1 : the event F n from Lemma 3 occurs, C.2 : x u and y v are at most b α nfz)) α 1)/d, C.3 : x y b, and C.4 : Lu, v; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d u v Cd, p) + ε, then there exists n 0 > 0 independent of the choice u, v, x, y in Bz; R) such that 14) Lx, y; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d x y Lu, v; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d u v < ε 2 for all n n 0. Proof. We bound the left side of 14) from above by Lx, y; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d x y Lu, v; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d x y 15) + Lu, v; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d x y Lu, v; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d u v. Since the event F n occurred by C.1, every edge in the shortest path has length at most b α nfz)) α 1)/d. Combining with C.2, the difference between Lx, y; X n Bz; R)) and Lu, v; X n Bz; R)) is at most 2 2b α ) p nfz)) α 1)p/d. With C.3, the first term in 15) may be bounded from above as follows: Lx, y; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d x y Lu, v; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d x y 2p+1 b αp nfz)) α 1)p/d bnfz)) 1 p)/d. Note that α 1)p/d 1 p)/d = 1 αp)/d < 0. Therefore, there exists n 1 such that the first term in 15) is smaller than ε/4 for all n n 1, and n 1 is independent of the choice u, v, x, y. Since u v x y < 2b α nfz)) α 1)/d by C.2, the second term in 15) can be bounded from above as follows using C.4: Lu, v; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d x y Lu, v; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d u v Lu, v; X n Bz; R)) u v x y nfz)) 1 p)/d u v x y ) 2b α nfz)) α 1)/d Cd, p) + ε. b Since α 1)/d < 0, there exists n 2 such that the second term in 15) is smaller than ε/4 for all n n 2, and again n 2 is independent of the choice u, v, x, y. Lemma 8 follows by choosing n 0 = maxn 1, n 2 ). 11

12 Proof of Theorem 7. Let ζ n = b α nfz)) α 1)/d. For a set of points {w i } m i=1 in Rd, let {Bw i ; ζ n ): w i Bz; R/4), 1 i m} be a finite open cover of Bz; R/4) with m = On). Likewise, for a set of points {v k } l k=1 in Rd, let {Bv k ; ζ n ): v k Bz; 7R/8), 1 k l} be a finite open cover of the boundary of Bz; 7R/8) with l = On). Suppose that D.1 : the event F n from Lemma 3 occurs, and D.2 : Lw i, v k ; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d Cd, p) w i v k ε 2 for all w i, v k. We claim that 11) holds for sufficiently large n, under the assumptions D.1 and D.2. Let Lx; r; X n ), r > 0, denote the minimal power-weighted path length from x to the boundary of Bz; r), i.e., Lx; r; X n ) = min Lx, y; X n ). z y =r Every path from x Bz; R/4) to u / Bz; R) crosses the boundary of Bz; 7R/8), therefore Lx, u; X n ) Lx; 7R/8; X n ). It suffices to show that 16) Lx; 7R/8; X n ) nfz)) 1 p)/d Cd, p) ε)5 8 R for all x Bz; R/4) to prove 11). Note that Lx; 7R/8; X n ) = Lx; 7R/8; X n Bz; R)), i.e., Lx; 7R/8; X n ) = min Lx, y; X n Bz; R)). z y =7R/8 If the shortest path to the boundary were to reach any point outside Bz; R) Bz; 7R/8), the path must have already passed through the boundary, which is a contradiction. For every x Bz; R/4), there exists w i such that x w i < ζ n, and for every q on the boundary of Bz; 7R/8), there exists v k such that q v k < ζ n. Consequently, by Lemma 8 and assumptions D.1 and D.2, for sufficiently large n, Lx, q; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d x q Cd, p) ε, for all x Bz; R/4) and for all q satisfying z q = 7R/8. Use x q 5R/8, and we have proved 16), and in turn, 11). Now let x, y Bz; R/4) and x y b. Then there exist w i, w j such that w i x < ζ n and w j y < ζ n. Suppose the following condition holds in addition to D.1 and D.2; 12

13 D.3 : Lw i, w j ; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d Cd, p) w i w j ε 2. We claim that 12) holds. Assume to the contrary that the path Lx, y; X n ) includes some point outside Bz; R). Then the path has crossed the boundary of Bz; 7R/8), hence Lx; 7R/8; X n ) Lx, y; X n ). We have already seen that 16) holds. Therefore, Cd, p) ε )5 8 R Lx; 7R/8; X n) nfz)) 1 p)/d Lx, y; X n) nfz)) 1 p)/d. On the other hand, apply Lemma 8 with D.3 to have Lx, y; X n ) nfz)) 1 p)/d Lx, y; X n Bz; R)) nfz)) 1 p)/d Cd, p) + ε ) 1 2 R since x, y Bz; R/4) and x y R/2. Recall that ε was assumed to be sufficiently small so that Cd, p) + ε)/2 < Cd, p) ε)5/8. Therefore we have a contradiction. We now claim that 13) is true when assumptions D.1, D.2, and D.3 hold. Start with Lx, y; X n ) nfz)) 1 p)/d Cd, p) x y Lx, y; X n ) nfz)) 1 p)/d x y Lw i, w j ; X n ) 17) nfz)) 1 p)/d w i w j + Lw i, w j ; X n ) nfz)) 1 p)/d Cd, p) w i w j. From 11) and 12), Lx, y; X n ) and Lw i, w j ; X n ) in the upper bound of 17) can be replaced by Lx, y; X n Bz; R)) and Lw i, w j ; X n Bz; R)), respectively. Therefore, for sufficiently large n, the first term in the upper bound is less than ε/2 by Lemma 8, and the second term is less than ε/2 by D.3. This establishes that 13) holds. In summary, we have shown that 11), 12), and 13) hold when events D.1, D.2, and D.3 occur. If the event E n ε) or E nε) does not occur, either one of D.1, D.2, or D.3 does not occur: 1 P E n ε) E nε) ) 1 P )) F n + ) Lw i, v k ; X n Bz; R)) P Cd, p) w i,v k nfz)) 1 p)/d w i v k > ε 2 + Lw i, w j ; X n Bz; R)) P nfz)) w i,w 1 p)/d Cd, p) w i w j > ε 2 j The first sum is over all pairs w i, v k. The second sum is over all w i, w j with w i w j b/2. Theorem 7 now follows from Lemma 3 and Proposition 6 with R 1 = 7R/8 and R 2 = R, since the number of summands are of polynomial order in n. ). 13

14 Corollary 9. Assume that f is continuous at z R d and fz) > 0. Fix ε > 0 small enough so that Cd, p) + ε)/2 < Cd, p) ε)5/8. For R > 0 and b 0, R/2), let H n = H n z, R, ε, b) denote the event that 18) Lx, y; X n ) nfz)) 1 p)/d Cd, p) x y ε, for all x, y Bz; R/4) with x y b, and simultaneously 19) Lx, u; X n ) nfz)) 1 p)/d Cd, p) ε)5 8 R, for all x Bz; R/4) and u / Bz; R). Then there exists R = Rz) > 0 such that for all b 0, R/2) there exists θ 5 > 0 for which, 20) 1 PH n z, R, ε, b)) exp θ 5 n α) for all sufficiently large n. Proof. Let f m = f m R) and f M = f M R) denote the infimum and the supremum of f inside Bz; R), respectively. Since f is continuous at z, we can choose sufficiently small R = Rz) > 0 such that f m and f M are sufficiently close to fz) to satisfy 21) 22) ) ) fz) p 1)/d Cd, p) + ε/2 Cd, p) + ε, and f m ) ) fz) p 1)/d Cd, p) ε/2 Cd, p) ε. f M In addition, shrink R if necessary to ensure f M V d R d 1 where V d denotes the volume of a unit ball. Now choose and fix an arbitrary b 0, R/2) for the entire proof. For each sample point X i X n, let Y i be an arbitrary random point outside Bz; R), and let Z i be an independent Bernoulli random variable with PZ i = 1) = f m /fx i ). Define a new random variable { Xi m X i if X i is not in Bz; R), = X i Z i + Y i 1 Z i ) if X i is in Bz; R). Let X m n = {X m 1,..., Xm n }. X m n is an i.i.d. sample and its pdf restricted to Bz; R) is uniform with intensity f m. Define E.1 : both the events E n ε/2) and E nε/2) in Theorem 7 occur for X m n. Assume that the event E.1 occurs. Let x, y Bz; R/4) with x y b. Since X m n Bz; R)) X n Bz; R)), we have Lx, y; X n ) Lx, y; X n Bz; R)) Lx, y; X m n Bz; R)) = Lx, y; X m n ). 14

15 The last equality comes from 12) for Xn m. From 13) and 21), we have Lx, y; X n ) 23) nfz)) 1 p)/d x y Lx, y; Xn m ) p 1 ) fz) nf m ) 1 p)/d x y d Cd, p) + ε. This establishes the upper half of the inequality 18) under E.1. It remains to establish the lower half of the inequality 18). This is established in two steps. First we show that 19) holds assuming an event E.2 analogous to E.1. Then we show that E.1 and E.2 imply 18). For each point X i X n, define a new random variable Xi M as follows. Let σ = f M fu)) du 0 where the integral is taken inside Bz; R). By the assumption f M V d R d 1, we have 0 σ 1. Let Ỹi be a random point inside Bz; R) with pdf σ 1 f M fu)) for u Bz; R), and let Z i be a Bernoulli random variable with P Z i = 1) = 1 σ. Define { Xi M X i if X i is in Bz; R), = X i Zi + Ỹi1 Z i ) if X i is not in Bz; R). Let X M n = {X M 1,..., XM n }. X M n is an i.i.d. sample and its pdf restricted to Bz; R) is uniform with intensity f M. Define E.2 : both the events E n ε/2) and E nε/2) in Theorem 7 occur for X M n. Assume that the event E.2 occurs. Let x Bz; R/4) and v = arg min y Lx, y; X n ) over all z y = R. Then Lx, v; X n ) = Lx, v; X n Bz; R)), otherwise the shortest path from x to v has passed through another point on the boundary of Bz; R), and this contradicts the choice of v. Since X n Bz; R)) Xn M Bz; R)), Lx, v; X n ) = Lx, v; X n Bz; R)) Lx, v; X M n Bz; R)) Lx, v; X M n ). As v / Bz; R), it follows from 22) and 11) for Xn M Lx, v; X n ) nfz)) 1 p)/d Lx, v; X n M ) fz) nf M ) 1 p)/d f M ) p 1 d f m that Cd, p) ε) 5 8 R. If u / Bz; R), the path Lx, u; X n ) crosses the boundary of Bz; R) at some point u, hence Lx, u; X n ) Lx, u ; X n ) Lx, v; X n ) by the minimality of v. This establishes 19) under E.2. Now we show that the upper bound of 18) holds under the conditions E.1 and E.2. Let x, y Bz; R/4). Then Lx, y; X n ) = Lx, y; X n Bz; R)). Otherwise, i.e., if Lx, y; X n ) reaches some point u / Bz; R), then Lx, u; X n ) Lx, y; X n ) but this contradicts 19) and 23) since x y R/2 and ε was assumed to satisfy Cd, p) + ε)/2 < Cd, p) ε)5/8. We can now repeat the same argument used to establish that the upper half of the inequality 18) follows from E.1 to show that Lx, y; X n ) nfz)) 1 p)/d x y Lx, y; Xn M ) nf M ) 1 p)/d x y fz) f M ) p 1 d Cd, p) ε 15

16 by 12) and 13) for X M n, and 22). Applying Theorem 7 once to X m n and once to X M n asserts that E.1 and E.2 occur with exponentially small probability, which establishes Corollary Convergence in Riemannian manifolds We adapt Corollary 9 to the case when the probability distribution is supported on a Riemannian manifold M instead of on a Euclidean space. For z M and R > 0, Bz; R) denotes the set {u M : dist 1 u, z) < R}. Recall that α = 1/d + 2p). Lemma 10. Let M, g 1 ) be a Riemannian manifold equipped with metric tensor g 1. Let z M be a point, and let ε > 0 be a fixed constant. For R > 0 and b 0, 2R) we denote by E n Bz; R), ε, b) the event that i) if a shortest path passes through Bz; R) then its edges in Bz; R) have dist 1 - lengths at most b α nfz)) α 1)/d, and ii) for every pair x, y Bz; R) with dist 1 x, y) b, 24) Lx, y; X n ) n 1 p)/d Cd, p) dist p x, y) ε. Assume that fz) > 0 and that f is continuous at z. Then there exists R = Rz) > 0 such that for all b 0, 2R) there exists θ 6 > 0 for which, 25) 1 PE n Bz; R), ε, b)) exp θ 6 n α) for all sufficiently large n. In i), a shortest path edge between two sample points is contained in Bz; R) when a g 1 -geodesic between these points is contained in Bz; R). Proof. We prove this lemma by showing that both the events i) and ii) satisfy the probability tail bound as in 25). That the statement 25) holds for the event i) follows from similar arguments as used in Lemma 3. We focus on the event ii). Choose δ > 0 small enough to ensure that 26) 21 + δ) p δ)p, 1 + δ)/1 δ) ) p Cd, p) + ε/2 ) Cd, p) + ε, and 27) 1 δ)/1 + δ) ) p Cd, p) ε/2 ) Cd, p) ε. Define U = Bz; 4R) = {u M : dist 1 u, z) < 4R} for R > 0. Since f is continuous, we may choose R > 0 small enough so that there exists a normal chart map 16

17 ϕ: U M V R d such that the event H n = H n ϕz), 4R, 2 1 ε, 1 + δ) 1 b) from Corollary 9 satisfies 20), and that 28) 29) 1 δ) d sup U f fz) = fϕz)) 1 + δ) d inf U f, 1 δ dist 1u, v) ϕu) ϕv) 1 + δ, for all u, v U with u v. Recall that fz) = fϕz)) follows from the basic properties of normal coordinates at z M. See, e.g., O Neill 1983, p. 73). The denominator in 29) is a Euclidean distance. We claim that ii) is true when the event H n ϕz), 4R, 2 1 ε, 1 + δ) 1 b) occurs. Then 25) would follow from Corollary 9. In the remainder of this proof, we prove this claim. Let x, y Bz; R) U. Then a g 1 -geodesic curve from x to y is contained in U by the triangle inequality. It follows from the definition of dist p in 1) that 30) dist p x, y) dist 1 x, y)inf U f) 1 p)/d. Furthermore, if a g p -geodesic curve from x to y were contained in U, then 31) dist p x, y) dist 1 x, y)sup U f) 1 p)/d. If a g p -geodesic curve from x to y exits U, then dist p x, y) must be at least 3R)sup R f) 1 p)/d by the assumptions dist 1 x, z) < R and U = Bz; 4R). On the other hand, it follows from 26), 28), and 30) that dist p x, y) dist 1 x, y)inf U f) 1 p)/d 2R)sup U f) 1 p)/d 1 + δ 1 δ < 5 2 Rsup U f) 1 p)/d, ) p 1 and this is a contradiction. Therefore a g p -geodesic curve from x to y does not exit U, hence 31) holds. Next we show that Lx, y; X n ) = Lx, y; X n U), i.e., the shortest path between x, y Bz; R) is contained in U, when H n ϕz), 4R, 2 1 ε, 1+δ) 1 b) occurs. Assume to the contrary that the path Lx, y; X n ) from x exits U. Then the corresponding path in V starts from ϕx) and exits V, and its power-weighted length is at least Cd, p) ε)5r/2. Note that in this proof Corollary 9 was applied with R replaced by 4R. By 29) and 19), it implies that Lx, y; X n )/nfz)) 1 p)/d is at least Cd, p) ε)1 δ) p 5R/2. On the other hand, by 29) and 18), Lx, y; X n U)/nfz)) 1 p)/d is at most Cd, p) + ε)1 + δ) p 2R. This is a contradiction by 26), so we conclude Lx, y; X n ) = Lx, y; X n U). 17

18 V 2 V 1 U 1 z 1 z 2 z 3 z 4 U 2 U 3 V 3 Figure 1: Path division procedure described in the proof of Theorem 1. Here k = 4. Note that z i U i and z i+1 V i for i = 1, 2, 3. Shortest path is depicted as a smooth curve for illustration purpose only and it is actually piecewise smooth. Let Lϕx), ϕy); ϕx n U)) denote the shortest path length between ϕx), ϕy) V in Euclidean space R d. Then Lx, y; X n ) n 1 p)/d dist p x, y) Lx, y; X n ) n sup U f) 1 p)/d dist 1 x, y) 1 + δ 1 δ Cd, p) + ε. ) p Lϕx), ϕy); ϕx n U)) nfϕz))) 1 p)/d ϕx) ϕy) The first inequality follows from 31), the second one follows from 28) and 29), and the third one follows from 27) and the assumption that H n ϕz), 4R, 2 1 ε, 1+δ) 1 b) occurred. Repeat the same argument for the lower bound to obtain The last two inequalities imply 24). Lx, y; X n ) n 1 p)/d Cd, p) ε. dist p x, y) Our main result Theorem 1 can now be obtained by applying Lemma 10 to a finite open cover of the compact manifold M. Proof of Theorem 1. The crux of the proof is that the shortest path length has near sub- and super-additivity with high probability. We will show that if Lemma 10 holds locally at every point of M, then the local convergences may be assembled together to yield global convergence of the curve length. 18

19 For convenience, define L n x, y) = Lx, y; X n ) in this proof. For each w M, we may associate positive Rw) > 0 such that Lemma 10 holds within open ball V w) = Bw; 3Rw)) with error 2 1 ε, i.e., the event E n V w), 2 1 ε, b ), defined in Lemma 10, satisfies 25) with any b 0, 6Rw)). Let Uw) = Bw; Rw)). By compactness, there exists a finite m > 0, {w i M} m i=1 such that the collection {Uw i )} m i=1 is a finite open cover of M. Define R i = Rw i ), U i = Uw i ), and V i = V w i ) for i = 1,..., m. Reorder the indices if necessary so that x U 1. Define z 1 = x. If L n x, y) ever exits V 1, then a point z 2 V 1 on the shortest path may be chosen such that z 2 / U 1 and dist 1 z 1, z 2 ) R 1. Note that shortest paths are piece-wise g 1 -geodesics, and z 2 M need not be in X n. Reorder the indices of the open cover again if necessary so that z 2 is in U 2. Repeat the procedure until L n x, y) ends at y in an open ball, say, V k. Set z k+1 = y. Then points x = z 1, z 2,..., z k, z k+1 = y satisfy the conditions z i, z i+1 V i for i = 1, 2,..., k, and dist 1 z i, z i+1 ) R i R for i = 1, 2,..., k 1, where R = min i R i. The last edge length dist 1 z k, z k+1 ) may be less than R. However, note that z k 1 U k 1 and y = z k+1 / V k 1 by definition, hence dist 1 z k 1, z k+1 ) > 2R k 1 2R. Therefore, z k may be adjusted so that dist 1 z k, z k+1 ) R as well and z k V k. See Figure 1 for illustration. Suppose that 32) Cd, p) ε) dist p z i, z i+1 ) n p 1)/d L n z i, z i+1 ), holds for all i = 1, 2,..., k. Then by the triangle inequality and the property ν p + ω p ν + ω) p for ν, ω 0 and p 1, Cd, p) ε) dist p x, y) Cd, p) ε) k dist p z i, z i+1 ) i=1 k n p 1)/d L n z i, z i+1 ) i=1 n p 1)/d L n x, y). Since m is finite and the event E n V i, 2 1 ε, min{r, b}) from Lemma 10 satisfies 25), for i = 1,..., m, we have ) L n x, y) P inf x,y n 1 p)/d < Cd, p) ε m exp θ 6 n α) dist p x, y) for all sufficiently large n. For the upper tail, we follow a similar strategy to Bernstein et al. 2000). Recall that α = 1/d + 2p). If z 1 = x, z k+1 = y, and z i are points on a g p -geodesic curve from x to y, then dist p x, y) = k i=1 dist pz i, z i+1 ). We showed above that the points may be chosen and indices of the open cover may be rearranged such that z i, z i+1 V i 19

20 and dist 1 z i, z i+1 ) R for all i = 1, 2,..., k. The shortest path from z i 1 to z i and another shortest path from z i to z i+1 may be pasted together to create a path from z i 1 to z i+1 by removing z i and connecting two nodes that were incident to z i. This pasting procedure can be repeated to create a path from x = z 1 to y = z k+1. Since Lemma 10 applies in V 1,..., V m, every edge length of the shortest path from z i to z i+1 is at most b α n inf f) α 1)/d for i = 1,..., k. Therefore each pasting procedure may incur an additional cost of at most 2b α ) p n inf f) α 1)p/d so that 33) L n x, y) k L n z i, z i+1 ) + k2b α ) p n inf f) α 1)p/d. i=1 Therefore if event E n V i, 2 1 ε, min{r, b}) in Lemma 10 holds for V 1, V 2,..., V m, then n p 1)/d L n x, y) dist p x, y) Cd, p) + ε ) + k2b α ) p n p 1)/d n inf f) α 1)p/d 2 since dist p x, y) dist 1 x, y)inf f) 1 p)/d. For sufficiently large n, we have n p 1)/d L n x, y) Cd, p) + ε) dist p x, y) since n αp 1 shrinks to zero as n. Therefore Theorem 1 is established by applications of Lemma 10 to V 1, V 2,..., V m. We turn to the proof of Theorem 2. Note that when M is complete, for every x, y M there exists a geodesic path γ between x, y in M by Hopf-Rinow theorem O Neill 1983, Theorem 5.21, p. 138). Proof of Theorem 2. Define L n x, y) = Lx, y; X n ). Let 0 < ε < Cd, p). Define A = {u M : Cd, p) ε) dist p x, u) Cd, p) + ε) dist p x, y)}. A is compact by Hopf-Rinow theorem. The proof of Theorem 2 is similar to the proof of Theorem 1, with M replaced by A. Let V 1,..., V m be an open cover of A chosen as in the previous proof for compact M. Suppose that the event E n V i, 2 1 ε, min{r 1,..., R m, b}) from Lemma 10 holds for i = 1,..., m. By the construction of A, g p -geodesics from x to y is contained in A. Repeat the same argument used in the proof of Theorem 1 to obtain 34) n p 1)/d L n x, y) Cd, p) + ε) dist p x, y). Similarly, if the shortest path L n x, y) does not exit A, then 35) n p 1)/d L n x, y) Cd, p) ε) dist p x, y). We claim that the shortest path L n x, y) does not exit A, so that 35) is true. Assume to the contrary that the path L n x, y) exits A. Let u = arg min u L n x, u ) 20

21 where u is over all boundary points of A. Since the path L n x, y) exits A, we have L n x, y) > L n x, u). Since the path L n x, u) is contained in A, 35) holds with u in place of y. Since u is a point on the boundary of A, we have Cd, p) ε) dist p x, u) = Cd, p) + ε) dist p x, y). Combine these with 34) to obtain Cd, p) + ε) dist p x, y) n p 1)/d L n x, y) > n p 1)/d L n x, u) Cd, p) ε) dist p x, u) = Cd, p) + ε) dist p x, y), and we have a contradiction. We have shown that 35) holds. Combine Lemma 10 with 34) and 35) to obtain that ) L n x, y) P n 1 p)/d Cd, p) dist p x, y) > ε has exponential decay in n α = n 1/d+2p). Almost-sure convergence, and the limit stated in Theorem 2, follow by the Borel-Cantelli lemma. 4 Mean convergence and node cardinality In this section, we prove Lemma 4 and Proposition 5. Since they were stated for sequences X n in a Euclidean space, we return to the Euclidean case M = R d. We introduce a few additional notations used in this section. The proofs in this section use Poissonization arguments. We denote by H λ a homogeneous Poisson point process in R d of constant intensity λ > 0. Specifically, for any Borel set B of Lebesgue measure νb) the cardinality N B of H λ B is a Poisson random variable with mean λνb) and, conditioned on N B, the points H λ B are i.i.d. uniform over B. We use a shorthand notation L λ x, y) = Lx, y; H λ ). Let e 1 = 1, 0,..., 0) R d denote the unit vector. By the translation and rotation invariance of H λ, the distribution of L λ x, y) for x, y R d is the same as the distribution of L λ 0, te 1 ) where t = x y. This observation is used frequently in this section. Let T u, v; b) for u, v R d, b > 0, denote the set 36) T u, v; b) = 0 s 1 Bsu + 1 s)v; b). Note that b>0 T u, v; b) = Rd. For convenience, define 37) L λ u, v; b) = Lu, v; H λ T u, v; b)). 21

22 4.1 Percolation lemma The following lemma on percolation will be used in the proof of Lemma 4. Lemma 11. Let π be a graph path in H λ starting at 0 R d. Suppose that π has power-weighted path length at most c 0 λ 1 p)/d and has at least c 1 λ 1/d nodes for some c 0, c 1 > 0. Then there exists a constant ρ 0 > 0, dependent on d and p, such that if c 1 > ρ 0 c 0 then the probability that such path π exists is exponentially small in c 1 λ 1/d. Proof. The structure of the proof is similar to that of Meester and Roy 1996, Theorem 6.1). We first define a Galton-Watson process X n. Let X 0 = {x 0 = 0 R d } be the ancestor of the family, and associate the parameter r 0 > 0. Then define the offspring X 1 r 0 ) to be H λ Bx 0 ; r 1/p 0 ). X 1 r 0 ) is the set of points in H λ that may be reached from x 0 with a single edge with path length at most r 0 in power-weighted sense. Note that E X 1 r 0 ) = λv d r d/p 0 where X 1 r 0 ) denotes the cardinality of X 1 r 0 ), and V d denotes the volume of B0; 1). For each offspring x 1,k X 1 r 0 ), we associate the parameter r 1,k = r 0 x 1,k x 0 p. Then H λ in the union of Bx 1,k ; r 1/p 1,k ) {x 1,k} over k is the set of points that may be reached from x 0 with exactly two edges, while the power-weighted path length is at most r 0. Define X 2 r 0 ) to be the collection of all the second generation offspring, and define recursively the n-th generation offspring X n r 0 ). Then X n r 0 ) is the set of all the points that may be reached in n hops from the ancestor x 0 within path length r 0. See Figure 2. We prove by induction that 38) E Xn r 0 ) λvd r d/p ) n Γ1 + d/p) n 0 Γ1 + nd/p). We mentioned above that E X 1 r 0 ) = λv d r d/p 0, and 38) is true for n = 1. For general n, apply the Campbell-Mecke formula Baddeley 2007, Theorem 3.2, p.48) to see that 39) E X n r 0 ) λ Bx 0 ;r 1/p 0 ) λ n V n 1 d E X n 1 r0 x x 0 p) dx Γ1 + d/p) n 1 Γ1 + n 1)d/p) Bx 0 ;r 1/p 0 ) r0 x x 0 p) n 1)d/p dx. 22

23 x 1,1 x 0 x 2,1 x 3,1 x 4,1 Figure 2: A run through the family tree generated by X n with p = 2. The point x 0 is the ancestor with parameter r 0 = 9. This means that all the runs through the family tree are paths with power-weighted length less than r 1/p 0 = 3. Here x 1,1 X 1 is among the first generations since it is within Bx 0 ; r 1/p 0 ), and x 2,1 X 2 is among the second generations since it is within the balls centered at the first generation offsprings, e.g., x 1,1. This particular run ends at x 4,1 as there is no point in the vicinity. In this example, the power-weighted path length is = 8.25 < 3. Note that x 2,1 is also in the ball centered at x 0, so it is also a first generation offspring. Some other runs through the family tree will have the point x 2,1 as a first generation offspring. The last integral evaluates to Bx 0 ;r 1/p 0 ) = V d r n 1)d/p 0 d 0 1 = V d r nd/p d 0 p = V d r nd/p 0 r0 x x 0 p) n 1)d/p dx 0 r 1/p 0 1 up r 0 ) n 1)d/p u d 1 du 1 v) n 1)d/p v d/p 1 dv Γ1 + d/p)γ1 + n 1)d/p) Γ1 + nd/p) Note that a spherical coordinate transformation was used in the first equality, a transformation v = u p /r 0 was used in the second equality, and the third equality was obtained by properties of the beta function. Substituting the expression in the last line into 39) establishes 38). 23

24 Using the Markov inequality and Stirling s approximation, we have log PX n r 0 ) ) n log V d Γ 1 + d ) c0 pe ) ) d/p + Olog n) p c 1 d as n. Note that if a path starting at x passes through more than n c 1 λ 1/d nodes and has path length less than r 0 c 0 λ 1 p)/d, then the n-th generation set X n r 0 ) will not be empty. Lemma 11 follows since, if the ratio c 1 /c 0 is sufficiently large, the logarithm term above is negative. 4.2 Mean convergence for Poisson point processes Lemma 12. Consider the shortest path length L 1 0, te 1 ) from 0 R d to te 1 R d in H 1 for t > 0. Then the limit 1 40) lim t t EL 10, te 1 ) = Cd, p) exists. In addition, if b = b t is a function of t satisfying lim inf t b t =, then 1 41) lim t t EL 10, te 1 ; b t ) = Cd, p). Recall that L 1 0, te 1 ; b t ) denotes L0, te 1 ; H 1 T 0, te 1 ; b t )) from 36) and 37). When T 0, te 1 ; b) = R d, i.e., b = +, 40) is a consequence of, e.g., Howard and Newman 2001, Section 4). The main difference is the case when b < +. Howard and Newman 2001, Theorem 2.4) states that the probability that L 1 0, te 1 ) L 1 0, te 1 ; b t ) is exponentially small of order at least t 3pε/4 when b t t 3/4+ε for some ε > 0. Lemma 12 is weaker in the sense that it only asserts closeness in the mean. On the other hand, Lemma 12 is stronger in the sense that the assumption on b t is relaxed so that b t need only diverge to infinity, and the rate of growth may even be sub-polynomial. Proof of Lemma 12. Initially we let b > 0 be a constant instead of a function of t. This assumption is removed later in the proof. Recall the definition of function h in 4), hx, y; u) = x u p + u y p x y p. Let T b) = s>0 T se 1, +se 1 ; b), and let { } ξ t λ, b) = sup u te 1 : u T b), hu, te 1 ; v) 0 for all v H λ T b). 24

25 γ γ + 0 se 1 = γ 0 s + t)e 1 Figure 3: An illustration of the path pasting procedure. A new path from 0 to s + t)e 1 is created by removing se 1 = γ 0 and joining γ and γ +. Only the end points are fixed points in the new path. In other words, ξ t λ, b) denotes an upper bound distance of u T b) from te 1 such that the shortest path from te 1 to u is the direct path te 1 u. From the continuity of function h, it is not difficult to show that there exist constants A, δ > 0 and constant integers k, m > 0, all independent of b and λ, such that for all t R, 42) Eξ t λ, b) p kγ1 + p/d) λa) p/d + m2p Γ1 + p) λ p δb) pd 1). It is not surprising that the upper bound does not depend on t since H λ is homogeneous. For a simple proof of this see Hwang 2012, Lemma 2.5, Equation 2.14). Let s, t > 0. Consider the shortest path L 1 0, se 1 ; b) between 0 and se 1, and let γ denote the node that directly connects to se 1. Similarly consider the shortest path for L 1 se 1, s + t)e 1 ; b) and let γ + denote the node that directly connects to se 1. Therefore γ and γ + are Poisson sample points incident to se 1. For convenience let γ 0 = se 1. Remove γ 0 = se 1 in the two paths, and join the nodes γ and γ + so that we have a new path connecting 0 and s + t)e 1, as indicated in Figure 3. This new path has length that is an upper bound on L 1 0, s + t)e 1 ; b), L 1 0, s + t)e 1 ; b) L 1 0, se 1 ; b) + L 1 se 1 ; s + t)e 1 ; b) + γ 0 γ + γ + γ 0 ) p. Note that both γ 0 γ and γ + γ 0 are bounded above by ξ s 1, b), and Eξ s 1, b) p is finite by 42). Therefore EL 1 0, s + t)e 1 ; b) is bounded above by EL 1 0, se 1 ; b) + EL 1 se 1 ; s + t)e 1 ; b) + E2ξ s 1, b)) p = EL 1 0, se 1 ; b) + EL 1 0; te 1 ; b) + E2ξ 0 1, b)) p. The equality holds by the translation invariant property of the distribution of H 1. Therefore EL 1 0, te 1 ; b) + E2ξ 0 1, b)) p is a sub-additive function of t. Note that EL 1 0, te 1 ; b) t p. A standard proof of Fekete s lemma for example, see Steele 1997, Lemma 1.2.1) may be easily adapted to sub-additive functions that are 25

26 bounded in bounded intervals. Apply Fekete s lemma to the sub-additive function EL 1 0, te 1 ; b) + E2ξ 0 1, b)) p, then 43) lim t EL 1 0, te 1 ; b) + E2ξ 0 1, b)) p t = inf t>0 EL 1 0, te 1 ; b) + E2ξ 0 1, b)) p, t and we denote the limit by κd, p; b). Note that Eξ 0 1, b) p does not depend on t, hence 43) implies that lim t t 1 EL 1 0, te 1 ; b) = κd, p; b). Define EL 1 0, te 1 ) 44) Cd, p) = lim. t t We now show that κd, p; b) converges to Cd, p) when b. Choose an arbitrary ε > 0. By 42) and by the fact that Cd, p) is the limit of t 1 EL 1 0, te 1 ), there exists T > 0 such that 1 T EL 10, T e 1 ) < Cd, p) + ε 3, and 1 T E2ξ 01, b)) p < ε 3, for all b > 1. For this fixed T, note that lim b L 1 0, T e 1 ; b) = L 1 0, T e 1 ) monotonically from above almost surely, and by the monotone convergence theorem, there exists B > 1 such that for all b > B and fixed T, 1 T EL 10, T e 1 ; b) 1 T EL 10, T e 1 ) + ε 3. Combining the three inequalities above with 43) we obtain κd, p; b) 1 T EL1 0, T e 1 ; b) + E2ξ 0 1, b)) p) Cd, p) + ε, for all b > B. Therefore κd, p; b) converges to Cd, p) as b. Finally, suppose b = b t is a function of t rather than a constant. If lim inf t b t = then 1 Cd, p) lim t t EL 10, te 1 ; b t ) 1 lim t t EL 10, te 1 ; B) = κd, p; B), for any fixed B > 0. 41) follows as B on the right side. For the readers benefit we establish two use cases of Lemma 12. Corollary 13. The following two cases follow from Lemma