1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2:  \usepackage{psfig}

3: \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath,amstext,amsthm,amsfonts}

4: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

5:  \usepackage[ansinew]{inputenc}

6: 

7: \title{Random perturbations of non-uniformly\\ expanding

8: maps\thanks{ Work partially supported by FCT through

9: {Centro de Matemática da Universidade do Porto.}}}

10: 

11: 

12: \author{José F. Alves, Vítor Araújo}

13: 

14: \date{\today}

15: 

16: \textwidth=15.5cm \oddsidemargin=.5cm

17: \begin{document}

18: 

19: \newcommand{\mcup}{\mbox{$\bigcup$}}

20: \newcommand{\mcap}{\mbox{$\bigcap$}}

21: 

22: \def \RR {{\mathbb R}}

23: \def \ZZ {{\mathbb Z}}

24: \def \NN {{\mathbb N}}

25: \def \PP {{\mathbb P}}

26: \def \TT {{\mathbb T}}

27: 

28: \def \ra {\rightarrow }

29:  \def \wh {\widehat }

30:  \def \un{\underline }

31:  \def \dist {\mbox{dist}}

32:  \def \ov {\overline}

33:  \def \supp {\mbox{supp}\, }

34:  \def \wlim {\mbox{$w^*$-}\lim_{n\ra\infty}\, }

35:  \def \distp{\mbox{d}_\PP }

36: 

37: \def \al {\alpha } \def \be {\beta } \def \de {\delta }

38: \def \ga {\gamma } \def \ep {\epsilon } \def \vfi {\varphi

39: } \def \th {\theta } \def \si {\sigma }

40: 

41:  \def \cf {\mathcal{F}}

42:  \def \cm {\mathcal{M}}

43:  \def \cn {\mathcal{N}}

44:  \def \cq {\mathcal{Q}}

45:  \def \cp {\mathcal{P}}

46:  \def \cc {\mathcal{C}}

47:   \def \ch {\mathcal{H}}

48: 

49: 

50: \newcommand{\dem}{\begin{proof}}

51: \newcommand{\cqd}{\end{proof}}

52: 

53: 

54: \newcommand{\qand}{\quad\text{and}\quad}

55: 

56: 

57: \newtheorem{maintheorem}{Theorem}

58: \renewcommand{\themaintheorem}{\Alph{maintheorem}}

59: \newcommand{\cmt}{\begin{maintheorem}}

60: \newcommand{\fmt}{\end{maintheorem}}

61: 

62: 

63: \newtheorem{T}{Theorem}[section]

64: \newcommand{\ct}{\begin{T}}

65: \newcommand{\ft}{\end{T}}

66: 

67: \newtheorem{Corollary}[T]{Corollary}

68: \newcommand{\cco}{\begin{Corollary}}

69: \newcommand{\fco}{\end{Corollary}}

70: 

71: \newtheorem{Proposition}[T]{Proposition}

72: \newcommand{\cpr}{\begin{Proposition}}

73: \newcommand{\fpr}{\end{Proposition}}

74: 

75: \newtheorem{Lemma}[T]{Lemma}

76: \newcommand{\cle}{\begin{Lemma}}

77: \newcommand{\fle}{\end{Lemma}}

78: 

79: \newtheorem{Remark}[T]{Remark}

80: \newcommand{\cre}{\begin{Remark}}

81: \newcommand{\fre}{\end{Remark}}

82: 

83: \newtheorem{Definition}[T]{Definition}

84: \newcommand{\cd}{\begin{Definition}}

85: \newcommand{\fd}{\end{Definition}}

86: 

87: %\newcommand{\dem}{\par\medbreak\noindent{\em Proof}.\enspace}

88: %\newcommand{\cqd}{\,\,\,$\sqcup\!\!\!\!\sqcap\bigskip$}

89: 

90: 

91: \maketitle

92: 

93: \begin{abstract} We give both sufficient conditions and

94: necessary conditions for the stochastic stability of

95: non-uniformly expanding maps either with or without

96: critical sets. We also show that  the number of probability

97: measures describing the statistical asymptotic behaviour of

98: random orbits is bounded by the number of SRB measures if

99: the noise level is small enough.

100: 

101:  As an application

102: of these results we prove the stochastic stability of certain

103: classes of non-uniformly expanding maps introduced in

104: \cite{V} and \cite{ABV}. \end{abstract}

105: 

106: 

107: \section{Introduction}

108: 

109: In broad terms, Dynamical Systems theory is mostly

110: interested in describing the typical behaviour of orbits as

111: time goes to infinity, and understanding how this behaviour

112: is modified under small perturbations of the system. This

113: work concentrates in the study of the latter problem from a

114: probabilistic point of view.

115: 

116: Given a map $f$ from a manifold $M$ into itself, let

117: $(x_n)_{n\ge1}$ be the orbit of a given point $x_0\in M$,

118: that is $x_{n+1}=f(x_n)$ for every $n\ge 1$. Consider the

119: sequence of time averages of Dirac measures $\delta_{x_j}$

120: along the orbit of $x_0$ from time $0$ to $n$. A special

121: interest lies  on the study of the convergence of such time

122: averages for a ``large" set of points $x_0\in M$ and the

123: properties of their limit measures. In this direction, we

124: refer the work of Sinai \cite{Si} for Anosov

125: diffeomorphisms, later extended by Ruelle and Bowen

126: \cite{BR,R} for Axiom A diffeomorphisms and flows. In the

127: context of systems with no uniform hyperbolic structure

128: Jakobson \cite{J} proved the existence of such measures for

129: certain quadratic transformations of the interval

130: exhibiting chaotic behaviour. Another important

131: contribution on this subject was given by Benedicks and

132: Young \cite{BY}, based on the previous work of Benedicks

133: and Carleson \cite{BC1,BC2}, where this kind of measures

134: were constructed for Hénon two dimensional maps exhibiting

135: strange attractors. The recent work of Alves, Bonatti and

136: Viana \cite{ABV} shows that such measures exist in great

137: generality for systems exhibiting some non-uniformly

138: expanding behaviour.

139: 

140: The notion of stability that most concerns us can be

141: formulated in the following way. Assume that, instead of

142: time averages of Dirac measures supported on the iterates

143: of $x_0\in M$, we consider time averages of Dirac measures

144: $\delta_{x_j}$, where at each iteration we take $x_{j+1}$

145: close to $f(x_j)$ with a controlled error. One is

146: interested in studying the existence of limit measures for

147: these time averages and their  relation to the analogous

148: ones for unperturbed orbits, that is, the stochastic

149: stability of the initial system.

150: 

151: Systems with some uniformly hyperbolic structure are quite

152: well understood and stability results have been established

153: in general, see  \cite{Ki1,Ki2} and \cite{Yo}. The

154: knowledge of the stochastic behaviour of systems that do

155: not exhibit such uniform expansion/contraction is still

156: very incomplete. Important results on this subject  were

157: obtained by Benedicks, Young \cite{BY}, Baladi and Viana

158: \cite{BaV} for certain quadratic maps of the interval.

159: Another important contribution is the announced work of

160: Benedicks and Viana for Hénon-like strange attractors. As

161: far as we know these are the only results of this type for

162: systems with no uniform expanding behaviour.

163: 

164: In this work we present both sufficient conditions and

165: necessary conditions for the stochastic stability of

166: non-uniformly expanding dynamical systems.

167:  As an application of these results we prove

168: that the classes of non-uniformly expanding maps introduced

169: in \cite{V} and \cite{ABV} are stochastically stable.

170: 

171: 

172: 

173: 

174: 

175: \subsection{Statement of results}

176:  Let $f:M\ra M$ be a smooth map defined on a compact riemannian

177:  manifold $M$.

178:  We fix some normalized

179:  riemannian volume form $m$ on $M$ that we call {\em Lebesgue measure}.

180: 

181:  Given $\mu$ an $f$-invariant Borel probability measure on

182:  $M$, we say that $\mu$ is an \emph{SRB measure}

183:  if, for a positive

184: Lebesgue measure set of points $x\in M$, the averaged

185: sequence of Dirac measures along the orbit $(f^n(x))_{n\geq

186: 0}$ converges in the weak$^*$ topology to $\mu$, that is,

187:  \begin{equation}\label{average}

188:  \lim_{n\ra +\infty}

189:  \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\vfi\big(f^n(x)\big)

190:  =\int \vfi\, d\mu

191: \end{equation} for every continuous map $\vfi:M\to \RR$. We

192: define the {\em basin}  of $\mu$ as the set of those points

193: $x$ in $M$ for which (\ref{average}) holds for all

194: continuous $\vfi$. The maps to be considered in this work

195: will only have a finite number of SRB measures whose basins

196: cover the whole manifold $M$, up to a set of zero Lebesgue

197: measure.

198: 

199: We are interested in studying random perturbations of the

200: map $f$. For that, we take a continuous map

201:  \[

202:  \begin{array}{rccl}

203:  \Phi:& T &\longrightarrow&  C^2(M,M)\\

204:  & t &\longmapsto & f_t

205:  \end{array}

206:  \]

207: from a metric space $T$ into  the space of $C^2$ maps from

208: $M$ to $M$, with $f=f_{t^*}$ for some fixed $t^*\in T$.

209: Given $x\in M$ we call the sequence $\big(f_{\un

210: t}^n(x)\big)_{n\ge1}$ a \emph{random orbit} of $x$, where

211: $\un t$ denotes an element $(t_1,t_2,t_3,\ldots)$ in the

212: product space $T^{\NN}$ and

213:  $$

214:  f^n_{\un t}= f_{t_n}\circ \cdots \circ

215:  f_{t_1}\quad \mbox{for}\quad n \ge1.

216:  $$

217: We also take a family $(\th_\ep)_{\ep>0}$ of probability

218: measures on $T$ such that $(\supp\th_\ep)_{\ep>0}$ is a

219: nested family of connected compact sets and

220: $\supp\th_\ep\rightarrow \{t^*\}$ when $ \ep\to 0$.

221:  We will also assume some quite general nondegeneracy

222:  conditions on  $\Phi$ and $(\th_\ep)_{\ep>0}$ (see the beginning of Section

223:  \ref{s.stationary}) and  refer to $\{\Phi,(\th_\ep)_{\ep>0}\}$

224:  as a {\em random perturbation} of $f$.

225: 

226: In the context of random perturbations of a  map we say

227: that a Borel probability measure $\mu^\ep$ on $M$ is

228: \emph{physical } if for a positive Lebesgue measure  set of

229: points $x\in M$,  the averaged sequence of Dirac

230: probability measures $\delta_{f_{\un t}^n(x)}$ along random

231: orbits $\big(f_{\un t}^n(x) \big)_{n\geq 0}$ converges in

232: the weak$^*$ topology to $\mu^\ep$ for $\th_\ep^\NN$ almost

233: every $\un t\in T^\NN$. That is,

234:  \begin{equation}\label{pertaverage}

235:  \lim_{n\ra +\infty}

236:  \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\vfi\big(f_{\un t}^n(x)\big)

237:  =\int \vfi \,d\mu^\ep \quad\mbox{for all  continuous  $\vfi\colon

238:  M\rightarrow\RR$}

239: \end{equation}

240:  and $\th^\NN_\ep$ almost every $\un t\in

241: T^\NN.$

242:  We denote the set of points $x\in M$ for which

243:  (\ref{pertaverage}) holds by $B(\mu^\ep)$ and call it the

244:  \emph{basin of $\mu^\ep$}.

245: The map $f\colon M\ra M$ is said to be {\em stochastically

246: stable} if the weak$^*$ accumulation points (when $\ep>0$

247: goes to zero) of the physical probability measures of $f$

248: are convex linear combinations of the (finitely many) SRB

249: measures of~$f$.

250: 

251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

252: 

253: \subsubsection{Local diffeomorphisms}

254: 

255: Let $f:M\ra M$ be a $C^2$

256: local diffeomorphism of the manifold $M$.

257:  We say that $f$ is {\em non-uniformly expanding} if there

258: is some constant $c>0$ for which

259:  \begin{equation} \label{liminf1}

260: \limsup_{n\ra +\infty}\frac{1}{n}

261: \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\log\|Df(f^j(x))^{-1}\|\leq -c<0

262:  \end{equation}

263:  for

264: Lebesgue almost every $x\in M$. It was proved in \cite{ABV}

265: that for a non-uniformly expanding local diffeomorphism $f$

266: the following holds:

267:  \begin{itemize}

268:  \item[(P)]

269:  {\em There is a finite number of

270: ergodic absolutely continuous (\emph{SRB}) $f$-invariant

271: probability measures $\mu_1,\dots ,\mu_p$ whose basins

272: cover a full Lebesgue measure subset of $M$. Moreover,

273: every absolutely continuous $f$-invariant probability

274: measure $\mu$ may be written as a convex linear

275: combination of $\mu_1,\dots ,\mu_p$: there are real numbers

276: $w_1,\dots,w_p\geq 0$ with $w_1+\cdots+w_p=1$ for which

277: $\mu=w_1\mu_1+\cdots+w_p\mu_p$}.

278:  \end{itemize}

279: The proof of the previous result was based on the

280: existence of  $\al$-hyperbolic times

281: for the points in $M$:

282: given $0<\al<1$, we say that $n\in\ZZ^+$ is a {\em

283: $\al$-hyperbolic time} for the point $x\in M$ if

284:  \begin{equation}\label{htimesc}

285:  \prod_{j=n-k}^{n-1}

286: \|Df(f^j(x))^{-1}\|\leq \al^k \quad\mbox{for every}\quad

287: 1\leq k\leq n.

288:  \end{equation}

289: The existence of (a positive frequency of) $\al$-hyperbolic

290: times for  points $x\in M$ is a consequence of the

291: hypothesis of non-uniform expansion of the map $f$ and

292: permits us to define a map $h:M\to\ZZ^+$ giving the first

293: hyperbolic time for $m$ almost every $x\in M$.

294: 

295: 

296: In the context of random perturbations of a non-uniformly

297: expanding

298:  map we are also able to prove a result on the finitness

299: of physical measures.

300: 

301: \cmt \label{t.finite1}

302:  Let $f\colon M\rightarrow M$ be a  $C^2$ non-uniformly expanding

303:  local diffeomorphism. If $\ep>0$ is sufficiently small, then there

304:  are physical measures  $\mu^\ep_1,\dots, \mu^\ep_l$

305:  (with $l$ not depending on

306:  $\ep$)

307: such that:

308:  \begin{enumerate} \item  for each  $x\in M$ and

309: $\th_\ep^\NN$ almost every $\un t\in T^\NN$, the average of

310: Dirac measures $\delta_{f_{\un t}^n(x)}$ converges in the

311: weak$^*$ topology to some  $\mu^\ep_i$ with $1\le i\le l$;

312: \item for each $1\le i\le l$ we have

313:  $$

314:  \mu^\ep_i=\wlim\frac1n\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\int\big(f_{\un t}^j\big)_*

315:  \big(m\mid B(\mu^\ep_i)\big)\,d\th_\ep^\NN(\un t),

316:  $$

317:  where $m\mid B(\mu^\ep_i)$ is the normalization of the

318:  Lebesgue measure restricted to $B(\mu^\ep_i)$;

319:  \item   if $f$ is

320:  transitive, then $l=1$.

321:  \end{enumerate}

322:  \fmt

323: 

324: 

325: We say that the map $f$ is {\em non-uniformly expanding for

326: random orbits} if there is some constant $c>0$ such that

327: for $\ep>0$ small enough

328:  \begin{equation} \label{liminf2}

329: \limsup_{n\ra +\infty}\frac{1}{n}

330: \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\log\|Df(f_{\un t}^j(x))^{-1}\|\leq -c<0,

331:  \end{equation}

332: for $\th_\ep^\NN\times m$ almost every $(\un t,x)\in

333: T^\NN\times M$. Similarly to the deterministic situation,

334: condition (\ref{liminf2}) permits us to introduce a notion

335: of $\al$-hyperbolic times for points in $T^\NN\times M$

336:  and define a map

337:  $$

338:  h_\ep\colon T^\NN\times M\ra \ZZ^+

339:  $$

340: by taking $h_\ep(\un t,x)$ the first $\al$-hyperbolic time

341: for the point $(\un t,x)\in T^\NN\times M$ (see

342: Section~\ref{s.distortion}). Assuming that

343:  %$h_\ep\in L^1(\th^\NN_\ep\times m)$

344:  $h_\ep$ is integrable with respect to $\th^\NN_\ep\times

345:  m$,

346:  then

347:  \begin{equation}\label{c.unif}

348:  \|h_\ep\|_1=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}k\,

349:  (\th_\ep^\NN\times m)

350:  \big(\{(\un t,x)\colon h_\ep(\un t,x)=k\}\,\big)

351:  <\infty.

352:  \end{equation}

353:  %for small $\ep>0$.

354: We say that the family  $(h_\ep)_{\ep>0}$ has {\em uniform

355: $L^1$-tail}, if the series in (\ref{c.unif}) converges uniformly

356: to $\|h_\ep\|_1$ (as a series of functions on the variable $\ep$).

357: 

358: 

359: 

360: 

361: \cmt \label{t.stc}

362:  Let $f\colon M\rightarrow M$ be a non-uniformly expanding $C^2$

363:   local diffeomorphism.

364:  \begin{enumerate}

365:  \item If $f$ is stochastically stable,

366:  then $f$ is non-uniformly expanding for random orbits.

367:  \item If $f$ is non-uniformly expanding for random orbits

368:  and $(h_\ep)_\ep$ has uniform $L^1$-tail,

369: then $f$ is stochastically stable.

370:  \end{enumerate}

371: \fmt

372: 

373: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

374: 

375: \subsubsection{Maps with critical sets}

376: 

377: Similar results to those presented for random perturbations

378: of local diffeomorphisms will also be obtained for maps

379: with  critical sets in the sense of~\cite{ABV}. We start by

380: describing the class of maps that we are going to consider. Let

381: $f\colon M\ra M$ be a continuous map of the compact manifold $M$

382: that fails to be a $C^2$ local diffeomorphism on a critical set $\cc\subset M$ with zero Lebesgue measure. We assume that $f$ {\em behaves like a power of the distance} close to

383: the critical set $\cc$:

384: there are constants $B>1$ and $\be>0$ for which

385: 

386:  \begin{itemize}

387:  \item[(S1)]

388: \hspace{.1cm}$\displaystyle{\frac{1}{B}\dist(x,\cc)^{\be}\leq

389: \frac{\|Df(x)v\|}{\|v\|}\leq B\dist(x,\cc)^{-\be}}$;

390:  \item[(S2)]

391: \hspace{.1cm}$\displaystyle{\left|\log\|Df(x)^{-1}\|-

392: \log\|Df(y)^{-1}\|\:\right|\leq

393: B\frac{\dist(x,y)}{\dist(x,\cc)^{\be}}}$;

394:  \item[(S3)]

395: \hspace{.1cm}$\displaystyle{\left|\log|\det Df(x)^{-1}|-

396: \log|\det Df(y)^{-1}|\:\right|\leq

397: B\frac{\dist(x,y)}{\dist(x,\cc)^{\be}}}$;

398:  \end{itemize}

399:  for every $x,y\in M\setminus \cc$ with

400: $\dist(x,y)<\dist(x,\cc)/2$ and $v\in T_x M$. Given

401: $\delta>0$ we define the $\delta$-{\em truncated distance}

402: from $x\in M$ to $\cc$

403:  $$ \dist_\delta(x,\cc)= \left\{

404: \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \mbox{if }\dist(x,\cc)\geq \delta,\\

405: \dist (x,\cc) & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array} \right. $$

406: 

407: Assume that $f$ is a non-uniformly expanding map, in the

408: sense that there is $c>0$ such that the limit in

409: (\ref{liminf1}) holds for Lebesgue almost every $x\in M$

410: (recall that we are taking $\cc$ with zero Lebesgue

411: measure) and, moreover, suppose that the orbits of $f$ have

412: {\em slow approximation to the critical set}: given small

413: $\gamma >0$ there is $\delta >0$ such that

414:  \begin{equation}

415:  \label{limsup1}

416: \limsup_{n\ra +\infty}\frac{1}{n}

417: \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}-\log\dist_\delta(f^j(x), \cc)\leq \gamma

418:  \end{equation}

419: for Lebesgue almost every $x\in M$. The results in

420: \cite{ABV} show that in this situation we obtain the

421: same conclusion on the finiteness of SRB measures for such an $f$, also holding property (P).

422: 

423: In order to prove the stochastic stability of maps with

424: critical sets we need to restrict the class of

425: perturbations we are going to consider: we take maps $f_t$

426: with the same critical set $\cc$ and impose that

427:  \begin{equation}\label{e.perturbation}

428:  Df_t(x)=Df(x) \quad\mbox{for every $x\in M\setminus\cc$ and $t\in T$}.

429:  \end{equation}

430: This may be implemented, for instance, in parallelizable

431: manifolds (with an additive group structure, e.g. tori

432: $\TT^d$ or cylinders $\TT^{d-k}\times\RR^k$) by considering

433: $$T=\{t\in \RR^d\colon \|t\|\leq \ep_0\}$$

434:  for some

435: $\ep_0>0$, $\th_\ep$ the normalized Lebesgue measure on the

436: ball of radius $\ep\leq \ep_0$, and taking $f_t=f+t$; that

437: is, adding at each step a random noise to the unperturbed

438: dynamics.

439: 

440: 

441: 

442: For the case of maps with critical sets we also need to

443: impose an analog of condition~(\ref{limsup1}) for random

444: orbits; we assume {\em slow approximation of random orbits

445: to the critical set}: given any small $\gamma >0$ there is

446: $\delta >0$ such that \begin{equation}

447:  \label{limsup2}

448: \limsup_{n\ra +\infty}\frac{1}{n}

449: \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}-\log\dist_\delta(f^j_{\un t}(x), \cc)\leq

450: \gamma

451:  \end{equation}

452: for $\th_\ep^\NN\times m$ almost every $(\un t,x)\in

453: T^\NN\times M$ and  small $\ep>0$. Results  similar to

454: those presented for local diffeomorphisms on the finiteness

455: of physical measures  can also  be obtained in this case.

456: 

457: 

458: \cmt \label{t.finite2}

459:  Let $f\colon M\rightarrow M$ be

460:  a $C^2$ non-uniformly expanding  map behaving

461:  like a power of the distance close to the critical set

462:  $\cc$, and whose orbits have slow

463:  approximation to  $\cc$. If $f$ is non-uniformly expanding for

464:  random orbits and random orbits have slow

465:  approximation to  $\cc$,

466:  then we arrive at the

467: same conclusions of Theorem~\ref{t.finite1}.

468:  \fmt

469: 

470: 

471: The property of non-uniform expansion

472:  for random orbits, together with the slow approximation of random

473: orbits to the critical set permit us to introduce a notion

474: of $(\al,\delta)$-hyperbolic times for points in $(\un

475: t,x)\in T^\NN\times M$ and define a map

476:  $$

477: h_\ep\colon T^\NN\times M\ra \ZZ^+,

478:  $$

479: by taking $h_\ep(\un t, x)$ the first

480: $(\al,\delta)$-hyperbolic time for the point $(\un t,x)\in

481: T^\NN\times M$, see Section \ref{s.distortion}. Assuming

482: that $h_\ep$ is integrable with respect to $\th_\ep\times

483: m$, then we obtain an analog to (\ref{c.unif}), which

484: enables us to define a notion of {\em uniform $L^1$-tail}

485: exactly in the same way as before.

486: 

487: Due to the fact that $\log\|Df^{-1}\|$ is not a continuous map

488: (it is not even everywhere  defined) we are not able to

489: present in this context a similar to Theorem~\ref{t.stc} in

490: all its strength. However, we obtain the same kind of

491: conclusion of the second item of Theorem~\ref{t.stc}.

492: 

493: \cmt \label{t.sts}

494:  Let $f\colon M\rightarrow M$ be

495:  non-uniformly expanding $C^2$ map behaving like a power of the

496:  distance close to its critical set $\cc$ and whose orbits have slow

497:  approximation to $\cc$. Assume that $f$ is non-uniformly

498: expanding for random orbits and random orbits have slow

499: approximation to $\cc$. If $(h_\ep)_\ep$ has uniform

500: $L^1$-tail, then $f$ is stochastically stable. \fmt

501: 

502: As a major application of the previous theorem we are

503: thinking of a class of maps on the cylinder $S^1\times \RR$

504: introduced in~\cite{V}. Subsequent

505: works~\cite{Al} and~\cite{AV} showed that such systems are

506: topologically mixing (thus transitive) and have a unique

507: SRB measure. In Section \ref{s.applications} we prove that

508: Viana maps satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{t.sts},

509: hence being stochastically stable. An application of

510: Theorem~\ref{t.stc} will also be given in

511: Section~\ref{s.applications} for an open class of local

512: diffeomorphisms introduced in~\cite[Appendix A]{ABV}.

513: 

514: 

515: 

516: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

517: 

518: 

519: 

520: 

521: \section{Distortion bounds} \label{s.distortion}

522: 

523: In this section we generalize some of the results in

524: \cite{Al} and \cite{ABV} for the setting of stochastic

525: perturbations of a non-uniformly expanding map. These

526: results  will be proved in the setting of maps with critical sets.

527: Then everything follows in the same way  for local

528: diffeomorphisms if we think of $\cc$ as being equal to

529: the empty set, with the only exception of a particular point

530: that we clarify in Remark \ref{r.hyp} below (due to

531: the fact that we are not assuming condition

532: (\ref{e.perturbation}) for  maps with no critical sets).

533: For the next definition we take

534: $0<b<\min\{1/2,1/(2\beta)\}$.

535: 

536: \cd Given $0<\al<1$ and $\delta>0$, we say that $n\in\ZZ^+$ is a

537: $(\al,\delta)$-hyperbolic time for $(\un t,x)\in T^\NN\times M$

538: if

539:  $$

540:  \prod_{j=n-k}^{n-1}

541:  \|Df_{t_{j+1}}(f^j_{\un t}(x))^{-1}\|\leq\al^k

542:  \quad\mbox{and}\quad

543:  \dist_\delta(f_{\un t}^{n-k}(x),\cc)\geq \al^{bk}

544:  $$

545: for every $1\leq k\leq n$.

546: \fd

547: 

548: The following lemma, due to Pliss \cite{Pli}, provides the

549: main tool in the proof of the existence of hyperbolic times

550: for points with non-uniform expansion on random orbits.

551: 

552: \cle \label{l.pliss} Let $H\ge c_2 > c_1 >0$ and

553: $\zeta={(c_2-c_1)}/{(H-c_1)}$. Given real numbers

554: $a_1,\ldots,a_N$ satisfying

555:  $$

556:  \sum_{j=1}^N a_j \ge c_2 N

557: \qand a_j\le H \;\;\mbox{for all}\;\; 1\le j\le N,

558:  $$

559:   there

560: are $l>\zeta N$ and $1<n_1<\ldots<n_l\le N$ such that $$

561: \sum_{j=n+1}^{n_i} a_j \ge c_1\cdot(n_i-n) \;\;\mbox{for

562: each}\;\; 0\le n < n_i, \; i=1,\ldots,l. $$

563:  \fle

564:   \dem See \cite[Lemma 3.1]{ABV}.

565:  \cqd

566: 

567: 

568: 

569: \cpr \label{p.hyp} There are $\al>0$ and $\delta>0$ for

570: which $\th_\ep^\NN\times m$ almost every $(\un t,x)\in

571: T^\NN\times M$ has some $(\al,\delta)$-hyperbolic time.

572: \fpr

573:  \dem

574: Let $(\un t,x)\in T^{\NN}\times M$ be a point

575: satisfying~(\ref{liminf2}). For large $N$ we have  $$

576: -\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \log \left\| Df ( f^j_{\un t} (x) )^{-1}

577: \right\| \ge \frac{c}2 N >0, $$ by definition of

578: non-uniform expansion on random orbits. Fixing $\rho>\be$

579: we see that condition (S1) implies

580: \begin{equation}\label{ineq1} \left| \log \left\|

581: Df(x)^{-1}  \right\| \right| \le \rho \left| \log {\rm

582: dist\,}(x,\cc) \right| \end{equation} for every $x$ in a

583: neighborhood $V$ of $\cc$. Now we take $\ga_1>0$ so that

584: $\rho\ga_1\le c/10$ and let $\de_1>0$ be small enough to

585: get

586:  \begin{equation}\label{ineq2}

587: -\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \log {\rm dist\,}_{\de_1} (f^j_{\un

588: t}(x), S) \le \ga_1 N\quad\mbox{for large $N$},

589: \end{equation} which is possible after

590: property~(\ref{limsup1}) of slow approximation to $\cc$.

591:  Moreover, fixing $H\ge \rho|\log \de|$

592: sufficiently large in order that it be also an upper bound

593: for for the set $\{ -\log \| Df^{-1}_{\un t}\| : t\in T, \;

594: x\in M\setminus V\}$, then the set

595:  $$

596:  E=\{ 1\le j\le N: -\log

597: \|Df(f^{j-1}_{\un t}(x))^{-1}\|>H \}

598:  $$

599:   is such that

600: $f^{j-1}_{\un t}(x)\in V$ for all $j\in E$ and

601:  $$

602: \rho\left|\log {\rm dist\,}(f^{j-1}_{\un t}(x),\cc)\right|

603: > -\log \left\| Df(f^{j-1}_{\un t}(x))^{-1} \right\| > H

604: \ge \rho|\log \de|

605:  $$

606:  i.e., ${\rm dist\,}(f^{j-1}_{\un

607: t}(x),\cc)<\de_1$, in particular

608: $\dist_{\de_1}(f^{j-1}_{\un t}(x),\cc)= \dist(f^{j-1}_{\un

609: t}(x),\cc)<\de_1$ for all $j\in E$. Hence, defining

610:  $$

611: a_j=\left\{ \begin{array}{lcr} -\log \left\|

612: Df(f^{j-1}_{\un t}(x))^{-1} \right\| & \mbox{if} & j\not\in

613: E \\ 0 & \mbox{if} & j\in E \end{array} \right. $$ it holds

614: $a_j\le H$ for $1\le j \le N$, and~(\ref{ineq1})

615: and~(\ref{ineq2}) imply $$ -\sum_{j\in E} \log \left\|

616: Df(f^{j-1}_{\un t}(x))^{-1}\right\| \le \rho\sum_{j\in E}

617: \left| \log \dist (f^{j-1}_{\un t}(x),\cc) \right| \le

618: \rho\ga_1 N. $$

619:  Since $\rho\ga_1\le c/10$ we deduce

620:   $$

621: \sum_{j=1}^N a_j = \sum_{j=1}^N \left( -\log \left\|

622: Df(f^{j-1}_{\un t}(x))^{-1} \right\| \right) - \sum_{j\in

623: E} \left( -\log \left\| Df(f^{j-1}_{\un t}(x))^{-1}

624: \right\| \right) \ge \frac25 c N.

625:  $$

626: By the previous arguments we may apply Lemma \ref{l.pliss}

627: to the sequence $a_j$ with $c_1=c/5$ and $c_2=2c/5$ (we may

628: suppose $H>c_1$ too by increasing $H$ if needed). Thus

629: there are $\zeta_1>0$ and $l_1>\zeta_1 N$ times $1\le q_1 <

630: \ldots < q_{l_1} \le N$ such that

631: \begin{equation}\label{ineq3} \sum_{j=n+1}^{q_i} -\log

632: \left\| Df(f^{j-1}_{\un t}(x))^{-1} \right\| \ge

633: \sum_{j=n+1}^{q_i} a_j \ge \frac{c}2(q_i-n) \end{equation}

634: for every $0\le n <q_i, \; i=1,\ldots,l_1$. We observe

635: that~(\ref{ineq3}) is just the first part of the

636: requirements on $(\al,\de)$-hyperbolic times for $(\un

637: t,x)$ if $\al=\exp(c/5)$.

638: 

639: Now we apply again Lemma~\ref{l.pliss}, this time to the

640: sequence $a_j=\log \dist_{\de_2} (f^{j-1}_{\un t}(x),\cc)$,

641: where $\de_2>0$ is small enough so that for $\ga_2>0$ with

642: $2\ga_2 (bc)^{-1}<\zeta_1$ we have by

643: assumption~(\ref{limsup1}) $$ \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \log

644: \dist_{\de_2} (f^j_{\un t}(x) , \cc) \ge -\ga_2

645: N\quad\mbox{for large $N$}. $$ Defining $c_1=bc/2$, $c_2=

646: -\ga_2$, $H=0$ and $$ \zeta_2=\frac{c_2-c_1}{H-c_1}=

647: 1-\frac{2\ga_2}{bc}, $$ Lemma~\ref{l.pliss} ensures that

648: there are $l_2\ge\zeta_2 N$ times $1\le r_1 < \ldots <

649: r_{l_2} \le N$ satisfying \begin{equation}\label{ineq4}

650: \sum_{j=n+1}^{r_i} \log \dist_{\de_2} (f^{j+1}_{\un t}(x),

651: \cc) \ge \frac{bc}2 (r_i -n ) \end{equation} for every

652: $0\le n < r_i$, $i=1,\ldots,l_2$. Let us note that the

653: condition on $\ga_2$ assures $\zeta_1+\zeta_2>1$. So if

654: $\zeta=\zeta_1+\zeta_2-1$, then there must be

655: $l=(l_1+l_2-N)\ge \zeta N$ and $1\le n_1 <\ldots <n_l \le

656: N$ for which~(\ref{ineq3}) and~(\ref{ineq4}) both hold.

657: This means that for $1\le i \le l$ and $1\le k \le n_i$ we

658: have

659:  $$

660:  \prod_{j=n_i-k}^{n_i} \left\| Df (f^j_{\un

661: t}(x))^{-1} \right\| \le \al^k \qand

662: \dist_{\de_2}(f^{n_i-k}_{\un t}(x),\cc)\ge \al^{bk},

663:  $$

664:  and

665: hence these $n_i$ are $(\al,\de)$-hyperbolic times for

666: $(\un t, x)$, with $\de=\de_2$ and $\al=\exp(c/5)$. It

667: follows that for $\th_\ep^\NN\times m$ almost every $(\un

668: t,x)\in T^\NN\times M$ there are (positive frequency of)

669: times $n\in\ZZ^+$ for which

670:  \begin{equation}\label{e.simple}

671:  \prod_{j=n-k}^{n-1} \|Df(f^j_{\un t}(x))^{-1}\|\leq\al^k

672:  \quad\mbox{and}\quad

673:  \dist_\delta(f_{\un t}^{n-k}(x),\cc)\geq \al^{bk}

674:   \end{equation}

675: for every $1\leq k\leq n$. Now the conclusion of the lemma

676: is a direct consequence of assumption (\ref{e.perturbation}).

677: \cqd

678: 

679: \cre\label{r.hyp}

680: In the setting of

681: random perturbations of a local diffeomorphism $f$

682: we may also derive

683: from the first part of (\ref{e.simple}) the existence

684: of hyperbolic times for $\th_\ep^\NN\times m$

685: almost every $(\un t,x)\in T^\NN\times M$ without assuming

686: condition (\ref{e.perturbation}).

687: Actually, let $(\un t,x)$ be a point in $ T^\NN\times M$ for which the

688:  first part of (\ref{e.simple}) holds. Taking the perturbations

689: $f_t$ in a sufficiently small $C^1$-neighborhood of $f$,  then

690:  $$

691:  \|Df_t(y)^{-1}\|\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt\al}\|Df(y)^{-1}\|

692:  $$

693: for every $y\in M$, which together with (\ref{e.simple}) gives

694:  $$

695:  \prod_{j=n-k}^{n-1} \|Df_t(f^j_{\un t}(x))^{-1}\|\leq

696:  \prod_{j=n-k}^{n-1} \frac{1}{\sqrt\al}\|Df(f^j_{\un t}(x))^{-1}\|

697:  \leq\al^{k/2}.

698:  $$

699: In the context of maps with no critical sets this $n$ may

700: be defined as a $\sqrt\al$-hyperbolic time for $(\un t,x)$

701: and all the results that we present below hold with  $\sqrt\al$-hyperbolic times replacing  $(\al,\delta)$-hyperbolic times for maps with critical sets.

702:  \fre

703: 

704: Proposition \ref{p.hyp} allows us to introduce a map

705:  $$

706:  h_\ep \colon T^\NN\times M\ra \ZZ^+,

707:  $$

708: by taking $h_\ep(\un t,x)$ as the first

709: $(\al,\delta)$-hyperbolic time for $(\un t,x)\in

710: T^\NN\times M$. We assume henceforth that the family

711: $(h_\ep)_{\ep>0}$ has uniform $L^1$-tail. For the next lemma we

712: fix $\de_1>0$ in such a way that

713: $4\delta_1<\min\{\de,\de^{\be}|\log \al|\}.$

714: 

715: \cle \label{l.contr}

716:  Given any $1\le j \le n$, we have

717:  \begin{equation*}\label{l.contr1}

718:   \|

719: Df(y)^{-1} \| \le \al^{-1/2} \| Df( f^{n-j}_{\un t}(x)

720: )^{-1} \|

721:  \end{equation*}

722:  for every  $y$ in the ball of radius $2\de_1\al^{j/2}$ around

723: $f^{n-j}_{\un t}(x)$.

724:  \fle

725:   \dem We are assuming

726: $\dist_{\de}(f^{n-j}_{\un t}(x),\cc)\ge \al^j$ since $n$ is

727: a $(\al,\de)$-hyperbolic time for $(\un t,x)$. This means

728: that

729:  $$

730: \dist (f^{n-j}_{\un t}(x),\cc)= \dist_{\de}(f^{n-j}_{\un

731: t}(x),\cc)\ge \al^{bj} \;\;\mbox{or else}\;\; \dist

732: (f^{n-j}_{\un t}(x),\cc)\ge \de.

733:  $$

734:   Either way it holds

735: $\dist(y,f^{n-j}_{\un t}(x)) \ge \dist (f^{n-j}_{\un

736: t}(x),\cc)/2$ because $b<1/2$ and $\de_1<\de/4<1/4$ for all

737: $y$ in the ball of radius $2\de_1\al^{j/2}$ around $

738: f^{n-j}_{\un t}(x)$. Therefore condition (S2) implies

739:  $$ \log\frac{\| Df(y)^{-1}

740: \|}{\|Df(f^{n-j}_{\un t}(x))^{-1}\|} \le

741: B\frac{\dist(f^{n-j}_{\un t}(x),y)} {\dist(f^{n-j}_{\un

742: t}(x),\cc)^\be} \le B\frac{2\de_1\al^{j/2}}{\min\{\al^{b\be

743: j}, \de^\be\}}.

744:  $$

745:   But $\al,\de <1$ and $b\be<1/2$ so

746: $\al^{j/2}<\al^{b\be j}$ and thus the right hand side of

747: the last expression is bounded from above by

748: $2B\de_1\de^{-\be}$. The assumptions on $\de_1$ assure this

749: last bound to be smaller than $\log \al^{-1/2}$, which

750: implies the statement. \cqd

751: 

752: 

753: 

754: 

755: \cpr\label{p.contr} There is $\de_1>0$ such that if $n$ is

756: $(\al,\delta)$-hyperbolic time for $(\un t,x)\in

757: T^\NN\times M$, then there is a neighborhood $V_n(\un t,x)$

758: of $x$ in $M$ such that \begin{enumerate} \item $f_{\un

759: t}^n$ maps $V_n(\un t,x)$ diffeomorphically onto the ball

760: of radius $\de_1$ around $f_{\un t}^n(x)$; \item for every

761: $1\leq k\leq n$ and $y,z\in V_k(\un t,x)$

762:  $$ \dist(f_{\un

763: t}^{n-k}(y),f_{\un t}^{n-k}(z)) \leq \al^{k/2}\dist(f_{\un

764: t}^{n}(y),f_{\un t}^{n}(z)).

765:  $$

766:   \end{enumerate}

767:    \fpr

768:    \dem

769: The proof will be by induction on $j\ge1$. First we show

770: that there is a well defined branch of $f^{-j}$ on a ball

771: of small enough radius around $f^j_{\un t}(x)$. Now we

772: observe that Lemma \ref{l.contr} gives for $j=1$

773:  $$

774: \| Df(y)^{-1} \| \le \al^{-1/2}\|Df(f^{n-1}_{\un

775: t}(x))^{-1}\| \le \al^{1/2},

776:  $$

777:  because $n$ is a

778: $(\al,\de)$-hyperbolic time for $(\un t,x)$. This means

779: that $f$ is a $\al^{-1/2}$-dilation in the ball of radius

780: $2\de_1\al^{1/2}$ around $ f^{n-1}_{\un t}(x)$.

781: Consequently there is some neighborhood $V_1(\un t, x)$ of

782: $f^{n-1}_{\un t}(x)$ inside the ball of radius

783: $2\de_1\al^{1/2}$ that is diffeomorphic to the ball of

784: radius $\de_1$ around $ f^n_{\un t}(x) $ through $f_{t_n}$,

785: when $f$ is a map with critical set

786: satisfying~(\ref{e.perturbation}).

787: 

788: For $j\ge1$ let us suppose that we have obtained a

789: neighborhood $V_j(\un t,x)$ of $f^{n-j}_{\un t}(x)$ such

790: that $f_{t_n}\circ\cdots\circ f_{t_{n-j+1}}\mid V_j(\un

791: t,x)$ is a diffeomorphism onto the ball of radius $\de_1$

792: around $ f^n_{\un t}(x) $ with

793: \begin{equation}\label{p.contr2}

794: \|Df(f_{t_{n-j+i+1}}\circ\cdots\circ

795: f_{t_{n-j+1}}(z))^{-1}\| \le

796: \al^{-1/2}\|Df(f^{n-j+i+1}_{\un t}(x))^{-1}\|

797: \end{equation} for all $z\in V_{j}(\un t,x)$ and $0\le

798: i<j$. Then, by Lemma \ref{l.contr} and under the assumption

799: that $n$ is a $(\al,\de)$-hyperbolic time for $x$,

800:  \begin{eqnarray*}

801: \big\| D\big(f_{t_n}\circ\cdots\circ

802: f_{t_{n-j}}(y)\big)^{-1} \big\| &\le& \prod_{i=0}^j \big\|

803: Df_{t_{n-j+i}}\big (f_{t_{n-j+i-1}}\circ\cdots\circ

804: f_{t_{n-j}}(y)\big)^{-1} \big\| \\ &\le& \prod_{i=0}^j

805: \al^{-1/2} \big\| Df_{t_{n-j+i}}\big(f^{n-j+i-1}_{\un

806: t}(x)\big)^{-1} \big\| \\ &\le&

807: (\al^{-1/2})^{j+1}\cdot\al^{j+1}=\al^{(j+1)/2}

808:  \end{eqnarray*}

809:   for every $y$ on the ball of radius

810: $2\de_1\al^{(j+1)/2}$ around $f^{n-j-1}_{\un t}(x)$ whose

811: image $f_{t_{n-j}}(y)$ is in $V_{j}(\un t,x)$ (above we

812: convention $f_{t_{n-j+i-1}}\circ\cdots\circ

813: f_{t_{n-j}}(y)=y$ for $i=0$).

814: 

815: 

816: This shows that  the derivative of $f_{t_n}\circ\cdots\circ

817: f_{t_{n-j}}$ is a $\al^{-(j+1)/2}$-dilation on the

818: intersection of

819:  $

820: f^{-1}_{t_{n-j}}\big(V_{j}(\un t,x)\big)

821:  $

822:  with the ball of radius  $2\de_1\al^{(j+1)/2}$ around

823:  $  f^{n-j-1}_{\un t}(x)$,

824:  and hence there is an

825: inverse branch of $f_{t_n}\circ\cdots\circ f_{t_{n-j}}$

826: defined on the ball of radius $\de_1$ around  $f^n_{\un

827: t}(x) $. Thus we may define $V_{j+1}(\un t,x)$ as the image

828: of the ball of radius $\de_1$ around $ f^n_{\un t}(x) $

829: under this inverse branch, and recover the induction

830: hypothesis for $j+1$. In this manner we get neighborhoods

831: $V_{j}(\un t, x)$ of $f^{n-j}_{\un t}(x)$ as above for all

832: $1\le j\le n$. \cqd

833: 

834: \cco\label{c.dist}

835:  There is a constant $C_1>0$ such that if

836: $\un t\in T^\NN$, $n$ is a $(\al,\de)$-hyperbolic time for

837: $x\in M$ and $y,z\in V_n(\un

838: t,x)$, then

839:  $$

840:  \frac{1}{C_1}\leq \frac{|\det Df_{\un

841:  t}^n(y)|}{|\det Df_{\un t}^n(z)|} \leq C_1.

842:  $$

843:  \fco

844:   \dem

845: For $1\le k\le n$ the distance between $f^k_{\un t}(x)$ and

846: either $f^k_{\un t}(y)$ or $f^k_{\un t}(z)$ is smaller than

847: $\al^{(n-k)/2}$ which is smaller than $\al^{b(n-k)}\le

848: \dist(f^k_{\un t}(x),\cc)$. So, by  (S3) we have

849: \begin{eqnarray*} \log\frac{|\det Df_{\un t}^n(y)|} {|\det

850: Df^n_{\un t}(z)|} &=& \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \log \frac{|\det

851: Df_{t_{k+1}}(f^k_{\un t}(y))|} {|\det Df_{t_{k+1}}(f^k_{\un

852: t}(z))|}\\ & \le &\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\log\frac{|\det

853: Df(f^k_{\un t}(y))|} {|\det Df(f^k_{\un t}(z))|} \\ &\le&

854: \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} 2B\frac{\al^{(n-k)/2}}{\al^{b\be(n-k)}},

855: \end{eqnarray*} and it is enough to take $C_1\le \exp

856: \left( \sum_{i=1}^\infty 2B \al^{(1/2-b\be)i} \right)$,

857: recalling that $b\be<1/2$ and also~(\ref{e.perturbation}).

858: \cqd

859: 

860: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

861: 

862: 

863: \section{Stationary measures} \label{s.stationary}

864: 

865: As mentioned before, we will assume the random

866: perturbations of the non-uniformly expanding map $f$

867: satisfy some {\em nondegeneracy conditions}: there

868: exists $0<\ep_0<1$ such that for every $0<\ep<\ep_0$ we may

869: take $n_0=n_0(\ep)\in\NN$ for which the following holds:

870: 

871:  \begin{enumerate}

872:  \item  there is $\xi=\xi(\ep)>0$ such

873:  that $ \left\{ f^n_{\un t}(x) \colon \un{t}\in

874:  (\supp\th_\ep)^{\NN} \right\} $ contains the ball of

875:  radius~$\xi$ around $f^n(x)$ for all $x\in M$ and

876:  $n\ge n_0$;

877:  \item

878: $(f^n_x)_*{\th}^{\NN}_\ep\ll m$  for all $x\in M$ and

879:  $n\ge n_0$.

880:  \end{enumerate}

881:  Here $(f^n_x)_*{\th}^{\NN}_\ep$

882: is the push-forward of ${\th}^{\NN}_{\ep}$ to $M$ via

883: $f^n_x:T^{\NN}\ra M$, defined as $f_x^n(\un t)=f_{\un t}^n(x)$.

884:  %for $\un t\in T^\NN$.

885:  Condition~1 means that

886: perturbed iterates   cover a full neighborhood of the

887: unperturbed ones after a threshold for all sufficiently

888: small noise levels. Condition~2 means that sets of

889: perturbation vectors of positive ${\th}_{\ep}^{\NN}$

890: measure must send any point $x\in M$ onto subsets of $M$

891: with positive Lebesgue measure after a finite number of

892: iterates.

893: 

894: In~\cite[Examples 1 \& 2]{Ar1} it was shown that given any

895: smooth map $f:M\ra M$ of a compact manifold we can always

896: construct a random perturbation satisfying the

897: nondegeneracy conditions 1 and 2, if we take $T=\RR^p$,

898: $t^*=0$ and $\th_\ep$ is equal to the normalized

899: restriction of the Lebesgue measure to the ball of radius

900: $\ep$ around $0$, for a sufficiently big number $p\in\NN$

901: of parameters. For parallelizable manifolds the random

902: perturbations which consist in adding  at each step a

903: random noise to the unperturbed dynamics, as described in

904: the Introduction, clearly satisfy nondegeneracy conditions

905: 1 and 2 for $n_0=1$.

906: 

907: \medskip

908: 

909: In the context of random perturbations of a map, we say that a set $A\subset M$ is {\em invariant} if $f_t(A)\subset A$, at least

910: for $t\in\supp(\th_\ep)$ with $\ep>0$ small.

911: The usual invariance of a measure with respect to a

912: transformation is replaced by the following one: a

913: probability measure $\mu$ is said to be \emph{stationary},

914: if for every continuous $\vfi:M\to\RR$ it holds

915:  \begin{equation}

916:  \label{eq.stationary}

917:  \int\vfi\,d\mu=

918:  \int\int\vfi\big(f_t(x)\big)\,d\mu(x)\,d\th_\ep(t).

919:  \end{equation}

920: 

921: \cre\label{re.accinvariant}

922:  If $(\mu^\ep)_{\ep>0}$ is a

923: family of stationary measures having $\mu_0$ as a weak$^*$

924: accumulation point when $\ep$ goes to $0$, then it follows

925: from~(\ref{eq.stationary}) and the convergence of

926: $\supp(\th_\ep)$ to $\{t^*\}$  that $\mu_0$ must be

927: invariant by $f=f_{t^*}$.

928:  \fre

929: It is not difficult to see (cf.~\cite{Ar1}) that a

930: stationary measure $\mu$ satisfies

931:  $$

932:  x\in\supp(\mu)

933: \quad\Rightarrow\quad f_t(x)\in\supp(\mu) \quad\mbox{for

934: all} \quad t\in\supp(\th_\ep)

935:  $$

936:  just by continuity of

937: $\Phi$.   This means that if $\mu$ is a

938: stationary measure, then $\supp(\mu)$ is an invariant set.

939: Nondegeneracy condition 1 ensures that the interior of

940: $\supp(\mu)$ is nonempty.

941: 

942: Let us write $\supp(\mu)$ as a disjoint union $\bigcup_i C_i$

943: of connected components and consider only those $C_i$ for

944: which $m(C_i)>0$ -- this collection is nonempty

945: %\marginpar{??}

946: since

947: $\supp(\mu)$ contains open sets. Moreover each $f_t$ must

948: permute these components for $t\in\supp(\th_\ep)$, because

949: $f_t(C_i)$ is connected by continuity,

950: $f_t(C_i)\subset\supp(\mu)$ by invariance, and

951: $m(f_t(C_i))>0$ since we have $(f_t)_*m\ll m$.

952: 

953: The connectedness of $C_i$ and continuity of $\Phi$ guarantee that

954: the abovemention perturbation of the components $C_i$

955: induced by $f_t$ does not depend on $t\in\supp(\th_\ep)$.

956: Indeed, supposing that $t,t^\prime\in\supp(\th_\ep)$ are

957: such that $$ f_t(C_i)\subset C_j \qand

958: f_{t^\prime}(C_i)\subset C_{j^\prime}, $$ then fixing some

959: $z\in C_i$ we have that $\{ f_t(z)\colon t\in\supp(\th_\ep)\}$

960: is a connected set intersecting both $C_j$ and

961: $C_{j^\prime}$ inside $\supp(\mu)$, and so $C_j =

962: C_{j^\prime}$.

963: 

964: 

965: We will show that these connected components are periodic

966: under the action induced by $f_t$ with $

967: t\in\supp(\th_\ep)$. After this, we may use nondegeneracy

968: condition 1 to conclude that each component contains a ball

969: of uniform radius and thus that each component satisfies

970: $m(C_i)> \mbox{const} >0$. Hence there existing only a

971: finite number of such components.

972: 

973: At this point it is useful to introduce the  skew-product map

974: \[

975: \begin{array}{rccc} F: & T^\NN\times M &\longrightarrow &

976: T^\NN\times M\\

977:  & (\un t, z) &\longmapsto & \big(\sigma(\un t),f_{t_1}(z)\big)

978: \end{array}

979:  \]

980:  where $\sigma$ is the left shift on

981: sequences $\un t=(t_1,t_2,\dots)\in T^\NN$.

982:  It is easy to check that the product measure $\th_\ep^\NN\times\mu$

983: is $F$-invariant, as so is the set

984: $\supp(\th_\ep^\NN\times\mu)=\supp(\th_\ep)^\NN\times\supp(\mu)$.

985: 

986: 

987:  \cle \label{pr.cycles}

988:  The support of a stationary measure

989: $\mu$ contains a finite number of connected components

990: arranged in cycles permuted by the action of $f_t$ for

991: $t\in\supp(\th_\ep)$.

992:  \fle

993: %We remark that this \emph{does not say} that the

994: %support has \emph{only} a finite number of

995: %connected components.

996:  \dem

997: Is is enough to obtain that each connected component $C_i$

998: is periodic under the action of $f_t$ for $t\in\supp(\th_\ep)$, in

999: the sense that $f^p_{\un t}(C_i)\subset C_i$ for some

1000: $p\in\NN$ and all $\un t\in\supp(\th_\ep^\NN)$.

1001: There are components $C_i$ with nonempty interior,

1002: since the interior of $\supp(\mu)$ is nonempty.

1003: So we may take a component

1004: $C_i$ that contains some ball $B$.

1005: Then

1006: we have $m(B)>0$ and so

1007: $(\th_\ep^\NN\times\mu)(\supp(\th_\ep^\NN)\times B)>0$.

1008: Poincar\'e Recurrence Theorem now guarantees there is

1009: $(\un t,x)\in \supp(\th_\ep^\NN)\times B$

1010: such that the $F$-orbit

1011: of $(\un t,x)$ has the same $(\un t,x)$ as an accumulation

1012: point. We see that there must exist some $p\in\NN$ such

1013: that $f^p_{\un t}(x)\in B\subset C_i$.

1014: In view of the independence of the permutation on the

1015: choice of $\un t$, we conclude that $C_i$ is sent inside

1016: itself by $f_{\un t}^p$ for all $\un

1017: t\in\supp(\th_\ep^\NN)$. \cqd

1018: 

1019: It is clear that the cycles obtained above are invariant

1020: sets.

1021: We are now ready to decompose $\mu$ into some simpler

1022: measures. For that we need the following result.

1023: 

1024: \cle \label{l.restrict} The normalized restriction of a

1025: stationary  measure to an invariant set is a

1026: stationary measure.

1027:  \fle

1028:  \dem See \cite[Lemma~8.2]{Ar1}. \cqd

1029: 

1030: We define an {\em invariant domain} in $M$ as a finite

1031: collection $(U_0,\dots,U_{p-1})$ of pairwise separated open

1032: sets, that is, $\ov{U}_i\cap\ov{U}_j = \emptyset$ if $i\neq

1033: j$, such that

1034:  $f^k_{\un t}(U_i)\subset U_{(k+i)\bmod p}$

1035:  for all $k\ge1$,

1036: $i=0,\dots,p-1$ and $\un t\in\supp(\th_\ep^\NN)$.

1037: 

1038: In order to get the  separation  of the connected

1039: components in a cycle, we may unite those components $C_i$

1040: and $C_j$ such that $\ov{C}_i\cap\ov{C}_j\neq\emptyset$ and

1041: observe that the permutation now induced in the new sets by

1042: $f_t$ also does not depend on the choice of

1043: $t\in\supp(\th_\ep)$. In this manner we construct invariant

1044: domains inside the support of any stationary probability

1045: measure.

1046: 

1047: The next step is to look for \emph{minimal invariant

1048: domains} with respect to the natural order relation of

1049: inclusion of sets.

1050: Let $D=(U_0,\dots,U_{p-1})$ and $D'=(W_0,\dots,W_{q-1})$ be

1051: invariant domains.

1052: On the one hand, $D=D'$ if there are $i,j\in\NN$ such that

1053: $U_{(i+k) \bmod p} = W_{(j+k) \bmod q}$ for all $k\ge1$,

1054: which implies $p=q$ because the open sets that form each

1055: invariant domain are pairwise disjoint. On the other hand,

1056: we say $D\prec D'$ if there are $i,j\in\NN$ such that

1057: $U_{i\bmod p} \subsetneq W_{j\bmod q}$

1058: and $U_{(i+k) \bmod p} \subset W_{(j+k)

1059: \bmod q}$ for all $k\ge1$.

1060: 

1061: \cle \label{l.minimal}

1062:  In the partially ordered family of

1063: all invariant domains in $M$, with respect to the relation

1064: $\prec$, the number of $\prec$-minimal domains is finite.

1065: Moreover, every invariant domain contains at least one

1066: minimal domain.

1067:  \fle

1068: 

1069: \dem The proof relies in showing that Zorn's Lemma can be

1070: applied to this partially ordered set and that minimal

1071: domains are pairwise separated. See~\cite[Section~3]{Ar1}.

1072: \cqd

1073: 

1074: 

1075: 

1076: 

1077: Let us now  fix $x\in M$ and consider

1078:  \begin{equation}

1079:  \label{pushforward1}

1080:  \mu_n(x)=\frac1n\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} (f^j_x)_*\th_\ep^\NN.

1081:  \end{equation}

1082: Since this is a sequence of probability measures on the

1083: compact manifold $M$, then it has weak$^*$ accumulation

1084: points.

1085: 

1086: 

1087: \cle \label{p.muinvariant}

1088:  Every weak$^*$ accumulation point

1089: of $\big(\mu_n(x)\big)_n$ is stationary and absolutely

1090: continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure.

1091:  \fle

1092: \dem Let $\mu$ be a weak$^*$ accumulation point of

1093: $\big(\mu_n(x)\big)_n$. We may write

1094:  $$

1095:  \int \int \vfi \big( f_t(x) \big) \,

1096: d\mu(x) \, d\th_\ep(t) = \int \lim_{k\to+\infty}

1097: \frac1{n_k} \sum_{j=0}^{n_k-1} \int \vfi \left(

1098: f_t\big(f_{\un t}^j(x)\big) \right) \, d\th_\ep^\NN(\un

1099: t)\,d\th_\ep(t)

1100:  $$

1101:  for each continuous $\vfi:M\to\RR$.

1102: Moreover dominated convergence ensures that we may exchange

1103: the limit and the outer integral sign and, by definition of

1104: $f^j_{\un t}(x)$, we get

1105:  $$

1106:  \lim_{k\to\infty} \frac1{n_k}

1107: \sum_{j=0}^{n_k-1} \int \vfi \big( f_{\un t}^{j+1}(x)\big)

1108:  \, d\th_\ep^\NN(\un t) = \int \vfi \, d\mu,

1109:  $$

1110: according to the definition of $\mu$. Thus

1111: (\ref{eq.stationary}) must hold and $\mu$ is stationary.

1112: 

1113: Noting that $C^0(M,\RR)$ is dense in $L^1(M,\mu)$ with the

1114: $L^1$ norm, we see that (\ref{eq.stationary}) holds for all

1115: $\mu$-integrable functions $\vfi:M\to\RR$. In particular,

1116: if $E\subset M$ is such that $m(E)=0$, then

1117:  \begin{eqnarray*}

1118:  \int 1_E \,d\mu

1119:  &=&\int\int 1_E\big(f_{t}(x)\big) \,d\mu(x)\,d\th_\ep(t) \\

1120:  &=&\int\int 1_E\big(f_{t}(x)\big) \,d\th_\ep(t)\,d\mu(x) \\

1121:  &=&\int\int\int1_E\big(f_{t}(f_{s}(x))\big)\,

1122:        d\th_\ep(t)\,d\mu(x)\,d\th_\ep(s)\\

1123:  &=&\int\int 1_E\big(f^2_{\un t}(x)\big)\,d\th_\ep^\NN(\un t)\,d\mu(x)\\

1124:  &=&\int (f^2_x)_*\th_\ep^\NN(E) \,d\mu(x).

1125:  \end{eqnarray*}

1126:  This process may be iterated to yield

1127:  $$

1128:  \mu(E)=\int (f^{n_0}_x)_*\th_\ep(E)\,d\mu(x)

1129:  $$

1130: and, since $(f^{n_0}_x)_*\th_\ep\ll m$ by nondegeneracy

1131: condition 2, we must have $\mu(E)=0$.

1132:  \cqd

1133: 

1134: 

1135: Clearly if $x\in M$ belongs to some set of an

1136: invariant domain $(U_0,\dots,U_{p-1})$,

1137: then $\mu_n(x)$ have supports contained in

1138: $\ov{U}_0\cup\dots\cup\ov{U}_{p-1}$ for all $n\ge1$

1139: and any weak$^*$ accumlation point $\mu$ of

1140: $(\mu_n(x))_n$ is a stationary measure with

1141: $\supp(\mu)\subset\ov{U}_0\cup\dots\cup\ov{U}_{p-1}$.

1142: We will now see these measures are physical.

1143: 

1144: 

1145: 

1146:  \cle

1147:  \label{l.minimal=physical}

1148: If $(U_0,\dots,U_{p-1})$ is a minimal invariant

1149: domain, then there is a unique absolutely

1150: continuous stationary measure $\nu$ such that

1151: $\supp(\nu)\subset\ov{U}_0\cup\dots\cup\ov{U}_{p-1}$.

1152: Moreover, this  $\nu$ is a physical measure

1153:  and $\supp(\nu)=\ov{U}_0\cup\dots\cup\ov{U}_{p-1}$.

1154:  \fle

1155: 

1156: \dem Let us assume $n_0=1$ for simplicity

1157: (see~\cite[Section~7]{Ar1} for the general case) and let us

1158: consider a stationary absolutely continuous probability

1159: measure $\nu$ with

1160: $\supp(\nu)\subset\ov{U}_0\cup\dots\cup\ov{U}_{p-1}$. We

1161: first show  the ergodicity of $\nu$, in the sense that

1162: $\th_\ep^\NN\times\nu$ is $F$-ergodic. It turns out that to

1163: be $F$-ergodic it suffices that either $\nu(G)=0$  or

1164: $\nu(G)=1$ for every Borel set $G\subset M$

1165:  satisfying

1166:  \begin{equation}

1167:  \label{eq.ergodic}

1168:  1_G(x)=\int 1_G \left(f_t(x)\right)\,d\th_\ep(t)

1169: \end{equation} for $\nu$ almost every $x$ (cf.~\cite{Ar1}

1170: and~\cite{V2}). So let us take $G$ such that $\nu(G)>0$ and

1171: $G$ satisfies the left hand side of~(\ref{eq.ergodic}).

1172: Then it must be $m(G)>0$ because $\nu\ll m$ and there is a

1173: closed set $J\subset G$ such that $m(G\setminus J)=0$ and

1174: also $\nu(G\setminus J)=0$. Hence $J$ also satisfies the

1175: left hand side of~(\ref{eq.ergodic}) because of

1176: nondegeneracy condition 2 (with $n_0=1$), since

1177:  $$

1178:  \int 1_E(f_t(x))\,d\th_\ep(t)=(f_x)_*\th_\ep^\NN(E).

1179:  $$

1180: This means that when $x\in J$ we have $f_t(x)\in J$ for

1181: $\th_\ep$ almost all $t\in\supp(\th_\ep)$. Since a set of

1182: $\th_\ep$ measure 1 is dense in $\supp(\th_\ep)$ (we are

1183: supposing $\th_\ep$ to be positive on open sets) and

1184: $f_t(x)$ varies continuously with $t$,

1185: we see that $f_t(x)\in J$ for all $t\in\supp(\th_\ep)$

1186: because $J$ is closed.

1187: We then  have that the interior of $J$ is nonempty by

1188: condition 1 on random perturbations and we may apply the

1189: methods of decomposition into connected components as

1190: before (Lemma~\ref{pr.cycles}). In this manner we

1191: construct an invariant domain inside $J$ which, in turn, is

1192: inside a minimal invariant domain. This contradicts

1193: minimality and so we conclude that $J$ must contain

1194: $\ov{U}_0\cup\dots\cup\ov{U}_{p-1}$. Thus we have

1195: $\nu(G)=\nu(J)=1$ proving $\th_\ep^\NN\times\nu$ to be

1196: $F$-ergodic.

1197: 

1198: Now, given $\vfi:M\to\RR$ continuous we consider the map

1199: $\psi=\vfi\circ\pi$ from $T^\NN\times M$ to $\RR$,

1200: where $\pi:T^\NN\times M\to M$ is

1201: the natural projection. The Ergodic Theorem then ensures

1202:  $$

1203:  \lim_{n\to+\infty}\frac1n\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}

1204:  \psi(F^j(\un t,x))=\int \psi \, d(\th_\ep^\NN\times\nu)

1205:  $$

1206: for $\theta_\epsilon^\NN\times\nu$ almost all $ (\un t,x)$,

1207: which is just the same as

1208:  \begin{equation}

1209:  \label{eq.ergodic2}

1210:  \lim_{n\to+\infty}\frac1n\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}

1211:  \vfi(f^j_{\un t}(x))=\int\vfi\,d\nu

1212:  \end{equation}

1213:  for $\theta_\epsilon^\NN\times\nu$ almost all $ (\un

1214:  t,x)$.

1215:  Finally considering the ergodic basin

1216:  $B(\nu)$, defined as the set of points $ x\in M$ for which

1217:  $$

1218:  \lim_{n\to+\infty}

1219:  \frac1n\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\vfi(f^j_{\un t}(x))=

1220:  \int\vfi\,d\nu

1221:  $$

1222:  for all $\vfi\in C^0(M,\RR)$ and

1223:  $\th_\ep^\NN$ almost every $\un t\in T^\NN$,

1224: it is easy to

1225: see that $B(\nu)$ satisfies 

1226: (\ref{eq.ergodic}) in the place of $G$ and we must have

1227: as before $B(\nu)\supset \ov{U}_0\cup\dots\cup\ov{U}_{p-1}$.

1228: 

1229: This shows that if another stationary absolutely continuous

1230: probability measure $\tilde \nu$ is such that $\supp(\tilde

1231: \nu)\subset \ov{U}_0\cup\dots\cup\ov{U}_{p-1}$, then the

1232: basins of $\nu$ and $\tilde \nu$ must have nonempty intersection.

1233: Thus these

1234: measures must be equal. Moreover $\nu\big(B(\nu)\big)=1$ and so, by

1235: absolute continuity, $m\big(B(\nu)\big)>0$ and thus $\nu$ is a physical

1236: probability. \cqd

1237: 

1238: 

1239: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1240: 

1241: \section{The number of physical measures}

1242: \label{s.physical}

1243: 

1244: In this section we will prove that the number $l$ of physical

1245: measures is bounded by the number $p$ of SRB measures. Moreover we will present examples of dynamical systems for which $l=p$ and $l<p$.

1246: 

1247: Let $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_l$ be the physical measures supported

1248: on the minimal invariant domains  in $M$, which exist by

1249: Lemmas~\ref{pr.cycles} and \ref{l.minimal}

1250: through~\ref{l.minimal=physical}. If $\mu$ is an absolutely

1251: continuous stationary measure, its restrictions to the

1252: minimal invariant domains of $M$, normalized when not equal

1253: to the constant zero measure, are absolutely continuous

1254: stationary measures by Lemma~\ref{l.restrict}. After

1255: Lemma~\ref{l.minimal=physical} these restrictions must be

1256: the physical measures $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_l$ of the minimal

1257: domains. Hence $\mu$ must decompose into a linear

1258: combination of physical measures.

1259:  Moreover, the union of

1260: $\supp(\mu_1),\dots,\supp(\mu_l)$ must contain

1261: $\supp(\mu)$, except possibly for a $\mu$ null set. In

1262: fact, if the following set function

1263:  $$

1264: \mu-\mu\big(\supp(\mu_1)\big)\mu_1-\cdots

1265: -\mu\big(\supp(\mu_l)\big)\mu_l

1266:  $$

1267: were nonzero, then its normalization $\mu^\prime$ would be

1268: an absolutely continuous stationary measure, and the above

1269:  decomposition could be applied to $\mu^\prime$,

1270: thus giving another minimal domain inside $\supp(\mu)$.

1271: Clearly this cannot happen. We then have a convex linear

1272: decomposition

1273:  \begin{equation}

1274: \label{eq.decomposition}

1275:  \mu=\al_1\mu_1+\dots+\al_l\mu_l

1276:  \end{equation}

1277:  where $\al_i=\mu(\supp(\mu_i))\ge0$ and

1278: $\al_1+\dots+\al_l=1$. We will see that this decomposition

1279: is uniquely defined.

1280: 

1281: \medskip

1282: 

1283: 

1284: We remark that so far we did not use more than the continuity

1285: of the map $f$.

1286: %\marginpar{verdade?}

1287: For the next result we assume that $f:M \to M$ is a $C^2$

1288: non-uniformly expanding map whose orbits have slow

1289: approximation to the critical $\cc$ (possibly the emptyset)

1290: with $m(\cc)=0$. This result contains the assertions of the

1291: first two items of Theorem~A (if we think of

1292: $\cc=\emptyset$) and Theorem~C.

1293: 

1294: \cpr

1295: \label{p.finitemeasures}

1296:  If $\ep>0$ is small enough, then there exist physical measures

1297:  $\mu^\ep_1,\dots,\mu^\ep_l$

1298: (with $l$ not depending on $\ep$) such that

1299:  \begin{enumerate}

1300:  \item for $x\in M$ there is a $\th_\ep^\NN$ mod $0$

1301:  partition $T_1(x),\dots,T_l(x)$ of $T^\NN$ such that

1302:  $$

1303:  \mu_i^\ep=\wlim \frac1n \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} \de_{f_{\un t}^j(x)}

1304:  \quad \mbox{ if and only if } \quad \un t \in T_i(x);

1305:  $$

1306:  \item for each $i=1,\dots,l$ we have

1307:  $$

1308:  \mu_i^\ep=\wlim\frac1n\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\int (f^j_{\un t})_*

1309:  \big(m\mid B(\mu_i^{\ep})\big) \, d\th_\ep^\NN(\un t),

1310:  $$

1311: where $m\mid B(\mu_i^{\ep})$ is the normalized

1312: restriction of Lebesgue measure to $B(\mu_i^{\ep})$.

1313:  \end{enumerate}

1314:  \fpr

1315:  \dem

1316: Take $x\in M$ and let $\mu$ be a weak$^*$ accumulation

1317: point of the sequence $(\mu_n(x))_n$ defined

1318: in~(\ref{pushforward1}). We will prove that this is  the

1319: only accumulation point of~(\ref{pushforward1}) by showing

1320: that  the values of the $\al_1,\dots,\al_l$ in

1321: decomposition (\ref{eq.decomposition}) depend only on $x$

1322: and not on the subsequence that converges to $\mu$. The

1323: definition of the average in~(\ref{pushforward1}) implies

1324: that there is a subset

1325:  of parameter vectors  $\un t\in\supp(\th_\ep^\NN)$

1326: with positive $\th_\ep^\NN$ measure

1327: for which  there is $j\ge1$ such that $f^j_{\un

1328: t}(x)\in\supp(\mu_i)$.

1329: We define for $i=1,\dots,l$

1330:  $$

1331:  T_i(x)=

1332:  \left\{ \un t\in\supp(\th_\ep^\NN): f^j_{\un t}(x) \in

1333:  \supp(\mu_i) \quad\mbox{for some}\quad j\ge1 \right\}.

1334:  $$

1335: We clearly have

1336:  $$

1337:  T_i(x)=\mbox{$\bigcup$}_{j\ge1} T_i^j(x) \quad\mbox{where}\quad T_i^j(x)=

1338:  \{ \un t\in\supp(\th_\ep^\NN): f^j_{\un t}(x)\in \supp(\mu_i) \}

1339:  $$

1340:  and $T_i^j(x)\subset T_i^{j+1}(x)$ for all $i,j\ge1$, since the supports of

1341: stationary measures are themselves invariant. In addition,

1342: since $\mu$ is a regular (Borel) probability measure, we

1343: may find for each $\eta>0$ an open set $U$ and a closed set $K$

1344: such that $K\subset\supp(\mu_i)\subset U$ with

1345: $\mu(U\setminus K)<\eta$ and $\mu(\partial U)=\mu(\partial

1346: K)=0$. In fact, there is an at most countable number of

1347: $\delta$-neighborhoods of $\supp(\mu_i)$ whose boundaries have

1348: positive $\mu$ measure, and likewise for the compacts coinciding with the complement of the $\delta$-neighborhood of $M\setminus\supp(\mu_i)$. Then,

1349: taking $\alpha_i=\mu(\supp(\mu_i))$ we have

1350:  \begin{eqnarray*}

1351: \al_i+\eta\ge \mu(U) &=&

1352: \lim_{k\to+\infty}\frac1{n_k}\sum_{j=0}^{n_k-1}

1353: \th_\ep^\NN\{ \un t\in T^\NN: f^j_{\un t}(x)\in U \} \\ &

1354: \ge & \limsup_{k\to+\infty} \frac1{n_k}\sum_{j=0}^{n_k-1}

1355: \th_\ep^\NN\big(T_i^j(x)\big) \end{eqnarray*} for some sequence of

1356: integers $n_1<n_2<n_3<\cdots$, and likewise for

1357: \begin{eqnarray*} \al_i-\eta\le \mu(K)

1358:  &=&

1359:  \lim_{k\to+\infty}\frac1{n_k}\sum_{j=0}^{n_k-1}

1360:  \th_\ep^\NN\{ \un t\in T^\NN:

1361:  f^j_{\un t}(x)\in K \}

1362: \\

1363:  & \le &

1364:  \liminf_{k\to+\infty}

1365:  \frac1{n_k}\sum_{j=0}^{n_k-1}

1366:  \th_\ep^\NN\big(T_i^j(x)\big),

1367: \end{eqnarray*}

1368: where $\eta>0$ is arbitrary.

1369: This shows

1370:  $$

1371:  \al_i=\mu(\supp(\mu_i))= \lim_{k\to\infty}

1372:  \frac1{n_k}\sum_{j=0}^{n_k-1} \th_\ep^\NN\big(T_i^j(x)\big).

1373:  $$

1374: We also have

1375:  $$

1376: \th_\ep^\NN\big(T_i(x)\big)=\lim_{j\to\infty}\th_\ep^\NN\big(T_i^j(x)\big)

1377: =\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}

1378: \th_\ep^\NN\big(T_i^j(x)\big) =\al_i

1379:  $$

1380: which shows that the $\al_i$ depend only on the random

1381: orbits of $x$ and not on the particular sequence $(n_k)_k$.

1382: Thus we see that the sequence of measures in

1383: (\ref{pushforward1}) converges in the weak$^*$ topology.

1384: Moreover the sets $T_1(x),\dots,T_l(x)$ are pairwise disjoint by

1385: definition and their total $\th_\ep^\NN$ measure equals

1386: $\al_1+\cdots+\al_l=1$, thus forming a $\th_\ep^\NN$ modulo

1387: zero partition of $T^\NN$. We observe that if $\un t\in

1388: T_i(x)$, then $f^n_{\un t}(x)\in \supp(\mu_i)\subset

1389: B(\mu_i)$ for some $n\ge1$ and $i=1,\dots,l$. This means

1390: this $\th_\ep^\NN$ modulo zero partition of $T^\NN$

1391: satisfies the first item  of the proposition.

1392: 

1393: Now fixing $i=1,\dots,l$, for all $x\in B(\mu_i)$ (the

1394: ergodic basin of $\mu_i$) it holds that $$

1395: \lim_{n\to+\infty}\frac1n\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \vfi(f_{\un

1396: t}^j(x)) = \int \vfi\, d\mu_i $$ for $\th_{\ep}^\NN$ almost

1397: every $\un t\in T^\NN$. Recall that $m(B(\mu_i))>0$ by the

1398: definition of physical measure. Using dominated convergence

1399: and integrating both sides of the above equality twice,

1400: first with respect to the Lebesgue measure $m$, and then

1401: with respect to $\th_{\ep}^\NN$, we arrive at the statement

1402: of item 2.

1403: 

1404: Recall that up until now the noise level $\ep>0$ was kept

1405: fixed. For small enough $\ep>0$ the measures

1406: $\mu_i=\mu_i^\ep$ depend on the noise level, but we will

1407: see that the number of physical measures is constant.

1408: 

1409: Fixing $i\in\{1,\dots,l\}$ we let $x$ in the interior of

1410: $\supp(\mu_i^\ep)$ be such that the orbit $(f^j(x))_j$ has

1411: infinitely many hyperbolic times. Recall that $f\equiv

1412: f_{t^*}$ is non-uniformly expanding (possibly with

1413: criticalities). Then there is a big enough hyperbolic time

1414: $n$ so that $V_n(\un t^*, x)\subset\supp(\mu_i^\ep)$, by

1415: Proposition~\ref{p.contr}, where we take $\un

1416: t^*=(t^*,t^*,t^*,\dots)$. Since $t^*\in\supp(\th_\ep)$ and

1417: $\supp(\mu_i^\ep)$ is invariant under $f_t$ for all

1418: $t\in\supp(\th_\ep)$, we must have

1419:  $$

1420:  f^n_{\un t^*}\big(V_n(\un

1421: t^*,x)\big)= B\big(f^n_{t^*}(x),\de_1\big)

1422: \subset\supp(\mu_i^\ep),

1423:  $$

1424: where $\de_1>0$ is the constant given by

1425: Proposition~\ref{p.contr} and

1426: $B\big(f^n_{t^*}(x),\de_1\big)$ is the ball of radius

1427: $\de_1$ around $f^n_{t^*}(x)$.

1428: 

1429:  On the

1430: one hand, we deduce that the number $l=l(\ep)$ is bounded

1431: from above by some uniform constant $N$ since $M$ is

1432: compact. On the other hand, since each  invariant set  must

1433: contain some physical measure (by Lemma~\ref{l.minimal}),

1434: we see that for $0<\ep^\prime<\ep$ there must be some

1435: physical measure $\mu^{\ep^\prime}$ with

1436: $\supp(\mu^{\ep^\prime})\subset\supp(\mu^\ep)$. In fact

1437: $\supp(\mu^\ep)$ is invariant under $f_t$ for every

1438: $t\in\supp(\th_{\ep^\prime})\subset\supp(\th_\ep)$. This

1439: means the number $l(\ep)$ of physical measures is a

1440: nonincreasing function of $\ep>0$. Thus we conclude that

1441: there must be $\ep_0>0$ such that $l=l(\ep)$ is constant

1442: for $0<\ep<\ep_0$, ending the proof of the proposition.

1443: \cqd

1444: 

1445: \cre \label{r.transitivity} Observe that if the map $f:M\to

1446: M$ is transitive, then every stationary measure must be

1447: supported on the whole of $M$, since the support is

1448: invariant and has nonempty interior. According to the

1449: discussion above, there must be only one such stationary

1450: measure, which must be physical. \fre

1451: 

1452: We note that the number $l$ of physical measures for small

1453: $\ep>0$ and the number $p$ of SRB measures for $f$ are

1454: obtained by different existential arguments. It is natural

1455: to ask if there is any relation between $l$ and $p$.

1456: 

1457: \cpr  If $p\ge1$ is the number of SRB measures of $f$ and

1458: $l\ge1$ is the number of physical measures of the random

1459: perturbation of $f$, then for $\ep>0$ small enough we have $l\le

1460: p$.

1461:  \fpr

1462:  \dem

1463: We start by observing that if $p=1$ then every weak$^*$

1464: accumulation point of a family $(\mu_i^\ep)_{\ep>0}$ of

1465: physical measures when $\ep\to0$ must equal the unique SRB

1466: measure $\mu_1$ for $f$. Hence the weak$^*$ limit of

1467: $(\mu_i^\ep)_{\ep>0}$ when $\ep\to0$ exists and equals

1468: $\mu_1$ for all $i=1,\ldots,l$. Then there must be a single

1469: physical measure $\mu_1^\ep$ for all small enough $\ep>0$.

1470: In fact, let us assume there are distinct families

1471: $(\mu_1^\ep)_{\ep>0}$ and $(\mu_2^\ep)_{\ep>0}$ of physical

1472: measures as given by Proposition~\ref{p.finitemeasures}.

1473: Take $x\in\supp(\mu_1)$ and a sequence of continuous maps

1474: $\vfi_n:M\to\RR$ such that

1475:  $$ \vfi_n\ge0\quad,\quad

1476: \vfi_n\mid B(x, 1/n)\equiv 1 \qand \vfi_n \mid \big(

1477: M\setminus B(x,2/n)\big) \equiv 0,

1478:  $$ for all big $n\in\NN$, where $B(x,r)$ denotes the ball of radius

1479:  $r$ around $x$ for each $r\ge0$. If we fix $n$, then $\mu_1(\vfi_n)>0$. Thus for all

1480: small enough $\ep>0$ we must have $\mu_1^\ep(\vfi_n)>0$ and

1481: $\mu_2^\ep(\vfi_n)>0$. Hence the distance between

1482: $\supp(\mu_1^\ep)$ and $\supp(\mu_2^\ep)$ is smaller than

1483: $2/n$.\ Since $n$ may be arbitrarily large we see that

1484: $\supp(\mu_1^\ep)$ and $\supp(\mu_2^\ep)$ get arbitrarily

1485: close when $\ep\to0$. Thus $\mu_1^\ep$ and $\mu_2^\ep$ must

1486: coincide for small $\ep>0$ because

1487: Proposition~\ref{p.finitemeasures} and its proof show that

1488: these families, when distinct, are at a uniform distance

1489: apart (since $\{\supp(\mu_1^\ep)\}_{\ep>0}$ and

1490: $\{\supp(\mu_2^\ep)\}_{\ep>0}$ are nested families of

1491: pairwise disjoint compact sets).

1492: 

1493: In general, if $p>1$ then the weak$^*$ accumulation points

1494: of a family $(\mu_i^\ep)_{\ep>0}$ for $i=1,\ldots, l$

1495: when $\ep\to0$ are convex linear combinations

1496: $\al_1\mu_1+\cdots+\al_p\mu_p$ of the $p$ SRB measures of

1497: $f$. The preceding argument implies that two distinct

1498: families $(\mu_i^\ep)_{\ep>0}$ and $(\mu_j^\ep)_{\ep>0}$ of

1499: physical measures cannot have weak$^*$ accumulation points

1500: expressed as linear convex combinations $$

1501: \al_1\mu_1+\cdots+\al_p\mu_p\qand

1502: \al_1^\prime\mu_1+\cdots+\al_p^\prime\mu_p $$ with both

1503: $\al_k$ and $\al_k^\prime$ nonzero for some $k=1,\ldots,p$

1504: (take $x\in\supp(\mu_k)$ and repeat the arguments in the

1505: above paragraph). Hence $l\le p$. \cqd

1506: 

1507: The reverse inequality does not hold in general, as the

1508: following examples show: it is possible for two distinct

1509: SRB measures to have intersecting supports and, in this

1510: circumstance, the random perturbations will mix their

1511: basins and there will be some physical measure whose

1512: support overlaps the supports of both SRB measures.

1513: 

1514: \begin{figure}[htb]

1515: \begin{center}

1516: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{parabolas.ps}

1517: \caption{\label{fig.1}

1518:             map for which $1=l<p=2$}

1519: \end{center}

1520: \end{figure}

1521: 

1522: \medskip

1523: 

1524: The first example is the map $f:[-3,1]\to[-3,1]$ whose

1525: graph is figure~\ref{fig.1}: $$ f(x)=  \left\{

1526: \begin{array}{lcl} 1-2x^2 & \mbox{if} & -1\le x \le 1 \\

1527: 2(x+2)^2 -3 & \mbox{if} & -3 \le x \le -1 \end{array}

1528: \right. . $$ The dynamics of $f$  on $[-1,1]$ and $[-3,-1]$

1529:  is conjugated to the tent map $T(x)=

1530: 1-2|x|$ on $[-1,1]$. Thus understanding $f$ as a circle map

1531: through the identification $S^1=[-3,1]/\{-3,1\}$, this is a

1532: non-uniformly expanding map with a critical set satisfying

1533: conditions (S1)-(S3) and

1534:  there are two ergodic absolutely continuous (thus SRB)

1535: invariant measures $\mu_1, \mu_2$ whose supports are

1536: $[-3,-1]$ and $[-1,1]$ respectively. Moreover defining

1537:  $\Phi(t)= R_t\circ f,

1538:  $

1539:  where $R_t:S^1\to S^1$ is the

1540: rotation of angle $t$ and $\th_\ep=(2\ep)^{-1}(m\mid

1541: [-\ep,\ep])$ for small $\ep>0$, we have that $\{ \Phi,

1542: (\th_\ep)_{\ep>0} \}$ is a random perturbation satisfying

1543: nondegeneracy conditions 1 and 2. Since

1544: $\supp(\mu_1)\cap\supp(\mu_2)=\{-1\}$ we have that for

1545: $\ep>0$  small enough there must be a single physical

1546: measure $\mu^\ep$. Indeed, by property (P) any weak$^*$

1547: accumulation point of a family of physical measures must

1548: have $-1$ in its support.

1549:  \begin{figure}[htb]

1550: \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=8cm]{parabolas2.ps}

1551: \caption{\label{fig.2} map for which $l=p=2$} \end{center}

1552: \end{figure}

1553: 

1554: \medskip

1555: 

1556: 

1557: The second example is defined on the interval $I=[-7,2]$.

1558: We take the map $q_a(x)=a-x^2$ on $[-2,2]$ for some

1559: parameter $a\in(1,2)$  satisfying Benedicks-Carleson

1560: conditions (see~\cite{BC1} and~\cite{BC2}), and  the

1561: ``same" map on $[-7,-3]$ conveniently conjugated:

1562: $p_a(x)=(x+5)^2-5-a$. Then the two pieces of graph are

1563: glued together in  such a way that we obtain a smooth map

1564: $f:I\to I$ sending $I$ into its interior, as

1565: figure~\ref{fig.2} shows. The intervals

1566: $I_q=[q_a^2(0),q_a(0)]$ and $I_p=[p_a(-5),p_a^2(-5)]$ are

1567: forward invariant for $f$, and then we can find slightly

1568: larger intervals $I_1\supset I_p$ and $I_2\supset I_q$

1569: that become trapping regions for $f$. So, taking

1570:  $ \Phi(t)= f+t, $

1571:  and $\theta_\ep$ as in the previous

1572: example with $0<\ep<\ep_0$ for some $\ep_0>0$ small enough,

1573: then $\{ \Phi, (\th_\ep)_{\ep}\}$ is a random perturbation

1574: of $f$ leaving the intervals  $I_1$ and $I_2$ invariant by

1575: each $\Phi(t)$. Moreover, Lebesgue almost every $x\in I$

1576: eventually arrives at one of these intervals. Then

1577: by~\cite{BC1} and \cite{BY} the map $f$ is non-uniformly

1578: expanding and has two SRB measures with supports contained

1579: in each trapping region. Finally $f$ admits two distinct

1580: physical measures whose supports are contained  in $I_1$

1581: and $I_2$ respectively, for $\ep_0>0$ small enough, see

1582: \cite{BaV}.

1583: 

1584: 

1585: 

1586: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1587: 

1588: 

1589: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1590: 

1591: 

1592: \section{Stochastic stability} \label{s.stochastic}

1593: 

1594: In this section we will prove the first item of

1595: Theorem~\ref{t.stc} and Theorem~\ref{t.sts}. The second

1596: item of Theorem~\ref{t.stc} may be obtained in the same way

1597: as Theorem \ref{t.sts}, if we think of $\cc$ as being equal

1598: to the empty set and take into account Remark~\ref{r.hyp}.

1599: 

1600: We start by proving the first item of Theorem \ref{t.stc}.

1601: Assume that $f$ is a stochastically stable non-uniformly

1602: expanding  local diffeomorphism. We know from

1603: Proposition~\ref{p.finitemeasures} that there is a finite

1604: number of physical measures $\mu_1^\ep,\dots \mu_l^\ep$ and

1605: for each $x\in M$ there is a $\th_\ep^\NN$ mod $0$

1606: partition $T_1(x),\dots,T_l(x)$ of $T^\NN$ for which

1607:  $$

1608:  \mu_i^\ep=\wlim \frac1n \sum_{j=1}^{n-1}\de_{f_{\un t}^j(x)}

1609:  \quad \mbox{for each}\quad \un t \in T_i(x).

1610:  $$

1611: Furthermore, since we are taking $f$ a local

1612: diffeomorphism, then $\log\|(Df)^{-1}\|$ is a continuous

1613: map. Thus, we have for each $x\in M$ and $\th^\NN_\ep$

1614: almost every $\un t\in T^\NN$

1615:  $$

1616:  \lim_{n\ra \infty}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}

1617:  \log\|Df\big(f_{\un t}^j(x)\big)^{-1}\|=

1618:  \int\log\|(Df)^{-1}\|d\mu_i^\ep

1619:  $$

1620: for some physical measure $\mu_i^\ep$ with $1\le i\le l$.

1621: Hence, for proving the non-uniform expansion of $f$ on

1622: random orbits it suffices to show that there is $c_0>0$

1623: such that if $\mu^\ep=\mu_i^\ep$ for some $1\le i\le l$

1624: then

1625:  $$

1626:  \int\log\|(Df)^{-1}\|d\mu^\ep<c_0\quad\mbox{for small $\ep>0$}.

1627:  $$

1628: 

1629:  \cle\label{l.aprox}

1630: Let $\vfi\colon M\ra \RR$ be a continuous map.

1631: Given $\de>0$ there is $\ep_0>0$ such that if $\ep\leq\ep_0$, then

1632:  $$

1633:  \left|\int \vfi d\mu^\ep -

1634:  \int \vfi d\mu_\ep\right|<\de,

1635:  $$

1636: for some absolutely continuous $f$-invariant probability

1637: measure $\mu_\ep$.

1638:  \fle

1639:  \dem

1640: We will use the following auxiliary result: \emph{Let $X$

1641: be a compact metric space, $K\subset X$ a closed (compact)

1642: subset and $(x_t)_{t>0}$ a curve in $X$ (not necessarily

1643: continuous) such that all its accumulation points (as $t\to

1644: 0^{+}$) lie in $K$. Then for every open neighborhood $U$ of

1645: $K$ there is $t_0>0$ such that $x_t\in U$ for every

1646: $0<t<t_0$. } Indeed, supposing not, there is a sequence

1647: $(t_n)_{n}$ with $t_n\to 0^{+}$ when $n\to\infty$ such that

1648: $x_{t_n}\not\in U$. Since $X$ is compact this means that

1649: $(x_t)_{t>0}$ has some accumulation point in $X\setminus

1650: U$, thus outside $K$, contrary to the assumption.

1651: 

1652: Now, the space $X=\PP(M)$ of all probability measures in

1653: $M$ is a compact metric space with the weak$^{*}$ topology,

1654: and the convex hull $K$ of the (finitely many) SRB measures

1655: of $f$ is closed. Hence, considering the curve

1656: $(\mu_\ep)_\ep$ in $\PP(M)$, we are in the context of the

1657: above result, since we are supposing $f$ to be

1658: stochastically stable. A metric on $X$ topologically

1659: equivalent to the weak$^{*}$ topology may be given by

1660:  $$

1661: \distp(\mu,\nu)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac1{2^n} \left| \int

1662: \varphi_n \, d\mu - \int \varphi_n \, d\nu \right|

1663:  $$

1664:  where

1665: $\mu,\nu\in\PP(M)$ and $(\varphi_n)_{n\ge 1}$ is a

1666: dense sequence of functions in $C^0(M,\RR)$,

1667: see~\cite{Man}.

1668: 

1669: Let $\varphi:M\to\RR$ continuous be given and let us fix

1670: some $\de>0$. There must be $n\in\NN$ such that $\| \varphi

1671: - \varphi_n \|_0 < \de/3$ and, by the auxiliary result in

1672: the beginning of the proof,  there exists, for some $\ep_0>0$ and

1673: every $0<\ep<\ep_0$, a probability measure

1674: $\mu_\ep\in\PP(M)$ for which $\distp(\mu^\ep,\mu_\ep)<\de

1675: (3\cdot 2^n)^{-1}$. This in particular means that

1676:  $$

1677: \frac1{2^n} \left| \int \varphi_n \, d\mu^\ep - \int

1678: \varphi_n \, d\mu_\ep \right| < \frac{\de}{3\cdot 2^n},

1679:  $$

1680: by the

1681: definition of the distance $\distp$, which implies

1682:  $$

1683:  \left| \int \varphi_n \, d\mu^\ep - \int

1684: \varphi_n \, d\mu_\ep \right| < \frac{\de}3.

1685:  $$

1686: Hence we get

1687:  \begin{eqnarray*}

1688: \lefteqn{\left| \int \varphi \, d\mu^\ep - \int \varphi \,

1689: d\mu_\ep \right|\leq}\hspace{.5cm}\\

1690:  & \le &

1691:  \left| \int \varphi \, d\mu^\ep - \int

1692: \varphi_n \, d\mu^\ep \right| + \left| \int \varphi_n \,

1693: d\mu^\ep - \int \varphi_n \, d\mu_\ep \right| + \left| \int

1694: \varphi_n \, d\mu_\ep - \int \varphi \, d\mu_\ep \right| \\

1695:  & < & \frac{\de}3 +\frac{\de}3 +\frac{\de}3 =

1696: \de, \end{eqnarray*}

1697: which completes the proof of the lemma.\cqd

1698: 

1699: Now we take $\vfi=\log\|(Df)^{-1}\|$ and $\de=c/2$ in the

1700: previous lemma, where $c>0$ is the constant given by the

1701: non-uniform expansion  of $f$ (recall (\ref{liminf1})). For

1702: each $\ep\leq\ep_0$ let $\mu_\ep$ be the measure given by

1703: Lemma~\ref{l.aprox}. Since property (P) holds, there are

1704: real numbers $w_1(\ep),\dots ,w_p(\ep)\geq 0$ with

1705: $w_1(\ep)+\cdots+w_p(\ep)=1$ for which

1706: $\mu_\ep=w_1(\ep)\mu_1+\cdots+w_p(\ep)\mu_p$. Since each

1707: $\mu_i$ is an SRB measure for $1\leq i\leq p$, we have for

1708: Lebesgue almost every $x\in B(\mu_i)$

1709:  $$

1710: \int\log\|(Df)^{-1}\|d\mu_i=\lim_{n\ra +\infty}\frac{1}{n}

1711: \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\log\|Df(f^j(x))^{-1}\|\leq -c<0.

1712:  $$

1713:  This implies

1714:  $$

1715:  \int\log\|(Df)^{-1}\|d\mu_\ep\leq -c,

1716:  $$

1717: and so, by Lemma \ref{l.aprox} and the choice of $\delta$,

1718:  $$

1719:  \int\log\|(Df)^{-1}\|d\mu^\ep\leq -c/2.

1720:  $$

1721: This completes the proof of the first item of Theorem B.

1722: 

1723: \medskip

1724: 

1725: Now we go into the proof of Theorem \ref{t.sts}.

1726: In order to prove that $f$ is stochastically stable, and

1727: taking into account property (P), it suffices to prove

1728: that the weak$^*$ accumulation points of any family

1729: $(\mu^\ep)_{\ep>0}$, where each $\mu^\ep$ is a physical

1730: measure of level $\ep$, are absolutely continuous with respect

1731: to the Lebesgue measure. Let $\mu^\ep$ be a physical measure

1732: of level $\ep$ for some small $\ep>0$

1733:  and define

1734: for each $n\geq 1$

1735:  $$ \mu_n^\ep = \frac1n\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\int (f^j_{\un t})_{*}

1736:  \big(m\mid{B(\mu^\ep)\big)}\, d\th_\ep^\NN(\un t).

1737:  $$

1738: We know from Proposition~\ref{p.finitemeasures} that each

1739: $\mu^\ep$ is the weak$^*$ limit of the sequence

1740: $(\mu_n^\ep)_n$. We will prove Theorem~\ref{t.sts} by

1741: providing some useful estimates on the densities of the

1742: measures $\mu_n^\ep$. Define for each $\un t\in T^\NN$ and

1743: $n\geq 1$

1744:  $$

1745:  H_n(\un t)=\{ x\in  B(\mu^\ep)\colon \mbox{ $n$ is a

1746:  $(\al,\delta)$-hyperbolic time for $(\un t,x)$ }\},

1747:  $$

1748:  and

1749:  $$

1750:   H^*_n(\un t) =\{ x\in B(\mu^\ep)\colon \mbox{ $n$ is the first

1751:  $(\al,\delta)$-hyperbolic time for $(\un t,x)$ }\}.

1752:  $$

1753:  $ H^*_n(\un t)$ is precisely the set of those points

1754:  $x\in B(\mu^\ep)$ for which $h_\ep(\un t,x)=n$

1755:  (recall the definition of

1756: the map $h_\ep$).

1757:  For

1758: $n,k\geq 1$ we also define $R_{n,k}(\un t)$ as the set of

1759: those points $x\in M$ for which $n$ is a

1760: $(\al,\delta)$-hyperbolic time and $n+k$ is the first

1761: $(\al,\delta)$-hyperbolic time  after $n$, i.e. $$

1762: R_{n,k}(\un t)= \left\{x\in H_n(\un t)\colon \:f^n_{\un

1763: t}(x)\in  H^*_k(\si^n\un t)\: \right\}, $$ where $\si\colon T^\NN \rightarrow  T^\NN$ is the shift map

1764: $\si(t_1,t_2,\dots)=(t_2,t_3,\dots)$.

1765:   Considering the

1766: measures

1767:  $$

1768:  \nu^\ep_n=\int ( f_{\un

1769: t}^n)_*\big(m\mid H_n(\un t)\big)d\th_\ep^\NN(\un t)

1770:  $$

1771:  and

1772:  $$

1773: \eta_n^\ep=\sum_{k=2}^\infty\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\int (f_{\un

1774: t}^{n+j})_*\big(m\mid R_{n,k}(\un t)\big) d\th_\ep^\NN(\un

1775: t),

1776:  $$

1777: we may write

1778:  $$

1779:  \mu_n^\ep\leq

1780: \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}(\nu_j^\ep+\eta_j^\ep).

1781:  $$

1782: 

1783: 

1784: \cpr\label{p.dens}

1785:  There is a constant $C_2>0$ such that for every $n\geq 0$

1786:  and $\un t\in T^\NN$

1787:  $$

1788:  \frac{d}{dm}(f_{\un t}^n)_*\big(m\mid H_n(\un t)\big)\leq C_2.

1789:  $$

1790:  \fpr

1791:  \dem Take $\de_1>0$ given by Proposition \ref{p.contr}. It is

1792: sufficient to prove that there is some uniform constant

1793: $C>0$ such that if $A$ is a Borel set in $M$ with diameter

1794: smaller than $\delta_1/2$ then

1795:  $$

1796:  m\big(f_{\un t}^{-n}(A)\cap  H_n(\un t)\big)\leq C m(A).

1797:  $$

1798:  Let $A$ be a Borel set in $M$ with diameter smaller than

1799: $\delta_1/2$ and $B$ an open  ball of radius $\delta_1/2$

1800: containing $A$. We may write

1801:  $$

1802:  f_{\un t}^{-n}(B)=\bigcup_{k\geq 1}B_k,

1803:  $$

1804: where $(B_k)_{k\geq 1}$ is a (possibly finite) family of

1805: two-by-two disjoint open sets in $M$. Discarding those

1806: $B_k$ that do not intersect $H_n(\un t)$, we choose for

1807: each $k\geq 1$ a point $x_k\in H_n(\un t)\cap B_k$. For

1808: $k\geq 1$ let $V_n(\un t,x_k)$ be the neighborhood of $x_k$

1809: in $M$ given by Proposition \ref{p.contr}. Since $B$ is

1810: contained in $B\big(f_{\un t}^n(x_k), {\de_1}\big)$, the

1811: ball of radius $\de_1$ around $f_{\un t}^n(x_k)$, and

1812: $f_{\un t}^n$ is a diffeomorphism from $V_n(\un t,x_k)$

1813: onto $B\big(f_{\un t}^n(x_k), {\de_1}\big)$, we must have

1814: $B_k\subset V_n(\un t,x_k)$ (recall that by our choice of

1815: $B_k$ we have $f_{\un t}^n(B_k)\subset B$). As a

1816: consequence of this and Corollary \ref{c.dist}, we have for

1817: every $k$ that the map $f_{\un t}^n\mid B_k\colon

1818: B_k\rightarrow B$ is a diffeomorphism with bounded

1819: distortion:

1820:  $$ \frac{1}{C_1}\leq \frac{|\det Df_{\un

1821: t}^n(y)|}{|\det Df_{\un t}^n(z)|} \leq C_1 $$ for all

1822: $y,z\in B_k$.

1823:  This finally

1824: gives \begin{eqnarray*} m\big(f_{\un t}^{-n}(A)\cap H_n(\un

1825: t)\big) &\leq & \sum_{k}m\big(f_{\un t}^{-n}(A\cap B)\cap

1826: B_k\big)\\ &\leq & \sum_{k}C_1\frac{m(A\cap

1827: B)}{m(B)}m(B_k)\\ &\leq & C_2 m(A), \end{eqnarray*} where

1828: $C_2>0$ is a constant only depending on $C_1$, on the

1829: volume of the ball $B$ of radius $\delta_1/2$, and on the

1830: volume of $M$.\cqd

1831: 

1832: 

1833: 

1834: 

1835: It follows from Proposition \ref{p.dens} that

1836:  \begin{equation}\label{dens}

1837: \frac{d\nu_n^\ep}{dm}\leq C_2

1838:  \end{equation}

1839:  for every $n\geq 0$ and small $\epsilon>0$. Our goal now is to

1840:  control the density of the measures $\eta_n^\ep$

1841:  in such a way that we may assure the absolute

1842:  continuity of the weak$^*$ accumulation points

1843:  of the measures $\mu^\ep$ when $\ep$ goes to zero.

1844: 

1845: 

1846: 

1847: 

1848: \cpr\label{p.dens2} Given $\zeta>0$, there is

1849: $C_3(\zeta)>0$ such that for  every $n\geq 0$ and $\ep>0$

1850: we may bound $\eta_n^{\ep}$ by the sum of two non-negative

1851: measures, $\eta_n^{\ep} \leq \omega^{\:\ep}+\rho^{\:\ep}$,

1852: with

1853:  $$

1854:  \frac{d\omega^{\:\ep}}{dm}\leq C_3(\zeta)\qand

1855:  \rho^{\:\ep}(M)<\zeta.

1856:  $$

1857:  \fpr

1858:  \dem

1859:  Let $A$ be some Borel set in $M$.

1860: We have for each $n\geq 0$

1861:  \begin{eqnarray*}

1862:  \eta_n^\ep(A)

1863:  &=&

1864:  \sum_{k=2}^\infty\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \int

1865:  m\big( f_{\un t}^{-n-j}(A)\cap R_{n,k}(\un t)\big)

1866:  d\th_\ep^\NN(\un t)\\

1867:  &\leq &

1868:  \sum_{k=2}^\infty\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \int m\big( f_{\un

1869:  t}^{-n} \big(f_{\si^n\un t}^{-j}(A)\cap H^*_k(\si^n\un t)\big)\cap

1870:  H_n(\un t)\big)d\th_\ep^\NN(\un t)\\

1871:  &=&

1872:  \sum_{k=2}^\infty\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \int\nu_n^\ep\big(

1873:  f_{\si^n\un t}^{-j}(A)\cap H^*_k(\si^n\un t)\big) d\th_\ep^\NN(\un

1874:  t) \\

1875:  &\leq &

1876:  \sum_{k=2}^\infty\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} C_2\int

1877:  m\big( f_{\un t}^{-j}(A)\cap

1878:  H^*_k(\un t)\big)d\th_\ep^\NN(\un t).

1879:  \end{eqnarray*}

1880:  (in this last inequality we used that $\th^\NN_\ep$

1881: is $\si$-invariant and estimate (\ref{dens}) above). Let

1882: now $\zeta>0$ be some fixed small number. Since we are

1883: assuming $(h_\ep)_\ep$ with uniform  $L^1$-tail this means

1884: that there is some integer $N=N(\zeta)$ for which

1885:  $$

1886:  \sum_{j=N}^{\infty}k\int

1887:  m\big(H^*_k(\un t)\big)d\th^\NN_\ep(\un t)<\frac{\zeta}{C_2}.

1888:  $$

1889: We take

1890:  $$

1891:  \omega^{\:\ep}=C_2\sum_{k=2}^{N-1}\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}

1892:  \int(f_{\un t}^j)_*\big(m\mid H^*_k(\un t)\big)d\th_\ep^\NN(\un t)

1893:  $$

1894:  and

1895:  $$

1896:  \rho^{\:\ep}=C_2\sum_{k=N}^\infty\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}

1897:  \int(f_{\un t}^j)_*\big(m\mid H^*_k(\un t)\big)d\th_\ep^\NN(\un t).

1898:  $$

1899: For this last measure we have

1900:  $$

1901:  \rho^{\:\ep}(M)=C_2\sum_{k=N}^\infty\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \int

1902:  m\big( H^*_k(\un t)\big)d\th_\ep^\NN(\un t) \leq C_2

1903:  \sum_{k=N}^\infty k\int m\big( H^*_k(\un t)\big)d\th_\ep^\NN(\un t)

1904:  <\zeta.

1905:  $$

1906: On the other hand, it follows from the definition of

1907: $(\al,\de)$-hyperbolic times that there is some constant

1908: $a=a(N)>0$ such that

1909:  $\dist\big(H_k(\un t), \cc\big)\geq a

1910: $ for $1\leq k\leq N$. Defining $\Delta\subset M$ as the

1911: set of those points in $M$ whose distance to $\cc$ is

1912: greater than $a$, we have

1913:  $$

1914:  \omega^{\:\ep}\leq C_2\sum_{k=2}^{N-1}\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}

1915:  \int(f_{\un t}^j)_*(m\mid \Delta)\:d\th_\ep^\NN(\un t),

1916:  $$

1917: and this last measure has density bounded by some uniform

1918: constant, as long as we take the maps $f_t$ in a

1919: sufficiently small neighborhood of $f$ in the $C^1$

1920: topology.

1921:  \cqd

1922: 

1923:  It follows from this last proposition and (\ref{dens}) that the weak$^*$

1924:  accumulation points of $\mu^\ep$ when $\ep\to0$ cannot

1925:  have singular part, thus being absolutely continuous with

1926:  respect to the Lebesgue measure. Moreover, the

1927:   weak$^*$ accumulation points of a family of

1928:  stationary measures are always $f$-invariant

1929:   measures, cf. Remark~\ref{re.accinvariant}. This together with (P)

1930:  gives the stochastic stability of $f$.

1931: 

1932: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1933: 

1934: \section{Applications}\label{s.applications}

1935: 

1936: In this section we will apply  Theorems \ref{t.stc} and

1937: \ref{t.sts} to certain examples of

1938:  non-uniformly expanding maps.

1939: Before we explicit the examples we have in mind let us give

1940: a practical criterion for proving that the family of

1941: hyperbolic time maps $(h_\ep)_\ep$ has uniform $L^1$-tail.

1942: 

1943: If we look at the proof of Proposition \ref{p.hyp} we

1944: realize that what we did was fixing some positive number

1945: $c_0$ smaller than $c$, and then, for $\th_\ep^\NN\times m$

1946: almost every $(\un t,x)\in T^\NN\times M$, we took a

1947: positive integer $N_\ep=N_\ep(\un t,x)$ for which $$

1948: %\frac{1}{N_\ep}

1949: \sum_{j=0}^{N_\ep-1}\log\|Df(f_{\un t}^j(x))^{-1}\|\leq

1950: -c_0N_\ep \quad \mbox{and} \quad

1951: % \frac{1}{N_\ep}

1952: \sum_{j=0}^{N_\ep-1}-\log\dist_\delta(f_{\un t}^j(x),

1953: \cc)\leq \gamma N_\ep, $$ for suitable choices of

1954: $\delta>0$ and $\gamma>0$. This permits us to introduce a

1955: map

1956:  $$N_\ep\colon T^\NN\times M\ra \ZZ^+$$

1957: whose existence provides a first hyperbolic time map

1958: $$

1959: h_\ep\colon T^\NN\times M\ra \ZZ^+\quad\mbox{with}\quad h_\ep \leq N_\ep

1960: $$

1961: (recall the proof of Proposition \ref{p.hyp}).

1962: Thus, the integrability of the map $h_\ep$ is implied by the

1963: integrability of the map $N_\ep$, which is in practice

1964: easier to handle.

1965: 

1966: In the examples we are going to study below we will show

1967: that there is a sequence of positive real numbers

1968: $(a_k^\ep)_k$ for which

1969:  $$ (\th_\ep^\NN\times

1970: m)\left(\big\{(\un t,x)\in T^\NN\times M\colon N_\ep(\un

1971: t,x)>k\big\}\right)\leq a_k^\ep \quad \mbox{and} \quad

1972: \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} ka_k^\ep <\infty,

1973:  $$

1974: This gives the integrability of $h_\ep$ with respect to the

1975: measure $\th_\ep^\NN\times m$. The fact the family

1976: $(h_\ep)_\ep$ has uniform  $L^1$-tail can be proved by

1977: showing that the sequence $(a_k^\ep)_k$ may be chosen not

1978: depending on $\ep>0$.

1979: 

1980: Now we are ready for the applications of Theorems

1981: \ref{t.stc} and \ref{t.sts}. We will describe firstly a

1982: class of local diffeomorphisms introduced in \cite[Appendix

1983: A]{ABV} that satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem

1984: \ref{t.stc}, and then a class of maps (with critical sets)

1985: introduced in \cite{V} satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem

1986: \ref{t.sts}.

1987: 

1988: 

1989: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1990: 

1991: \subsection{Local diffeomorphisms} \label{ss.localdiffeos}

1992: Now we follow~\cite[Appendix A]{ABV} and describe robust

1993: classes of maps (open in the $C^2$ topology) that are

1994: non-uniformly expanding local diffeomorphisms and

1995: stochastically stable. Let $M$ be a compact Riemannian

1996: manifold and consider

1997:   \[

1998:   \begin{array}{rccl}

1999:   \Phi:& T &\longrightarrow&  C^2(M,M)\\

2000:   & t &\longmapsto & f_t

2001:   \end{array}

2002:   \]

2003:  a continuous family of $C^2$ maps, where $T$

2004: is a metric space.

2005:  We begin with an essentially

2006: combinatorial lemma.

2007: 

2008: 

2009: \cle \label{l.frequency} Let $p,q\ge1$ be integers and

2010: $\si>q$ a real number. Assume $M$ admits a measurable cover

2011: $\{ B_1,\ldots,B_p,B_{p+1},\ldots,B_{p+q}\}$ such that for

2012: all $t\in T$ it holds \begin{enumerate} \item $|\det

2013: Df_t(x)|\ge \si$ for all $x\in B_{p+1}\cup\ldots\cup

2014: B_{p+q}$; \item $\left(f_t\mid B_i\right)$ is injective for

2015: all $i=1,\ldots,p$. \end{enumerate} Then there is $\zeta>0$

2016: such that for every Borel probability $\th$ on $T$ we have

2017: \begin{equation}\label{eq.frequency} \#\{0\le j < n:

2018: f^j_{\un t}(x) \in B_1\cup\ldots\cup B_p \} \ge \zeta  n

2019: \end{equation} for $\th^\NN\times m$ almost all $(\un

2020: t,x)\in T^\NN\times M$ and large enough $n\ge1$. Moreover

2021: the set $I_n$ of points $(\un t,x)\in T^\NN\times M$ whose

2022: orbits do not spend a fraction $\zeta$ of the time in

2023: $B_1\cup\ldots\cup B_p$ up to iterate $n$ is such that

2024: $(\th^\NN\times m)(I_n)\le \tau^n$ for some $0<\tau<1$ and

2025: for large $n\ge1$. \fle

2026: 

2027: \dem

2028: Let us fix $n\ge1$ and $\un t\in T^\NN$.

2029: For a sequence

2030: $\un i=(i_0,\ldots,i_{n-1})\in\{1,\ldots,p+q\}^n$

2031: we write

2032: $$

2033: [\un i]=

2034: B_{i_0}\cap (f^1_{\un t})^{-1}(B_{i_1})\cap\cdots

2035: \cap (f^{n-1}_{\un t})^{-1}(B_{i_{n-1}})

2036: $$

2037: and define

2038: $g(\un i)=\#\{ 0\le j < n : i_j \le p \}$.

2039: 

2040: We start by observing that for $\zeta>0$ the number of

2041: sequences $\un i$ such that $g(\un i)<\zeta n$ is bounded

2042: by $$ \sum_{k<\zeta n} {n \choose k} p^k q^{n-k} \le

2043: \sum_{k\le \zeta n} {n \choose k} p^{\zeta n} q^n. $$ Using

2044: Stirling's formula (cf.~\cite[Section 6.3]{BV}) the

2045: expression on the right hand side is bounded by $(e^\gamma

2046: p^\zeta q)^n$, where $\gamma>0$ depends only on $\zeta$ and

2047: $\gamma(\zeta)\to 0$ when $\zeta\to0$.

2048: 

2049: Assumptions 1 and 2 ensure $m([\un i])\le

2050: \si^{-(1-\zeta)n}$ (recall that $m(M)=1$). Hence the

2051: measure of the union $I_n(\un t)$ of all the sets $[\un i]$

2052: with $g(\un i)<\zeta n$ is bounded by $$ \si^{-(1-\zeta)n}

2053: (e^\gamma p^\zeta  q)^n. $$ Since $\si>q$ we may choose

2054: $\zeta$ so small that $e^\gamma p^\zeta q <

2055: \si^{(1-\zeta)}$. Then $m(I_n(\un t))\le \tau^n$ with

2056: $\tau=e^{\gamma+\zeta-1}\cdot p^\zeta \cdot q <1$ for big

2057: enough $n\ge N$. Note that $\tau$ and $N$ do not depend on

2058: $\un t$. Setting $$ I_n=\mcup_{\un t\in T^\NN} \big(\{\un

2059: t\} \times I_n(\un t)\big) $$ we also have $(\th^\NN\times

2060: m)(I_n)\le \tau^n$ for all big $n\ge N$ and for every Borel

2061: probability $\th$ on $T$, by Fubini's Theorem. Since

2062: $\sum_n (\th^\NN\times m)(I_n) < \infty$ then

2063: Borel-Cantelli's Lemma implies $$ (\th^\NN\times m) \left(

2064: \mcap_{n\ge1} \mcup_{k\ge n} I_k \right) =0 $$ and this

2065: means that $\th^\NN\times m$ almost every $(\un t,x)\in

2066: T^\NN\times M$ satisfies~(\ref{eq.frequency}). \cqd

2067: 

2068: \cle \label{pr.nonunifexp.localdiffeo} Let $\{

2069: B_1,\ldots,B_p,B_{p+1},\ldots,B_{p+q}\}$ be a measurable

2070: cover of $M$ satisfying conditions 1 and 2 of

2071: Lemma~\ref{l.frequency}. For $0<\lambda<1$ there are

2072: $\eta>0$ and $c_0>0$ such that, if $f_t$ also satisfies for

2073: all $t\in T$ \begin{enumerate} \item[3.] $\| Df_t(x)^{-1}

2074: \| \le \lambda <1$ for $x\in B_1,\ldots,B_p$; \item[4.]

2075: $\|Df_t(x)^{-1}\| \le 1+\eta$ for $x\in

2076: B_{p+1},\ldots,B_{p+q}$; \end{enumerate} then we have

2077:  for $f\equiv

2078: f_{t^*}$, where $t^*$ is some given point in $T$,

2079: \begin{equation}\label{eq.nonunifexp.sum}

2080: \limsup_{n\to+\infty}\frac1n\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \log\|

2081: Df(f^j_{\un t}(x))^{-1}\| \le -c_0 \end{equation} for

2082: $\th^\NN\times m$ almost all $(\un t,x)\in T^\NN\times M$,

2083: where $\th$ is any Borel probability measure on $T$.

2084: Moreover the first hyperbolic time map $h:T^\NN\times M\to

2085: \ZZ^{+}$ satisfies $$ (\th^\NN\times m) \{ (\un t,x)\in

2086: T^\NN\times M: h(\un t,x) > k \} \le a_k \qand

2087: \sum_{k=1}^\infty ka_k < \infty $$ with  $(a_k)_k$

2088: independent of the choice of $\th$. \fle

2089: 

2090: \dem Let $\zeta>0$ be the constant provided by

2091: Lemma~\ref{l.frequency}. We fix $\eta>0$ sufficiently small

2092: so that $\lambda^\zeta(1+\eta)\le e^{-c_0}$ holds for some

2093: $c_0>0$ and take $(\un t,x)$

2094: satisfying~(\ref{eq.frequency}). Conditions 3 and 4 now

2095: imply \begin{equation}\label{eq.nonunifexp.prod}

2096: \prod_{j=0}^{n-1}\|Df(f^j_{\un t}(x))^{-1}\| \le

2097: \lambda^{\zeta n} (1+\eta)^{(1-\zeta)n} \le e^{-c_0 n}.

2098: \end{equation} for large enough $n$. This

2099: means~(\ref{eq.nonunifexp.prod}) holds for $\th^\NN\times

2100: m$ almost every $(\un t,x)\in T^\NN\times M$.

2101: 

2102: We observe that if $h(\un t,x)=k$, then $1\le n <  k$

2103: cannot be hyperbolic times for $(\un t,x)$. Hence $(\un

2104: t,x)\in I_n$ for all $n=1,\ldots,k-1$. In particular $$

2105: (\th^\NN\times m)\{ (\un t,x)\in T^\NN\times M: h(\un

2106: t,x)=k \} \le (\th^\NN\times m)(I_{k-1}) \equiv a_k $$ and

2107: $\sum_k k a_k\le\sum_k k\tau^{k-1} < \infty$. \cqd

2108: 

2109: 

2110: 

2111: Now we will show that families of $C^2$ maps satisfying

2112: conditions 1 through 4 of Lemmas~\ref{l.frequency} and

2113: \ref{pr.nonunifexp.localdiffeo} contain open sets of

2114: families in the $C^2$ topology. Let $M$ be a

2115: $n$-dimensional torus $\TT^n$ and $f_0:M\to M$ a uniformly

2116: expanding map: there exists $0<\lambda <1$ such that

2117: $\|Df_0(x)v\|\ge\lambda^{-1}\|v\|$ for all $x\in M$ and

2118: $v\in T_x M$. Let also $W$ be some small compact domain in

2119: $M$ where $f_0\mid W$ is injective. Observe that $f_0$ is a

2120: volume expanding local diffeomorphism due to the uniform

2121: expansion.

2122: 

2123: Modifying $f_0$ by an isotopy inside $W$ we may obtain a

2124: map $f_1$ which coincides with $f_0$ outside $W$, is volume

2125: expanding in $M$, i.e., $| \det Df_1(x) | >1$ for all $x\in

2126: M$, and has bounded contraction on $W$ near 1: $\| Df_1(x)

2127: ^{-1} \| \le 1+\eta$  for every $x\in W$ and some $\eta>0$

2128: small. This new map $f_1$ may be taken $C^1$ close to $f_0$

2129: and we may consider a $C^2$ map $f_2$ arbitrarily $C^1$

2130: close to $f_1$.

2131: 

2132: Now any map $f$ in a small enough $C^2$ neighborhood of

2133: $f_2$ admits $\si>1$ such that $|\det Df(x)|\ge\si$ for all

2134: $x\in M$ and, for $x$ outside $W$, we have $\|

2135: Df(x)^{-1}\|\le\lambda$. If the $C^2$ neighborhood is taken

2136: sufficiently small then we maintain $\|Df(x)^{-1}\|\le

2137: 1+\eta$ for $x\in W$ and for some small $\eta>0$. Let us

2138: take $B_1,\ldots,B_p, B_{p+1}=W$ a partition of $M$ into

2139: measurable sets where the restriction $f\mid B_i$ is

2140: injective for $i=1,\ldots,p+1$. Then any continuous family

2141: of $C^2$ maps $\Phi:T\to C^2(M,M)$ together with a family

2142: $(\th_\ep)_{\ep>0}$ of Borel probability measures in the

2143: metric space $T$, satisfying $\supp(\th_\ep)\to\{t^*\}$

2144: when $\ep\to0$ and $f_{t^*}\equiv f$, for some $t^*\in T$,

2145: is such that $f$ is non-uniformly expanding for random

2146: orbits and $(h_\ep)_{\ep>0}$ has uniform $L^1$-tail -- by

2147: Lemma~\ref{pr.nonunifexp.localdiffeo} with $q=1$ and

2148: $T=\supp(\th_\ep)$ for small enough $\ep>0$. Theorem B then

2149: shows

2150: 

2151: \cco \label{co.nonunifexp} There are open sets ${\cal U}

2152: \subset C^2(M,M)$

2153:  of maps in the $C^2$ topology

2154: such that every map $f\in {\cal U}$ is a stochastically

2155: stable non-uniformly expanding local diffeomorphism. \fco

2156: 

2157: 

2158: \subsection{Viana maps}

2159: \label{ss.vianamaps}

2160: 

2161: In what follows we  describe the class of non-uniformly

2162: expanding maps (with critical sets) introduced by M. Viana,

2163: referring the reader to \cite{V}, \cite{Al} and \cite{AV}

2164: for details. Then we show that those maps satisfy the

2165: hypotheses of  Theorem \ref{t.finite2} and Theorem

2166: \ref{t.sts}.

2167: 

2168:  Let $a_0\in(1,2)$ be such that

2169: the critical point $x=0$ is pre-periodic for the quadratic

2170: map $Q(x)=a_0-x^2$. Let $S^1=\RR/\ZZ$ and $b:S^1\rightarrow

2171: \RR$ be a Morse function, for instance, $b(s)=\sin(2\pi

2172: s)$. For fixed small $\alpha>0$, consider the map

2173:  \[ \begin{array}{rccc} \hat f: & S^1\times\RR

2174: &\longrightarrow & S^1\times \RR\\

2175:  & (s, x) &\longmapsto & \big(\hat g(s),\hat q(s,x)\big)

2176: \end{array}

2177:  \]

2178:  where $\hat g$ is the uniformly expanding

2179: map of the circle defined by $\hat{g}(s)=ds$ (mod $\ZZ$)

2180: for some $d\ge16$, and $\hat q(s,x)=a(s)-x^2$ with

2181: $a(s)=a_0+\al b(s)$. It is easy to check that for $\al>0$

2182: small enough there is an interval $I\subset (-2,2)$ for

2183: which $\hat f(S^1\times I)$ is contained in the interior of

2184: $S^1\times I$. Thus, any map $f$ sufficiently close to

2185: $\hat f$ in the $C^0$ topology has $S^1\times I$ as a

2186: forward invariant region. We consider from here on these

2187: maps $f$ close to $\hat f$ restricted to $S^1\times I$.

2188: 

2189: Taking into account the expression of $\hat f$ it is not

2190: difficult to check that $\hat f$ (and any map $f$  close to

2191: $\hat f$ in the $C^2$ topology) behaves like a power of the

2192: distance close to the critical set.

2193: 

2194: 

2195: \subsubsection{Non-uniform expansion}

2196: \label{ss.non-uniform}

2197: 

2198:  The results in

2199: \cite{V} show that if the map $f$ is sufficiently close to

2200: $\hat f$ in the $C^3$ topology then $f$ has two positive

2201: Lyapunov exponents almost everywhere:

2202:  there is a constant $\lambda>0$ for which

2203: $$\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log

2204: \|Df^n(s,x)v\|\geq \lambda$$ for Lebesgue almost every

2205: $(s,x)\in S^1\times I$ and every non-zero  $v\in

2206: T_{(s,x)}(S^1\times I)$. In fact, the method used for

2207: showing this result also gives that $f$ is a non-uniformly

2208: expanding map and its orbits have slow approximation to the

2209: critical set, as we now explain. For the sake of clearness,

2210: we start by assuming that  $f $ has the special form

2211:  \begin{equation}

2212: f(s,x)=(g(s),q(s,x)),\quad\mbox{with}\quad\partial_xq(s,x)=0

2213: \quad\mbox{if and only if}\quad x=0, \label{assumption}

2214: \end{equation}

2215:  and describe how the conclusions in \cite{V}

2216: are obtained for each $C^2$ map $f$ satisfying

2217:  \begin{equation}

2218: \|f-\hat f\|_{C^2}\leq\al\quad\mbox{on}\quad S^1\times

2219: I.\label{alfa}

2220:  \end{equation}

2221:  Then

2222: we explain how these conclusions extend to the general

2223: case, using the existence of a central invariant foliation,

2224: and we show how the results in \cite{V} give the

2225:  non-uniform expansion and slow approximation of orbits to the critical

2226:  set for each map $f$ as in (\ref{alfa}).

2227: 

2228: 

2229:  The estimates on the derivative rely on a

2230: statistical analysis of the returns of orbits to the

2231: neighborhood $S^1\times (-\sqrt{\al},\sqrt{\al}\,)$ of the

2232: critical set $\cc=\{(s,x):x=0\}$.

2233:  We set

2234:  $$J(0)=I\setminus(-\sqrt\al,\sqrt\al)\qand

2235:   J(r)=\{x\in I:|x|<e^{-r}\}\quad\mbox{for

2236: $r\ge0$}.$$

2237:  From here on we only consider points $(s,x)\in S^1\times I$

2238: whose orbit does not hit the critical set $\cc$. This constitues

2239: no restriction in our results, since the  set of those

2240: points has full Lebesgue measure.

2241: 

2242:  For each integer $j\geq 0$  we

2243: define $(s_j,x_j)=f^j(s,x)$ and

2244:   $$r_j(s,x)=\min\left\{r\ge0:x_j\in

2245: J(r)\right\}. $$

2246:  Consider, for some small constant $0<\eta<1/4$,

2247:  $$

2248:  G=\bigg\{0\le j<n:

2249:  r_j(s,x)\ge\bigg(\frac12-2\eta\bigg)\log\frac1\al

2250:  \bigg\}.

2251:  $$

2252: Fix some integer $n\ge1$ sufficiently large (only depending

2253: on $\al>0$).

2254: The results in \cite{V} show that if we take

2255:  $$

2256:  B_2(n)=\big\{(s,x):\:\mbox{there is $1\le j<n$ with  $x_j\in J([\sqrt n])$\:}\},

2257:  $$

2258: where $[\sqrt n]$ is the integer part of $\sqrt n$, then we

2259: have

2260:  \begin{equation}

2261:  \label{e.b2}

2262:  m(B_2(n))\le\mbox{const}\,e^{-\sqrt n/4}

2263:  \end{equation}

2264:   and, for

2265: every small $c>0$ (only depending on the quadratic map

2266: $Q$),

2267:  \begin{equation}

2268:  \label{e.principal}

2269:  \log\prod_{j=0}^{n-1}|\partial_xq(s_j,x_j)|\ge

2270:  2cn-\sum_{j\in G}r_j(s,x)\quad\mbox{for}\quad (s,x)\notin B_2(n),

2271:  \end{equation}

2272:  see \cite[pp. 75 \& 76]{V}.

2273: Moreover, if we define for $\gamma>0$

2274:  $$

2275:  B_1(n)=\bigg\{(s,x)\notin B_2(n):\sum_{j\in G}r_j(s,x)\ge

2276:  \gamma n\bigg\},

2277:  $$

2278: then, for small $\gamma>0$, there is a constant $\xi>0$ for which

2279:  \begin{equation}

2280:  \label{e.b1}

2281:  m\big(B_1(n)\big)\le e^{-\xi n},

2282:  \end{equation}

2283:  see~\cite[p. 77]{V}.

2284: Taking into account the definitions of $J(r)$ and $r_j$, this shows that if we take

2285: $\delta=(1/2-2\eta)\log(1/\al)$, then

2286:  \begin{equation}

2287:  \nonumber

2288:  \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}-\log\dist_\delta(f^j(x),\cc)\leq \gamma n

2289:  \quad\mbox{for}\quad(s,x)\notin B_1(n)\cup B_2(n).

2290:  \end{equation}

2291: This in particular gives that almost all orbits have slow

2292: approximation to $\cc$.

2293: 

2294:  On the other hand, we have  for $(s,x)\in

2295: S^1\times I$

2296:  \begin{equation}\label{e.forma}

2297:   \big( Df(s,x)\big)^{-1}=

2298:  \frac{1}{\partial_x q(s,x)\partial_s g(s)}

2299:   \left( \begin{array}{cc}

2300:      \partial_x q(s,x) & 0 \\

2301:    -\partial_{s}q(s,x) &  \partial_s g(s)

2302:  \end{array} \right).

2303:  \end{equation}

2304: Since all the norms are equivalent in finite dimensional

2305: Banach spaces, it no restriction for our purposes

2306: if we take the norm of $\big(Df(s,x)\big)^{-1}$ as the

2307: maximum of its entries. From (\ref{assumption}) and (\ref{alfa})

2308: we deduce that for small $\alpha$

2309:  $$

2310:  |\partial_s g|\geq d-\alpha,\quad |\partial_s q|\leq

2311:  \alpha|b^\prime|+\alpha\leq 8\alpha\quad

2312:  \mbox{and}\quad|\partial_xq|

2313:  \leq |2x|+\alpha\leq 4,

2314:  $$

2315: which together with (\ref{e.forma}) gives

2316:  $$

2317:  \big\|\big(Df(s,x)\big)^{-1}\big\|

2318:  =

2319:  |\partial_xq(s,x)|^{-1},

2320:  $$

2321: as long as $\al>0$ is taken sufficiently small. This

2322: implies

2323:  \begin{equation}

2324:  \label{e.soma}

2325:  \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\log\|Df(s_j,x_j))^{-1}\|=-

2326:  \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\log|\partial_xq(s_j,x_j)|

2327:  \end{equation}

2328: for every $(s,x)\in S^1\times I$.

2329: If we choose $\gamma<c$, then we have

2330:  \begin{equation}

2331:  \label{e.soma2}

2332:  \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\log|\partial_xq(s_j,x_j)|=

2333:  \log\prod_{j=0}^{n-1}|\partial_xq(s_j,x_j)|\ge cn

2334:  \end{equation}

2335: for every $(s,x)\notin B_1(n)\cup B_2(n)$ (recall (\ref{e.principal}) and

2336: the definition of $B_1(n)$).

2337: We conclude from (\ref{e.soma}) and (\ref{e.soma2}) that

2338:  $$

2339:  \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\log\|Df(s_j,x_j))^{-1}\|\le

2340:  -cn

2341:  \quad

2342:  \mbox{for}\quad(s,x)\notin B_1(n)\cup B_2(n),

2343:  $$

2344: which, in view of the estimates on the Lebesgue measure of

2345: $B_1(n)$ and $B_2(n)$,  proves that $f$ is a non-uniformly

2346: expanding map.

2347: 

2348: 

2349: 

2350: \medskip

2351: 

2352:  Now we describe how in \cite{V} the

2353: same conclusions are obtained  without assuming

2354: (\ref{assumption}).

2355: Since $\hat f$ is strongly expanding in the horizontal

2356: direction, it follows from the methods of \cite{HPS} that

2357: any map $f$ sufficiently close to $\hat f$ admits a unique

2358: invariant central foliation $\cf^c$ of $S^1\times I$ by

2359: smooth curves uniformly close to vertical segments, see

2360: \cite[Section 2.5]{V}. Actually, $\cf^c$ is obtained as

2361: the set of integral curves of a vector field $(\xi^c,1)$

2362: in $S^1\times I$

2363: with $\xi^c$ uniformly close to zero.

2364:  The previous analysis can then be

2365: carried out in terms of the expansion of $f$ along this

2366: central foliation $\cf^c$. More precisely, $|\partial_x

2367: q(s,x)|$ is replaced by

2368:  $$

2369: |\partial_c q(s,x)| \equiv |Df(s,x)v_c(s,x)|,

2370:  $$ where

2371: $v_c(s,x)$ is a unit vector tangent to the foliation at

2372: $(s,x)$. The previous observations imply that $v_c$ is

2373: uniformly close to $(0,1)$ if $f$ is close to $\hat f$.

2374: Moreover, cf. \cite[Section 2.5]{V}, it is no restriction

2375: to suppose $|\partial_c q(s,0)|\equiv 0$, so that

2376: $\partial_c q(s,x)\approx |x|$, as in the unperturbed case.

2377: Indeed, if we define the {\em critical set} of $f$ by

2378:  $$

2379:  \cc=\{(s,x)\in S^1\times I:\partial_c q(s,x)=0\}.

2380:  $$

2381:  by an easy

2382: implicit function argument it is shown in  \cite[Section

2383: 2.5]{V} that $\cc$  is the graph of some $C^2$ map $\eta :

2384: S^1\rightarrow I$ arbitrarily $C^2$-close to zero if

2385: $\alpha$ is small. This means that up to a change of

2386: coordinates $C^2$-close to the identity we may suppose that

2387: $\eta\equiv 0$ and, hence, write for $\al>0$ small

2388:  $$

2389:  \partial_c q(s,x)=x\psi(s,x)\quad\mbox{with $|\psi+2|$ close

2390:  to zero}.

2391:  $$

2392: This provides an analog to the second part of assumption

2393: (\ref{assumption}).

2394:  At this point, the

2395: arguments  apply with $\partial_xq(s,x)$ replaced by

2396: $\partial_c q(s,x)$, to show that orbits have slow

2397: approximation to the critical set $\cc$ and

2398:  $

2399:  \prod_{i=0}^{n-1} |\partial_c q(s_i,x_i)|

2400:  $ grows

2401: exponentially fast for Lebesgue almost every $(s,x)\in

2402: S^1\times I$. A matrix formula for

2403: $\big(Df^n(s,x)\big)^{-1}$ similar to that in (\ref{e.forma}) can

2404: be obtained if we replace the vector $(0,1)$ in the

2405: canonical basis of the  space tangent to $S^1\times I$ at $(s,x)$ by

2406: $v_c(s,x)$, and consider the matrix of $\big(Df^n(s,x)\big)^{-1}$

2407: with respect to the new

2408: basis.

2409: 

2410: \medskip

2411: 

2412: For future reference, let us make some considerations on

2413: the way the sets $B_1(n)$ and $B_2(n)$ are obtained. Let

2414: $X:S^1\ra I$ be a smooth map whose graph in $ S^1\times I$

2415: is nearly horizontal (see the notion of admissible curve in

2416: \cite[Section~2]{V} for a precise definition). Denote $\wh

2417: X_n(s)=f^n\big(s,X(s)\big)$ for $n\ge0$ and $s\in S^1$.

2418: Take

2419:  some leaf $L_0$ of the foliation  $\cf^c$.

2420: Letting $L_n=f^n(L_0)$ for $n\ge 1$, we define a sequence

2421: of Markov partitions $(\cp_n)_n$ of $S^1$ in the following

2422: way:

2423:   $$

2424:    \cp_n=\left\{[s^\prime,s^{\prime\prime})\colon (s^\prime,s^{\prime\prime})

2425:    \mbox{ is a connected component of }

2426:    \widehat{X}_n^{-1}\big((S^1\times I)\setminus L_n\big)\right\}.

2427:  $$

2428: It is easy to check that $\cp_{n+1}$ refines $\cp_n$ for

2429: each $n\ge 1$ and

2430:  $$

2431:  (d+\mbox{const}\,\al)^{-n}\leq |\omega|\leq (d-\mbox{const}\,\al)^{-n}

2432:  $$

2433: for each $\omega\in\cp_n$. Due to the  large expansion of

2434: $f$ in the horizontal direction, we have that if $J\subset

2435: I$ is an interval with $|J|\le\al$, then for each

2436: $\omega\in\cp_n$

2437:  \begin{equation}

2438:  \label{e.cor2.3}

2439:  m\big(\{s\in \omega\colon \wh X_j(s)\in S^1\times

2440:  J\}\,\big)\le \mbox{const}\,\sqrt{|J|}\,m(\omega)

2441:  \end{equation}

2442: see \cite[Corollary~2.3]{V}. The estimate (\ref{e.b2}) on

2443: the Lebesgue measure of $B_2(n)$ is now an easy consequence

2444: of (\ref{e.cor2.3}). For that we only have to compute the

2445: Lebesgue measure of $B_2(n)$  on each horizontal line of

2446: $S^1\times I$ and integrate. The estimate (\ref{e.b2}) on

2447: the Lebesgue measure of $B_1(n)$ is is obtained by mean of

2448: a large deviations argument applied to the horizontal

2449: curves in $S^1\times I$.

2450: 

2451: 

2452: \cre \label{r.uniform} The choice of the

2453: constants $c, \xi,\gamma$ and $ \delta $ only depends on

2454: the quadratic map $Q$ and $\al>0$. In particular the decay

2455: estimates on the Lebesgue measure of $B_1(n)$ and $B_2(n)$

2456: depend only  on the quadratic map $Q$ and $\al>0$.

2457:  \fre

2458: 

2459: 

2460: 

2461: 

2462: \subsubsection{Random perturbations}

2463: 

2464: Let $f$ be

2465:  close to $\hat f$ in the $C^3$ topology. As we have

2466: seen before, it is no restriction if we assume that

2467: $\cc=\{(s,x)\in S^1\times I\colon x=0\}$ is the critical set of $f$.

2468: Fix $\{\Phi,(\theta_\ep)_\ep\}$ a random perturbation of

2469:  $f$ for which (\ref{e.perturbation}) holds.

2470: Our goal now is to prove that any

2471: such $f$ satisfies the hypotheses of

2472: Theorems~\ref{t.finite2} and \ref{t.sts} for $\ep>0$

2473: sufficiently small, and thus conclude

2474: that $f$ is stochastically stable. So, we want  to show

2475: that if $\ep>0$ is  small enough then

2476:  \begin{itemize}

2477:  \item $f$ is non-uniformly expanding for random orbits;

2478:  \item  random orbits have slow approximation to the critical set

2479:  $\cc$;

2480:  \item the family of hyperbolic time maps $(h_\ep)_\ep$ has uniform $L^1$-tail.

2481:  \end{itemize}

2482: 

2483: 

2484: 

2485: We remark that in the estimates we have obtained for

2486: $\log\|(Df(s_j,x_j))^{-1}\|$ and

2487: $\log\dist_\delta(x_j,\cc)$ over the orbit of a given point

2488: $(s,x)\in S^1\times I$, we can easily replace the iterates

2489: $(s_j,x_j)$  by random iterates $(s^j_{\un t},x^j_{\un t})=

2490: f_{\un t}^j(s,x)$. Actually, the methods used for obtaining

2491: estimate (\ref{e.principal}) rely on a delicate

2492: decomposition of the orbit of a given point $(s,x)$ from

2493: time 0 until time $n$ into finite pieces according to its

2494: returns to the neighborhood $S^1\times

2495: (-\sqrt\al,\sqrt\al)$ of the critical set. The main tools

2496: are \cite[Lemma~2.4]{V} and \cite[Lemma~2.5]{V} whose

2497: proofs may easily be mimicked for random orbits. Indeed,

2498: the important fact in the proof of the referred lemmas is

2499: that orbits of points in the central direction stay close

2500: to  orbits of the quadratic map $Q$ for long periods, as long

2501: as $\al>0$

2502: is taken sufficiently small. Hence, such results can easily

2503: be obtained for random orbits as long as we take $\ep>0$

2504: with $\ep\ll\al$ and perturbation vectors $\un

2505: t\in\supp(\theta_\ep)$.

2506: 

2507:  Thus, the

2508: procedure of \cite{V} described in Subsection

2509: \ref{ss.non-uniform} applies to this situation, and we are

2510: able to prove that there is $c>0$, and for $\gamma>0$ there

2511: is $\de>0$, such that

2512:  $$

2513:  \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\log\|Df(s^j_{\un t},x^j_{\un t}))^{-1}\|\le

2514:  -cn

2515:  \qand

2516:  \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}-\log\dist_\delta(x^j_{\un t},\cc)\leq \gamma n

2517:  $$

2518:  for $(s,x)\notin B_1(n)\cup B_2(n)$, where

2519:  $B_1(n)$ and $ B_2(n)$ are subsets $S^1\times I$ with

2520:  $$

2521:  m\big(B_1(n)\big)\le e^{-\xi n}\qand

2522:  m(B_2(n))\le\mbox{const}\,e^{-\sqrt n/4}

2523:  $$

2524:  for some constant $\xi>0$ depending only on $\gamma$.

2525:  This gives the

2526:   non-uniform expansion and slow approximation to the critical set

2527:    for random orbits. Moreover, the arguments show that we may

2528:    take the map $N_\ep$ with

2529:  $$ (\th_\ep^\NN\times

2530:  m)\left(\big\{(\un t,x)\in T^\NN\times M\colon N_\ep(\un

2531:  t,x)>n\big\}\right)\leq \mbox{const}\,e^{-\sqrt n/4},

2532:  $$

2533:  thus giving that the family of first hyperbolic time maps

2534:  has uniform $L^1$-tail (see the considerations at the beginning

2535:  of Section \ref{s.applications}).

2536: 

2537: 

2538: \medskip

2539: 

2540: 

2541: For the sake of completeness, an explanation is required on

2542: the way the Markov partitions $\cp_n$ of $S^1$ can be

2543: defined in this case, in order to obtain the estimates on

2544: the Lebesgue measure of $B_1(n)$ and $B_2(n)$. We consider

2545: $M=S^1\times I$ and define the skew-product map

2546:  \[

2547: \begin{array}{rccc} F: & T^\NN\times M &\longrightarrow &

2548: T^\NN\times M,\\

2549:  & (\un t, z) &\longmapsto & \big(\sigma(\un t),f_{t_1}(z)\big)

2550: \end{array}

2551:  \]

2552:  where $\si$ is the left shift map. Writing

2553: $f_t(z)=\big(g_t(z),q_t(z)\big)$ for $z=(s,x)\in S^1\times

2554: I$, we have that $q_t(s,\cdot)$ is a unimodal map close to

2555: $\hat q$ for all $s\in S^1$ and $t\in \supp(\theta_\ep)$

2556: with $\ep>0$ small.

2557: 

2558: 

2559: \cpr\label{p.foliation}

2560:  Given $\un t\in T^\NN$ there is a

2561:  $C^1$ foliation $\cf^c_{\un t}$ of $M$ such that if $L_{\un t}(z)$

2562: is the leaf of $\cf^c_{\un t}$ through a point $z\in M$,

2563: then

2564:  \begin{enumerate}

2565:  \item  $L_{\un t}(z)$ is a $C^1$ submanifold of

2566:  $M$ close to a vertical line in the $C^1$ topology;

2567:  \item $f_{t_1}\big(L_{\un t}(z)\big)$ is contained in $L_{\si\un t}\big(f_{t_1}(z)\big)$.

2568:  \end{enumerate}

2569:  \fpr

2570:  \dem

2571: This will be obtained as  a  consequence of the fact that

2572: the set of vertical lines constitutes a normally expanding

2573: invariant foliation for $\hat f$. Let $\ch$ be the space of

2574: continuous maps $\xi:T^\NN\times M\rightarrow [-1,1]$

2575: endowed with the sup norm, and define the map

2576: $A:\ch\rightarrow\ch$ by

2577:  $$

2578: A\xi(\un t,z)=\frac{\partial_xq_{t_1}(z)\xi( F(\un t,

2579: z))-\partial_xg_{t_1}(z)} {-\partial_s q_{t_1}(z)\xi(F(\un

2580: t,z) )+\partial_s g_{ t_1}(z)}, \quad \un

2581: t=(t_1,t_2,\dots)\in T^\NN \qand z\in M.

2582:  $$

2583:  Note that $A$ is well-defined,

2584: since

2585:  $$

2586:  |A\xi(\un t,z)|\leq \frac{(4+\al+\epsilon)+\al+\epsilon}

2587:  {-(\mbox{const }\alpha+\epsilon )+(d-\al-\epsilon)}

2588:  <1\label{campo}

2589:  $$

2590:  for small $\alpha>0$ and $\epsilon>0$. Moreover,

2591: $A$ is a contraction on $\ch$: given $\xi,\zeta\in\ch$ and

2592: $(\un t,z)\in T^\NN\times M$ then

2593:  \begin{eqnarray*}

2594: \lefteqn{|A\xi(\un t,z)-A\zeta(\un t,z)|}\hspace{2cm}\\

2595:  &\leq &

2596:  \frac{|\mbox{det}Df_{t_1}(z)|\cdot|\xi(\un t, z)-\zeta(\un t,z)|}

2597:  {\big|\big(\!-\partial_s q_{t_1}(z)\xi(F(\un t,z))+\partial_s

2598: g_{t_1}(z)\big)\cdot\big (\!-\partial_s

2599: q_{t_1}(z)\zeta(F(\un t,z))+\partial_s

2600: g_{t_1}(z)\big)\big|}\\ &\leq &

2601: \frac{\big((d+\alpha+\epsilon)(4+\alpha+\epsilon)+\alpha+

2602: \epsilon\big)\cdot\big|\xi(\un t, z)-\zeta(\un t,z)\big|}

2603: {(d-\mbox{const}\alpha-\epsilon)^2}.

2604:  \end{eqnarray*}

2605:   This last

2606: quantity can be made smaller than $|\xi(\un t,z)-\eta(\un

2607: t, z)|/2$, as long as $\alpha$ and $\epsilon$ are chosen

2608: sufficiently small. This shows that $A$ is a contraction on

2609: the Banach space $\ch$, and so it has a unique fixed point

2610: $\xi^c\in\ch$.

2611: 

2612:  It is no restriction for our purposes if we

2613: think of $T$ as being equal to $\supp(\theta_{\ep})$ for

2614: some small $\ep$.

2615: Note that the map $A$ depends

2616: continuously on $F$ and for $\ep>0$ small enough  the fixed

2617: point of $A$ is close to the zero constant map. This holds

2618: because we are choosing $\supp(\theta_{\ep})$ close to

2619: $\{t^*\}$, $f_{t^*}=f$ and $f$ close to $\hat f$. Then, for

2620: $\ep>0$ small enough, we have $\xi^c(\un t, \cdot)$ uniformly

2621: close to $\xi^c(\un t^*, \cdot)$ and it is not hard to

2622: check that $\xi^c_0=\xi^c(\un t^*, \cdot)$ is precisely the map

2623: whose integral leaves of the vector field $(\xi_0^c,1)$

2624: give the invariant foliation $\cf^c$ associated to $f_{t^*}=f$.

2625: Since this foliation depends continuously on the dynamics

2626: and for $f=\hat f$ we have $\xi_0^c\equiv 0$

2627: (see \cite[Section~2.5]{V}), we finally deduce

2628: that $\xi^c(\un t, \cdot)$ is uniformly close to zero for

2629: small $\ep>0$.

2630: 

2631: 

2632:  We have defined $A$ in such a way

2633: that if we take $E^c(\un t, z)=\mbox{span}\{(\xi^c(\un

2634: t,z),1)\}$, then for every $\un t\in T^\NN$ and $z\in

2635: S^1\times I$

2636:  \begin{equation} Df_{t_1}(z)E^c(\un t,z)\subset

2637: E^c(F(\un t,z)).\label{ec} \end{equation}

2638:  Now, for fixed $\un t\in T^\NN$, we take $\cf^c_{\un t}$ to

2639: be the set of integral curves of the vector field

2640: $z\rightarrow (\xi^c(\un t ,z),1)$ defined on $S^1\times

2641: I$. Since the vector field is taken of class $C^0$, it does

2642: not follow immediately that through each point in

2643: $S^1\times I$ passes only one integral curve. We will prove

2644: uniqueness of solutions by using the fact that the map $f$

2645: has a big expansion in the horizontal direction.

2646: 

2647:  Assume, by

2648: contradiction, that there are two distinct integral curves

2649: $Y, Z\in\cf^c_{\un t}$ with a common point. So we may take

2650: three distinct nearby points $z_0,z_1,z_2\in S^1\times I$

2651: such that $z_0\in Y\cap Z$, $z_1\in Y$, $z_2\in Z$ and

2652: $z_1,z_2$ have the same $x$-coordinate. Let $X$ be the

2653: horizontal curve joining $z_1$ to $z_2$. If we consider

2654: $X_n=\pi_2\circ F^n(\un t,X)$ for $n\ge 1$, where $\pi_2$

2655: is the projection from $T^\NN\times S^1\times I$ onto

2656: $S^1\times I$, we have that the curves $X_n$ are nearly

2657: horizontal and grow in the horizontal direction (when $n$

2658: increases) by a factor close to $d$ for small $\al$ and

2659: $\ep$, see \cite[Section 2.1]{V}. Hence, for large $n$,

2660: $X_n$ wraps many times around the cylinder $S^1\times I$.

2661: On the other hand, since $Y_n=\pi_2\circ F^n(\un t,Y)$ and

2662: $Z_n=\pi_2\circ F^n(\un t,Z)$ are always tangent to the

2663: vector field $z\rightarrow \big(\xi^c(\sigma^n\un

2664: t,z),1\big)$ on $S^1\times I$, it follows that all the

2665: iterates of $Y_n$ and $Z_n$ have small amplitude in the

2666: $s$-direction. This gives a contradiction, since the closed

2667: curve made by $Y$, $Z$ and $X$ is homotopic to zero in

2668: $S^1\times I$ and the closed curve made by $Y_n$, $Z_n$ and

2669: $X_n$ cannot be homotopic to zero for large $n$. Thus, for

2670: fixed $\un t\in T^\NN$ we have uniqueness of solutions of

2671: the vector field $z\rightarrow (\xi^c(\un t,z),1)$, and

2672: from (\ref{ec}) it follows that $\cf^c_{\un t}$ is an

2673: $F$-invariant foliation of $M$ by nearly vertical leaves.

2674: \cqd

2675: 

2676: Now, using the foliations given by the previous proposition

2677: we are also able to define the Markov partitions of $S^1$

2678: in this setting.  Given any smooth map $X:S^1\ra I$ whose

2679: graph is nearly horizontal,  denote

2680:  $\wh X_{\un t}^n

2681: (s)=f_{\un t}^n\big(s,X(s)\big)$ for $n\ge0$ and $s\in

2682: S^1$. Take

2683:  some leaf

2684:   $L_{\un t}^0$ of the foliation $\cf^c_{\un t}$.

2685: Letting $L^n_{\un t}=f^n_{\un t}(L_{\un t})$ for $n\ge 1$,

2686: we define the sequence of Markov partitions $(\cp^n_{\un t

2687: })_n$ of $S^1$ as

2688:   $$

2689:   \cp^n_{\un t}=\left\{[s^\prime,s^{\prime\prime})\colon

2690:  (s^\prime,s^{\prime\prime})

2691:    \mbox{ is a connected component of }

2692:  (\widehat{X}^n_{\un t})^{-1}\big((S^1\times I)\setminus L^n_{\un t

2693: }\big)\right\}.

2694:  $$

2695: It is easy to check that $\cp^{n+1}_{\un t }$ refines

2696: $\cp^n_{\un t }$ for each $n\ge 1$ and, taking $\ep\ll\al$,

2697:  $$

2698:  (d+\mbox{const}\,\al)^{-n}\leq |\omega|\leq (d-\mbox{const}\,\al)^{-n}

2699:  $$

2700: for each $\omega\in\cp^n_{\un t }$. This permits to obtain

2701: estimates for the Lebesgue measure of the sets $B_1(n)$ and

2702: $B_2(n)$ exactly in the same way as before also with the

2703: constants only depending on the quadratic map $Q$ (cf.

2704: Remark \ref{r.uniform}).

2705: 

2706: 

2707: 

2708: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2709: 

2710: 

2711: \begin{thebibliography}{ABV}

2712: 

2713: \bibitem[Al]{Al} J. F. Alves, {\em SRB measures for

2714: non-hyperbolic systems with multidimensional expansion},

2715: Ann. Scient. Éc. Norm. Sup., $4^e$ série, 33 (2000), 1-32.

2716: 

2717: \bibitem[ABV]{ABV} J. F. Alves, C. Bonatti, M. Viana, {\em

2718: SRB measures for partially hyperbolic systems with mostly

2719: expanding central direction}, Invent. Math. (to appear).

2720: 

2721: \bibitem[AV]{AV} J. F. Alves, M. Viana, {\em Statistical

2722: stability for robust classes of maps with non-uniform

2723: expansion}, preprint CMUP 1999.

2724: 

2725: \bibitem[Ar]{Ar1} V. Ara\'ujo, {\em  Attractors and time

2726: averages for random maps},  Ann. de l'Inst. H. Poincar\'e -

2727: Anal. non-Lin. (to appear).

2728: 

2729: %\bibitem[Ar2]{Ar2} V. Ara\'ujo, {\em Infinitely many

2730: %stochastically stable attractors}, preprint CMUP 2000.

2731: 

2732: \bibitem[BV]{BaV} V. Baladi, M. Viana, {\em Strong

2733: stochastic stability and rate of mixing for unimodal maps},

2734: Ann. Scient. Éc. Norm. Sup., $4^e$ série, 29 (1996),

2735: 483-517.

2736: 

2737: \bibitem[BC1]{BC1} M. Benedicks and L. Carleson, {\em On

2738: iterations of $1-ax^2$ on $(-1,1)$}, Ann. Math. { 122}

2739: (1985), 1-25.

2740: 

2741: \bibitem[BC2]{BC2} M. Benedicks and L. Carleson, {\em The

2742: dynamics of the H\'enon map}, Ann. Math. { 133} (1991),

2743: 73-169.

2744: 

2745: \bibitem[BY1]{BY} M. Benedicks, L.-S. Young, {\em

2746: Absolutely continuous invariant measures and random

2747: perturbations for certain one-dimensional maps}, Erg. Th.

2748: \& Dyn. Sys. { 12} (1992), 13-37.

2749: 

2750: \bibitem[BY2]{BY2} M. Benedicks and L.-S. Young, {\em

2751: SRB-measures for certain H\'enon maps}, Invent. Math. {

2752: 112} (1993), 541-576.

2753: 

2754: \bibitem[BV]{BV} C. Bonatti, M. Viana, {\em SRB measures

2755: for partially hyperbolic systems with mostly contracting

2756: central direction}, Israel J. Math. (to appear).

2757: 

2758: \bibitem[BR]{BR} R. Bowen and D. Ruelle, {\em The ergodic

2759: theory of Axiom A flows}, Invent. Math. { 29} (1975),

2760: 181-202.

2761: 

2762: \bibitem[HPS]{HPS} M. Hirsch, C. Pugh, M. Shub, {\em

2763: Invariant manifolds}, Lect. Notes in Math. 583, Springer

2764: Verlag, 1977.

2765: 

2766: \bibitem[Ja]{J} M. Jakobson, {\em  Absolutely continuous

2767: invariant measures for one-parameter families of

2768: one-dimensional maps}, Comm. Math. Phys. { 81}

2769:  (1981), 39-88.

2770: 

2771:  \bibitem[Ki1]{Ki1} Yu. Kifer, {\em  Ergodic theory of

2772:  random perturbations}, Birkh\"auser, Boston Basel, 1986.

2773: 

2774:   \bibitem[Ki2]{Ki2} Yu. Kifer, {\em  Random perturbations

2775:   of dynamical systems}, Birkh\"auser, Boston Basel, 1988.

2776: 

2777: \bibitem[Ma]{Man} R. Ma\~n\'e, \emph{Ergodic theory and

2778: differentiable dynamics}, Springer-Verlag, 1987.

2779: 

2780: \bibitem[Pl]{Pli} V. Pliss, {\em On a conjecture due to

2781: Smale}, Diff. Uravnenija, { 8} (1972), 262-268.

2782: 

2783: \bibitem[Ru]{R} D. Ruelle, {\em A measure associated with

2784: Axiom A attractors}, Amer. Jour. Math. { 98} (1976),

2785: 619-654.

2786: 

2787: \bibitem[Si]{Si} Ya. Sinai, {\em Gibbs measures in ergodic

2788: theory}, Russ. Math. Surv. { 27}, n. 4, (1972), 21-69.

2789: 

2790: \bibitem[Vi1]{V} M. Viana, {\em Multidimensional

2791: non-hyperbolic attractors}, Publ. Math. IHES { 85} (1997),

2792: 63-96.

2793: 

2794: \bibitem[Vi2]{V2} M. Viana, {\em Stochastic dynamics of

2795: deterministic systems}, Lect. Notes XXI Braz. Math Colloq.,

2796: IMPA, 1997.

2797: 

2798: \bibitem[Yo]{Yo} L.-S. Young, {\em Stochastic stability of

2799: hyperbolic attractors}, Erg. Th. \& Dyn. Sys. {6} (1986),

2800: 311-319.

2801: 

2802: \end{thebibliography}

2803: 

2804: \bigskip

2805: 

2806: \noindent Jos\'e Ferreira Alves ({\tt jfalves@fc.up.pt}) \\

2807: V\'\i tor Ara\'ujo ({\tt vdaraujo@fc.up.pt})\\

2808: Centro de Matem\'atica da Universidade do Porto\\

2809: Pra\c ca Gomes Teixeira,

2810: 4099-002 Porto, Portugal\\

2811: 

2812: 

2813: 

2814: \end{document}

2815: