1: \documentclass[matbio]{svjour}

2: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,times}

3: 

4: \usepackage{bbm,epic}

5: 

6: % mathematical symbols

7: \newcommand\B{B}

8: \newcommand\C{\mathrm{C}}

9: \newcommand\ccint[1]{\mathopen[ #1 \mathclose]}

10: \newcommand\coint[1]{\mathopen[ #1 \mathclose[}

11: \newcommand\ooint[1]{\mathopen] #1 \mathclose[}

12: \newcommand\dist{\operatorname{dist}}

13: \newcommand\dd[1]{\,\mathrm{d}#1}

14: \newcommand\eps\varepsilon

15: \newcommand\Id{\mathbbm{1}}

16: \newcommand\Ll[1]{\ell^{#1}}

17: \newcommand\M{\mathcal{M}}

18: \newcommand\NN{\mathbb{N}}

19: \newcommand\NNzer{\NN_0}

20: \newcommand\ord{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\mathcal{O}}}

21: \newcommand\R{\mathcal{R}}

22: \newcommand\Ra{\tilde{\R}}

23: \newcommand\RR{\mathbb{R}}

24: \newcommand\RRnn{\RR_{\ge0}}

25: \newcommand\X{X}

26: \renewcommand\le\leqslant

27: \renewcommand\ge\geqslant

28: 

29: 

30: % mathematical typesetting

31: \allowdisplaybreaks

32: \newcommand{\es}{\hspace*{0.5pt}}  % space before punctuation marks in numbered equations

33: \newcommand\is\,  % space between indices, e.g. M_{i \is i+1}

34: \newcommand\vc[1]{\boldsymbol{#1}}  % vector

35: \newcommand\vp{\vphantom{()}}

36: 

37: % typesetting

38: \newcommand\pr[1]{\textup{(}#1\textup{)}}

39: \newcommand\textdef[1]{\emph{#1}}

40: 

41: % references to equations, figures, etc.

42: \newcommand\dref[1]{Definition~\textup{\ref{def:#1}}}

43: \newcommand\Dref[1]{Definition~\textup{\ref{def:#1}}}

44: \newcommand\Eref[1]{Equation~\textup{(\ref{eq:#1})}}

45: \newcommand\eref[1]{\textup{(\ref{eq:#1})}}

46: \newcommand\fref[1]{Figure~\textup{\ref{fig:#1}}}

47: \newcommand\Fref[1]{Figure~\textup{\ref{fig:#1}}}

48: \newcommand\lref[1]{Lemma~\textup{\ref{lem:#1}}}

49: \newcommand\Lref[1]{Lemma~\textup{\ref{lem:#1}}}

50: \newcommand\pref[1]{Proposition~\textup{\ref{prop:#1}}}

51: \newcommand\Pref[1]{Proposition~\textup{\ref{prop:#1}}}

52: \newcommand\sref[1]{Section~\textup{\ref{sec:#1}}}

53: \newcommand\Sref[1]{Section~\textup{\ref{sec:#1}}}

54: \newcommand\thref[1]{Theorem~\textup{\ref{thm:#1}}}

55: \newcommand\Thref[1]{Theorem~\textup{\ref{thm:#1}}}

56: 

57: % abbreviations

58: \makeatletter

59: \newcommand\cf{cf.\@ifnextchar,{}{\ }}

60: \newcommand\eg{e.g.\@ifnextchar,{}{, }}

61: \newcommand\ie{i.e.\@ifnextchar,{}{, }}

62: \makeatother

63: \newcommand\chaps{Chs.~}

64: \newcommand\cor{Cor.~}

65: \newcommand\Eqs{Equations }

66: \newcommand\lem{Lemma~}

67: \newcommand\propositions{Propositions }

68: \newcommand\prop{Prop.~}

69: \newcommand\remk{Rem.~}

70: \newcommand\sect{Sec.~}

71: \newcommand\sections{Sections }

72: \newcommand\thm{Thm.~}

73: \newcommand\thms{Thms.~}

74: \newcommand\weaks{\mbox{weak-$*$} }

75: \newcommand\Wrt{With respect to }

76: \newcommand\wrt{with respect to }

77: 

78: \let\oldcite\cite

79: \def\cite{\upshape\oldcite}

80: \smartqed

81: \makeatletter

82: \newif\if@showqed

83: \@showqedtrue

84: \global\@namedef{endproof}{\if@showqed\qed\fi\global\@showqedtrue\@endtheorem}

85: \makeatother

86: % Modified from amsthm.sty:

87: \makeatletter

88: \newlength\qedraise

89: \newcommand\qedhere{\@ifnextchar[{\qed@here}{\qed@here[0pt]}%] bracket matching

90: }

91: \def\qed@here[#1]{%

92:   \global\setlength{\qedraise}{#1}%

93:   {\@xp\aftergroup\csname\@currenvir @qed\endcsname}\global\@showqedfalse}%

94:   \def\displaymath@qed{%

95:     \relax

96:     \ifmmode

97:       \ifinner \aftergroup\linebox@qed

98:       \else

99:         \eqno

100:         \let\eqno\relax \let\leqno\relax \let\veqno\relax

101:         \raisebox{\qedraise}{\qed}%

102:       \fi

103:     \else

104:        \aftergroup\linebox@qed

105:     \fi

106:   }

107:   \@xp\let\csname equation*@qed\endcsname\displaymath@qed

108:   \@xp\let\csname multline*@qed\endcsname\displaymath@qed

109:   \def\align@qed{\tag*{\raisebox{\qedraise}{\qed}}}

110:   \@xp\let\csname align*@qed\endcsname\align@qed

111: \def\linebox@qed{\hfil\hbox{\qed}\hfilneg}

112: \makeatother

113: 

114: \begin{document}

115: 

116: \title{Unequal Crossover Dynamics \\ in Discrete and Continuous Time}

117: \author{Oliver Redner \and Michael Baake}

118: \institute{Institut f\"ur Mathematik, Univ.\ Greifswald,

119:   Jahnstr.\ 15a, 17487 Greifswald, Germany 

120:   \and 

121:   Fakult\"at f\"ur Mathematik. Univ.\ Bielefeld, Pf.\ 100131, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany

122:   \and

123:   \email{redner@uni-greifswald.de}

124:   \and

125:   \email{mbaake@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de}}

126: \keywords{Unequal crossover -- Recombination -- Quadratic operators --

127:   Probability generating functions -- Lyapunov functions}

128: \makeatletter

129: \def\@date{}

130: \makeatother

131: \def\copyleft{}

132: \def\makeheadbox{}

133: \maketitle

134: 

135: \begin{abstract}

136:   We analyze a class of models for unequal crossover (UC) of sequences

137:   containing sections with repeated units that may differ in length.

138:   In these, the probability of an `imperfect' alignment, in which the

139:   shorter sequence has $d$ units without a partner in the longer one,

140:   scales like $q^d$ as compared to `perfect' alignments where all

141:   these copies are paired.  The class is parameterized by this penalty

142:   factor $q$.  An effectively infinite population size and thus

143:   deterministic dynamics is assumed.  For the extreme cases $q=0$ and

144:   $q=1$, and any initial distribution whose moments satisfy certain

145:   conditions, we prove the convergence to one of the known fixed

146:   points, uniquely determined by the mean copy number, in both

147:   discrete and continuous time.  For the intermediate parameter

148:   values, the existence of fixed points is shown.

149: \end{abstract}

150: 

151: 

152: \section{Introduction}

153: \label{sec:intro}

154: 

155: Recombination is a by-product of (sexual) reproduction that leads

156: to the mixing of parental genes by exchanging genes (or sequence

157: parts) between homologous chromosomes (or DNA strands). This is

158: achieved through an alignment of the corresponding sequences,

159: along with crossover events which lead to reciprocal exchange

160: of the induced segments. In this process, imperfect alignment

161: may result in sequences that differ in length form the parental

162: ones; this is known as {\em unequal crossover\/} (UC). Imperfect

163: alignment is facilitated by the presence of repeated elements

164: (as is observed in some rDNA sequences, compare \cite{GrLi}), and 

165: is believed to be an important driving mechanism for their evolution.

166: The repeated elements may follow an evolutionary course independent of 

167: each other and thus give rise to evolutionary innovation. For a detailed

168: discussion of these topics, see \cite{ShAt,ShWa} and references therein.

169: 

170: This article is concerned with a class of models for UC, originally

171: investigated by Shpak and Atteson \cite{ShAt} for discrete time, which

172: is built on preceding work by Ohta \cite{Oht} and Walsh \cite{Wsh}

173: (see \cite{ShAt} for further references).  Starting from their partly heuristic

174: results, we prove various existence and uniqueness theorems and

175: analyze the convergence properties, both in discrete and in continuous

176: time. This will require a rather careful mathematical development

177: because the dynamical systems are infinite dimensional.

178: 

179: In this model class, one considers individuals whose genetic

180: sequences contain a section with repeated units.  These may vary in

181: number, $i\in\NNzer = \{0,1,2,3,\ldots\}$, where $i=0$ is explicitly

182: allowed, corresponding to no unit being present (yet).  The

183: composition of these sections (\wrt mutations that might have

184: occurred) and the rest of the sequence are ignored here.

185: 

186: In the course of time, recombination events happen, each of which

187: basically consists of three steps. First, independent pairs are formed at random

188: (in equidistant time steps, or at a fixed rate). Then, their respective 

189: sections are randomly aligned, possibly with imperfections in form of `overhangs',

190: according to some probability distribution for the various possibilities. 

191: Finally, both sequences are cut at an arbitrary common position between two adjacent

192: building blocks, with uniform distribution for the cut positions, and

193: their right (or left) fragments are interchanged.  This so-called

194: unequal crossover is schematically depicted in \fref{ureco}.

195: Obviously, the total number of relevant units is conserved in each

196: event.

197: 

198: \begin{figure}[t]

199:   \begin{center}

200:     \unitlength=1mm

201:      \begin{picture}(85,11)(0,0)

202:       \matrixput(0.625,9.5)(2.5,0){4}(0,0){1}{\line(1,0){1.25}}

203:       \matrixput(10,8)(5,0){9}(0,3){2}{\line(1,0){5}}

204:       \matrixput(10,8)(5,0){10}(0,3){1}{\line(0,1){3}}

205:       \matrixput(60,8)(5,0){3}(0,3){2}{\line(1,0){5}}

206:       \matrixput(60,8)(5,0){4}(0,3){1}{\line(0,1){3}}

207:       \matrixput(75.625,9.5)(2.5,0){4}(0,0){1}{\line(1,0){1.25}}

208:       \matrixput(0.625,1.5)(2.5,0){10}(0,0){1}{\line(1,0){1.25}}

209:       \matrixput(25,0)(5,0){6}(0,3){2}{\line(1,0){5}}

210:       \matrixput(25,0)(5,0){7}(0,3){1}{\line(0,1){3}}

211:       \matrixput(60,0)(5,0){2}(0,3){2}{\line(1,0){5}}

212:       \matrixput(60,0)(5,0){3}(0,3){1}{\line(0,1){3}}

213:       \matrixput(70.625,1.5)(2.5,0){6}(0,0){1}{\line(1,0){1.25}}

214:       \qbezier(55,9.5)(57.5,5.5)(59.9,1.5)

215:       \qbezier(55,1.5)(57.5,5.5)(59.9,9.5)

216:     \end{picture}

217:     \caption{Snapshot of an unequal crossover event as described in the text.

218:       Rectangles denote the relevant blocks, while the dashed lines

219:       indicate possible extensions with other elements that are

220:       disregarded here.}

221:     \label{fig:ureco}

222:   \end{center}

223: \end{figure}

224: 

225: We assume the population size to be (effectively) infinite.  (Concerning

226: finite populations, see the remarks in \sref{remarks}.)  Then, almost

227: surely in the probabilistic sense, compare \cite[Sec.\ 11.2]{EtKu86},

228: the population is described by the deterministic time evolution of

229: a probability measure $\vc{p} \in \M_1^+(\NNzer)$, which we

230: identify with an element $\vc{p} = (p_k^{})_{k\in\NNzer}^{}$ in the

231: appropriate subset of $\Ll{1}(\NNzer)$.  Since we will not consider any

232: genotype space other than $\NNzer$ in this article, reference to it will be

233: omitted in what follows.  These spaces are complete in the metric derived from

234: the usual $\Ll{1}$ norm, which is the same as the total variation norm here.

235: The metric is denoted by

236: \begin{equation}

237:   \label{eq:urgpmetric}

238:   d(\vc{p},\vc{q}) =

239:   \|\vc{p} - \vc{q}\|^{}_1 = \sum_{k\ge0} |p_k^{} - q_k^{}| \es.

240: \end{equation}

241: 

242: With this notation, the above process is described by the recombinator

243: \begin{equation}

244:   \label{eq:reco}

245:   \R(\vc{p})_i^{} = 

246:   \frac{1}{\|\vc{p}\|^{}_1}

247:     \sum_{j,k,\ell\ge0} \, T_{ij,k\ell}^{} \, p_k^{} \, p_\ell^{} \es.

248: \end{equation}

249: Here, $T_{ij,k\ell} \ge 0$ denotes the probability that, given a pair

250: $(k,\ell)$, this pair turns into $(i,j)$. Consequently, for normalization, we require

251: \begin{equation}

252:   \label{eq:sumt}

253:   \sum_{i,j\ge0} T_{ij,k\ell} = 1 

254:   \qquad\text{for all $k, \ell \in \NNzer$.}

255: \end{equation}

256: The factor $p_k^{} \, p_\ell^{}$ in \eref{reco} describes the

257: probability that a pair $(k,\ell)$ is formed, \ie we assume that two

258: individuals are chosen independently from the population.  We assume

259: further that $T_{ij,k\ell} = T_{ji,k\ell} = T_{ij,\ell k}$, \ie that

260: $T_{ij,k\ell}$ is symmetric \wrt both index pairs, which is

261: reasonable.  Then, the summation over $j$ in \eref{reco}

262: represents the breaking-up

263: of the pairs after the recombination event.  These two ingredients of

264: the dynamics constitute what is known as (\textdef{instant})

265: \textdef{mixing} and are responsible for the quadratic nature of the

266: iteration process.

267: 

268: As mentioned above, we will only consider processes that conserve the

269: total copy number in each event, \ie $T^{(q)}_{ij,k\ell} > 0$ for $i+j

270: = k+\ell$ only.  To\-geth\-er with the normalization \eref{sumt} and

271: the symmetry condition from above, this yields the (otherwise weaker) 

272: condition

273: \begin{equation}

274:   \label{eq:urcons}

275:   \sum_{i\ge0} i \, T_{ij,k\ell}

276:   = \sum_{i,j\ge0} \frac{i+j}{2} \, T_{ij,k\ell}

277:   = \frac{k+\ell}{2} \es,

278: \end{equation}

279: which implies conservation of the \emph{mean copy number} in the population,

280: \begin{displaymath}

281:   \sum_{i\ge0} i \, \R(\vc{p})_i^{}

282:   = \sum_{i,j,k,\ell\ge0} i \, T^{(q)}_{ij,k\ell} \, p_k^{} \, p_\ell^{}

283:   = \sum_{k,\ell\ge0} \frac{k+\ell}{2} \, p_k^{} \, p_\ell^{}

284:   = \sum_{k\ge0} k \, p_k^{} \es.

285: \end{displaymath}

286: 

287: Condition \eref{sumt} and the presence of the prefactor

288: $1/\|\vc{p}\|^{}_1$ in \eref{reco} make $\R$ norm non-increasing, \ie

289: $\|\R(\vc{x})\|^{}_1 \le \|\vc{x}\|^{}_1$, and positive homogeneous of

290: degree 1, \ie $\R(a\vc{x}) = |a| \R(\vc{x})$, for all $\vc{x} \in \Ll{1}$

291: and $a \in \RR$.  Furthermore, $\R$ is a positive operator with

292: $\|\R(\vc{x})\|^{}_1 = \|\vc{x}\|^{}_1$ for all positive elements

293: $\vc{x} \in \Ll{1}$.  Thus, it is guaranteed that $\R$ maps $\M_r^+$,

294: the space of positive measures of total mass $r$, into itself.

295: This space is complete in the

296: topology induced by the norm $\|.\|_1^{}$, \ie by the metric $d$ from

297: \eref{urgpmetric}.  (For $r=1$, of course, the prefactor

298: is redundant but ensures numerical stability of an iteration with

299: $\R$.)

300: 

301: Given an initial configuration $\vc{p}_0^{} = \vc{p}(t\mathbin=0)$,

302: the dynamics may be taken in discrete time steps, with subsequent

303: generations,

304: \begin{equation}

305:   \label{eq:urdisctime}

306:   \vc{p}(t+1) = \R(\vc{p}(t)) \es,

307:   \qquad t\in\NNzer \es.

308: \end{equation}

309: Our treatment of this case will be set up in a way that also allows

310: for a generalization of the results to the analogous process in

311: continuous time, where generations are overlapping,

312: \begin{equation}

313:   \label{eq:urconttime}

314:   \tfrac{\dd{}}{\dd{t}} \vc{p}(t) = \varrho \, (\R-\Id)(\vc{p}(t)) \es,

315:   \qquad t\in\RRnn \es.

316: \end{equation}

317: Obviously, the (positive) parameter $\varrho$ in \eref{urconttime} only leads

318: to a rescaling of the time $t$.  We therefore choose $\varrho=1$ without loss

319: of generality.  Furthermore, the formulation of discrete versus continuous

320: time dynamics in \eref{urdisctime} and \eref{urconttime} is chosen

321: so that the fixed points of \eref{urdisctime} are identical to the equilibria 

322: of \eref{urconttime}, regardless of $\varrho$. This can easily be verified by

323: a direct calculation. In what follows, we will thus use the term \emph{fixed 

324: point} for both discrete and continuous dynamics.

325: 

326: In the UC model, one distinguishes `perfect' alignments, in which each

327: unit in the shorter sequence has a partner in the longer sequence, and

328: `imperfect' alignments, with `overhangs' of the shorter sequence relative

329: to the longer one. To come to a reasonable probability distribution for

330: the various possiblities, the first are taken to be equally probable among

331: each other, while the latter are penalized by a

332: factor $q^d$ relative to the first, where $q \in \ccint{0,1}$ is a

333: model parameter and $d$ is the length of the overhang (at most the entire

334: length of the shorter sequence; in the example of \fref{ureco}, interpreted

335: as a snapshot right after the crossover event took place, we

336: have $d=1$).  In the extreme case $q=0$, only perfect alignments may

337: occur, whereas for $q=1$ overhangs are not penalized at all and one

338: obtains the uniform distribution on the possibilities.  For

339: obvious reasons, the first case is dubbed \textdef{internal UC}, the

340: second \textdef{random UC} \cite{ShAt}.

341: 

342: It is now straightforward, though a bit tedious, to derive the transition

343: probabilities $T^{(q)}_{ij,k\ell}$. To this end, one has to trace what

344: happens in steps two and three of the recombination event only, while

345: the random formation of pairs does not enter here.

346: This has been done in \cite{ShAt} and need not be repeated.

347: However, in view of our above remarks, it is desirable to rewrite

348: the findings in a way that reflects the natural symmetry properties

349: of the $T^{(q)}_{ij,k\ell}$. In compact notation, this leads to the 

350: transition probabilities

351: \begin{equation}

352:   \label{eq:urtq}

353:   T^{(q)}_{ij,k\ell} = 

354:   C^{(q)}_{k\ell} \, \delta_{i+j,k+\ell} \, (1+\min\{k,\ell,i,j\}) \,

355:     q^{0 \vee (k\wedge\ell - i \wedge j)} \es,

356: \end{equation}

357: where $k \vee \ell := \max\{k,\ell\}$, $k \wedge \ell :=

358: \min\{k,\ell\}$, and $0^0 = 1$.  The $C^{(q)}_{k\ell}$ are chosen

359: such that \eref{sumt} holds, \ie $\sum_{i,j\ge0} T^{(q)}_{ij,k\ell} =

360: 1$, and are hence symmetric in $k$ and $\ell$.  Explicitly, they read

361: (see also \cite[\sect 2.1]{ShAt})

362: \begin{displaymath}

363:   C^{(q)}_{k\ell} =

364:   \frac{(1-q)^2}{

365:     (k\wedge\ell+1)(|k-\ell|+1)(1-q)^2 +

366:     2q(k\wedge\ell - (k\wedge\ell+1)q + q^{k\wedge\ell+1})} \es.

367: \end{displaymath}

368: Note further that the total number of units is indeed conserved in

369: each event and that the process is symmetric within both pairs.  Hence

370: \eref{urcons} is satisfied.

371: 

372: Let us briefly come back to the question of `discrete' versus `continuous' 

373: time, which are considered simultaneously for good reasons.

374: Common to both is the nonlinearity that stems from the probability that a

375: certain (random) pair is formed in the first place. Then,

376: for the discrete time dynamics \eref{urdisctime}, the $T^{(q)}_{ij,k\ell}$

377: have the direct meaning of the transition probability that, given a pair

378: $(k,\ell)$, this turns into a pair $(i,j)$. In contrast, for the

379: continuous time dynamics \eqref{eq:urconttime}, the number $T^{(q)}_{ij,k\ell}$

380: is to be understood as the probability to obtain a pair $(i,j)$

381: \emph{conditioned} on a recombination event with a pair of type

382: $(k,\ell)$, of which each recombines at the same rate. In probabilistic

383: terminology, the $\R$ of \eref{urdisctime} is the discrete time

384: skeleton of the process in continuous time, also called the

385: embedded discrete time process.

386: 

387: 

388: \bigskip\noindent

389: The aim of this article is to find answers to the following questions:

390: \begin{enumerate}

391: \renewcommand\labelenumi{\theenumi.}

392: \item Are there fixed points of the dynamics?

393: \item Given the mean copy number $m$, is there a unique fixed point?

394: \item If so, under which conditions and in which sense does an initial

395:   distribution converge to this fixed point under time evolution?

396: \end{enumerate}

397: Of course, the trivial fixed point with $p_0^{} = 1$ and $p_k^{} = 0$

398: for $k>0$ always exists, which we generally exclude from our

399: considerations.  But even then, the answer to the first question is

400: positive for general operators of the form \eref{reco} that satisfy

401: \eref{sumt} and some rather natural further condition.  This is

402: discussed in \sref{urgeneral}.  For the extreme cases $q=0$ (internal

403: UC) and $q=1$ (random UC), fixed points are known explicitly for every

404: $m$ and it has been conjectured \cite{ShAt} that, under mild

405: conditions, also questions 2 and 3 can be answered positively for all

406: values of $q \in \ccint{0,1}$.  Indeed, for both extreme cases, norm

407: convergence of the population distribution to the fixed points can be

408: shown, which is done in \sections \ref{sec:urq0} and \ref{sec:urq1},

409: respectively.  Since the dynamical systems involved are infinite

410: dimensional, a careful analysis of compactness properties is needed

411: for rigorous answers.  The proofs for $q=1$ are based on alternative

412: representations of probability measures via generating functions,

413: presented in \sref{urrepr}.  For the intermediate parameter regime, we

414: can only show that there exists a fixed point for every $m$, but

415: neither its uniqueness nor convergence to it, see \sref{urqgen}.  Some

416: remarks in \sref{remarks} conclude this article.

417: 

418: 

419: \section{Existence of fixed points}

420: \label{sec:urgeneral}

421: 

422: Let us begin by stating the following general fact.

423: \begin{proposition}

424:   \label{prop:recolipschitz}

425:   If the recombinator\/ $\R$ of \eref{reco} satisfies \eref{sumt},

426:   then the global Lipschitz condition

427:   \begin{displaymath}

428:     \|\R(\vc{x}) - \R(\vc{y})\|^{}_1 \le C \|\vc{x} - \vc{y}\|^{}_1

429:   \end{displaymath}

430:   is satisfied, with constant\/ $C=3$ on\/ $\Ll{1}$, respectively\/

431:   $C=2$ if\/ $\vc{x}$, $\vc{y} \in \M_r$.

432: \end{proposition}

433: \begin{proof}

434:   Let $\vc{x}$, $\vc{y} \in \Ll{1}$ be non-zero (otherwise the

435:   statement is trivial). Then,

436:   \begin{align*}

437:     \|\R(\vc{x}) - \R(\vc{y})\|^{}_1 &=

438:     \sum_{i\ge0} \left|

439:       \sum_{j,k,\ell\ge0} T_{ij,k\ell}^{} \left(

440:         \frac{x_k^{}\,x_\ell^{}}{\|\vc{x}\|^{}_1} -

441:         \frac{y_k^{}\,y_\ell^{}}{\|\vc{y}\|^{}_1} \right) \right| \\

442:     &\le \sum_{k,\ell\ge0} \left|

443:       \frac{x_k^{}\,x_\ell^{}}{\|\vc{x}\|^{}_1} -

444:       \frac{y_k^{}\,y_\ell^{}}{\|\vc{y}\|^{}_1} \right|

445:     \sum_{i,j\ge0} T_{ij,k\ell} \\

446:     &= \sum_{k,\ell\ge0} \left|

447:       \frac{x_k^{}\,x_\ell^{}}{\|\vc{x}\|^{}_1} -

448:       \frac{x_k^{}\,y_\ell^{}}{\|\vc{x}\|^{}_1} +

449:       \frac{x_k^{}\,y_\ell^{}}{\|\vc{x}\|^{}_1} -

450:       \frac{y_k^{}\,y_\ell^{}}{\|\vc{y}\|^{}_1} \right| \\

451:     &\le \sum_{k,\ell\ge0} \left(

452:       \frac{|x_k^{}|}{\|\vc{x}\|^{}_1} |x_\ell^{} - y_\ell^{}| +

453:       |y_\ell^{}| \left| \frac{x_k^{}}{\|\vc{x}\|^{}_1} - 

454:         \frac{y_k^{}}{\|\vc{y}\|^{}_1} \right| \right) \\

455:     &= \|\vc{x}-\vc{y}\|^{}_1 + 

456:     \frac{1}{\|\vc{x}\|^{}_1} \bigl\|

457:       \|\vc{y}\|^{}_1 \vc{x} - \|\vc{x}\|^{}_1 \vc{y} \bigr\|^{}_1 \es.

458:   \end{align*}

459:   The last term becomes

460:   \begin{multline*}

461:     \frac{1}{\|\vc{x}\|^{}_1} \bigl\|

462:       \|\vc{y}\|^{}_1 \vc{x} - \|\vc{x}\|^{}_1 \vc{y} \bigr\|^{}_1 \\

463:     = \frac{1}{\|\vc{x}\|^{}_1} \bigl\| 

464:       (\|\vc{y}\|^{}_1 - \|\vc{x}\|^{}_1) \vc{x} +

465:       \|\vc{x}\|^{}_1 (\vc{x} - \vc{y}) \bigr\|^{}_1

466:     \le 2 \|\vc{x}-\vc{y}\|^{}_1 \es,

467:   \end{multline*}

468:   from which $\|\R(\vc{x}) - \R(\vc{y})\|^{}_1 \le 3\|\vc{x} -

469:   \vc{y}\|^{}_1$ follows for $\vc{x}$, $\vc{y} \in \Ll{1}$.  If

470:   $\vc{x}$, $\vc{y} \in \M_r$, the above calculation simplifies to

471:   $\|\R(\vc{x}) - \R(\vc{y})\|^{}_1 \le 2\|\vc{x} - \vc{y}\|^{}_1$.

472: \end{proof}

473: In continuous time, this is a sufficient condition for the existence

474: and uniqueness of a solution of the initial value problem

475: \eref{urconttime}, \cf \cite[\thms 7.6 and 10.3]{Ama}.  Another useful

476: notion in this respect is the following.

477: \begin{definition}{\cite[\sect 18]{Ama}}

478:   \label{def:lyapunov}

479:   Let\/ $Y$ be an open subset of a Banach space\/ $E$ and let\/ $f

480:   \colon Y \to E$ satisfy a \pr{local} Lipschitz condition.  A

481:   continuous function\/ $L$ from\/ $X \subset Y$ to\/ $\RR$ is called

482:   a \textdef{Lyapunov function} for the initial value problem

483:   \begin{displaymath}

484:     \tfrac{\dd{}}{\dd{t}} \vc{x}(t) = f(\vc{x}(t)) \es,

485:     \qquad \vc{x}(0) = \vc{x}_0 \in X \es,

486:   \end{displaymath}

487:   if the \textdef{orbital derivative}\/ $\dot{L}(\vc{x}_0) :=

488:   \liminf_{t\to 0^+} \frac1t \bigl( L(\vc{x}(t)) - L(\vc{x}_0) \bigr)$

489:   satisfies

490:   \begin{equation}

491:     \label{eq:dotl}

492:     \dot{L}(\vc{x}_0) \le 0

493:   \end{equation}

494:   for all initial conditions\/ $\vc{x}_0 \in X$.

495: \end{definition}

496: If further $\dot{L}(\vc{x}_{\mathrm{F}}) = 0$ for a single fixed point

497: $\vc{x}_{\mathrm{F}}$ only, then $L$ is called a \textdef{strict}

498: Lyapunov function.  If a Lyapunov function exists, we have

499: \begin{theorem}{\cite[\thm 17.2 and \cor 18.4]{Ama}}

500:   \label{thm:lyapunov}

501:   With the notation of \dref{lyapunov}, assume that there is a

502:   Lyapunov function\/ $L$, that the set\/ $X$ is closed, and that, for

503:   an initial condition\/ $\vc{x}_0 \in X$, the set\/ $\{ \vc{x}(t) :

504:   t\in\RRnn, \text{$\vc{x}(t)$ exists} \}$ is relatively compact in\/

505:   $X$.  Then,\/ $\vc{x}(t)$ exists for all\/ $t\ge0$ and

506:   \begin{displaymath}

507:     \lim_{t\to\infty} \dist(\vc{x}(t), X_L) = 0 \es,

508:   \end{displaymath}

509:   where\/ $\dist(\vc{x},X_L) = \inf_{\vc{y} \in X_L} \|\vc{x} -

510:   \vc{y}\|$ and\/ $X_L$ denotes the largest invariant subset of\/ $\{

511:   \vc{x} \in X : \dot{L}(\vc{x}) = 0 \}$ \pr{in forward and backward

512:     time}.  \hspace*{\fill}\qed

513: \end{theorem}

514: Obviously, if $L$ is a strict Lyapunov function, we have $X_L =

515: \{\vc{x}_{\mathrm{F}}\}$ and this theorem implies $d(\vc{x}(t),

516: \vc{x}_{\mathrm{F}}) \to 0$ as $t \to \infty$.

517: 

518: Returning to the original question of the existence of fixed points,

519: we now recall the following facts, compare \cite{BilC,Shir} for

520: details.

521: \begin{proposition}{\cite[\cor to \thm V.1.5]{Yos}}

522:   \label{prop:vaguenorm}

523:   Assume the sequence\/ $\bigl(\vc{p}^{(n)}\bigr)$ in\/ $\M_1^+$ to

524:   converge in the \weaks topology \pr{\ie pointwise, or vaguely} to

525:   some\/ $\vc{p} \in \M_1^+$, \ie

526:   \begin{displaymath}

527:     \lim_{n\to\infty} p^{(n)}_k = p_k^{}

528:     \quad\text{for all\, $k\in\NNzer$} \es,

529:     \quad\text{with\, $p_k^{}\ge0$ \; and\; 

530:       $\textstyle\sum_{k\ge0} p_k^{} = 1$} \es.

531:   \end{displaymath}

532:   Then, it also converges weakly \pr{in the probabilistic sense} and in

533:   total variation, \ie $\lim_{n\to\infty} \|\vc{p}^{(n)} -

534:   \vc{p}\|^{}_1 = 0$.\hspace*{\fill}\qed

535: \end{proposition}

536: \begin{proposition}

537:   \label{prop:urgfixed}

538:   Assume that the recombinator\/ $\R$ from \eref{reco} satisfies

539:   \eref{sumt} and has a convex, \weaks closed invariant set\/ $M

540:   \subset \M_1^+$, \ie $\R(M) \subset M$, that is\/ \emph{tight}, \ie for

541:   every\/ $\eps>0$ there is an\/ $m\in\NNzer$ such that\/ $\sum_{k \ge

542:     m} p_k^{} < \eps$ for every\/ $\vc{p} \in M$.  Then, $\R$ has a

543:   fixed point in\/ $M$.

544: \end{proposition}

545: \begin{proof}

546:   Prohorov's theorem \cite[\thm III.2.1]{Shir} states that tightness

547:   and relative compactness in the \weaks topology are equivalent (see

548:   also \cite[\chaps 1.1 and 1.5]{BilC}).  In our case, $M$ is tight

549:   and \weaks closed, therefore, due to \pref{vaguenorm}, norm compact.

550:   Furthermore, $M$ is convex and $\R$ is (norm) continuous by

551:   \pref{recolipschitz}.  Thus, the claim follows from the

552:   Leray--Schauder--Tychonov fixed point theorem \cite[\thm

553:   V.19]{ReSi}.

554: \end{proof}

555: \Wrt the UC model, we will see that such compact invariant subsets

556: indeed exist.

557: 

558: 

559: \section{Internal unequal crossover}

560: \label{sec:urq0}

561: 

562: After these preliminaries, let us begin with the case of internal UC

563: with perfect alignment only, \ie $q=0$ in \eref{urtq}.  This case is

564: the simplest because, in each recombination event, no sequences exceeding

565: the longer of the participating sequences can be formed. Here, on $\M_1^+$,

566: the recombinator \eref{reco} simplifies to

567: \begin{equation}

568:   \label{eq:ur0reco}

569:   \R_0(\vc{p})_i^{} =

570:   \sum_{\substack{k,\ell\ge0 \\[0.4\baselineskip] 

571:       k\wedge\ell \le i \le k\vee\ell}} 

572:     \frac{p_k^{} \, p_\ell^{}}{1+|k-\ell|} \es.

573: \end{equation}

574: From now on, we write $\R_q$ rather than $\R$ whenever we look at a

575: recombinator with (fixed) parameter $q$.  It is instructive to

576: generalize the notion of reversibility (or detailed balance, compare

577: \cite[(4.1)]{ShAt}).

578: \begin{definition}

579:   We call a probability measure\/ $\vc{p} \in \M_1^+$

580:   \textdef{reversible} for a recombinator\/ $\R$ of the form

581:   \eref{reco} if, for all\/ $i, j, k, \ell \ge 0$,

582:   \begin{equation}

583:     \label{eq:urrev}

584:     T_{ij,k\ell}^{} \, p_k^{} \, p_\ell^{} = 

585:     T_{k\ell,ij}^{} \, p_i^{} \, p_j^{} \es.

586:   \end{equation}

587: \end{definition}

588: The relevance of this concept is evident from the following property.

589: \begin{lemma}

590:   \label{lem:urrev}

591:   If\/ $\vc{p} \in \M_1^+$ is reversible for\/ $\R$, it is also a

592:   fixed point of\/ $\R$.

593: \end{lemma}

594: \begin{proof}

595:   Assume $\vc{p}$ to be reversible.  Then, by \eref{sumt},

596:   \begin{displaymath}

597:     \R(\vc{p})_i^{} =

598:     \sum_{j,k,\ell\ge0} \, T_{ij,k\ell}^{} \, p_k^{} \, p_\ell^{} =

599:     \sum_{j,k,\ell\ge0} \, T_{k\ell,ij}^{} \, p_i^{} \, p_j^{} = 

600:     p_i^{} \sum_{j\ge0} p_j^{} = p_i^{} \es. \qedhere[-13.9pt]

601:   \end{displaymath}

602: \end{proof}

603: So, in our search for fixed points, we start by looking for solutions

604: of \eref{urrev}.  Since, for $q=0$, forward and backward transition

605: probabilities are simultaneously non-zero only if $\{i,j\} =

606: \{k,\ell\} \subset \{n,n+1\}$ for some $n$, the components $p_k^{}$

607: may only be positive on this small set as well.  By the following

608: proposition, this indeed characterizes all fixed points for $q=0$.

609: \begin{proposition}

610:   \label{prop:ur0unique}

611:   A probability measure\/ $\vc{p} \in \M_1^+$ is a fixed point of\/

612:   $\R_0$ if and only if its mean copy number\/ $m = \sum_{k\ge0}

613:   k\,p_k^{}$ is finite,\/ $p_{\lfloor m \rfloor}^{} = \lfloor m

614:   \rfloor + 1 - m$, \linebreak $p_{\lceil m \rceil}^{} = m + 1 -

615:   \lceil m \rceil$, and\/ $p_k^{} = 0$ for all other\/ $k$.  This

616:   includes the case that\/ $m$ is integer and\/ $p_{\lfloor m

617:     \rfloor}^{} = p_{\lceil m \rceil}^{} = p_m^{} = 1$.

618: \end{proposition}

619: \begin{proof}

620:   The `if' part was stated in \cite[\sect 4.1]{ShAt} and follows

621:   easily by insertion into \eref{ur0reco} or \eref{urrev}.  For the

622:   `only if' part, let $i$ denote the smallest integer such that

623:   $p_i^{} > 0$.  Then,

624:   \begin{displaymath}

625:     \R(\vc{p})_i^{} = 

626:     p_i^2 + 2 p_i^{} \sum_{\ell\ge1} \frac{p_{i+\ell}^{}}{1+\ell} =

627:     p_i^{} \left( p_i^{} + p_{i+1}^{} + 

628:       \sum_{\ell\ge2} \frac{2}{\ell+1} p_{i+\ell}^{} \right) \le 

629:     p_i^{} \es,

630:   \end{displaymath}

631:   where the last step follows since $\frac{2}{\ell+1} < 1$ in the last

632:   sum, with equality if and only if $p_k^{} = 0$ for all $k \ge i+2$.

633:   This implies $m < \infty$ and the uniqueness of $\vc{p}$ (given $m$)

634:   with the non-zero frequencies as claimed.

635: \end{proof}

636: 

637: It it possible to analyze the case of internal UC on the basis of the

638: compact sets to be introduced below in \sref{urrepr}.  However, as J.

639: Hofbauer pointed out to us \cite{HofPriv}, it is more natural to start

640: with a larger compact set to be introduced in \eref{m1mc}.  Our main

641: result in this section is thus

642: \begin{theorem}

643:   \label{thm:ur0conv}

644:   Assume that, for the initial condition\/ $\vc{p}(0)$ and fixed\/

645:   $r>1$, the\/ $r$-th moment exists,\/ $\sum_{k\ge0} k^r p_k^{}(0) <

646:   \infty$.  Then, $m = \sum_{k\ge0} k \, p_k^{}(0)$ is finite and,

647:   both in discrete and in continuous time,\/ $\lim_{t\to\infty}

648:   \|\vc{p}(t) - \vc{p}\|^{}_1 = 0$ with the appropriate fixed point\/

649:   $\vc{p}$ from \pref{ur0unique}.

650: \end{theorem}

651: The proof relies on the following lemma, which slightly modifies and

652: completes the convergence arguments of \cite[\sect 4.1]{ShAt}, puts

653: them on rigorous grounds, and extends them to continuous time.

654: \begin{lemma}

655:   \label{lem:ur0dp}

656:   Let\/ $r>1$ be arbitrary, but fixed.  Consider the set of

657:   probability measures with fixed mean\/ $m<\infty$ and a centered\/

658:   $r$-th moment bounded by\/ $C<\infty\es$,

659:   \begin{equation}

660:     \label{eq:m1mc}

661:     \M_{1,m,C}^+ = \{ \vc{p}\in\M_1^+ : \sum_{k\ge0} k\,p_k^{} = m,\,

662:       M_r(\vc{p}) \le C \} \es,

663:   \end{equation}

664:   equipped with \pr{the metric induced by} the total variation norm,

665:   where

666:   \begin{equation}

667:     \label{eq:ur0dp}

668:     M_s(\vc{p}) = \sum_{k\ge0} |k-m|^s \, p_k^{}

669:   \end{equation}

670:   for\/ $s \in \{1,r\}$.  This is a compact and convex space.  Both\/

671:   $M_1$ and\/ $M_r$ satisfy\/ $M_s(\R_0(\vc{p})) \le M_s(\vc{p})$,

672:   with equality if and only if\/ $\vc{p}$ is a fixed point of\/

673:   $\R_0$.  Furthermore,\/ $M_1$ is a continuous mapping from\/

674:   $\M_{1,m,C}^+$ to\/ $\RRnn$ and a Lyapunov function for the dynamics

675:   in continuous time.

676: \end{lemma}

677: \begin{proof}

678:   Let a sequence $(\vc{p}^{(n)}) \subset \M_{1,m,C}^+$ be given and

679:   consider the random variables $\vc{f}^{(n)} = (k)_{k\in\NNzer}^{}$

680:   on the probability spaces $(\NNzer,\vc{p}^{(n)})$.  Their

681:   expectation values are equal to $m$, which, by Markov's inequality

682:   \cite[p.~599]{Shir}, implies the tightness of the sequence

683:   $(\vc{p}^{(n)})$.  Hence, by Prohorov's theorem \cite[\thm

684:   III.2.1]{Shir} (see also \cite[\chaps 1.1 and 1.5]{BilC}), it

685:   contains a convergent subsequence $(\vc{p}^{(n_i)})$ (recall that,

686:   by \pref{vaguenorm}, norm and pointwise convergence are equivalent

687:   in this case).  Let $\widetilde{\vc{p}} \in \M_1^+$ denote its limit and

688:   $\widetilde{\vc{f}} = (k)_{k\in\NNzer}^{}$ a random variable on

689:   $(\NNzer,\widetilde{\vc{p}})$, to which the $\vc{f}^{(n_i)}$ converge in

690:   distribution.  Since $r>1$, the $\vc{f}^{(n_i)}$ are uniformly

691:   integrable by Markov's and H\"older's inequalities.  Hence, due to

692:   \cite[\lem 3.11]{Kal}, their expectation values, which all equal

693:   $m$, converge to the one of $\widetilde{\vc{f}}$, which is thus $m$ as

694:   well.  Consider now the random variables $\vc{g}^{(n_i)} =

695:   \widetilde{\vc{g}} = (|k-m|^r)_{k\in\NNzer}^{}$ on

696:   $(\NNzer,\vc{p}^{(n)})$ and $(\NNzer,\widetilde{\vc{p}})$, respectively.

697:   The expectation values of the $\vc{g}^{(n_i)}$ are bounded by $C$,

698:   which, again by \cite[\lem 3.11]{Kal}, is then also an upper bound

699:   for the expectation value of $\widetilde{\vc{g}}$ (to which the

700:   $\vc{g}^{(n_i)}$ converge in distribution).  This proves the

701:   compactness of $\M_{1,m,C}^+$.  The convexity is obvious.

702: 

703:   \Wrt the second statement, consider

704:   \begin{equation}

705:     \label{eq:ur0dr0}

706:     \begin{aligned}

707:       M_s(\R_0(\vc{p})) &=

708:       \sum_{i\ge0} \!

709:         \sum_{\substack{k,\ell\ge0 \\[0.4\baselineskip] 

710:             k\wedge\ell \le i \le k\vee\ell}} \!

711:         \frac{|i-m|^s}{1+|k-\ell|} \, p_k^{} \, p_\ell^{} \\

712:       &= \sum_{k,\ell\ge0} \frac{p_k^{} \, p_\ell^{}}{1+|k-\ell|}

713:         \, \frac12 \sum_{i=k\wedge\ell}^{k\vee\ell}

714:         (|i-m|^s + |k+\ell-i-m|^s) \es.

715:     \end{aligned}

716:   \end{equation}

717:   For notational convenience, let $j = k+\ell-i$.  We now show

718:   \begin{equation}

719:     \label{eq:ur0ijklm}

720:     |i-m|^s + |k+\ell-i-m|^s \le |k-m|^s + |\ell-m|^s \es.

721:   \end{equation}

722:   If $\{k,\ell\} = \{i,j\}$, then \eref{ur0ijklm} holds with equality.

723:   Otherwise, assume, without loss of generality, that $k < i \le j <

724:   \ell$.  If $m \le k$ or $m \ge \ell$, we have equality for $s=1$ but

725:   a strict inequality for $s=r$ due to the convexity of $x \mapsto

726:   x^r$.  (For $s=1$, this describes the fact that a recombination

727:   event between two sequences that are both longer or both shorter

728:   than the mean does not change their mean distance to the mean copy

729:   number.)  In the remaining cases, the inequality is strict as well.

730:   Hence, $M_s(\R_0(\vc{p})) \le M_s(\vc{p})$ with equality if and only

731:   if $\vc{p}$ is a fixed point of $\R_0$, since otherwise the sum in

732:   \eref{ur0dr0} contains at least one term for which \eref{ur0ijklm}

733:   holds as a strict inequality.

734:   

735:   To see that $M_1$ is continuous, select a converging sequence

736:   $(\vc{p}^{(n)})$ in $\M_{1,m,C}^+$ and consider the random variables

737:   $\vc{h}^{(n)} = (|k-m|)_{k\in\NNzer}^{}$ on $(\NNzer,\vc{p}^{(n)})$.

738:   As above, the latter are uniformly integrable, from which the

739:   continuity of $M_1$ follows.  Since $M_1(\vc{p})$ is linear in

740:   $\vc{p}$ and thus infinitely differentiable, so is the solution

741:   $\vc{p}(t)$ for every initial condition $\vc{p}_0 \in \M_{1,m,C}^+$,

742:   compare \cite[\thm 9.5 and \remk 9.6(b)]{Ama}.  Therefore, we have

743:   \begin{displaymath}

744:     \dot{M_1}(\vc{p}_0) =

745:     \liminf_{t\to0^+} \frac{M_1(\vc{p}(t)) - M_1(\vc{p}_0)}{t} =

746:     M_1(\R_0(\vc{p}_0)) - M_1(\vc{p}_0) \le 0 \es,

747:   \end{displaymath}

748:   again with equality if and only if $\vc{p}_0$ is a fixed point.

749:   Thus, $M_1$ is a Lyapunov function.

750: \end{proof}

751: \begin{theopargself}

752:   \begin{proof}[of \thref{ur0conv}]

753:     By assumption, the $r$-th moment of $\vc{p}(0)$ exists, which is

754:     equivalent to the existence of the centered $r$-th moment by

755:     Minkowski's inequality \cite[\sect II.6.6]{Shir}.  This obviously

756:     implies the existence of the mean $m$.  By \lref{ur0dp},

757:     $\vc{p}(t) \in \M_{1,m,C}^+$ follows for all $t\ge0$,

758:     directly for discrete time and via a satisfied subtangent

759:     condition \cite[\thm VI.2.1]{Mar} (see also \cite[\thm 16.5]{Ama})

760:     for continuous time.  In the discrete case, due to the compactness

761:     of $\M_{1,m,C}^+$, there is a convergent subsequence

762:     $(\vc{p}(t_i))$ with some limit $\vc{p}$.  Consider now the mean

763:     distance $M_1$ to the mean copy number from \eref{ur0dp}.  If

764:     $\lim_{t\to\infty} \vc{p}(t) = \vc{p}$, we have, due to the

765:     continuity of $M_1$ and $\R_0$,

766:     \begin{displaymath}

767:       M_1(\R_0(\vc{p})) = \lim_{t\to\infty} M_1(\R_0(\vc{p}(t))) =

768:       \lim_{t\to\infty} M_1(\vc{p}(t+1)) = M_1(\vc{p}) \es,

769:     \end{displaymath}

770:     thus $\vc{p}$ is a fixed point by \lref{ur0dp}.  Otherwise, there

771:     are two convergent subsequences $(\vc{p}(t_i))$, with limit

772:     $\vc{p}$, and $(\vc{p}(s_i))$, with limit $\vc{q}$, whose indices

773:     alternate, $t_i < s_i < t_{i+1}$.  Then, we also have

774:     $M_1(\R_0(\vc{p}(t_i))) \ge M_1(\vc{p}(s_i))$ and

775:     $M_1(\R_0(\vc{p}(s_i))) \ge M_1(\vc{p}(t_{i+1}))$, and therefore

776:     \begin{multline*}

777:       M_1(\vc{p}) \ge M_1(\R_0(\vc{p})) = 

778:       \lim_{i\to\infty} M_1(\R_0(\vc{p}(t_i))) \ge

779:       \lim_{i\to\infty} M_1(\vc{p}(s_i))

780:       = M_1(\vc{q}) \\

781:       \ge M_1(\R_0(\vc{q})) = 

782:       \lim_{i\to\infty} M_1(\R_0(\vc{p}(s_i))) \ge

783:       \lim_{i\to\infty} M_1(\vc{p}(t_{i+1})) = M_1(\vc{p}) \es.

784:     \end{multline*}

785:     Thus, both $\vc{p}$ and $\vc{q}$ are fixed points by \lref{ur0dp}

786:     and hence equal by \pref{ur0unique}.  In continuous time, the

787:     claim follows from \thref{lyapunov} since $M_1$ is a Lyapunov

788:     function by \lref{ur0dp}.

789:   \end{proof}

790: \end{theopargself}

791: 

792: Note that, for $q=0$, the recombinator can be expressed in terms of

793: explicit frequencies $\pi_{k,\ell}$ of fragment pairs before

794: concatenation (with copy numbers $k$ and $\ell$) as $\R_0(\vc{p})_i^{}

795: = \sum_{j=0}^i \pi_{j,i-j}$.  However, we have, so far, not been able

796: to use this for a simplification of the above treatment.

797: 

798: 

799: \section{Alternative probability representations}

800: \label{sec:urrepr}

801: 

802: Our next goal is to find the analogue of \thref{ur0conv} for the case of

803: $q=1$ (random UC).

804: Whereas the convergence arguments for the case $q=0$ relied on a compact set

805: of probability measure defined via the $r$-th moment, we are not (yet) able to

806: extend this approach to $q>0$.  Instead, we will consider, as an alternative

807: representation for a probability measure $\vc{p} \in \M_1^+$, the generating

808: function

809: \begin{equation}

810:   \label{eq:urgpsip}

811:   \psi(z) = \sum_{k\ge0} p_k^{} z^k \es,

812: \end{equation}

813: for which $\psi(1) = \|\vc{p}\|^{}_1 = 1$ and the radius of

814: convergence is at least 1.  We will restrict our discussion to such

815: $\vc{p}$ for which $\limsup_{k\to\infty} \sqrt[k]{p_k^{}} < 1$.  Then,

816: the radius of convergence, $\rho(\psi) = 1/\limsup_{k\to\infty}

817: \sqrt[k]{p_k^{}}$ by Hadamard's formula \cite[10.5]{RudRCA}, is larger

818: than $1$.  This is, biologically, no restriction since for any

819: `realistic' system there are only finitely many non-zero $p_k^{}$ (and

820: therefore $\rho(\psi) = \infty$).  Mathematically, this condition

821: ensures the existence of all moments and enables us to go back and

822: forth between the probability measure and its generating function,

823: even when looked at $\psi(z)$ only in the vicinity of $z=1$ (see

824: \pref{urgainxad} below and \cite[\sect II.12]{Shir}).  By abuse of

825: notation, we define the induced recombinator for these generating

826: functions as

827: \begin{equation}

828:   \label{eq:urgrecopsi}

829:   \R(\psi)(z) = \sum_{k\ge0} \R(\vc{p})_k^{} \, z^k \es.

830: \end{equation}

831: In general, with the exception of the case $q=1$, we do not know any

832: simple expression for $\R(\psi)$ in terms of $\psi$.  Nevertheless,

833: \eref{urgrecopsi} will be central to our further analysis.

834: 

835: It is advantageous to use the local expansion around $z=1$, written in

836: the form

837: \begin{equation}

838:   \label{eq:urgpsi1}

839:   \psi(z) = \sum_{k\ge0} (k+1) a_k (z-1)^k \es,

840: \end{equation}

841: whose coefficients are given by

842: \begin{equation}

843:   \label{eq:urga}

844:   a_k = \frac{1}{(k+1)!} \psi^{(k)}(1) =

845:   \frac{1}{k+1} \sum_{\ell \ge k} \binom{\ell}{k} \, p_\ell^{} =: 

846:   \vc{a}(\vc{p})_k^{} \ge 0 \es.

847: \end{equation}

848: In particular, $a_0 = 1$ and $a_1 = \frac12 \sum_{\ell\ge0} \ell \,

849: p_\ell^{}$.  This definition of $a_k$ is size biased, and will become

850: clear from the simplified dynamics for $q=1$ that results from it.

851: For the sake of compact notation, we use $\vc{a} =

852: (a_k)^{}_{k\in\NNzer}$ both for the coefficients and for the mapping.

853: The coefficients $\vc{a}$ are elements of the following compact,

854: convex metric space.

855: \begin{definition}

856:   \label{def:xad}

857:   For fixed\/ $\alpha$ and\/ $\delta$ with\/ $0 < \alpha \le \delta <

858:   \infty$, let

859:   \begin{displaymath}

860:     \X_{\alpha,\delta} = 

861:     \{ \vc{a} = (a_k)_{k\in\NNzer} : a_0 = 1,\, a_1 = \alpha,\,

862:       \text{$0 \le a_k \le \delta^k$ for $k\ge2$} \} \es.

863:   \end{displaymath}

864:   On this space, define the metric

865:   \begin{equation}

866:     \label{eq:urgmetric}

867:     d(\vc{a},\vc{b}) = \sum_{k\ge0} d_k |a_k-b_k|

868:   \end{equation}

869:   with\/ $d_k = (\gamma/\delta)^k$ for some\/ $0<\gamma<\frac13$.

870: \end{definition}

871: It is obvious that $d$ is indeed a metric and that

872: $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$ is a convex set, \ie we have $\eta\,\vc{a} +

873: (1-\eta)\vc{b} \in \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ for all $\vc{a}$, $\vc{b} \in

874: \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ and $\eta \in \ccint{0,1}$.  Note that we use the

875: same symbol $d$ as in \eref{urgpmetric} since it will always be clear

876: which metric is meant.  The space $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$ is naturally

877: embedded in the Banach space (\cf \cite[\sect 24.I]{WalEn})

878: \begin{equation}

879:   \label{eq:hdelta}

880:   H_{\gamma/\delta} = \{ \vc{x}\in\RR^{\NNzer} : \|\vc{x}\| < \infty \}

881: \end{equation}

882: with the norm $\|\vc{x}\| = \sum_{k\ge0} (\gamma/\delta)^k |x_k|$, for

883: $\gamma$ and $\delta$ as in \dref{xad}.  In particular,

884: $d(\vc{a},\vc{b}) = \|\vc{a}-\vc{b}\|$.  Furthermore, we have the

885: following two propositions.

886: \begin{proposition}

887:   \label{prop:urgxadcomp}

888:   The space\/ $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$ is compact in the metric\/ $d$ of

889:   \eref{urgmetric}.

890: \end{proposition}

891: \begin{proof}

892:   In metric spaces, compactness and sequential compactness are

893:   equivalent, compare \cite[\thm II.3.8]{Lan}.  Hence, let

894:   $(\vc{a}^{(n)})$ be any sequence in $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$.  By

895:   assumption, $a^{(n)}_0 \equiv 1$ and $a^{(n)}_1 \equiv \alpha$.

896:   Furthermore, each element sequence $(a_k^{(n)}) \subset

897:   \ccint{0,\delta^k}$ has a convergent subsequence.  We now

898:   inductively define, for every $k$, a convergent subsequence

899:   $(a_k^{(n_{k,i})})$, with limit $a_k$, such that the indices

900:   $\{n_{k,i} : i\in\NN\}$ are a subset of the preceding indices

901:   $\{n_{k-1,i} : i\in\NN\}$.  This way, we can proceed to a `diagonal'

902:   sequence $(\vc{a}^{(n_{i,i})})$.  The latter is now shown to

903:   converge to $\vc{a} = (a_k)$, which is obviously an element of

904:   $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$.  To this end, let $\eps>0$ be given.  Choose

905:   $m$ large enough such that $\sum_{k>m} (2\gamma)^k < \eps/2$, and

906:   then $i$ such that $\sum_{k=0}^m d_k^{} |a^{(n_{i,i})}_k - a_k^{}| <

907:   \eps/2$.  Then

908:   \begin{equation}

909:     \label{eq:urgxadcomp}

910:     \begin{aligned}

911:       d(\vc{a}^{(n_{i,i})},\vc{a}) &= 

912:       \sum_{k=2}^m d_k |a_k^{(n_{i,i})}-a_k^{}| + 

913:         \sum_{k>m} d_k |a_k^{(n_{i,i})}-a_k^{}| \\

914:       &< \frac\eps2 + \sum_{k>m} (2\gamma)^k <

915:       \eps \es,

916:     \end{aligned}

917:   \end{equation}

918:   which proves the claim.

919: \end{proof}

920: \begin{proposition}

921:   \label{prop:urgainxad}

922:   If\/ $\limsup_{k\to\infty} \sqrt[k]{p_k^{}} < 1$, the coefficients\/

923:   $a_k$ from \eref{urga} exist and\/ $\vc{a}(\vc{p}) \in

924:   \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ with\/ $\alpha = \vc{a}(\vc{p})^{}_1 = \frac12 m

925:   = \frac12 \sum_{k\ge0} k\,p_k^{}$ and some\/ $\delta$.  Conversely,

926:   if\/ $\vc{p}(\vc{a}) \in \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ for some\/ $\alpha$,

927:   $\delta$, one has\/ $\limsup_{k\to\infty} \sqrt[k]{p_k^{}} < 1$.

928: \end{proposition}

929: For a proof, we need the following

930: \begin{lemma}

931:   \label{lem:urgradii}

932:   Let\/ $f_0(z) = \sum_{k\ge0} c_k z^k$ be a power series with

933:   non-negative coefficients\/ $c_k$ and\/ $f_x(z) = \sum_{k\ge0}

934:   \frac{1}{k!} f_0^{(k)}(x) (z-x)^k$ the expansion of\/ $f_0$ around

935:   some\/ $x \in \coint{0,\rho(f_0)}$.  Then, $\rho(f_0) = x +

936:   \rho(f_x)$, including the case that both radii of convergence are

937:   infinite.

938: \end{lemma}

939: \begin{proof}

940:   Since the open disc $\B_x(\rho(f_0)-x)$ is entirely included in

941:   $\B_0(\rho(f_0))$, the inequality $\rho(f_x) \ge \rho(f_0)-x$

942:   immediately follows from the theorem of representability by power

943:   series \cite[\thm 10.16]{RudRCA}.  Consider now the power series

944:   $f_{xe^{i\varphi}}(z) = \sum_{k\ge0} \frac{1}{k!}

945:   f_0^{(k)}(xe^{i\varphi}) (z-xe^{i\varphi})^k$ with arbitrary

946:   $\varphi\in\coint{0,2\pi}$.  Its coefficients satisfy

947:   $|f_0^{(k)}(xe^{i\varphi})| \le \sum_{n \ge k} \frac{n!}{(n-k)!}

948:   c_k x^{n-k} = f_0^{(k)}(x)$ due to the non-negativity of the $c_k$.

949:   This implies $\rho(f_{xe^{i\varphi}}) \ge \rho(f_x)$ by Hadamard's

950:   formula.  Therefore, $f_0$ admits an analytic continuation on

951:   $\B_0(x+\rho(f_x))$, the uniqueness of which follows from the

952:   monodromy theorem \cite[\thm 16.16]{RudRCA}.  The theorem of

953:   representability by power series then implies the inequality

954:   $\rho(f_0) \ge x+\rho(f_x)$, which, together with the opposite

955:   inequality above, proves the claim.

956: \end{proof}

957: \begin{theopargself}

958:   \begin{proof}[of \pref{urgainxad}]

959:     The assumption implies $\rho(\psi) > 1$ for $\psi$ from

960:     \eref{urgpsip}.  Then, from \lref{urgradii}, we know that

961:     $\limsup_{k\to\infty} \sqrt[k]{(k+1)a_k} < \infty$.  Since

962:     furthermore $a_k \le (k+1) a_k$, also $\limsup_{k\to\infty}

963:     \sqrt[k]{a_k} < \infty$, so there is an upper bound $\delta$ for

964:     $\sqrt[k]{a_k}$ and thus $\vc{a}(\vc{p}) \in \X_{\alpha,\delta}$.

965:     The converse statement follows from \eref{urga} and

966:     \lref{urgradii}.

967:   \end{proof}

968: \end{theopargself}

969: Therefore, any mapping from $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$ into itself that is

970: continuous \wrt the metric $d$ from \eref{urgmetric} has a fixed point

971: by the Leray--Schauder--Tychonov theorem \cite[\thm V.19]{ReSi}.

972: 

973: Note further that each $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$ contains a maximal element

974: \wrt the partial order $\vc{a}\le\vc{b}$ defined by $a_k \le b_k$ for

975: all $k\in\NNzer$, which is given by

976: $(1,\alpha,\delta^2,\delta^3,\ldots)$.  This property finally leads to

977: \begin{proposition}

978:   \label{prop:urgpadcomp}

979:   The space\/ $P_{\alpha,\delta} := \{ \vc{p}\in\M_1^+ :

980:   \vc{a}(\vc{p})\in\X_{\alpha,\delta} \}$, equipped with \pr{the

981:     metric induced by} the total variation norm, is compact and

982:   convex.

983: \end{proposition}

984: The proof is based on the following two lemmas.

985: \begin{lemma}

986:   \label{lem:urglocbound}

987:   For any subset of\/ $P_{\alpha,\delta}$, the corresponding

988:   generating functions from \eref{urgpsip} are locally bounded on\/

989:   $\B_{1+1/\delta}(0)$.

990: \end{lemma}

991: \begin{proof}

992:   It is sufficient to show boundedness on every compact $K \subset

993:   \B_{1+1/\delta}(0)$, see \cite[\sect 7.1]{Rem}.  Thus, let such a

994:   $K$ be given and fix $r \in \coint{0,\frac1\delta}$ so that $K$ is

995:   contained in $\overline{\B_{1+r}(0)}$.  Then, for every $\vc{p} \in

996:   P_{\alpha,\delta}$ and every $z \in K$,

997:   \begin{align*}

998:     |\psi(z)| &= \Bigl|\sum_{k\ge0} p_k^{} z^k\Bigr| \le

999:     \sum_{k\ge0} p_k^{} (1+r)^k = \psi(1+r) \\

1000:     &= \sum_{k\ge0} (k+1) \vc{a}(\vc{p})_k^{} \, r^k \le

1001:     1 + 2\,\alpha\,r + \sum_{k\ge2} (k+1) (r\delta)^k <

1002:     \infty \es,

1003:   \end{align*}

1004:   where $r\delta < 1$ was used. This needed to be shown.

1005: \end{proof}

1006: \begin{lemma}

1007:   \label{lem:urgpnormconv}

1008:   If, for a sequence\/ $(\vc{p}^{(n)}) \subset P_{\alpha,\delta}$, the

1009:   coefficients\/ $\vc{a}^{(n)} = \vc{a}(\vc{p}^{(n)})$ from

1010:   \eref{urga} converge to some\/ $\vc{a}$ \wrt the metric\/ $d$ from

1011:   \eref{urgmetric}, then the generating functions\/ $\psi_n$ from

1012:   \eref{urgpsip} converge compactly to some\/ $\psi$ with\/ $\psi(z) =

1013:   \sum_{k\ge0} p_k^{} z^k$ and the\/ $\vc{p}^{(n)}$ thus converge in

1014:   norm to\/ $\vc{p} \in P_{\alpha,\delta}$.

1015: \end{lemma}

1016: \begin{proof}

1017:   By to \lref{urglocbound}, the sequence $(\psi_n)$ is locally

1018:   bounded in $\B_{1+1/\delta}(0)$.  Due to the pointwise convergence

1019:   $|a^{(n)}_k - a^{\vp}_k| \le d_k^{-1} d(\vc{a}^{(n)},

1020:   \vc{a}) \to 0$, we have

1021:   \begin{displaymath}

1022:     \psi^{(k)}_n(1) = (k+1)! \, a^{(n)}_k 

1023:     \;\xrightarrow{n\to\infty}\;

1024:     (k+1)! \, a^{\vp}_k = \psi^{(k)}(1)

1025:   \end{displaymath}

1026:   for every $k\in\NNzer$.  Then, the compact convergence $\psi_n \to

1027:   \psi$ follows from Vitali's theorem \cite[\thm 7.3.2]{Rem}.  In

1028:   particular, this implies that $p^{(n)}_k \to p_k^{\vp} \ge 0$ and $1

1029:   = \sum_{k\ge0} p^{(n)}_k = \psi_n(1) \to \psi(1) = \sum_{k\ge0}

1030:   p_k^{\vp}$, thus $\vc{p} \in \M_1^+$.

1031:   

1032:   Now, choose $r \in \ooint{1,1+\frac1\delta}$.  Then there is, for

1033:   every $\eps>0$, an $n_\eps$ such that $\sup_{|z| \le r}

1034:   |\psi(z)-\psi_n(z)| < \eps$ for all $n \ge n_\eps$.  This implies

1035:   \begin{displaymath}

1036:     |p^{(n)}_k - p_k^{\vp}| =

1037:     \left|\frac{1}{2\pi i} \oint_{|z|=r} 

1038:       \frac{\psi_n(z) - \psi(z)}{z^{k+1}} \dd{z} \right| < \frac{\eps}{r^k}

1039:   \end{displaymath}

1040:   for all $n \ge n_\eps$ by Cauchy's integral formula \cite[\thm

1041:   7.3]{LanCA}.  Now, let $\eps>0$ be given.  Then

1042:   \begin{displaymath}

1043:     \|\vc{p}^{(n)} - \vc{p}\|^{}_1 = 

1044:     \sum_{k\ge0} |p^{(n)}_k - p_k^{\vp}| <

1045:     \eps \frac{1}{1-\tfrac1r}

1046:   \end{displaymath}

1047:   for all $n \ge n_\eps$, which proves the claim.

1048: \end{proof}

1049: \begin{theopargself}

1050:   \begin{proof}[of \pref{urgpadcomp}]

1051:     Let $(\vc{p}^{(n)})$ denote an arbitrary sequence in

1052:     $P_{\alpha,\delta}$ and \linebreak $(\vc{a}^{(n)}) =

1053:     (\vc{a}(\vc{p}^{(n)}))$ the corresponding sequence in

1054:     $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$.  Due to \pref{urgxadcomp}, there is a

1055:     convergent subsequence $(\vc{a}^{(n_i)})^{}_i$.  Then, by

1056:     \lref{urgpnormconv}, $(\vc{p}^{(n_i)})^{}_i$ converges in norm to

1057:     some $\vc{p} \in P_{\alpha,\delta}$.  This proves the compactness

1058:     property.  The convexity of $P_{\alpha,\delta}$ is a simple

1059:     consequence of the convexity of $\M_1^+$, the linearity of the

1060:     mapping $\vc{a}$, and the convexity of $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$.

1061:   \end{proof}

1062: \end{theopargself}

1063: 

1064: Another property of the mapping $\vc{a} \colon P_{\alpha,\delta} \to

1065: \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ is stated in

1066: \begin{lemma}

1067:   \label{lem:urgacont}

1068:   For every\/ $\alpha$ and\/ $\delta$, the mapping\/ $\vc{a} \colon

1069:   P_{\alpha,\delta} \to \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ from \eref{urga} is

1070:   continuous \pr{\wrt the total variation norm and the metric\/ $d$}

1071:   and injective.  Its inverse\/ $\vc{p} \colon

1072:   \vc{a}(P_{\alpha,\delta}) \to P_{\alpha,\delta}$ is continuous as

1073:   well.

1074: \end{lemma}

1075: \begin{proof}

1076:   Let $\vc{p}, \vc{q} \in P_{\alpha,\delta}$ and assume

1077:   $\vc{a}(\vc{p}) = \vc{a}(\vc{q})$.  Then, as in the proof of

1078:   \lref{urgradii}, the uniqueness of the generating function in

1079:   $\B_{1+1/\delta}(0)$ follows, and thus $\vc{p} = \vc{q}$, which

1080:   proves the injectivity of $\vc{a}$.  The other statements follow

1081:   from Vitali's theorem \cite[\thm 7.3.2]{Rem}:  Norm convergence of a

1082:   sequence $(\vc{p}^{(n)})$ in $P_{\alpha,\delta}$ to some $\vc{p}$

1083:   implies convergence of its element sequences and thus compact

1084:   convergence of the corresponding generating functions $\psi_n$ to

1085:   $\psi$, which is given by $\psi(z) = \sum_{k\ge0} p_k^{}\,z^k$.

1086:   This, in turn, implies convergence of each sequence

1087:   $(\vc{a}(\vc{p}^{(n)})_k)$ to $\vc{a}(\vc{p})_k^{}$, from which, as

1088:   in \eref{urgxadcomp}, the convergence $(\vc{a}(\vc{p}^{(n)})) \to

1089:   \vc{a}(\vc{p})$ (\wrt $d$) follows.  The converse is the statement

1090:   of \lref{urgpnormconv} (see also \cite[\prop 1.6.8]{Ped}).

1091: \end{proof}

1092: Note that, if $\rho(\psi)>2$, the inverse of the mapping $\vc{a}$ is

1093: given by

1094: \begin{displaymath}

1095:   \vc{p}(\vc{a})_k^{}

1096:   = \sum_{\ell \ge k} (-1)^{\ell-k} \binom{\ell}{k} (\ell+1) \, a_\ell^{} \es.

1097: \end{displaymath}

1098: 

1099: 

1100: \section{Random unequal crossover}

1101: \label{sec:urq1}

1102: 

1103: Let us now turn to the random UC model, described by $q=1$ in

1104: \eref{urtq}.  Here, the recombinator \eref{reco} simplifies to

1105: \cite[(3.1)]{ShAt}

1106: \begin{equation}

1107:   \label{eq:ur1reco}

1108:   \R_1(\vc{p})_i^{} =

1109:   \sum_{\substack{k,\ell\ge0 \\[0.4\baselineskip] k+\ell \ge i}}

1110:     \frac{1+\min\{k,\ell,i,k+\ell-i\}}{(k+1)(\ell+1)} 

1111:     \, p_k^{} \, p_\ell^{} \es.

1112: \end{equation}

1113: As for internal UC, by \lref{urrev}, the reversibility condition

1114: \eref{urrev} directly leads to an expression for fixed points,

1115: \begin{displaymath}

1116:   \frac{p_{k\vphantom{j}}^{}}{k+1} \frac{p_{\ell\vphantom{j}}^{}}{\ell+1} =

1117:   \frac{p_{i\vphantom{j}}^{}}{i+1} \frac{p_j^{}}{j+1}

1118:   \quad\text{for all } k+\ell = i+j \es.

1119: \end{displaymath}

1120: This has $p_k^{} = C (k+1) x^k$ as a solution, with appropriate

1121: parameter $x$ and normalization constant $C$.  Again, it turns out

1122: that all fixed points are given this way.

1123: \begin{proposition}{\cite[\thm A.2]{ShAt}}

1124:   \label{prop:ur1fixed}

1125:   Every fixed point\/ $\vc{p} \in \M_1^+$ of\/ $\R_1$ is of the form

1126:   \begin{equation}

1127:     \label{eq:ur1fixed}

1128:     p_k^{} =

1129:     \left(\frac{2}{m+2}\right)^2 (k+1) \left(\frac{m}{m+2}\right)^k \es,

1130:   \end{equation}

1131:   where\/ $m = \sum_{k\ge0} k \, p_k^{} \ge 0$.

1132:   \hspace*{\fill}\qed

1133: \end{proposition}

1134: One can verify this in several ways, one being a direct inductive

1135: calculation.

1136: 

1137: The main result of this section is

1138: \begin{theorem}

1139:   \label{thm:ur1conv}

1140:   Assume that\/ $\limsup_{k\to\infty} \sqrt[k]{p_k^{}(0)} < 1$.  Then,

1141:   both in discrete and in continuous time,\/ $\lim_{t\to\infty}

1142:   \|\vc{p}(t) - \vc{p}\|^{}_1 = 0$ with the appropriate fixed point\/

1143:   $\vc{p}$ from \pref{ur1fixed}.

1144: \end{theorem}

1145: For a proof, we consider the following alternative process, verbally

1146: described in \cite[p.\ 720f]{ShAt}. It is a two-step stick breaking

1147: and glueing procedure which ultimately induces the same (deterministic) 

1148: dynamics as random UC, even though the underlying process is rather different.  

1149: This will lead to a simple expression for the

1150: induced recombinator of the coefficients $\vc{a}$ from \eref{urga},

1151: which allows for an explicit solution.

1152: \begin{proposition}

1153:   Let\/ $\vc{p} \in \M_1^+$.  Then,

1154:   \begin{equation}

1155:     \label{eq:ur1iterqp}

1156:     \pi_k^{} = \sum_{\ell \ge k} \frac{1}{\ell+1} p_\ell^{}

1157:   \end{equation}

1158:   gives a probability measure\/ $\vc{\pi} \in \M_1^+$, and the

1159:   recombinator can be written as

1160:   \begin{equation}

1161:     \label{eq:ur1iterpq}

1162:     \R_1(\vc{p})_i^{} = 

1163:     \sum_{j=0}^i \pi_j^{} \, \pi_{i-j}^{} = 

1164:     (\vc{\pi}*\vc{\pi})_i^{} \es,

1165:   \end{equation}

1166:   where\/ $*$ denotes the convolution in\/ $\Ll{1}(\NNzer)$.

1167: \end{proposition}

1168: Here, \eref{ur1iterqp} describes a breaking process in which, without any pairing, 

1169: each sequence is cut equally likely between any two of its building blocks. In a

1170: second step, described by \eref{ur1iterpq}, these fragments are paired

1171: randomly and joined (or `glued').

1172: \begin{proof}

1173:   It is easily verified that $\vc{\pi}$ is normalized to $1$.  \Wrt

1174:   \eref{ur1iterpq}, note the following identity for $k+\ell \ge i$,

1175:   \begin{displaymath}

1176:     |\{j : (i-\ell) \vee 0 \le j \le i \wedge k\}| =

1177:     1+\min\{k,\ell,i,k+\ell-i\} \es,

1178:   \end{displaymath}

1179:   which can be shown by treating the four cases on the LHS separately.

1180:   With this, inserting \eref{ur1iterqp} into the RHS of

1181:   \eref{ur1iterpq} yields

1182:   \begin{align*}

1183:     \sum_{j=0}^i \pi_j^{} \, \pi_{i-j}^{} &=

1184:     \sum_{j=0}^i \sum_{k \ge j} \sum_{\ell \ge i-j}

1185:       \frac{1}{(k+1)(\ell+1)} \, p_k^{} \, p_\ell^{} \\

1186:     &= \sum_{\substack{k,\ell \ge 0 \\[0.4\baselineskip] k+\ell \ge i}}

1187:       \frac{1}{(k+1)(\ell+1)} \, p_k^{} \, p_\ell^{}

1188:     \sum_{j=(i-\ell)\vee0}^{i \wedge k} 1 \\

1189:     &= \sum_{\substack{k,\ell\ge0 \\[0.4\baselineskip] k+\ell \ge i}}

1190:       \frac{1+\min\{k,\ell,i,k+\ell-i\}}{(k+1)(\ell+1)} 

1191:       \, p_k^{} \, p_\ell^{} \,=\,

1192:     \R_1(\vc{p})_i^{} \es. \qedhere[-23.4pt]

1193:   \end{align*}

1194: \end{proof}

1195: 

1196: This nice structure has an analogue on the level of the generating

1197: functions.

1198: \begin{proposition}

1199:   Under the assumptions of \thref{ur1conv},

1200:   let\/ $\phi(z) = \sum_{k\ge0} \pi_k z^k$ denote the generating

1201:   function for\/ $\vc{\pi}$ from \eref{ur1iterqp}. Then,

1202:   \begin{displaymath}

1203:     \phi(z) = \frac{1}{1-z} \int_z^1 \psi(\zeta) \dd{\zeta}

1204:     \qquad\text{and}\qquad

1205:     \R_1(\psi)(z) = \phi(z)^2 \es.

1206:   \end{displaymath}

1207: \end{proposition}

1208: \begin{proof}

1209:   Recall that $\psi(z) = \sum_{k\ge 0} p_k z^k$.

1210:   \Eqs \eref{ur1iterqp} and \eref{ur1iterpq} lead to

1211:   \begin{align*}

1212:     \phi(z) &= 

1213:     \sum_{k\ge0} \sum_{\ell \ge k} \frac{1}{\ell+1} p_\ell^{} z^k =

1214:     \sum_{\ell\ge0} \frac{1}{\ell+1} p_\ell^{} \sum_{k\le\ell} z^k =

1215:     \sum_{\ell\ge0} \frac{1}{\ell+1} p_\ell^{} \frac{1-z^{\ell+1}}{1-z}\\

1216:     &= \frac{1}{1-z} \sum_{\ell\ge0} p_\ell^{} \frac{1-z^{\ell+1}}{\ell+1} =

1217:     \frac{1}{1-z} \sum_{\ell\ge0} p_\ell^{} \int_z^1 \zeta^\ell \dd{\zeta} =

1218:     \frac{1}{1-z} \int_z^1 \psi(\zeta) \dd{\zeta}

1219:   \end{align*}

1220:   and, due to absolute convergence of the series involved,

1221:   \begin{align*}

1222:     \R_1(\psi)(z) &= \sum_{k\ge0} \R_1(\vc{p})_k^{} z^k =

1223:     \sum_{k\ge0} z^k \sum_{\ell=0}^k \pi_\ell \pi_{k-\ell} \\ &=

1224:     \sum_{\ell\ge0} \pi_\ell z^\ell \sum_{k\ge\ell} \pi_{k-\ell} z^{k-\ell} =

1225:     \phi(z)^2 \es.  \qedhere[-13.9pt]

1226:   \end{align*}

1227: \end{proof}

1228: The following lemma states that the radius of convergence of $\psi$

1229: does not decrease under the random UC dynamics.  Thus, it is ensured

1230: that, if $\rho(\psi) > 1$, also $\R_1(\psi)$ may be described by an

1231: expansion at $z=1$, \ie by coefficients $\vc{a}$.

1232: \begin{lemma}

1233:   \label{lem:ur1rhotildepsi}

1234:   The radius of convergence of\/ $\R_1(\psi)$ is\/ $\rho(\R_1(\psi))

1235:   \ge \rho(\psi)$.

1236: \end{lemma}

1237: \begin{proof}

1238:   As $1/\rho(\psi) = \limsup_{k\to\infty} \sqrt[k]{p_k^{}} =: x \le 1$

1239:   and $\lim_{k\to\infty} \sqrt[k]{k+1} = 1$, there is a constant $C>0$

1240:   with $p_k^{} \le C (k+1) x^k$ for all $k$.  Note the identity

1241:   \begin{displaymath}

1242:     \sum_{j=0}^n (1+\min\{i,j,n-i,n-j\}) =(i+1)(n-i+1)

1243:   \end{displaymath}

1244:   for $i \le n$, which follows from an elementary calculation. Then,

1245:   \eref{ur1reco} implies

1246:   \begin{align*}

1247:     \R_1(\vc{p})_i^{} &\le 

1248:     C^2 \sum_{\substack{k,\ell\ge0 \\ k+\ell \ge i}} 

1249:       x^{k+\ell} (1+\min\{k,\ell,i,k+\ell-i\}) \\

1250:     &= C^2 \sum_{n \ge i} x^n \sum_{j=0}^n (1+\min\{i,j,n-i,n-j\}) \\

1251:     &= C^2 (i+1) x^i \sum_{\ell\ge0} (\ell+1) \, x^\ell = 

1252:     \left(\frac{C}{1-x}\right)^2 (i+1) \, x^i \es.

1253:   \end{align*}

1254:   Accordingly, $\limsup_{k\to\infty} \sqrt[k]{\R_1(\vc{p})_k^{}} \le x

1255:   \le 1$, which proves the claim.

1256: \end{proof}

1257: 

1258: These results enable us to derive the following expression for the

1259: coefficients $\vc{a}$, using the expansion of \eref{urgpsi1}:

1260: \begin{equation}

1261:   \label{eq:ur1recopsi}

1262:   \begin{aligned}

1263:     \R_1(\psi)(z) &= 

1264:     \left[ \frac{1}{z-1} \int_1^z \psi(\zeta) \dd{\zeta} \right]^2 \\

1265:     &= \left[ \sum_{k\ge0} a_k (z-1)^k \right]^2 =

1266:     \sum_{k\ge0} \left( \sum_{n=0}^k a_n a_{k-n} \right) (z-1)^k \es.

1267:   \end{aligned}

1268: \end{equation}

1269: So it is natural to define the induced

1270: recombinator

1271: \begin{equation}

1272:   \label{eq:ur1recoa}

1273:   \Ra_1(\vc{a})_k^{} = 

1274:   \frac{1}{k+1} \sum_{n=0}^k a_n a_{k-n} \ge 0 \es,

1275: \end{equation}

1276: for which we have

1277: \begin{lemma}

1278:   \label{lem:ur1cont}

1279:   The recombinator\/ $\Ra_1$ given by \eref{ur1recoa} maps each

1280:   space\/ $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$ into itself and is continuous \wrt the

1281:   metric\/ $d$ from \eref{urgmetric}.

1282: \end{lemma}

1283: \begin{proof}

1284:   Let $\alpha, \delta > 0$ be given and $\vc{a}, \vc{b} \in

1285:   \X_{\alpha,\delta}$.  Trivially, $\Ra_1(\vc{a})_0^{} = 1$ and

1286:   $\Ra_1(\vc{a})_1^{} = \alpha$.  For $k\ge2$, $\Ra_1(\vc{a})_k^{} =

1287:   \frac{1}{k+1} \sum_{\ell \le k} a_\ell \, a_{k-\ell} \le \delta^k$.

1288:   This proves the first statement.  For the continuity, note first

1289:   that every $\Ra_1(\vc{a})_k^{}$ with $k\ge2$ is continuous as a

1290:   mapping from $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$ to $\ccint{0,\delta^k}$.  Now, let

1291:   $\eps>0$ be given.  Choose $n$ large enough so that $\sum_{k>n}

1292:   (2\gamma)^k < \eps/2$, where $\gamma$ is the parameter introduced in

1293:   \dref{xad}.  Then, there is an $\eta>0$ such that $\sum_{k=2}^n

1294:   (\gamma/\delta)^k |\Ra_1(\vc{a})_k - \Ra_1(\vc{b})_k| < \eps/2$ for

1295:   $\vc{a}, \vc{b} \in \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ with $d(\vc{a},\vc{b}) <

1296:   \eta$.  Thus, for such $\vc{a}$ and $\vc{b}$,

1297:   \begin{displaymath}

1298:     d(\Ra_1(\vc{a}), \Ra_1(\vc{b})) \le

1299:     \sum_{k=0}^n \left(\frac\gamma\delta\right)^k 

1300:       |\Ra_1(\vc{a})_k - \Ra_1(\vc{b})_k| +

1301:     \sum_{k>n} (2\gamma)^k < \eps \es,

1302:   \end{displaymath}

1303:   which proves the claim.

1304: \end{proof}

1305: Note that the fixed point equation on the level of the coefficients

1306: $\vc{a}$ is always satisfied for $a_0$ and $a_1$.  If $k>1$, one

1307: obtains the recursion

1308: \begin{displaymath}

1309:   a_k = \frac{1}{k-1} \, \sum_{n=1}^{k-1} a_n a_{k-n} \es,

1310: \end{displaymath}

1311: which shows that at most one fixed point with given mean can exist.

1312: 

1313: Let us now consider the case of discrete time first.  Analogously to

1314: \eref{urdisctime}, define $\vc{a}(t) = \vc{a}(\vc{p}(t))$ as the

1315: coefficients belonging to $\vc{p}(t)$, which are assumed to exist.  It

1316: is clear from \eref{urgrecopsi}, \eref{ur1recopsi} and \eref{ur1recoa}

1317: that $\vc{a}(t+1) = \Ra_1(\vc{a}(t))$.  We then have the following two

1318: propositions.

1319: \begin{proposition}

1320:   \label{prop:ur1convdisc}

1321:   Assume\/ $\vc{a}(0)$ to exist.  Then, in discrete time,

1322:   \begin{displaymath}

1323:     \lim_{t\to\infty} a_k(t) = \alpha^k

1324:     \qquad\text{for all $k\ge0$.}

1325:   \end{displaymath}

1326: \end{proposition}

1327: This result indicates that a weaker condition than the one of

1328: \thref{ur1conv} may be sufficient for convergence of $\vc{p}(t)$.

1329: \begin{proof}

1330:   Clearly, $a_0(t) \equiv 1$, $a_1(t) \equiv \alpha$.  Furthermore, by

1331:   the assumption and \eref{ur1recopsi}, the coefficients $a_k(t)$

1332:   exist for all $k, t \in \NNzer$.  Now, assume that the claim holds

1333:   for all $k \le n$ with some $n$ and let $k=n+1$.  According to the

1334:   general properties of $\limsup$ and $\liminf$, we then have

1335:   \begin{align*}

1336:     \limsup_{t\to\infty} \, a_k(t+1) 

1337:     &\le \frac{1}{k+1} \sum_{\ell=0}^k \limsup_{t\to\infty}

1338:       \bigl( a_\ell(t) a_{k-\ell}(t) \bigr) \\

1339:     &= \frac{k-1}{k+1} \alpha^k + \frac{2}{k+1} \limsup_{t\to\infty}\,a_k(t)

1340:   \end{align*}

1341:   and analogously with $\ge$ for $\liminf$.  This leads to

1342:   \begin{displaymath}

1343:     \frac{k-1}{k+1} \limsup_{t\to\infty}\,a_k(t) \le \frac{k-1}{k+1} \alpha^k

1344:     \le \frac{k-1}{k+1} \liminf_{t\to\infty} a_k(t) \es,

1345:   \end{displaymath}

1346:   from which the claim follows for all $k \le n+1$ and, by induction

1347:   over $n$, for all $k\ge0$.

1348: \end{proof}

1349: \begin{proposition}

1350:   \label{prop:ur1contract}

1351:   The recombinator\/ $\Ra_1$, acting on\/ $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$, is a

1352:   strict contraction \wrt the metric\/ $d$ from \eref{urgmetric}, \ie

1353:   there is a $C<1$ such that, for all elements $\vc{a}, \vc{b} \in

1354:   \X_{\alpha,\delta}$,

1355:   \begin{displaymath}

1356:     d(\Ra_1(\vc{a}),\Ra_1(\vc{b})) \le C \, d(\vc{a},\vc{b}) \es.

1357:   \end{displaymath}

1358: \end{proposition}

1359: \begin{proof}

1360:   First consider, for $k\ge2$, without using the special choice of the

1361:   $d_k$,

1362:   \begin{equation}

1363:     \label{eq:ur1contractineq}

1364:     \begin{aligned}

1365:       d(\Ra_1(\vc{a}),\Ra_1(\vc{b})) &=

1366:       \sum_{k\ge2} d_k \frac{1}{k+1} \Bigl| 

1367:         \sum_{\ell=0}^k (a_\ell\,a_{k-\ell} - b_\ell\,b_{k-\ell}) \Bigr| \\

1368:       &= \sum_{k\ge2} d_k \frac{1}{k+1} \Bigl|

1369:         \sum_{\ell=0}^k (a_\ell-b_\ell) (a_{k-\ell}+b_{k-\ell}) \Bigr| \\

1370:       &\le \sum_{k\ge2} d_k \frac{2}{k+1} 

1371:         \sum_{\ell=2}^k \delta^{k-\ell} |a_\ell-b_\ell| \\

1372:       &= \sum_{\ell\ge2} d_\ell |a_\ell-b_\ell| 

1373:         \sum_{k\ge\ell} \frac{2}{k+1} \delta^{k-\ell} \frac{d_k}{d_\ell} \es.

1374:     \end{aligned}

1375:   \end{equation}

1376:   With the choice $d_k = (\gamma/\delta)^k$, where we had $\gamma <

1377:   \frac13$, we can find, for $\ell\ge2$, an upper bound for the inner

1378:   sum,

1379:   \begin{displaymath}

1380:     \sum_{k\ge\ell} \frac{2}{k+1} \delta^{k-\ell} \frac{d_k}{d_\ell} \le

1381:     \frac23 \sum_{k\ge\ell} \gamma^{k-\ell} = \frac{2}{3-3\gamma} =: 

1382:     C < 1 \es,

1383:   \end{displaymath}

1384:   which, together with \eref{ur1contractineq}, proves the claim.

1385: \end{proof}

1386: Together with Banach's fixed point theorem (compare \cite[\thm

1387: V.18]{ReSi}), the two propositions imply that $\vc{a}(t)$ converges to

1388: $(1,\alpha,\alpha^2,\ldots)$ \wrt the metric $d$, and that convergence

1389: is exponentially fast.

1390: 

1391: In continuous time, we consider the time derivative of $\vc{a}(t) :=

1392: \vc{a}(\vc{p}(t))$, which is, by \eref{urga},

1393: \begin{equation}

1394:   \label{eq:ur1ivpa}

1395:   \tfrac{\dd{}}{\dd{t}} \vc{a}(t) =

1396:   \tfrac{\dd{}}{\dd{t}} \vc{a}\bigl(\vc{p}(t)\bigr) =

1397:   \vc{a}\bigl(\R_1(\vc{p}(t)) - \vc{p}(t)\bigr) =

1398:   \Ra_1(\vc{a}(t)) - \vc{a}(t) \es.

1399: \end{equation}

1400: The following lemma ensures, together with \cite[\thm 7.6 and \remk

1401: 7.10(b)]{Ama}, that this initial value problem has a unique solution

1402: for all $\vc{a}(0) = \vc{a}_0 \in \X_{\alpha,\delta}$.

1403: \begin{lemma}

1404:   \label{lem:ur1lipschitz}

1405:   Consider the Banach space\/ $H_{\gamma/\delta}$ from \eref{hdelta},

1406:   with some $0<\gamma<\tfrac13$, and its open subset\/ $Y = \{ \vc{x} \in

1407:   H_{\gamma/\delta} : |x_k| < (2\delta)^k \}$.  Then, the

1408:   recombinator\/ $\Ra_1$ from \eref{ur1recoa} maps\/ $Y$ into itself,

1409:   satisfies a global Lipschitz condition, and is bounded on\/ $Y.$

1410:   Furthermore, it is infinitely differentiable,\/ $\Ra_1 \in

1411:   \C^\infty(Y,Y)$.

1412: \end{lemma}

1413: \begin{proof}

1414:   For $\vc{x} \in Y,$ one has $|x_k| < (2\delta)^k$, hence

1415:   $|\Ra_1(\vc{x})_k^{}| < (2\delta)^k$, with a similar argument as in

1416:   the proof of \lref{ur1cont}.  Consequently, $\Ra_1(Y) \subset Y.$

1417:   So, let $\vc{x}, \vc{y} \in Y.$  Then, similarly to the proof of

1418:   \pref{ur1contract}, one shows the Lipschitz condition

1419:   \begin{equation*}

1420:     \|\Ra_1(\vc{x}) - \Ra_1(\vc{y})\| \le

1421:     \sum_{\ell\ge0} \left(\frac\gamma\delta\right)^\ell |x_\ell - y_\ell|

1422:       \sum_{k\ge\ell} \frac{2}{k+1} (2\gamma)^{k-\ell} \le

1423:     \frac{2}{1-2\gamma} \|\vc{x}-\vc{y}\|

1424:   \end{equation*}

1425:   and, since $\|\vc{x}\| < 1/(1-2\gamma)$ in $Y$, the boundedness,

1426:   \begin{displaymath}

1427:     \|\Ra_1(\vc{x})\| \le \frac{1}{1-2\gamma} \|\vc{x}\| <

1428:     \frac{1}{(1-2\gamma)^2} \es.

1429:   \end{displaymath}

1430:   \Wrt differentiability, consider, for sufficiently small $\vc{h} \in

1431:   Y,$

1432:   \begin{displaymath}

1433:     \Ra_1(\vc{x}+\vc{h})_k^{} = 

1434:     \Ra_1(\vc{x})_k^{} + \frac{2}{k+1} \sum_{\ell=0}^k x_{k-\ell}\,h_\ell +

1435:       \Ra_1(\vc{h})_k^{} \es.

1436:   \end{displaymath}

1437:   Since

1438:   \begin{align*}

1439:     \|\Ra_1(\vc{h})\| &\le

1440:     \sum_{k\ge0} \left(\frac\gamma\delta\right)^k \frac{1}{k+1}

1441:       \sum_{\ell=0}^k |h_{k-\ell}| \, |h_\ell| \\

1442:     &= \sum_{\ell\ge0} \left(\frac\gamma\delta\right)^\ell |h_\ell|

1443:       \sum_{k\ge\ell} \left(\frac\gamma\delta\right)^{k-\ell}

1444:         \frac{|h_{k-\ell}|}{k+1} \le \|\vc{h}\|^2 \es,

1445:   \end{align*}

1446:   it is clear that $\Ra_1$ is differentiable with linear (and thus

1447:   continuous) derivative, whose Jacobi matrix is explicitly

1448:   $\Ra_1'(\vc{x})_{k\ell}^{} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_\ell}

1449:   \Ra_1(\vc{x})_k^{} = \frac{2}{k+1} x_{k-\ell}$ if $k\ge\ell$ and

1450:   zero otherwise, hence one has $\Ra_1 \in \C^1(Y,Y)$.  It is now

1451:   trivial to show that $\Ra_1 \in \C^2(Y,Y)$ with constant second

1452:   derivative and thus $\Ra_1 \in \C^\infty(Y,Y)$.

1453: \end{proof}

1454: \begin{proposition}

1455:   \label{prop:ur1convcont}

1456:   If\/ $\vc{a}_0 \in \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ for some\/ $\alpha, \delta$,

1457:   then\/ $\vc{a}(t) \in \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ for all\/ $t\ge0$ and\/

1458:   $\lim_{t\to\infty} d(\vc{a}(t), \vc{\alpha}) = 0$ with\/

1459:   $\vc{\alpha} = (1,\alpha,\alpha^2,\alpha^3,\ldots)$.

1460: \end{proposition}

1461: \begin{proof}

1462:   The first statement follows from \cite[\thm VI.2.1]{Mar} (see also

1463:   \cite[\thm 16.5]{Ama}) since, due to the convexity of

1464:   $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$, we have $\vc{a} + t (\Ra(\vc{a})-\vc{a}) \in

1465:   \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ for every $\vc{a} \in \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ and

1466:   $t\in\ccint{0,1}$, hence a subtangent condition is satisfied.  For

1467:   the second, observe that $\Ra_1(\vc{\alpha}) = \vc{\alpha}$.  We now

1468:   show that

1469:   \begin{equation}

1470:     \label{eq:ur1lyapunov}

1471:     L(\vc{a}_0) = d(\vc{a}_0, \vc{\alpha})

1472:   \end{equation}

1473:   is a Lyapunov function, \cf \dref{lyapunov}.  With the notation of

1474:   \lref{ur1lipschitz}, note that the compact metric space

1475:   $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$ is contained in the open subset $Y$ of the

1476:   Banach space $H_{\gamma/\delta}$.  The continuity of $L$ is obvious.

1477:   Now, let $\vc{a}_0 \in \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ be given.  By

1478:   \lref{ur1lipschitz} and \cite[\thm 9.5 and \remk 9.6(b)]{Ama}, the

1479:   solution $\vc{a}(t)$ of \eref{ur1ivpa} is infinitely differentiable.

1480:   Thus, for $t\in\ccint{0,1}$,

1481:   \begin{equation}

1482:     \label{eq:ur1lyapuineq}

1483:     \begin{aligned}

1484:       L(\vc{a}(t)) - L(\vc{a}_0) &=

1485:       \|\vc{a}_0 + t (\Ra_1(\vc{a}_0)-\vc{a}_0) + \ord(t) - 

1486:           \vc{\alpha}\| -

1487:         \|\vc{a}_0 - \vc{\alpha}\| \\

1488:       &\le t \bigl( \|\Ra_1(\vc{a}_0) - \Ra_1(\vc{\alpha})\| -

1489:         \|\vc{a}_0 - \vc{\alpha}\| \bigr) + \ord(t) \es,

1490:     \end{aligned}

1491:   \end{equation}

1492:   where $\ord(t)$ is the usual Landau symbol and represents some

1493:   function that vanishes faster than $t$ as $t\to0$.  From this, by

1494:   the strict contraction property of $\Ra_1$ (\pref{ur1contract}), the

1495:   Lyapunov property \eref{dotl} follows, with equality if and only if

1496:   $\vc{a}_0 = \vc{\alpha}$.  Since $\X_{\alpha,\delta}$ is compact,

1497:   \thref{lyapunov} implies the claim.

1498: \end{proof}

1499: 

1500: \pagebreak[2]

1501: We are now able to give the previously postponed

1502: \begin{theopargself}

1503:   \begin{proof}[of \thref{ur1conv}]

1504:     By \pref{urgainxad}, we have $\vc{a}(0) = \vc{a}(\vc{p}(0)) \in

1505:     \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ with $\alpha = \frac12 m$ and some $\delta$.

1506:     In discrete time, according to \propositions

1507:     \ref{prop:ur1convdisc} and \ref{prop:ur1contract} and Banach's

1508:     fixed point theorem (compare \cite[\thm V.18]{ReSi}), it then

1509:     follows that $\vc{a}(t) \to \vc{\alpha} =

1510:     (1,\alpha,\alpha^2,\ldots)$ \wrt the metric $d$.  Inserting

1511:     \eref{ur1fixed} into \eref{urga} and letting $x = m/(m+2)$ yields

1512:     \begin{align*}

1513:       a_k^{} &=

1514:       \sum_{\ell \ge k} \frac{\ell!}{(\ell-k)!(k+1)!} 

1515:         (1-x)^2 (\ell+1) x^\ell \\

1516:       &= (1-x)^2 \sum_{\ell \ge k} \binom{\ell+1}{k+1} x^\ell =

1517:       \left(\frac{x}{1-x}\right)^k = \alpha^k .

1518:     \end{align*}

1519:     The claim now follows from \lref{urgpnormconv}.  Similarly, in

1520:     continuous time, the claim follows from \pref{ur1convcont}.

1521:   \end{proof}

1522: \end{theopargself}

1523: 

1524: Let us finally note

1525: \begin{proposition}

1526:   For the dynamics described by \eref{ur1ivpa}, the fixed point\/

1527:   $\vc{\alpha}$ from \pref{ur1convcont} is exponentially stable.

1528: \end{proposition}

1529: \begin{proof}

1530:   Let $\vc{a}_0 \in \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ be arbitrary.  The Lyapunov

1531:   function from the proof of \pref{ur1convcont} satisfies, as a

1532:   consequence of \eref{ur1lyapuineq} and \pref{ur1contract},

1533:   \begin{displaymath}

1534:     \dot{L}(\vc{a}_0) \le 

1535:     d(\Ra_1(\vc{a}_0), \Ra_1(\vc{\alpha})) - d(\vc{a}_0, \vc{\alpha}) \le

1536:     - (1-C) \, d(\vc{a}_0, \vc{\alpha}) \es,

1537:   \end{displaymath}

1538:   with $0 < C < 1$.  From this, together with \eref{ur1lyapunov} and

1539:   \cite[\thm 18.7]{Ama}, the claim follows.

1540: \end{proof}

1541: 

1542: \noindent

1543: \textbf{Remark.}

1544: In a related UC model introduced by Takahata \cite{Tak}, for which

1545: \begin{displaymath}

1546:   T_{ij,k\ell} = \delta_{i+j,k+\ell} \frac{1}{k+\ell+1} \es,

1547: \end{displaymath}

1548: the recombinator $\Ra_1$ appears for the coefficients

1549: $\vc{b}(\vc{p})_k^{} = (k+1) \, \vc{a}(\vc{p})_k^{}$, where

1550: $\vc{b}(\vc{p})_1^{}$ is the mean copy number $m$.  The above results

1551: then imply, under the appropriate condition on $\vc{p}(0)$, that

1552: $\vc{b}(t) \to (1,m,m^2,\ldots)$ as $t\to\infty$ both in discrete and

1553: in continuous time.  This corresponds to convergence of $\vc{p}(t)$ to

1554: the fixed point $\vc{p}$ with $p_k^{} = \frac{1}{m+1}

1555: (\frac{m}{m+1})^k$.

1556: 

1557: 

1558: \section{The intermediate parameter regime}

1559: \label{sec:urqgen}

1560: 

1561: In this section, $q$ may take any value in $\ccint{0,1}$.  \Wrt

1562: reversibility of fixed points, one finds

1563: \begin{proposition}

1564:   For parameter values\/ $q\in\ooint{0,1}$, any fixed point\/ $\vc{p}

1565:   \in \M_1^+$ of the recombinator\/ $\R_q$, given by \eref{reco} and

1566:   \eref{urtq}, satisfies\/ $p_k^{}>0$ for all\/ $k\ge0$ \pr{unless it

1567:     is the trivial fixed point\/ $\vc{p} = (1,0,0,\ldots)$ we

1568:     excluded}.  None of these extra fixed points is reversible.

1569: \end{proposition}

1570: \begin{proof}

1571:   Let a non-trivial fixed point $\vc{p}$ be given and choose any $n>0$

1572:   with $p_n^{}>0$.  Observe that $T^{(q)}_{n+1 \is n-1, nn} > 0$ for

1573:   $0 < q < 1$ and hence

1574:   \begin{displaymath}

1575:     p_{n\pm1}^{\vp} = \R_q(\vc{p})_{n\pm1}^{\vp} 

1576:     = \sum_{j,k,\ell\ge0} T^{(q)}_{n\pm1 \is j,k\ell} \, 

1577:       p_k^{\vp} \, p_\ell^{\vp}

1578:     \ge T^{(q)}_{n+1 \is n-1, nn} \, p_n^{\vp} \, p_n^{\vp} > 0 \es.

1579:   \end{displaymath}

1580:   The first statement follows now by induction.  

1581: 

1582:   For the second statement,

1583:   evaluate the reversibility condition \eref{urrev} for all

1584:   combinations of $i$, $j$, $k$, $\ell$ with $i+j = k+\ell \le 4$.

1585:   This leads to four independent equations.  Three of them can be

1586:   transformed to the recursion

1587:   \begin{displaymath}

1588:     p_k^{} 

1589:     = \frac{(k+1)q}{2(k-1)+2q} \frac{p_1^{}}{p_0^{}} \, p_{k-1}^{} \es,

1590:     \qquad k \in \{2,3,4\} \es,

1591:   \end{displaymath}

1592:   from which one derives explicit equations for all $p_k^{}$ with $k

1593:   \in \{2,3,4\}$ in terms of $p_0^{}$ and $p_1^{}$.  Inserting the one

1594:   for $p_2^{}$ into the remaining equation yields another equation for

1595:   $p_4^{}$ in terms of $p_0^{}$ and $p_1^{}$, which contradicts the

1596:   first equation for all $q \in \ooint{0,1}$, as is easily verified.

1597: \end{proof}

1598: So, non-trivial fixed points for $0 < q < 1$ are not reversible, and

1599: thus much more difficult to determine.  Our most general result so far

1600: is

1601: \begin{theorem}

1602:   \label{thm:urqfixed}

1603:   If\/ $\vc{p}(0) \in P_{\alpha,\delta}$ for some\/ $\alpha, \delta$,

1604:   then\/ $\vc{p}(t) \in P_{\alpha,\delta}$ for all times\/

1605:   $t\in\NNzer$, respectively\/ $t\in\RRnn$, and\/ $\R_q$ has a fixed

1606:   point in\/ $P_{\alpha,\delta}$.

1607: \end{theorem}

1608: The proof is based on the fact that $\R_q$ is, in a certain sense,

1609: monotonic in the parameter $q$.  This is stated in

1610: \begin{proposition}

1611:   \label{prop:urqainxad}

1612:   Assume\/ $\vc{a}(\vc{p}) \in \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ for some\/

1613:   $\alpha$, $\delta$.  Then, \wrt the partial order introduced before

1614:   \pref{urgpadcomp}, $\vc{a}(\R_q(\vc{p})) \le

1615:   \vc{a}(\R_{q'}(\vc{p}))$ for all\/ $0 \le q \le q' \le 1$.  In

1616:   particular,\/ $\vc{a}(\R_q(\vc{p})) \in \X_{\alpha,\delta}$ for

1617:   all\/ $0 \le q \le 1$.

1618: \end{proposition}

1619: To show this, we need three rather technical lemmas.  The first one

1620: collects formal conditions on the difference of two discrete probability 

1621: distributions

1622: $T^{(q)}_{ij,k\ell}$ with different parameter values (but $j=k+\ell-i$

1623: and the same fixed $k$, $\ell$).  These are then verified in our case.

1624: \begin{lemma}

1625:   \label{lem:urqineq}

1626:   Let the numbers\/ $x_i\in\RR$ \pr{$0 \le i \le r$ with some\/

1627:     $r\in\NNzer$} satisfy the following three conditions:

1628:   \begin{gather}

1629:     \label{eq:urqineqcond1}

1630:     \sum_{i=0}^r x_i = 0 \es.\\

1631:     \label{eq:urqineqcond2}

1632:     x_{r-i} = x_i \quad\text{for all\/ $0 \le i \le r$.}\\

1633:     \label{eq:urqineqcond3}

1634:     \text{There is an integer\/ $n$ such that }

1635:     \begin{cases} x_i \ge0 \; : \; 0 \le i \le n \\

1636:       x_i<0 \; : \; n < i \le \lfloor \frac{r}{2} \rfloor \end{cases}

1637:     \!\!\!\!\!.

1638:   \end{gather}

1639:   Further, let\/ $f_i\in\RR$ \pr{$0 \le i \le r$} be given with

1640:   \begin{equation}

1641:     \label{eq:urqineqcond4}

1642:     0 \le f_1 - f_0 \le f_2 - f_1 \le \ldots \le f_r - f_{r-1} \es.

1643:   \end{equation}

1644:   Then, we have

1645:   \begin{displaymath}

1646:     \sum_{i=0}^r f_i x_i \ge 0 \es.

1647:   \end{displaymath}

1648: \end{lemma}

1649: \begin{proof}

1650:   Let us first consider the trivial cases.  If $x_i\equiv0$,

1651:   everything is clear, so let $x_i\not\equiv0$.  If $r\le1$ then

1652:   $x_i\equiv0$, so let $r\ge2$, and thus $n\le\frac{r}{2}-1$.  Define

1653:   $x_{\frac{r}{2}} = f_{\frac{r}{2}} = 0$ for odd $r$.  Then, we can

1654:   write

1655:   \begin{equation}

1656:     \label{eq:urqineq1}

1657:     \sum_{i=0}^r f_i x_i = \sum_{i=0}^n \left( f_i + f_{r-i} \right) x_i +

1658:     \sum_{i=n+1}^{\lceil\frac{r}{2}\rceil-1} \left( f_i + f_{r-i}

1659:       \right) x_i + f_{\frac{r}{2}} x_{\frac{r}{2}} \es.

1660:   \end{equation}

1661:   Furthermore, for $r-i \ge i$, due to \eref{urqineqcond4},

1662:   \begin{displaymath}

1663:     f_i + f_{r-i} = f_{i-1} + f_{r-i+1} + (f_i - f_{i-1}) - 

1664:     (f_{r-i+1} - f_{r-i}) \le f_{i-1} + f_{r-i+1} \es.

1665:   \end{displaymath}

1666:   Now, define $C := \sum_{i=0}^n x_i = -

1667:   \sum_{i=n+1}^{\lceil\frac{r}{2}\rceil-1} x_i - \tfrac12

1668:   x_{\frac{r}{2}} > 0$, and the claim follows with \eref{urqineq1},

1669:   since $r-n \ge n+1$ by assumption:

1670:   \begin{multline*}

1671:     \sum_{i=0}^r f_i x_i \ge 

1672:     C \left[ f_n + f_{r-n} - f_{n+1} - f_{r-n-1} \right] \\

1673:     = C \left[ (f_{r-n} - f_{r-n-1}) - (f_{n+1} - f_n) \right] \ge 0 \es.

1674:     \qedhere

1675:   \end{multline*}

1676: \end{proof}

1677: \begin{lemma}

1678:   \label{lem:urqcoeff}

1679:   Let\/ $j\in\NNzer$ be fixed and\/ $f_i = (i)_j^{}$,

1680:   $i\in\NNzer$, where\/ $(i)_j$ is the falling factorial, which

1681:   equals\/ $1$ for\/ $j=0$ and\/ $i(i-1)\cdots(i-j+1)$ for\/

1682:   $j>0$, hence\/ $\frac{i!}{(i-j)!}$ for\/ $i \ge j$.  Then

1683:   condition \eref{urqineqcond4} is satisfied.

1684: \end{lemma}

1685: \begin{proof}

1686:   For $j=0$, condition \eref{urqineqcond4} is trivially true.

1687:   Otherwise, each $f_i$ is a polynomial of degree $j$ in $i$ with

1688:   zeros $\{0,1,\ldots,j-1\}$, hence we have the equality $0 = f_1 -

1689:   f_0 = \ldots = f_{j-1} - f_{j-2}$.  Then, for $i \ge j-1$, the

1690:   polynomial and all its derivatives are increasing functions since

1691:   $\lim_{i\to\infty} f_i = \infty$.  Therefore, for $i \ge j-1$, we

1692:   have $0 \le f_{i+1} - f_i \le f_{i+2} - f_{i+1}$.  Hence

1693:   \eref{urqineqcond4} holds.

1694: \end{proof}

1695: \begin{lemma}

1696:   \label{lem:urqineqcond123}

1697:   For\/ $0 \le q \le q' \le 1$ and all\/ $k, \ell$, Equations

1698:   \eref{urqineqcond1}--\eref{urqineqcond3} are true for\/ $r=k+\ell$

1699:   and $x_i = T^{(q')}_{ik\ell} - T^{(q)}_{ik\ell}$, where\/

1700:   $T^{(q)}_{ik\ell} = T^{(q)}_{ij,k\ell}$ with\/ $j = k+\ell-i$.

1701: \end{lemma}

1702: \begin{proof}

1703:   The validity of \eref{urqineqcond1} and \eref{urqineqcond2} is clear

1704:   from the normalization \eref{sumt} and the symmetry of the

1705:   $T^{(q)}_{ik\ell}$.  For \eref{urqineqcond3}, let $k \le \ell$

1706:   without loss of generality.  In the trivial cases $q=q'$ or $k=0$,

1707:   choose $n=\lfloor\frac{r}{2}\rfloor$.  Otherwise, $x_i =

1708:   T^{(q')}_{ik\ell} - T^{(q)}_{ik\ell} < 0$ for $k \le i \le

1709:   \lfloor\frac{r}{2}\rfloor$, since $C^{(q')}_{k\ell} <

1710:   C^{(q)}_{k\ell}$, and $x_0 > 0$.  For $0 \le i \le k$, consider

1711:   \begin{displaymath}

1712:     y_i = \frac{x_i}{T^{(q)}_{ik\ell}} + 1

1713:     = \frac{C^{(q')}_{k\ell}}{C^{(q)}_{k\ell}} 

1714:       \left(\frac{q'}{q}\right)^{k-i} \es.

1715:   \end{displaymath}

1716:   Here, the first factor is less than 1, the second is equal to 1 for

1717:   $k=i$, greater than 1 for $0 \le k < i$, and strictly decreasing

1718:   with $i$.  Since $x_i\ge0$ if and only if $y_i\ge1$, there is an

1719:   index $n$ with the properties needed.

1720: \end{proof}

1721: \begin{theopargself}

1722:   \begin{proof}[of \pref{urqainxad}]

1723:     We assume $0\le q\le q' \le 1$.

1724:     Lemmas \ref{lem:urqineq}--\ref{lem:urqineqcond123} imply, for all

1725:     $k, \ell, j\in\NNzer$ with $k+\ell \ge j$,

1726:     \begin{displaymath}

1727:       \sum_{i=j}^{k+\ell} \tfrac{i!}{(i-j)!} T^{(q)}_{ik\ell} \le 

1728:       \sum_{i=j}^{k+\ell} \tfrac{i!}{(i-j)!} T^{(q')}_{ik\ell} \es.

1729:     \end{displaymath}

1730:     Then, since $T^{(q)}_{ik\ell} = 0$ for $i >k +\ell$,

1731:     \begin{align*}

1732:       \vc{a}(\R_q(\vc{p}))_j^{} &= \tfrac{1}{(j+1)!} \sum_{i \ge j}

1733:       \tfrac{i!}{(i-j)!} \R_q(\vc{p})_i^{} = 

1734:       \tfrac{1}{(j+1)!} \sum_{i \ge j} \tfrac{i!}{(i-j)!}

1735:       \sum_{k,\ell\ge0} T^{(q)}_{ik\ell} p_k^{\vp} p_\ell^{\vp} \\

1736:       &=\tfrac{1}{(j+1)!} \mskip-4mu\sum_{k,\ell\ge0}\mskip-4mu 

1737:       p_k^{\vp} p_\ell^{\vp} \sum_{i \ge j}

1738:       \tfrac{i!}{(i-j)!} T^{(q)}_{ik\ell} \\

1739:       &\le \tfrac{1}{(j+1)!} \mskip-4mu\sum_{k,\ell\ge0}\mskip-4mu 

1740:       p_k^{\vp} p_\ell^{\vp} \sum_{i \ge j}

1741:       \tfrac{i!}{(i-j)!} T^{(q')}_{ik\ell}

1742:       = \vc{a}(\R_{q'}(\vc{p}))_j^{} \es.

1743:     \end{align*}

1744:     From this, together with \lref{ur1cont}, the claim follows.

1745:   \end{proof}

1746: \end{theopargself}

1747: \begin{theopargself}

1748:   \begin{proof}[of \thref{urqfixed}]

1749:     According to \pref{urqainxad}, $\R_q$ maps $P_{\alpha,\delta}$

1750:     into itself, and thus, in discrete time, $\vc{p}(t) \in

1751:     P_{\alpha,\delta}$ for every $t\in\NNzer$.  The analogous

1752:     statement is true for continuous time $t\in\RRnn$.  To see this,

1753:     consider $P_{\alpha,\delta}$ as a closed subset of $\Ll{1}$.

1754:     Recall that $\R_q - \Id$ is globally Lipschitz on $\Ll{1}$ by

1755:     \pref{recolipschitz}.  Moreover, for any $\vc{p} \in

1756:     P_{\alpha,\delta}$ and $t\in\ccint{0,1}$, \pref{urgpadcomp} tells

1757:     us that

1758:     \begin{displaymath}

1759:       \vc{p} + t (\R_q(\vc{p}) - \vc{p}) = 

1760:       (1-t) \vc{p} + t \R_q(\vc{p}) \in P_{\alpha,\delta} \es.

1761:     \end{displaymath}

1762:     This implies the positive invariance of $P_{\alpha,\delta}$ by

1763:     \cite[\thm VI.2.1]{Mar} (see also \cite[\thm 16.5]{Ama}).  The

1764:     existence of a fixed point once again follows from the

1765:     Leray--Schauder--Tychonov theorem \cite[\thm V.19]{ReSi}.

1766:   \end{proof}

1767: \end{theopargself}

1768: 

1769: On the basis of the above analysis, and further numerical work done

1770: to investigate the fixed point properties \cite{Red,ShAt},

1771: it is plausible that, given the mean copy number $m$, never more than

1772: one fixed point for $\R_q$ exists.  Due to the global convergence

1773: results at $q=0$ and $q=1$, any non-uniqueness in the vicinity of

1774: these parameter values could only come from a bifurcation, not from an

1775: independent source.  Numerical investigations indicate that no

1776: bifurcation is present, but this needs to be analyzed further.

1777: 

1778: Furthermore, the Lipschitz constant for $\Ra_q$ can be expected to be

1779: continuous in the parameter $q$, hence to remain strictly less than 1

1780: on the sets $X_{\alpha,\delta}$ in a neighborhood of $q=1$.  So, at

1781: least locally, the contraction property should be preserved.

1782: Nevertheless, we do not expand on this here since it seems possible to

1783: use a rather different approach \cite{Hof03}, which has been used for

1784: similar problems in game theory, to establish a slightly weaker type

1785: of convergence result for all $0 < q < 1$, and probably even on the

1786: larger compact set $\M_{1,m,C}^+$ of \lref{ur0dp}.

1787: 

1788: 

1789: \section{Concluding remarks}

1790: \label{sec:remarks}

1791: 

1792: In this article, we have shown that, for the extreme parameter values $q=0$

1793: (internal UC) and $q=1$ (random UC), any initial configuration satisfying a

1794: specific condition converges to one of the known fixed points, both in

1795: discrete and continuous time.  The condition to be met is, for $q=0$, the

1796: existence of the $r$-th moment ($r>1$, see \thref{ur0conv}), respectively, for

1797: $q=1$, that the corresponding generating function has a radius of

1798: convergence $\rho>1$ (\thref{ur1conv}).  

1799: Convergence takes place in the total variation

1800: norm in all cases.  As argued in the previous section, similar results can be

1801: expected for the intermediate parameter values as well.

1802: 

1803: % We have seen in the preceding sections that, definitely for the extreme cases

1804: % $q=0$ and $q=1$ and presumably for the intermediate values as well, the

1805: % deterministic dynamics converges to a unique equilibrium solution in both

1806: % discrete and continuous time.  This correspond

1807: These results are valid for deterministic dynamics and thus correspond

1808: to the case of infinite populations.  \Wrt biological

1809: relevance, however, we add some arguments that it is reasonable to expect this

1810: to be a good description for large but finite populations as well, \ie for the

1811: underlying (multitype) branching process.  For finite state spaces, such as in

1812: the mutation--selection models discussed in \cite{HRWB}, the results by Ethier

1813: and Kurtz \cite[\thm 11.2.1]{EtKu86} and the generalization \cite[\thm

1814: V.7.2]{AtNe72} of the Kesten--Stigum theorem \cite{KeSt66,KLPP97} guarantee

1815: that in the infinite population limit the relative genotype frequencies of the

1816: branching process converge almost surely to the deterministic solution (if the

1817: population does not go to extinction).  Since for the UC models considered

1818: here the equilibrium distributions are exponentially small for large copy

1819: numbers (owing to \thref{urqfixed} also for $q\in\ooint{0,1}$), one can expect

1820: these systems to behave very much like ones with finitely many genotypes.

1821: This is also supported by several simulations.  Nevertheless, this questions

1822: deserves further attention.

1823: 

1824: 

1825: \begin{acknowledgement}

1826:   We thank Ellen Baake, Joachim Hermisson, and Josef Hofbauer for

1827:   their cooperation, and Odo Diekmann and Anton Wakolbinger for

1828:   clarifying discussions.  O.R. gratefully acknowledges support by a

1829:   PhD scholarship of the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes.  The

1830:   authors express their gratitude to the Erwin Schr\"odinger

1831:   International Institute for Mathematical Physics in Vienna for

1832:   support during a stay in December 2002, where the manuscript for

1833:   this article was completed.

1834: \end{acknowledgement}

1835: 

1836: 

1837: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

1838: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

1839:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

1840: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

1841: 

1842: \bibitem{Ama}

1843: Amann, H.: Ordinary Differential Equations. De Gruyter, Berlin, 1990

1844: 

1845: \bibitem{AtNe72}

1846: Athreya, K.B., Ney, P.E.: Branching Processes. Springer, New York, 1972

1847: 

1848: \bibitem{BilC}

1849: Billingsley, P.: Convergence of Probability Measures. 2nd ed., Wiley, New York,

1850:   1999

1851: 

1852: \bibitem{EtKu86}

1853: Ethier, S.N., Kurtz, T.G.: Markov Processes -- Characterization and

1854:   Convergence. Wiley, New York, 1986

1855: 

1856: \bibitem{GrLi}

1857: Graur, D., Li, W.-H.: Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution. 2nd ed., Sinauer,

1858:   Sunderland, 2000

1859: 

1860: \bibitem{HRWB}

1861: Hermisson, J., Redner, O., Wagner, H., Baake, E.: Mutation--selection balance:\

1862:   Ancestry, load, and maximum principle. Theor.\ Pop.\ Biol.\ \textbf{62}, 9--46

1863:   (2002); \newline \texttt{cond-mat/0202432}

1864: 

1865: \bibitem{Hof03}

1866: Hofbauer, J.: In preparation

1867: 

1868: \bibitem{HofPriv}

1869: Hofbauer, J.: Private communication (2002)

1870: 

1871: \bibitem{Kal}

1872: Kallenberg, O.: Foundations of Modern Probability. Springer, New York, 1997

1873: 

1874: \bibitem{KeSt66}

1875: Kesten, H., Stigum, B.P.: A limit theorem for multidimensional

1876:   {G}alton--{W}atson processes. Ann.\ Math.\ Statist. \textbf{37}, 1211--1233

1877:   (1966)

1878: 

1879: \bibitem{KLPP97}

1880: Kurtz, T., Lyons, R., Pemantle, R., Peres, Y.: A conceptual proof of the

1881:   {K}esten--{S}tigum theorem for multi-type branching processes. In: Athreya,

1882:   K.B., Jagers, P. (eds.), Classical and Modern Branching Processes, pp.

1883:   181--185, Springer, New York, 1997

1884: 

1885: \bibitem{Lan}

1886: Lang, S.: Real and Functional Analysis. 3rd ed., Springer, New York, 1993

1887: 

1888: \bibitem{LanCA}

1889: Lang, S.: Complex Analysis. 4th ed., Springer, New York, 1999

1890: 

1891: \bibitem{Mar}

1892: Martin, R.H.: Nonlinear Operators and Differential Equations in Banach Spaces.

1893:   Wiley, New York, 1976

1894: 

1895: \bibitem{Oht}

1896: Ohta, T.: On the evolution of multigene families. Theor.\ Pop.\ Biol.

1897:   \textbf{23}, 216--240 (1983)

1898: 

1899: \bibitem{Ped}

1900: Pedersen, G.K.: Analysis Now. Revised ed., Springer, New York, 1995

1901: 

1902: \bibitem{Red}

1903: Redner, O.: Models for Mutation, Selection, and Recombination in

1904:   Infinite Populations. PhD Thesis, Univ.\ Greifswald (2003). Shaker,

1905:   Aachen, 2003.

1906: 

1907: \bibitem{ReSi}

1908: Reed, M., Simon, B.: Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics {I}: Functional

1909:   Analysis. Academic Press, San Diego, 1980

1910: 

1911: \bibitem{Rem}

1912: Remmert, R.: Classical Topics in Complex Function Theory. Springer, New York,

1913:   1998

1914: 

1915: \bibitem{RudRCA}

1916: Rudin, W.: Real and Complex Analysis. 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1986

1917: 

1918: \bibitem{Shir}

1919: Shiryaev, A.N.: Probability. 2nd ed., Springer, New York, 1996

1920: 

1921: \bibitem{ShAt}

1922: Shpak, M., Atteson, K.: A survey of unequal crossover systems and their

1923:   mathematical properties. Bull.\ Math.\ Biol. \textbf{64}, 703--746 (2002)

1924: 

1925: \bibitem{ShWa}

1926: Shpak, M., Wagner, G.P.: Asymmetry of configuration space induced by unequal

1927:   crossover: Implications for a mathematical theory of evolutionary innovation.

1928:   Artificial Life \textbf{6}, 25--43 (2000)

1929: 

1930: \bibitem{Tak}

1931: Takahata, N.: A mathematical study on the distribution of the number of

1932:   repeated genes per chromosome. Genet.\ Res. \textbf{38}, 97--102 (1981)

1933: 

1934: \bibitem{Wsh}

1935: Walsh, J.B.: Persistence of tandem arrays: Implications for satellite and

1936:   simple-sequence {DNA}'s. Genetics \textbf{115}, 553--567 (1987)

1937: 

1938: \bibitem{WalEn}

1939: Walter, W.: Ordinary Differential Equations. Springer, New York, 1998

1940: 

1941: \bibitem{Yos}

1942: Yosida, K.: Functional Analysis. 6th ed., Springer, Berlin, 1980

1943: 

1944: \end{thebibliography}

1945: 

1946: \end{document}

1947: