1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: %\documentclass{article}
3:
4: % % Most of the commented-out lines were removed to make arxiv's life easier!
5: %
6: % \newif\ifpdf\ifx\pdfoutput\undefined\pdffalse\else\pdfoutput=1\pdftrue\fi
7:
8: % =========================================
9: % Revision and document information DO NOT ALTER THIS!
10: % \usepackage{rcs}
11: % \RCS $RCSfile: ge.tex $
12: % \RCS $Revision: 1.33 $
13: % \RCS $Author: Wilfrid $
14: % \RCS $State: W2k $
15: % \RCS $Date: 2004/07/06 22:22:35 $
16: \newcommand{\Title}{Geometric Ergodicity and Perfect Simulation}
17: \def\Subject{Geometric ergodicity implies CFTP}
18: \def\Keywords{CFTP, domCFTP, geometric Foster-Lyapunov condition,
19: geometric ergodicity, Markov chain Monte Carlo, perfect simulation,
20: uniform ergodicity}
21:
22: % =========================================
23: % Packages
24: % \usepackage{ifthen,amsmath,amsfonts,multicol,calc,times}
25: % \usepackage{chicago,afterpage,url,xspace}
26: % \usepackage[english]{babel}
27: % \usepackage{color,graphicx}
28: % \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.png}%
29: \usepackage{ifthen,amsmath,amsfonts,multicol,calc,times}
30: \usepackage{chicago,url,xspace}
31:
32: % % =========================================
33: % % Get color names:
34: % \input{dvipsnam.def}
35:
36: % =========================================
37: % Load hyperref
38: % \DefineNamedColor{named}{MyMulberry} {cmyk}{0.34,0.90,0,0.75}
39: % \DefineNamedColor{named}{MyPineGreen} {cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.75}
40: % \DefineNamedColor{named}{MyMidnightBlue} {cmyk}{0.98,0.13,0,0.75}
41: % \definecolor{linkcolor}{named}{MyMulberry}
42: % \definecolor{citecolor}{named}{MyPineGreen}
43: % \definecolor{pagecolor}{named}{MyMulberry}
44: % \definecolor{urlcolor}{named}{MyMidnightBlue}
45: % \usepackage[
46: % \ifpdf
47: % colorlinks=true,
48: % linkcolor=linkcolor,
49: % citecolor=citecolor,
50: % pagecolor=pagecolor,
51: % urlcolor=urlcolor,
52: % bookmarksopen=true,
53: % pdfstartview=FitH,
54: % \fi
55: % ]{hyperref}
56: \usepackage{hyperref}
57:
58:
59: % =========================================
60: % Information to be attached to pdf file (use CTRL+D to display!)
61: % \ifpdf
62: % \def\mymoddate$#1: #2/#3/#4 #5:#6:#7 ${(D:#2#3#4#5#6#7)}
63: % \pdfinfo{
64: % /Title (\Title)
65: % /Creator (TeX)
66: % /Author (W. S. Kendall)
67: % /Subject(\Subject)
68: % /Keywords (\Keywords)
69: % /CreationDate (D:20040528100000)
70: % /ModDate \mymoddate$Date: 2004/07/06 22:22:35 $
71: % }
72: % \fi
73:
74: % =========================================
75: % Mathematics and style commands
76: \newtheorem{result}{Result}
77: \newtheorem{algorithm}[result]{Algorithm}
78: \newtheorem{definition}[result]{Definition}
79: \newtheorem{theorem}[result]{Theorem}
80: \newtheorem{lemma}[result]{Lemma}
81: \newenvironment{proof}[1][]{\noindent%
82: \ifthenelse{\equal{#1}{}}{\textbf{Proof:} }%
83: {\textbf{Proof (#1):\newline}}}%
84: {\smallskip\hfill\(\Box\)\bigskip}
85:
86: %\usepackage{wskmath}
87: \renewcommand{\d}{\operatorname{\text{d}}}
88: \newcommand{\dist}{\operatorname{\text{dist}}}
89: \newcommand{\CFTP}{\emph{CFTP}\xspace}
90: \newcommand{\domCFTP}{\emph{dom}\CFTP}
91: \newcommand{\Expect}[1]{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\left[#1\right]}
92: \newcommand{\Indicator}[1]{\operatorname{\mathbb{I}}\left[#1\right]}
93: \newcommand{\Law}[1]{\mathcal{L}\left({#1}\right)}
94: \newcommand{\Leb}{\operatorname{\text{Leb}}}
95: \newcommand{\Prob}[1]{\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\left[#1\right]}
96:
97:
98: \begin{document}
99:
100: % % Preprint header
101: % \input 427.tex
102:
103: \thispagestyle{empty}
104:
105: \title{\Title}
106: % \author{\href{mailto:w.s.kendall@warwick.ac.uk?subject=Re:GEandCFTP(\RCSState-\RCSRevision)}{Wilfrid
107: % S.~Kendall}}
108: \author{Wilfrid S.~Kendall}
109:
110: %\date{\today: DRAFT \RCSRevision}
111: \date{\text{ }}
112:
113: \maketitle
114:
115: \begin{quote}
116: {\textbf{Keywords:} \small\textsc\Keywords}
117: \end{quote}
118: \begin{quote}
119: {AMS 2000 Mathematics Subject
120: Classification}: 60J10, 65C05, 68U20
121: \end{quote}
122:
123: \begin{abstract}
124: This note extends the work of \citeN{FossTweedie-1997}, who showed
125: that availability of the classic \citeN{ProppWilson-1996}
126: Coupling from The Past algorithm
127: is essentially equivalent to uniform
128: ergodicity for a Markov chain (see also \citeNP{HobertRobert-2004}).
129: In this note we show that all geometrically ergodic chains possess
130: dominated Coupling from The Past algorithms (not necessarily
131: practical!) which are rather closely connected to Foster-Lyapunov
132: criteria.
133: \end{abstract}
134:
135:
136: \section{Introduction}
137: \label{sec:intro}
138:
139: Throughout this paper \(X\) will denote an aperiodic Harris-recurrent
140: Markov chain on a measurable state space \(\mathcal{X}\) which is a
141: Polish space (the Polish condition is required in order to
142: ensure existence of regular conditional probabilities). Recall that \(X\) is
143: said to be \emph{geometrically ergodic} if it converges in total
144: variation and at geometric rate to statistical equilibrium \(\pi\), with
145: multiplicative constant depending on the starting point:
146: \begin{equation}
147: \label{eq:geometric-equilibrium}
148: \dist_{\text{TV}}(\Law{X_n},\pi) \quad\leq\quad V(X_0) \gamma^n
149: \end{equation}
150: for some function \(V:\mathcal{X}\to[1,\infty)\) and some rate \(\gamma\in(0,1)\).
151: The chain \(X\) is said to be \emph{uniformly ergodic} if the function
152: \(V\) can be chosen to be constant.
153: % , and merely \emph{ergodic} if it
154: % can only be said that \(\dist_{\text{TV}}(\Law{X_n},\pi)\to0\) as \(n\to\infty\)
155: % for (\(\pi\)-almost all) \(x\in\mathcal{X}\).
156:
157: We also recall the notion of a small set:
158: \begin{definition}\label{lem:minorization}
159: A subset \(C\subseteq\mathcal{X}\) is a \emph{small set (of order
160: \(k\))} for the Markov chain \(X\) if there is a \emph{minorization
161: condition}: for \(\beta\in(0,1)\), and probability measure \(\nu\),
162: \begin{equation}
163: \label{eq:minorization}
164: \Prob{X_{k}\in E\;|\;X_0=x} \quad\geq\quad \beta \Indicator{x\in C}\times\nu(E)
165: \quad\text{for all measurable }E\subseteq\mathcal{X}\,.
166: \end{equation}
167: \end{definition}
168: Results are often stated in terms of the more general notion of
169: \emph{petite sets}; however for \(\psi\)-irreducible aperiodic chains the
170: two notions are equivalent \\
171: \cite[Theorem 5.5.7]{MeynTweedie-1993}.
172:
173: \citeN{FossTweedie-1997} use small set theory to show that the
174: condition of uniform ergodicity for such \(X\) is \emph{equivalent} to
175: the existence of a Coupling from the Past algorithm in the sense of
176: \citeN{ProppWilson-1996}. This {\emph{classic} \CFTP{}} algorithm
177: delivers a perfect sample from the equilibrium distribution of \(X\).
178: The key to the \citeANP{FossTweedie-1997} argument is to remark that
179: in case of uniform ergodicity the entire state space is small.
180: Sub-sampling the process \(X\) if necessary (to reduce the
181: \hyperref[lem:minorization]{order of the small set} to \(1\)), one can
182: then devise a classic \CFTP algorithm which is actually of the form
183: introduced by \citeN{MurdochGreen-1997} as the \emph{multigamma
184: coupler}. \citeN{HobertRobert-2004} develop the
185: \citeANP{FossTweedie-1997} argument to produce approximations to deal
186: with \emph{burn-in} (time till approximate equilibrium) in the
187: geometrically ergodic case.
188:
189: The \citeANP{FossTweedie-1997} result might be thought to delimit and
190: constrain the possible range of applicability of \CFTP. However it is
191: also possible to sample perfectly from the equilibrium of some
192: strictly geometrically ergodic chains using a generalization: namely
193: \emph{dominated \CFTP} (\domCFTP) as introduced in \citeN{Kendall-1998a},
194: \citeN{KendallMoller-2000}, \citeN{CaiKendall-1999a}. In this note we
195: show that this is generic: geometric ergodicity implies the existence
196: of a special form of \domCFTP algorithm adapted to the geometric
197: ergodicity in question. Recent expositions of quantitative
198: convergence rate estimation depend heavily on small sets and their
199: relatives (see for example \citeNP{Rosenthal-2002}), so this
200: piece of \CFTP theory connects to quantitative convergence theory in a
201: rather satisfying way.
202:
203: To describe this special form of \domCFTP, we must first introduce the
204: notion of a Foster-Lyapunov condition. Geometric ergodicity for our
205: \(X\) is equivalent to a \emph{geometric Foster-Lyapunov condition}
206: involving recurrence on small sets (this can be extracted from
207: \citeNP[Theorem 16.0.1]{MeynTweedie-1993}):
208: \begin{equation}\label{eq:foster-lyapunov}
209: \Expect{\Lambda(X_{n+1}) \;|\; X_{n}=x} \quad\leq\quad
210: \alpha \Lambda(x) + b \Indicator{X_n\in C}\,,
211: \end{equation}
212: for some \(\alpha\in(0,1)\) and \(b>0\), some
213: \hyperref[lem:minorization]{small set} \(C\), and a function
214: \(\Lambda:\mathcal{X}\to[1,\infty)\) which is bounded on \(C\).
215: Note that \(\alpha+b\geq1\) is required, as is \(\Lambda|_{C^c}\geq\alpha^{-1}\),
216: since we impose \(\Lambda\geq1\).
217: \label{page:marker2}
218: % Similarly, mere
219: % ergodicity of \(X\) is equivalent to a weaker Foster-Lyapunov
220: % condition \cite[Theorem 13.0.1]{MeynTweedie-1993}
221: % \begin{equation}\label{eq:weak-foster-lyapunov}
222: % \Expect{\Lambda(X_{n+1}) \;|\; X_{n}=x} \quad\leq\quad
223: % \Lambda(x) -1 + b \Indicator{X_n\in C}\,,
224: % \end{equation}
225: % for \(b\), \(C\), \(\Lambda\) as above.
226:
227: Now \hyperref[eq:foster-lyapunov]{Condition
228: (\ref*{eq:foster-lyapunov})} implies that every sub-level set
229: \(\{x\in\mathcal{X}:\Lambda(x)\leq c\}\) is small (as indeed do weaker
230: conditions; \citeNP[Theorem 14.2.3]{MeynTweedie-1993}).
231: \newline
232: % \noindent\fbox{\begin{minipage}[c]{\linewidth}
233: % \textcolor{blue}{\textbf{The following material is not present in
234: % submitted version:}}
235: % \textcolor{blue}{
236: This is a key fact for our argument so we
237: sketch a coupling proof.
238: %}
239:
240:
241: % \textcolor{blue}{
242: First note that without loss of generality we
243: can employ sub-sampling to ensure that the small set \(C\) in
244: \hyperref[eq:foster-lyapunov]{Condition
245: (\ref*{eq:foster-lyapunov})} is of
246: \hyperref[lem:minorization]{order \(1\)}. Super-martingale
247: arguments show that we can choose \(n\) such that
248: \(\Prob{X\text{ hits }C\text{ before }n\;|\;X_0=x}\) can be
249: bounded away from zero uniformly in \(x\) for \(\Lambda(x)\leq c\). Let
250: the hitting probability lower bound be \(\rho_0\). We can use the
251: \hyperref[eq:minorization]{Minorization Condition
252: (\ref*{eq:minorization})} to realize \(X\) as a split-chain in
253: the sense of \citeN{Nummelin-1978}, regenerating with
254: probability \(\beta\) whenever \(X\in C\). Couple chains from
255: different starting points according to the time when \(X\) first
256: regenerates in \(C\), yielding a family of realizations \(X^x\)
257: of the Markov chain, with \(X^x_0=x\), such that with positive
258: probability \(\beta\rho_0\) all realizations \(\{X^x : \Lambda(x)\leq c\}\)
259: coalesce into a set of at most \(n\) trajectories by time \(n\)
260: (divided according to the time of first regeneration). Now
261: apply a renewal-theoretic argument to the subsequent
262: regenerations of this finite set of trajectories, which are
263: allowed to evolve independently, except that whenever two
264: trajectories regenerate at the same time they are forced to
265: coalesce. Straightforward analysis shows that we can choose
266: \(m\) such that with positive probability \(\rho_1<\beta\rho_0\) all
267: trajectories starting from \(\{x\in\mathcal{X}:\Lambda(x)\leq c\}\) have
268: coalesced to just one trajectory by time \(n+m\). Hence
269: \(\{x\in\mathcal{X}:\Lambda(x)\leq c\}\) is a small set of order \(n+m\),
270: with minorization probability \(\rho_1\).
271: % }
272: % \end{minipage}}
273: %
274: It is convenient to isolate the notion of a \emph{scale function}
275: such as \(\Lambda\) in \hyperref[eq:foster-lyapunov]{Equation
276: (\ref*{eq:foster-lyapunov})}.
277: \begin{definition}\label{def:scale-function}
278: A \emph{(Foster-Lyapunov) scale function} for a Markov chain state
279: space \(\mathcal{X}\) is a measurable function
280: \[
281: \Lambda:\mathcal{X}\to[1,\infty)
282: \]
283: such that sub-level sets \(\{x\in\mathcal{X}:\Lambda(x)\leq \lambda\}\) are small for all
284: \(\lambda\geq1\).
285: \end{definition}
286:
287: Now we can define the special form of \domCFTP which we require, which
288: is adapted to a specified Foster-Lyapunov scale function.
289: \begin{definition}\label{defn:dominating-scale}
290: Suppose that \(\Lambda\) is a scale function for an Harris-recurrent Markov chain
291: \(X\). We say the stationary ergodic random process \(Y\) on
292: \([1,\infty)\) is a \emph{dominating process for \(X\) based on the scale
293: function \(\Lambda\)} (with \emph{threshold} \(h\) and \emph{coalescence
294: probability} \(\varepsilon\)) if it is coupled co-adaptively to realizations
295: of \(X^{x,-t}\) (the Markov chain \(X\) begun at \(x\) at time \(-t\))
296: as follows:
297: \begin{itemize}
298: \item[(a)] for all \(x\in\mathcal{X}\), \(n>0\), and \(-t\leq0\),
299: almost surely
300: \begin{equation}\label{eq:domination-requirement}
301: \Lambda(X^{x,-t}_{-t+n})\quad\leq\quad Y_{-t+n} \qquad\Rightarrow\qquad
302: \Lambda(X^{x,-t}_{-t+n+1})\quad\leq\quad
303: Y_{-t+n+1}\,;
304: \end{equation}
305: \item[(b)] moreover if \(Y_n\leq h\) then the probability of
306: \emph{coalescence} is at least \(\varepsilon\), where coalescence means that the set
307: \[
308: \left\{ X^{x,-t}_{n+1}\;:\;
309: \text{ such that }-t\leq n \text{ and } \Lambda(X^{x,-t}_n)\leq Y_n \right\}
310: \]
311: is a singleton set;
312: \item[(c)] and finally, \(\Prob{Y_n\leq h}\) must be positive.
313: \end{itemize}
314: \end{definition}
315:
316: Suppose \(Y\) is a dominating process for \(X\) based on the scale
317: \(\Lambda\). The following \domCFTP algorithm then yields a draw from
318: the equilibrium distribution of \(X\).
319: \begin{algorithm}\label{ag:dom-cftp}
320: \begin{itemize}
321: \item[]
322: \item[] Simulate \(Y\) backwards in equilibrium till the most recent
323: \(T<0\) for which \(Y_T\leq h\);
324: \item[] while coalescence does not occur
325: at time \(T\):
326: \begin{itemize}
327: \item[] extend \(Y\) backwards till the most recent
328: \(S<T\) for which \(Y_S\leq h\);
329: \item[] set \(T\gets S\);
330: \end{itemize}
331: \item[] simulate the coupled \(X\) forwards from time \(T+1\),
332: starting with the unique state produced by the
333: coalescence event at time \(T\);
334: \item[] return \(X_0\) as a perfect draw from equilibrium.
335: \end{itemize}
336: \end{algorithm}
337: Practical implementation considerations are: (1) can one draw from the
338: equilibrium of \(Y\)? (2) can one simulate \(Y\) backwards in
339: equilibrium? (3) can one couple the dominated target processes
340: \(X^{x,-t}\) with \(Y\) so as to ensure the possibility of
341: regeneration? (4) can one determine when this regeneration has
342: occurred? and, of course, (5) will the algorithm not run too slowly?
343:
344: The simplest kind of ordinary small-set \CFTP, as in
345: \citeN{MurdochGreen-1997}, is recovered from this Algorithm by taking
346: \(Y\equiv h\), and requiring the whole state-space to be small. In actual
347: constructions, care must be taken to ensure that \(Y\) dominates a
348: coupled collection of \(X\) for which coalescence is possible as
349: specified in \hyperref[defn:dominating-scale]{Definition
350: \ref*{defn:dominating-scale}(b)} (see the treatment of \CFTP for Harris
351: chains in \citeNP{CorcoranTweedie-2000}).
352:
353: The proof that this algorithm returns a perfect draw from the
354: equilibrium distribution of \(X\) is an easy variation on the usual
355: \domCFTP argument, found at varying levels of generality in
356: \citeNP{Kendall-1998a,KendallMoller-2000,CaiKendall-1999a}. The key is
357: to observe that \hyperref[ag:dom-cftp]{Algorithm \ref*{ag:dom-cftp}}
358: reconstructs a coalesced trajectory which may be viewed as produced by
359: the Markov chain begun at time \(-\infty\) at some specified state \(x\)
360: such that \(\Lambda(x)\leq h\): the proof is then an exercise in making this
361: heuristic precise.
362:
363: The \citeN{FossTweedie-1997} argument, and the fact that the
364: geometric Foster-Lyapunov
365: \hyperref[eq:foster-lyapunov]{condition
366: (\ref*{eq:foster-lyapunov})} would certainly produce a dominating
367: process if the expectation inequality was replaced by a stochastic
368: domination, suggests our main result, which will be proved in
369: \hyperref[sec:implication]{Section \ref*{sec:implication}}:
370: \begin{theorem}\label{thm:geometric-domCFTP}
371: If \(X\) is a geometrically ergodic Markov chain, and \(\Lambda\) is a
372: scale function for \(X\) which is derived from some
373: geometric Foster-Lyapunov condition, then there exists a \domCFTP
374: algorithm for \(X\) (possible subject to sub-sampling) using a
375: dominating process based on the scale \(\Lambda\), as in
376: \hyperref[ag:dom-cftp]{Algorithm \ref*{ag:dom-cftp}}.
377: \end{theorem}
378:
379: As in the case of the \citeN{FossTweedie-1997} result, this algorithm
380: need not be at all practical!
381:
382: \section{Geometric ergodicity implies \domCFTP}
383: \label{sec:implication}
384: We begin with a lemma concerning the effect of sub-sampling on the
385: geometric Foster-Lyapunov
386: \hyperref[eq:foster-lyapunov]{
387: condition}.
388: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:sub-sampling}
389: Suppose \(X\) satisfies a \hyperref[eq:foster-lyapunov]{geometric
390: Foster-Lyapunov condition}: for some \(\alpha<1\), some scale function
391: \(\Lambda\), and small set \(C=\{x\in\mathcal{X}:\Lambda(x)\leq c\}\).
392: \begin{equation}\label{eq:fl-working}
393: \Expect{\Lambda(X_{n+1}) \;|\; X_{n}=x} \quad\leq\quad \alpha \Lambda(x) + b
394: \Indicator{\Lambda(X_n)\leq c}\,.
395: \end{equation}
396: Under \(k\)-sub-sampling we obtain a similar condition but with
397: different constants:
398: \begin{equation}
399: \Expect{\Lambda(X_{n+k}) \;|\; X_{n}=x} \quad\leq\quad \alpha^{k-1} \Lambda(x) + b^{\prime}
400: \Indicator{\Lambda(X_n)\leq c^{\prime}}\,,
401: \label{eq:sub-sampling-1}
402: \end{equation}
403: and also, if \(k\geq2\),
404: \begin{equation}
405: \Expect{\Lambda(X_{n+k}) \;|\; X_{n}=x} \quad\leq\quad \alpha \Lambda(x) + b^{\prime\prime}
406: \Indicator{\Lambda(X_n)\leq c^{\prime\prime}}\,.
407: \label{eq:sub-sampling-2}
408: \end{equation}
409: Moreover \(b^\prime=b/(1-\alpha)\), \(c\prime=b/(\alpha^{k-1} (1-\alpha)^2)\) may be chosen not
410: to depend on \(c\), and \(b^{\prime\prime}=b/(1-\alpha)\), \(c^{\prime\prime}=b/(\alpha(1-\alpha)^2)\)
411: may be chosen to depend neither on \(c\) nor on \(k\geq2\).
412: \end{lemma}
413: We are able to choose \(b^\prime\), \(c\prime\), \(b^{\prime\prime}\), \(c^{\prime\prime}\) not to
414: depend on \(c\) because we have allowed generous sub-sampling
415: (\emph{i.e.}: \(k\)-sub-sampling to change \(\alpha\) to \(\alpha^{k-1}\)).
416:
417: \begin{proof}
418: Iterating \hyperref[eq:fl-working]{Equation (\ref*{eq:fl-working})},
419: \begin{align*}
420: \Expect{\Lambda(X_{n+k}) \;|\; X_{n}=x} &\quad\leq\quad
421: \alpha^k \Lambda(x) + \sum_{j=1}^k \alpha^{j-1} b\Expect{\Indicator{\Lambda(X_{n+k-j})\leq c}\;|\;X_{n}=x}\\
422: &\quad\leq\quad
423: \alpha^k \Lambda(x) + \frac{b}{1-\alpha} \\
424: &\quad=\quad
425: \alpha^{k-1} \Lambda(x) - \alpha^{k-1} (1-\alpha) \Lambda(x)+ \frac{b}{1-\alpha} \\
426: &\quad\leq\quad
427: \begin{cases}
428: \alpha^{k-1} \Lambda(x) & \text{ if } \Lambda(x)> \frac{b}{\alpha^{k-1} (1-\alpha)^2} \,,\\
429: \alpha^{k-1} \Lambda(x) + {b}/{(1-\alpha)} & \text{ otherwise.}
430: \end{cases}
431: \end{align*}
432: Hence we may choose \(b^{\prime}=b/(1-\alpha)\), \(c^{\prime}=b/(\alpha^{k-1}
433: (1-\alpha)^2)\). Alternatively
434: \begin{align*}
435: \Expect{\Lambda(X_{n+k}) \;|\; X_{n}=x} &\quad\leq\quad
436: \alpha \Lambda(x) - \alpha (1-\alpha^{k-1}) \Lambda(x)+ \frac{b}{1-\alpha} \\
437: &\quad\leq\quad
438: \begin{cases}
439: \alpha \Lambda(x) & \text{ if } \Lambda(x)> \frac{b}{\alpha (1-\alpha)(1-\alpha^{k-1})} \,,\\
440: \alpha \Lambda(x) + {b}/{(1-\alpha)} & \text{ otherwise.}
441: \end{cases}
442: \end{align*}
443: Hence we may choose \(b^{\prime\prime}=b/(1-\alpha)\), \(c^{\prime\prime}=b/(\alpha (1-\alpha)^2)\) if
444: \(k\geq2\).
445: \end{proof}
446:
447:
448: \begin{proof}[of Theorem \ref*{thm:geometric-domCFTP}]
449: We first construct the dominating process.
450:
451: Consider Markov's inequality applied to the
452: geometric Foster-Lyapunov
453: \hyperref[eq:foster-lyapunov]{inequality
454: (\ref*{eq:foster-lyapunov})}.
455: Any dominating process \(Y\) must satisfy the
456: \hyperref[eq:domination-requirement]{stochastic domination
457: (\ref*{eq:domination-requirement})} described in
458: \hyperref[defn:dominating-scale]{Definition
459: \ref*{defn:dominating-scale}}. Consequently, in default of further
460: distributional information about \(\Prob{\Lambda(X_{n+1}) | X_{n}=x}\),
461: if \(Y\) is to
462: be a dominating process based on the scale \(\Lambda\) then we need \(Y\) to
463: be stationary ergodic but also to satisfy
464: \begin{equation}\label{eq:crude-domination}
465: \Prob{Y_{n+1}\geq \alpha z y\;|\; Y_n=z} \quad\geq\quad
466: \sup_{x: \Lambda(x)\leq z}\frac{\Expect{\Lambda(X_{n+1})\;|\;X_n=x}}{\alpha z y}\,.
467: \end{equation}
468:
469: Now if \(C\subseteq\{x\in\mathcal{X}:\Lambda(x)\leq c\}\) then
470: \begin{align*}
471: \sup_{x: \Lambda(x)\leq z}\frac{\Expect{\Lambda(X_{n+1})\;|\;X_n=x}}{\alpha z y}
472: &\quad\leq\quad
473: \sup_{x: \Lambda(x)\leq z}
474: \frac{\alpha\Lambda(x) + b \Indicator{x:\Lambda(x)\leq c}}{\alpha z y}\\
475: \quad\leq\quad \sup_{x: \Lambda(x)\leq z}\frac{\alpha \Lambda(x)}{\alpha z y} & \quad=\quad \frac{1}{y}
476: \qquad\text{ so long as }
477: z\geq c + \frac{b}{\alpha}\,.
478: \end{align*}
479:
480: Consequently \(Y\) is a possible candidate for a dominating process based
481: on the scale \(\Lambda\) if
482: \begin{equation}
483: \label{eq:dominating-in-scale}
484: \Prob{Y_{n+1}\geq \alpha z y \:|\; Y_n=z} \quad=\quad
485: \begin{cases}
486: 1/y & \text{ if } z\geq c + \frac{b}{\alpha} \,,\\
487: 1 & \text{ otherwise.}
488: \end{cases}
489: \end{equation}
490: If we define \(U\) by \(Y=(c+b/ \alpha)\exp(U)\) (so \(U\) is a
491: \emph{log-dominating process}) then \(U\) is the system workload of a
492: \(D/M/1\) queue, sampled at arrivals, with arrivals every \(\log(1/
493: \alpha)\) units of time, and service times being independent and of unit
494: Exponential distribution. The process \(U\) is a random walk with
495: reflection (of Skorokhod type) at \(0\): as its jump distribution is
496: \(\text{Exponential}(1)-\log(1/ \alpha)\) we may deduce it is
497: positive-recurrent if and only if \(\alpha<e^{-1}\).
498:
499: \label{page:marker1}
500: In case \(e^{-1}<\alpha<1\), \(U\) and \(Y=(c+b/ \alpha)\exp(U)\) fail to be
501: positive-recurrent. However the same construction will work if we use
502: \hyperref[eq:sub-sampling-1]{Equation (\ref*{eq:sub-sampling-1})} of
503: \hyperref[lem:sub-sampling]{Lemma \ref*{lem:sub-sampling}} to justify
504: sub-sampling \(X\) with a sampling period \(k\) large enough to ensure
505: a \hyperref[eq:foster-lyapunov]{geometric Foster-Lyapunov condition
506: (\ref*{eq:foster-lyapunov})} using \(\Lambda\) as scale but with \(\alpha\)
507: replaced by \(\alpha^{k-1}<e^{-1}\), and amending \(b\) to \(b^\prime\), \(c\)
508: to \(c^\prime\) as in \hyperref[eq:sub-sampling-1]{Inequality
509: (\ref*{eq:sub-sampling-1})}.
510:
511: Thus without loss of generality
512: we may assume \(\alpha<e^{-1}\),
513: and so this \(Y\) can be run in statistical equilibrium, and thus
514: qualifies as least partly as a dominating process for the purposes of
515: \hyperref[thm:geometric-domCFTP]{Theorem
516: \ref*{thm:geometric-domCFTP}}. In the sequel we assume moreover that
517: further sub-sampling has been carried out based on
518: \hyperref[eq:sub-sampling-2]{Equation (\ref*{eq:sub-sampling-2})}, to
519: ensure that the following small set is of order \(1\):
520: \begin{equation}
521: \label{eq:small-target}
522: \left\{x\in\mathcal{X}\;:\; \Lambda(x) \leq h \right\}
523: \qquad\text{ for }\qquad
524: h=\max\left\{c+\frac{b}{\alpha},
525: \frac{b}{\alpha(1-\alpha)}\left(1+\frac{1}{1-\alpha}\right)
526: \right\}\,.
527: \end{equation}
528: Here the level \(h\geq c+b/ \alpha\) is fixed so as to ensure \(h=c^{\prime\prime}+b^{\prime\prime}/(1-\alpha)\) with
529: \(b^{\prime\prime}\), \(c^{\prime\prime}\) given as in
530: \hyperref[eq:sub-sampling-2]{Equation (\ref*{eq:sub-sampling-2})};
531: thus \(h\) supplies a stable threshold for geometric Foster-Lyapunov
532: conditions, even allowing for further sub-sampling if required. Note
533: in particular that \(Y=(c+b/
534: \alpha)\exp(U)\) is able to sink below \(h\), since \(h\geq c+b/\alpha\) and the
535: system workload \(U\) can reach zero.
536: \label{page:marker3}
537:
538: To fulfil the requirements on a dominating process given in
539: \hyperref[defn:dominating-scale]{Definition
540: \ref*{defn:dominating-scale}}, we need to construct a coupling
541: between \(Y\) and the target process \(X\) expressed in
542: terms of a random flow of independent maps
543: \(F_{-t+n+1}:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{X}\):
544: \[
545: X^{x,-t}_{-t+n+1}\quad=\quad F_{-t+n+1}(X^{x,-t}_{-t+n})
546: \]
547: satisfying the distributional requirement that \(X^{x,-t}\) should
548: evolve as the Markov chain \(X\),
549: the \hyperref[eq:domination-requirement]{domination requirement
550: expressed by the implication (\ref*{eq:domination-requirement})},
551: and also the regeneration requirement
552: that with probability \(\varepsilon\) the set
553: \[
554: \left\{ F_n(u) \;:\; \text{ such that } \Lambda(u)\leq h \right\}
555: \]
556: should be a singleton set. The well-known link between stochastic
557: domination and coupling can be applied together with the arguments
558: preceding \hyperref[eq:dominating-in-scale]{Equation
559: (\ref*{eq:dominating-in-scale})} to show that we can couple the
560: various \(X^{x,-t}\) with \(Y\) co-adaptively in this manner so that
561: the implication (\ref*{eq:domination-requirement}) holds: note that
562: here and here alone we use the Polish space nature of \(\mathcal{X}\),
563: which allows us to complete the couplings by constructing regular
564: conditional probability distributions for the various \(X^{x,-t}\)
565: conditioned on the \(\Lambda(X^{x,-t})\). Thus all that is required is to
566: show that this stochastic domination coupling can be modified to allow
567: for regeneration.
568:
569: The small set condition for \(\{x\in\mathcal{X}:\Lambda(x)\leq h\}\) means there is
570: a probability measure \(\nu\) and a scalar \(\beta\in(0,1)\) such that for all
571: Borel sets \(B\subseteq[1,\infty)\), whenever \(\Lambda(x)\leq h\),
572: \begin{equation}
573: \label{eq:crucial-small-set}
574: \Prob{\Lambda(X_{n+1})\in B \;|\; X_n=x} \quad\geq\quad \beta\nu(B) \,.
575: \end{equation}
576: Moreover the stochastic domination which has been arranged in the
577: course of defining \(Y\) means that for all real \(u\),
578: whenever \(\Lambda(x) \leq y\),
579: \begin{equation}
580: \label{eq:crucial-stochastic-domination}
581: \Prob{\Lambda(X_{n+1})>u \;|\; X_n=x} \quad\leq\quad
582: \Prob{Y>u\;|\; Y=y}\,.
583: \end{equation}
584: We can couple in order to arrange for regeneration if we can identify
585: a probability measure \(\widetilde\nu\), defined solely in terms of
586: \(\nu\) and the dominating jump distribution \(\Prob{Y\geq u \;|\;
587: Y=y}\), such that for all real \(u\)
588: \begin{align*}
589: \Prob{\Lambda(X_{n+1})>u \;|\; X_n=x} - \beta \nu((u,\infty))
590: \quad &\leq\quad\Prob{Y>u \;|\; Y=y} - \beta\widetilde\nu((u,\infty))\\
591: \nu((u,\infty)) \quad &\leq\quad \widetilde\nu((u,\infty))
592: \end{align*}
593: and moreover
594: \[
595: \Prob{Y_{n+1}\in B \;|\; Y_n=y} \quad\geq\quad \beta\widetilde\nu(B) \,.
596: \]
597: For then at each step we may determine whether or not regeneration has
598: occurred (with probability \(\beta\)); under regeneration we use
599: stochastic domination to couple \(\nu\)
600: to \(\widetilde\nu\); otherwise we use
601: stochastic domination to couple the residuals.
602:
603: We state and prove this as an interior lemma, as it may be of wider interest.
604: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:mixture-domination-coupling}
605: Suppose \(U\), \(V\) are two random variables defined on \([1,\infty)\) such
606: that
607: \begin{itemize}
608: \item[(a)] The distribution \(\Law{U}\) is stochastically dominated by the distribution
609: \(\Law{V}\):
610: \begin{equation}
611: \Prob{U> u} \quad\leq\quad \Prob{V>u}\qquad\text{ for all real }U\,;
612: \label{eq:lemma-domination}
613: \end{equation}
614: \item[(b)] \(U\) satisfies a minorization condition: for some
615: \(\beta\in(0,1)\) and probability measure \(\nu\):
616: \(B\subseteq[1,\infty)\),
617: \begin{equation}
618: \Prob{U\in B} \quad\geq\quad \beta\nu(B) \qquad \text{ for all Borel sets }B\subseteq[1,\infty)\,.
619: \label{eq:lemma-minorization}
620: \end{equation}
621: \end{itemize}
622: Then there is a probability measure \(\mu\) stochastically
623: dominating \(\nu\) and such that \(\beta\mu\) is minorized by
624: \(\Law{V}\). Moreover \(\mu\) depends only on \(\beta\nu\)
625: and \(\Law{V}\).
626: \end{lemma}
627: \begin{proof}[of Lemma \ref{lem:mixture-domination-coupling}]
628: Subtract the measure \(\beta\nu((u,\infty))\) from both sides of
629: \hyperref[eq:lemma-domination]{Inequality (\ref*{eq:lemma-domination})}
630: representing the stochastic domination \(\Law{U}\preceq\Law{V}\). By the
631: \hyperref[eq:lemma-minorization]{minorization condition
632: (\ref*{eq:lemma-minorization})} the resulting left-hand-side is nonnegtive. Thus for all real
633: \(u\)
634: \[
635: 0 \quad\leq\quad \Prob{U>u} - \beta\nu((u,\infty)) \quad\leq\quad \Prob{V>u} - \beta\nu((u,\infty))
636: \]
637: Now
638: \(\Law{U}-\beta\nu\) is a nonnegative measure (because of the
639: \hyperref[eq:lemma-minorization]{minorization condition
640: (\ref*{eq:lemma-minorization})}). Consequently \(\Prob{U>u} - \beta\nu((u,\infty))\) must be
641: non-increasing in \(u\) and so we may reduce the
642: right-hand side by minimizing over \(w\leq u\):
643: % Hence for all real \(u\)
644: \begin{align*}
645: \Prob{U>u} - \beta\nu((u,\infty)) &\quad\leq\quad \inf_{w\leq u}\left\{ \Prob{V>w} -
646: \beta\nu((w,\infty)) \right\}\\
647: &\quad=\quad \Prob{V>u} -\beta\mu((u,\infty))
648: \end{align*}
649: where \(\mu\) is the potentially \emph{signed} measure defined by
650: \[
651: \beta \mu([1,u]) \quad=\quad
652: \Prob{V\leq u} - \sup_{w\leq u}\left\{ \Prob{V\leq w} - \beta\nu([1,w)) \right\}\,.
653: \]
654: In fact \(\mu\) is a probability measure on \([1,\infty)\). Both
655: \(\mu(\{1\})=\nu(\{1\})\) and
656: \(\mu([1,\infty))=1\) follow from considering \(u=1\), \(u\to\infty\). Now we show
657: \(\mu\) is nonnegative:
658: \begin{align*}
659: & \beta\mu((u,u+u^\prime]) - \Prob{u<V\leq u+u^\prime}
660: \\
661: & \quad=\quad
662: - \sup_{w\leq u+u^\prime}\left\{ \Prob{V\leq w} - \beta\nu([1,w)) \right\}
663: + \sup_{w\leq u}\left\{ \Prob{V\leq w} - \beta\nu([1,w)) \right\}\,.
664: \end{align*}
665: If the first supremum were to be attained at \(w\leq u\) then the two suprema
666: would cancel. If the first supremum were to be attained at \(w^\prime\in[u,u+u^\prime]\)
667: then
668: \begin{align*}
669: & \beta\mu((u,u+u^\prime]) - \Prob{u<V\leq u+u^\prime}
670: \\
671: & \quad=\quad
672: - \Prob{V\leq w^\prime} + \beta\nu([1,w^\prime))
673: + \sup_{w\leq u}\left\{ \Prob{V\leq w} - \beta\nu([1,w)) \right\}\\
674: & \quad\geq\quad
675: - \Prob{V\leq w^\prime} + \beta\nu([1,w^\prime))
676: + \Prob{V\leq u} - \beta\nu([1,u)
677: \end{align*}
678: and hence
679: \[
680: \beta\mu((u,u+u^\prime])
681: \quad\geq\quad \Prob{w^\prime<V\leq u+u^\prime}
682: + \beta\nu([u,w^\prime))
683: \quad\geq\quad0\,.
684: \]
685: So we can deduce \(\beta\mu\) is in fact a nonnegative measure.
686: \label{page:marker4}
687:
688: On the other hand
689: \begin{align*}
690: & \beta\mu((u,u+u^\prime]) - \Prob{u<V\leq u+u^\prime}
691: \\
692: & \quad=\quad
693: - \sup_{w\leq u+u^\prime}\left\{ \Prob{V\leq w} - \beta\nu([1,w)) \right\}
694: + \sup_{w\leq u}\left\{ \Prob{V\leq w} - \beta\nu([1,w)) \right\} \\
695: &\quad\leq\quad0\,,
696: \end{align*}
697: hence
698: \begin{equation}
699: \label{eq:sandwich}
700: 0\quad\leq\quad \beta\mu((u,u+u^\prime])\quad\leq\quad \Prob{u<V\leq u+u^\prime}\,,
701: \end{equation}
702: so \(\beta \mu\) is absolutely continuous with respect to
703: \(\Law{V}\) and indeed we can deduce
704: \begin{equation}
705: \label{eq:representation}
706: \beta\d\mu(u) \quad=\quad \Indicator{\Prob{V>\cdot} -
707: \beta\nu((\cdot,\infty))\text{ hits current minimum at }u } \d\Prob{V\leq u}\,.
708: \end{equation}
709: The minorization of \(\beta\mu\) by \(\Law{V}\) follows from this argument:
710: dependence
711: only on \(\beta\nu\)
712: and \(\Law{V}\) follows by construction; finally, stochastic
713: domination of \(\beta \nu\) follows from
714: \begin{align*}
715: \beta\mu((u,\infty))& \quad=\quad \Prob{V>u} - \inf_{w \leq u}\left\{ \Prob{V>w} -
716: \beta\nu((w,\infty))\right\} \\
717: & \quad=\quad\sup_{w\leq u}\left\{\beta\nu((w,\infty)) - \Prob{w<V\leq u} \right\} \\
718: &\quad\geq\quad \beta\nu((u,\infty))\,.
719: \end{align*}\end{proof}
720:
721: This concludes the proof of Theorem \ref*{thm:geometric-domCFTP}:
722: use \hyperref[lem:mixture-domination-coupling]{Lemma
723: \ref*{lem:mixture-domination-coupling}} to couple
724: \(\Law{X_{n+1}\;|\;X_n=x}\) to \(\Law{Y_{n+1}\;|\;Y_n=y}\) whenever
725: \(\Lambda(x)\leq y\) in a way which implements stochastic domination and
726: ensures all the \(X_{n+1}\) regenerate simultaneously whenever \(Y\leq h\).
727: \end{proof}
728:
729: Note that the algorithm requires us to be able to draw from the
730: equilibrium distribution of \(Y\) and to simulate its time-reversed
731: equilibrium dual. Up to an additive constant \(\log(Y)\) is the workload
732: of a \(D/M/1\) queue. This queue is amenable to exact calculations, so
733: these simulation tasks are easy to implement
734: (specializing the theory of the \(G/M/1\) queue as discussed
735: % ,
736: % for
737: % example,
738: in \citeNP[ch.~11]{GrimmettStirzaker-1992}). However in general we do \emph{not} expect this
739: ``universal dominating process'' to lead to practical \domCFTP
740: algorithms! The difficulty in application will arise in determining whether or
741: not regeneration has occurred as in \hyperref[ag:dom-cftp]{Algorithm
742: \ref*{ag:dom-cftp}}. This will be difficult especially if
743: sub-sampling has been applied, since then one will need detailed
744: knowledge of convolutions of the probability kernel for \(X\)
745: (potentially a harder problem than sampling from equilibrium!).
746:
747: Of course, in practice one uses different dominating processes
748: better adapted to the problem at hand. For example an \(M/D/1\) queue
749: serves as a good log-dominating process for perpetuity-type problems
750: and gives very rapid \domCFTP algorithms indeed, especially when
751: combined with other perfect simulation ideas such as multishift \CFTP
752: \cite{Wilson-1999}, read-once \CFTP \cite{Wilson-2000a}, or one-shot
753: coupling \cite{RobertsRosenthal-2002}.
754:
755: Finally note that, in cases when \(\alpha\in[e^{-1},1)\) or when the small
756: set \(\{x\in\mathcal{X}:\Lambda(x)\leq h\}\) is of order greater than \(1\), we are
757: forced to work with coupling constructions that are effectively
758: \emph{non-co-adapted} (sub-sampling means that target transitions
759: \(X_{mk}\) to \(X_{mk+1}\) depend on sequences \(Y_{mk}\), \(Y_{mk+1}\), \ldots,
760: \(Y_{mk+k}\)). The potential improvements gained by working with
761: non-adapted couplings are already known not only to theory (the
762: non-co-adapted filling couplings of
763: \citeNP{Griffeath-1974,Goldstein-1978}; and the efficiency
764: considerations of \citeNP{BurdzyKendall-1997a}) but also to
765: practitioners (\citeNP{Huber-2004}: non-Markovian techniques in \CFTP;\\
766: \citeNP{HayesVigoda-2003}: non-Markovian conventional MCMC for random
767: sampling of colorings).
768:
769: \section{Counter-example}
770: \label{sec:counter-example}
771: We complete this note by describing a counter-example:
772: a Markov chain \(X\) which satisfies a Foster-Lyapunov
773: condition involving a scale function \(\Lambda\), but such that there can be no
774: recurrent dominating process \(Y\) based on \(\Lambda\). We begin by
775: choosing a sequence of disjoint measurable sets \(S_1\), \(S_2\), \ldots,
776: subsets of \([1,\infty)\) such that each set places positive measure in
777: every non-empty open set:
778: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:partition}
779: One can construct a measurable partition \(S_1\), \(S_2\), \ldots of \([1,\infty)\),
780: \[
781: S_1 \sqcup S_2 \sqcup S_3 \sqcup \ldots \quad=\quad [1,\infty)\,,
782: \]
783: with the property
784: \(\Leb(S_i \cap (u,v)) > 0\)
785: for all \(0<u<v<\infty\), all \(i\in\{1, 2, \ldots\}\).
786: \end{lemma}
787: \begin{proof}
788: Enumerate the rational numbers in \([0,1)\)
789: by \(0=\tilde q_0\), \(\tilde q_1\), \(\tilde q_2\), \ldots . Choose \(\alpha<1/2\), and define
790: \[
791: A_0 \quad=\quad \bigcup_{k=1}^\infty \bigcup_{n=0}^\infty \left[\tilde q_n+k,\tilde q_n+k+\alpha
792: 2^{-n}\right]\,.
793: \]
794: Then for each \(k\geq1\)
795: \[
796: \alpha \quad\leq\quad \Leb\left(A_0\cap[k,k+1)\right) \quad\leq\quad 2\alpha\,.
797: \]
798: Continue by defining a sequence of nested subsets \(A_{r}\subset A_{r-1}\) by
799: \begin{equation}
800: \label{eq:subsets}
801: A_r \quad=\quad
802: \bigcup_{k=1}^\infty \bigcup_{n=0}^\infty \left[\frac{\tilde q_n+k}{2^r},\frac{\tilde q_n+k}{2^r}+\frac{\alpha}{4^r} 2^{-n}\right]\,,
803: \end{equation}
804: satisfying
805: \begin{equation}
806: \label{eq:subsets-bounds}
807: \frac{\alpha}{4^r} \quad\leq\quad \Leb\left(A_r\cap\Big[\frac{k}{2^r},\frac{k+1}{2^r}\Big)\right)
808: \quad\leq\quad \frac{2\alpha}{4^r}\,.
809: \end{equation}
810:
811: Thus the measurable shell \(B_r=A_r\setminus A_{r+1}\) places mass of at least
812: \(\frac{\alpha}{2\times4^{r}}\) in each interval
813: \([\frac{k}{2^r},\frac{k+1}{2^r})\)\,.
814:
815: It follows that if \(S\) is defined by
816: \[
817: S \quad=\quad \bigcup_{s=1}^\infty \left(A_{r_s}\setminus A_{r_{s}+1}\right)
818: \]
819: then \(\Leb(S\cap U)>0\) for every open set \(U\subset[1,\infty)\). The desired
820: disjoint sequence \(S_1\), \(S_2\), \ldots is obtained by considering a
821: countably infinite family of disjoint increasing subsequences of the
822: natural numbers.
823: \end{proof}
824:
825: \begin{lemma}
826: There is a Markov chain \(X\) satisfying a Foster-Lyapunov condition
827: with scale function \(\Lambda\), such that any
828: dominating process \(Y\) based on \(\Lambda\) will fail to be positive-recurrent.
829: \end{lemma}
830:
831: \begin{proof}
832: The Markov chain \(X\) will have state space \([1,\infty)\), with scale
833: function \(\Lambda(x)\equiv x\). We begin by fixing \(\alpha\in(e^{-1},1)\), and set
834: \(C=[1,\alpha^{-1}]\). The set \(C\) will be the small set for the
835: Foster-Lyapunov condition. Choose a measurable partition \(S_1 \sqcup
836: S_2 \sqcup S_3 \sqcup \ldots = [1,\infty)\) as in \hyperref[lem:partition]{Lemma
837: \ref*{lem:partition}}. Enumerate the rational numbers in \([1,\infty)\)
838: by \(q_1\), \(q_2\), \ldots.
839:
840: We define the transition kernel \(p(x,\cdot)\) of \(X\) on
841: \([1,\infty)\) as follows:
842: \begin{itemize}
843: \item[] For \(x\in[1,\alpha^{-1}]\), set
844: \[
845: p(x,\d y) \quad=\quad \exp(-(y-1)) \d y \quad\text{for }y\geq1\,,
846: \]
847: so that if \(X_n\in C\) then \(X_{n+1}-1\) has a unit rate
848: Exponential distribution. Then:
849: \begin{itemize}
850: \item[] \(C\) is a small set for \(X\) of order \(1\) (in fact it
851: will be a regenerative atom!);
852: \item[] if \(X_n\in C\) then \(\Expect{X_{n+1}}=2\);
853: \item[] if \(X\) has positive chance of visiting state \(1\) then the
854: whole state space \([1,\infty)\) will be maximally \(\Leb\)-irreducible.
855: \end{itemize}
856: \item[] For \(x>\alpha^{-1}\) and \(x\in S_i\), set
857: \[
858: p(x, \d y) \quad=\quad
859: \left(1-\frac{\alpha}{q_i}\right)\delta_{0}(\d y) + \frac{\alpha}{q_i}\delta_{q_i x}(\d y)\,.
860: \]
861: Note that, because we are using the identity scale \(\Lambda(x)\equiv x\),
862: \begin{itemize}
863: \item[] if \(x\not\in C\) then
864: \(\Expect{\Lambda(X_{n+1})\;|\;X_n=x}=\Expect{X_{n+1}\;|\;X_n=x}=\alpha x\);
865: \item[] if \(x\not\in C\) then \(\Prob{X_{n+1}=1\;|\;X_n=x}>0\).
866: \end{itemize}
867: \end{itemize}
868: Thus \(X\) satisfies a geometric Foster-Lyapunov condition based on
869: scale \(\Lambda\) and small set \(C\), and so is geometrically ergodic.
870:
871: Suppose \(Y\) is a dominating process for \(X\) based on the identity
872: scale \(\Lambda\). This
873: means it must be possible to couple \(Y\) and \(X\) such that, if
874: \(\Lambda(X_n)=X_n\leq Y_n\) then \(\Lambda(X_{n+1})=X_{n+1}\leq Y_{n+1}\). This can be achieved if
875: and only if
876: \[
877: \Prob{X_{n+1}\geq z \;|\; X_n=u} \quad\leq\quad \Prob{Y_{n+1}\geq z\;|\; Y_n=x}\,\
878: \]
879: for all \(z\geq1\), and Lebesgue-almost all \(u<x\).
880: Therefore we require of such
881: % a Markov chain
882: \(Y\) that
883: \begin{align*}
884: & \Prob{Y_{n+1}\geq \alpha x y\;|\; Y_n=x} \quad\geq\quad
885: \text{ess}\sup_{u<x} \left\{ \Prob{X_{n+1}\geq \alpha x y \;|\; X_n=u} \right\}\\
886: &\quad=\quad
887: \sup_i \text{ess}\sup\left\{ \frac{\alpha}{q_i}\;:\; \alpha^{-1}<u<x, u\in S_i, q_i
888: u > \alpha x y\right\} \\
889: &\quad=\quad
890: \sup_i \left\{\frac{\alpha}{q_i}\;:\; q_i > \alpha y \right\}
891: \quad=\quad \frac{1}{y}\,,
892: \end{align*}
893: using Markov's inequality, then the construction of the kernel of
894: \(X\), then the measure-density of the \(S_i\).
895:
896: So such a Markov chain \(Y\) must also (at least when above level
897: \(\alpha^{-1}\)) dominate \(\exp(Z)\), where \(Z\) is a random walk with
898: jump distribution \(\text{Exponential}(1)+\log(\alpha)\). Hence it will
899: fail to be positive-recurrent on the small set \(C\) when \(\alpha\geq e^{-1}\).
900: \end{proof}
901:
902: There may exist some subtle re-ordering to provide \domCFTP for such a
903: chain on a different scale; however the above lemma shows that
904: \domCFTP must fail for dominating processes for \(X\) based on the
905: scale \(\Lambda\).
906:
907:
908: \section{Conclusion}
909: \label{sec:conclusion}
910:
911: We have shown that geometric ergodicity (more strictly, a geometric
912: Foster-\-Lyapunov condition) implies the existence of a special kind of
913: \domCFTP algorithm. The algorithm is not expected to be practical:
914: however it connects perfect simulation firmly with more theoretical
915: convergence results in the spirit of the \citeN{FossTweedie-1997}
916: equivalence between classic \CFTP and uniform ergodicity. Note also
917: that the ``universal dominating process'', the sub-critical
918: \(\exp(D/M/1)\) so derived, is itself geometrically ergodic.
919:
920: It is natural to ask whether other kinds of ergodicity (for example,
921: polynomial ergodicity) can also be related to perfect simulation in
922: this way; this is now being pursued by Stephen Connor as part of his
923: PhD research at Warwick.
924:
925: % ==============================
926: % \ifpdf
927: % {\small
928: % \begin{multicols}{2}
929: % \fi
930: % \bibliographystyle{wchicago}
931: \bibliographystyle{chicago}
932:
933: \thispagestyle{plain}
934: \markboth{REFERENCES}{REFERENCES}
935:
936: \bibliography{habbrev,ge,wsk}
937: % \ifpdf
938: % \end{multicols}
939: % }
940: % \fi
941:
942: % \onecolumn\tiny % FANCY version
943: % \input 427.lat
944:
945: \end{document}
946:
947: \newpage
948: {\scriptsize
949: \textcolor{red}{Changes:}
950: \begin{itemize}
951: \item Removed references to mere ergodicity (inappropriate if all our
952: chains are Harris recurrent!)
953: \item Set \(b^{\prime\prime}=b/(1-\alpha)\), \(c^{\prime\prime}=b/(\alpha^{k-1} (1-\alpha)^2)\)
954: explicitly in \hyperref[lem:sub-sampling]{Lemma
955: \ref*{lem:sub-sampling}}.
956: \item Corrected definition of \(h\) after \hyperref[eq:small-target]{Equation (\ref*{eq:small-target})}!
957: \item Tried to clarify argument leading to
958: \hyperref[eq:crude-domination]{Inequality
959: \ref*{eq:crude-domination}}.
960: \item Reordered paragraph ``In case \(e^{-1}<\alpha<1\)\ldots'' on
961: \pageref{page:marker1}.
962: \item Added note at pages \pageref{page:marker2},
963: \pageref{page:marker3} to clarify why \(h\geq1\).
964: \item Fixed argument for nonnegativity of \(\beta\mu\) at page
965: \pageref{page:marker4}, separating it from the argument for \(\beta\mu\)
966: being absolutely continuous with respect to \(\Law{V}\).
967: \item All reported typos are fixed.
968: \end{itemize}
969: }
970:
971: \end{document}
972:
973: