1: %Revised on September 8, 2005

2: 

3: \magnification=\magstep1

4: 

5: \baselineskip=1.3\baselineskip

6: 

7: \font\tenmsb=msbm10 \font\sevenmsb=msbm7 \font\fivemsb=msbm5

8: \newfam\msbfam

9: \textfont\msbfam=\tenmsb \scriptfont\msbfam=\sevenmsb

10: \scriptscriptfont\msbfam=\fivemsb

11: \def\Bbb#1{{\fam\msbfam\relax#1}}

12: 

13: \def\bone{{\bf 1}}

14: \def\vphi{\varphi}

15: \def\eps{\varepsilon}

16: \def\R{{\Bbb R}}

17: \def\Z{{\Bbb Z}}

18: 

19: \def\P{{\bf P}}

20: \def\E{{\bf E}}

21: 

22: \def\<{\langle}

23: \def\>{\rangle}

24: 

25: \def\cG{{\cal G}}

26: \def\cE{{\cal E}}

27: \def\cV{{\cal V}}

28: \def\cS{{\cal S}}

29: \def\cB{{\cal B}}

30: \def\cT{{\cal T}}

31: \def\cU{{\cal U}}

32: \def\cW{{\cal W}}

33: \def\cA{{\cal A}}

34: \def\cL{{\cal L}}

35: \def\n{{\bf n}}

36: \def\e{{\bf e}}

37: \def\d{{\bf d}}

38: \def\v{{\bf v}}

39: \def\w{{\bf w}}

40: \def\z{{\bf z}}

41: \def\wt{\widetilde}

42: \def\wh{\widehat}

43: \def\prt{{\partial}}

44: \def\df{{\mathop {\ =\ }\limits^{\rm{df}}}}

45: \def\weak{{\mathop {\ \Rightarrow\ }}}

46: \def\nweak{{\mathop {\ \not\Rightarrow\ }}}

47: \def\ol{\overline}

48: \def\dist{{\mathop {\rm dist}}}

49: \def\vol{{\mathop {\rm vol}}}

50: \def\lam{\lambda}

51: \def\la{{\langle}}

52: \def\ra{{\rangle}}

53: 

54: \def\qed{{\hfill $\square$ \bigskip}}

55: \def\sqr#1#2{{\vcenter{\vbox{\hrule height.#2pt

56:         \hbox{\vrule width.#2pt height#1pt \kern#1pt

57:            \vrule width.#2pt}

58:         \hrule height.#2pt}}}}

59: \def\square{\mathchoice\sqr56\sqr56\sqr{2.1}3\sqr{1.5}3}

60: 

61: \input epsf.tex

62: \newdimen\epsfxsize

63: \newdimen\epsfysize

64: 

65: 

66: \centerline{\bf SHY COUPLINGS}

67: \footnote{$\empty$} {\rm Research partially supported by

68: NSF grant DMS-0303310 (KB and ZC).}

69: 

70: \vskip 0.3truein

71: 

72: \centerline{\bf Itai Benjamini{\rm,} Krzysztof

73: Burdzy {\rm and} Zhen-Qing Chen}

74: 

75: 

76: \vskip0.4truein

77: 

78: {\narrower

79: 

80: \noindent

81:  {\bf Abstract}.

82:  A pair $(X,Y)$ of Markov processes is called a Markov

83:  coupling if $X$ and $Y$ have the same transition probabilities

84:  and $(X,Y)$ is a Markov process.

85:  We say that a coupling is ``shy'' if

86:  there exists a (random) $\eps>0$ such that

87:  $\dist(X_t,Y_t) >\eps$ for all $t\geq 0$.

88:  We investigate whether shy couplings

89:  exist for several classes of Markov processes.

90: 

91:   }

92: 

93: \vskip0.5truein

94: 

95: \noindent {\bf 1. Introduction}. The proofs of the main theorems

96: in two recent papers, [BC2] and [BCJ], contained arguments showing

97: that certain processes come arbitrarily close to each other, at

98: least from time to time, as time goes to infinity, with

99: probability one. The proofs were based on ideas specific to the

100: models and were rather tedious. We decided to examine several

101: classes of Markov processes in order to determine the conditions

102: under which there exists a pair of Markov processes defined on the

103: same probability space such that each marginal process has the

104: same transition probabilities and the two processes do not come

105: close to each other at any time. Although we do not have a

106: complete solution to this problem, we offer a number of results

107: whose diversity points to a rich theory. Some of our theorems,

108: examples and techniques may have interest of their own.

109: 

110: We will focus on two classes of processes---reflected Brownian

111: motions on Euclidean domains and Brownian motions on graphs. The

112: second class of processes is really discrete in nature, in the

113: sense that similar techniques work for random walks on graphs. We

114: chose these classes of processes because similar processes

115: appeared in our research in the past.

116: 

117: For a general overview of coupling techniques, see [L].

118: 

119: The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We present basic

120: definitions and elementary examples in Section 2. Section 3 is

121: devoted to Brownian motions on graphs. We show that there exists a

122: shy coupling for Brownian motions on

123: a graph if all its vertices have degree 3 or higher.

124: Four examples are also given to illustrate the case when the graph

125: has some vertices of degree one.

126:  Section 4 deals with reflected Brownian motions on Euclidean

127: domains, showing that there exist no shy couplings on $C^1$-smooth

128: bounded strictly convex domains.

129: 

130: 

131: \bigskip

132: \noindent {\bf 2. Preliminaries and elementary examples}. Unless

133: specified otherwise, all pairs of processes $(X, Y)$ considered in

134: this paper will be ``Markov couplings,'' i.e., they will satisfy

135: the following assumptions.

136:  \item{(i)} $\{X_t, t\geq 0\}$, $\{Y_t,

137: t\geq 0\}$ and $\{(X_t,Y_t), t\geq 0\}$ are Markov, and the

138: transition probabilities for $X$ and $Y$ are identical.

139:  \item{(ii)} The distribution of $\{X_t, t\geq s\}$ conditional on

140: $\{(X_s, Y_s) = (x,y)\}$ is the same as the distribution of

141: $\{X_t, t\geq s\}$ conditional on $\{X_s = x\}$, for all $x,y $

142: and $s$.

143: 

144: \medskip

145: Our definition of a Markov coupling is slightly different from

146: similar concepts in the literature. One could investigate the

147: question of whether our results hold for ``couplings'' defined in

148: other ways, for example, whether condition (ii) is essential.

149: However, we feel that there are more exciting open problems in

150: this area---see the end of Section 4.

151: 

152: The following elementary discrete-time example shows that there

153: exist couplings that satisfy (i) but do not satisfy (ii).

154: 

155: \bigskip

156: \noindent {\bf Example 2.1}. We take $\{0,1\}$ as the state space

157: of a discrete time Markov process and we let $\{X_k, k\geq 0\}$ be

158: a sequence of i.i.d. random variables with

159: $\P(X_k=0)=\P(X_k=1)=1/2$. We will define a process $\{Y_k, k\geq

160: 0\}$ with the same distribution as $\{X_k, k\geq 0\}$. We let

161: $Y_0$ be independent of $\{X_k, k\geq 0\}$. For $k\geq 1$, we

162: construct $Y_k$ so that $\P(Y_k=0  \mid X_{k-1} =0)=0.7$ and

163: $\P(Y_k=1  \mid X_{k-1} =1)=0.7$. Moreover, for every $k\geq 1$, we

164: make $Y_k$ independent of $X_j$'s for $j< k-1$. It is elementary

165: to check that $\{X_k, k\geq 0\}$, $\{Y_k, k\geq 0\}$ and

166: $\{(X_k,Y_k), k\geq 0\}$ are Markov but for $j\geq 1$, the

167: distribution of $\{Y_k, k\geq j\}$ conditional on $\{Y_{j-1} =0\}$

168: is not the same as the distribution of $\{Y_k, k\geq j\}$

169: conditional on $\{(X_{j-1},Y_{j-1}) =(0,0)\}$.

170: 

171: \bigskip

172: 

173: We will assume that the state space $\cS$ for Markov processes $X$

174: and $Y$ is metric and we will let $\d$ denote the metric. The open

175: ball with center $x$ and radius $r$ will be denoted $\cB(x,r)$.

176: The shortest path between two points in $\cS$ will be called a

177: geodesic. For some pairs of points, there may be more than one

178: geodesic joining them.

179: 

180: \bigskip

181: \noindent {\bf Definition 2.2}. A coupling $(X,Y)$ will be called

182: shy if one can find two distinct points $x$ and $y$ in the state

183: space with

184: $$  \P \left( \inf_{0\leq t < \infty}

185:      \d(X_t, Y_t)>0 \mid X_0=x, Y_0=y \right)>0.

186: $$

187: 

188: \bigskip

189: 

190: Note that the term ``shy coupling'' is a label for a family of

191: Markov transition probabilities.

192: 

193: We proceed with completely elementary examples of shy and non-shy

194: couplings.

195: 

196: \bigskip

197: \noindent {\bf Examples 2.3}. (i) Let $X$ be a Brownian motion in

198: $\R^d$ and let $0\ne y\in \R^d$ be a fixed vector. Let $Y_t = X_t

199: + y$ for all $t\geq 0$. Then $(X,Y)$ is a shy coupling.

200: 

201: (ii) Let $X$ be a Brownian motion on the unit circle in $\R^2$ and

202: let $\theta \in (0,2\pi)$ be a fixed number. We define $Y_t$ using

203: complex notation, $Y_t = e^{i\theta} X_t$ for all $t\geq 0$. Then

204: $(X,Y)$ is a shy coupling.

205: 

206: (iii) The last two examples can be easily generalized to a wide

207: class of Markov processes on spaces $\cS$ with a group structure.

208: If there is a group element $a\ne 0$ such that $a+X$ is a Markov

209: process having the same transition probabilities as $X$ and

210: $\inf_{b\in \cS} \d(b, a+b) >0$ then $(X,a+X)$ is a shy coupling.

211: 

212: (iv) Let $X$ and $Y$ be independent Brownian motions in $\R^d$.

213: Then $(X,Y)$ is a shy coupling if and only if $d\geq 3$.

214: 

215: \medskip

216: In the sequel, for $a, b \in \R$, $a\wedge b:=\min \{a, \, b\}$,

217: $a\vee b:=\max\{a, \, b\}$ and $a^+:=a\vee 0$. For $a>0$, $[a]$

218: denotes the largest integer that does not exceed $a$.

219: 

220: \bigskip

221: \noindent {\bf 3. Brownian motion on graphs}. In this section, we

222: will consider processes whose state space is a finite or infinite

223: graph. More precisely, let $\cG = (\cV,\cE)$ be a graph, where

224: $\cV$ is the set of vertices and $\cE$ is the set of edges. We

225: will assume that all vertices have a finite degree, i.e., for

226: every vertex there are only a finite number of edges emanating

227: from this vertex, but we do not assume that this number is bounded

228: over the set of all vertices. We allow an edge to have both

229: endpoints attached to one vertex. Every vertex will be attached to

230: at least one edge.

231: We will identify edges with finite open line

232: segments (connected subsets of $\R$), with finite and strictly

233: positive length, and we will identify vertices with topological

234: endpoints of edges. In this way, we can identify the graph $\cG$

235: with a metric space $(\cS, \d)$, where $\cS = \cE \cup \cV$, and

236: $\d(x,y)$ is the shortest path between $x$ and $y$ along the edges

237: of the graph. We will assume that the length of any edge is

238: bounded below by $r_0>0$.

239: 

240: Next we will construct ``Brownian motion'' $X$ on $\cS$. See [FW]

241: for a definition of a general diffusion on a graph. We leave it to

242: the reader to check that our somewhat informal description of the

243: process is consistent with the rigorous construction given in

244: [FW]. By assumption, our process will be strong Markov. Suppose

245: that $x\in e \in \cE$ and $x$ is not an endpoint of $e$. Recall

246: that $e$ can be identified with a line segment, say, $e=[0,y]$.

247: Then $x\in (0,y)$. If $X_0=x$, then the process $X$ evolves just

248: like the standard one-dimensional Brownian motion until the exit

249: time from $(0,y)$. Next suppose that $x\in \cS$ is a vertex. Then

250: there are $n$ edges $e_1, e_2, \dots, e_n$, attached to $x$, with

251: $n\geq 1$. Choose a small $r>0$ such that the ball $\cB(x,r)$

252: consists of line segments $I_j$, $j=1,2,\dots, k$, which are

253: disjoint except that they have one common endpoint $x$. Note that

254: $n \leq k \leq 2n$, but not necessarily $k=n$, because some edges

255: may have both endpoints at $x$. We will describe the evolution of

256: $X$ starting from $x$ until its exit time from $\cB(x,r)$.

257: Generate a reflected Brownian motion $R$ on $[0,\infty)$, starting

258: from 0, and kill it at the first exit time from $[0,r]$, denoted

259: $T_r$. Label its excursions from 0 with numbers $1, 2, \dots, k$,

260: in such a way that every excursion has a label chosen uniformly

261: from $\{1, \cdots, k\}$ and independently of all other labels.

262: Then we define $X_t$ for $t\in[0,T_r]$ so that $\d(X_t, x) = R_t$

263: and $X_t \in I_j$, where $j$ is the label of the excursion of $R$

264: from 0 that straddles $t$ (if $R_t=0$ then obviously $X_t =x$).

265: This defines the process $X_t$ until its exit time from

266: $\cB(x,r)$. What we said so far and the strong Markov property

267: uniquely define the distribution of $X$. Note that when the degree

268: of a vertex $x$ is 1 then $X$ is best described as a process

269: reflected at $x$. The process $X$ spends zero amount of time at

270: any vertex.

271: 

272: Recall that we have assumed that the length of all edges is

273: bounded below by $r_0>0$. Under this assumption, the process

274: cannot visit an infinite number of vertices in a finite amount of

275: time. Hence, the above construction defines a process for all

276: $t\geq 0$. Another consequence of the assumptions that all edges

277: have length greater then $r_0$ and all vertices have finite degree

278: is that for any two points in $\cS$ there is only a finite number

279: of geodesics joining them. It is clear from our construction that

280: vertices of degree 2 will play no essential role in the paper and

281: can be ignored. So we will assume without loss of generality that

282: there are no vertices of degree 2.

283: 

284: \bigskip

285: \noindent{\bf Theorem 3.1}. {\sl If all vertices of $\cG$ have

286: degree 3 or higher then there exists a shy coupling for Brownian

287: motions on $\cS$.}

288: 

289: \bigskip

290: \noindent{\bf Proof}. We will construct a coupling $(X,Y)$ of

291: Brownian motions on $\cS$ such that $X$ and $Y$ move in an

292: independent way when they are far apart and they move in a

293: ``synchronous'' way when they are close together. Clearly,

294: independent processes do not form a shy coupling on a finite

295: graph. Remark 3.2 below explains why it is hard, perhaps

296: impossible, to construct a ``synchronous'' shy coupling.

297: 

298: For any $x,y\in \cS$ with $\d(x,y) > r_0/4$, we will define

299: $(X_t,Y_t)$ starting from $(X_0,Y_0)=(x,y)$, for $t\in[0,\tau]$,

300: where $\tau$ is a random time depending on $x$ and $y$. Then we

301: will explain how one can define $(X_t,Y_t)$ for $t\in[0,\infty)$

302: by pasting together different pieces of the trajectory.

303: 

304: (i) Recall that the length of any edge is at least $r_0>0$. First

305: suppose that $\d(x,y) \geq 3r_0/4$. Then we let $\{(X_t,Y_t),

306: t\in[0,\tau]\}$ be two independent copies of Brownian motion on

307: $\cS$ and we let $\tau=\inf\{t>0: \d(X_t,Y_t) =r_0/2\}$.

308: 

309: 

310: (ii) Next suppose that $x,y\in \cS$ are such that $\d(x,y)\in(

311: r_0/4, 3r_0/4)$, and none of these points is a vertex. Let

312: $$ \sigma (r)= {(4|r| -r_0 )^+ \over r_0} \wedge 1,

313:  \eqno(3.1)

314: $$

315: and $B$ and $B'$ be independent Brownian motions on $\R$ starting

316: from the origin. Let $U_t=B_t$ and

317:  $$dV_t = \sqrt{ 1- \sigma^2 (U_t - V_t)} dB_t +

318:  \sigma (U_t - V_t) dB'_t , \eqno(3.2)

319: $$

320: with $V_0=v_0=\d(x,y)> r_0/4$.

321: Then, if we write $Z_t = V_t - U_t$, we obtain

322:  $$Z_t = v_0 + \int_0^t (\sqrt{ 1- \sigma^2 (Z_s)}-1) dB_s

323:  + \int_0^t \sigma(Z_s) dB'_s,$$

324: and for $Z'_t \df Z_t - r_0/4$,

325:  $$Z'_t = v_0 -r_0/4

326:  + \int_0^t (\sqrt{ 1- \sigma^2 (Z'_s+r_0/4)}-1) dB_s

327:  + \int_0^t \sigma(Z'_s+r_0/4) dB'_s.$$

328: So

329: $$ Z_t'= v_0 -r_0/4 +\int_0^t \gamma (Z_s') dW_s,

330: $$

331: where

332:  $$ \gamma(r) \df (\sqrt{ 1- \sigma^2 (r+r_0/4)}-1)^2

333:  + \sigma^2(r+r_0/4)

334: $$

335: and $W$ is a Brownian motion on $\R$ with $W_0=0$.

336: The process $Z'$ has the same distribution as

337: $$ t\mapsto  v_0 -r_0/4 +W_{\tau_t},

338: $$

339: where

340: $$ \tau_t:= \inf\left\{ s>0: \int_0^s \gamma( v_0 -r_0/4 + W_s)^{-2} ds>t \right\}.

341: $$

342: Note that for small $r>0$, $\gamma (r)=O(r^2)$ and so in particular

343: $\int_{0+} \gamma(r)^{-2} dr = \infty$.

344: Thus by Lemma V.5.2 of [KS],

345: $$ \int_0^{T_0} \gamma (v_0 -r_0/4 + W_s)^{-2} ds =\infty

346: $$

347: almost surely, where $T_0 =\inf\{t>0: v_0 -r_0/4 + W_s=0\}$.

348: We conclude that $Z'$ never hits 0; in other words, $Z$ never reaches

349: $r_0/4$.

350: 

351: Suppose that $X_0=x$, $Y_0=y$ and recall that we have assumed that

352: $\d(x,y)\in( r_0/4, 3r_0/4)$. Suppose that $x\in e_1 \in \cE$ and

353: $y\in e_2 \in \cE$. Let $e_1 \setminus \{x\}$ consist of two line

354: segments $e_1^\ell$ and $e_1^r$, with $e_1^r$ being the one closer

355: to $y$. Similarly, $e_2 \setminus \{y\}$ consists of two line

356: segments $e_2^\ell$ and $e_2^r$, and $e_2^\ell$ is closer to $x$.

357: We will define $X$ and $Y$ on an interval $[0,\tau]$ to be

358: specified later.

359: We define $X_t$ on $e_1$ to be such that $\d(X_t, x) = |U_t|$ and

360: $X_t \in e_1^\ell$ if and only if $U_t <0$. We define the process

361: $Y_t$ on $e_2$ by  conditions $\d(Y_t, y) = |V_t-v_0|$ and  $Y_t

362: \in e_2^\ell$ if and only if $V_t <v_0$.

363:  We let $\tau$ be the first time $t>0$ that $X_t$ or $Y_t$ is at a

364: vertex, or $\d(X_t,Y_t) = 3r_0/4$. We see that over the interval

365: $[0, \tau )$, the distance between $X_t$ and $Y_t$ remains in the

366: interval $(r_0/4, \, 3r_0/4)$.

367: 

368: \medskip

369: 

370: (iii) This part of our argument is based on the ``skew Brownian

371: motion.'' The skew Brownian motion $U$ is a real-valued diffusion

372: which satisfies the stochastic differential equation

373:  $$ U_t =  B_t + \beta L^U_t, \eqno(3.3) $$

374: where $B$ is a given Brownian motion with $B_0=0$, $\beta \in[-1,1]$

375: is a fixed constant and $L^U$ is the symmetric local time of $U$

376: at $0$, i.e.,

377:  $$ L^U_t = \lim_{\eps \to 0} {1\over 2\eps} \int_0^t

378:  \bone_{(-\eps, \eps)} (U_s ) ds

379:  \, . \eqno(3.4)

380:  $$

381: The existence and uniqueness of a strong solution to (3.3)-(3.4)

382: was proved in [HS]. In the special case of $\beta =1$, the

383: solution to (3.3) is the reflected Brownian motion. An alternative

384: way to define the skew Brownian motion is the following. Consider

385: the case $\beta > 0$. Take a standard Brownian motion $B_t'$ and

386: flip every excursion of $B_t'$ from $0$ to the positive side with

387: probability $\beta$, independent of what happens to other

388: excursions (if an excursion is on the positive side, it remains

389: unchanged). The resulting process has the same distribution as $U$

390: defined by (3.3)-(3.4). For more information and references, see

391: recent papers on skew Brownian motion, [BC1] and [BK].

392: 

393: Suppose that $x,y\in \cS$, $\d(x,y)\in(r_0/4, 3r_0/4)$, and $x$ is

394: a vertex. Note that $y$ is not a vertex. By assumption, the degree

395: $k$ of vertex $x$ is 3 or greater. Suppose that $B_t$ is a

396: Brownian motion on $\R$ and let $U$ be a solution to (3.3)-(3.4),

397: with $\beta$ defined by $(1-\beta)/(1+\beta) = k-1$. Note that

398: $\beta<0$. We label negative excursions of $U$ from 0 with numbers

399: $1, 2, \dots, k-1$, in such a way that every excursion has a label

400: chosen uniformly from this set and independently of all other

401: labels.

402: 

403: Suppose that $B'$ is a Brownian motion independent of $B$. Recall

404: the definition of the function $\sigma$ and the process $V$ given

405: in (3.1) and (3.2), respectively, with $V_0=v_0=\d(x,y)$. Then,

406: if we write $Z_t = V_t - U_t$, we obtain

407:  $$Z_t = v_0 -\beta L^U_t

408:  +\int_0^t (\sqrt{ 1- \sigma^2 (Z_s)}-1) dB_s

409:  + \int_0^t \sigma(Z_s) dB'_s,$$

410: and for $Z'_t \df Z_t - r_0/4$,

411:  $$Z'_t = v_0 -r_0/4 -\beta L^U_t

412:  + \int_0^t (\sqrt{ 1- \sigma^2 (Z'_s+r_0/4)}-1) dB_s

413:  + \int_0^t \sigma(Z'_s+r_0/4) dB'_s.$$

414: We have already pointed out that for small $r>0$,

415:  $$ \gamma(r) \df (\sqrt{ 1- \sigma^2 (r+r_0/4)}-1)^2

416:  + \sigma^2(r+r_0/4) =O(r^2).

417: $$

418: Since $\beta<0$, the process $- \beta L^U_t$ is nondecreasing.

419: These observations and the argument used in the first half of (ii)

420:  imply that $Z'$ never hits 0, i.e., $Z$ never reaches $r_0/4$.

421: 

422: The ball $\cB(x,3r_0/4)$ consists of line segments $I_j$,

423: $j=1,2,\dots,k$. We assume that $I_k$ is the line segment

424: containing $y$. We define $X_t$ on these line segments so that

425: $\d(X_t, x) = |U_t|$. If $U_t >0$ then $X_t \in I_k$. If $U_t < 0$

426: then $X_t \in I_j$, where $j$ is the label of the excursion of $U$

427: straddling $t$. Suppose that $y\in e\in \cE$. Let $e \setminus

428: \{y\}$ consist of two line segments $e^\ell$ and $e^r$, with

429: $e^\ell$ being the one closer to $x$. We define $Y_t$ on $e$ by

430: $\d(Y_t,y)=|V_t-v_0|$.

431: We let $Y_t \in e^\ell$ if and only if $V_t <v_0$. We let $\tau$ be the

432: infimum of $t$ such that $Y_t$ is at a vertex, or $\d(X_t,Y_t) =

433: 3r_0/4$. Observe that over the interval $[0, \tau )$, the distance

434: between $X_t$ and $Y_t$ remains in the interval $(r_0/4, \,

435: 3r_0/4)$.

436: 

437: \medskip

438: 

439: Now we will define the process $(X_t,Y_t)$ for all $t\geq 0$,

440: assuming that $X_0 =x$, $Y_0=y$ and $\d(x,y) > r_0/4$. We use one

441: of the parts (i)-(iii) of the proof to define the process $(X,Y)$

442: on an interval $[0,\tau_1]$. Then we proceed by induction. Suppose

443: that the process has been defined on an interval $[0,\tau_k]$ and

444: $\d(X_{\tau_k},Y_{\tau_k})>r_0/4$. Then we use the appropriate

445: part (i)-(iii) of the proof to extend the process, using the

446: strong Markov property at $\tau_k$, to an interval

447: $[0,\tau_{k+1}]$. It is easy to see that $\tau_k\to\infty$ a.s.,

448: so the process $(X_t,Y_t)$ is defined for all $t\geq 0$. It is

449: straightforward to check that $\{X_t, t\geq 0\}$ and $\{Y_t, t\geq

450: 0\}$ are Brownian motions on $\cS$ and $(X,Y)$ is a shy Markov

451: coupling, as defined in Section 2.

452:  \qed

453: 

454: \bigskip

455: \noindent{\bf Remark 3.2}. One may wonder whether it is possible

456: to construct the shy coupling in the proof of Theorem 3.1 using

457: the skew Brownian motion in such a way that the distance between

458: $X$ and $Y$ does not change on time intervals where both processes

459: stay away from vertices (``synchronous coupling''). This idea

460: works well for many graphs but runs into technical problems when

461: we have a configuration similar to that in

462: Fig.~3.1, with many

463: geodesics joining two vertices. Suppose that the lengths of edges in

464: Fig.~3.1

465: are chosen so that there are 6 geodesics between $x$

466: and $y$. We will argue that if $X_0=x$ and $Y_0=y$ then for small

467: $t>0$ the distance between $X$ and $Y$ has to decrease. This is

468: because $X$ will have to move towards $z$ with probability $5/7$,

469: and $Y$ will have to move towards $z$ with probability $1/3$.

470: Since $5/7 + 1/3>1$, $X$ and $Y$ will find themselves on a

471: geodesic from $x$ to $y$, moving away from their starting points

472: towards each other, with positive probability. For this reason, we

473: could not find a ``synchronous'' shy coupling based on the skew

474: Brownian motion.

475: 

476: \bigskip \vbox{ \epsfxsize=3.0in

477:   \centerline{\epsffile{shy3.eps}}

478: 

479: \centerline{Figure 3.1.} }

480: \bigskip

481: 

482: The rest of this section is devoted to graphs that have at least

483: one vertex of degree 1 (recall that vertices of degree 2 can be

484: ignored and we assume that $\cG$ does not contain any of them). We

485: do not have a general theorem covering all graphs with some

486: vertices of degree 1 but we have four examples illustrating some

487: special cases.

488: 

489: \bigskip

490: \noindent{\bf Example 3.3}. This example is similar to Examples

491: 2.3 (i)-(iii). Suppose that there exists an isometry $I: \cS\to

492: \cS$ such that $\inf_{x\in\cS} \d(x, I(x))>0$. It is not hard to

493: show that this holds if the isometry has no fixed points, i.e., if

494: there does not exist $x\in \cS$ with $I(x) =x$. If such an

495: isometry exists, then we can first construct the process $X$ and

496: then take $Y_t = I(X_t)$ for all $t\geq 0$. Obviously, thus

497: constructed coupling $(X,Y)$ is shy. Fig.~3.2 shows that a graph

498: with some vertices of degree 1 may have this property.

499: 

500: \bigskip \vbox{ \epsfxsize=1.5in

501:   \centerline{\epsffile{shy4.eps}}

502: 

503: \centerline{Figure 3.2.} }

504: \bigskip

505: 

506: Our next lemma is a large deviations-type estimate. Recall that

507: all edges are at least $r_0>0$ units long, by assumption.

508: 

509: \bigskip

510: 

511: Let $X$ be Brownian motion on a graph $\cS$. For $A\subset \cS$, define

512: $T_A = \inf\{t\geq 0: X_t\in A\}$.

513: 

514: \bigskip

515: 

516: \noindent{\bf Lemma 3.4}. {\sl Assume that the degrees of all

517: vertices are bounded above by $m_0$. There exist constants

518: $c_0>0$, $t_0<\infty$ depending on $r_0$ only such that for

519: $t\in(0,t_0)$ and $r>0$ with $r^2> t$ and $\cB(x,r)^c \ne

520: \emptyset$, we have

521:  $$

522:  \left( {c_0\over m_0} \sqrt{t \over 2 \pi}  {1\over 2 r}

523:  \right)^{[r/r_0]} \exp\left(-{r^2\over 2t}\right)

524:  \leq \P(T_{\cB(x,r)^c} < t) \leq

525:  (m_0^{[r/r_0]})!

526:  \sqrt{2t \over \pi}

527:  {1\over r} \exp\left(-{r^2\over 2t}\right).$$

528: 

529: }

530: 

531: \bigskip

532: 

533: In applications of the above estimates, $r$ will be ``fixed'' and

534: then a $t$ (much smaller than $r^2$) will be chosen. For this

535: reason, we did not try to optimize the non-exponential

536: factors---most likely they are not best possible.

537: 

538: \bigskip

539: \noindent{\bf Proof}. (i) First we will prove the lower bound. We

540: start with some preliminary estimates.

541: 

542: Suppose that $B$ is a Brownian motion on $\R$ with $B_0=0$ and let

543: $T^B_r=\inf\{t\geq 0: B_t =r\}$. Then $\P(T^B_r < t) = 2 {1\over

544: \sqrt{2 \pi t}} \int_r^\infty e^{-u^2/2t} du$ for $r>0$. The

545: following inequalities are well known (see Problem 9.22 on page

546: 112 of [KS]):

547:  $${r \over 1 + r^2} e^{-r^2/2} \leq

548:  \int_r^\infty e^{-u^2/2} du \leq {1 \over r} e^{-r^2/2}.

549:  $$

550: So for $r\geq 1$,

551:  $$ {1 \over 2 r} e^{-r^2/2} \leq

552:  \int_r^\infty e^{-u^2/2} du \leq {1 \over r} e^{-r^2/2}.

553:  $$

554: By scaling we obtain for $t\leq r^2$,

555:  $$ \sqrt{t \over 2 \pi}

556:  {1\over r} \exp\left(-{r^2\over 2t}\right)

557:  \leq \P (T^B_r<t)= \sqrt{{2\over \pi}} \int_{r/\sqrt{t}}^\infty

558:  e^{-v^2/2} dv

559:  \leq \sqrt{2t \over \pi}

560:  {1\over r} \exp\left(-{r^2\over 2t}\right).\eqno(3.5)$$

561: For $r\leq 1$, we have a trivial lower bound $ \int_1^\infty

562: e^{-u^2/2} du \df c_0>0$. For $t\geq r^2$, the same upper bound

563: holds but the lower bound has to be replaced with a trivial bound

564: $c_1=\sqrt{2\over \pi} c_0>0$.

565: 

566: Let $t_0< \infty$ be the largest real such that

567: $$ 1 - 2 \exp(- r_0^2/ (2t_0))\geq 1/2 .

568: $$

569: We will derive an estimate for $\P(T^B_r < t\land T^B_{-r_0/2})$,

570: for $r\geq r_0/2$ and $t< t_0$. If $r^2<t_0$, then $r\leq c_2 r_0$

571: for some constant $c_2 < \infty$. In this case, it follows easily

572: from the support theorem for Brownian motion that $\P(T^B_r <

573: t\land T^B_{-r_0/2})> c_3>0$ for every $t\in (r^2, \, t_0)$.

574: 

575: Now suppose that $t\leq r^2\land t_0$. If Brownian motion hits

576: $-r_0/2$ and then it reaches $r$ in $t$ seconds or less, it has to

577: go from level $-r_0/2$ to level $r$ in $t$ seconds or less. Hence,

578: by the strong Markov property applied at $T^B_{-r_0/2}$,

579:  $$\eqalignno{

580:  \P&(T^B_r < t\land T^B_{-r_0/2}) \geq

581:  \P(T^B_r < t) - \P(T^B_{r+r_0/2} < t)\cr

582:  &\geq \sqrt{t \over 2\pi}

583:  {1\over r} \exp\left(-{r^2\over 2t}\right)

584:  - \sqrt{2t \over \pi}

585:  {1\over r+r_0/2} \exp\left(-{(r+r_0/2)^2\over 2t}\right)\cr

586:  &\geq \sqrt{t \over 2 \pi}

587:  {1\over r} \exp\left(-{r^2\over 2t}\right)

588:  - 2\sqrt{t \over 2 \pi}

589:  {1\over r} \exp\left(-{r^2\over 2t}\right)

590:  \exp\left(-{ r_0^2\over 2t}\right)\cr

591:  & = \sqrt{t \over 2 \pi}  {1\over r}

592:  \exp\left(-{r^2\over 2t}\right)

593:  \left[ 1 - 2 \exp\left(-{ r_0^2\over 2t}\right)\right]\cr

594:  &\geq \sqrt{t \over 2 \pi}  {1\over 2 r}

595:  \exp\left(-{r^2\over 2t}\right).&(3.6)

596:  }$$

597: 

598: \medskip

599: 

600: Suppose that $y_1$ is a vertex, $\d(y_1,y_2) = r_0/2$, and $y_3$

601: lies between $y_1$ and $y_2$ so that $\d(y_1,y_3) + \d(y_3, y_2) =

602: r_0/2$. Let $\d(y_1,y_3) =r_1 \in[0,r_0/2]$ and suppose that $X_0

603: = y_3$. The process $R_t \df \d(X_t, y_1)$ is a one-dimensional

604: reflected Brownian motion with $R_0=r_1$, at least until it

605: reaches $r_0$. Let $\{z_1, z_2, \dots, z_k\}$ be the set of all

606: points with $\d(z_j, y_1) = r_0/2$ ($y_2$ is one of these points).

607: Let $T^R_{r_0/2} = \inf\{t\geq 0: R_t = r_0/2\}$. If $X$ visited

608: $y_1$ before $T^R_{r_0/2}$ then it is at $y_2$ at time

609: $T^R_{r_0/2}$ with probability $1/k$, by symmetry. Since $k\leq

610: m_0$, the probability that $X$ starts at $y_3$ and reaches $y_2$

611: in $s$ seconds or less is greater than or equal to the probability

612: that reflected Brownian motion that starts from $r_1$ reaches

613: $r_0/2$ in $s$ seconds or less, divided by $m_0$. The last

614: probability is bounded below by the analogous probability for the

615: non-reflected Brownian motion, so using (3.5) we obtain,

616:  $$\P(T^X_{y_2} \leq s \mid X_0 = y_3) \geq

617:  {1\over m_0} \sqrt{s \over 2\pi}

618:  {1 \over r_0/2-r_1}

619:  \exp\left(-{(r_0/2 - r_1)^2\over 2s}\right), \eqno(3.7)

620:  $$

621: for $s \leq (r_0/2 - r_1)^2$. If $s \geq (r_0/2 - r_1)^2$, the

622: bound is $c_1/m_0$. Note that these estimates hold for all $r_1

623: \in[0,r_0/2]$, including $r_1 =0$.

624: 

625: Consider any $x'\in \prt \cB(x,r)$ and let $\Gamma\subset \cS$ be

626: a geodesic connecting $x$ and $x'$. Suppose that $\Gamma $

627: contains some vertices and denote them $x_1, x_2, \dots, x_k$, in

628: order in which they lie on $\Gamma$, going from $x$ to $x'$. Let

629: $x_0 = x$ and $x_{k+1} = x'$. If there is a vertex closer to $x_0$

630: than $r_0/2$ and it is not $x_1$ then we let $y_0$ be the point at

631: the distance $r_0/2$ from that vertex, between $x_0$ and $x_1$.

632: For every $x_j$, $j\geq 1$, we let $y_j\in \Gamma$ be the point

633: $r_0/2$ away from $x_j$, between $x_j$ and $x_{j+1}$.

634: 

635: Let $z_j$, $j=1, \dots, m_1$,  be the sequence of all points $x_j$

636: and $y_j$, in the order in which they appear on $\Gamma$ from $x$

637: to $x'$, including $x$ and $x'$. Note that $\sum_{1\leq j \leq

638: m_1-1}\d(z_j, z_{j+1})=r$. By the strong Markov property applied

639: at the hitting times of $z_j$'s, the probability that $X$ starting

640: from $x$ will hit $x'$ in $t$ seconds or less is bounded below by

641: $\prod_{j=1}^{m_1-1} p_j$, where $p_j$ is the probability that $X$

642: starting from $z_j$ will hit $z_{j+1}$ in $t_j$ seconds or less,

643: and $t_j = t \d(z_j, z_{j+1})/r$.

644: 

645: If $z_j$ is a vertex or $x_0$ then, by (3.7), if $t_j \leq \d(z_j,

646: z_{j+1})^2$,

647:  $$p_j \geq

648:  {1\over m_0} \sqrt{t_j \over 2\pi}

649:  {1 \over \d(z_j, z_{j+1})}

650:  \exp\left(-{\d(z_j, z_{j+1})^2\over 2t_j}\right).\eqno(3.8)$$

651: If $t_j \geq \d(z_j, z_{j+1})^2$ then

652:  $$p_j \geq c_1/m_0 \geq (c_1/m_0)

653:  \exp\left(-{\d(z_j, z_{j+1})^2\over 2t_j}\right).\eqno(3.9)$$

654: For other $z_j$'s we use (3.6) to obtain, for $t_j \leq \d(z_j,

655: z_{j+1})^2$,

656:  $$p_j \geq

657:  \sqrt{t_j \over 2\pi}

658:  {1 \over 2\d(z_j, z_{j+1})}

659:  \exp\left(-{\d(z_j, z_{j+1})^2\over 2t_j}\right),\eqno(3.10)$$

660: and for $t_j \geq \d(z_j, z_{j+1})^2$,

661:   $$p_j \geq c_3 \geq c_3

662:  \exp\left(-{\d(z_j, z_{j+1})^2\over 2t_j}\right).\eqno(3.11)$$

663: 

664: The product of exponential factors on the right hand sides of

665: (3.8)-(3.11) is equal to

666:  $$ \prod_{j=1}^{m_1-1} \exp \left( - {\d(z_j,z_{j+1})^2

667:  \over 2 t_j}\right )

668:  =  \exp \left( - {r^2 \over 2 t}\right ).\eqno(3.12)

669:  $$

670: 

671: If $t_j \geq \d(z_j,z_{j+1})^2 $ then the non-exponential factor

672: in (3.9) is $c_1/m_0$ and it is $c_3$ in (3.11). The

673: non-exponential factors in (3.8) and (3.10) are bounded below by

674:  $${1\over m_0} \sqrt{t_j \over 2 \pi}  {1\over 2 \d(z_j,z_{j+1})}

675:  = {1\over m_0} \sqrt{t \d(z_j, z_{j+1})/r \over 2 \pi}

676:  {1\over 2 \d(z_j,z_{j+1})}

677:  \geq {1\over m_0} \sqrt{t \over 2 \pi}

678:  {1\over 2 r}.$$

679: We conclude that the product of non-exponential factors in

680: (3.8)-(3.11) is bounded below by

681:  $$\left( {c_4\over m_0} \sqrt{t \over 2 \pi}  {1\over 2 r}

682:  \right)^{m_1-1}

683:  \geq \left( {c_4\over m_0} \sqrt{t \over 2 \pi}  {1\over 2 r}

684:  \right)^{[r/r_0]}.

685:  $$

686: This

687: combined

688:  with (3.12) gives the lower bound in the lemma.

689: 

690: (ii) Next we will prove the upper bound. Let $\{\Gamma_j\}$ be the

691: family of all Jordan arcs in $\cS$ linking $x$ with $\prt

692: \cB(x,r)$. The number of edges in $\cB(x,r)$ is bounded by $m_2 =

693: m_0^ {[r/r_0]}$ so the number of $\Gamma_j$'s is bounded by $m_3=

694: m_2!$. The length of any $\Gamma_j$ is at least $r$.

695: 

696: Consider some $\Gamma_k$. We will define a process $R^k_t$ that

697: measures the distance from $X_t$ to $x$ along $\Gamma_k$, in a

698: sense. We will ``erase'' excursions away from $\Gamma_k$ and loops

699: as follows. For $t>0$, let $\ell(t) = \sup\{s\leq t: X_s \in

700: \Gamma_k\}$. Let $\cV_k= \cV\setminus \Gamma_k$, i.e., $\cV_k$ is

701: the set of vertices that do not belong to $\Gamma_k$. Let $T_1=0$,

702:  $$\eqalign{

703:  S_j &= \inf\{t\geq T_j: X_t \in \cV_k\}, \quad j \geq 1,\cr

704:  T_{j+1} & = \inf\{t\geq S_{j}: X_t = X_{\ell(S_{j})}\}, \quad j\geq 1.

705:  }$$

706: If $t\in [S_j, T_{j+1}]$ for some $j\geq 1$, we let $R^k_t$ be the

707: distance from

708: $X_{\ell(S_{j})}$

709:  to $x$ along $ \Gamma_k$. For other $t$, we let $R^k_t$ be the

710: distance from $X_{\ell(t)}$ to $x$ along $\Gamma_k$. The process

711: $R^k_t$ is a time-change of reflected Brownian motion, that is, it

712: is reflected Brownian motion ``frozen'' on time intervals when $X$

713: is outside $\Gamma_k$ (and some other intervals). Hence, the

714: probability that $R^k_t$ reaches $r$ in $t$ seconds or less is

715: less than the right hand side of (3.5). Note that one of the

716: processes $R^k_t$ must be at the level $r$ at the time when $X$

717: hits $\prt \cB(x,r)$. Hence, an upper bound on the probability in

718: the statement of the lemma is the product of the right hand side

719: of (3.5) and $m_3$.

720:  \qed

721: 

722: \bigskip

723: \noindent{\bf Example 3.5}. Suppose that the graph $\cS$ is

724: compact and has the following structure. For some $x\in \cS$, the

725: set $\cS\setminus \{x\}$ is disconnected and consists of a finite

726: number of disjoint finite trees $\cT_1, \cT_2, \dots, \cT_k$, and

727: a graph $\cU$ (not necessarily a tree). We say that a vertex of a

728: tree is a leaf if it has degree 1. Assume that for some

729: $r_1>r_2>0$ and every leaf $y\ne x$ of any tree $\cT_j$ we have

730: $\d(x,y) \geq r_1$, and for any $z\in \cU$, $\d(x,z) \leq r_2$

731: (see, for example, Fig.~3.3). Suppose that $(X,Y)$ is a coupling

732: of Brownian motions on $\cS$. We will show that

733: $(X,Y)$ is not a shy coupling.

734: 

735: \bigskip \vbox{ \epsfxsize=2.5in

736:   \centerline{\epsffile{shy6.eps}}

737: 

738: \centerline{Figure 3.3.} }

739: \bigskip

740: 

741: (i) Let $\wt \cT = \bigcup _j \cT_j \setminus \{x\}$. First, we

742: will show that there exist $p_1>0$ and a stopping time

743: $T_1<\infty$ such that with probability greater than $p_1$, either

744: $X_{T_1}=x$ and $Y_{T_1}\in \wt \cT$, or $Y_{T_1}=x$ and

745: $X_{T_1}\in \wt \cT$. Let $r_3 \in (r_2, r_1)$ and $\cW =

746: \{y\in\wt \cT: \d(y,x)\geq r_3\}$. It is easy to see that $X$ is

747: recurrent so $T_2 \df \inf\{t\geq 0: X_t \in \cW\} < \infty$ a.s.

748: Suppose first that $Y_{T_2} \in \wt \cT\cup \{x\}$ and let $T_3

749: =\inf\{t\geq T_2: X_t = x \hbox {  or } Y_t =x\}$. Then $T_1 =

750: T_3$ has the properties stated above.

751: 

752: Next suppose that $Y_{T_2} \in \cU$ and let $T_4 = \inf\{t\geq T_2:

753: X_t = x\}$ and $T_5 = \inf\{t\geq T_2: Y_t = x\}$. By Lemma 3.4,

754: for some $p_2, t_0>0$ and all $y\in \cU$ and $z\in \cW$,

755: $$

756:   \P(T_5< T_2 + t_0\mid X_{T_2}=z, Y_{T_2}=y)

757:    > \P(T_4 < T_2 + t_0\mid X_{T_2}=z, Y_{T_2}=y) + p_2.

758: $$

759: Hence, $\P(T_5 < T_4\mid X_{T_2}=z, Y_{T_2}=y) > p_2$, and it follows

760: that we can take $T_1 = T_5$ on the event $\{T_5 < T_4\}$. This

761: completes the proof of our claim, with $p_1=p_2$.

762: 

763: 

764: (ii)

765: Recall that the length of any edge is bounded below by $r_0>0$.

766: Fix an arbitrarily small $\eps\in(0, r_0/3)$. We will show in the

767: remaining part of the proof that $X$ and $Y$ come within $\eps$

768: distance to each other in finite time almost surely, which will

769: then imply that $(X,Y)$ is not a shy coupling.

770: 

771: The rest of the proof is based on an inductive argument. We will

772: now formulate and prove the inductive step.

773: 

774: 

775: Suppose that for some $x_0\in \cS$, $\cS \setminus\{x_0\}=\cU_1

776: \cup \cU_2$, where $\cU_1$ and $\cU_2$ are disjoint and $\cU_1$ is

777: a finite union of finite trees $\cW_j$, $j=1,2,\dots, k$. Assume

778: that $Y_0 = x_0$ and $X_0 \in \cU_1$ (the argument is analogous

779: if the roles of $X$ and $Y$ are interchanged). Suppose without

780: loss of generality that $X_0 \in \cW_1$. Let $x_1\ne x_0$ be the

781: vertex of $\cW_1$ closest to $x_0$, and $\cW_1 \setminus \{x_1\} =

782: \cW_2 \cup \cW_3$, where $\cW_2$ and $\cW_3$ are disjoint, and

783: $\cW_3$ is the edge joining $x_0$ and $x_1$. We will first assume

784: that $\cW_2\ne \emptyset$. We will show that for some $p_3>0$ and

785: some stopping time $T_6< \infty$, with probability greater than

786: $p_3$, we either have $\d(X_{T_6}, Y_{T_6})\leq \eps$ or $Y_{T_6} =

787: x_1$ and $X_{T_6} \in \cW_2$.

788: 

789: If $\d(X_0, Y_0)\leq \eps$ then we can take $T_6 = 0$.

790: 

791: Assume that $\d(X_0, Y_0)> \eps$. Let $x_2\in \cW_3$ be the point

792: with $\d(x_0,x_2) = \eps/3$. Note that $\d(x_2,Y_0) \leq (1/2)

793: \d(x_2, X_0)$. Let $T_7 = \inf\{t\geq 0: X_t = x_2\}$ and $T_8 =

794: \inf\{t\geq 0: Y_t = x_2\}$. By Lemma 3.4, for some $s>0$,

795:  $$\P(T_8 < s) > \P(T_7 < s).$$

796: Hence, with probability $p_3>0$, $T_8< T_7$ and either $X$ and $Y$

797: have met by the time $T_8$, or $X$ is on the opposite side of

798: $Y_{T_8}$ in $\cS$ than $x_0$. Let $T_{9} = \inf\{t\geq T_8: Y_t =

799: x_1\}$ and $T_{10} = \inf\{t\geq T_8: Y_t = x_0\}$. Since $\cS$

800: contains only a finite number of finite trees $\cT_k$, there is an

801: upper bound on the edge length in any tree $\cT_k$, say,

802: $\rho<\infty$. This and the fact that $\d(x_2, x_0) =\eps/3$ imply

803: that $\P(T_9 < T_{10}) \geq p_4$ for some $p_4>0$ that may depend

804: on $\eps$. If the events $\{T_8< T_7\}$ and $\{T_9 < T_{10}\}$

805: hold then either $X$ and $Y$ have met by the time $T_9$ or

806: $Y_{T_9})= x_1$ and $X_{T_9})\in \cW_2$.

807: 

808: We note that if $\cW_2=\emptyset$ (i.e., $\cW_1 $ is a single

809: edge) then the same argument proves that for some $p_3>0$ and some

810: stopping time $T_6< \infty$, we have $\d(X_{T_6}, Y_{T_6})\leq \eps$

811: with probability greater than $p_3p_4$.

812: 

813: (iii) Let us rephrase the claim proved in step (ii). We have shown

814: that for some $p_5\df p_3p_4>0$ and some stopping time $T_6<

815: \infty$, with probability greater than $p_5$, we either have

816: $\d(X_{T_6}, Y_{T_6})\leq \eps$ or $Y_{T_6}$ and $X_{T_6}$ satisfy

817: the same assumptions as $Y_0$ and $X_0$, but relative to graphs

818: $\wt \cU_1 \df \cW_2$ and $\wt \cU_2 \df \cS\setminus (\{x_2\}

819: \cup \cW_2)$ in place of $\cU_1$ and $\cU_2$. Recall the claim

820: proved in part (i) of the proof and the final remark in step (ii).

821: Note that $\wt \cU_1$ has at least one edge less than $\cU_1$ so

822: by induction, we can repeat the inductive step (ii) a finite

823: number of times and show that with a probability $p_6>0$, $X$ and

824: $Y$ come within $\eps$ of each other before some time $t_1<

825: \infty$. It is easy to check that $p_6$ and $t_1$ can be chosen so

826: that they do not depend on the starting points of $X$ and $Y$. The

827: Markov property and induction can be used to show that $X$ and $Y$

828: have to come within $\eps$ of each other by the time $jt_1$ with

829: probability greater than $1-(1-p_6)^j$. We let $j\to\infty$ to see

830: that $X$ and $Y$ come within $\eps$ of each other at some finite

831: time with probability one. Since $\eps \in (0, r_0/3)$ is

832: arbitrary, the coupling is not shy.

833:  \qed

834: 

835: \bigskip

836: \noindent{\bf Example 3.6}. Suppose that $\cS$ is a tree with the

837: property that it has a ``backbone'' that is topologically a line,

838: with a finite or countable number of finite trees attached to it.

839: See Fig.~3.4 for an example.

840: Recall that we have assumed that each edge has length at least

841: $r_0>0$.

842: 

843: \bigskip \vbox{ \epsfxsize=3.0in

844:   \centerline{\epsffile{shy7.eps}}

845: 

846: \centerline{Figure 3.4.} }

847: \bigskip

848: 

849: Let $\dots, x_{-2}, x_{-1}, x_0, x_1, x_2, \dots$ be the sequence

850: of points along the ``backbone'' $\cU$ where the side trees are

851: attached (the sequence can be finite or it can extend to infinity

852: in one or two directions). If the sequence extends to infinity in

853: both directions and

854: the graph is invariant under a non-constant shift,

855:  then, according to Example 3.3, there exists a

856: shy coupling.

857: 

858: Assume that

859:  \item{(i)} the diameters of the side trees are

860: uniformly bounded and

861:  \item{(ii)} $\{x_k\}$ does not extend to

862: infinity in both directions, or $\{x_k\}$ extends to infinity in

863: both directions but

864: the family $\{x_k\}$ is not shift-invariant, i.e., for every $c\ne

865: 0$, there exists $x_j$ such that $x_j + c \ne x_k$ for all $k$.

866: 

867: We will show that under these assumptions there is no shy

868: coupling.

869: 

870: Let $Q$ be the ``projection'' of $\cS$ on $\cU$, i.e., $Q(x) = x$

871: for $x\in \cU$, and $Q(x) = x_k$ if $x$ belongs to a tree which is

872: attached to $\cU$ at $x_k$. We will identify the ``backbone''

873: $\cU$ with the real line so that we can think of $Q(X)$ and $Q(Y)$

874: as real-valued processes.

875: Let $X$ and $Y$ be a coupling of Brownian motions on $\cS$.

876:  If $X$ makes an excursion into a side tree then $Q(X)$ remains

877: constant on the excursion interval (including the endpoints).

878: Hence, $Q(X)$ and $Q(Y)$ are continuous processes. It is easy to

879: see that they are local martingales. Informally speaking, they are

880: Brownian motions frozen on some random intervals. The process $Z_t

881: = Q(X_t) - Q(Y_t)$ is also a continuous local martingale. Suppose

882: without loss of generality that $Z_0 >0$ and let

883: $$ T_0 =\inf\{t\geq 0: Z_t =0\} .

884: $$

885: Then $Z_{T_0\land t}$ is a non-negative local martingale and so it must

886: have an almost surely finite limit $Z_\infty$ on $\{T_0=\infty\}$.

887: 

888: We will show first that $\P(T_0=\infty)=\P(T_0=\infty \hbox{ and }

889: Z_\infty =0)$, in other words, $\P(T_0=\infty \hbox{ and }

890: Z_\infty >0)=0$. Let $B$ be a Brownian motion on $\R$ with

891: $B_0=0$. Consider a small $\eps>0$ and $t_0>0$, let $\delta \in

892: (0, \, \eps)$ be such that

893: $$

894: \P \left(\sup_{t\in[0,t_0]} |B_t| < \delta \right) < p_1/2,

895: \qquad \hbox{where } \ \

896: p_1:= \P \left(\sup_{t\in [0,t_0]}|B_{t} | <\eps \right).

897: $$

898: 

899: Let $T_1$ be the first time when all of the following conditions

900: hold: $\d(X_{T_1},\cU) \geq \eps$, the distance from $X_{T_1}$ to

901: any vertex of $\cS$ is greater than $\eps$, $Y_{T_1} \in \cU$, and

902: $\inf_k \d(Y_{T_1}, x_k) \geq \delta$ (the argument is analogous

903: if the roles of $X$ and $Y$ are interchanged). If $T_1<\infty$

904: then with probability $p_1/2$ or greater, $X$ will stay on the

905: same side tree over the interval $[T_1, T_1+t_0]$, while $Y$ will

906: move away from $Y_{T_1}$ by more than $\delta$ units over the same

907: time interval. Hence with probability $p_1/2$ or greater, $Z_t$

908: will have an oscillation of size at least $\delta$ over the

909: interval $[T_1, T_1+t_0]$. We proceed by induction. If $T_k <

910: \infty$ then we define $T_{k+1}=T_1 \circ \theta_{T_k+t_0} +

911: T_k+t_0$, where $\theta_\cdot$ is the usual Markovian shift

912: operator. Then with probability greater than $p_1/2$, $Z_t$ has an

913: oscillation of size at least $\delta$ over the interval $[T_{k+1},

914: T_{k+1}+t_0]$, independent of whether that happened over any

915: interval $[T_j, T_j+t_0]$, $j\leq k$. Hence, with probability one,

916: either $T_k= \infty$ for some $k$ or $Z_t$ has an infinite number

917: of oscillations of size $\delta$ over disjoint intervals of length

918: $t_0$, and, therefore in the latter case, $Z_t$ does not have a

919: limit as $t\to \infty$. Applying the above argument to a

920: decreasing sequence of $\{\eps_n, n\geq 1\}$ and a decreasing

921: sequence of $\{\delta_n, n \geq 1\}$ both tending to zero and

922: after deleting a null set from $\Omega$, we may and do assume that

923: for every $\omega \in \Omega$ and for every $\eps_n$, there is

924: some $N>1$

925: such that for every $j\geq N$, with $\eps_n$ and $\delta_j$ in place of

926: $\eps$ and $\delta$ above, either $T_k (\omega) =\infty$ for some

927: $k$ or $Z_t (\omega) $ does not have a limit as $t\to \infty$. The

928: processes $X$ and $Y$ are recurrent because the one-dimensional

929: Brownian motion is. Hence,

930: for every $x_j$,

931:  each one of them will enter the side tree attached to $\cU$ at

932: $x_j$ infinitely often. After deleting a null set from $\Omega$,

933: we may and do assume that the aforementioned property holds for

934: every $\omega\in \Omega$.

935: 

936: For $\omega \in \{T_0=\infty \hbox{ and } Z_\infty

937: >0 \}$, let

938: $$ c(\omega) =\lim_{t\to\infty} Z_t (\omega)>0 .

939:  $$

940: We choose an $x_j$, relative to $c(\omega)$, as follows. If $\{x_n

941: \}$ does not extend to $-\infty$ ($\infty$) then we let $x_j$ be

942: the leftmost (rightmost, resp.) point of the sequence. Otherwise

943: we fix an $x_j$ with the property that $x_j + c (\omega) \ne x_k$

944: for all $k$ (such an $x_j$ exists by assumption).

945:  Note that both $X(\omega)$ and $Y(\omega)$

946: enter the side tree attached to $\cU$ at $x_j$ infinitely often.

947: Hence one can find some $\eps>0$ from $\{\eps_n, n\geq 1\}$ and

948: $\delta>0$ from $\{\delta_n, n\geq 1\}$, and an increasing

949: sequence of random times $\{S_k, k\geq 1\}$ with $\lim_{k\to

950: \infty}S_k=\infty$ such that all of the following hold. One has

951: $\d(X_{S_k},\cU) \geq \eps$, the distance from $X_{S_k}$ to any

952: vertex of $\cS$ is greater than $\eps$, $Y_{S_k} \in \cU$, and

953: $\inf_n \d(Y_{S_k}, x_n) \geq \delta$ for every $k\geq 1$ (or the

954: statement will hold with the roles of $X$ and $Y$ interchanged).

955: 

956: Hence, all stopping times $\{T_k, k\geq 1\}$ defined in the

957: proceeding paragraph are finite. We have shown that this event

958: implies that $Z_\infty (\omega )$ does not exist. This

959: contradiction proves that $\P(T_0=\infty \hbox{ and }

960: Z_\infty>0)=0$ and therefore $\P(T_0=\infty)=\P(T_0=\infty \hbox{

961: and } Z_\infty =0)$.

962: 

963: Recall that we have assumed that all the edges have length at

964: least $r_0>0$. So on $\{T_0=\infty \hbox{ and } Z_\infty =0\}$, by

965: the recurrence of the one-dimensional Brownian motion, we have

966: $\liminf_{t\to \infty}\d(X_t, Y_t)=0$. We now only need to exam

967: $\omega \in \{T_0<\infty\}$ and to prove $X(\omega)$ and

968: $Y(\omega)$ will come arbitrarily close to each other.

969: 

970: Consider any $\eps\in (0, r_0/4)$, where $r_0>0$ is a lower bound

971: for the length of any edge in $\cS$. We want to show that with

972: probability one, there exists $t$ such that $\d(X_t, Y_t)\leq

973: \eps$. We have already proved that $\liminf_{t\to \infty} \d(X_t,

974: Y_t)=0$ on $\{T_0=\infty\}$. On $\{T_0<\infty\}$, at time $T_0$,

975: either $X_{T_0}=Y_{T_0}$ or one of processes $\{X_{T_0},

976: Y_{T_0}\}$ is at some $x_k$ and the other process is in a side

977: tree $\cT$ attached to $\cU$ at $x_k$. Without loss of generality,

978: assume that $X_{T_0}=x_k$ and $Y_{T_0}\in \cT$. If $\d(X_{T_0},

979: Y_{T_0})\leq\eps$ then we are done. Suppose that $\d(X_{T_0},

980: Y_{T_0})>\eps$. Let $z_0$ be the point at the edge $e$ of $\cT$

981: that is attached to $\cU$ with $\d(z_0, x_k)=\d(z_0, \cU)=\eps/4$.

982: Let $S_1$ be the first time after $T_0$ when $X_t = z_0$. By Lemma

983: 3.4, with probability $p_2>0$, $X_t$ reaches $z_0$ after $T_0$

984: before $Y_t$ gets there. If this event occurs, both $X_{S_1}$ and

985: $Y_{S_1}$ will have distance at least $\eps/4$ away from $\cU$.

986: Let $R_1$ be the first time after $S_1$ when both $X_t$ and $Y_t$

987: are outside $\cT$. An argument analogous to that in parts (ii) and

988: (iii) of Example 3.5 shows that with probability $p_3>0$, the

989: processes $X$ and $Y$ will meet during the time interval $[S_1,

990: R_1]$. In other words, conditioning on $\{T_0<\infty\}$ and

991: $\d(X_{T_0}, Y_{T_0})>\eps$, with probability at least $p_4\df

992: p_2p_3>0$, the processes $X$ and $Y$ will meet between times $T_0$

993: and the first time $R_1$ when they are both outside $\cT$. We

994: define for $k\geq 2$,

995: $$ S_k=S_1\circ \theta_{R_{k-1}}+R_{k-1} \qquad \hbox{and} \qquad

996: R_k=R_1\circ \theta_{S_k}+S_k.

997: $$

998: By the strong Markov property of $(X, Y)$,

999: $$ \P\left( \inf_{t\in [0, R_k)} \d(X_t, \, Y_t)\geq \eps \right) \leq (1-p_4)^k.

1000: $$

1001: Letting $k\to\infty$, we get

1002: $$ \P\left( \inf_{t\in [0, \infty)} \d(X_t, \, Y_t)

1003: \geq \eps \right) \leq 0

1004: $$

1005: for every $\eps>0$ and thus $(X,Y)$ is not a shy coupling.

1006:  \qed

1007: 

1008: \bigskip

1009: \noindent{\bf Example 3.7}. Suppose that $\cS$ is composed of a

1010: loop $\cU$ with a finite number of finite trees attached to it at

1011: points $x_k$, and the family $\{x_k\}$ is not rotation invariant

1012: in the following sense. We can assume without loss of generality

1013: that $\cU$ is isometric to the unit circle. For every $c\ne 0$,

1014: there exists $x_j$ such that $x_j e^{ic} \ne x_k$ for all $k$. See

1015: Fig.~3.5 for an example. We will show that in this case there is

1016: no shy coupling.

1017: 

1018: \bigskip \vbox{ \epsfxsize=1.5in

1019:   \centerline{\epsffile{shy8.eps}}

1020: 

1021: \centerline{Figure 3.5.} }

1022: \bigskip

1023: 

1024: Our argument will be very similar to that in Example 3.6. Recall

1025: the ``projection'' $Q$ from the previous example. We have $Q(x)=x$

1026: for $x\in \cU$ and $Q(x) = x_k$ if $x$ belongs to a tree that is

1027: attached to $\cU$ at $x_k$. Hence, $Q(X_t)$ may be regarded as a

1028: continuous process on the unit circle. We now choose a (random)

1029: continuous function $\Theta_X: [0,\infty) \to \R$ so that $Q(X_t)

1030: = e^{i\Theta_X(t)}$ for all $t\geq 0$, in the complex notation. We

1031: define $\Theta_Y$ in an analogous way. Note that $\Theta_X$ and

1032: $\Theta_Y$ are martingales. Therefore, $Z_t \df \Theta_X(t) -

1033: \Theta_Y(t)$ is also a martingale. We can now repeat the argument

1034: from Example 3.6 to show that there does not exist a shy coupling.

1035:  \qed

1036: 

1037: \bigskip

1038: \noindent{\bf Example 3.8}. Examples 3.3 and 3.5-3.7 may appear to

1039: suggest that if a graph has a vertex with degree 1 then a shy

1040: coupling exists only if there exists an isometry of $I:\cS\to \cS$

1041: with no fixed points. We will show that this is not the case. Our

1042: example is illustrated in Fig.~3.6. In this case, every isometry

1043: $I:\cS\to\cS$ has a fixed point. Nevertheless, we will show that

1044: there is a shy coupling in $\cS$.

1045: 

1046: \bigskip \vbox{ \epsfxsize=3.0in

1047:   \centerline{\epsffile{shy5.eps}}

1048: 

1049: \centerline{Figure 3.6.} }

1050: \bigskip

1051: 

1052: We will describe below the transition mechanism for $(X,Y)$ on

1053: some random intervals of time. We will assume that the transition

1054: probabilities of $(Y,X)$ are the same as those of $(X,Y)$. Hence,

1055: there is no need to describe cases symmetric to those discussed

1056: below, in the sense that the initial positions of $X$ and $Y$ are

1057: interchanged.

1058: 

1059: Suppose that all edges $A_1, A_2, \dots, A_7$ have the same

1060: length, say 1. We assume that $X_0 = x_2$ and $Y_0 = x_3$.

1061: 

1062: (i) Suppose that for some stopping time $T_1$ we have $X_{T_1} =

1063: x_2$ and $Y_{T_1} = x_3$. Then we let $T_2 = \inf\{t\geq T_1: X_t

1064: \notin (A_1 \cup A_2 \cup A_3)\setminus \{x_1\}\}$. Let $I: (A_1

1065: \cup A_2 \cup A_3)\setminus \{x_1,x_3\} \to (A_3 \cup A_4 \cup

1066: A_5)\setminus\{x_2,x_4,x_5\}$ be the one-to-one isometry

1067: satisfying $I(x_2) = x_3$, $I(A_1) = A_3$, $I(A_2) = A_4$ and

1068: $I(A_3) = A_5$. We let $Y_t = I(X_t)$ for $t\in[T_1,T_2]$. Note

1069: that at the stopping time $T_2$, we have one of the following

1070: configurations of the two particles: $(X_{T_2}, Y_{T_2})=(x_1,

1071: x_4)$,  or $(X_{T_2}, Y_{T_2})= (x_1, x_2)$, or $(X_{T_2},

1072: Y_{T_2}) = (x_3, x_5)$.

1073: 

1074: (ii) Suppose that for some stopping time $T_3$ we have $X_{T_3} =

1075: x_1$ and $Y_{T_3} = x_4$. Let $\{X_t, t\in [T_3, T_4]\}$ be

1076: Brownian motion on $\cS$ independent of the past with

1077: $X_{T_3}=x_3$, where $T_4 = \inf\{t\geq T_3: X_t = x_2\}$. For

1078: $t\in[T_3, T_4]$, we let $Y_t \in A_4$, with $\d(Y_t, x_4) =

1079: \d(X_t, x_1)$. Note that $X_{T_4} = x_2$ and $Y_{T_4} = x_3$.

1080: 

1081: (iii) Suppose that for some stopping time $T_5$ we have $X_{T_5} =

1082: x_1$ and $Y_{T_5} = x_2$. Let $\{Y_t, t\in [T_5, T_6]\}$ be

1083: Brownian motion on $\cS$ independent of the past with

1084: $Y_{T_5}=x_2$,

1085:  where $T_6 = \inf\{t\geq T_5: Y_t = x_1 \hbox{ or } x_3\}$. We

1086: label excursions of $Y$ from $x_2$ that stay in $A_3$ with marks

1087: ``1'' or ``2'', with equal probabilities, in such a way that the

1088: label of any excursion is independent of all other labels. Then we

1089: let $X_t$ be defined for $t\in [T_5, T_6]$ by $\d(X_t, x_1) =

1090: \d(Y_t, x_2)$ and the following conditions. If $Y_t \in A_1$ then

1091: $X_t \in A_2$, if $Y_t \in A_2$ then $X_t \in A_1$, if $Y_t \in

1092: A_3$ and $t$ belongs to an excursion marked ``1'' then $X_t \in

1093: A_1$, and if $Y_t \in A_3$ and $t$ belongs to an excursion marked

1094: ``2'' then $X_t \in A_2$. At time $T_6$ we have $(X_{T_6},

1095: Y_{T_6})= (x_2,  x_1)$ or $(X_{T_6}, Y_{T_6}) =(x_2,  x_3)$.

1096: 

1097: Note that $\cS$ is symmetric with respect to the line containing

1098: $A_4$. If for some stopping time $T_7$ we have $( X_{T_7},

1099: Y_{T_7}) = (x_3, x_5)$, or $( X_{T_7}, Y_{T_7}) =(x_4,  x_6)$, or

1100: $( X_{T_7}, Y_{T_7}) = (x_5,  x_6)$, or one of these conditions is

1101: satisfied with the roles of $X$ and $Y$ interchanged, then we

1102: define the coupling on an appropriate random interval in a way

1103: analogous to that in (i)-(iii), using the symmetry of $\cS$.

1104: 

1105: The above definitions for the ``local'' behavior of the coupling

1106: and the strong Markov property can now be used to define a process

1107: $(X_t,Y_t)$ for all $t\geq 0$. It is easy to see that the stopping

1108: times analogous to $T_1$, $T_3$ and $T_5$ will not have a finite

1109: point of accumulation. It is also easy to check that almost surely

1110: $ \d(X_t, Y_t) =1 $ for every $t>0$.

1111:  \qed

1112: 

1113: \bigskip

1114: \noindent {\bf 4. Reflected Brownian motion in Euclidean domains}.

1115: 

1116: This section is the closest in spirit to the papers and problems

1117: which inspired the present research project. Suppose that

1118: $D\subset \R^d$ is a bounded connected open set which is either

1119: convex or has a $C^2$ boundary.

1120:  We will consider couplings $(X,Y)$ of reflected Brownian motions

1121: in $D$, defined as follows. Let $\n(x)$ denote the unit inward

1122: normal vector at $x\in\prt D$. Let $B$ and $W$ be standard planar

1123: Brownian motions with $B_0=W_0=0$ defined on the same probability

1124: space and consider the following Skorohod equations,

1125:  $$\eqalignno{

1126:  X_t &= x_0 + B_t + \int_0^t  \n(X_s) dL^X_s, &(4.1)\cr

1127:  Y_t &= y_0 + W_t + \int_0^t  \n(Y_s) dL^Y_s. &(4.2) }$$

1128: Here $L^X$ is the local time of $X$ on $\prt D$, i.e., a

1129: non-decreasing continuous process which does not increase when $X$

1130: is in $D$: $\int_0^\infty \bone_{D}(X_t) dL^X_t = 0$, a.s.

1131: Equation (4.1) has a unique pathwise solution $(X,L^X)$ such that

1132: $X_t \in \ol D$ for all $t\geq 0$ (see [Ta] when $D$ is convex

1133: domain and [LS] when $D$ is $C^2$ ). The ``reflected Brownian

1134: motion'' $X$ is a strong Markov process. We point out that $B$ is

1135: uniquely determined by $X$, and vice versa. The same remarks apply

1136: to (4.2), so, as a pair, $(X, Y)$ is also strong Markov.

1137: 

1138: For a continuous semimartingale $M$, the symbol $\langle Z

1139: \rangle$ will stand for its quadratic variation process. When

1140: $M=(M^1, \cdots, M^d)$ and $N=(Z^1, \cdots , Z^d)$ are two

1141: continuous $\R^d$-valued semimartingales we will use $\langle M,

1142: N\rangle$ to denote $\sum_{i, j=1}^d \< M^i, N^j \>$. Note that

1143: the matrix-valued process $( \< M^i, N^j \>)_{1\leq i, j\leq d}$

1144: is non-negative definite and so $t\mapsto \< M , M\>_t$ is always

1145: non-decreasing. For $a, b \in \R^d$, we use $a\cdot b$ to denote

1146: the inner product between $a$ and $b$. We will use $\d(x, y)$ and

1147: $|x-y|$ interchangeably for the Euclidean distance between $x, y

1148: \in \R^d$.

1149: 

1150: \bigskip

1151: 

1152: 

1153: 

1154: \noindent{\bf Theorem 4.1}. {\sl Assume that $D\subset \R^d$ is a

1155: bounded convex domain. Let $X$ and $Y$ be two reflecting Brownian

1156: motion on $D$ given by (4.1)-(4.2).

1157: 

1158: \item{(i)} Suppose that there is a strictly increasing function

1159: $\varphi$ with $\varphi (0)=0$ such that

1160: $$ d\< |X-Y|^2\>_t \geq \varphi (|X_t-Y_t| )\, d t  \qquad \hbox{for }

1161: t<\sigma_0,

1162: $$

1163: where $\sigma_0:=\inf \{t>0: X_t=Y_t\}$. Then $(X,Y)$ is not a shy

1164: coupling.

1165: 

1166: \item{(ii)} Suppose

1167: $D$ is strictly convex.

1168:  Assume that $\< X-Y, X-Y\>_t$ (this is the same as $\< B-W,

1169: B-W\>_t)$) has a sublinear growth rate as $t\to \infty$, that is,

1170: $$\lim_{t\to \infty}  \< X-Y, \, X-Y\>_t/t=0 \qquad \hbox{almost surely}.

1171: $$

1172: Then $(X,Y)$ is not a shy coupling.

1173: 

1174: }

1175: 

1176: \bigskip

1177: \noindent{\bf Proof}. Note that

1178: $$ X_t-Y_t=X_0-Y_0+(B-W)+\int_0^t \n (X_s) dL^X_s -\int_0^t \n (Y_s) dL^Y_s

1179: $$

1180: is a semimartingale. Define $R_t:=|X_t-Y_t|^2$. By Ito's formula,

1181: $$\eqalignno{

1182:  d R_t &= 2 (X_t-Y_t) \cdot d(X_t-Y_t) + d\<X-Y, X-Y\>_t \cr

1183: &= 2(X_t-Y_t) \cdot d(B_t-W_t) - 2 (Y_t-X_t)\cdot \n (X_t) dL^X_t

1184: - 2(X_t-Y_t) \cdot \n (Y_t) dL^Y_t \cr & \hskip 0.2truein +

1185: d\<X-Y, X-Y\>_t. &(4.3) \cr}

1186: $$

1187: 

1188: \medskip

1189: 

1190: (i) Let

1191: $a>0$ be a constant whose value will be

1192: chosen in a moment and $f(r) = -r^{-a}$ for $r>0$. Then $f'(r) =

1193: ar^{-a-1}>0$ and $f''(r) = (-a-1)a r^{-a-2}<0$ for $r>0$.

1194: Define $U_t:= f(R_t)=f (|X_t-Y_t|^2)$. By Ito's formula, we have

1195: $$

1196: dU_t = f'(R_t) dR_t + {1\over 2} f'' (R_t) d\<R\>_t =dM_t+dV_t,

1197: $$

1198: where

1199: $$ dM_t = 2 aR_t^{-a-1} 2(X_t-Y_t) \cdot d(B_t-W_t)

1200: $$

1201: and

1202: $$\eqalignno{

1203: dV_t &=  - 2 aR_t^{-a-1} \left( (Y_t-X_t) \cdot \n (X_t) dL^X_t

1204: + (X_t-Y_t)

1205: \cdot

1206:  \n (Y_t) dL^Y_t \right) \cr & \hskip 0.2truein  + a R_t^{-a-1}

1207: d\<X-Y, X-Y\>_t -2 a(a+1) R_t^{-a-2} d\< |X-Y|^2\>_t  &(4.4) \cr}

1208: $$

1209: are the local martingale and bounded variation

1210: parts,

1211:  respectively. We claim that for every $\eps >0$,

1212: $$ T_\eps := \inf \left\{ t>0:  \ |X_t-Y_t | \leq \eps \right\}

1213: $$

1214: is finite almost sure.

1215: Suppose that $\P (T_\eps = \infty )>0$ for some $\eps >0$. We will

1216: show that this leads to a contradiction.

1217: 

1218: Since $D$ is a convex domain, for $\sigma$-a.e. $x\in \partial D$,

1219: $\n(x)$ is well defined and

1220:  $$ (y-x) \cdot \n (x) \geq 0 \qquad \hbox{for every }

1221: y

1222:  \in \ol D.

1223: $$

1224: Note that the local time $L^X$ (respectively, $L^Y$) does not

1225: increase when $X$ (respectively $Y$) is on a subset of $\partial

1226: D$ having zero Lebesgue surface measure. Hence, (4.4) yields

1227: $$

1228: dV_t \leq   a R_t^{-a-1} d\<X-Y, X-Y\>_t -2 a(a+1) R_t^{-a-2} d\<

1229: |X-Y|^2\>_t  . \eqno(4.5)

1230: $$

1231: Note that $ d\<X-Y, X-Y\>_t = d \<B-W, B-W\>_t \leq 4dt$. This,

1232: (4.5) and the hypothesis in part (i) of this theorem imply that

1233: on $\{T_\eps = \infty\}$,

1234: $$\eqalignno{

1235: dV_t &\leq   4 a R_t^{-a-1}dt  -2 a(a+1)

1236: R_t^{-a-2} \varphi (\eps)   d t   \cr

1237: &\leq  -2a R^{-a-2} \left( (a+1) \varphi (\eps )  - 2 R_t \right) dt \cr

1238: & \leq -2a \eps^{-a-2}

1239: \left( (a+1) \varphi (\eps )  -2 \hbox{\rm diam} (D) \right)dt . \cr}

1240: $$

1241: For a fixed $\eps>0$, we can find $a>0$ sufficiently large so that

1242: for some $\lambda >0 $,

1243: $$ dV_t \leq - \lambda  dt \qquad \hbox{for every } t>0

1244: \hbox{ on } \{ T_\eps = \infty\}.

1245: \eqno(4.6)

1246: $$

1247: 

1248: The continuous local martingale $M$ is a time change of Brownian

1249: motion. By the law of iterated logarithm for Brownian sample path,

1250: for almost all $\omega \in \{T_\eps =\infty \}$, there is an

1251: unbounded increasing sequence $\{t_k, k\geq 1\}$ such that

1252: $\sup_{k\geq 1} | M_{t_k}(\omega) | <\infty $. This and (4.6)

1253: imply that $U_{t_k} (\omega)= V_0(\omega)+M_{t_k}(\omega)+

1254: V_{t_k}(\omega)$ tends to $-\infty$ as $k\to \infty$ on $\{T_\eps

1255: =\infty \}$ a.s. Consequently, $|X_{t_k}-Y_{t_k}|$ goes to $0$ as

1256: $k\to \infty$ on $ \{T_\eps =\infty \}$ a.s., which is a

1257: contradiction. This proves that particles $X$ and $Y$ come

1258: arbitrarily close to each other in finite time and, therefore, $X$

1259: and $Y$ is not a shy coupling.

1260: 

1261: \medskip

1262: 

1263: (ii) Now assume

1264: that $D$ is bounded and strictly convex

1265:  and $\<X-Y, X-Y\>_t$ has a sublinear growth as $t\to \infty$.

1266: The strict convexity implies (in fact, it is equivalent to) the

1267: following condition. For every small $\eps >0$, there is a

1268: constant $a_\eps>0$ such that

1269: $$ (y-x) \cdot \n (x) \geq a_\eps \, |x-y| \qquad \hbox{for every }

1270: x\in \partial D \hbox{ and } y \in \ol D \hbox{ with } |x-y| \geq

1271: \eps. \eqno(4.7)

1272: $$

1273: Let $\sigma$ denote the surface measure on $\partial D$. Since

1274: reflecting Brownian motion in $D$ is a recurrent Feller process,

1275: it follows from the Ergodic Theorem that

1276: $$ \lim_{t\to \infty} {L^X\over t}= {\sigma (\partial D ) \over 2 |D|}

1277: =  \lim_{t\to \infty} {L^Y \over t} \qquad \hbox{almost surely.}

1278: $$

1279: For every $\eps >0$, define $T_\eps:=\inf\{t>0: |X_t-Y_t| \leq \eps\}$.

1280: On $\{T_\eps =\infty\}$, we have from above

1281: and (4.7)

1282: that

1283: $$\eqalignno{

1284: & \liminf_{t\to \infty} {1\over t}

1285: \left(-2 \int_0^t (Y_t-X_t)\cdot \n(X_t) dL^X_t

1286:   - 2 \int_0^t (X_t-Y)\cdot \n(Y_t)  dL^Y_t + \<X-Y, X-Y\>_t \right) \cr

1287: & \ \ \ \leq  \liminf_{t\to \infty} {1\over t} \left( -2 \eps

1288: a_\eps L^X_t   - 2 \eps a_\eps  L^Y_t + \<X-Y, X-Y\>_t \right) =

1289: -{ 2 \eps a_\eps \sigma ( \partial D) \over |D|}<0 . &(4.8)\cr}

1290: $$

1291: On the other hand, $M_t:=2\int_0^t (X_t-Y_t) \cdot d(B_t-W_t)$ is

1292: a continuous martingale and thus is a time-change of

1293: one-dimensional Brownian motion. By the law of iterated logarithm

1294: for Brownian sample path, for almost all $\omega \in \{T_\eps

1295: =\infty \}$, there is an unbounded increasing sequence $\{t_k,

1296: k\geq 1\}$ such that $\sup_{k\geq 1} | M_{t_k}(\omega) | <\infty

1297: $. This, (4.3) and (4.8) imply that $\lim_{t\to \infty}R_t=-\infty

1298: $ a.s. on $\{T_\eps =\infty\}$. Since $R_t \geq 0$, we conclude

1299: that $\P(T_\eps =\infty)=0$ for every $\eps>0$ and so $(X, Y)$ is

1300: not a shy coupling.

1301:  \qed

1302: 

1303: \bigskip

1304: In the remainder of this section, we take $d=2$, but this is only

1305: for notational convenience. We will show in the next example that

1306: the method of proof of Theorem 4.1, based on the It\^o formula,

1307: does not extend to arbitrary couplings. The example may have some

1308: interest of its own. We will show in Theorem 4.3 below that, in

1309: fact, there is no shy coupling of reflecting Brownian motions on

1310: any bounded $C^1$-smooth strictly convex domain.

1311: 

1312: \bigskip

1313: 

1314: \noindent{\bf Example 4.2}. We will show that there exist planar

1315: Brownian motions $B$ and $W$ with the property that $\d(B_t,W_t) =

1316: \sqrt{2t + \d(B_0, W_0)^2}$ for $t\geq 0$, assuming that $B_0\ne

1317: W_0$. In particular, the distance between the two processes grows

1318: in a deterministic way.

1319: 

1320: Suppose that $(B, W)$ has the above mentioned property with $B_0$

1321: and $W_0$ taking values in $\ol D$. Let $X$ and $Y$ be the

1322: pathwise solutions

1323: of (4.1)-(4.2) but with the above $B$ and $W$ in place of $x_0+B$

1324: and $y_0+W$ there.

1325: We have

1326: $$ d\< |X_t-Y_t|^2\>= d\< |B_t-W_t|^2\>=0,

1327: $$

1328: while

1329: $$ d\<X-Y, X-Y\>_t=d\<B-W, B-W\>_t =d \left( |B_t-W_t|^2\right)=2t.

1330: $$

1331: So $V_t$ in (4.4) becomes

1332: $$\eqalignno{

1333: dV_t &=  - 2 aR_t^{-a-1} \left( (Y_t-X_t) \cdot \n (X_t) dL^X_t

1334: + (X_t-Y_t)

1335: \cdot

1336:  \n (Y_t) dL^Y_t \right) \cr & \hskip 0.2truein  + 2 a R_t^{-a-1} d

1337: t. \cr}

1338: $$

1339: Hence the method used in the proof of Theorem 4.1 does not work for

1340: this coupling

1341:  $(X , Y$). Moreover, since $|X_t-Y_t|$ grows deterministically

1342: when both $X_t$ and $Y_t$ are away from the

1343: boundary and decreases when one of them is on the boundary,

1344: neither $|X_t-Y_t|$ nor any deterministic monotone

1345: function of $|X_t-Y_t |$ is a submartingale or a supermartingale.

1346: 

1347: 

1348: We now present the construction of $B$ and $W$ with the properties

1349: mentioned above.

1350:  Let $B$ be a Brownian motion in $\R^2$ starting from $x_0$. For a

1351: vector $v=(a, b)\in \R^2$, we use $v^\perp$ to denote its

1352: orthogonal vector $(b, -a)$. Let $y_0 \in \R^2$ be a point

1353: different from $x_0$. Consider the following SDE for $W$ in $\R^2$

1354: with $W_0=y_0$:

1355: $$ dW_t= {1\over |W_t-B_t|^2} \left( \left( (W_t-B_t)\cdot dB_t \right) (W_t-B_t)

1356:    - \left( (W_t-B_t)^\perp \cdot dB_t \right) (W_t-B_t)^\perp \right) .

1357: $$

1358: In words, at any given time $t>0$, $W_t$ takes

1359: a synchronous step

1360:  with $B_t$ along the direction $W_t-B_t$, while $W_t$ moves in the

1361: opposite direction but with the same magnitude as $B_t$ along the

1362: perpendicular direction $(W_t-B_t)^\perp$. The above SDE for $W$

1363: has a unique solution up to $\tau:=\inf\{t>0: W_t=B_t\}$, since

1364: the diffusion coefficients are $C^\infty$ up to that time. It can

1365: be computed directly that $d\left( |W_t-B_t|^2 \right)= 2 dt$ and

1366: consequently $|W_t-B_t|^2= |x_0-y_0|^2+2t$. So $\tau =\infty$.

1367: It is standard to check

1368:  that $W=(W^1, W^2)$ is a continuous local martingale with $\< W^i,

1369: W^i\>_t=t$ for $i=1, 2$ and $\<W^1, W^2\>=0$. Therefore $W$ is a

1370: Brownian motion in $\R^2$ starting from $y_0$.  \qed

1371: 

1372: 

1373: 

1374: \bigskip

1375: 

1376: We will show next that

1377: in a $C^1$-smooth strictly convex domain $D$, every coupling of

1378: reflecting Brownian motions on $\ol D$ must come arbitrarily close

1379: to each other

1380:  in finite time.

1381: 

1382: \bigskip

1383: 

1384: \noindent{\bf Theorem 4.3}. {\sl Suppose that $D$ is a bounded

1385: convex planar domain with a

1386: $C^1$-smooth

1387: boundary that does not

1388: contain any line segments. Then there does not exist a shy

1389: coupling $(X,Y)$ of reflected Brownian motions in $D$.

1390: 

1391: }

1392: 

1393: \bigskip

1394: \noindent{\bf Proof}. The idea of the proof is inspired by

1395: differential games of pursuit (see [F]). We will show that with

1396: positive probability, one of the particles will pursue the other

1397: one in such a way that the distance between the two particles

1398: decreases either because the diffusion component of the second

1399: process does not move the second particle sufficiently fast or the

1400: second particle hits the boundary and is pushed back towards the

1401: first one.

1402: 

1403: 

1404: 

1405: \medskip

1406: 

1407: {\it Step 1}. We will define several constants $\eps_k$ in this

1408: step. The definitions will be labeled (a), (b), (c), etc. Each of

1409: these definitions is really a simple lemma asserting the existence

1410: of a constant with stated properties. Since the proofs do not need

1411: more than high school geometry, we omit most of the proofs. The

1412: constants $\eps_k$ are defined relative to each other, but

1413: $\eps_k$ may depend only on the values of $\eps_j$ for $j<k$.

1414: 

1415: (a) Let $\eps_0>0$ be so small that for every $x\in D$ with

1416: $\d(x,\prt D) \leq \eps_0$ there exists a unique point in $\prt D$

1417: whose distance from $x$ is minimal.

1418: 

1419: We make $\eps_0>0$ smaller, if necessary, so that the following is

1420: true. Consider any point $y\in \prt D$ and let $CS_1$ be the

1421: orthonormal coordinate system such that $y=0 \in \prt D$ and

1422: $\n(0) $ lies on the second axis. Write $\n(x) = (\n_1(x),

1423: \n_2(x))$. Then $|\n_1(x)| \leq \n_2(x)/100$ for $x \in \prt D

1424: \cap \cB(0, \eps_0)$ in $CS_1$.

1425: 

1426: We fix an arbitrary $\eps_1 \in (0, \eps_0]$. It will suffice to

1427: prove that for any $x_0,y_0 \in \ol D$, if $(X_0,Y_0)=(x_0,y_0)$

1428: then, with probability one, there exists $t< \infty$ such that

1429: $\d(X_t,Y_t) \leq \eps_1$.

1430: 

1431: (b) The angle between two vectors will be denoted $\angle

1432: (\cdot\,,\,\cdot)$, with the convention that it takes values in

1433: $(-\pi, \pi]$. Since $D$ is a bounded and strictly convex domain,

1434: there exists $\eps_2 \in (0, \pi /2)$ such that for every $x\in

1435: \prt D$ and $y\in \ol D$ satisfying $\d(x,y) \geq \eps_1/2$,

1436:  $$ \angle (\n(x), y-x ) \in [ - \pi/2 +\eps_2, \, {\pi / 2}-\eps_2 ].

1437: \eqno(4.9)

1438: $$

1439: 

1440: (c) Let $\cL(x,r) $ be the cone spanned by $ \{\n (y)$, $y\in \prt

1441: D\cap \cB(x, r)\}$. Since $\prt D$ is $C^1$-smooth, $\cL(x,r)$ is

1442: a wedge. Hence, all linear combinations of vectors in $\cL(x,r)$

1443: with non-negative coefficients belong to $\cL(x,r)$. An easy

1444: approximation argument shows that if $X_t \in \cB(x,r)$ for all

1445: $t\in(s,u)$ then $\int_s^u \n(X_t) dL^X_t \in \cL(x,r)$.

1446: 

1447: We will now choose $\eps_3\in(0,\eps_1/8)$. Consider vectors $\v$

1448: and $\w$ satisfying the following conditions, relative to $x_0,

1449: y_0$, and $\eps_3$.

1450: 

1451: If $\d(x_0,\prt D)\leq \eps_3$ then $ \v \in \cL(x_0, 2\eps_3)$

1452: and $|\v| \leq \eps_3$. If $\d(x_0,\prt D)> \eps_3$ then $ \v =

1453: 0$.

1454: 

1455: If $\d(y_0,\prt D)\leq \eps_3$ then $ \w \in \cL(y_0, 2\eps_3)$

1456: and $|\w| \leq \eps_3$. If $\d(y_0,\prt D)> \eps_3$ then $ \w =

1457: 0$.

1458: 

1459: We will show that (4.9) implies that we can find sufficiently

1460: small $\eps_3>0$ so that the following is true. Suppose that $x_0,

1461: y_0 \in \ol D$ with $\d(x_0, y_0) \geq \eps_1$. Assume that

1462: $x_1\in \cB(x_0, 2\eps_3)$ and $y_1\in \cB(y_0, 2\eps_3)$. Then

1463:  $$\d(x_1 + \v, y_1 +\w) \leq \d(x_1, y_1).\eqno(4.10)$$

1464: To see this, choose some $x_2$ and $y_2$ so that the following

1465: conditions hold.

1466: 

1467: If $\d(x_0,\prt D)\leq \eps_3$ then $x_2\in \prt D \cap \cB(x_0, 2\eps_3)$

1468: with $ \v =c \n(x_2)$.

1469: If $\d(x_0,\prt D)> \eps_3$ then $ x_2 = x_ 0$.

1470: 

1471: If $\d(y_0,\prt D)\leq \eps_3$ then $y_2\in \prt D \cap \cB(y_0, 2\eps_3)$

1472: with $ \w =c \n(y_2)$.

1473: If $\d(y_0,\prt D)> \eps_3$ then $ y_2 = y_ 0$.

1474: 

1475: Since $\eps_3< \eps_1 /8$,

1476: $$ |x_2-y_2|\geq |x_0-y_0|-|x_0-x_2|-|y_0-y_2| \geq \eps_1 -4 \eps_3

1477:     \geq \eps_1 /2.

1478: $$

1479: Thus by (4.9), we have

1480: for sufficiently small $\eps_3>0$,

1481: $$ \eqalignno{

1482: &\d(x_1 + \v, y_1 +\w)^2 \cr &\leq |x_1-y_1|^2+|\v-\w|^2+2

1483: (x_1-y_1)\cdot (\v-\w) \cr &\leq |x_1-y_1|^2+|\v-\w|^2+2

1484: (x_2-y_2)\cdot (\v-\w) + 2(|x_1-x_2|+|y_1-y_2|)|\v-\w|\cr &\leq

1485: |x_1-y_1|^2+ |\v -\w|^2 -2 (\sin \eps_2) |x_2-y_2| ( |\v|+|\w|) +

1486: 4 (8\eps_3)|\v-\w| \cr

1487:  & \leq |x_1-y_1|^2 + (|\v|+|\w|) \left( 6\eps_3 -2 (\sin \eps_2)

1488: (\eps_1/2)

1489:  + 32 \eps_3 \right) \cr

1490:  & =

1491:  |x_1-y_1|^2 - (|\v|+|\w|) \left(

1492:  \eps_1 \sin \eps_2

1493:  -38 \eps_3 \right) &(4.11)\cr & \leq \d(x_1,

1494: y_1)^2 .  \cr}

1495: $$

1496: 

1497: (d) Since $D$ is bounded, we can find $\eps_4>0$ and $N<\infty$,

1498: such that if $x_1, x_2, \dots$ is a sequence of points with

1499: $x_1\in \ol D$, $\d(x_k,x_{k-1})\geq \eps_3/8$ and $|\angle(x_k -

1500: x_{k-1}, x_{k+1} - x_k)| \leq \eps_4$ for all $k$ then $x_N\notin

1501: \ol D$.

1502: 

1503: (e) We choose $\eps_5, \eps_6 >0$ so that the following is true.

1504: Suppose that $x_0,y_0,x_1,y_1$ and $x_2$ satisfy the conditions

1505: $\d(x_0,y_0)\geq \eps_1$, $\d(x_1,y_1)\geq \eps_1$ and

1506:  $$\eqalignno{

1507:  &|\angle (x_1- y_1, x_0-y_0)| \leq \eps_5,\cr

1508:  &\d(x_1 ,

1509:  x_0 + (\eps_3/4) (y_0-x_0)/\d(x_0,y_0) ) \leq \eps_6,\cr

1510:  &\d(x_2 ,

1511:  x_1 + (\eps_3/4) (y_1-x_1)/\d(x_1,y_1) ) \leq \eps_6.\cr}$$

1512: Then $|\angle(x_1 - x_{0}, x_{2} - x_1)| \leq \eps_4$.

1513: 

1514: We make $\eps_6 $ smaller, if necessary, so that $\eps_6 <

1515: \eps_3/8$.

1516: 

1517: (f) We make $\eps_6>0$ smaller, if necessary so that the following

1518: holds. Suppose that $x_0,y_0,x_1$ and $y_1$ satisfy the conditions

1519: $\d(x_0,y_0)\geq \eps_1$,

1520:  $$\eqalignno{

1521:  &\d(x_1 ,  x_0 + (\eps_3/4) (y_0-x_0)/\d(x_0,y_0) ) \leq

1522:  \eps_6,&(4.12)\cr

1523:  &\d(y_1 ,  y_0 + (\eps_3/4) (y_0-x_0)/\d(x_0,y_0) ) \leq \eps_6.&(4.13)\cr

1524: }$$

1525: Then $|\angle(x_1 - y_1, x_0 - y_0)| \leq \eps_5$.

1526: 

1527: (g) We can find $\eps_7,\eps_8 >0$ with the following properties.

1528: Suppose that $x_0,y_0\in \ol D$, $x_1,x_2\in \R^2$,

1529: $\d(x_0,y_0)\geq \eps_1$ and the following conditions are

1530: satisfied.

1531: 

1532: If $\d(x_0,\prt D)\leq \eps_3$ then $ \v \in \cL(x_0, 2\eps_3)$

1533: and $|\v| \leq \eps_3$. If $\d(x_0,\prt D)> \eps_3$ then $ \v =

1534: 0$.

1535: 

1536: If $\d(y_0,\prt D)\leq \eps_3$ then $ \w \in \cL(y_0, 2\eps_3)$

1537: and $|\w| \leq \eps_3$. If $\d(y_0,\prt D)> \eps_3$ then $ \w =

1538: 0$.

1539: 

1540: Assume that

1541:  $$\eqalignno{

1542:  &\d(x_1 , x_0 + (\eps_3/4) (y_0-x_0)/\d(x_0,y_0) ) \leq

1543:  \eps_8,&(4.14)\cr

1544:  &\d(y_1 , y_0 + (\eps_3/4) (y_0-x_0)/\d(x_0,y_0) ) \geq \eps_6/2,&(4.15)\cr

1545:  & \d(y_1, y_0) \leq \eps_3/4 +\eps_8. &(4.16) \cr

1546:  }$$

1547: Then $\d(x_1+\v, y_1+\w) \leq \d(x_0,y_0) -\eps_7$.

1548: 

1549: (h) It is easy to see from (4.11) that we can strengthen (4.10) as

1550: follows. We can make $\eps_7>0$ smaller, if necessary, so that if

1551: $|\v| \geq \eps_6/2$ or $|\w| \geq \eps_6/2$, and the assumptions

1552: stated in Step 1(c) hold then

1553:  $$\d(x_1 + \v, y_1 +\w) \leq \d(x_1, y_1)-2\eps_7.\eqno(4.17)$$

1554: 

1555: \medskip

1556: 

1557: \noindent{\it Step 2}. Suppose that $X_0, Y_0 \in \ol D$ with

1558: $\d(X_0,Y_0) \geq \eps_1$. Consider the following events,

1559:  $$\eqalign{

1560:  F_1(t)&=\{

1561:  \d(X_{t}, Y_{t}) \leq \d(X_0,Y_0) - \eps_7\},\cr

1562:  F_2(t) & =

1563:  \{|\angle (X_{t}- Y_{t}, X_0-Y_0)| \leq \eps_5\} ,\cr

1564:  F_3(t) &=

1565:  \{\d(X_t, X_0 + (\eps_3/4)

1566:  (Y_0-X_0)/\d(X_0,Y_0) ) \leq \eps_6\land \eps_8\}, \cr

1567:  F_4(t) & =\{ \d(X_{t}, Y_{t}) \leq \d(X_0,Y_0) +

1568:  \eps_7/(4N)\},\cr

1569: F_5(t) & = (F_1(t) \cup F_2(t) ) \cap F_3(t) \cap F_4(t).

1570:  }$$

1571: We will show in Step 4 that $\P( F_5(t_1)) > p_1$ for some $t_1,

1572: p_1>0$ that do not depend on $X_0$ and $Y_0$.

1573: 

1574: Let $\eps_9 = \eps_7/(16N) \land \eps_3/8\land \eps_6/8\land

1575: \eps_8/5$. Recall that $B$ and $W$ are Brownian motions with

1576: $B_0=W_0=0$ driving $X$ and $Y$ in the sense of (4.1)-(4.2) and

1577: let

1578:  $$\eqalign{

1579:  A_1(t)&=\left\{B_t\in \cB \left( (\eps_3/4) (Y_0-X_0)/\d(X_0,Y_0), \

1580:  \eps_9 \right) \right\},\cr

1581:  A_2(t)&=\left\{\sup_{ s\in[0,t]}

1582:   | B_s - (s/t) B_t | \leq \eps_9 \right\},\cr

1583:  A_3(t)&= \left\{ |W_t| \leq \eps_3/4 + \eps_9 \right\},\cr

1584:  A_4(t) & = \left\{\sup_{ s\in[0,t]} | W_s - (s/t) W_t| \leq \eps_9

1585:  \right\},\cr

1586:  A_5(t) &= A_1(t) \cap A_2(t) \cap A_3(t) \cap A_4(t).

1587:  }$$

1588: We will argue in the rest of this step of the proof that

1589: $\P(A_5(t_1) )> p_1$ for some $p_1,t_1>0$. In later steps, we will

1590: show that $A_5(t)\subset F_5(t)$.

1591: 

1592: Recall that $B$ is a two-dimensional Brownian motion with $B_0=0$

1593: and let $T_r = \inf\{t\geq 0: |B_t| > r\}$. Note that, by Brownian

1594: scaling,

1595:  $$ \P(T_r < t)

1596:  = \P\left(\max_{0\leq s \leq t}|B_s| >r \right)

1597:  = \P\left(  \max_{0\leq s \leq 1}|B_s| > r/\sqrt{t}  \right).

1598:  $$

1599: By the large deviations principle (see [RY], Ch. VIII, Thm. 2.11),

1600:  $$\lim_{t/r^2 \to 0} (2t/r^2) \log \P(T_r < t\mid B_0=0)

1601:  = -1.\eqno(4.18)$$

1602: 

1603: Let

1604:  $$\eqalign{

1605:  r_0 &= \eps_3/4, \cr

1606:  A_6(t) &= \{ T_{r_0} < t\}, \cr

1607:  A_7 & = \{B_{T_{r_0}} \in \cB ( (\eps_3/4) (Y_0-X_0)/\d(X_0,Y_0),

1608:  \ \eps_9 /2)\}, \cr

1609:  A_8(t) & = \left\{ \sup_{T_{r_0} \leq s \leq

1610:  T_{r_0}+t} | B_s - B_{T_{r_0}} |  \leq \eps_9/2 \right\}.

1611:  }$$

1612: Clearly $A_6(t)$, $A_7$ and $A_8(t)$ are independent, and $ A_6(t)

1613: \cap A_7 \cap A_8(t)\subset A_1(t)$. So

1614: $$

1615: \P(A_1(t)) \geq \P_6(A_6(t)) \cdot \P(A_7) \cdot \P(A_8(t)).

1616: $$

1617:  Note that

1618: $\lim_{t\to 0} P(A_8(t)) = 1$ by the strong Markov

1619: property applied at $T_{r_0}$ and the event $A_7$ is independent of $t$.

1620: This together with (4.18) yields

1621:  $$\liminf_{t \to 0}\,  t  \log \P(A_1(t))  \geq  -r_0^2/2= -(\eps_3/4)^2/2.$$

1622: We obtain directly from (4.18) that

1623: $$\limsup_{t \to 0} \, t \log \P(A^c_3(t)) \leq  -(\eps_3/4+\eps_9)^2/2.$$

1624: This implies that for all sufficiently small $t>0$ we have

1625:  $$\P(A_1(t) \cap A_3(t)) >0.\eqno(4.19)$$

1626: 

1627: The process $\{B_s -  (s/t)B_t, \, s\in[0,t]\}$ is Brownian bridge

1628: with duration $t$ seconds, i.e., Brownian motion starting from 0

1629: and conditioned to be at 0 at time $t$. If $\wt T_r$ denotes the

1630: hitting time of $r$ by the absolute value of the Brownian bridge

1631: then we have a formula analogous to (4.18), $\limsup_{t/r^2 \to 0}

1632: (2t/r^2) \log \P(\wt T_r < t) \leq -1$. Thus

1633: $$   \limsup_{t \to 0} t \log \P(A^c_2(t)) \leq  -\eps_9^2/2.

1634: \eqno(4.20)

1635: $$

1636: Note that Brownian motion $B=\{B_t, t\geq 0\}$ is a Gaussian

1637: process. Since for every $0\leq s<t$, $B_s-(s/ t) B_t$ and $B_t$

1638: have zero covariance, the process $\{B_s -  (s/t)B_t, \,

1639: s\in[0,t]\}$ is independent of $B_t$. Similar remarks apply to

1640: $W$. Hence

1641: $$

1642: \P( A_1(t) \cap A_2(t))=  \P(A_1(t)) \P(A_2(t))

1643: \quad \hbox{ and } \quad

1644: \P( A_3(t) \cap A_4(t))=  \P(A_3(t)) \P(A_4(t)).

1645: $$

1646: This, (4.19) and (4.20)

1647:  imply that

1648: $$ \P(A_5(t_1) ) > p_1 \qquad \hbox{for some } t_1,p_1>0.

1649:  \eqno (4.21)

1650: $$

1651: \medskip

1652: 

1653: \noindent{\it Step 3}. Let $R_t = \int_0^t \n(X_s) dL^X_s$. We

1654: will show that if $A_1(t_0)\cap A_2(t_0)$ holds for some $t_0>0$

1655: then $|R_s| \leq 4\eps_9$ for every $s\in[0,t_0]$.

1656: 

1657: Since $A_1(t_0)$ and $ A_2(t_0)$ hold, $|B_t| \leq \eps_3/4

1658: +2\eps_9 \leq \eps_3/2$ for every $t\leq t_0$. Thus when $\d(X_0,

1659: \prt D) \geq \eps_3$,  $X_0+B_s \in \ol D$ for all $s\in [0,t_0]$.

1660: By the uniqueness of the solution to (4.1), $X_s =X_0+B_s$ for

1661: $s\in [0,t_0]$, and $R_s = 0$ for all $s\in[0,t_0]$.

1662: 

1663: Suppose that $\d(X_0, \prt D) \leq \eps_3$. By the assumptions

1664: made in Step 1(a), there exists a unique point $y\in \prt D$ with

1665: the smallest distance to $X_0$. Let $CS_1$ be the orthonormal

1666: coordinate system such that $y=0 \in \prt D$ and $\n(0) $ lies on

1667: the second axis. Recall from Step 1(a) that $\n(x) = (\n_1(x),

1668: \n_2(x))$ and $|\n_1(x)| \leq \n_2(x)/100$ for $x \in \prt D \cap

1669: \cB(0, 3\eps_3)$ in $CS_1$. Write $R_t = (R^1_t, R^2_t)$. By the

1670: opening remarks in Step 1(c), $R_t \in \cL(0,r)$ if $X_s\in

1671: \cB(0,r)$ for all $s\leq t$. This implies that $|R^1_t| \leq

1672: R^2_t/100$ if $X_s\in \cB(0,3\eps_3)$ for all $s\leq t$.

1673: 

1674: Let $T_1 = \inf\{t\geq 0: |R_{t}| > 4 \eps_9\}$. We will assume

1675: that $T_1 < t_0$ and show that this leads to a contradiction.

1676: Since $|B_t| \leq \eps_3/2$ for every $t\leq t_0$, we have $|B_t +

1677: R_t| \leq \eps_3/2 + 4\eps_9 \leq \eps_3$ for every $t\leq T_1$.

1678: Hence,

1679: $$

1680: |X_t| \leq | X_0 | + |B_t + R_t| \leq \eps_3 + \eps_3 =

1681: 2 \eps_3 \quad \hbox{ for  every } t\leq T_1.

1682: $$

1683: It follows that $R^2_t\geq 0$ for every $t\leq T_1$ and

1684: $|R^1_{T_1}| \leq R^2_{T_1}/100$. Note that, by Step 1(a), the

1685: slope of the tangent line at points in $\cB(0, 3\eps_3)\cap

1686: \partial D$ is between $-1/100$ and $1/100$ and that $\d(X_{T_1} ,

1687: X_0 + B_{T_1})=|R_{T_1}|=4\eps_9$. The last observation and the

1688: fact that $X_{T_1} \in \prt D$ imply that $\d(X_0 + B_{T_1}, \prt

1689: D)\geq (2/3) |R_{T_1}|=8\eps_9/3$. Since $A_1(t_0)$ and $

1690: A_2(t_0)$ hold, $\d(X_0 +B_t, D) \leq 2\eps_9 $ for every $t\leq

1691: t_0$ and in particular for $t=T_1$. This contradiction proves the

1692: claim that $|R_s| \leq 4\eps_9$ for every $s\in[0,t_0]$.

1693: 

1694: \medskip

1695: 

1696: Let $\wt R_t = \int_0^t \n(Y_s) dL^Y_s$. We claim that if

1697: $A_3(t_0)\cap A_4(t_0)$ holds for some $t_0>0$ then $|\wt R_s|

1698: \leq \eps_3$ for every $s\in[0,t_0]$. To see this, observe that

1699: $\d(Y_0 +W_t, D) \leq \eps_3/4 + 2\eps_9 \leq \eps_3/2$ for $t\leq

1700: t_0$ and use that same argument as in the case of $R_t$.

1701: 

1702: \medskip

1703: 

1704: \noindent{\it Step 4}. Fix $t_0>0$. We will show that

1705: $A_5(t_0)\subset F_5(t_0)$. Assume that $A_5(t_0)$ holds.

1706: 

1707: Since $A_1(t_0)$ holds, we have in view of Step 3,

1708:  $$\eqalign{

1709:  &\d(X_{t_0}, X_0 + (\eps_3/4)

1710:  (Y_0-X_0)/\d(X_0,Y_0) ) \cr

1711: &\leq \d(B_{t_0},  (\eps_3/4)

1712:  (Y_0-X_0)/\d(X_0,Y_0) ) + |R_{t_0}|

1713:  \leq \eps_9 + 4\eps_9

1714:  \leq \eps_6\land \eps_8.}$$

1715: In other words, $F_3(t_0)$ holds.

1716: 

1717: Since $A_1(t_0)$ and $A_3(t_0)$ hold we have, using simple

1718: geometry,

1719:  $$\d(X_0 + B_{t_0}, Y_0 + W_{t_0}) \leq \d(X_0,Y_0) + 3 \eps_9.\eqno(4.22)$$

1720: We will apply (4.10) with $x_1 = X_0 + B_{t_0}$, $y_1 = Y_0 +

1721: W_{t_0}$, $\v = R_{t_0}$ and $\w = \wt R_{t_0}$. We have assumed

1722: that $A_5(t_0)$ holds so $|B_{t}| \leq \eps_3$ and $|W_{t}| \leq

1723: \eps_3$ for $t\leq t_0$. This and Step 3 imply that for $t\leq

1724: t_0$,

1725:  $$\d(X_t, X_0) \leq |B_t| + |R_t| \leq 2 \eps_3,$$

1726: and similarly $\d(Y_t, Y_0)  \leq 2 \eps_3$. By the opening

1727: remarks in Step 1(c),

1728: $$ \v = \int_0^{t_0} \n(X_t) dL^X_t \in \cL(X_0, 2 \eps_3)

1729: \quad \hbox{ and } \quad \w = \int_0^{t_0} \n(Y_t) dL^Y_t

1730: \in \cL(Y_0, 2 \eps_3).

1731: $$

1732: By Step 3, $|\v| \leq \eps_3$ and $|\w| \leq

1733: \eps_3$. We have shown that all the conditions listed in Step 1(c)

1734: are satisfied so we can apply (4.10) to obtain

1735:  $$\d(X_{t_0} , Y_{t_0})  \leq \d(X_0,Y_0) + 3 \eps_9.$$

1736: This proves that $F_4(t_0)$ holds.

1737: 

1738: It will now suffice to show that if $F_2(t_0)$ does not hold then

1739: $F_1(t_0)$ does. Assume that $F_2(t_0)$ does not hold.

1740: 

1741: If all of the following conditions hold,

1742:  $$\eqalignno{

1743:   & | B_{t_0} -  (\eps_3/4)

1744:  (Y_0-X_0 )/\d(X_0,Y_0)| \leq \eps_6/2\land c_8,&(4.23)\cr

1745:  & | W_{t_0} -  (\eps_3/4) (Y_0-X_0)/\d(X_0,Y_0) |

1746:  \leq \eps_6/2,&(4.24)\cr

1747:  &\d(X_{t_0},  X_0 + B_{t_0} ) \leq \eps_6/2,&(4.25)\cr

1748:  &\d(Y_{t_0}, Y_0 + W_{t_0}  ) \leq \eps_6/2,&(4.26)

1749:  }$$

1750: then (4.12) and (4.13) hold with $(x_1, y_1) = (X_{t_0}, Y_{t_0})$

1751: and $(x_0, y_0)=(X_0, Y_0)$, and this implies $F_2(t_0)$, which is

1752: a contradiction. Hence, at least one of the conditions

1753: (4.23)-(4.26) must fail. The first of these conditions holds

1754: because $A_1(t_0)$ is true. By Step 3, (4.25) holds.

1755: 

1756: Suppose that (4.26) fails. In view of (4.22), we can apply (4.17)

1757: to $x_1 = X_0 + B_{t_0}$, $y_1 = Y_0 + W_{t_0}$, $\v = R_{t_0}$

1758: and $\w = \wt R_{t_0}$ to obtain

1759:  $$\d(X_{t_0} , Y_{t_0})  \leq \d(X_0,Y_0) + 3 \eps_9 -2\eps_7

1760:  \leq \d(X_0,Y_0) - \eps_7.$$

1761: Hence, we have $F_1(t_0)$ in this case.

1762: 

1763: Suppose that (4.24) fails. Then, in view of Step 3, (4.14)-(4.16)

1764: hold with $(x_0, y_0)=(X_0, Y_0)$, $(x_1, y_1)=(X_0 + B_{t_0}, Y_0

1765: + W_{t_0})$, $\v = R_{t_0}$ and $\w = \wt R_{t_0}$ and we have

1766: $$

1767: \d(X_{t_0} , Y_{t_0})  \leq \d(X_0,Y_0) - \eps_7.

1768: $$

1769: Hence, $F_1(t_0)$ holds. This proves that $A_5(t_0)\subset F_5

1770: (t_0)$.

1771: 

1772: \medskip

1773: 

1774: \noindent{\it Step 5}. Fix some $\eps_1\in (0,\eps_0)$ and let

1775: $\eps_j$'s be defined relative to $\eps_1$ as in Step 1. Let

1776: $\rho$ be the diameter of $D$ and let $N_0$ be an integer greater

1777: than $4\rho/\eps_7$. Recall from (4.21) in Step 2 that for some

1778: $p_1,t_1>0$ we have $\P(A_5(t_1) )> p_1$. Let

1779:  $$S_1 = \inf\{t\geq 0: \d(X_t,Y_t) \leq \eps_1

1780:  \hbox{  or  } F_5(t) \hbox{ holds}\}\land (2t_1).

1781:  $$

1782: By (4.21) and Step 4, $\P(S_1 \leq t_1) > p_1$. Recall that

1783: $\theta$ stands for the usual Markov shift and define

1784: $$ S_0=0 \qquad \hbox{and} \qquad

1785:  S_k = S_1 \circ \theta_{S_{k-1}} + S_{k-1}\quad \hbox{for } k\geq 1.

1786: $$

1787: Recall integer $N$ defined in Step 1. By the strong Markov

1788: property, with probability no less than $p_1^{2NN_0}>0$, we have

1789: $S_k-S_{k-1} \leq  t_1$ for all $k \leq 2NN_0$.

1790: 

1791: We will argue that if $\bigcap_{k\leq 2NN_0} \{ S_k-S_{k-1} \leq

1792: t_1\}$ holds then $\d(X_t, Y_t) \leq \eps_1$ for some $t \leq

1793: 2NN_0 t_1$. Assume otherwise. Then $F_5(S_1) \circ \theta

1794: _{S_{k-1}}$ holds for every $k \leq 2NN_0$. In particular,

1795: $F_4(S_1) \circ \theta _{S_{k-1}}$ holds for every $k \leq 2NN_0$.

1796: Let $F_6(t) = F_2(t)\cap F_3(t)$. Since $F_5(t) \subset F_4(t)

1797: \cap ( F_1(t) \cup (F_2(t)\cap F_3(t)))$, for every $k \leq

1798: 2NN_0$, at least one of the events $F_1(S_1) \circ \theta

1799: _{S_{k-1}}$ and $F_6(S_1) \circ \theta _{S_{k-1}}$ holds.

1800: 

1801: Consider any $j\leq N_0$. If $F_6(S_1) \circ \theta _{S_{k-1}}$

1802: holds for $k= 2jN, 2jN+1, \dots, 2(j+1)N -1$ then $X_{S_k}$'s and

1803: $Y_{S_k}$'s satisfy the following conditions for $k= 2jN, 2jN+1,

1804: \dots, 2(j+1)N -1$,

1805:  $$\eqalign{

1806:  \d\left (X_{S_{k+1}}, X_{S_k}+ (\eps_3/4)(Y_{S_k} - X_{S_k})/

1807: \d (X_{S_k},Y_{S_k}) \right) &\leq \eps_6, \cr

1808:  \left|\angle \left( X_{S_k} - Y_{S_k}, X_{S_{k+1}} - Y_{S_{k+1}}

1809:  \right) \right|   &\leq \eps_5.

1810:  }$$

1811: This implies, by Step 1(e), that for $k= 2jN, 2jN+1, \dots,

1812: 2(j+1)N -2$,

1813:  $$

1814:  |\angle(X_{S_{k+1}} - X_{S_k}, X_{S_{k+2}} - X_{S_{k+1}})|

1815:   \leq \eps_4.

1816:  $$

1817: Since $F_3(S_1) \circ \theta _{S_{k-1}}$ holds, we also have

1818: $\d(X_{S_{k+1}}, X_{S_k}) \geq \eps_3/8$ for the same range of $k$ (to

1819: see this, recall from Step 1(e) that $\eps_6 < \eps_3/8$). Hence

1820: $X_{S_{2(j+1)N-2}}$ must be outside $\ol D$, according to the

1821: definition of $\eps_4$ and $N$ in Step 1(d). Since $X$ always

1822: stays inside $\ol D$, at least one of the events $F_6(S_1) \circ

1823: \theta _{S_{k-1}}$ must fail for some $2jN \leq k \leq 2(j+1)N

1824: -1$. Hence, at least one event $F_1(S_1) \circ \theta _{S_{k-1}}$

1825: holds for some $2jN \leq k \leq 2(j+1)N -1$. Since $F_4(S_1) \circ

1826: \theta _{S_{k-1}}$ holds for every $k \leq 2NN_0$, there is a

1827: reduction of at least $\eps_7/2$ in the distance between $X$ and

1828: $Y$ on every interval $[S_{2jN}, S_{2(j+1)N}]$, that is,

1829:  $$\d \left( X_{S_{2jN}}, \ Y_{S_{2jN}} \right)

1830:  \leq \d \left( X_{S_{2(j-1)N}}, \ Y_{S_{2(j-1)N}} \right)

1831:  - {\eps_7\over 2} \qquad \hbox{for every } j\in \{ 1, \cdots,   N_0 \}.

1832:  $$

1833: Summing over $j$ we obtain

1834: $$ \d \left( X_{S_{2N_0N}}, \ Y_{S_{2N_0N}} \right) \leq \d( X_0, \ Y_0 )

1835:  - {N_0 \eps_7\over 2} \leq \d(X_0, Y_0)-2\rho <0.

1836: $$

1837: This contradiction proves our claim that

1838: $$

1839: \hbox{if  } \ \bigcap_{k\leq 2NN_0} \{ S_k-S_{k-1} \leq t_1\} \

1840: \hbox{holds,  then } \ \d(X_t, Y_t) \leq \eps_1 \ \hbox{ for some

1841: } \ t \leq 2t_1 NN_0 .

1842: $$

1843: 

1844: We have shown that $\d(X_t,Y_t) \leq \eps_1$ for some $t\leq 2t_1

1845: NN_0$ with probability greater than $p_2 \df p_1^{2NN_0}>0$. By

1846: the Markov property, $\d(X_t,Y_t) \leq \eps_1$ for some $t\leq

1847: 2jt_1 NN_0$ with probability greater than $1- (1-p_2)^j$. To

1848: complete the proof, it suffices to let $j\to \infty$.

1849:  \qed

1850: 

1851: 

1852: 

1853: \bigskip

1854: 

1855: Two of the assumptions on the boundary of $D$ made in Theorem 4.3,

1856: that it is convex with $C^1$-smooth boundary and it does not

1857: contain any line segments, are convenient from the technical point

1858: of view but most likely one can dispose of them with analysis more

1859: refined than that in our proof.

1860: 

1861: 

1862: \bigskip

1863: \noindent{\bf Example 4.4}. Suppose that $D$ is the annulus

1864: $\{x\in \R^2: 1<|x|<2\}$. The rotation of $D$ around $(0,0)$ with

1865: an angle in $(0, 2\pi)$ is an isometry with no fixed points.

1866: Hence, there exists a shy coupling of reflected Brownian motions

1867: in this annulus (see Example 3.3).

1868: 

1869: \bigskip

1870: 

1871: There are many open problems concerning existence of shy couplings

1872: but we find the following two questions especially intriguing.

1873: Recall that $\cB(x,r)$ denotes the open ball with center $x$ and

1874: radius $r$.

1875: 

1876: \bigskip

1877: \noindent{\bf Open problems 4.5}. {\sl (i) Does there exist a shy

1878: coupling of reflected Brownian motions in $\cB((0,0),3) \setminus

1879: \cB((1,0),1)$?

1880: 

1881: (ii) Does there exist a shy coupling of reflected Brownian motions

1882: in any simply connected planar domain?

1883: 

1884: }

1885: 

1886: \bigskip

1887: We end this paper with a vague remark concerning a potential

1888: relationship between shy couplings and an old and well known

1889: problem of ``fixed points.'' Suppose that $\cS$ is a topological

1890: space. If every continuous mapping $I: \cS \to \cS$ has a fixed

1891: point, i.e., a point $x\in\cS$ such that $I(x) = x$, then we say

1892: that $\cS$ has the fixed point property. One of the most famous

1893: fixed point theorems is that of Brouwer---it asserts that a closed

1894: ball in $\R^d$ has the fixed point property. Spheres obviously do

1895: not have the fixed point property. Some of our results may suggest

1896: that a shy coupling exists if and only if the state space does not

1897: have the fixed point property. Example 3.8 applied to the graph

1898: illustrated in Fig.~3.6 shows that this conjecture is false at

1899: this level generality. It is possible, though, that a weaker form

1900: of this assertion is true---we leave it as an open problem.

1901: 

1902: 

1903: \vskip1truein

1904: 

1905: 

1906: \centerline{REFERENCES}

1907: \bigskip

1908: 

1909: \item{[BC1]} K.~Burdzy and Z.-Q.~Chen, Local time flow

1910: related to skew Brownian motion. {\it Ann. Probab. \bf 29} (2001),

1911: 1693-1715.

1912: 

1913: \item{[BC2]} K.~Burdzy and Z.-Q.~Chen, Coalescence of

1914: synchronous couplings. {\it Probab. Theory Rel. Fields \bf 123}

1915: (2002), 553--578.

1916: 

1917: \item{[BCJ]} K.~Burdzy, Z.-Q.~Chen and P.~Jones, Synchronous

1918: couplings of reflected Brownian motions in smooth domains.

1919: Preprint, 2005.

1920: 

1921: \item{[BK]} K.~Burdzy and H.~Kaspi, Lenses in skew Brownian

1922: flow. {\it Ann. Probab. \bf 32}  (2004), 3085--3115.

1923: 

1924: \item{[FW]} M.~Freidlin and A.~Wentzell, Diffusion processes

1925: on graphs and the averaging principle. {\it Ann. Probab. \bf 21}

1926: (1993), 2215-2245.

1927: 

1928: \item{[F]} A.~Friedman, {\it Differential Games}. Wiley, New

1929: York, 1971.

1930: 

1931: \item{[HS]} J.M.~Harrison and L.A.~Shepp, On skew Brownian

1932: motion. {\it Ann. Probab}. {\bf 9}  (1981), 309-313.

1933: 

1934: \item{[KS]} I.~Karatzas and S. E.~Shreve,  {\it Brownian Motion and

1935: Stochastic Calculus}, Second edition. Springer, New York, 1991.

1936: 

1937: \item{[L]} T.~Lindvall, {\it Lectures on the Coupling

1938: Method}. Wiley, New York,  1992.

1939: 

1940: \item{[LS]} P.~L. Lions and A.~S. Sznitman,  Stochastic

1941: differential equations with reflecting boundary conditions. {\it

1942: Comm. Pure Appl. Math.} {\bf 37}  (1984), 511-537.

1943: 

1944: \item{[RY]} D.~Revuz and M.~Yor, {\it Continuous Martingales

1945: and Brownian Motion}. Springer, New York, 1991.

1946: 

1947: \item{[Ta]} H.  Tanaka, Stochastic differential equations with

1948: reflecting boundary condition in convex regions. {\it Hiroshima

1949: Math. J. \bf 9} (1979), 163-177.

1950: 

1951: 

1952: \vskip1truein

1953: 

1954: 

1955: \bigskip

1956: \noindent I.B.: Department of Mathematics, Weizmann Institute of

1957: Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel {\tt itai.benjamini@weizmann.ac.il}

1958: 

1959: 

1960: \bigskip

1961: \noindent K.B. and Z.C.: Department of Mathematics, Box 354350,

1962: University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98115-4350, USA \hfill\break

1963: {\tt burdzy@math.washington.edu, zchen@math.washington.edu}

1964: 

1965: 

1966: 

1967: \bye

1968: