1: \newif\ifCPC
2:
3: \ifCPC
4: \documentclass{cpc}
5: \else
6: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper,oneside]{article}
7: \usepackage{a4}
8: \usepackage{amsthm}
9: \theoremstyle{plain}
10: \fi
11:
12: \usepackage{amsmath, amssymb, bm}
13: \usepackage{setspace}
14: \usepackage{xspace}
15: \usepackage[usenames]{color}
16: \usepackage{graphicx}
17: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
18: \usepackage{multirow}
19: \usepackage{relsize}
20: \usepackage[margin=0pt,font=small,labelfont=bf,indention=.45cm]{caption}
21: \usepackage[indention=0pt,margin=0pt]{subfig}
22: \usepackage[american]{babel}
23: \hyphenation{mono-ton-icity}
24:
25:
26:
27:
28: \usepackage[numbers,sort&compress,longnamesfirst]{natbib}
29: \bibliographystyle{plainnat}
30:
31: \newcommand{\seeurl}[1]{{(also available at {\footnotesize\url{#1}})}}
32: \newcommand{\toappearseeurl}[1]{{(to appear, see {\footnotesize\url{#1}})}}
33: \newcommand{\availableurl}[1]{{(available at {\footnotesize\url{#1}})}}
34:
35: \newcommand{\Prob}{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{Prob}}}}
36: \newcommand{\DIR}{\textsc{dir}}
37: \newcommand{\REM}{\textsc{rem}}
38: \newcommand{\INF}{\textsc{inf}}
39: \newcommand{\CON}{\textsc{con}}
40: \newcommand{\MINCON}{\textsc{mincon}}
41: \newcommand{\MAXCON}{\textsc{maxcon}}
42: \newcommand{\sgn}{\text{sgn}}
43: \newcommand{\ARR}{\textsc{arr}}
44: \newcommand{\NEXT}{\textsc{next}}
45: \newcommand{\EX}{\textsc{ex}}
46:
47: \newcommand{\V}{V}
48: \newcommand{\0}{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{0}}}}
49: \renewcommand{\d}{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{d}}}}
50: \newcommand{\x}{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{x}}}}
51: \newcommand{\y}{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{y}}}}
52: \newcommand{\A}{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{A}}}}
53: \newcommand{\ee}{\varepsilon}
54:
55: \newcommand{\cA}{{\ensuremath{ \cal{A}}}}
56: \newcommand{\fA}{{\ensuremath{ \mathcal{A}}}}
57: \newcommand{\RS}{{\ensuremath{ \mathcal{R}}}}
58: \newcommand{\C}{{\ensuremath{ \mathcal{C}}}\xspace}
59: \newcommand{\B}{{\ensuremath{ \mathcal{B}}}\xspace}
60:
61: \newcommand{\Aa}{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{A}^{\!(1)}}}}
62: \newcommand{\Ab}{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{A}^{\!(2)}}}}
63: \newcommand{\Ac}{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{A}^{\!(3)}}}}
64: \newcommand{\Ad}{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{A}^{\!(4)}}}}
65: \newcommand{\Ax}[1]{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{A}^{\!(#1)}}}}
66: \newcommand{\Ap}[1]{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{A}\hspace*{-.13em}'^{(#1)}}}}
67: \newcommand{\Aba}{{\ensuremath{ \bar{\mathbf{A}}^{\!(1)}}}}
68: \newcommand{\Abb}{{\ensuremath{ \bar{\mathbf{A}}^{\!(2)}}}}
69: \newcommand{\Abc}{{\ensuremath{ \bar{\mathbf{A}}^{\!(3)}}}}
70: \newcommand{\Abd}{{\ensuremath{ \bar{\mathbf{A}}^{\!(4)}}}}
71: \newcommand{\Aha}{{\ensuremath{ \hat{\mathbf{A}}^{\!(1)}}}}
72: \newcommand{\Ahb}{{\ensuremath{ \hat{\mathbf{A}}^{\!(2)}}}}
73: \newcommand{\Ahc}{{\ensuremath{ \hat{\mathbf{A}}^{\!(3)}}}}
74: \newcommand{\Ahd}{{\ensuremath{ \hat{\mathbf{A}}^{\!(4)}}}}
75:
76: \newcommand{\Ra}{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{R}^{\hspace*{-.03\baselineskip}(1)}}}}
77: \newcommand{\Rb}{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{R}^{\hspace*{-.03\baselineskip}(2)}}}}
78: \newcommand{\Rc}{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{R}^{\hspace*{-.03\baselineskip}(3)}}}}
79: \newcommand{\Rd}{{\ensuremath{ \mathbf{R}^{\hspace*{-.03\baselineskip}(4)}}}}
80:
81:
82: \renewcommand{\aa}{A^{(1)}}
83: \newcommand{\ab}{A^{(2)}}
84: \renewcommand{\AA}{{\ensuremath{ \mathcal{A}}}}
85: \newcommand{\ai}{A^{\hspace*{-.05\baselineskip}(i)} }
86: \newcommand{\at}{A^{\hspace*{-.05\baselineskip}(t)} }
87: \newcommand{\ak}{A^{\hspace*{-.05\baselineskip}(k)} }
88: \newcommand{\al}{A^{\hspace*{-.05\baselineskip}(\ell)} }
89: \newcommand{\ax}[1]{A^{\hspace*{-.05\baselineskip}(#1)} }
90: \renewcommand{\t}{{\ensuremath{ t^{(i)} }}}
91:
92: \newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}
93: \newtheorem{lem}[thm]{Lemma}
94: \newtheorem{cor}[thm]{Corollary}
95: \newtheorem{ass}{Assumption}
96: \newtheorem{con}{Conjecture}
97: \newtheorem{defi}{Definition}
98:
99:
100: \newcommand{\thmref}[1]{Theorem~\ref{thm:#1}}
101: \newcommand{\lemref}[1]{Lemma~\ref{lem:#1}}
102: \newcommand{\lemrefs}[2]{Lemmas~\ref{lem:#1} and~\ref{lem:#2}}
103: \newcommand{\lemrefss}[3]{Lemmas~\ref{lem:#1},~\ref{lem:#2}, and~\ref{lem:#3}}
104: \newcommand{\corref}[1]{Corollary~\ref{cor:#1}}
105: \newcommand{\defref}[1]{Definition~\ref{def:#1}}
106: \newcommand{\defrefs}[2]{Definitions~\ref{def:#1} and~\ref{def:#2}}
107: \newcommand{\assref}[1]{Assumption~\eqref{ass:#1}}
108: \newcommand{\conref}[1]{Conjecture~\ref{con:#1}}
109: \newcommand{\figref}[1]{Figure~\ref{fig:#1}}
110: \newcommand{\figrefs}[2]{Figures~\ref{fig:#1} and~\ref{fig:#2}}
111: \newcommand{\tabref}[1]{Table~\ref{tab:#1}}
112: \newcommand{\secref}[1]{Section~\ref{sec:#1}}
113: \newcommand{\secrefs}[2]{Sections~\ref{sec:#1} and~\ref{sec:#2}}
114: \newcommand{\charef}[1]{Chapter~\ref{cha:#1}}
115: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{equation~\eqref{eq:#1}}
116: \newcommand{\eqs}[2]{equations~\eqref{eq:#1} and~\eqref{eq:#2}}
117: \newcommand{\eqss}[3]{equations~\eqref{eq:#1},~\eqref{eq:#2}, and~\eqref{eq:#3}}
118: \newcommand{\Eqs}[2]{Equations~\eqref{eq:#1} and~\eqref{eq:#2}}
119:
120:
121: \def\argmax{\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}
122: \def\argmin{\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}
123: \def\mod{\operatorname{mod}}
124:
125: \DeclareSymbolFont{AMSb}{U}{msb}{m}{n}
126: \newcommand{\N}{{\mathbb{N}}}
127: \newcommand{\Q}{{\mathbb{Q}}}
128: \newcommand{\Z}{{\mathbb{Z}}}
129: \newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb{R}}}
130: \newcommand{\setmid}{\,|\,}
131:
132: \newcommand{\arrpp}{\nearrow}
133: \newcommand{\arrpm}{\searrow}
134: \newcommand{\arrmp}{\nwarrow}
135: \newcommand{\arrmm}{\swarrow}
136: \newcommand{\arru}{\uparrow}
137: \newcommand{\arrd}{\downarrow}
138: \newcommand{\arrl}{\leftarrow}
139: \newcommand{\arrr}{\rightarrow}
140:
141: \newcommand{\ar}{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}
142: \renewcommand{\al}{\ensuremath{\leftarrow}}
143: \renewcommand{\ab}{\ensuremath{\,?\!}}
144:
145: \newcommand{\binxy}{\binom{x}{y}}
146: \newcommand{\binpp}{\binom{+1}{+1}}
147: \newcommand{\binpm}{\binom{+1}{-1}}
148: \newcommand{\binmp}{\binom{-1}{+1}}
149: \newcommand{\binmm}{\binom{-1}{-1}}
150:
151: \mathchardef\ordinarycolon\mathcode`\:
152: \mathcode`\:=\string"8000
153: \begingroup \catcode`\:=\active
154: \gdef:{\mathrel{\mathop\ordinarycolon}}
155: \endgroup
156:
157: \allowdisplaybreaks[1]
158:
159: \ifCPC\else
160: \sloppy
161: \parindent 0pt
162: \parskip .7\baselineskip
163: \title{Deterministic Random Walks\\on the Two-Dimensional Grid}
164: \author{Benjamin Doerr \and Tobias Friedrich}
165: \date{}
166: \oddsidemargin 0in
167: \textwidth 155mm
168: \fi
169:
170:
171: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
172: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
173:
174: \begin{document}
175: \ifCPC\label{firstpage}\fi
176:
177: \maketitle
178: \begin{abstract}
179: \noindent
180: Jim Propp's rotor router model is a deterministic analogue of a random walk on a
181: graph. Instead of distributing chips randomly, each vertex serves its neighbors
182: in a fixed order. We analyze the difference between Propp machine and random
183: walk on the infinite two-dimensional grid. It is known that, apart from a
184: technicality, independent of the starting configuration, at each time, the
185: number of chips on each vertex in the Propp model deviates from the expected
186: number of chips in the random walk model by at most a constant.
187: We show that
188: this constant is approximately 7.8, if all vertices serve their neighbors in
189: clockwise or counterclockwise order and 7.3 otherwise. This result in particular
190: shows that the order in which the neighbors are served makes a difference. Our
191: analysis also reveals a number of further unexpected properties of the two-dimensional
192: Propp machine.
193: \end{abstract}
194:
195: \ifCPC\else
196: \setstretch{1.1}
197: \fi
198:
199: \section{Introduction}
200:
201: The rotor-router model is a simple deterministic process suggested
202: by Jim Propp. It can be viewed as an attempt to derandomize random walks on graphs.
203: So far, the ``Propp machine'' has mainly been regarded on infinite grids $\Z^d$.
204: There, each vertex $x\in\Z^d$ is equipped with a ``rotor'' together with a cyclic permutation
205: (called ``rotor sequence'') of the $2d$ cardinal directions of $\Z^d$.
206: While a chip (particle, coin, \ldots) performing a random walk leaves a vertex in a random direction,
207: in the Propp model it always goes into the direction the rotor is pointing.
208: After a chip is sent, the rotor is rotated according to the fixed rotor sequence.
209: This shall ensure that the chips are distributed highly evenly among the neighbors.
210:
211: The Propp machine has attracted considerable attention recently. It has been shown
212: that it closely resembles a random walk in several respects.
213: The first result is due to \citet{Levine1,Levine2} who
214: compared random walk and Propp machine in an
215: \emph{aggregating model} called Internal Diffusion-Limited Aggregation (IDLA)~\cite{IDLA}.
216: There, each chip starts at the origin of $\Z^d$
217: and walks till it reaches an unoccupied site, which it then occupies.
218: In the random walk model it is well known that
219: the shape of the occupied locations converges to a Euclidean ball in $\R^d$~\citep{IDLAlawler1}.
220: Recently, \citet{Levine1,Levine2} proved an analogous result for the Propp machine.
221: Surprisingly, the convergence seems to be much faster.
222: \citet{Kleber} showed experimentally that for circular rotor sequences
223: after three million chips
224: the radius of the inscribed and circumscribed circle
225: differs by approximately $1.61$.
226: Hence, the occupied locations almost form a perfect circle.
227: Some more results on this aggregating model in two dimensions can be found in~\secref{blob}.
228:
229: \citet{CooperComb} compared the Propp machine and the random walk
230: in terms of the \emph{single vertex discrepancy}.
231: Apart from a technicality which we defer to \secref{preliminaries}, they place
232: arbitrary numbers of chips on the vertices. Then they run the Propp machine on
233: this initial configuration for a certain number of rounds. A round consists of
234: each chip (in arbitrary order) doing one move as directed by the Propp machine.
235: For the resulting position, for each vertex they compare the number of chips
236: that end up there with the expected number of chips that a random walk in same
237: number of rounds would have gotten there starting from the initial
238: configuration.
239: Cooper and Spencer showed that for all grids $\Z^d$, these differences can be
240: bounded by a constant $c_d$ independent of the initial set-up (in particular,
241: the total number of vertices) and the run-time.
242:
243: For the case $d=1$, that is, the graph being the infinite path, \citet{CooperEJC} showed
244: among other results that this constant $c_1$ is approximately $2.29$.
245: They further proved that to have the discrepancy on a particular vertex maximal
246: it suffices that each location has an odd number of chips at at most one time.
247:
248: In this paper, we rigorously analyze the Propp machine on the two-dimensional grid~$\Z^2$.
249: A particular difference to the one-dimensional case is that now there are
250: two non-isomorphic orders in which the four neighbors can be served.
251: The first are clockwise and counterclockwise orders of the four cardinal directions.
252: These are called circular rotor sequences.
253: All other orders turn the rotor by $180^\circ$ at one time and are called
254: non-circular rotor sequences.
255: We prove $c_2\approx7.83$ for circular rotor sequences and
256: $c_2\approx7.29$ otherwise.
257: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper showing that the rotor sequence can make a difference.
258:
259: We also characterize the respective worst-case configurations.
260: In particular, we prove that the maximal single vertex discrepancy can
261: only be reached if there are vertices which send
262: a number of chips not divisible by four at at least three different times.
263:
264: The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The basic notations
265: are given in \secref{preliminaries}. In \secref{lower} we roughly speaking show
266: that, by suitably choosing the initial configuration, we may prescribe the
267: number of chips on each vertex at each time modulo~4. This will yield sharp
268: lower bounds, since in \secref{basic} we see that the discrepancy on a vertex
269: can be expressed by exactly this information.
270: In \secrefs{INF}{upper}, we derive sufficient information about initial
271: configurations leading to maximal discrepancies on a vertex so that we then can
272: estimate the maximum possible discrepancy numerically.
273: This
274: estimate is shown to be relatively tight in \secref{error}. Since the
275: investigation up to this point in particular showed that different rotor
276: sequences lead to different results, we brief{}ly examine the aggregating model
277: in this respect in \secref{blob}.
278: We summarize our results in the last section.
279:
280:
281: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
282: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
283:
284:
285:
286: \section{Preliminaries}
287: \label{sec:preliminaries}
288: \label{sec:notations}
289:
290: To bound the single vertex discrepancy between Propp machine and random walk
291: on the two-dimensional grid we need several preliminaries,
292: which will be introduced in this section.
293:
294: First, it will be useful to use a different representation of the two-dimensional grid~$\Z^2$. Let
295: $\textstyle\DIR:= \big\{\binpp,\binpm,\binmm,\binmp\big\}$. Define a graph $G=(\V,E)$ via $\V=\big\{\binom{x_1}{x_2} \mid x_1 \equiv x_2\ (\mod 2) \big\}$
296: and $E=\{ (\x,\y)\in\V^2 \mid \x-\y\in\DIR \}$. Clearly, $G$ is isomorphic to the
297: standard two-dimensional grid $G'=(\Z^2,E')$ with
298: $E'=\{ (\x,\y)\in\Z^2 \mid \|\x-\y\|_1=1 \}$. Therefore, our results on $G$ immediately translate to $G'$.
299: The advantage of our representation is that now each direction $D \in \DIR$ can
300: be uniquely expressed as $D = \ee_x \binom 10 + \ee_y \binom 01$ with $\ee_x,
301: \ee_y \in \{-1,1\}$. This allows a convenient computation of the probability
302: distribution of the random walk on the grid (see \eq{prob} below).
303: For convenience we will also use the symbols
304: $\big\{\arrpp,\arrpm,\arrmm,\arrmp\big\}$ to describe the directions in the obvious manner.
305:
306: In order to avoid discussing all equations in the expected sense
307: and thereby to simplify the presentation, one can treat
308: the expectation of the random walk as a \emph{linear machine}~\cite{CooperComb}.
309: Here, in each time step a pile of $k$ chips
310: is split evenly, with $k/4$ chips going to each neighbor.
311: The (possibly non-integral) number of chips
312: at vertex~$\x$ at time~$t$ is exactly the expected number of chips
313: in the random walk model.
314:
315: For $\x,\y\in\V$ and $t\in\N_0$,
316: let $\x \sim t$ denote that $x_1 \equiv x_2 \equiv t\ (\mod 2)$ and
317: $\x \sim \y$ denote that $x_1 \equiv x_2 \equiv y_1 \equiv y_2\ (\mod 2)$.
318: A vertex~$\x$ is called \emph{even} or \emph{odd}
319: if\, $\x\sim 0$ or $\x\sim 1$, respectively.
320:
321: A \emph{configuration} describes the current ``state'' of linear or Propp machine.
322: A configuration of the linear machine assigns to each vertex $\x\in\V$ its current
323: (possibly fractional) number of chips.
324: A configuration of the Propp machine assigns to each vertex $\x\in\V$ its current
325: (integral) number of chips and the current direction of the rotor.
326: A configuration is called \emph{even} (\emph{odd}) if all chips lie on even
327: (odd) vertices.
328:
329: As pointed out in the introduction, there is one limitation without which
330: neither the results of \cite{CooperComb,CooperEJC} nor our results hold. Note that
331: since $G$ is a bipartite graph, chips that start on even vertices never
332: mix with those starting on odd vertices. It looks like we are playing
333: two games at once. However, this is not true, because chips at different parity
334: vertices may affect each other through the rotors. We therefore require the initial configuration
335: to have chips only on \emph{one} parity. Without loss of generality, we consider
336: only even initial configurations.
337:
338: A random walk on $G$ can be described nicely by its probability density.
339: By $H(\x,t)$ we denote the probability that a chip from vertex~$\x$
340: arrives at the origin after~$t$ random steps (``at time~$t$'')
341: in a simple random walk.
342: Then,
343: \begin{equation}
344: H(\x,t)=4^{-t} \tbinom{t}{(t+x_1)/2} \tbinom{t}{(t+x_2)/2} \label{eq:prob}
345: \end{equation}
346: for $\x\sim t$ and $\|\x\|_\infty\leq t$, and
347: $H(\x,t)=0$ otherwise.
348:
349: We now describe the \emph{Propp machine} in detail.
350: First, we define a rotor sequence by a cyclic permutation $\NEXT\colon \DIR\to\DIR$.
351: That is, after a chip has been sent in direction~$\A$,
352: the rotor moves such that afterwards it points in direction $\NEXT(\A)$.
353: Instead of using $\NEXT$ directly, it will often be more handy to describe
354: a \emph{rotor sequence} as a
355: 4-tuple $\RS=(\arrpp,\NEXT(\arrpp),\NEXT^2(\arrpp),\NEXT^3(\arrpp))$.
356: We distinguish between circular and non-circular rotor sequences.
357: \emph{Circular} rotor sequences
358: are either clockwise $(\arrpp,\arrpm,\arrmm,\arrmp)$ or
359: counter-clockwise $(\arrpp,\arrmp,\arrmm,\arrpm)$.
360: All other rotor sequences are called \emph{non-circular}.
361: Our main focus is on the classical Propp machine in which all vertices have
362: the same rotor sequence.
363: In \citep{CooperComb}, \citeauthor{CooperComb} allow different
364: rotor sequences for each vertex~$\x$. Our results also hold in this general setting.
365: However, to simplify the presentation we will
366: typically assume that there is only one rotor sequence for all vertices~$\x$.
367:
368: In the following notations, we implicitly fix the rotor sequence
369: as well as the initial configuration
370: (that is, chips on vertices and rotor directions at time $t=0$).
371: In one step of the Propp machine, each chip does exactly one move, that is, it
372: moves in the direction the arrow associated with his current position is pointing
373: and updates the arrow direction according to the rotor sequence. Note that the
374: particular order in which the chips move within one step is irrelevant (as long
375: as we do not label the chips). By this rule, all subsequent configurations are
376: determined by the initial configuration. For all $\x \in V$ and $t \in \N_0$ let
377: $f(\x,t)$ denote the number of chips on vertex~$\x$ and
378: $\ARR(\x,t)$ the direction of the rotor associated with~$\x$ after
379: $t$ steps of the Propp machine.
380:
381: To describe the linear machine we use the same fixed initial configuration as for the Propp machine.
382: In one step, each vertex~$\x$ sends a quarter of its (possibly fractional) number of chips
383: to each neighbor.
384: Let $E(\x,t)$ denote the number of chips at vertex~$\x$ after~$t$ steps of the linear machine.
385: This is equal to the expected number of chips at vertex~$\x$
386: after a random walk of all chips for~$t$ steps.
387: Note that $E(\x,t)=\tfrac{1}{4} \sum_{\A\in\DIR} E(\x+\A,t-1)$ by definition.
388:
389:
390:
391:
392:
393: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
394: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
395:
396:
397: \section{Mod-4-forcing Theorem}
398: \label{sec:lower}
399:
400: For a deterministic process like the Propp machine, it is obvious that the
401: initial configuration (that is, the location of each chip and the direction of
402: each rotor), determines all subsequent configurations. The following theorem
403: shows a partial converse, namely that (roughly speaking) we may prescribe the
404: number of chips modulo 4 on all vertices at all times and still find an initial
405: configuration leading to such a game. An analogous result for the one-dimensional
406: Propp machine has been shown in \cite{CooperEJC}.
407:
408: \begin{thm}[Mod-4-forcing Theorem]
409: For any initial direction of the rotors
410: and any $\pi\colon\V\times\N_0\to\{0,1,2,3\}$ with
411: $\pi(\x,t)=0$ for all~$\x\not\sim t$, there is an initial even configuration with
412: $f(\x,0)$, $\x\in\V$ that results in subsequent configurations with $f(\x,t)\equiv\pi(\x,t)\ (\mod 4)$
413: for all~$\x$ and~$t$.
414: \label{thm:parityforcing}
415: \end{thm}
416: \begin{proof}
417: Let $\ARR(\x,0)$ describe the initial rotor directions given in the assumption.
418: The sought-after configuration can be found iteratively. We start with
419: $f(\x,0):=\pi(\x,0)$ chips
420: at location~$\x$.
421:
422: Now assume that our initial (even) configuration is such that
423: for some $T \in \N$ we have $f(\x,t)\equiv\pi(\x,t)\ (\mod 4)$ for all~$t<T$.
424: We modify this initial configuration by defining
425: $f'(\x,0):=f(\x,0)+\varepsilon_\x 4^{T}$ for even~$\x$, while we have
426: $f'(\x,0)=0$ for odd~$\x$. Here,
427: $\varepsilon_\x\in\{0,1,2,3\}$ are to be determined such that
428: $f'(\x,t)\equiv\pi(\x,t)\ (\mod 4)$ for all~$t\leq T$.
429:
430: Observe that a pile of $4^{T}$ chips splits evenly~$T$ times. Hence for all
431: choices of the $\varepsilon_\x$ we still have $f'(\x,t)\equiv\pi(\x,t)\ (\mod 4)$
432: for all~$t<T$. At time~$T$, the extra piles of $4^T$ chips have spread as
433: follows:
434: \[
435: f'(\x,T) = f(\x,T) + \!\!\sum_{\substack{\y\sim 0\\ \|\y-\x\|_\infty \leq T}} \!\!\varepsilon_{\y} \binom{T}{\frac{T+x_1-y_1}{2}} \binom{T}{\frac{T+x_2-y_2}{2}}.
436: \]
437:
438: Let initially $\varepsilon_\y:=0$ for all~$\y \in \V$.
439: By induction on $\|\y\|_1$, we change the $\ee_{\y}$ to their final value.
440: We keep $\varepsilon_\y=0$ for all~$\y$ with $\|\y\|_1<2T$.
441:
442: Assume that for some $\theta \in \N_0$, the current $\varepsilon_\y$ fulfill
443: $f'(\x,T)\equiv\pi(\x,T)\ (\mod 4)$ for all~$\x$ with $\|\x\|_1<\theta$.
444: We now determine $\varepsilon_\y$ for all~$\y$ with $\|\y\|_1=2T+\theta$
445: in such a way that
446: $f'(\x,T)\equiv\pi(\x,T)\ (\mod 4)$ for all~$\x \in \V$ such that $\|\x\|_1\leq\theta$.
447:
448: Fortunately, to achieve $f'(\x,T)\equiv\pi(\x,T)\ (\mod 4)$ for some $\x \in \V$
449: such that $\|\x\|_1 = \theta$, it suffices to change a single $\ee_\y$, $\y \in
450: \V$, $\|\y\|_1 = 2T+\theta$. Without loss of generality, let $\x\in\V$,
451: $\|\x\|_1=\theta$, and $\x\sim T$ such that $x_1,x_2\geq 0$. Let $\y = \y(\x) =
452: (x_1+T,x_2+T)$. Now choosing $\varepsilon_{\y} \in \{0,1,2,3\}$ such that
453: $\ee_\y \equiv \pi(\x,T)-f(\x,T)\ (\mod 4)$ yields
454: $f'(\x,T)=f(\x,T)+\varepsilon_{\y} \equiv\pi(\x,T)\ (\mod 4)$ and
455: $f'(\x,T)=f(\x,T)$ for all other~$\x \in \V$ such that $\|\x\|_1 \le \theta$.
456:
457: Hence for each $\x \in \V$ such that $\|\x\|_1 = \theta$, we find a $\y(\x)$ and
458: a value for $\ee_{\y(\x)}$ such that the resulting $f'(\x,T)$ are as desired.
459: All other $\varepsilon_{\y}$ with $\|\y\|_1=2T+\theta$ remain fixed to zero.
460:
461: This shows that for all~$\theta \in \N$, we may choose $\varepsilon_\y$, $\y \in
462: \V$, such that $f'(\x,t)\equiv\pi(\x,t)\ (\mod 4)$ for all~$t\leq T$ and all $\x
463: \in \V$ such that $\|\x\|_1\leq\theta$. By compactness principle, this yields
464: the existence of $\varepsilon_\y$, $\y \in \V$, such that
465: $f'(\x,t)\equiv\pi(\x,t)\ (\mod 4)$ for all~$t\leq T$ and $\x \in \V$.
466:
467: Up to this point, we proved that for all~$T \in \N$, there is an even initial
468: configuration such that $f'(\x,t)\equiv\pi(\x,t)\ (\mod 4)$ holds for all~$t\leq
469: T$ and $\x \in \V$. Invoking the compactness principle again finishes the proof.
470: \end{proof}
471:
472:
473:
474: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
475: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
476:
477: \section{The Basic Method}
478: \label{sec:basic}
479:
480: In this section, we lay the foundations for our analysis of the maximal possible
481: single-vertex discrepancy. In particular, we will see that we can determine the
482: contribution of a vertex to the discrepancy at another one independent from
483: all other vertices.
484:
485: In the following, we re-use several arguments from \cite{CooperComb,CooperEJC}.
486: For the moment, in addition to the notations given in \secref{preliminaries},
487: we also use the following mixed notation.
488: By $E(\x,t_1,t_2)$ we denote
489: the (possibly fractional) number of chips at location $x$
490: after first performing $t_1$ steps with the Propp machine and
491: then $t_2-t_1$ steps with the linear machine.
492:
493: We are interested in bounding the discrepancies
494: $|f(\x,t)-E(\x,t)|$ for all vertices~$\x$ and all times~$t$.
495: Since we aim at bounds independent of the initial configuration,
496: it suffices to regard the vertex $\x=\0$.
497: From
498: \begin{eqnarray*}
499: E(\0,0,t) &=& E(\0,t),\\
500: E(\0,t,t) &=& f(\0,t),
501: \end{eqnarray*}
502: we obtain
503: \begin{equation*}
504: f(\0,t)-E(\0,t) \ =\ \sum_{s=0}^{t-1} \left( E(\0,s+1,t) - E(\0,s,t) \right).
505: \end{equation*}
506:
507: Now $E(\0,s+1,t) - E(\0,s,t) = \sum_{\x \in V} \sum_{k = 1}^{f(\x,s)}
508: \big(H(\x+\NEXT^{k-1}(\ARR(\x,s)), t - s - 1) - H(\x,t-s)\big)$
509: motivates the definition of the \emph{influence} of a Propp move (compared to a
510: random walk move) from vertex~$\x$ in direction $\A$ on the discrepancy of $\0$
511: ($t$ time steps later) by
512: \[
513: \INF(\x,\A,t) := H(\x+\A, t-1) - H(\x,t).
514: \]
515:
516: To finally reduce all $\ARR$s involved to the initial arrow settings $\ARR(\cdot,0)$, we define
517: $s_i(\x) := \min \big\{ u\geq 0 \mid i < \sum_{t=0}^{u} f(\x,t) \big\}$
518: for all $i\in\N_0$. Hence
519: at time $s_i(\x)$ the location~$\x$ is
520: occupied by its $i$-th chip (where, to be consistent with~\cite{CooperEJC}, we start counting with the $0$-th chip).
521:
522: Let~$T$ be a time at which we regard the discrepancy at $\0$. Then the above yields
523: \begin{flalign}\label{eq:basic1}
524: f(\0,T) &- E(\0,T) \ =\ \sum_{\x\in \V} \sum_{\substack{i\geq 0,\\ s_i(\x) < T}} \INF(\x,\NEXT^i(\ARR(\x,0)),T-s_i(\x)).
525: \end{flalign}
526: Since the inner sum of \eq{basic1} will occur frequently in the remainder, let us define the \emph{contribution} of a vertex~$\x$ to be
527: \begin{equation*}
528: \CON(\x) \ :=\ \sum_{\substack{i\geq 0,\\ s_i(\x) < T}} \INF(\x,\NEXT^i(\ARR(\x,0)),T-s_i(\x)),
529: \end{equation*}
530: where we both suppress the initial configuration leading to the $s_i(\cdot)$ as well as the run-time~$T$.
531: Occasionally, we will write $\CON_{\C}$ to specify the underlying initial configuration.
532:
533: The first main result of this section, summarized in the following theorem,
534: is that it suffices to examine each vertex~$\x$ separately.
535: \begin{thm}
536: \label{thm:main}
537: The discrepancy between Propp machine
538: and linear machine after~$T$ time steps is the sum of the contributions $\CON(\x)$
539: of all vertices~$\x$,
540: i.e.,
541: \begin{equation*}
542: f(\0,T) - E(\0,T) \ =\ \sum_{\x\in \V} \CON(\x).
543: \end{equation*}
544: \end{thm}
545: %
546: Our aim in this paper is to prove a sharp upper bound for the single-vertex
547: discrepancies $|f(\y,T) - E(\y,T)|$ for all~$\y$ and~$T$. As discussed
548: already, by symmetry we may always assume $\x = \0$. To get rid of the
549: dependency of~$T$, let us define $\MAXCON(\x)$ to be the supremum contribution
550: of~$\x$ over all initial configurations and all~$T$. We will shortly see that
551: the supremum actually is a maximum (\corref{onlyEX}), that is, there is
552: an initial configuration and a time~$T$ such that $\CON(\x) = \MAXCON(\x)$.
553: Since the contribution only depends on $T - s_i(\x)$ and the (Mod-4)-forcing theorem
554: tells us how to manipulate the $s_i(\x)$, we may choose~$T$ as large as
555: we like (and still have a configuration leading to $\CON(\x) = \MAXCON(\x)$).
556: Provided that $\sum_{\x \in V} \MAXCON(\x)$ is finite (which we prove in the
557: remainder), we obtain that $\sum_{\x \in V} \MAXCON(\x)$ is a \emph{tight} upper
558: bound for $\sup (f(\0,T) - E(\0,T))$, where the supremum is taken over all
559: initial configurations and all~$T$.
560:
561: To bound $|f(\0,T) - E(\0,T)|$, we need an analogous discussion for negative
562: contributions. Let $\MINCON(\x)$ be the infimum contribution of~$\x$ over all
563: initial configurations and all $T$. Fortunately, using symmetries, we can show that $\sum_{\x \in V} \MAXCON(\x) = -\sum_{\x \in V} \MINCON(\x)$, hence it suffices to
564: regard positive contributions. Let us shortly sketch the symmetry argument and
565: then summarize the above discussion.
566:
567: Observe that sending one chip in each direction at the same time does not change $\CON(\x)$.
568: That is, for all~$\x$ and~$t$ we have
569: \begin{equation}
570: \sum_{\A\in\DIR}\!\INF(\x,\A,t) = 0.
571: \label{eq:sum0}
572: \end{equation}
573: This follows right from the definition of $\INF$ and the elementary fact
574: $H(\x,t)=\tfrac{1}{4} \sum_{\A\in\DIR} H(\x+\A,t-1)$.
575: Based on \eq{sum0}
576: we will ignore piles of four chips (and multiples) at a common time~$t$
577: in the remainder of this section.
578: The remaining one to three chips are called \emph{odd chips}.
579: Note that there is \emph{no} relation between odd chips and odd vertices/configurations
580: as defined in \secref{preliminaries}.
581:
582: To describe the symmetries of $\CON$, we further distinguish the
583: non-circular rotor sequences.
584: \label{alternating}
585: We call
586: $(\arrpp,\arrmp,\arrpm,\arrmm)$ and $(\arrpp,\arrmm,\arrpm,\arrmp)$
587: \emph{$x$-alternating} and
588: $(\arrpp,\arrpm,\arrmp,\arrmm)$ and $(\arrpp,\arrmm,\arrmp,\arrpm)$
589: \emph{$y$-alternating}.
590: Now a short look at the definition of $\MAXCON$ reveals symmetries like
591: $\MAXCON(\binom{x_1}{x_2})=\MAXCON(\binom{-x_1}{-x_2})$
592: for circular rotor sequences,
593: $\MAXCON(\binom{x_1}{x_2})=\MAXCON(\binom{x_1}{-x_2})$
594: for $x$-alternating rotor sequences,
595: and $\MAXCON(\binom{x_1}{x_2})=\MAXCON(\binom{-x_1}{x_2})$
596: for $y$-alternating rotor sequences.
597: The following lemma exhibits symmetries for $\MAXCON$ and $\MINCON$.
598: It shows that the discrepancies caused by having too few or too many
599: chips have the same absolute value.
600:
601: \begin{lem}
602: \label{lem:sym}
603: For all $\x\in V$, the following symmetries hold for
604: \begin{itemize}
605: \item
606: circular rotor sequences:
607: $\MAXCON(\binom{x_1}{x_2})=-\MINCON(\binom{-x_1}{x_2})$,
608: \item
609: $x$-alternating rotor sequences:
610: $\MAXCON(\binom{x_1}{x_2})=-\MINCON(\binom{-x_1}{x_2})$,
611: \item
612: $y$-alternating rotor sequences:
613: $\MAXCON(\binom{x_1}{x_2})=-\MINCON(\binom{x_1}{-x_2})$.
614: \end{itemize}
615: \end{lem}
616: \begin{proof}
617: The proofs are not difficult, so we only give the one for the first statement.
618: We show that for each configuration $\C_1$ there is another configuration $\C_3$ and a simple permutation $\pi$ of $V$ with
619: $\CON_{\C_1}(\x)= - \CON_{\C_3}(\pi(\x))$ for all implicit run-times $T$ and assuming the clockwise rotor sequence $\RS:=(\arrpp,\arrpm,\arrmm,\arrmp)$ for both $\C_1$ and $\C_3$.
620: By \thmref{parityforcing},
621: there is a configuration $\C_2$
622: which sends,
623: using the rotor sequence $(\arrpp,\arrmp,\arrmm,\arrpm)$,
624: an odd chip from $\binom{-x_1}{x_2}$ in direction $\binom{-A_1}{A_2}$ at time~$t$
625: if and only if $\C_1$ sends an odd chip from~$\binom{x_1}{x_2}$ in direction~$\binom{A_1}{A_2}$ at time~$t$.
626: Note that $\CON_{\C_2}(\binom{-x_1}{x_2})=\CON_{\C_1}(\x)$.
627: A configuration $\C_3$ which sends for each single chip $\C_2$ sends,
628: \emph{three} chips from the same vertex in the same direction at the same time
629: obeys rotor sequence $\RS$ and gives
630: by \eq{sum0} a contribution
631: $\CON_{\C_3}(\binom{-x_1}{x_2}) =
632: -\CON_{\C_2}(\binom{-x_1}{x_2}) =
633: -\CON_{\C_1}(\x)$.
634: In consequence, $\MINCON(\binom{-x_1}{x_2})=-\MAXCON(\binom{x_1}{x_2})$ for the clockwise rotor sequence $\RS$.
635: \end{proof}
636:
637: Now \lemref{sym} immediately yields $\sum_{\x\in \V} \MINCON(\x) = -\sum_{\x\in \V} \MAXCON(\x)$.
638: Therefore, it suffices to regard maximal contributions.
639: \begin{thm}
640: \vspace{-\baselineskip}
641: \label{thm:tight}
642: \[
643: \sup_{\C,T} |f(\0,T) - E(\0,T)| \ =\, \sum_{\x\in \V} \MAXCON(\x)
644: \]
645: is a \emph{tight} upper bound for the single
646: vertex discrepancies.
647: \end{thm}
648:
649:
650: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
651: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
652:
653: \section{The Modes of \smaller\smaller INF}
654: \label{sec:INF}
655:
656: In \thmref{tight} we expressed the discrepancy as sum of contributions $\CON(\x)$,
657: which in turn are sums of the influences $\INF(\x,\A,t)$.
658: To bound the discrepancy, we are now interested in the extremal values of
659: such sums. In this section we derive some monotonicity
660: properties of these sums.
661: For this, we define
662: \[
663: \INF(\x,\fA,t) := \sum_{\A\in\fA} \INF(\x,\A,t)
664: \]
665: for a finite sequence
666: $\fA:=(\Aa,\Ab,\ldots)$ of rotor directions ordered according to a
667: fixed rotor sequence.
668: In the remainder of the article all finite sequences of
669: rotor directions for which we use the calligraphic $\fA$
670: are ordered according to their respective rotor sequence.
671:
672: \label{def:unimodal}
673: Let $X \subseteq \R$. We call a
674: mapping $f\colon X \to \R$ \emph{unimodal}, if there is a $t_1 \in X$ such that
675: $f|_{x \le t_1}$ as well as $f|_{x \ge t_1}$ are monotone. We call a
676: mapping $f\colon X \to \R$ \emph{bimodal}, if there are $t_1,t_2 \in X$ such that
677: $f|_{x \le t_1}$, $f|_{t_1 \le x \le t_2}$, and $f|_{t_2 \le x}$ are monotone.
678: We call a mapping $f\colon X \to \R$ \emph{strictly bimodal},
679: if it is bimodal, but not unimodal.
680: In the following, we show that all $\INF(\x,\fA,t)$ are bimodal in~$t$.
681:
682: From \eq{sum0} we see that
683: \begin{equation}
684: \begin{minipage}[c]{200pt}
685: \vspace{-.7\baselineskip}
686: \begin{align}
687: \INF(\x,(\Aa,\Ab,\Ac),t) &=
688: -\INF(\x,\DIR\setminus\{\Aa,\Ab,\Ac\},t) \text{\ \ and}\notag\\
689: \INF(\x,(\Aa,\ldots,\Ax{k}),t) &= \INF(\x,(\Aa,\ldots,\Ax{k-4}),t) \text{\ \ for $k\geq4$.}\notag
690: \end{align}
691: \end{minipage}
692: \label{eq:INF0}
693: \end{equation}
694: This shows that it suffices to examine $\INF(\x,\fA,t)$ for
695: $\fA$ of length one and two, which is done in
696: \lemrefs{INF}{INFF}, respectively.
697: For both proofs, we need Descartes' Rule of Signs, which can be found
698: in~\cite{Yap}.
699:
700: \begin{thm}[Descartes' Rule of Signs]
701: The number of positive roots counting multiplicities
702: of a non-zero polynomial with real coefficients
703: is either equal to its number of coefficient sign variations
704: (i.e., the number of sign changes between consecutive nonzero coefficients)
705: or else is less than this number by an even integer.
706: \label{thm:descartes}
707: \end{thm}
708:
709:
710:
711: With this, we are now well equipped to analyze the monotonicity of $\INF(\x,\fA,\cdot)$
712: for $|\fA|\in\{1,2\}$.
713:
714: \begin{lem}
715: For all~$\x\in\V$ and $\A\in\DIR$, $\INF(\x,\A,t)$ is bimodal in~$t$.
716: It is strictly bimodal
717: if and only if
718: \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
719: \begin{enumerate}
720: \item
721: $\|\x\|_{\infty}>6$ \ and
722: \item
723: $-A_1 x_1 > A_2 x_2 > (-A_1 x_1+1)/2$ or
724: $-A_2 x_2 > A_1 x_1 > (-A_2 x_2+1)/2$.
725: \end{enumerate}
726: \label{lem:INF}
727: \end{lem}
728: \begin{proof}
729: A chip at vertex~$\x$ requires at least $\|\x\|_{\infty}$ time steps to arrive at
730: the origin. Hence, $\INF(\x,\A,t)=0$ for $t< \|\x\|_{\infty}$.
731: We show that $\INF(\x,\A,\cdot)$ has at most two
732: extrema larger than $\|\x\|_{\infty}$.
733: The discrete derivative of $\INF(\x,\A,t)$ in~$t$ is
734: \[
735: \INF(\x,\A,t+2)-\INF(\x,\A,t) =
736: \frac{p(\x,\A,t) \cdot \big((t-1)!\big)^2 }{4^{t+2}
737: \big(\tfrac{t+x_1+2}{2}\big)!
738: \big(\tfrac{t-x_1+2}{2}\big)!
739: \big(\tfrac{t+x_2+2}{2}\big)!
740: \big(\tfrac{t-x_2+2}{2}\big)!
741: }
742: \]
743: with
744: $p(\x,\A,t) :=
745: (4 A_1 x_1 + 4 A_2 x_2) t^4 +
746: (
747: - A_1 x_1^3
748: - A_2 x_2^3
749: - A_1 x_1 x_2^2
750: - A_2 x_2 x_1^2
751: - 6 A_1 x_1 A_2 x_2
752: + 19 A_1 x_1
753: + 19 A_2 x_2
754: ) t^3 +
755: (
756: A_1 x_1^3 A_2 x_2
757: + A_1 x_1 A_2 x_2^3
758: - 4 A_1 x_1^3
759: - 4 A_2 x_2^3
760: - 4 A_1 x_1 x_2^2
761: - 4 A_2 x_2 x_1^2
762: - 23 A_1 x_1 A_2 x_2
763: + 30 A_1 x_1
764: + 30 A_2 x_2
765: ) t^2 +
766: (
767: A_1 x_1^3 x_2^2
768: + A_2 x_2^3 x_1^2
769: + 4 A_1 x_1^3 A_2 x_2
770: + 4 A_1 x_1 A_2 x_2^3
771: - 4 A_1 x_1^3
772: - 4 A_2 x_2^3
773: - 4 A_1 x_1 x_2^2
774: - 4 A_2 x_2 x_1^2
775: - 32 A_1 x_1 A_2 x_2
776: + 16 A_1 x_1
777: + 16 A_2 x_2
778: ) t
779: - A_1 x_1^3 A_2 x_2^3
780: + 4 A_1 x_1^3 A_2 x_2
781: + 4 A_1 x_1 A_2 x_2^3
782: - 16 A_1 x_1 A_2 x_2.
783: $
784: We observe that
785: the number of extrema of $\INF(\x,\A,\cdot)$ is exactly the number of roots of
786: $p(\x,\A,\cdot)$. Since this a polynomial of degree 4 in~$t$, we can use
787: Descartes' Sign Rule and some elementary case distinctions to show that
788: $p(\x,\A,\cdot)$ has at most two roots larger than $\|\x\|_{\infty}$.
789: A closer calculation reveals that $p(\x,\A,\cdot)$ has precisely two roots larger
790: than $\|\x\|_{\infty}$ if
791: $\|\x\|_{\infty}>6$ and one of
792: $-A_1 x_1 > A_2 x_2 > (-A_1 x_1+1)/2$ and
793: $-A_2 x_2 > A_1 x_1 > (-A_2 x_2+1)/2$ hold.
794: \end{proof}
795:
796: \begin{lem}
797: For all $\x\in\V$ and $\Aa,\Ab\in\DIR$ such that $\Aa\neq\Ab$, $\INF(\x,(\Aa,\Ab),t)$ is unimodal in~$t$.
798: \label{lem:INFF}
799: \end{lem}
800: \begin{proof}
801: The discrete derivative of $\INF(\x,(\Aa,\Ab),t)$ is
802: \begin{eqnarray*}
803: \lefteqn{\INF(\x,(\Aa,\Ab),t+2)-\INF(\x,(\Aa,\Ab),t)}\\
804: &=& \frac{\big(p(\x,\Aa,t)+p(\x,\Ab,t)\big) \cdot \big((t-1)!\big)^2 }{4^{t+2}
805: \big(\tfrac{t+x_1+2}{2}\big)!
806: \big(\tfrac{t-x_1+2}{2}\big)!
807: \big(\tfrac{t+x_2+2}{2}\big)!
808: \big(\tfrac{t-x_2+2}{2}\big)!}
809: \end{eqnarray*}
810: with $p(\x,\A,t)$ as defined in the proof of \lemref{INF}.
811: As there,
812: the extrema of $\INF$ are the roots of the quartic function $p(\x,\Aa,t)+p(\x,\Ab,t)$.
813: Descartes' Sign Rule now shows that
814: $p(\x,\Aa,t)+p(\x,\Ab,t)$ has at most one root larger than $\|\x\|_{\infty}$ for all~$\x$
815: and $\Aa\neq\Ab$.
816: \end{proof}
817:
818: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
819: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
820:
821: \section{Maximal contribution of a vertex}
822: \label{sec:upper}
823:
824: We now fix a position~$\x$ and a rotor sequence $\RS$ to examine $\MAXCON(\x)$.
825: \lemrefs{INF}{INFF} show
826: that $\sum_{\A\in\fA} \INF(\x,\A,t)$ is bimodal in~$t$
827: for all finite sequences
828: $\fA:=(\Aa,\Ab,\ldots)$ of rotor directions ordered according to $\RS$.
829: Hence,
830: for all $\fA$ there are at most two times at which the monotonicity of
831: $\sum_{\A\in\fA} \INF(\x,\A,t)$ changes.
832: A time~$t$ at which the monotonicity of
833: $\sum_{\A\in\fA} \INF(\x,\A,t)$ changes for some $\fA$
834: is called \emph{extremal}.
835: In case of ambiguities, we define the first such time to be extremal.
836: That is, for unimodal $\sum_{\A\in\fA} \INF(\x,\A,t)$, we choose the first time $t_1$ such that
837: $\sum_{\A\in\fA} \INF(\x,\A,t)$ is monotone for $t\leq t_1$ and $t\geq t_1$.
838: Analogously, for strictly bimodal $\sum_{\A\in\fA} \INF(\x,\A,t)$, we choose the first times $t_1$ and $t_2$ such that
839: $\sum_{\A\in\fA} \INF(\x,\A,t)$ is monotone for $t\leq t_1$, $t_1\leq t\leq t_2$, and $t\geq t_2$.
840: The set of all \emph{extremal times} is denoted by $\EX(\x)$.
841:
842: $\EX(\x)$ can be computed easily.
843: By \eq{INF0} it suffices to consider $\fA$ of length one and two.
844: The corresponding extremal times are the (rounded) roots of the polynomials
845: $p(\x,\A,t)$ and $p(\x,\Aa,t)+p(\x,\Ab,t)$ given in \lemref{INF}.
846: The following lemma shows that the number of extremal times is very limited.
847:
848: \begin{lem}
849: $|\EX(\x)|\leq 7$
850: \label{lem:smallEX}
851: \end{lem}
852: \begin{proof}
853: According to \lemref{INF}, there is at most one rotor direction~$\A$ for which
854: $\INF(\x,\A,t)$ is \emph{strictly} bimodal in~$t$. Hence, the number of
855: extremal times of $\INF(\x,\fA,t)$ with $|\fA|=1$ is at most five.
856: For a rotor sequence $\RS=(\Ra,\Rb,\Rc,\Rd)$, \eq{sum0} and
857: \lemref{INFF} show that
858: $\INF(\x,(\Ra,\Rb),t)=-\INF(\x,(\Rc,\Rd),t)$ and
859: $\INF(\x,(\Rb,\Rc),t)=-\INF(\x,(\Rd,\Ra),t)$ are unimodal in~$t$.
860: Therefore, the total number of extremal times of $\INF(\x,(\Aa,\Ab),t)$ with
861: $(\Aa,\Ab)$ obeying $\RS$ is at most two.
862: \end{proof}
863:
864: Between two successive times $t_1,t_2\in\EX(\x)\cup\{0,T\}$,
865: $\sum_{\A\in\fA} \INF(\x,\A,t)$ is monotone in~$t$ for all $\fA$.
866: Such periods of time $[t_1,t_2]$ we call a \emph{phase}.
867: Note that $\sum_{\A\in\fA} \INF(\x,\A,t)$ could also be constant
868: in a certain phase.
869: This implies that it is monotonically increasing as well as
870: monotonically decreasing.
871: \label{def:inc}
872: To avoid this ambiguity, we
873: use the terms increasing and decreasing (in contrast to
874: monotonically increasing and decreasing) based
875: on the minima and maxima at extremal times $\EX(\x)$, which are unambiguously defined and alternating.
876: We now define precisely when a function
877: $\sum_{\A\in\fA} \INF(\x,\A,t)$ is
878: increasing or decreasing.
879: Consider the set $E$ of the extremal times of $\sum_{\A\in\fA} \INF(\x,\A,t)$ as defined above.
880: By \lemrefs{INF}{INFF} we know that $|E|\in\{1,2\}$.
881: We call $\sum_{\A\in\fA} \INF(\x,\A,t)$ \emph{increasing} at $t$ if
882: it has a minimum at the maximal $t'\in E$ with $t'< t$ or
883: a maximum at the minimal $t'\in E$ with $t'> t$.
884: Analogously, we call $\sum_{\A\in\fA} \INF(\x,\A,t)$ \emph{decreasing} at $t$ if
885: has a maximum at the maximal $t'\in E$ with $t'< t$ or
886: a minimum at the minimal $t'\in E$ with $t'> t$.
887:
888: By abuse of language, let us say that $\x$ sends odd chips at time $t$ if
889: $f(\x,T-t)\not\equiv 0$ $(\mod 4)$.
890:
891: \begin{lem}
892: \label{lem:onlyEX}
893: Let $\C_1$ be an arbitrary configuration with run-time $T\ge \max \EX(\x)$
894: and let $\CON_{\C_1}(\x)$ be the corresponding contribution of~$\x$.
895: Then there is a configuration $\C_2$ with the same run-time
896: and $\CON_{C_1}(\x)\leq\CON_{C_2}(\x)$ that
897: sends odd chips only at extremal times, i.e.,
898: for the associated $f$ satisfies $f(\x,T-t)\not\equiv 0$ $(\mod 4)$ only
899: if $t\in\EX(\x)$.
900: \end{lem}
901: \begin{proof}
902: Let $\C_2$ be a configuration with
903: $\CON_{\C_2}(\x)\geq\CON_{\C_1}(\x)$
904: and a minimal number of non-extremal times at which odd chips are sent from~$\x$.
905: We assume this number to be greater than zero and show a contradiction.
906:
907: The sum of the $\INF$s of all chips sent at a certain non-extremal time~$t$
908: is either increasing or decreasing in the phase $t$ lies in.
909:
910: Let us first assume that it is increasing.
911: Let $t'$ be the minimal $t'$ such that
912: $t'\in\EX(\x)$ or there are odd chips sent at time $t'$
913: (assume for the moment that such a $t'$ exists).
914: Then, sending the considered pile of odd chips at time $t'$
915: instead of time~$t$ decreases the number
916: of non-extremal times while not decreasing its contribution.
917: Such a modified configuration exists by \thmref{parityforcing}
918: and contradicts our assumption on $\C_2$.
919: Therefore, there is no such time $t'$.
920: This implies that~$t$ lies in the last phase and that the odd chips sent at time~$t$
921: are the last to be sent at all.
922: By $\lim_{t\to\infty}\INF(\x,\A,t)=0$ for all~$\A$, the contribution of
923: the chips sent at time~$t$ is negative (since increasing).
924: Hence, not sending these chips at all does not decrease $\CON_{\C_2}(\x)$,
925: but the number of non-extremal times.
926:
927: The same line of argument holds
928: if the sum of the $\INF$s is decreasing instead of
929: increasing. In this case we use that $\INF(\x,\A,t)=0$ for all
930: $t<\|\x\|_\infty$.
931: \end{proof}
932:
933: \lemref{onlyEX} immediately gives the following corollary.
934:
935: \begin{cor}
936: There is an initial configuration and a time~$T$ such that $\CON(\x)=\MAXCON(\x)$.
937: The configuration can be chosen such that $f(\x,T-t)\not\equiv 0$ $(\mod 4)$ only
938: if $t\in\EX(\x)$.
939: $T$ can be chosen arbitrarily as long as $T \ge \max \EX(\x)$.
940: \label{cor:onlyEX}
941: \end{cor}
942:
943: \lemref{smallEX} and \corref{onlyEX} already give a simple, but costly approach to calculate
944: $\MAXCON(\x)$: There are four different initial rotor directions for~$\x$ and
945: at each (of the at most seven) extremal time we can either send 0, 1, 2, or 3 odd chips.
946: As all subsequent
947: rotor directions are chosen according to $\RS$, there are only a constant $4\cdot4^7=65536$ configurations to
948: consider. The maximum of the respective $\CON(\x)$ will be $\MAXCON(\x)$ by \corref{onlyEX}.
949:
950: Fortunately, we can also find the worst-case configuration directly.
951: A \emph{block} of a phase $[t_1,t_2]$ is a 4-tupel $(\Aa,\Ab,\Ac,\Ad)\in\DIR^4$
952: of rotor directions in the order of $\RS$ such that
953: $\sum_{i=1}^{k}\INF(\x,\Ax{i},t)$ is increasing in~$t$ in this phase for all~$k\in\{1,2,3\}$.
954: By \eq{sum0}, this is equivalent to $\sum_{i=k}^{4}\INF(\x,\Ax{i},t)$ being
955: decreasing in~$t$ within the phase for all~$k\in\{2,3,4\}$.
956:
957: \begin{lem}
958: Each phase has a unique block. This is determined by the monotonicities of
959: $\INF(\x,\fA,t)$ with $|\fA|\in\{1,2\}$.
960: \label{lem:uniq_block}
961: \end{lem}
962: \begin{proof}
963: Consider a fixed phase. We want to show that for all valid combinations
964: of monotonicities of $\INF(\x,\fA,t)$ with $|\fA|\in\{1,2\}$ within this phase,
965: there is exactly one permutation $(\Aa,\Ab,\Ac,\Ad)$ of $\DIR$ obeying $\RS$ such that
966: $(\Aa,\Ab,\Ac,\Ad)$ forms a block.
967:
968: To describe the \emph{type} of monotonicity of $\INF(\x,\A,t)$ within the phase,
969: we use a function $\tau$ with $\tau(\A):=\,\ar\,$ if
970: $\INF(\x,\A,t)$ is increasing and
971: $\tau(\A):=\,\al\,$ if it is decreasing.
972: This notation should indicate the direction in which the respective $\INF(\x,\A,t)$ is increasing.
973: As a short form we also use $\tau(\Aa,\Ab,\Ac,\Ad):=(\tau(\Aa),\tau(\Ab),\tau(\Ac),\tau(\Ad))$.
974:
975: By \eq{sum0}, we know that there is at least one~$\A$ of type~$\ar$.
976: If there is exactly one direction~$\A$ of type~$\ar$, then the unique permutation
977: $(\Aa,\Ab,\Ac,\Ad)$ of $\DIR$ obeying $\RS$ such that
978: $\tau(\Aa,\Ab,\Ac,\Ad)=(\ar,\al,\al,\al)$ is the uniquely defined block.
979: If there are three rotor directions~$\A$ of type~$\ar$, the block is analogously uniquely defined
980: by $\tau(\Aa,\Ab,\Ac,\Ad)=(\ar,\ar,\ar,\al)$.
981:
982: It remains to examine the case of exactly two rotor directions of type~$\ar$.
983: If these two directions are consecutive in $\RS$,
984: $\tau(\Aa,\Ab,\Ac,\Ad)=(\ar,\ar,\al,\al)$ again defines the unique block.
985: Otherwise, rotor directions of type~$\ar$ and $\al$ are alternating in the rotor sequence
986: and $(\ar,\al,\ar,\al)$ is the only type possible for a block.
987: This allows two blocks $(\Aa,\Ab,\Ac,\Ad)$ and $(\Ac,\Ad,\Aa,\Ab)$.
988: The choice between these two is uniquely fixed by the monotonicity
989: of $\INF(\x,(\Aa,\Ab),t)$.
990: Therefore, in all cases there is exactly one unique block.
991: \end{proof}
992:
993: We now use \lemref{uniq_block} to define a particular configuration,
994: which we call \emph{block configuration}.
995: By \thmref{parityforcing}, we may specify a configuration sufficiently well
996: by fixing the number of odd chips at all times and locations.
997: In a block configuration $\B$, a vertex~$\x$ sends odd chips only at extremal times $t\in\EX(\x)$.
998: Let $(\Aha,\Ahb,\Ahc,\Ahd)$ and $(\Aba,\Abb,\Abc,\Abd)$ denote
999: the blocks in the phases ending and starting at~$t$.
1000: Then~$\x$ sends $k$~chips at time~$t$ in directions $(\Aa,\ldots,\Ax{k})$,
1001: where $k$ is such that $0\leq k\leq3$ and
1002: $(\ldots,\Ahd,\Aa,\ldots,\Ax{k},\Aba,\ldots)$ obeys $\RS$.
1003: This uniquely defines when and in which directions odd chips are sent.
1004: Note that we used the blocks only as a technical tool.
1005: There are not necessarily chips sent corresponding to
1006: $\Aha,\Ahb,\Ahc,\Ahd$ and $\Aba,\Abb,\Abc,\Abd$.
1007: By \thmref{parityforcing}, there are configurations $\B$ as just defined
1008: and for all~$\x$ all of them have the same contribution $\CON_\B(\x)$.
1009:
1010: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1011: % -------------------- Example ----------------------
1012: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1013:
1014: \begin{figure}[bt]
1015: \centering
1016: \includegraphics[bb=131pt 157pt 432pt 702pt,angle=-90,width=.75\textwidth,clip]{INF59.eps}
1017: \caption{$\INF\big(\binom{5}{9},\A,t\big)$ for $\A\in\{\arrpp,\arrpm,\arrmm,\arrmp\}$. The circles
1018: indicate the extrema.}
1019: \label{fig:INF59}
1020: \end{figure}
1021:
1022: \emph{Example.} We now derive the block configuration of the position $\x=\binom{5}{9}$ with the clockwise rotor sequence $\RS=(\arrpp,\arrpm,\arrmm,\arrmp)$.
1023: By calculating the roots of the polynomials $p(\x,\A,t)$ and $p(\x,\Aa,t)+p(\x,\Ab,t)$ given in \lemref{INF},
1024: it is easy to verify that
1025: \begin{itemize}
1026: \item
1027: $\INF(\x,\arrpp,t)$ is unimodal with minimum at $t=27$.
1028: \item
1029: $\INF(\x,\arrpm,t)$ is bimodal with minimum at $t=9$ and maximum at $t=35$,
1030: \item
1031: $\INF(\x,\arrmm,t)$ is unimodal with maximum at $t=25$,
1032: \item
1033: $\INF(\x,\arrmp,t)$ is unimodal with minimum at $t=23$,
1034: \item
1035: $\INF(\x,(\arrpp,\arrpm),t)$ and
1036: $\INF(\x,(\arrmp,\arrpp),t)$ are unimodal with minimum at $t=27$.
1037: \item
1038: $\INF(\x,(\arrpm,\arrmm),t)$ and
1039: $\INF(\x,(\arrmm,\arrmp),t)$ are unimodal with maximum at $t=27$.
1040: \end{itemize}
1041: Hence, the extremal points are $\EX(\x)=\{9,23,25,27,35\}$.
1042: \figref{INF59} depicts the plots of $\INF(\x,\A,t)$.
1043: The modes of $\INF(\x,\fA,t)$ listed above uniquely determine the blocks of each phase.
1044: The following table lists rotor directions and type of the block of each phase.
1045: \begin{center}
1046: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1047: \hline
1048: \hline
1049: \multirow{2}{*}{\ Phase\ \ } &
1050: \multicolumn{2}{c}{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!Boundaries of the phase\ \ \ } &
1051: \multicolumn{2}{c}{\!\!\!\!Block of the phase} \\[-.1cm]
1052: & \ lower & upper & \!\!Rotor directions & Type \\
1053: \hline
1054: 0 & 0 & 9 & $\arrmm\arrmp\arrpp\arrpm$ & $\ar\al\al\al$ \\
1055: 1 & 9 & 23 & $\arrpm\arrmm\arrmp\arrpp$ & $\ar\ar\al\al$ \\
1056: 2 & 23 & 25 & $\arrpm\arrmm\arrmp\arrpp$ & $\ar\ar\al\al$ \\
1057: 3 & 25 & 27 & $\arrpm\arrmm\arrmp\arrpp$ & $\ar\al\ar\al$ \\
1058: 4 & 27 & 35 & $\arrmp\arrpp\arrpm\arrmm$ & $\ar\ar\ar\al$ \\
1059: 5 & 35 & $T$& $\arrmp\arrpp\arrpm\arrmm$ & $\ar\ar\al\al$ \\
1060: \hline\hline
1061: \end{tabular}
1062: \end{center}
1063: This yields the following (maximal as we will see shortly) contribution at $\x=\tbinom{5}{9}$:
1064: \begin{align*}
1065: \CON(\x)\ =& \ \INF(\x,\arrmm,9)+
1066: \INF(\x,\arrmp,9)+
1067: \INF(\x,\arrpp,9)+\\
1068: & \ \INF(\x,\arrpm,27) + \INF(\x,\arrmm,27) \\
1069: =& \ \tfrac{20,506,216,364,597}{9,007,199,254,740,992} \approx 0.002277.
1070: \end{align*}
1071: %
1072: Note that just sending a single chip in the worst direction $\arrmm$
1073: at its worst time $t=25$ gives a smaller contribution of $\INF(\x,\arrmm,25)\approx0.001985$.
1074: Also, sending two chips in directions $\arrpm$ and $\arrmm$ at time
1075: $27=\argmax_t \INF(\x,(\arrpm,\arrmm),t)$ gives
1076: $\INF(\x,(\arrpm,\arrmm),27)\approx0.002261$.
1077: Hence we do profit from sending a chip in the ``wrong'' direction $\arrpp$ at time 9.
1078:
1079: The values of $\CON\big(\binom{5}{9}\big)$ for
1080: other rotor sequences are shown in the following table.
1081:
1082: \begin{center}
1083: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
1084: \hline
1085: \hline
1086: \multirow{2}{*}{Rotor sequence} &
1087: Times and directions of odd &
1088: \multirow{2}{*}{$\CON\big(\tbinom{5}{9}\big)$} \\[-.1cm]
1089: & chips in a block configuration & \\
1090: \hline
1091: $(\arrpp,\arrpm,\arrmm,\arrmp)$ &
1092: $9:\arrmm\arrmp\arrpp$, $27:\arrpm\arrmm$ &
1093: \ 0.002277\ldots\!\!
1094: \\
1095: $(\arrpp,\arrmp,\arrmm,\arrpm)$ &
1096: $23:\arrmm\arrpm\arrpp$, $27:\arrmp\arrmm$, $35:\arrpm$ &
1097: \ 0.002309\ldots\!\!
1098: \\
1099: $(\arrpp,\arrmp,\arrpm,\arrmm)$ &
1100: $9:\arrmm\arrpp\arrmp$, $23:\arrpm\arrmm\arrpp$, $27:\arrmp\arrpm\arrmm$ &
1101: \ 0.002302\ldots\!\!
1102: \\
1103: $(\arrpp,\arrmm,\arrpm,\arrmp)$ &
1104: $25:\arrmm$, $35:\arrpm$ &
1105: \ 0.002230\ldots\!\!
1106: \\
1107: $(\arrpp,\arrpm,\arrmp,\arrmm)$ &
1108: $17:\arrmm\arrpp$, $27:\arrpm\arrmp\arrmm$ &
1109: \ 0.002083\ldots\!\!
1110: \\
1111: $(\arrpp,\arrmm,\arrmp,\arrpm)$ &
1112: $25:\arrmm$ &
1113: \ 0.001985\ldots\!\!
1114: \\
1115: \hline
1116: \hline
1117: \end{tabular}
1118: \end{center}
1119: \label{tab:rotors}
1120:
1121:
1122: % -------- main Lemma -----------
1123: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1124: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1125:
1126: \begin{lem}
1127: \label{lem:BC}
1128: A block configuration yields a contribution of $\MAXCON(\x)$.
1129: \end{lem}
1130: \begin{proof}
1131: Consider a configuration~$\C$ with contribution $\CON_\C(\x)=\MAXCON(\x)$.
1132: By previous considerations, we can further assume the following.
1133: \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\arabic{enumi})}
1134: \begin{enumerate}
1135: \item
1136: \label{ass:BC:EX}
1137: \C only sends odd chips at times $t\in\EX(\x)$
1138: (cf. \corref{onlyEX}).
1139: \item
1140: \label{ass:BC:7}
1141: \C sends at least seven chips at each time $t\in\EX(\x)$
1142: (cf. \eq{sum0}).
1143: \item
1144: \label{ass:BC:k}
1145: Let $t_1, t_2 \in \EX(\x)$ such that $[t_1, t_2]$ is a phase and let $k \in \{1,2,3\}$.
1146: Let $\Ax{1}, \ldots, \Ax{k}$ be the directions the last $k$ chips
1147: are sent from vertex~$\x$ at time $t_1$. If
1148: $\sum_{i=1}^k\INF(\x,\Ax{i},t)$ is increasing (cf.~definition on
1149: page~\pageref{def:inc}) in $[t_1, t_2]$, then it is not constant. This is a
1150: feasible assumption on~$\C$, since otherwise we could send these $k$
1151: chips at time $t_2$ without changing $\CON_\C(\x)$.
1152: \item
1153: \label{ass:BC:j}
1154: Analogously, let $t_1, t_2 \in \EX(\x)$ such that $[t_1, t_2]$ is a phase
1155: and let $j \in \{1,2,3\}$. Let $\Ax{1}, \ldots, \Ax{j}$ be the directions the
1156: first $j$ chips are sent from vertex~$\x$ at time $t_2$. If
1157: $\sum_{i=1}^k\INF(\x,\Ax{i},t)$ is decreasing in $[t_1, t_2]$, then it is not constant.
1158: \end{enumerate}
1159:
1160: Let $\B$ be a block configuration.
1161: Aiming at a contradiction, we assume $\CON_\C(\x)>\CON_\B(\x)$.
1162: Since by \assref{BC:EX} and the definition of \B
1163: both configurations send odd chips only at times in $\EX(\x)$,
1164: there is a time $t\in\EX(\x)$ at which the chips of \C contribute
1165: more than the chips of \B.
1166:
1167: We now closely examine the chips sent from~$\x$ at time~$t$ by both
1168: configurations. We know that $\B$ sends a uniquely determined number $\ell
1169: \in \{0, \ldots, 3\}$ of odd chips at time~$t$ in some directions
1170: $\Aa,\ldots,\Ax{\ell}$.
1171: By the above \assref{BC:7}, $\C$ also sends a sequence of chips in
1172: directions $\Aa,\ldots,\Ax{\ell}$. Let $j$ and $k$ denote the number of
1173: chips sent by~$\C$ at time~$t$ before and after these $\ell$ chips,
1174: respectively. By ignoring, possible piles of four chips, we may assume $j, k
1175: \le 3$.
1176:
1177: Assume that $k \ge 1$. Then the sum of the $\INF$s of the last $k$ chips
1178: $\C$ sends at time~$t$ is increasing by the definition of a block. Assume
1179: first that~$t$ is not the last extremal time, that is, there is some $t_2
1180: \in \EX(\x)$ such that $[t,t_2]$ form a phase.
1181: Then by \assref{BC:k} above, the sum of the $\INF$s of the last $k$ chips is
1182: strictly increasing in $[t,t_2]$. Hence, a configuration which sends these
1183: chips instead at $t_2$ has a larger contribution, in contradiction to the
1184: maximality of~$\C$. Now let~$t$ be the last extremal time. From
1185: $\lim_{t\to\infty} \INF(\x,\A,t)=0$ for all~$\A$ and the fact that the sum
1186: of the $\INF$s of the last $k$ chips is increasing, we see that it is not
1187: positive. Hence the last $k$~chips do not contribute positively to
1188: $\CON_{\C}(\x)$.
1189:
1190: Analoguously, assume that $j \ge 1$. Assume first that~$t$ is not the first
1191: extremal time, that is, $[t_1,t]$ form a phase for some $t_1 \in \EX(\x)$.
1192: By \assref{BC:j}, the first $j$ chips $\C$ sends at time~$t$ have a strictly
1193: monotonically decreasing sum of $\INF$s. Hence sending them at time $t_1$
1194: instead of~$t$ gives a larger contribution, again contradicting the
1195: maximality of~$\C$. If~$t$ is the first extremal time of~$\x$, then
1196: $\INF(\x,\A,t)=0$ for all~$\A$ and $t<\|\x\|_\infty$ shows, similarly as
1197: above, that the contribution of the first $j$ chips is not positive.
1198:
1199: We conclude that the first $j$ and last $k$ chips sent from~$\x$ and time~$t$
1200: in~$\C$, if they are present, do not contribute positively to the
1201: contribution of~$\x$. This contradicts our assumption
1202: $\CON_\C(\x)>\CON_\B(\x)$.
1203: \end{proof}
1204:
1205: With the help of a computer, we can now calculate $\MAXCON(\x)$ for all~$\x$.
1206: Using about two months on a Xeon 3 GHz CPU, we computed the maximal contribution
1207: of all vertices in $[-800, 800]^2$.
1208: If we have the same rotor sequence for all vertices then
1209: \begin{equation}
1210: \label{eq:res800}
1211: \sum_{\|\x\|_\infty \leq 800} \MAXCON(\x) =
1212: \begin{cases}
1213: 7.832... & \text{for a circular rotor sequence}\\
1214: 7.286... & \text{for a non-circular rotor sequence.}\\
1215: \end{cases}\\
1216: \end{equation}
1217: On the other hand, if we allow a different rotor sequence for each vertex, and
1218: further assume that each vertex has a rotor sequence leading to the maximal
1219: contribution, then we get
1220: \[
1221: \sum_{\|\x\|_\infty \leq 800} \MAXCON(\x) = 7.873...
1222: \]
1223: Since all $\MAXCON$s are non-negative,
1224: above values are a lower bound for $\sum_{\x\in V} \MAXCON(\x)$,
1225: and hence for the single vertex discrepancy by \thmref{tight}.
1226:
1227: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1228:
1229: \emph{Remark.}
1230: \label{remark:four}
1231: \lemref{smallEX} shows that the number of extremal times of a vertex is at most seven.
1232: However, a block configuration does not send odd chips at at all extremal times.
1233: Let $\widehat\EX(\x)$ denote the set of extremal times at which odd chips are sent
1234: by the block configuration.
1235: \figref{usedpos} at the end of the paper shows that there are vertices~$\x$ such that $|\widehat\EX(\x)|\geq3$.
1236: We now sketch a proof that $|\widehat\EX(\x)|\leq4$ for all~$\x$.
1237:
1238: Note that $|\widehat\EX(\x)|$ only depends on the relative order of the extremal points
1239: and the initial monotonicity (i.e., increasing or decreasing)
1240: of $\INF(\x,\fA,t)$ for $|\fA|\leq 2$.
1241: We use the following two properties of $\INF$ (derived from \eq{sum0}):
1242: \begin{itemize}
1243: \item
1244: In each phase there is at least one $\A\in\DIR$ such that
1245: $\INF(\x,\A,t)$ is increasing (or decreasing).
1246: \item
1247: If $\INF(\x,\Aa,t)$ and $\INF(\x,\Ab,t)$ are both
1248: increasing or decreasing in a phase, so is
1249: $\INF(\x,(\Aa,\Ab),t)$.
1250: \end{itemize}
1251: For a vertex~$\x$ with only unimodal $\INF(\x,\A,t)$, there are $6!=720$ permutations
1252: of the extrema of $\INF(\x,\A,t)$ and $\INF(\x,(\Aa,\Ab),t)$ and $2^6=64$ initial monotonicities
1253: (using \eq{INF0}).
1254: A simple check by a computer shows that
1255: for only 384 of these 46080 cases both properties from above are satisfied.
1256: For all of them, $|\widehat\EX(\x)|\leq3$ holds.
1257: For vertices~$\x$ with $\INF(\x,\A,t)$ strictly bimodal for an $\A\in\DIR$, there are
1258: $7!/2!=2520$ permutations of the extrema and $2^6=64$ initial monotonicities.
1259: Here, all 408 cases
1260: which satisfy both properties only achieve $|\widehat\EX(\x)|\leq4$.
1261: This proves $|\widehat\EX(\x)|\leq4$ for all~$\x$.
1262: \figref{usedpos} shows $|\widehat\EX(\x)|\leq3$ for all $\|\x\|_\infty \leq 10$.
1263: We could also verify this for $\|\x\|_\infty \leq 800$.
1264: Therefore, we actually expect $|\widehat\EX(\x)|\leq3$ to hold for all~$\x$.
1265: To bridge this gap, stronger properties of $\INF$ seem necessary.
1266:
1267:
1268: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1269: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1270:
1271:
1272: \section{Tail Estimates}
1273: \label{sec:error}
1274:
1275: In the previous section, we have calculated the values of
1276: $\sum_{\|\x\|_\infty \leq 800} \MAXCON(\x)$ depending on the rotor sequence.
1277: To show that these are good approximations for the maximal single vertex discrepancy,
1278: we need to find an upper bound on
1279: \[
1280: E:=\sum_{\|\x\|_\infty > 800} \MAXCON(\x).
1281: \]
1282: In this section, we will prove $E < 0.16$.
1283:
1284: We now fix an arbitrary initial configuration and a time $T$.
1285: A simple calculation based on the definitions of $\INF$ and $\CON$ gives
1286: for all~$\x$, $\A$, and $t$
1287: \begin{equation}
1288: \begin{minipage}[c]{200pt}
1289: \vspace{-.7\baselineskip}
1290: \begin{align}
1291: \INF(\x,\A,t)
1292: &= \left( (A_1 x_1 \cdot A_2 x_2) t^{-2} - (A_1 x_1 + A_2 x_2) t^{-1} \right) H(\x,t),\notag\\
1293: \CON(\x) &= \sum_{\substack{i\geq 0,\\ s_i(\x) < T}}
1294: \left( \frac{\ai_1 x_1 \cdot \ai_2 x_2}{(T-s_i(\x))^{2}} -
1295: \frac{\ai_1 x_1 + \ai_2 x_2}{T-s_i(\x)} \right) H(\x,T-s_i(\x))\notag
1296: \end{align}
1297: \end{minipage}
1298: \label{eq:tail}
1299: \end{equation}
1300: with $s_i(\x)$ as defined in \secref{basic} and $\Ax{i}:=\NEXT^i(\ARR(\x,0))$.
1301: Note that, independent of the chosen rotor sequence,
1302: each of the sequences $(\ai_1(\x))_{i\geq 0}$, $(\ai_2(\x))_{i\geq 0}$, and
1303: $(\ai_1(\x) \ai_2(\x))_{i\geq 0}$ is alternating or alternating in groups of two.
1304: To bound the alternating sums in \eq{tail}, we use
1305: the following fact, which is an elementary extension of Lemma~4 in \cite{CooperEJC}.
1306: \begin{lem}\label{lem:unimodal}
1307: Let $f\colon X \to \mathbb R$ be non-negative and unimodal with $X\subseteq\R$.
1308: Let $\ax{0}, \ldots, \ax{n} \in \{-1,+1\}$ and
1309: $t_0, \ldots, t_n \in X$ such that $t_0 \leq \ldots \leq t_n$.
1310: If $\ai$ is alternating
1311: or alternating in groups of two, then
1312: \[\bigg| \sum_{i = 0}^n \ai f(t_i)\bigg| \ \le\ 2\max_{x \in X} f(x).\]
1313: \end{lem}
1314:
1315: It remains to show that $H(\x,t)/t$ and $H(\x,t) / t^2$ are indeed unimodal.
1316: Note that $\INF(\x,\A,t)$ itself is not always unimodal as shown in \lemref{INF}.
1317:
1318: \begin{lem}
1319: For all~$\x\in V$, $H(\x,t)/t$ and $H(\x,t) / t^2$ are unimodal in~$t$ with
1320: global maxima at $t_{\max}(\x)$ and $t'_{\max}(\x)$, respectively.
1321: For the maxima
1322: $(x_1^2+x_2^2)/4-2 \ \leq\ t_{\max}(\x) \ \leq\ (x_1^2+x_2^2)/4+1$
1323: and
1324: $(x_1^2+x_2^2)/6-1 \,\leq\, t'_{\max}(\x) \,\leq\, (x_1^2+x_2^2)/6+2$ holds.
1325: \label{lem:uni}
1326: \end{lem}
1327: \begin{proof}
1328: By symmetry, let us assume $x_1 \leq x_2$.
1329: By definition, $H(\x,t)/t=0$ for $t < x_2$.
1330: We show that $H(\x,t)/t$ has only one maximum in $t\in[x_2,\infty)$.
1331: We compute
1332: \begin{eqnarray*}
1333: \frac{H(\x,t-2)}{t-2} - \frac{H(\x,t)}{t}
1334: &=& \frac{4^{-t} p(t) (t-3)!^2\ (t-2)}
1335: {(\frac{t+x_1}{2})!\ (\frac{t-x_1}{2})!\ (\frac{t+x_2}{2})!\ (\frac{t-x_2}{2})!}.
1336: \end{eqnarray*}
1337: with $p(t):=4 t^3 - (x_1^2 + x_2^2 + 5) t^2 + 2 t + x_1^2 x_2^2$.
1338: By Descartes' Sign Rule (cf. \thmref{descartes}),
1339: $p(t)$
1340: has at most one real root larger than $x_2$.
1341: Since
1342: \begin{align*}
1343: p\left(\frac{x_1^2+x_2^2}{4}\right)
1344: &\ =\ \tfrac{1}{16} \left( 6 x_1^2 x_2^2 + 8 x_1^2 + 8 x_2^2 - 5 x_1^4 - 5 x_2^4 \right)\ <\ 0,\\
1345: p\left(\frac{x_1^2+x_2^2+5}{4}\right)
1346: &\ =\ x_1^2 x_2^2 + \frac{x_1^2 + x_2^2 + 5}{2} \ >\ 0.
1347: \end{align*}
1348: we see that $H(\x,t)/t$ has a unique extremum, which is a maximum,
1349: in $[(x_1^2+x_2^2)/4-2,(x_1^2+x_2^2)/4+1]$.
1350: This proves the lemma for $H(\x,t)/t$.
1351: The analogous proof for $H(\x,t)/t^2$ is omitted.
1352: \end{proof}
1353: %
1354: By \eq{tail}, \lemrefs{unimodal}{uni} we obtain
1355: \begin{align*}
1356: E \ &\leq 4 E_1 + 2 E_2
1357: \label{eq:tail2}
1358: \end{align*}
1359: with
1360: \[
1361: \displaystyle E_1 :=
1362: \!\sum_{\|\x\|_\infty>800}
1363: \left| \frac{x_1 H(\x,t_{\max}(\x))}{t_{\max}(\x)}\right|,
1364: \ \ \
1365: \displaystyle E_2 :=
1366: \!\sum_{\|\x\|_\infty>800}
1367: \left| \frac{x_1 x_2 H(\x,t'_{\max}(\x))}{({t'}_{\max}(\x))^2} \right|.
1368: \]
1369: %
1370: Using \lemref{uni} and $H(\x,t) \leq \big( 2^{-t} \tbinom{t}{t/2} \big)^2 \leq 1/t$,
1371: we now derive upper bounds for $H(\x,t) / t$ and $H(\x,t) / t^2$
1372: for $\|\x\|_{\infty}\ge88$:
1373:
1374: \begin{align*}
1375: \left| \frac{H(\x,t_{\max}(\x))}{t_{\max}(\x)} \right|
1376: \ \leq\ & \frac{1}{t_{\max}(\x)^2}
1377: \ \leq\ \frac{16}{(x_1^2+x_2^2-8)^2}
1378: \ \leq\ \frac{17}{(x_1^2 +x_2^2)^2}, \\
1379: \left| \frac{H(\x,t'_{\max}(\x))}{t'_{\max}(\x)^2} \right|
1380: \ \leq\ & \frac{1}{t'_{\max}(\x)^3}
1381: \ \leq\ \frac{216}{(x_1^2+x_2^2-6)^3}
1382: \ \leq\ \frac{217}{(x_1^2 +x_2^2)^3}.
1383: \end{align*}
1384: %
1385: For the calculations in the remainder of this section we need the following estimates.
1386: All of them can be derived by bounding the infinite sums with integrals.
1387: \begin{itemize}
1388: \addtolength{\itemsep}{-0.1\baselineskip}
1389: \item
1390: $\displaystyle\sum_{x>y} \frac{1}{x^k} \leq \frac{1}{(k-1) y^{k-1}}$
1391: \ \ for all $y > 0$ and all constants $k>1$.
1392: \item
1393: $\displaystyle\sum_{x_2=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(x_1^2+x_2^2)^2} \leq \frac{7}{3\,x_1^3}$
1394: \ \ for all $x_1\geq1$.
1395: \item
1396: $\displaystyle\sum_{y\geq\beta}
1397: \frac{1}{(\alpha^2+y^2) y}
1398: \geq \frac{\ln(\alpha^2+\beta^2)-2 \ln(\beta)}
1399: {2 \alpha^2}$.
1400: \item
1401: $\displaystyle\sum_{\substack{y>\alpha, \\ y \equiv c (\mod 2)}}
1402: \frac{y}{(y^2+\gamma^2)^2}
1403: \leq \frac{1}{4(\alpha^2 + \gamma^2)}$.
1404: \item
1405: $\displaystyle\sum_{\substack{y>\alpha, \\ y \equiv c (\mod 2)}}
1406: \frac{1}{(y^2+\gamma^2)^2}
1407: \leq \frac{\big(\pi - 2 \arctan(\tfrac{\alpha}{\gamma}) \big) (\alpha^2 + \gamma^2)
1408: -2 \alpha \gamma}
1409: {8 (\alpha^2+\gamma^2) \gamma^3}$.
1410: \item
1411: $\displaystyle\sum_{y>\beta}
1412: \frac{\pi - 2 \arctan(\tfrac{\alpha}{y})} {y^2}
1413: \leq \frac{\ln(\alpha^2+\beta^2) - 2 \ln(\beta)} {\alpha }+
1414: \frac{\pi - 2 \arctan(\tfrac{\alpha}{\beta})} {\beta}$.
1415: \end{itemize}
1416: %
1417: With this, we can now bound $E_2$ easily:
1418: \begin{eqnarray}
1419: E_2 &\leq& \!\sum_{\|\x\|_\infty>800}
1420: \left| \frac{217 x_1 x_2}{(x_1^2 +x_2^2)^3} \right|
1421: \ \leq\ \!\sum_{\|\x\|_\infty>800}
1422: \left| \frac{217}{2 (x_1^2 +x_2^2)^2} \right|
1423: \notag\\
1424: &<& \sum_{x_1=1}^{800}
1425: \sum_{x_2>800}
1426: \frac{434}{(x_1^2 +x_2^2)^2}
1427: \ +\
1428: \!\!\sum_{x_1>800} \sum_{x_2\geq0}
1429: \frac{434}{(x_1^2 +x_2^2)^2}\notag\\
1430: &<& \sum_{x_1=1}^{800}
1431: \sum_{x_2>800}
1432: \frac{434}{x_2^4}
1433: \ + \sum_{x_1>800} \frac{3038}{3\,x_1^3}
1434: \notag\\
1435: &\leq& \frac{434}{3\cdot 800^2}
1436: + \frac{1519}{3\cdot 800^2}
1437: \ < \
1438: 0.0011.\label{eq:err2}
1439: \end{eqnarray}
1440: %
1441: Achieving a good bound for $E_1$ is significantly harder.
1442: We divide $E_1$ in three subsums:
1443: \begin{eqnarray}
1444: E_1 &<&
1445: \overbrace{
1446: 4 \sum_{x_1=1}^{800}
1447: \sum_{\substack{x_2=801, \\ x_2 \equiv x_1 (\mod 2)}}^{\infty}\!\!
1448: \frac{x_1 H(\x,t_{\max}(\x))}{t_{\max}(\x)}}^\text{see \eq{err1a}}
1449: \ +
1450: \ \overbrace{4\!\sum_{x_1=801}^{\infty}
1451: \sum_{\substack{x_2=1, \\ x_2 \equiv x_1 (\mod 2)}}^{800}\!\!
1452: \frac{x_1 H(\x,t_{\max}(\x))}{t_{\max}(\x)}}^\text{see \eq{err1b}}\notag\\
1453: &&
1454: +\, \underbrace{4\!\sum_{x_1=801}^{\infty}
1455: \sum_{\substack{x_2=801, \\ x_2 \equiv x_1 (\mod 2)}}^{\infty}\!\!
1456: \frac{x_1 H(\x,t_{\max}(\x))}{t_{\max}(\x)}}_\text{see \eq{err1c}}
1457: \ <\ 0.038.\label{eq:err1}
1458: \end{eqnarray}
1459: Now we bound these sums separately as follows.
1460: \begin{eqnarray}
1461: \lefteqn{4 \sum_{x_1=1}^{800}
1462: \sum_{\substack{x_2=801, \\ x_2 \equiv x_1 (\mod 2)}}^{\infty}\!\!
1463: \frac{x_1 H(\x,t_{\max}(\x))}{t_{\max}(\x)}
1464: \ <\ 68
1465: \sum_{x_1=1}^{800}
1466: x_1\!\!\!
1467: \sum_{\substack{x_2>800, \\ x_2 \equiv x_1 (\mod 2)}}\!\!
1468: \frac{1}{(x_1^2 +x_2^2)^2} }\notag\\
1469: &\leq& \frac{17}{2}
1470: \sum_{x_1=1}^{800}
1471: \frac{(800^2+x_1^2) \big(\pi-2 \arctan(800/x_1)\big)-1600 \,x_1 }
1472: {(x_1^2 + 800^2) \, x_1^2}
1473: \ <\ 0.0046.\label{eq:err1a}\\
1474: %
1475: \lefteqn{4 \sum_{x_1=801}^{\infty}
1476: \sum_{\substack{x_2=0, \\ x_2 \equiv x_1 (\mod 2)}}^{800}\!\!
1477: \frac{x_1 H(\x,t_{\max}(\x))}{t_{\max}(\x)}
1478: \ <\ 68
1479: \sum_{x_2=0}^{800}
1480: \sum_{\substack{x_1>800, \\ x_1 \equiv x_2 (\mod 2)}}\!\!
1481: \frac{x_1}{(x_1^2 +x_2^2)^2} }\notag\\
1482: &\leq& 17
1483: \sum_{x_2=0}^{800}
1484: \frac{1}{x_2^2 + 800^2}
1485: \ <\ 0.0167\label{eq:err1b}\\
1486: %
1487: \lefteqn{4 \sum_{x_1=801}^{\infty}
1488: \sum_{\substack{x_2=801, \\ x_2 \equiv x_1 (\mod 2)}}^{\infty}\!\!
1489: \frac{x_1 H(\x,t_{\max}(\x))}{t_{\max}(\x)}
1490: \ \leq\ 68
1491: \sum_{x_1>800}
1492: x_1\!\!\!
1493: \sum_{\substack{x_2>800, \\ x_2 \equiv x_1 (\mod 2)}}\!\!
1494: \frac{1}{(x_1^2 +x_2^2)^2}}\notag\\
1495: &\leq&\frac{17}{2}
1496: \sum_{x_1>800}
1497: \frac{\big(\pi - 2 \arctan(\tfrac{800}{x_1}) \big) (800^2 + x_1^2)-1600 x_1}
1498: {(800^2+x_1^2) x_1^2}\notag\\
1499: &\leq&\frac{17}{2}\left(
1500: \frac{\ln(2\cdot800^2) - 2 \ln(800)} {800}
1501: +\frac{\pi/2} {800}
1502: -\frac{\ln(2\cdot 801^2)-2 \ln(801)} {801}
1503: \right)\notag\\
1504: &<&0.0167.\label{eq:err1c}
1505: \end{eqnarray}
1506: %
1507: Putting this together, we obtain
1508: \begin{align}
1509: E \ &< 4 \cdot 0.038 + 2 \cdot 0.0011 < 0.16.
1510: \label{eq:tail3}
1511: \end{align}
1512: This upper bound on $E$ is not tight. However, it suffices
1513: to prove that the bounds for the single vertex discrepancy calculated
1514: in \secref{upper} do depend on the rotor sequence.
1515: \thmref{tight} and \Eqs{res800}{tail3} yield the following theorem.
1516:
1517: \begin{thm}
1518: \label{thm:res}
1519: The maximal single vertex discrepancy between Propp machine and linear machine
1520: is a constant $c_2$, which depends on the allowed rotor sequences:
1521: \begin{itemize}
1522: \item
1523: If all vertices have the same circular rotor sequence, $7.832\leq c_2\leq 7.985$.
1524: \item
1525: If all vertices have the same non-circular rotor sequence, $7.286\leq c_2\leq 7.439$.
1526: \item
1527: If all vertices may have different rotor sequences, and we assume
1528: that each vertex has a rotor sequence leading to a maximal contribution, then $7.873\leq c_2\leq 8.026$.
1529: \end{itemize}
1530: \end{thm}
1531:
1532:
1533: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1534: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1535:
1536:
1537: \section{Aggregating Model}
1538: \label{sec:blob}
1539:
1540: Besides the small single vertex discrepancies examined in the previous sections,
1541: Propp machine and random walk bear striking similarities also in other respects.
1542: The historically first research started by Jim Propp regarded an
1543: aggregating model called Internal Diffusion-Limited
1544: Aggregation (IDLA)~\cite{IDLA}.
1545: In physics this is a well-established model to describe condensation
1546: around a source.
1547:
1548: The process starts with an empty grid.
1549: In each round, a particle is inserted at the origin and does a (quasi)-random walk until
1550: it occupies the first empty site it reaches.
1551: For the random walk, it is well known that
1552: the shape of the occupied locations converges to a Euclidean ball~\citep{IDLAlawler1}
1553: in the following sense.
1554: Let $n$ be the number of particles and let
1555: $\Delta(n)$ denote the difference of the radius of the largest inscribed
1556: and the smallest circumscribed circle of an aggregation with $n$ chips.
1557: It has been shown by \citet{IDLAlawler2} that the fluctuations around the limiting shape
1558: are bounded by $\tilde\O(n^{1/6})$ with high probability.
1559: \citet{IDLAmoore} observed experimentally that these error terms
1560: were even smaller, namely poly-logarithmic.
1561:
1562: \begin{figure}[p]
1563: \centering
1564: \subfloat[Counterclockwise rotor sequence $(\arru,\arrl,\arrd,\arrr)$.]{
1565: \includegraphics[bb=11pt 10pt 1145pt 1144pt,width=\ifCPC.65\else.6\fi\textwidth,clip]{blob.N1000000.uldr.eps}
1566: \label{subfig:blob1}
1567: }
1568: \\
1569: \subfloat[Non-circular rotor sequence $(\arru,\arrl,\arrr,\arrd)$.]{
1570: \includegraphics[bb=11pt 10pt 1145pt 1144pt,width=\ifCPC.65\else.6\fi\textwidth,clip]{blob.N1000000.ulrd.eps}
1571: \label{subfig:blob2}
1572: }
1573: \caption{Propp aggregations with one million particles.
1574: All rotors initially point to the left.
1575: The final rotor directions
1576: up, left, down, and right are denoted by the colors
1577: red, yellow, green, and blue, respectively.}
1578: \label{fig:blob}
1579: \end{figure}
1580:
1581: The analogous model in which the particles do a rotor-router walk instead of a random walk
1582: is much less understood.
1583: \citet{LevineThesis} showed that after $n$ particles have been added,
1584: the Propp aggregation contains a disc of radius $\Omega(n^{1/4})$.
1585: \citet{Levine1,Levine2} proved that
1586: the shape of occupied locations converges to a Euclidean ball,
1587: however, in a weaker sense than before. They showed
1588: that the Lebesgue measure of the symmetric difference between the Propp aggregation
1589: and an appropriately scaled Euclidean ball centered at the origin is $O(n^{1/3})$.
1590: Surprisingly, experimental results indicate much stronger bounds.
1591: \citet{Kleber} computed that
1592: for counter-clockwise permutations of the rotor directions
1593: $\Delta(3\cdot10^6)\approx1.611$
1594: if all rotors initially point to the left.
1595: An apparent conjecture is that there is a constant $\delta$
1596: such that $\Delta(n)\leq \delta$ for all $n$.
1597:
1598: We reran these experiments with different rotor sequences.
1599: The aggregations for one million particles are shown in \figref{blob}.
1600: Both aggregations do not only differ in the color patterns, but also
1601: in the precise value of $\Delta(n)$.
1602: If all rotors are initially set to the left, we obtained the following values for $\Delta(n)$.
1603: %
1604: \begin{center}
1605: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
1606: \hline
1607: \hline
1608: Rotor sequence
1609: & $(\arrl,\arru,\arrr,\arrd)$
1610: & $(\arrl,\arru,\arrd,\arrr)$
1611: & $(\arrl,\arrr,\arru,\arrd)$ \\
1612: \hline
1613: average $\Delta(n)$ for $2\cdot10^6<n\leq 3\cdot10^6$ & 1.600 & 0.996 & 1.810 \\
1614: maximal $\Delta(n)$ for $n\leq 3\cdot10^6$ & 1.741 & 1.218 & 1.967 \\
1615: \hline
1616: \hline
1617: \end{tabular}
1618: \end{center}
1619: %
1620: It is noteworthy that the respective $\Delta(n)$ of both non-circular
1621: rotor sequences $(\arrl,\arru,\arrd,\arrr)$ and
1622: $(\arrl,\arrr,\arru,\arrd)$ differ considerably.
1623:
1624: Additionally, we also examined $\Delta(n)$ for random initial rotor directions.
1625: This leads to slightly larger $\Delta$-values. The following table shows averages and standard deviations
1626: of 100~aggregations with random initial directions of the rotors.
1627: %
1628: \begin{center}
1629: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
1630: \hline
1631: \hline
1632: Rotor sequence
1633: & $(\arrl,\arru,\arrr,\arrd)$
1634: & $(\arrl,\arru,\arrd,\arrr)$
1635: & $(\arrl,\arrr,\arru,\arrd)$ \\
1636: \hline
1637: average $\Delta(n)$ for $2\cdot10^6<n\leq 3\cdot10^6$ &
1638: $1.920\pm0.004$ & $1.782\pm0.003$ & $1.781\pm0.003$ \\
1639: maximal $\Delta(n)$ for $n\leq 3\cdot10^6$ &
1640: $2.541\pm0.051$ & $2.351\pm0.053$ & $2.364\pm0.067$ \\
1641: \hline
1642: \hline
1643: \end{tabular}
1644: \end{center}
1645:
1646: As one might have expected, for random initial rotor directions the two non-circular
1647: rotor sequences (columns one and three) are statistically not distinguishable.
1648:
1649: The results above again show that different rotor sequences do make a difference.
1650: The main open problem, however, remains to show the conjectured constant upper bound
1651: for~$\Delta(n)$.
1652:
1653:
1654: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1655: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1656:
1657:
1658: \section{Conclusion}
1659: \label{sec:res}
1660:
1661: One way of comparing the Propp machine with a random walk is in terms of the
1662: maximal discrepancy that can occur on a single vertex. It has been shown by
1663: \citet{CooperComb} that for the underlying graph being an infinite grid~$\Z^d$,
1664: this single vertex discrepancy can be bounded by a constant $c_d$ independent of the particular initial configuration. For $d=1$,
1665: this constant has been estimated as $c_1 \approx 2.29$ in~\cite{CooperEJC}. Also,
1666: the initial configurations leading to a high discrepancy have been described.
1667: For $d \geq 2$, no such results were known.
1668:
1669: In this paper, we regarded the case $d=2$. We chose the case $d=2$ out of two
1670: considerations. On the one hand, from dimension two on, there is more than one
1671: rotor sequence available, which raises the question if different rotors
1672: sequences make a difference. One the other hand, we restrict ourselves to $d=2$,
1673: because for larger $d$ a nice expression for the probability $H(\x,t)$ that a
1674: chip from vertex~$\x$ arrives at the origin after $t$ random steps is missing.
1675: This probably makes it very hard to find sufficiently sharp estimates for the
1676: single vertex discrepancies.
1677:
1678: We were able to give relatively tight estimates for the constants $c_2$ taking
1679: into account different rotor sequences and obtain several interesting facts
1680: about the worst-case initial configurations.
1681: The maximal single vertex discrepancy $c_2$ satisfies the following.
1682: If all vertices have the same circular rotor sequence, $7.832\leq c_2\leq 7.985$.
1683: If all vertices have the same non-circular rotor sequence, $7.286\leq c_2\leq 7.439$.
1684: If all vertices may have different rotor sequences, and we assume
1685: that each vertex has a rotor sequence leading to a maximal contribution, then $7.873\leq c_2\leq 8.026$.
1686: In particular, we see that non-circular rotor sequences seem to produce smaller
1687: discrepancies than circular one. The gaps between upper and lower bounds stem
1688: from the fact that we used a computer to calculate the precise maximal
1689: contribution $\CON(\x - \y)$ of vertex~$\x$ on the discrepancy at $\y$. Hence
1690: the lower bounds are the maximal discrepancies obtained from initial
1691: configurations such that all vertices~$\x$ with $\|\x-\y\|_{\infty} > 800$ at all times
1692: contain numbers of chips only that are divisible by 4.
1693:
1694: We also learned that the initial configurations leading to such
1695: discrepancies are more complicated than in the one-dimensional
1696: case. Recall from~\cite{CooperEJC} that in the one-dimensional case in
1697: a worst-case setting each position needs to have an odd number of chips only
1698: once. If we aim at a surplus of chips in the Propp model, these odd chips were
1699: always sent towards the position under consideration, otherwise away from it.
1700:
1701: In the two-dimensional case, things are more complicated. Here it can be
1702: necessary that a position holds a number of chips not divisible by 4 up to three
1703: times.
1704: Also, the number of ``odd'' chips (those which cannot be put into piles of four)
1705: can be as high as nine. In consequence, it can make sense to send odd chips in
1706: the wrong direction (e.g., away from the position where we aim at a surplus of
1707: chips). An example showing this was analyzed in Section~\ref{sec:upper}. The
1708: reason for such behavior seems to be that the influences $\INF(\x,A,t)$ of odd
1709: chips sent from~$\x$ in direction $A$ at time $t$ are not unimodal functions in
1710: $t$ anymore (as in the one-dimensional case).
1711:
1712: In Figures~\ref{fig:plotdirs}
1713: to~\ref{fig:val}, more information about the behavior of different positions in
1714: a worst-case setting (aiming at a surplus of chips at the origin) is collected.
1715:
1716: We also brief{}ly regarded the IDLA aggregation model. We saw that the
1717: surprisingly strong convergence to a Eucledian ball observed in earlier research
1718: also holds for non-circular rotor sequences and non-regular initial rotor
1719: settings. However, the suspected constant again seems to depend on the rotor
1720: sequences, and again, the circular ones seem to behave slightly worse than the non-circular ones.
1721:
1722: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1723: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1724:
1725: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1726:
1727: We would like to thank Joel Spencer and Jim Propp for several very inspiring discussions.
1728:
1729: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1730: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1731:
1732:
1733: \ifCPC
1734: \def\newblock{\hskip .11em plus .33em minus .07em}
1735: \fi
1736:
1737: \begin{thebibliography}{11}
1738: \providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
1739: \providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
1740: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlstyle\endcsname\relax
1741: \providecommand{\doi}[1]{doi: #1}\else
1742: \providecommand{\doi}{doi: \begingroup \urlstyle{rm}\Url}\fi
1743:
1744: \bibitem[Cooper and Spencer()]{CooperComb}
1745: Joshua Cooper and Joel Spencer.
1746: \newblock Simulating a random walk with constant error.
1747: \newblock \emph{Combinatorics, Probability and Computing}.
1748: \newblock To appear, preliminary version available from arXiv:math/0402323.
1749:
1750: \bibitem[Cooper et~al.()Cooper, Doerr, Spencer, and Tardos]{CooperEJC}
1751: Joshua Cooper, Benjamin Doerr, Joel Spencer, and G\'abor Tardos.
1752: \newblock Deterministic random walks on the integers.
1753: \newblock \emph{European Journal of Combinatorics}.
1754: \newblock To appear, preliminary version available from arXiv:math/0602300.
1755:
1756: \bibitem[Diaconis and Fulton(1990)]{IDLA}
1757: Persi Diaconis and William Fulton.
1758: \newblock A growth model, a game, an algebra, {L}agrange inversion, and
1759: characteristic classes.
1760: \newblock \emph{Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Pol. Torino}, 49\penalty0 (1):\penalty0
1761: 95--119, 1990.
1762:
1763: \bibitem[{Kleber}(2005)]{Kleber}
1764: Michael {Kleber}.
1765: \newblock {Goldbug Variations}.
1766: \newblock \emph{The Mathematical Intelligencer}, 27\penalty0 (1), 2005.
1767: \newblock Also available from arXiv:math/0501497.
1768:
1769: \bibitem[Lawler(1995)]{IDLAlawler2}
1770: Gregory~F. Lawler.
1771: \newblock Subdiffusive fluctuations for internal diffusion limited aggregation.
1772: \newblock \emph{Annals of Probability}, 23\penalty0 (1):\penalty0 71--86, 1995.
1773:
1774: \bibitem[Lawler et~al.(1992)Lawler, Bramson, and Griffeath]{IDLAlawler1}
1775: Gregory~F. Lawler, Maury Bramson, and David Griffeath.
1776: \newblock Internal diffusion limited aggregation.
1777: \newblock \emph{Annals of Probability}, 20\penalty0 (4):\penalty0 2117--2140,
1778: 1992.
1779:
1780: \bibitem[Levine(2004)]{LevineThesis}
1781: Lionel Levine.
1782: \newblock The rotor-router model.
1783: \newblock Senior thesis, Harvard University, 2004.
1784: \newblock Also available from arXiv:math/0409407.
1785:
1786: \bibitem[Levine and Peres(2005{\natexlab{a}})]{Levine1}
1787: Lionel Levine and Yuval Peres.
1788: \newblock Spherical asymptotics for the rotor-router model in $\mathbb{Z}^d$,
1789: 2005{\natexlab{a}}.
1790: \newblock arXiv:math/0503251.
1791:
1792: \bibitem[Levine and Peres(2005{\natexlab{b}})]{Levine2}
1793: Lionel Levine and Yuval Peres.
1794: \newblock The rotor-router shape is spherical.
1795: \newblock \emph{The Mathematical Intelligencer}, 27\penalty0 (3):\penalty0
1796: 9--11, 2005{\natexlab{b}}.
1797:
1798: \bibitem[Moore and Machta(2000)]{IDLAmoore}
1799: Cristopher Moore and Jonathan Machta.
1800: \newblock Internal diffusion-limited aggregation: Parallel algorithms and
1801: complexity.
1802: \newblock \emph{Journal of Statistical Physics}, 99\penalty0 (3--4):\penalty0
1803: 661--690, 2000.
1804:
1805: \bibitem[Yap(2000)]{Yap}
1806: Chee~Keng Yap.
1807: \newblock \emph{Fundamental problems of algorithmic algebra}.
1808: \newblock Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 2000.
1809:
1810: \end{thebibliography}
1811:
1812:
1813: \begin{figure}[p]
1814: \centering
1815: \subfloat[Counterclockwise rotor sequence $(\arrpp,\arrmp,\arrmm,\arrpm)$.]{
1816: \includegraphics[bb=129pt 221pt 480pt 570pt,width=\ifCPC.65\else.6\fi\textwidth,clip]{plotdirs_pp_mp_mm_pm_.ps}
1817: \label{subfig:plotdirs1}
1818: }
1819: \\
1820: \subfloat[Non-circular rotor sequence $(\arrpp,\arrmp,\arrpm,\arrmm)$.]{
1821: \includegraphics[bb=129pt 221pt 480pt 570pt,width=\ifCPC.65\else.6\fi\textwidth,clip]{plotdirs_pp_mp_pm_mm_.ps}
1822: \label{subfig:plotdirs2}
1823: }
1824: \caption{At each position, the directions in which odd chips are sent in a
1825: block configuration are shown.
1826: If there are multiple chips sent from one position, the arrows are scaled
1827: according to their relative contribution.
1828: Grey arrows represent negative contributions.
1829: For position $\tbinom{5}{9}$, the second and third row of the second table on page~\pageref{tab:rotors}
1830: contains more details on the times when these chips are sent.}
1831: \label{fig:plotdirs}
1832: \end{figure}
1833:
1834: \begin{figure}[p]
1835: \centering
1836: \subfloat[Counterclockwise rotor sequence $(\arrpp,\arrmp,\arrmm,\arrpm)$.]{
1837: \includegraphics[bb=129pt 221pt 480pt 570pt,width=\ifCPC.65\else.6\fi\textwidth,clip]{allusedpos_pp_mp_mm_pm_.ps}
1838: \label{subfig:usedpos1}
1839: }
1840: \\
1841: \subfloat[Non-circular rotor sequence $(\arrpp,\arrmp,\arrpm,\arrmm)$.]{
1842: \includegraphics[bb=129pt 221pt 480pt 570pt,width=\ifCPC.65\else.6\fi\textwidth,clip]{allusedpos_pp_mp_pm_mm_.ps}
1843: \label{subfig:usedpos2}
1844: }
1845: \caption{Number of times at which a block configuration sends odd chips.
1846: Note that the remark on page~\pageref{remark:four} only proved
1847: $|\widehat\EX(\x)|\leq4$, though there is no position~$\x$
1848: observable with $|\widehat\EX(\x)|>3$.}
1849: \label{fig:usedpos}
1850: \end{figure}
1851:
1852:
1853: \begin{figure}[p]
1854: \centering
1855: \subfloat[Counterclockwise rotor sequence $(\arrpp,\arrmp,\arrmm,\arrpm)$.]{
1856: \includegraphics[bb=129pt 221pt 480pt 570pt,width=\ifCPC.65\else.6\fi\textwidth,clip]{numchips_pp_mp_mm_pm_.ps}
1857: \label{subfig:numchips1}
1858: }
1859: \\
1860: \subfloat[Non-circular rotor sequence $(\arrpp,\arrmp,\arrpm,\arrmm)$.]{
1861: \includegraphics[bb=129pt 221pt 480pt 570pt,width=\ifCPC.65\else.6\fi\textwidth,clip]{numchips_pp_mp_pm_mm_.ps}
1862: \label{subfig:numchips2}
1863: }
1864: \caption{Number of odd chips sent in a block configuration. The
1865: largest number of nine odd chips occurs only in \protect\subref{subfig:numchips2},
1866: not in \protect\subref{subfig:numchips1}.}
1867: \label{fig:numchips}
1868: \end{figure}
1869:
1870: \begin{figure}[p]
1871: \centering
1872: \subfloat[Counterclockwise rotor sequence $(\arrpp,\arrmp,\arrmm,\arrpm)$.]{
1873: \includegraphics[bb=129pt 221pt 480pt 570pt,width=\ifCPC.65\else.6\fi\textwidth
1874: ,clip]{val_pp_mp_mm_pm_.ps}
1875: \label{subfig:val1}
1876: }
1877: \\
1878: \subfloat[Non-circular rotor sequence $(\arrpp,\arrmp,\arrpm,\arrmm)$.]{
1879: \includegraphics[bb=129pt 221pt 480pt 570pt,width=\ifCPC.65\else.6\fi\textwidth,clip]{val_pp_mp_pm_mm_.ps}
1880: \label{subfig:val2}
1881: }
1882: \caption{Contributions $\MAXCON(\x)$ times 1000.
1883: Note the symmetries discussed in \secref{upper} and
1884: the quick descent of $\MAXCON(\x)$ for increasing $\|\x\|_2$.}
1885: \label{fig:val}
1886: \ifCPC\label{lastpage}\fi
1887: \end{figure}
1888:
1889: \end{document}
1890: