Doeblin measures: uniqueness and mixing properties

Assume for contradiction that there are two distinct Doeblin measures \mu and \tilde\mu with respect to g. Since the space \mathcal{M}_g of Doeblin measures with respect to g is convex and compact,

we may assume that \mu and \tilde\mu are extremal, i.e. ergodic.

Now, we choose the initial states x^{(0)} resp. \tilde\x^{(0)} independently according to the distributions \mu resp. \tilde\mu, and then complete them to chains x^{(n)}, \tilde\x^{(n)}\in \X, n\ge1, according to the coupling from Subsection ?. Since we sample the initial states using stationary distributions, we can assume that x^{(n)} and \tilde\x^{(n)} have distribution \mu and \tilde\mu, for all n\in{\mathbb{Z}}.

Since \mu\not=\tilde\mu, we have some local function f such that \int f \, d \mu>\int f\, d\tilde\mu. Let N be s.t. f is in

\mathcal{F}_N. Then, by the pointwise Birkhoff Ergodic Theorem, almost surely, the following limits exist

In particular, it must hold almost surely that

The fact that f is \mathcal{F}_N-measurable means that f(x^{(i)})-f(\tilde\x^{(i)}) = 0 if \kappa(x^{(i)},\tilde\x^{(i)}) \ge N. Thus, by (?), we have

However, (4) implies that the right hand side above is arbitrarily close to zero for infinitely many n, in contradiction to (?). We conclude that there can only be one Doeblin measure corresponding to g.

Let K\ge 2 and B\ge N\ge 1 be integer numbers and define b = (K-1)\cdot B. For p\in A^b, let y=px and \tilde y=p\tilde\x. Using \xi(p) = \prod_{j=0}^{b-1} g(\mathit{T}^j y) and \tilde\xi(p) = \prod_{j=0}^{b-1} g(\mathit{T}^j\tilde y), we obtain

We have for all j\in\{0,\ldots, b-1\}

where

since, by (?), \kappa(\mathit{T}^j y,\mathit{T}^j \tilde y)\ge B+b-j when \kappa(x,\tilde\x)\ge B. Since, for all w,\tilde w\in\X, we have \sum_{a\in A} (g(aw)+g(a\tilde w))/2 = 1, it follows that

Since B+b=KB, we have

Since \log\cosh (u/2) = \frac 18 u^2 + O\left(u^4\right), we have for c = \limsup r_n\sqrt{n} and a constant c_1\ge0 that

Using the formula

for the partial sums of the harmonic series and the integral estimate

we obtain \log H \ge -\frac {c^2}8 \log K - {\frac {c_2}B}, for some constant c_2\ge0. Thus

where \epsilon:= 1 - c^2/4, which is positive by assumption (?). We can choose K\ge2 large enough so that {\epsilon\log K - \log 2 - \frac {2c_2}B} > \epsilon/2. Using (?) with the bound (?) we obtain

which concludes the proof of Lemma 3.

In order to establish (4), we let T_k, k\ge0, denote the renewal process of return times to state 0 of the Markov chain Y^{(n)}, i.e. T_0=0 and T_k = \inf \{n>T_{k-1} : Y_n = 0\}. The differences M_k=T_k-T_{k-1}, k=1,2,\dots, constitute an iid sequence. Note that, M_k = B_{L_k+1} where B_{L_k} is the last visited breaking state by Y^{(n)} in excursion number k, i.e. L_k:=\sup\{ \ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}: Y^{(n)} =B_\ell, n\in \interval[open right]{T_{k-1}}{T_k}\}. If L_k=0 then M_k=N and, otherwise, if L_k\ge1, we have

Since, a.s., L_k\ge1 infinitely often, we have, almost surely,

which equals 1 almost surely if and only if

A result by Kesten ([kesten], 1971) says that (Proof) holds as soon as

which is true in our case. We have

since, for \ell\ge1,

where last inequality follow from Lemma 3 and p_\ell\le \frac 12 by (?). This establishes that the construction satisfies (4).

We claim that the map \nu \mapsto \tilde\nu = \nu\circ\mathit{F}^{-1} takes \mathcal{K}_g bijectively onto \mathcal{K}_{\tilde g}. To see this, let \mu\in\mathcal{K}_g be a g-chain and note that

Then it follows that

Since this holds for all k\ge0, it shows that \tilde \mu is a \tilde g-chain. The first equality is due to \mu being a g-chain. The second equality follows from the rule (?). The final equality is due to g(\mathit{M}^k x)=g(x) by the symmetry and that g(\mathit{F} x)=\tilde g(x) by definition. Since \mathit{F} is an involution, it is clear that the argument gives a bijection between \mathcal{K}_g and \mathcal{K}_{\tilde g}.

None of the measures \tilde\nu_+ and \tilde\nu_- are translation invariant since

Thus chains with distribution \tilde\nu_{\pm} are periodic in distribution with period 2. It is then clear that the only candidate for a stationary \tilde g-chain in \mathcal{K}_{\tilde g} = \operatorname{conv} \{\tilde\nu_+,\tilde\nu_-\} is the midpoint \tilde\mu=(\tilde\nu_++\tilde\nu_-)/2 between them.

Let K be as in section 2 of [berger], and for every k \geq K, let O_k be the beginning and let C_k be the opening of the k block containing 0 (see Definitions 3 and 4 in [berger], p. 1345 in the journal version). Let

be the signaure of the block. By (the proof of) Lemma 7 of [berger] (p. 1350), if \mu is a Doeblin chain for g, then

exists \mu-almost surely. Further, if \mu is extremal, then the limit is an almost sure constant. By the definition of X(k) and the fact that the openings are of odd sizes, we get that X has to be +1 or -1.

The proof will be complete once we have shown that if X has the same distribution under two Doeblin measures \mu_1 and \mu_2 then \mu_1 = \mu_2. Without loss of generality we assume that

In order to prove (?), for every \epsilon and N we find a coupling P between \mu_1 and \mu_2 such that

Since the sequence (y_j) has the same marginal distribution in \mu_1 and in \mu_2 (and in fact in every Doeblin chain of g), we first sample \big(y^{(1)}_j\big)_{j \in \mathbb Z} and \big(y^{(2)}_j\big)_{j \in \mathbb Z} in a way that y^{(1)}_j = y^{(2)}_j for all j. In particular, this implies that both sequences have exactly the same block structure.

For k \geq K let

Now let k_0 be so large that

where for the events related to (y_j) we simply write \mu because, as already mentioned, all Doeblin measures agree on the marginal distribution of the sequence (y_j).

Condition on the event A_N(k_0). On the complement event our coupling fails, but the probability of A_N(k_0)^c is small enough.

Let j_0 = \max(O_{k_0}). We now sample \big( x^{(1)}_{j} \big)_{j < j_0} according to \mu_1 and \big( x^{(2)}_{j} \big)_{j < j_0} according to \mu_2, say independently. Note that P\left(A(k_0)^c \cup \big\{X^{(1)}_{k_0}\neq X^{(1)}_{k_0}\big\} \right) < \epsilon, so in what follows we condition on the complement event A(k_0) \cap \big\{X^{(1)}_{k_0} = X^{(1)}_{k_0}\big\}. We now continue to sample \big( x^{(1)}_j, x^{(2)}_j \big)_{j= j_0 + 1}^\infty sequentially as follows: Once we have \big( x^{(1)}_i, x^{(2)}_i \big)_{i < j}, we sample x^{(1)}_j and x^{(2)}_j according to the probabilities given by g, coupled in a way that maximizes P\big( x^{(1)}_j = x^{(2)}_j \big).

Clearly P is a coupling of \mu_1 and \mu_2, and we need the following fact.

Using Lemma ? we see that the total variation between the restrictions of \mu_1 and \mu_2 on [-N,N] is arbitrarily small. As N is arbitrarily large, we get that \mu_1 = \mu_2.