arXiv reader

Deffuant opinion dynamics with attraction and repulsion

Nicolas Lanchier and Max Mercer

arXiv
2310.19073v1 · PDF · 29 October 2023
Categories
math.PR
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

In the Deffuant model, individuals are located on the vertices of a graph, and are characterized by their opinion, a number in [-1, 1]. The dynamics depends on two parameters: a confidence threshold \theta < 2 and a convergent parameter \mu_- \leq 1/2. Neighbors on the graph interact at rate one, which results in no changes if the neighbors disagree by more than \theta, and a compromise with the opinions moving toward each other by a factor \mu_- if they disagree by less than \theta (attraction). The main conjecture about the Deffuant model, which was proved for the process on the integers, states that, for all \mu_- > 0 and starting from the product measure in which the opinions are uniformly distributed in the interval [-1, 1], there is a phase transition from discordance to consensus at the confidence threshold one. In this paper, we study a natural variant of the model in which neighbors who disagree by more than \theta feel more strongly about their own opinion, which is modeled by assuming that the opinions move away from each other by a divergent parameter \mu_+ (repulsion). We prove, for the process on the integers, the absence of a phase transition even for arbitrarily small \mu_+ > 0, in the sense that, for every nontrivial choice of \theta, there is always discordance.

Items 15

Theorem

Theorem 1

LVQI

For all \theta < 2 and all \mu_+ > 0,

\@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {l} \operatorname{card} \,\{x \in \mathbb{Z} : \lim_{t \to \infty} |\xi_t (x + 1) - \xi_t (x)| = \infty \} \geq 1. \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax}
Lemma

Lemma 2

TY9C

Assume that \theta < 2. Then, for all e \in \mathbb{Z} + 1/2,

P (\bar \xi_0 (e \pm 1) < \theta < \bar \xi_0 (e)) \geq (1/2 - \theta / 4)^2 (\theta/ 4)^2 > 0.
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 2

By inclusion of events, and recalling that the random variables \xi_0 (x), x \in \mathbb{Z}, are independent and uniformly distributed, we get the lower bound

\@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {l} P (\bar \xi_0 (e \pm 1) < \theta < \bar \xi_0 (e)) \vspace*{4pt} \\ \hspace*{10pt} \geq P (\xi_0 (e - 1/2) > + \theta / 2, \,\xi_0 (e + 1/2) < - \theta / 2, \vspace*{4pt} \\ \hspace*{50pt} 0 > \xi_0 (e - 3/2) - \xi_0 (e - 1/2) > - \theta / 2, \,0 < \xi_0 (e + 3/2) - \xi_0 (e + 1/2) < + \theta / 2) \vspace*{4pt} \\ \hspace*{10pt} = P (\xi_0 (e - 1/2) > + \theta / 2) \,P (\xi_0 (e + 1/2) < - \theta / 2) \vspace*{4pt} \\ \hspace*{22pt} P (0 > \xi_0 (e - 3/2) - \xi_0 (e - 1/2) > - \theta / 2 \,| \,\xi_0 (e - 1/2) > + \theta / 2) \vspace*{4pt} \\ \hspace*{22pt} P (0 < \xi_0 (e + 3/2) - \xi_0 (e + 1/2) < + \theta / 2 \,| \,\xi_0 (e + 1/2) < - \theta / 2) = (1/2 - \theta / 4)^2 (\theta / 4)^2. \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax}

This completes the proof.

Lemma

Lemma 3

MW89

Assume that \theta < 2. Then, for all e \in \mathbb{Z} + 1/2,

P (\bar \xi_1 (\zeta_1 (e)) > 2D) \geq (1/2 - \theta / 4)^2 (\theta/ 4)^2 (e^{-5} / K!) > 0,

where K = \lceil \log (2D / \theta) / \log (\rho_+) \rceil.

Proof of Lemma 3

To begin with, observe that we have the following:

pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize

    pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize

  • As long as there are no interactions along the four edges e \pm 1, e \pm 2, the opinions at the two vertices e - 3/2 and e + 3/2 remain the same.

  • As long as the gap along edge e exceeds the threshold \theta, each interaction along that edge applies a \rho_+ multiplier to the opinion distance (repulsion).

  • As long as the gap along edge e exceeds both the threshold \theta and the gaps along edges e \pm 1, interactions along edge e do not change this property.

    pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize

pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize

Letting I_e be the number of interactions along edge e before time one, and combining the three properties above, we obtain the inclusions of events

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

}{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {l} \{\bar \xi_0 (e \pm 1) < \theta < \bar \xi_0 (e) \} \cap \{I_{e \pm 1} = I_{e \pm 2} = 0 \} \cap \{I_e = K \} \vspace*{4pt} \\ \hspace*{20pt} \subset \{\bar \xi_0 (e \pm 1) < \theta < \bar \xi_0 (e) \} \cap \{\xi_t (e \pm 3/2) = \xi_0 (e \pm 3/2) \ \hbox{for all} \ t \leq 1 \} \cap \{I_e = K \} \vspace*{4pt} \\ \hspace*{20pt} \subset \{\zeta_1 (e) = e \} \cap \{\bar \xi_1 (e) > \theta \rho_+^K \} \subset \{\bar \xi_1 (\zeta_1 (e)) > \theta \rho_+^K \}. \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} {

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

Notice also that, in view of the expression of K,

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

}{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} \log (\rho_+^K) = K \log (\rho_+) \geq \log (2D / \theta) \quad \hbox{therefore} \quad \theta \rho_+^K \geq 2D. \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} {

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

In addition, because the five random variables I_e, I_{e \pm 1}, I_{e \pm 2} are independent Poisson random variables with parameter one, we also have

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

}{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} P (I_{e \pm 1} = I_{e \pm 2} = 0, \,I_e = K) = e^{-1} \cdot e^{-1} \cdot e^{-1} \cdot e^{-1} \cdot e^{-1} / K! = e^{-5} / K! > 0. \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} {

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

Combining (Proof)–(Proof) and Lemma 2, we conclude that

\@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {rcl} P (\bar \xi_1 (\zeta_1 (e)) > 2D) & \hspace*{-5pt} \geq \hspace*{-5pt} & P (\bar \xi_1 (\zeta_1 (e)) > \theta \rho_+^K) \vspace*{4pt} \\ & \hspace*{-5pt} \geq \hspace*{-5pt} & P (\bar \xi_0 (e \pm 1) < \theta < \bar \xi_0 (e)) \,P (I_{e \pm 1} = I_{e \pm 2} = 0, \,I_e = K) \vspace*{4pt} \\ & \hspace*{-5pt} \geq \hspace*{-5pt} & (1/2 - \theta / 4)^2 (\theta / 4)^2 (e^{-5} / K!) > 0, \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax}

which completes the proof of the lemma, and shows (?).

Uses Lemma 2
Lemma

Lemma 4

NJP6

For all g > D, we have g - \mu_- \theta > \rho_- g.

Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 4

Using that \rho_- < 1, we get

g - \mu_- \theta - \rho_- g = (1 - \rho_-) g - \mu_- \theta > (1 - \rho_-) D - \mu_- \theta = 0.

This completes the proof.

Lemma

Lemma 5

FDSC

Let a > b > c and set b' = b - \mu_+ (c - b) and c' = c - \mu_+ (b - c). Then,

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

}{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} \frac{|a - b'| \vee |b' - c'|}{|a - b|} \geq \rho_-. \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} {

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 5

Intuitively/geometrically, a and b being fixed, the left-hand side of (5) reaches its minimum when the three points (-1, a), (0, b'), and (1, c') are aligned. To prove the result analytically, we distinguish between the following two cases.
Case 1. (a - b) \leq \mu_+ (b - c). In this case,

b' - c' = (b - c) + 2 \mu_+ (b - c) \geq (b - c) + 2 (a - b) \geq a - b \geq 0,

from which it follows that

\frac{|a - b'| \vee |b' - c'|}{|a - b|} \geq \frac{b' - c'}{a - b} \geq 1 \geq \rho_- \quad \hbox{for all} \quad \mu_+ > 0.

Case 2. (a - b) \geq \mu_+ (b - c). In this case,

\@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {rcrcll} \phi_1 (c) & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & \displaystyle \frac{a - b'}{a - b} & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & \displaystyle \frac{(a - b) - \mu_+ (b - c)}{a - b} \geq 0, \vspace*{8pt} \\ \phi_2 (c) & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & \displaystyle \frac{b' - c'}{a - b} & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & \displaystyle \frac{(1 + 2 \mu_+)(b - c)}{a - b} \geq 0, \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax}

and, for every fixed a, b, and \mu_+, the graphs of \phi_1 and \phi_2 are straight lines of strictly positive and strictly negative slope, respectively. In particular, the minimum of \phi_1 (c) \vee \phi_2 (c) is reached when \phi_1 (c) = \phi_2 (c), which gives the condition

\@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {rcl} 0 & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & (a - b') - (b' - c') = a - 2b' + c' = a - 2b - 2 \mu_+ (b - c) + c - \mu_+ (b - c) \vspace*{4pt} \\ & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & (a - b) - (1 + 3 \mu_+)(b - c). \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax}

In addition, for c_0 such that a - b = (1 + 3 \mu_+)(b - c_0),

\@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {rcl} \phi_1 (c_0) \vee \phi_2 (c_0) & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & \phi_2 (c_0) = \displaystyle \frac{(1 + 2 \mu_+)(b - c_0)}{a - b} = \frac{(1 + 2 \mu_+)(b - c_0)}{(1 + 3 \mu_+)(b - c_0)} = \rho_-. \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax}

This completes the proof.

Lemma

Lemma 6

6Q0Z

Assume that there is an interaction along e \pm 1 at time t. Then (?) holds.

Proof of Lemma 6

By symmetry, we may assume that the interaction occurs along edge e + 1. To simplify the notations, and underline the connection with the previous lemma, we let

\xi_{t-} (e - 1/2) = a, \qquad \xi_{t-} (e + 1/2) = b, \qquad \xi_{t-} (e + 3/2) = c.

By symmetry, we may also assume that a > b. To prove the lemma, we distinguish among four cases depending on whether c is larger or smaller than b, and depending on whether the opinion distance |b - c| is larger or smaller than the confidence threshold \theta, as shown in Figure ?.
Case 1. c \in (b + \theta, \infty). In this case, there is repulsion so

\@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {rcl} \bar \xi_t (e) & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & |\xi_{t-} (e - 1/2) - \xi_t (e + 1/2)| = |a - (b - \mu_+ (c - b))| \vspace*{4pt} \\ & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & |\bar \xi_{t-} (e) + \mu_+ (c - b)| = \bar \xi_{t-} (e) + \mu_+ (c - b) \geq \bar \xi_{t-} (e) \geq \rho_- \,\bar \xi_{t-} (e). \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax}

Case 2. c \in [b, b + \theta]. In this case, there is attraction. Using also that

\bar \xi_{t-} (e) > D > \mu_- \theta \geq \mu_- (c - b),

and applying Lemma 4, we deduce that

\@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {rcl} \bar \xi_t (e) & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & |\xi_{t-} (e - 1/2) - \xi_t (e + 1/2)| = |a - (b + \mu_- (c - b))| \vspace*{4pt} \\ & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & |\bar \xi_{t-} (e) - \mu_- (c - b)| = \bar \xi_{t-} (e) - \mu_- (c - b) \geq \bar \xi_{t-} (e) - \mu_- \theta \geq \rho_- \,\bar \xi_{t-} (e). \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax}

Case 3. c \in [b - \theta, b]. In this case, there is attraction so

\@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {rcl} \bar \xi_t (e) & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & |\xi_{t-} (e - 1/2) - \xi_t (e + 1/2)| = |a - (b + \mu_- (c - b))| \vspace*{4pt} \\ & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & |\bar \xi_{t-} (e) - \mu_- (c - b)| = \bar \xi_{t-} (e) + \mu_- (b - c) \geq \bar \xi_{t-} (e) \geq \rho_- \,\bar \xi_{t-} (e). \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax}

Case 4. c \in (- \infty, b - \theta). In this case, there is repulsion. Using also that a > b > c, and recalling the expression of b' and c' from Lemma 5, it follows from this lemma that

\@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {rcl} \max (\bar \xi_t (e), \bar \xi_t (e + 1)) & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & |\xi_{t-} (e - 1/2) - \xi_t (e + 1/2)| \vee |\xi_{t-} (e + 1/2) - \xi_t (e + 3/2)| \vspace*{4pt} \\ & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & |a - b'| \vee |b' - c'| \geq \rho_- |a - b| = \rho_- \,\bar \xi_{t-} (e). \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax}

In all four cases, the implication (?) holds, which proves the lemma.

Uses Lemma 4, Lemma 5
Lemma

Lemma 7

79UV

There exists 0 < c_0 < 1 such that Y_t = c_0^{\log (X_t)} is a supermartingale.

Proof of Lemma 7

Define \phi (c) = 2c^{\log (\rho_-)} + c^{\log (\rho_+)} - 3. From

\@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {rcl} \rho_-^2 \rho_+ & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & \displaystyle \bigg(\frac{1 + 2 \mu_+}{1 + 3 \mu_+} \bigg)^2 (1 + 2 \mu_+) = \displaystyle \frac{(1 + 2 \mu_+)^3}{(1 + 3 \mu_+)^2} = \displaystyle \frac{1 + 6 \mu_+ + 12 \mu_+^2 + 8 \mu_+^3}{1 + 6 \mu_+ + 9 \mu_+^2} > 1, \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax}

it follows that \phi is increasing at point one:

\phi' (1) = 2 \log (\rho_-) + \log (\rho_+) = \log (\rho_-^2 \rho_+) > \log (1) = 0.

Observing also that \phi (1) = 0, we deduce that

\phi (c_0) < 0 \quad \hbox{for some} \quad 0 < c_0 < 1

fixed from now on. In particular,

\@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {rcl} \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \epsilon^{-1} E (Y_{t + \epsilon} - Y_t \,| \,X_t) & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & 2 (c_0^{\log (X_t) + \log (\rho_-)} - c_0^{\log (X_t)}) + (c_0^{\log (X_t) + \log (\rho_+)} - c_0^{\log (X_t)}) \vspace*{4pt} \\ & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & Y_t \,(2 c_0^{\log (\rho_-)} + c_0^{\log (\rho_+)} - 3) = Y_t \,\phi (c_0) \leq 0, \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax}

showing that the process Y_t is a supermartingale.

Lemma

Lemma 8

ARFR

Assume that X_0 > 2D. Then,

\@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {l} P (\lim_{t \to \infty} X_t = \infty \ \hbox{and} \ X_t > D \ \hbox{for all} \ t) \geq 1 - c_0^{\log (2)} > 0. \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax}
Proof of Lemma 8

For all N > 2D, define the stopping time

T_N = \inf \{t : X_t \notin (D, N) \}.

By the optional stopping theorem applied to the process Y_t stopped at time T_N,

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

}{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} E (Y_{T_N}) \leq E (Y_0) = E (c_0^{\log (X_0)}) \leq c_0^{\log (2D)}. \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} {

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

Observe also that we have the lower bound

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

}{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\begin{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[0]\relax} {rcl} E (Y_{T_N}) & \hspace*{-5pt} = \hspace*{-5pt} & E (Y_{T_N} \,| \,X_{T_N} \leq D) P (X_{T_N} \leq D) + E (Y_{T_N} \,| \,X_{T_N} \geq N) P (X_{T_N} \geq N) \vspace*{4pt} \\ & \hspace*{-5pt} \geq \hspace*{-5pt} & E (Y_{T_N} \,| \,X_{T_N} \leq D) (1 - P (X_{T_N} \geq N)) \vspace*{4pt} \\ & \hspace*{-5pt} \geq \hspace*{-5pt} & c_0^{\log (D)} (1 - P (X_{T_N} \geq N)). \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@array} {\end{array}}{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} }{\csname pseudo@array\endcsname[1]\relax} \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} {

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

Combining (Proof) and (Proof), we conclude that

P (X_{T_N} \geq N) \geq 1 - c_0^{\log (2D)} / c_0^{\log (D)} = 1 - c_0^{\log (2D) - \log (D)} = 1 - c_0^{\log (2)} > 0.

Because the inequality holds for all N > 2D, the lemma follows.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2310.19073v1 by Nicolas Lanchier and Max Mercer, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2310/2310.19073.jsonl.