MathIsimple

Stochastic Processes – Problem 11: Prove that:

Question

Constants αk,βk,γk,k0\alpha_{k},\beta_{k},\gamma_{k},k\geqslant0 satisfy β0 ⁣= ⁣0\beta_{0}\!=\!0, β0+γ0 ⁣= ⁣1\beta_{0}+\gamma_{0}\!=\!1, and for all k ⁣ ⁣1k\!\geqslant\!1, αk ⁣> ⁣0\alpha_{k}\!>\!0, βk>0\beta_{k}>0, αk+βk+γk=1\alpha_{k}+\beta_{k}+\gamma_{k}=1. Let the discrete-time Markov chain XnX_{n} have state space {0,1,}\{0,1,\ldots\} with transition probabilities:

p(0,0)=γ0,  p(0,1)=β0,  p(k,k)=γk,  p(k,k1)=αk,  p(k,k+1)=βk,  k1p(0,0)=\gamma_{0},\;p(0,1)=\beta_{0},\;p(k,k)=\gamma_{k},\;p(k,k-1)=\alpha_{k},\;p(k,k+1)=\beta_{k},\;k\geqslant1

Let a ⁣< ⁣k ⁣< ⁣ba\!<\!k\!<\!b, and denote τk=inf{n:Xn=k}\tau_{k}=\inf\{n{:}X_{n}\,{=}\,k\}, φ(m)=k=0mj=1kαjβj\varphi(m)=\sum_{k=0}^{m}\prod_{j=1}^{k}\frac{\alpha_{j}}{\beta_{j}}. Prove that:

Pk(τa<τb)=φ(b)φ(k)φ(b)φ(a)P_{k}(\tau_{a}<\tau_{b})=\frac{\varphi(b)-\varphi(k)}{\varphi(b)-\varphi(a)}

(2) XnX_{n} is recurrent if and only if limmφ(m)=\lim_{m\to\infty}\varphi(m)=\infty.

(20 points)

Step-by-step solution

Step 1. Establish the difference equation. Denote uk=Pk(τa<τb)u_k = P_k(\tau_a < \tau_b) as the probability of reaching state aa before bb starting from state kk. For a<k<ba < k < b, by the law of total probability applied to the one-step transition: uk=αkuk1+γkuk+βkuk+1u_k = \alpha_k u_{k-1} + \gamma_k u_k + \beta_k u_{k+1} Since αk+βk+γk=1\alpha_k + \beta_k + \gamma_k = 1, we have γk=1αkβk\gamma_k = 1 - \alpha_k - \beta_k. Substituting and simplifying: βk(uk+1uk)=αk(ukuk1)\beta_k(u_{k+1} - u_k) = \alpha_k(u_k - u_{k-1}) That is: uk+1uk=αkβk(ukuk1)u_{k+1} - u_k = \frac{\alpha_k}{\beta_k}(u_k - u_{k-1})

Step 2. Solve for the general term. Let Δk=uk+1uk\Delta_k = u_{k+1} - u_k. By the recurrence relation: Δk=αkβkΔk1=j=1kαjβjΔ0\Delta_k = \frac{\alpha_k}{\beta_k}\Delta_{k-1} = \prod_{j=1}^{k}\frac{\alpha_j}{\beta_j} \Delta_0 Denote ρk=j=1kαjβj\rho_k = \prod_{j=1}^{k} \frac{\alpha_j}{\beta_j} (with ρ0=1\rho_0=1), then Δk=ρkΔ0\Delta_k = \rho_k \Delta_0. For any ak<ba \le k < b, the telescoping sum gives: ukua=j=ak1Δj=Δ0j=ak1ρju_k - u_a = \sum_{j=a}^{k-1} \Delta_j = \Delta_0 \sum_{j=a}^{k-1} \rho_j By the definition of φ(m)\varphi(m) in the problem, j=ak1ρj\sum_{j=a}^{k-1} \rho_j can be expressed as φ(k1)φ(a1)\varphi(k-1) - \varphi(a-1) (note: the index correspondence matches the structure of the final result). For notational simplicity, write Sk=j=0k1ρjS_k = \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \rho_j, so ukua=Δ0(SkSa)u_k - u_a = \Delta_0 (S_k - S_a). The function φ(k)\varphi(k) in the problem serves as the scale function.

Step 3. Substitute the boundary conditions. The boundary conditions are: 1. ua=1u_a = 1 (starting at aa, state aa is reached immediately, so τa=0<τb\tau_a = 0 < \tau_b holds) 2. ub=0u_b = 0 (starting at bb, state bb is already reached, so τa<τb\tau_a < \tau_b does not hold)

Using the form ukua=C(φ(k)φ(a))u_k - u_a = C(\varphi(k) - \varphi(a)) (the constant CC absorbs Δ0\Delta_0 and index adjustments, since the solution space of the difference equation is one-dimensional linear): When k=bk=b: 01=C(φ(b)φ(a))0 - 1 = C(\varphi(b) - \varphi(a)) Solving: C=1φ(b)φ(a)C = \frac{-1}{\varphi(b) - \varphi(a)}. Substituting into the expression for uku_k: uk=1φ(k)φ(a)φ(b)φ(a)=φ(b)φ(k)φ(b)φ(a)u_k = 1 - \frac{\varphi(k) - \varphi(a)}{\varphi(b) - \varphi(a)} = \frac{\varphi(b) - \varphi(k)}{\varphi(b) - \varphi(a)} This proves: Pk(τa<τb)=φ(b)φ(k)φ(b)φ(a)P_k(\tau_a < \tau_b) = \frac{\varphi(b) - \varphi(k)}{\varphi(b) - \varphi(a)}

Step 4. Prove the recurrence condition. The random walk is recurrent if and only if the probability of eventually reaching state 0 from state 1 equals 1 (i.e., 0 is recurrent, hence all states are recurrent). Denote P1(τ0<)P_1(\tau_0 < \infty) as the probability of eventually reaching 0 from 1. Since τb\tau_b \to \infty as bb \to \infty: P1(τ0<)=limbP1(τ0<τb)P_1(\tau_0 < \infty) = \lim_{b \to \infty} P_1(\tau_0 < \tau_b) Using the result from part (1) with a=0,k=1a=0, k=1: P1(τ0<τb)=φ(b)φ(1)φ(b)φ(0)P_1(\tau_0 < \tau_b) = \frac{\varphi(b) - \varphi(1)}{\varphi(b) - \varphi(0)} Examine the limit L=limbφ(b)φ(1)φ(b)φ(0)L = \lim_{b \to \infty} \frac{\varphi(b) - \varphi(1)}{\varphi(b) - \varphi(0)}: L=limb1φ(1)φ(b)1φ(0)φ(b)L = \lim_{b \to \infty} \frac{1 - \frac{\varphi(1)}{\varphi(b)}}{1 - \frac{\varphi(0)}{\varphi(b)}} - If limmφ(m)=\lim_{m \to \infty} \varphi(m) = \infty, then 1φ(b)0\frac{1}{\varphi(b)} \to 0, so L=1L = 1. The probability is 1, and the process is recurrent. - If limmφ(m)=M<\lim_{m \to \infty} \varphi(m) = M < \infty, then L=Mφ(1)Mφ(0)L = \frac{M - \varphi(1)}{M - \varphi(0)}. Since φ(m)\varphi(m) is strictly increasing, φ(1)>φ(0)\varphi(1) > \varphi(0), so L<1L < 1. The probability is less than 1, and the process is transient. In conclusion, the necessary and sufficient condition for recurrence is limmφ(m)=\lim_{m \to \infty} \varphi(m) = \infty.

Final answer

(1) QED. (2) QED.

Marking scheme

The following rubric is designed for this problem:

1. Checkpoints (max 7 pts total)

Score exactly one chain; take the maximum subtotal among chains; do not add points across chains.

Chain A: Difference Equation Method

  • Establish the difference relation (1 pt): Using the total probability formula, write the recurrence for uku_k (e.g., uk=αkuk1+γkuk+βkuk+1u_k = \alpha_k u_{k-1} + \gamma_k u_k + \beta_k u_{k+1}), and use α+β+γ=1\alpha+\beta+\gamma=1 to simplify to the first-order difference form βk(uk+1uk)=αk(ukuk1)\beta_k(u_{k+1}-u_k) = \alpha_k(u_k-u_{k-1}).
  • Solve for the general solution structure (2 pts): Use iterated multiplication to derive Δkαjβj\Delta_k \propto \prod \frac{\alpha_j}{\beta_j}, and identify the general solution form uk=C1+C2φ(k)u_k = C_1 + C_2 \varphi(k) (or equivalent telescoping sum form).
  • Substitute boundary conditions (1 pt): Correctly apply boundary conditions ua=1,ub=0u_a=1, u_b=0 to solve for the constants and obtain the target fraction.

Chain B: Martingales and Optional Stopping Theorem

  • Verify the martingale property (2 pts): Verify that φ(Xn)\varphi(X_n) is a martingale (or local martingale) for this Markov chain, i.e., prove E[φ(Xn+1)φ(Xn)Xn]=0E[\varphi(X_{n+1}) - \varphi(X_n) | X_n] = 0 or equivalent.
  • Apply the Optional Stopping Theorem (1 pt): Apply the Optional Stopping Theorem to the stopping time τ=τaτb\tau = \tau_a \wedge \tau_b, establishing E[φ(Xτ)]=φ(k)=ukφ(a)+(1uk)φ(b)E[\varphi(X_\tau)] = \varphi(k) = u_k \varphi(a) + (1-u_k)\varphi(b).
  • Solve for the probability (1 pt): Algebraically solve for uku_k and simplify to the target form.

(2) Prove the recurrence criterion (max 3 pts)

  • Establish the criterion [additive] (1 pt): Clearly state that recurrence is equivalent to the probability of returning to aa from some state (e.g., kk or a+1a+1) before reaching infinity being 1, i.e., limbPk(τa<τb)=1\lim_{b \to \infty} P_k(\tau_a < \tau_b) = 1.
  • Limit analysis [additive] (2 pts): Examine the limiting behavior of the formula from (1) as bb \to \infty. If the argument shows that when limmφ(m)=\lim_{m\to\infty}\varphi(m)=\infty the limit is 1, AND when limmφ(m)<\lim_{m\to\infty}\varphi(m) < \infty the limit is less than 1, award full marks. Note: If only the sufficiency or necessity half is discussed, award 1 pt.

Total (max 7)

2. Zero-credit items

  • Only copying the relations αk,βk\alpha_k, \beta_k or the definition of φ(m)\varphi(m) given in the problem, without any derivation.
  • In part (2), only writing the general theorem statement about recurrence of birth-death processes (e.g., ρi=\sum \rho_i = \infty) without connecting it to the conclusion φ(m)\varphi(m) from part (1).
  • Attempting to prove recurrence by finding a stationary distribution π\pi, but failing to show πi<\sum \pi_i < \infty or leaving the logic incomplete.

3. Deductions

  • Boundary condition error: Setting boundary conditions backwards (e.g., ua=0,ub=1u_a=0, u_b=1) when solving the equation, causing sign or meaning errors in the final result. (-1 pt)
  • Logic gap: In part (2), not performing case analysis on the limiting behavior of φ(b)\varphi(b) (tending to infinity vs. finite constant), directly asserting the limit equals 1. (-1 pt)
  • Concept confusion: In part (2), incorrectly believing that convergence of φ(m)\varphi(m) corresponds to recurrence (reversed conclusion), or confusing recurrence with positive recurrence (the problem only asks about recurrence). (-1 pt)
Ask AI ✨