Harnack inequality for subordinate random walks
Ante Mimica, Stjepan \v{S}ebek

TL;DR
This paper establishes Harnack inequalities and estimates for transition probabilities and Green functions for a broad class of subordinate random walks on integer lattices, advancing understanding of their harmonic functions.
Contribution
It introduces new estimates and proves the Harnack inequality for subordinate random walks with Laplace exponents satisfying specific scaling conditions.
Findings
Derived transition probability estimates
Established Green function bounds
Proved Harnack inequality for harmonic functions
Abstract
In this paper, we consider a large class of subordinate random walks on integer lattice via subordinators with Laplace exponents which are complete Bernstein functions satisfying a certain lower scaling condition at zero. We establish estimates for one-step transition probabilities, the Green function and the Green function of a ball, and prove the Harnack inequality for non-negative harmonic functions.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsStochastic processes and statistical mechanics · Point processes and geometric inequalities · Mathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Harnack inequality for subordinate random walks
Ante Mimica ()
Stjepan Šebek
Abstract
In this paper, we consider a large class of subordinate random walks on integer lattice via subordinators with Laplace exponents which are complete Bernstein functions satisfying a certain lower scaling condition at zero. We establish estimates for one-step transition probabilities, the Green function and the Green function of a ball, and prove the Harnack inequality for non-negative harmonic functions.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 60J45; Secondary: 60G50, 60J10, 05C81
Keywords and phrases: random walk, subordination, Harnack inequality, harmonic function, Green function, Poisson kernel
1 Introduction
Let be a sequence of independent, identically distributed random variables defined on a probability space , taking values in the integer lattice , with distribution , , where is the -th vector of the standard basis for . A simple symmetric random walk in starting at is a stochastic process , with and .
Let be a simple symmetric random walk in starting at the origin. Further, let
[TABLE]
be a Bernstein function satisfying . Here is a measure on satisfying called the Lévy measure. For denote
[TABLE]
and notice that
[TABLE]
Hence, we can define a random variable with , . Now we define the random walk on by , where is a sequence of independent, identically distributed random variables with the same distribution as and independent of the process . Subordinate random walk is a stochastic process which is defined by , . It is straightforward to see that the subordinate random walk is indeed a random walk. Hence, there exists a sequence of independent, identically distributed random variables with the same distribution as such that
[TABLE]
We can easily find the explicit expression for the distribution of the random variable :
[TABLE]
We denote the transition matrix of the subordinate random walk with , i.e. , where .
We will impose some additional constraints on the Laplace exponent . First, will be a complete Bernstein function [13, Definition 6.1.] and it will satisfy the following lower scaling condition: there exist and such that
[TABLE]
In dimension , we additionally assume that there exist and such that
[TABLE]
It is well known that, if is a Bernstein function, then for all , , implying , . Using these two facts, proof of the next lemma is straightforward.
Lemma 1.1**.**
If is a Bernstein function, then for all , .
Using Lemma 1.1 we get for all and this suffices for .
The main result of this paper is a scale invariant Harnack inequality for subordinate random walks. The proof will be given in the last section. Before we state the result, we define the notion of harmonic function with respect to subordinate random walk .
Definition 1.2**.**
We say that a function is harmonic in , with respect to , if
[TABLE]
This definition is equivalent to the mean-value property in terms of the exit from a finite subset of : If is finite then is harmonic in , with respect to , if and only if for every , where .
For and we define . We use shorthand notation for .
Theorem 1.3** (Harnack inequality).**
Let be a subordinate random walk in , , with a complete Bernstein function satisfying (1.4) and in the case also (1.5). For each , there exists a constant such that if is harmonic on , with respect to , for and , then
[TABLE]
Notice that the constant is uniform for all . That is why we call this result scale invariant Harnack inequality.
Some authors have already dealt with this problem and Harnack inequality was proved for symmetric simple random walk in [9, Theorem 1.7.2] and random walks with steps of infinite range, but with some assumptions on the Green function and some restrictions such as finite second moment of the step [3, 10].
Notion of discrete subordination was developed in [6] and it was discussed in details in [4], but under different assumptions on than the ones we have. Using discrete subordination we can obtain random walks with steps of infinite second moment, see Remark 3.3. Harnack inequality has not been proved so far for such random walks.
In Section 2 we state an important result about gamma function that we use later, we discuss under which conditions subordinate random walk is transient and we introduce functions and and examine their properties. The estimates of one-step transition probabilities of subordinate random walk are given in Section 3. In Section 4 we derive estimates for the Green function. This is very valuable result which gives the answer to the question posed in [5, Remark 1]. Using estimates developed in Section 3 and 4 and following [11, Section 4], in Section 5 we find estimates for the Green function of a ball. In Section 6 we introduce Poisson kernel and prove Harnack inequality.
Throughout this paper, and the constants , and , will be fixed. We use to denote generic constants, whose exact values are not important and can change from one appearance to another. The labeling of the constants starts anew in the statement of each result. The dependence of the constant on the dimension will not be mentioned explicitly. We will use “:=” to denote a definition, which is read as “is defined to be”. We will use to denote the Lebesgue measure in . We denote the Euclidean distance between and in by . For , and . For any two positive functions and , we use the notation , which is read as “ is comparable to ”, to denote that there exist some constants such that on their common domain of definition. We also use notation to denote that .
2 Preliminaries
In this section we first state an important result about the ratio of gamma functions that is needed later. Secondly, we discuss under which conditions subordinate random walk is transient. At the end of this section we define functions and that we use later and we prove some of their properties.
2.1 Ratio of gamma functions
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let . Then
[TABLE]
- Proof:
Using a well-known Stirling’s formula
[TABLE]
and [2, Formula 6.5.35] that states
[TABLE]
we get
[TABLE]
2.2 Transience of subordinate random walks
Our considerations only make sense if the random walk that we defined is transient. In the case of a recurrent random walk, the Green function takes value for every argument . We will use Chung-Fuchs theorem to show under which condition subordinate random walk is transient. Denote with the characteristic function of one step of a subordinate random walk. We want to prove that there exists such that
[TABLE]
The law of variable is given with (1). We denote one step of the simple symmetric random walk with and the characteristic function of that random variable with . Assuming we have
[TABLE]
From [9, Section 1.2, page 13] we have
[TABLE]
That is function with real values so
[TABLE]
From Taylor’s theorem it follows that there exists such that
[TABLE]
Now we take such that . From (2.3), using the fact that is increasing, we get
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
and the last integral converges for . So, subordinate random walk is transient for . Notice that in the case when we have even if . That is the reason why we do not need (1.5) in proving results in dimensions higher than or equal to . If some particular result depends on the dimension, we will write its proof using (1.5) just to show that the result is true even in dimensions and when . In the case when , we can replace and from (1.5) with and only use Lemma 1.1.
2.3 Properties of functions and
Let be defined by
[TABLE]
and let be defined by
[TABLE]
We use these functions in numerous places in our paper. In this section we present some of their properties that we need later.
Lemma 2.2**.**
Assume (1.5) (if ) and let . Then .
- Proof:
Using (1.5) and the fact that we have
[TABLE]
We prove similar assertion for the function .
Lemma 2.3**.**
Assume (1.4) and let . Then .
- Proof:
Using (1.4) we have
[TABLE]
Using (1.4), (1.5) and Lemma 1.1 we can easily prove a lot of different results about functions and . We will state only those results that we need in the remaining part of our paper. For the first lemma we do not need any additional assumptions on the function . For the second one we need (1.4) and for the third one we need (1.5).
Lemma 2.4**.**
Let . If then
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
If then
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.5**.**
Assume (1.4) and let and such that . Then
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.6**.**
Assume (1.5) and let . If such that then
[TABLE]
If then
[TABLE]
3 Transition probability estimates
In this section, we will investigate the behavior of the expression . We will prove that , . First we have to examine the behavior of the expression .
Lemma 3.1**.**
Assume (1.4) and let be as in (1.1). Then
[TABLE]
- Proof:
Since is a complete Bernstein function, there exists completely monotone density such that
[TABLE]
From [8, Proposition 2.5] we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Inequality (3.3) holds only if (1.4) is satisfied and for inequality (3.2) we do not need any scaling conditions. Using monotonicity of , (2.1) and (3.3) we have
[TABLE]
for large enough. On the other side, using inequality (3.2), monotonicity of and Lemma 1.1, we get
[TABLE]
Hence, we have
[TABLE]
for large enough, but we can change constants and get (3.1).
We are now ready to examine the expression .
Proposition 3.2**.**
Assume (1.4). Then
[TABLE]
- Proof:
Using (1) and the fact that for , we have
[TABLE]
To get the upper bound for the expression we will use [7, Theorem 2.1] which states that there are constants and such that
[TABLE]
Together with (3.1) this result yields
[TABLE]
Let us first examine . Using (1.4), we get
[TABLE]
Using Lemma 1.1 instead of (1.4) and replacing the upper limit in the integral by , we get . Hence, .
In finding the matching lower bound for , periodicity of a simple random walk plays very important role. We write if and have the same parity, i.e., if is even. Directly from [9, Proposition 1.2.5], we get
[TABLE]
for and , . In the case when we have
[TABLE]
By combining (3.5) and (3.6), we can easily get
[TABLE]
We will find lower bound for when by using (3.5), the proof when being analogous using (3.7). If then for , . Hence,
[TABLE]
where in the last line we used Lemma 1.1.
Remark 3.3**.**
It follows immediately form Proposition 3.2 that the second moment of the step is infinite.
4 Green function estimates
The Green function of is defined by , where
[TABLE]
Note that for
[TABLE]
Hence, for we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and is as before. Now we will investigate the behavior of the sequence . Since is a complete Bernstein function (hence special), we have
[TABLE]
for some non-increasing function satisfying , see [13, Theorem 11.3.].
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let be as in (4.2). Then
[TABLE]
- Proof:
We follow the proof of [4, Theorem 2.3]. Define , . The Laplace transformation of the measure generated by is equal to
[TABLE]
Now we calculate :
[TABLE]
where we used in the last equality. Hence, . Now we define and we want to show that
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that . Hence,
[TABLE]
Since from calculations (Proof:) and (4.6) we have
[TABLE]
The statement of this lemma follows by the uniqueness of the Laplace transformation.
Lemma 4.2**.**
Assume (1.4). Then
[TABLE]
- Proof:
Since is a complete Bernstein function, using (1.4) we can obtain
[TABLE]
where the upper bound is valid even without (1.4) (see [8, Corollary 2.4.]) and is as in Lemma 4.1. Using monotonicity of , (2.1) and (4.7), we get that
[TABLE]
for large enough. Now we will find the upper bound for . Here we use that is unimodal with maximum at . By splitting the integral and using (2.2), we have
[TABLE]
for large enough. Since , and is increasing, we have
[TABLE]
for large enough, where we used (4.7) in the last inequality. We will estimate the integral by . Using (4.7) and (1.4) we get
[TABLE]
Since for , we have . Hence,
[TABLE]
Using this estimate and the fact that is less then , we have
[TABLE]
for large enough. Now we have to show that can be estimated by . Again, we will use (4.7) and (1.4):
[TABLE]
where we assumed that because we need so that we can use (1.4). Now, for large enough, we have
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
for large enough. We can now change constants in such a way that the statement of this lemma is true for every .
Theorem 4.3**.**
Assume (1.4) and, if , assume additionally (1.5). Then
[TABLE]
- Proof:
We assume throughout the whole proof. In (4.1) we showed that , where . Let and . By [9, Theorem 1.2.1]
[TABLE]
Since for , we have
[TABLE]
First we estimate
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Now we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where the last integral converges because of the condition . We estimate using (3.4) and (1.4):
[TABLE]
Using and for large enough and for some constant , we get
[TABLE]
On the other hand
[TABLE]
Here we used , and for large enough and for some constant . So, we have for large enough. Now we can change the constants and to get
[TABLE]
5 Estimates of the Green function of a ball
Let and define
[TABLE]
where is as before. A well-known result about Green function of a set is formulated in the following lemma.
Lemma 5.1**.**
Let be a finite subset of . Then
[TABLE]
where .
Our approach in obtaining estimates for the Green function of a ball uses the maximum principle for the operator that we define by
[TABLE]
Since and we have
[TABLE]
Before proving the maximum principle, we will show that for the function we have , for all . Let . Then
[TABLE]
and this is obviously equivalent to , for all . It follows from the Definition 1.2 that is harmonic in if and only if , for all .
Proposition 5.2**.**
Assume that there exists such that . Then
[TABLE]
- Proof:
If (5.2) is not true, then , for all . In this case, we have
[TABLE]
This implies which is in contradiction with the assumption that .
We will now prove a series of lemmas and propositions in order to get the estimates for the Green function of a ball. In all those results we assume (1.4) and, if , we additionally assume (1.5). Throughout the rest of this section, we follow [11, Section 4].
Lemma 5.3**.**
There exist and such that for every
[TABLE]
- Proof:
From Lemma 5.1 we have
[TABLE]
We will first prove this lemma in the case when . If we show that for some we will have (5.3) with the constant . Let and . In that case, we have . Since , and if and only if , we have
[TABLE]
Using Theorem 4.3, (5.4), Lemma 2.2 and (2.11), we get
[TABLE]
Since when and , if we take small enough and then fix it, we have for and that is what we wanted to prove. Now we deal with the case when . From Lemma 5.1 we have and from the definition of the function and the transience of random walk we get . Now, we can conclude that
[TABLE]
If we define we have (5.3).
Using Lemma 5.3 we can prove the following result:
Proposition 5.4**.**
There exists constant such that for all
[TABLE]
where is as in Lemma 5.3.
- Proof:
Let . In that case, we have . We set for easier notation. Notice that . Using this equality, Lemma 5.3, Theorem 4.3 and Lemma 1.1, we have
[TABLE]
for large enough. Hence, we can conclude that , for all , for large enough and for some . As usual, we can adjust the constant to get the statement of this proposition for every . Notice that this is true regardless of the dimension because here, we can always plug in .
Now we want to find the upper bound for .
Lemma 5.5**.**
There exists constant such that for all
[TABLE]
- Proof:
We define the process with
[TABLE]
where is a function defined on with values in , is defined as in (5.1) and is a subordinate random walk. By [12, Theorem 4.1.2], the process is a martingale for every bounded function . Let and . By the optional stopping theorem, we have
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
We now investigate both sides of the relation (5.7). For every , , and for every , using Proposition 3.2, (1.4) and (1.5), we have
[TABLE]
Using the above estimate, we get
[TABLE]
Using (5.7), (5.8) and , we get
[TABLE]
and this implies
[TABLE]
In the next two results we develop estimates for the Green function of a ball. We define for , .
Proposition 5.6**.**
There exists constant such that for all
[TABLE]
where , , and is as in Lemma 5.3.
- Proof:
Let and . We define function . Notice that for we have
[TABLE]
Hence, is a harmonic function in . If we take then for large enough. Using Lemma 2.2 and Theorem 4.3 we get
[TABLE]
Hence, for and for some constant . Notice that , hence . Using these facts together with Proposition 3.2, we have
[TABLE]
where in the last line we used Lemma 2.3 together with for and for large enough. Using (2.6) we get . Hence, using (5.6), we have
[TABLE]
for some . On the other hand, using (2.9) and Proposition 5.4 we get
[TABLE]
Now we define and using
[TABLE]
we get
[TABLE]
So, if we define , we showed that is non-negative function on . It is obvious that it vanishes on and for we have
[TABLE]
Since on and vanishes on , if then there would exist such that . But then, by Proposition 5.2, which is in contradiction with for . Hence,
[TABLE]
and then, because for we get
[TABLE]
Now we will prove a proposition that will give us the lower bound for the Green function of a ball. We use the fact that for some constant , where denotes the cardinality of a set.
Proposition 5.7**.**
There exist and such that for all
[TABLE]
where is as in Lemma 5.3 and .
- Proof:
Let as in Lemma 5.3. Then there exists
[TABLE]
From Proposition 5.6 it follows that there exists constant such that
[TABLE]
From Lemma 5.5 we have
[TABLE]
for some constant . By Theorem 4.3 and (2.4) there exists such that , . Now we take
[TABLE]
and fix it. Notice that . Let , . Since we have . We want to prove that . We will first prove that assertion for . In that case we have . Since , we have so we can use (5.12), Lemma 2.2 and (2.10) to get
[TABLE]
Using (5.14) and (5.15), we get for . Now we will prove that , for and for large enough. First note that
[TABLE]
since . Therefore
[TABLE]
for large enough. Hence,
[TABLE]
Now we fix and define the function
[TABLE]
From (5.16) we have for . Recall that is harmonic in . Using (5.13) we get for . Hence, for
[TABLE]
where we used Proposition 3.2 and Lemma 2.3 together with . Using (5.15) and , we get
[TABLE]
Using (2.8) we get . When we put this together with (Proof:) and (5.18), we get
[TABLE]
Define , where
[TABLE]
where will be defined later. For
[TABLE]
For , we have . We will first assume that so that we can use Theorem 4.3, Lemma 2.2 and (2.10). In this case, we have
[TABLE]
So, for some constant and for . If we can use the same arguments that we used when we were proving that for large enough to prove that for large enough. Hence, for all and and for large enough. Now we have
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
Since for , for and for we can use the same argument as in Proposition 5.6 to conclude by Proposition 5.2 that for all . Since for we have . Using that, we have
[TABLE]
for large enough. As before, we can change the constant and get (5.11) for all .
Using last two propositions, we have the next corollary.
Corollary 5.8**.**
Assume (1.4) and (1.5). Then there exist constants and , such that
[TABLE]
- Proof:
This corollary follows directly from Proposition 5.6 and Proposition 5.7. We can set where is as in Lemma 5.3 and where is as in Proposition 5.7.
6 Proof of the Harnack inequality
We start this section with the proof of the proposition that will be crucial for the remaining part of our paper.
Proposition 6.1**.**
Let be a function and a finite set. For every we have
[TABLE]
- Proof:
We have
[TABLE]
Using (1.2), we get
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
Remark 6.2**.**
Formula (6.1) can be considered as a discrete counterpart of the continuous-time Ikeda-Watanabe formula. We will refer to it as discrete Ikeda-Watanabe formula.
It can be proved that if is harmonic in , with respect to , then is a martingale with respect to the natural filtration of (proof is the same as [9, Proposition 1.4.1], except that we have a non-negative instead of a bounded function). Using this fact, we can prove the following lemma.
Lemma 6.3**.**
Let be a finite subset of . Then is harmonic in , with respect to , if and only if for every .
- Proof:
Let us first assume that is harmonic in , with respect to . We take arbitrary . By the martingale property , for all . First, by Fatou’s lemma we have so is a -integrable random variable. Since is a finite set, we have on , for some constant , and . Using these two facts, we get
[TABLE]
Since the right hand side is -integrable, we can use the dominated convergence theorem and we get
[TABLE]
On the other hand, if , for every , then for we have
[TABLE]
Hence, if we take finite and harmonic in , with respect to , then by Lemma 6.3 and the discrete Ikeda-Watanabe formula, we get
[TABLE]
Let us define the discrete Poisson kernel of a finite set by
[TABLE]
If the function is non-negative and harmonic in , with respect to , from (6.2) we have
[TABLE]
Now we are ready to show that the Poisson kernel is comparable to an expression that is independent of . When we prove that, Harnack inequality will follow immediately.
Lemma 6.4**.**
Assume (1.4) and let be as in Corollary 5.8. Then for all , where
[TABLE]
- Proof:
Splitting the expression (6.3) for the Poisson kernel in two parts and using Proposition 3.2, we get
[TABLE]
Since for , , for the second sum in the upper expression we have
[TABLE]
Now we look closely at the expression . Using the fact that , and because , we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
Combining (6.6), (6.7) and using Lemma 2.3, we have
[TABLE]
Using (2.6), we get . Similarly, from (2.8), we get . Hence, for some . Therefore,
[TABLE]
Using (6.8) we have
[TABLE]
Now we want to show that . Using the fact that is non-negative function and that for we have
[TABLE]
To prove the other inequality we will use Lemma 5.3, Theorem 4.3, Lemma 2.2 together with , and Lemma 1.1. Thus
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Finally, using (6.8) and (6.11) we have
[TABLE]
And now, from (6.12) and (6.5) we have the statement of the lemma.
Lemma 6.4 basically states that there exist constants such that
[TABLE]
Now we are ready to prove our main result.
- Proof of Theorem 1.3:
Notice that, because of the spatial homogeneity, it is enough to prove this result for balls centered at the origin. We will prove the theorem for , where is as in Corollary 5.8. General case follows using the standard Harnack chain argument. Let . Using (6.13) we get
[TABLE]
Now we can multiply both sides with and sum over all and we get
[TABLE]
If we look at the expression (6) we see that this means
[TABLE]
and that is what we wanted to prove.
Acknowledgement: This work has been supported in part by Croatian Science Foundation under the project 3526.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1\providebibliographyfont name \providebibliographyfont lastname \providebibliographyfont title \providebibliographyfont jtitle \btxtitlefont \providebibliographyfont etal \providebibliographyfont journal \providebibliographyfont volume \providebibliographyfont ISBN \providebibliographyfont ISSN \providebibliographyfont url } \providebibliographyfont numeral \btxselectlanguage \btxfallbacklanguage
- 2[1] \btxselectlanguage \btxfallbacklanguage
- 3[2] \btxnamefont M. \btxlastnamefont Abramowitz \btxandlong \btxnamefont I. \btxfnamespacelong A. \btxlastnamefont Stegun, \btxtitlefont \btxifchangecase Handbook of mathematical functions Handbook of mathematical functions, \btxpublisherfont National Bureau of Standards, 1972.
- 4[3] \btxnamefont R. \btxfnamespacelong F. \btxlastnamefont Bass \btxandlong \btxnamefont T. \btxlastnamefont Kumagai, \btxjtitlefont \btxifchangecase Symmetric Markov Chains on ℤ d superscript ℤ 𝑑 \mathbb{Z}^{d} with Unbounded Range Symmetric Markov Chains on ℤ d superscript ℤ 𝑑 \mathbb{Z}^{d} with Unbounded Range, \btxjournalfont Transactions of the American Mathematical Society \btxvolumefont 360 (2008), 2041 – 2075.
- 5[4] \btxnamefont A. \btxlastnamefont Bendikov \btxandlong \btxnamefont W. \btxlastnamefont Cygan, \btxjtitlefont \btxifchangecase α 𝛼 \alpha - Stable Random Walk has Massive Thorns α 𝛼 \alpha - Stable Random Walk has Massive Thorns, \btxjournalfont ar Xiv:1307.4947 v 3 (2016).
- 6[5] \btxnamefont A. \btxlastnamefont Bendikov, \btxnamefont W. \btxlastnamefont Cygan \btxandcomma \btxandlong \btxnamefont B. \btxlastnamefont Trojan, \btxjtitlefont \btxifchangecase Limit Theorems for Random Walks Limit Theorems for Random Walks, \btxjournalfont ar Xiv:1504.01759 v 2 (2015).
- 7[6] \btxnamefont A. \btxlastnamefont Bendikov \btxandlong \btxnamefont L. \btxlastnamefont Saloff-Coste, \btxjtitlefont \btxifchangecase Random walks on groups and discrete subordination Random walks on groups and discrete subordination, \btxjournalfont Mathematische Nachrichten \btxvolumefont 285 (2012), 580 – 605.
- 8[7] \btxnamefont W. \btxlastnamefont Hebisch \btxandlong \btxnamefont L. \btxlastnamefont Saloff-Coste, \btxjtitlefont \btxifchangecase Gaussian Estimates for Markov Chains and Random Walks on Groups Gaussian Estimates for Markov Chains and Random Walks on Groups, \btxjournalfont Annals of Probability \btxvolumefont 21 (1993), 673 – 709.
