Kemeny's constant for one-dimensional diffusions
Ross G. Pinsky

TL;DR
This paper generalizes Kemeny's constant from finite Markov chains to one-dimensional diffusions, showing that the expected hitting time of a randomly chosen point (according to the invariant measure) is constant in the starting point and finite under certain boundary conditions.
Contribution
It extends the concept of Kemeny's constant to continuous one-dimensional diffusion processes, establishing conditions for its finiteness and invariance.
Findings
Expected hitting time is constant in the starting point.
Finiteness of the expected hitting time depends on boundary conditions.
Generalizes Kemeny's constant from Markov chains to diffusions.
Abstract
Let be a non-degenerate, positive recurrent one-dimensional diffusion process on with invariant probability density , and let denote the first hitting time of . Let be a random variable independent of the diffusion process and distributed according to the process's invariant probability measure . Denote by the expectation with respect to . Consider the expression In words, this expression is the expected hitting time of the diffusion starting from of a point chosen randomly according to the diffusion's invariant distribution. We show that this expression is constant in , and that it is finite if and only if are entrance boundaries for…
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.
Kemeny’s constant for one-dimensional diffusions
Ross G. Pinsky
Department of Mathematics
Technion—Israel Institute of Technology
Haifa, 32000
Israel
[email protected] http://www.math.technion.ac.il/ pinsky/
Abstract.
Let be a non-degenerate, positive recurrent one-dimensional diffusion process on with invariant probability density , and let denote the first hitting time of . Let be a random variable independent of the diffusion process and distributed according to the process’s invariant probability measure . Denote by the expectation with respect to . Consider the expression
[TABLE]
In words, this expression is the expected hitting time of the diffusion starting from of a point chosen randomly according to the diffusion’s invariant distribution. We show that this expression is constant in , and that it is finite if and only if are entrance boundaries for the diffusion. This result generalizes to diffusion processes the corresponding result in the setting of finite Markov chains, where the constant value is known as Kemeny’s constant.
Key words and phrases:
Kemeny’s constant, one-dimensional diffusion, entrance boundary
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:
60J60, 60J50
1. Introduction and Statement of Results
Let be an irreducible, discrete time Markov chain on a finite state space , and denote it’s invariant probability measure by . For , let denote the first passage time to . Denoting expectations for the process starting from by , consider the quantity . In their book on Markov chains [3], Kemeny and Snell showed that the above quantity is independent of the initial state , and this quantity has become known as Kemeny’s constant, which we denote by . Let denote the first hitting time of . We note that is also independent of , and is equal to . This follows from the well-known fact that [2].
In [1], the authors analysed the Kemeny constant phenomenon for positive recurrent, discrete time and continuous time Markov chains on a denumerably infinite state space . They showed that the quantity is either infinite for all , or else is finite and independent of . They conjectured that this quantity is always infinite in the discrete time setting, and they proved this in the case of discrete time birth and death chains on . In the case of continuous time birth and death chains on , they proved that the Kemeny constant is finite if and only if is an entrance boundary for the process.
In this paper, we consider the corresponding problem in the context of one-dimensional diffusion processes on . Consider a non-degenerate one-dimensional diffusion process on generated by
[TABLE]
We assume that is continuous and positive, and that is locally bounded and measurable. Denote probabilities and expectations for the Markov process starting from by and . For , let denote the first hitting time of . It is well-known [4] that the following conditions are equivalent:
[TABLE]
If these conditions hold, we say that the process is positive recurrent. In fact then, one has
[TABLE]
for a normalizing constant .
From now on we assume that the diffusion is positive recurrent; that is, we assume that
[TABLE]
Let be a random variable independent of the diffusion process and distributed according to the process’s invariant probability measure . Denote by the expectation with respect to . We consider the expression
[TABLE]
In words, this expression is the expected hitting time of the diffusion starting from of a point chosen randomly according to the diffusion’s invariant distribution.
There immediately arises the question of whether or not this expression is finite. Note the following tradeoff:* On the one hand, the more negative (positive) the drift is in a neighborhood of (), the faster is the decay of the invariant density at (). However on the other hand, the more negative (positive) the drift is in a neighborhood of (), the larger will be in a neighborhood of ().*
It turns out that the finiteness or infiniteness of the expression depends on whether or not are entrance boundaries for the process. We recall that is called an entrance boundary if , for some and some . Similarly, is called an entrance boundary if , for some and some . (Actually, equivalently, “some and some ” can be replaced by “all and all .”) Given that the process is positive recurrent, that is, given that (1.3) holds, here is the criterion for an entrance boundary at :
[TABLE]
See [4, chapter 8], where the term “explosion inward from infinity” is used instead of entrance boundary. The condition (1.4) appears as (iv) in Theorem 4.1 in chapter 8. In that theorem, which does not assume positive recurrence, an additional requirement, denoted as (iii), is also stated; namely, \int^{\infty}\exp\big{(}-2\int_{0}^{x}\frac{b(s)}{a(s)}ds\big{)}dx=\infty. However, an application of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality shows that this condition holds automatically if (1.3) holds. Similarly, given that the process is positive recurrent, here is the criterion for an entrance boundary at :
[TABLE]
We will prove the following theorem. Let denote the probability measure with density .
Theorem 1**.**
Assume that the diffusion is positive recurrent; that is, assume that (1.3) holds. If are both entrance boundaries for the diffusion, that is, if (1.4) and (1.5) both hold, then is finite and independent of . Two alternative expressions for the value of this constant are
[TABLE]
If at least one of is not an entrance boundary, that is if at least one of (1.4) and (1.5) does not hold, then
[TABLE]
Remark 1. Given a continuously differentiable, strictly positive probability density and given a continuously differentiable diffusion matrix , if one chooses the drift b(x)=\frac{1}{2}\big{(}a(x)\frac{\mu^{\prime}(x)}{\mu(x)}+a^{\prime}(x)\big{)}, then the diffusion process with generator will have invariant probability density . Thus, given such a density , the diffusion processes for which is the invariant density can be indexed by their diffusion matrices . From (1.6) we see that given the invariant density , the expression is monotone decreasing as a function of the diffusion matrix . Furthermore, we see that for sufficiently large it will be finite and for sufficiently small it will be infinite. In particular then, given we can find a diffusion with invariant density for which are entrance boundaries and we can find such a diffusion for which are not entrance boundaries.
Remark 2. Let be a continuously differentiable, strictly positive probability density as in Remark 1. Since the two expressions in (1.6) must be both finite or both infinite, it is easy to see that in the case of constant diffusion coefficient, , the expression is finite if and only if
[TABLE]
In particular, if , for , then (1.8) holds if and only if ,
2. Proof of Theorem 1
We first proof that if and only if (1.4) and (1.5) hold. We have the following explicit expression for the expected hitting time:
[TABLE]
For a derivation, see for example the proof of Proposition 2 in [5] (where is a constant and denoted by ). Using this with (1.2)–(1.5), it is easy to see that (1.4) and (1.5) constitute necessary and sufficient conditions for the finiteness of . Indeed, from (2.1) and (1.2), we have
[TABLE]
By (1.2), the right hand side of (2.2) is finite if and only if
[TABLE]
and this latter expression is finite if and only if (1.4) holds. Thus, if and only if (1.4) holds. A similar analysis shows that if and only if (1.5) holds.
We now show that if (1.4) and (1.5) hold, then is independent of . For , define , for , and , for . (Of course, and respectively are equal to the first and second lines on the right hand side of (2.1).) As is well-know, it follows from an application of Ito’s formula that
[TABLE]
(Indeed, it is from this that the formulas in (2.1) were derived.) Define . Then we have
[TABLE]
In light of the fact that and are given by (2.1), as well as the fact that (1.3)– (1.5) hold, we can differentiate freely under the integral. Using the boundary condition in (2.3), we have
[TABLE]
and differentiating again gives
[TABLE]
From (2.4) and (2.5) we obtain
[TABLE]
From (2.3) we have
[TABLE]
Using the formulas for and as given by the two lines on the right hand side of (2.1), and recalling (1.2), we have
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
From (2.6)–(2.8), we conclude that ; that is, is -harmonic.
Since is a recurrent diffusion generator, it has no nonconstant positive harmonic functions [4, p.457]. Consequently, we conclude that is constant in .
It remains to prove (1.6). From (2.2) and the corresponding formula for , we have
[TABLE]
Letting in (2.9) and using (1.2) to write everything in terms of and gives the first alternative in (1.6). Similarly, letting gives the second alternative in (1.6).
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Bini, D., Hunter, J., Latouche, G., Meini, B. and Taylor, P. Why is Kemeny’s Constant a Constant? , J. Appl. Prob. 55 (2018), 1025-1036.
- 2[2] Durrett, R., Probability Theory and Examples , third edition, Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA (2005).
- 3[3] Kemeny, J. and Snell, J. L., Finite Markov chains , Reprinting of the 1960 original, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1976.
- 4[4] Pinsky, R. G., Positive Harmonic Functions and Diffusion , Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 45 , Cambridge University Press, (1995).
- 5[5] Pinsky, R.G., Optimizing the drift in a diffusive search for a random stationary target , preprint (2019).
