On Escape rate for subshift with Markov measure

For simplicity of notation, we will use shorthand B for B_\mathcal{G}. Consider \mathcal{W}_m, the collection of all sequences in \Sigma_A for which \sigma^ix\notin H_\mathcal{G}, for all 0\le i\le m. Let x=(x_n)_{n\ge 1}\in \mathcal{W}_m. For each i\ge 1, X_i=x_i\dots x_{i+r-2}\in \mathcal{L}_{r-1}, and none of the words X_1,\dots,X_{m+1} begin with a word from \mathcal{G}. Hence

Moreover, none of the words X_1,\dots,X_{m-r+2} contain a word from \mathcal{G}. Hence

where

Now observe that

where \mathbf{\Lambda} is the left Perron eigenvector of P_{r-1} and R^{m}_{X_1} denotes the X_1^{th} row sum of (B \circ P_{r-1})^{m}. Similarly,

Let \mathbf{\Lambda}_{min} and \mathbf{\Lambda}_{max} denote the smallest and the largest entry of \mathbf{\Lambda}. Both are positive since P, hence P_{r-1}, is irreducible. Thus

and

where \sum (B\circ P_{r-1})^{n} denotes the sum of all the entries of the matrix (B\circ P_{r-1})^{n}. By (Proof),

Taking logarithm and dividing by m on all terms and then taking the limit as m \to \infty, we get that the limit \lim\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{m} \ln \mu(\mathcal{W}_m) exists and is given by,

Since B \circ P_{r-1} is non-negative, this is further equal to -\ln \lambda(B\circ P_{r-1}).
Finally, since P_{r-1} is a stochastic matrix and 0<B\circ P_{r-1}<P_{r-1}, we have 0\le \lambda(B\circ P_{r-1})<1. Hence \rho(H_{\mathcal{G}})>0.

Let us first assume that the length of u is 1 and u=i. Then (B_\mathcal{G}\circ P)(i)=P(i). Hence by Theorem 3.6,

Now, consider the general case. Let u=u_1\dots u_r. Consider the subword w=u_1 of u. By the above arguments, 0<\rho(C_{w})\le -\ln\theta. Further, since C_u\subseteq C_{w}, we have \rho(C_u)\le \rho(C_{w}), and the result follows.

Let i be the common symbol in all the words in \mathcal{G}. If u \in \mathcal{G} \cap \Sigma, then clearly u=i and set u'=i. For each u\in \mathcal{G} \setminus \Sigma, let u' be a subword of u of length 2 containing the common symbol i. Let H_\mathcal{G}'=\bigcup_{u\in\mathcal{G}} C_{u'}. Since \mathcal{W}_m(H_\mathcal{G}')\subseteq \mathcal{W}_m(H_\mathcal{G}) for m\ge 1, we have \rho(H_\mathcal{G})\le \rho(H_\mathcal{G}'). Now (B_{H_\mathcal{G}'}\circ P)(i)=P(i). The result follows by similar arguments as in the proof of Theorem 3.7.

Observe that \sum_{a \in \Sigma\setminus \mathcal{G}}\mu(n,a) is the total measure of cylinders in (\Sigma_A,\mu) based at words of length n, not containing any word from \mathcal{G} as a subword. Moreover, as argued in the proof of Theorem 3.4, \sum_{a \in \Sigma\setminus \mathcal{G}}\mu(m+r,a)\le \mu(\mathcal{W}_{m})\le \sum_{a \in \Sigma\setminus \mathcal{G}}\mu(m+1,a), for all m, where r is the length of the longest word in \mathcal{G}.

Hence the radius of convergence of \mathcal{F}(z) is given by

by the definition of \rho(H_\mathcal{G}). Using (Proof) and the Jordan canonical form of B\circ P_{r-1}, it can be proved that \mathcal{F}(z) diverges at z=\text{exp}(\rho(H_\mathcal{G})).

Let w=w_1\dots w_n be an allowed word of length n in \Sigma_A that does not contain any word from \mathcal{G} as a subword. Attach a symbol i\in\Sigma\setminus \mathcal{G} at the end of w. There are two possibilities. Either w_1\dots w_n i does not contain a word from \mathcal{G} as a subword, or w_1\dots w_ni contains a word, say v\in\mathcal{G} \setminus \Sigma as a subword, in which case, it can only appear at the end of w_1\dots w_ni and t(v)=i. In the latter case, if v \in \mathcal{G} \cap \Sigma, then v= i, which contradicts the fact that i \in \Sigma\setminus \mathcal{G}. Hence for each i\in\Sigma\setminus \mathcal{G} and n\ge 1,

Take summation over n\ge 1 after multiplying with z^{n+1} to get the desired first set of linear equations. Here we use the fact that, for i \in \Sigma\setminus \mathcal{G}, \mu(1,i) =p_i, and \nu(1,v) = 0 for all v \in \mathcal{G} \setminus \Sigma.

For the second set of equations, fix a word u \in \mathcal{G} \setminus \Sigma. Let u = u_1\dots u_\ell, with |u| = \ell\ge 2. Suppose w=w_1\dots w_n is an allowed word of length n in \Sigma_A, which does not contain any word from \mathcal{G} as a subword. Then, the word wu, obtained by attaching u to w as a suffix, can be written in either of the following two ways. Either there is a v \in \mathcal{G} with 0< s\in(v,u), such that wu = w'vt_{\ell+s-|v|}(u) and w'v has a unique appearance of a word from \mathcal{G} at the end, where w'=w_1\dots w_{n-s} and t_{\ell+s-|v|}(u)=u_{|v|-s+1}\dots u_\ell is the terminal subword of u of length \ell+s-|v|. In this case, since \mathcal{G} is reduced, \ell+s-|v| \ge 1, for all s \in (v,u), and hence t_{\ell+s-|v|}(u) is well defined. Or else, if no such v exists, then we take v=u, which is the only appearance of a word from \mathcal{G} at the end of wu, and in this case, s=0\in (v,u). Moreover, in both cases, v \in \mathcal{G} \setminus \Sigma due to the fact that w does not contain a word from \mathcal{G} as a subword and also that \mathcal{G} is reduced.

Therefore, for each u\in \mathcal{G} \setminus \Sigma and n\ge 0, we have the following:

Note that \nu(n,v)=0, for all 0\le n\le |v|-1. For each u \in \mathcal{G} \setminus \Sigma, take summation over n\ge 0 after multiplying with z^{n+\ell} to get the desired second set of linear equations.

Let \textbf{p} be the stationary vector of P. The system of equations (?) is given by

where F(z)=(F_1(z)\dots F_N(z))^T. Hence, we can compute that

where L(z)=\tilde{\tau}_u(z)(\mathbf{I}-zP^T)+z^{r-1}\delta_u\mathbf{e}_{u_r}\mathbf{e}_{u_1}^T. Observe that by Lemma 4.8, \text{det}(L(z))=\tilde{\tau}_u(z)^{N-1}f_u(z), which is a nonzero polynomial in z (for instance, at z=1, it equals \tilde{\tau}_u(1)^{N-1}f_u(1)=\tilde{\tau}_u(1)^{N-1}\mu(u)\ne 0).

If \mathbf{I}-zP is invertible, using the Sherman-Morrison formula for L(z) (from Lemma 4.8), we get

where D(z)=\text{det}(\mathbf{I}-zP^T).

Post-multiplying and pre-multiplying (\mathbf{I}-zP)^{-1} in \textbf{p}^T = \textbf{p}^T P and P\mathbf{1}=\mathbf{1}, and substituting P = \frac{1}{z}(zP-\mathbf{I}+\mathbf{I}), we get

Substituting these in (Proof), we get

Observe that by Lemma 4.9 we have,

This implies that z=1 is not a pole for \mathcal{F}(z), which is indeed the case, by Theorem 4.4 since \text{exp}(\rho(C_u)) is the smallest pole of \mathcal{F}(z), which is real and greater than 1.

By the form of \mathcal{F}(z) as a rational function, \text{exp}(\rho(C_u)) is a real root of f_u(z). Hence, \text{exp}(\rho(C_u))\ge z_0 which is the smallest real root of f_u. We need to prove that they are equal. Clearly, z_0>1, as otherwise \mathcal{F}(z) will have its smallest pole less than one which is a contradiction. We consider two cases now.

• If 1 is the only real positive eigenvalue of P, we have

  f_u(z_0)-z_0^{r-1}p_{u_1}\delta_u \dfrac{D(z_0)}{1-z_0}\ne 0,

  hence z_0 is a pole of \mathcal{F}(z). Thus \text{exp}(\rho(C_u))\le z_0.

• If \theta is the second largest positive real eigenvalue of P other than 1, recalling Theorem 3.7, we know that \exp(\rho(C_u))\in (1,\theta^{-1}], and hence z_0\in(1,\theta^{-1}].
  If z_0=\theta^{-1}, then \text{exp}(\rho(C_u))=\theta^{-1}. On the other hand, if z_0\in (1,\theta^{-1}), then

  f_u(z_0)-z_0^{r-1}p_{u_1}\delta_u \dfrac{D(z_0)}{1-z_0}\ne 0,

  hence z_0 is a pole of \mathcal{F}(z). Thus \text{exp}(\rho(C_u))\le z_0.

By Lemma 4.9, each entry of \text{adj}(\mathbf{I}-P) is positive. Let z_1>1 be such that each entry of \text{adj}(\mathbf{I}-zP) remains positive in the entire interval [1,z_1] and let M_1=\max_{i,j\in\Sigma}\text{adj}(\mathbf{I}-z_1P)_{ij}. Let \epsilon>0 be given.

Assume that z_1<\min\{e^\epsilon,\theta^{-1},P_{max}\}, where \theta<1 is a real positive eigenvalue of P (if exists) and P_{max}=\max_{i,j\in\Sigma}P_{ij}. We now prove that there exists R\ge 1 such that for each word u of length r\ge R, f_u(z) has a root in the interval [1,z_1] (where f_u(z) is defined in (4.10)).

With the above assumptions, the smallest real root of f_u(z) lies in the interval (1,z_1], and hence \rho(C_u)\le \ln z_1<\epsilon, by Theorem 4.10. Since z_1P_{max}<1, choose R\ge 1 such that

Let r\ge R and u be an allowed word of length r beginning with a and ending with b. Since \tilde{\tau}_{u}(z_1)>1, \text{det}(\mathbf{I}-z_1P)<0 and \text{adj}(\mathbf{I}-z_1P)_{ba}>0, we have

Observing that f_u(1)>0, the result follows.

By Theorem 4.14, let u be a word with \rho(C_u)<\epsilon. Since \Sigma_A is ergodic with respect to \mu_P, there exists n\ge 1 so that \mu_P\left(\bigcup_{i=0}^n \sigma^{-i}C_u\right)>1-\epsilon. Take H=\bigcup_{i=0}^n \sigma^{-i}C_u. The result follows since \rho(C_u)=\rho(H).

By Theorem 4.10, observe that

If there exists a second largest positive real eigenvalue \theta of P, then for all 1<z<\theta^{-1}, we have \text{det}(\mathbf{I}-zP)<0. Moreover since \tilde{\tau}_{w,w}(z)\ge 1, for real z>1, we have f_w(z)\le f_u(z), for all z\in (1,\theta^{-1}) and f_w(z)=f_u(z) at z=1,\theta^{-1}. By Theorem 3.7, \rho(C_w)\le \rho(C_u).

Further, if P has no positive real eigenvalue other than 1, then \text{det}(\mathbf{I}-zP)<0, for all z>1. Hence f_w(z)\le f_u(z), for all z>1. Clearly \rho(C_w)\le \rho(C_u).

Now, suppose P has 1 as the only positive real eigenvalue. Observe that if w is not a prime word, then \tilde{\tau}_{w,w}(z)> 1, for all z>1. Hence \rho(C_w)= \rho(C_u) if and only if w is a prime word.

The characteristic polynomial of P can be written as

where \Lambda^k P is the k^{th} exterior power of P. Fix r\ge 1 and let Q=P_{r} (for simplicity of notation.) Also, without loss of generality, assume for convenience that \mathcal{L}_{r}=\Sigma^{r}. Then

Let X=x_1\dots x_r and Y_i=y_{i,1}\dots Y_{i,r} for 1\le i\le \ell-1.

The product Q_{XY_1}Q_{Y_1Y_2}\dots Q_{Y_{\ell-1}X} is nonzero only if X*Y_1, Y_1*Y_2,\dots, Y_{\ell-1}*X are defined, in which case, it equals

Therefore we have that \text{tr}(Q^\ell)=\text{tr}(P^\ell), for all \ell\ge 1. By the definition of exterior power, we have \text{tr}\left(\Lambda^\ell Q\right)=\text{tr}\left(\Lambda^\ell P\right). Hence

We have used the fact that \Lambda^k(P)=0 for k>N. Hence we have

Therefore,

Since B_\mathcal{G}\circ P_{r-1}=P_{r-1}-(P_{r-1})_{XY}\mathbf{e}_X\mathbf{e}_Y^T, the characteristic polynomial of B_\mathcal{G}\circ P_{r-1} is given by

We have used Lemma 6.1 in the last step. Thus (6.4) and (6.4) are equivalent.
Suppose the characteristic polynomial of the matrix P is \sum_{i=0}^N \beta_{i}z^{i}. Then D(z)=\sum_{i=0}^N \beta_{i}z^{N-i}. Let D_{r-1}(z)=\sum_{i=0}^{N^{r-1}}\alpha_{i}z^{N^{r-1}-i}. By Lemma 6.1, we get

Hence by Lemma 6.2,

since \alpha_{j+k+1}=0, for all 0\le j+k\le N^{r-1}-N-2.

We first split the summation on the right into two parts; 0\le k\le r-2 and k\ge r-1 in order to use Lemma 6.3. We first look at the part of summation where 0\le k\le r-2. We get,

using the change of variable J=j-N^{r-1}+N+1+k.

Thus to obtain the required identity (6.4), we are left to show that the second summation for k\ge r-1 satisfies the following:

Using Lemma 6.3, this is equivalent to proving

Since c_{r-1,u,u}=\chi_{u_1,u_r}, and u_1,u_r are arbitrary, we prove a more general statement for matrices:

We break the summation on the left into two parts:

We will prove that the first part is equal to the zero matrix \mathbf{O}. Indeed we have for each 0\le j\le N^{r-1}-N-r,

using the change of variable K=j+k+1-N^{r-1}+N.

Now consider the second part:

using the change of variables J=j-(N^{r-1}-N-r+1) and K=k-r+1 and Lemma 6.2. Thus we have proved the required identity.