This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

\setkomafont

sectioning

Nonlinear Markov Chains with Finite State Space: Invariant Distributions and Long-Term Behaviour

Berenice Anne Neumann University of Trier, Department IV, Universitätsring 19, 54296 Trier, Germany
Abstract

Nonlinear Markov chains with finite state space have been introduced in Kolokoltsov (2010) [9]. The characteristic property of these processes is that the transition probabilities do not only depend on the state, but also on the distribution of the process. In this paper we provide first results regarding their invariant distributions and long-term behaviour. We will show that under a continuity assumption an invariant distribution exists. Moreover, we provide a sufficient criterion for the uniqueness of the invariant distribution that relies on the Brouwer degree. Thereafter, we will present examples of peculiar limit behaviour that cannot occur for classical linear Markov chains. Finally, we present for the case of small state spaces sufficient (and easy-to-verify) criteria for the ergodicity of the process.

1 Introduction

Nonlinear Markov processes are a particular class of stochastic processes, where the transition probabilities do not only depend on the state, but also on the distribution of the process. McKean [10] introduced these type of processes to tackle mechanical transport problems. Thereafter they have been studied by several authors (see the monographs of Kolokoltsov [9] and Sznitman [17]). Recently, the close connection to continuous time mean field games led to significant progress in the analysis of McKean-Vlasov SDEs, in particular the control of these systems (see for example [4, 14]).

In this paper, we consider a special class of these processes, namely, nonlinear Markov chains in continuous time with a finite state space and provide first insights regarding the long-term behaviour of these processes. Nonlinear Markov chains with finite state space arise naturally, in particular in evolutionary biology, epidemiology and game theory. Namely, the replicator dynamics, several infection models, but also the dynamics of learning procedures in game theory are nonlinear Markov chains [9]. Moreover, also the population’s dynamics in mean field games with finite state and action space are nonlinear Markov chains [12].

The main focus of this paper lies in the characterization of the long-term behaviour of these processes. We show that always an invariant distribution exists and provide a sufficient criterion for the uniqueness of this invariant distribution. Thereafter, we turn to the long-term behaviour, where we first illustrate by two examples that the limit behaviour is much more complex than for classical Markov chains. More precisely, we show that the marginal distributions of a nonlinear Markov chain might be periodic and that irreducibility of the generator does not necessarily imply ergodicity. Then we provide easy-to-verify sufficient criteria for ergodicity for small state spaces (two or three states). All conditions that we propose are simple and rely only on the shape of the nonlinear generator, not on the shape of the transition probabilities.

The long-term behaviour of nonlinear Markov chains in continuous time with a finite state space has not been analysed before. The closest contribution in the literature are ergodicity criteria for nonlinear Markov processes in discrete time [3, 16]. These criteria are a generalization of Dobrushin’s ergodicity condition and the proofs crucially rely on the sequential nature of the problem.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows: In Section 2 we review the relevant definitions and notation. In Section 3 we present the results on existence and uniqueness of the invariant distribution. In Section 4 we provide examples of limit behaviour that cannot arise in the context of classical Markov chains. In Section 5 we present the ergodicity results for small state spaces. The Appendix A contains the proofs of two technical results.

2 Continuous Time Nonlinear Markov Chains with Finite State Space

This section gives a short overview over the relevant definitions, notations and preliminary facts regarding nonlinear Markov chains. For more details regarding these processes we refer the reader to [9, Chapter 1]. Moreover, it introduces the relevant notions to characterize the long-term behaviour of these processes.

Let 𝒮={1,,S}\mathcal{S}=\{1,\ldots,S\} be the state space of the nonlinear Markov chain and denote by 𝒫(𝒮)\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) the probability simplex over 𝒮\mathcal{S}. A nonlinear Markov chain is characterized by a continuous family of nonlinear transition probabilities P(t,m)=(Pij(t,m))i,j𝒮P(t,m)=(P_{ij}(t,m))_{i,j\in\mathcal{S}} which is a family of stochastic matrices that depends continuously on t0t\geq 0 and m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) such that the nonlinear Chapman-Kolmogorov equation

i𝒮miPij(t+s,m)=i,k𝒮miPik(t,m)Pkj(s,l𝒮mlPl(t,m))\sum_{i\in\mathcal{S}}m_{i}P_{ij}(t+s,m)=\sum_{i,k\in\mathcal{S}}m_{i}P_{ik}(t,m)P_{kj}\left(s,\sum_{l\in\mathcal{S}}m_{l}P_{l}(t,m)\right)

is satisfied. As usual Pij(t,m0)P_{ij}(t,m_{0}) is interpreted as the probability that the process is in state jj at time tt given that the initial state was ii and the initial distribution of the process was m0m_{0}. Such a family yields a nonlinear Markov semigroup (Φt())t0(\Phi^{t}(\cdot))_{t\geq 0} of continuous transformations of 𝒫(𝒮)\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) via

Φjt(m)=i𝒮miPij(t,m)for all t0,m𝒫(𝒮),j𝒮.\Phi^{t}_{j}(m)=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{S}}m_{i}P_{ij}(t,m)\quad\text{for all }t\geq 0,m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}),j\in\mathcal{S}.

Also Φt(m0)\Phi^{t}(m_{0}) has the usual interpretation that it represents the marginal distribution of the process at time tt when the initial distribution is m0m_{0}. A nonlinear Markov chain with initial distribution m0𝒫(𝒮)m_{0}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) is then given as the time-inhomogeneous Markov chain with initial distribution m0m_{0} and transition probabilities p(s,i,t,j)=Pij(ts,Φs(m0))p(s,i,t,j)=P_{ij}(t-s,\Phi^{s}(m_{0})).

As in the theory of classical continuous time Markov chains the infinitesimal generator will be the cornerstone of the description and analysis of such processes: Let Φt(m)\Phi^{t}(m) be differentiable in t=0t=0 and m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}), then the (nonlinear) infinitesimal generator of the semigroup (Φt())t0(\Phi^{t}(\cdot))_{t\geq 0} is given by a transition rate matrix function Q()Q(\cdot) such that for f(m):=tΦt(m)|t=0f(m):=\left.\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}(m)\right|_{t=0} we have fj(m)=i𝒮miQij(m)f_{j}(m)=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{S}}m_{i}Q_{ij}(m) for all j𝒮j\in\mathcal{S} and m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}).

By [9, Section 1.1] any differentiable nonlinear semigroup has a nonlinear infinitesimal generator. However, the converse problem is more important: Given a transition rate matrix function (that is a function Q:𝒫(𝒮)S×SQ:\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{S\times S} such that Q(m)Q(m) is a transition rate matrix for all m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})) is there a nonlinear Markov semigroup (and thus a nonlinear Markov chain) such that QQ is the nonlinear infinitesimal generator of the process? Relying on the semigroup identity Φt+s=ΦtΦs\Phi^{t+s}=\Phi^{t}\Phi^{s} this problem is equivalent to the following Cauchy problem: Is there, for any m0𝒫(𝒮)m_{0}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) a solution (Φt(m0))t0(\Phi^{t}(m_{0}))_{t\geq 0} of

tΦt(m0)=Φt(m0)Q(Φt(m0)),Φ0(m0)=m0,\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}(m_{0})=\Phi^{t}(m_{0})Q(\Phi^{t}(m_{0})),\quad\Phi^{0}(m_{0})=m_{0},

such that Φt()\Phi^{t}(\cdot) is a continuous function ranging from 𝒫(𝒮)\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) to itself and such that Φt(m)𝒫(𝒮)\Phi^{t}(m)\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) for all t0t\geq 0 and m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}).

In the monograph [9] the problem to construct a semigroup from a given generator is treated in a very general setting. Here, we present a result with easy-to-verify conditions tailored for the specific situation of nonlinear Markov chains with finite state space. The proof of the result, which relies on classical arguments from ODE theory, is presented in the appendix.

Theorem 2.1.

Let Q:𝒫(𝒮)S×SQ:\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{S\times S} be a transition rate matrix function such that Qij(m)Q_{ij}(m) is Lipschitz continuous for all i,j𝒮i,j\in\mathcal{S}. Then there is a unique Markov semigroup (Φt())t0(\Phi^{t}(\cdot))_{t\geq 0} such that QQ is the infinitesimal generator for (Φt())t0(\Phi^{t}(\cdot))_{t\geq 0}.

In this paper we are now mainly interested in the characterization of the long-term behaviour of nonlinear Markov chains: We say that m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) is an invariant distribution if tΦ0(m)=0\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{0}(m)=0 and thus also tΦt(m)=0\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}(m)=0. An equivalent condition with respect to the generator is that a vector m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) is an invariant distribution if it solves 0=mTQ(m)0=m^{T}Q(m).

We say that a nonlinear Markov chain with nonlinear semigroup (Φt())t0(\Phi^{t}(\cdot))_{t\geq 0} is strongly ergodic if there exists an m¯𝒫(𝒮)\bar{m}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) such that for all m0𝒫(𝒮)m_{0}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) we have

limtΦt(m0)m¯=0.\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\left|\left|\Phi^{t}(m_{0})-\bar{m}\right|\right|=0.

3 Existence and Uniqueness of the Invariant Distribution

The invariant distributions of a nonlinear Markov chain are exactly the fixed points of the set-valued map

s:𝒫(𝒮)2𝒫(𝒮),m{x𝒫(𝒮):0=xTQ(m)}.s:\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})\rightarrow 2^{\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})},\quad m\mapsto\{x\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}):0=x^{T}Q(m)\}.

Using Kakutani’s fixed point theorem, we directly obtain the existence of an invariant distribution for any generator:

Theorem 3.1.

Let Q()Q(\cdot) be a nonlinear generator such that the map Q:𝒫(𝒮)S×SQ:\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{S\times S} is continuous. Then the nonlinear Markov chain with generator Q()Q(\cdot) has an invariant distribution.

Proof.

By [7, Theorem 5.3] the set of all invariant distributions given a fixed generator matrix Q(m)Q(m) is the convex hull of the invariant distributions given the recurrent communication classes of Q(m)Q(m). Therefore, the values of the map ss are non-empty, convex and compact. Moreover, the graph of the map ss is closed: Let (mn,xn)n(m^{n},x^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}} be a converging sequence such that xns(mn)x^{n}\in s(m^{n}). Denote its limit by (m,x)(m,x). Then 0=(xn)TQ(mn)0=(x^{n})^{T}Q(m^{n}) for all nn\in\mathbb{N}. By continuity of Q()Q(\cdot) we have 0=xTQ(m)0=x^{T}Q(m), which implies xs(m)x\in s(m). Thus, Kakutani’s fixed point theorem yields a fixed point of the map ss, which is an invariant distribution given Q()Q(\cdot). ∎

If Q(m)Q(m) is irreducible for all m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}), the sets s(m)s(m) will be singletons [1, Theorem 4.2]. Let x(m)x(m) denote this point. We remark that there are explicit representation formulas for x(m)x(m) (e.g. [13, 15]). With these insights we provide the following sufficient criterion for the uniqueness of the invariant distribution:

Theorem 3.2.

Assume that Q(m)Q(m) is irreducible for all m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}). Furthermore, assume that f(m):=x(m)mf(m):=x(m)-m is continuously differentiable and that the matrix

M(m):=(f1(m)m1f1(m)mS1fS1(m)m1fS1(m)mS1)(f1(m)mSf1(m)mSfS1(m)mSfS1(m)mS)M(m):=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{\partial f_{1}(m)}{\partial m_{1}}&\ldots&\frac{\partial f_{1}(m)}{\partial m_{S-1}}\\ \vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\ \frac{\partial f_{S-1}(m)}{\partial m_{1}}&\ldots&\frac{\partial f_{S-1}(m)}{\partial m_{S-1}}\end{pmatrix}-\begin{pmatrix}\frac{\partial f_{1}(m)}{\partial m_{S}}&\ldots&\frac{\partial f_{1}(m)}{\partial m_{S}}\\ \vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\ \frac{\partial f_{S-1}(m)}{\partial m_{S}}&\ldots&\frac{\partial f_{S-1}(m)}{\partial m_{S}}\end{pmatrix}

is non-singular for all m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}). Then there is a unique invariant distribution.

Proof.

We first note that any invariant distribution of a nonlinear Markov chain with generator Q()Q(\cdot) is an invariant distribution mm of a classical Markov chain with generator Q(m)Q(m). Since any invariant distribution of a classical Markov chain with generator Q(m)Q(m) has to satisfy that all components are strictly positive [1, Theorem 4.2], no invariant distribution of Q()Q(\cdot) lies on the boundary of 𝒫(𝒮)\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}). Therefore, we only need to ensure the existence of a unique invariant distribution in the interior of 𝒫(𝒮)\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}).

The set 𝒫(𝒮)\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) is homeomorphic to Ω¯\bar{\Omega} with

Ω={mS1:mi>0i{1,,S1}i=1S1mi<1},\Omega=\left\{m\in\mathbb{R}^{S-1}:m_{i}>0\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,S-1\}\wedge\sum_{i=1}^{S-1}m_{i}<1\right\},

where the continuous bijections are given as the restrictions of

ϕ:S1S,(m1,,mS1)(m1,,mS1,1i=1S1mi)\displaystyle\phi:\mathbb{R}^{S-1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{S},\quad(m_{1},\ldots,m_{S-1})\mapsto\left(m_{1},\ldots,m_{S-1},1-\sum_{i=1}^{S-1}m_{i}\right)
ψ:SS1,(m1,,mS1,mS)(m1,,mS1).\displaystyle\psi:\mathbb{R}^{S}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{S-1},\quad(m_{1},\ldots,m_{S-1},m_{S})\mapsto(m_{1},\ldots,m_{S-1}).

Define f¯:Ω¯Ω¯\bar{f}:\bar{\Omega}\rightarrow\bar{\Omega} by mψ(f(ϕ(m)))m\mapsto\psi(f(\phi(m))). By the chain rule we obtain

f¯(m)m\displaystyle\frac{\partial\bar{f}(m)}{\partial m} =ψm(f(ϕ(m))fm(ϕ(m))ϕm(m)\displaystyle=\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial m}(f(\phi(m))\cdot\frac{\partial f}{\partial m}(\phi(m))\cdot\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial m}(m)
=(100001000010)(f1(m)m1f1(m)mSfS(m)m1fS(m)mS)(100010001111)\displaystyle=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&\ldots&0&0\\ 0&1&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\\ \vdots&\ddots&\ddots&0&0\\ 0&\ldots&0&1&0\end{pmatrix}\cdot\begin{pmatrix}\frac{\partial f_{1}(m)}{\partial m_{1}}&\ldots&\frac{f_{1}(m)}{\partial m_{S}}\\ \vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\ \frac{\partial f_{S}(m)}{\partial m_{1}}&\ldots&\frac{f_{S}(m)}{\partial m_{S}}\end{pmatrix}\cdot\begin{pmatrix}1&0&\ldots&0\\ 0&1&\ddots&\ldots\\ \vdots&\ddots&\ddots&0\\ 0&\ldots&0&1\\ -1&-1&\ldots&-1\end{pmatrix}
=M((m1,,mS1,1i=1S1mi)T).\displaystyle=M\left(\left(m_{1},\ldots,m_{S-1},1-\sum_{i=1}^{S-1}m_{i}\right)^{T}\right).

The matrix M(m)M(m) is, by assumption, non-singular for all m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}). Thus,

det(f¯(m)m)0for all mΩ¯.\det\left(\frac{\partial\bar{f}(m)}{\partial m}\right)\neq 0\quad\text{for all }m\in\bar{\Omega}.

Since ϕ\phi, ψ\psi, ff and det are continuous functions, we obtain that also the function mdet(f¯(m)m)m\mapsto\det(\frac{\partial\bar{f}(m)}{\partial m}) is continuous. Thus, the intermediate value theorem yields that det(f¯(m)m)\det(\frac{\partial\bar{f}(m)}{\partial m}) has uniform sign over Ω¯\bar{\Omega}.

Furthermore, we note that by assumption M(m)M(m) is in particular non-singular for all mϕ(f¯1({0}))m\in\phi(\bar{f}^{-1}(\{0\})). Thus, 0 is a non-critical value of f¯\bar{f}.

The map h¯:[0,1]×Ω¯S1\bar{h}:[0,1]\times\bar{\Omega}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{S-1} given by

h¯(t,m)\displaystyle\bar{h}(t,m) =tf¯(m)+(1t)((S1)S(1,,1)Tm)\displaystyle=t\cdot\bar{f}(m)+(1-t)\cdot\left(\frac{(S-1)}{S}(1,\ldots,1)^{T}-m\right)
=tψ(x(ϕ(m))+(1t)S1S(1,,1)Tm\displaystyle=t\cdot\psi(x(\phi(m))+(1-t)\cdot\frac{S-1}{S}(1,\ldots,1)^{T}-m

is continuous. Furthermore, 0h¯(t,Ω)0\notin\bar{h}(t,\partial\Omega): Indeed, a point mΩm\in\partial\Omega either satisfies mi=0m_{i}=0 for some i{1,,S1}i\in\{1,\ldots,S-1\} or i=1S1mi=1\sum_{i=1}^{S-1}m_{i}=1. However, by [1, Theorem 4.2], all components of the invariant distribution for an irreducible generator are strictly positive. Thus, we obtain in the first case that hi(t,m)>0h_{i}(t,m)>0 and in the second case that the sum of all components is strictly negative, which in both cases implies that h(t,m)0h(t,m)\neq 0.

With these preparations we can make use of the Brouwer degree (see [5, Section 1.1 and 1.2]), namely we obtain that

deg(S1S(1,,1)Tm,Ω,0)=deg(f¯,Ω,0).\text{deg}\left(\frac{S-1}{S}(1,\ldots,1)^{T}-m,\Omega,0\right)=\text{deg}(\bar{f},\Omega,0).

Since for continuously differentiable maps gg and regular values yg(Ω)y\notin g(\partial\Omega) the degree is given by

deg(g,Ω,y)=xg1({y})sgn det(gx(x)),\text{deg}(g,\Omega,y)=\sum_{x\in g^{-1}(\{y\})}\text{sgn }\text{det}\left(\frac{\partial g}{\partial x}(x)\right),

we obtain that

(1)S1=mf¯1({0})sgn det(mf¯(m)).(-1)^{S-1}=\sum_{m\in\bar{f}^{-1}(\{0\})}\text{sgn }\text{det}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial m}\bar{f}(m)\right).

Because the determinant has uniform sign over Ωf¯1({0})\Omega\supseteq\bar{f}^{-1}(\{0\}), we obtain that f¯1({0})\bar{f}^{-1}(\{0\}) consists of exactly one element. Thus, there is a unique stationary point for the nonlinear Markov chain with nonlinear generator Q()Q(\cdot). ∎

Example.

We illustrate the use of the result in an example: Consider a nonlinear Markov chain with the following generator

Q(m)=((b+em1+ϵ)bem1+ϵ0(em2+ϵ)em2+ϵλλ2λ),Q(m)=\begin{pmatrix}-(b+em_{1}+\epsilon)&b&em_{1}+\epsilon\\ 0&-(em_{2}+\epsilon)&em_{2}+\epsilon\\ \lambda&\lambda&-2\lambda\end{pmatrix},

where all constants are strictly positive. This nonlinear Markov chain arises in a mean field game model of consumer choice with congestion effects (see [12], also for detailed calculations). In this setting the invariant distributions are given as the solution(s) of the nonlinear equation 0=mTQ(m)0=m^{T}Q(m), for which closed form solutions are hard or impossible to obtain. However, it is possible to verify that the matrix M(m)M(m) is non-singular for all m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) yielding a unique invariant distribution. This information can in particular be used, to obtain certain characteristic properties of the solutions.

4 Examples for Peculiar Limit Behaviour

The following examples show that the limit behaviour for nonlinear Markov chains (also in the case of small state spaces) is more complex than for classical continuous time Markov chains. In particular, the marginal distributions might not converge, but are periodic and a nonlinear Markov chain with an irreducible nonlinear generator might not be strongly ergodic, but we observe convergence towards several different invariant distributions.

4.1 An Example with Periodic Marginal Distributions

Let B=𝒫({1,2,3}){m3:min{m1,m2,m3}110}B=\mathcal{P}(\{1,2,3\})\cap\{m\in\mathbb{R}^{3}:\min\{m_{1},m_{2},m_{3}\}\geq\frac{1}{10}\} and set for all mBm\in B the matrix QQ as follows

Q13(m)\displaystyle Q_{13}(m) =1m3(13m1)𝕀{m113}\displaystyle=\frac{1}{m_{3}}\left(\frac{1}{3}-m_{1}\right)\mathbb{I}_{\{m_{1}\leq\frac{1}{3}\}} Q23(m)\displaystyle Q_{23}(m) =1m1(m113)𝕀{m113}\displaystyle=\frac{1}{m_{1}}\left(m_{1}-\frac{1}{3}\right)\mathbb{I}_{\{m_{1}\geq\frac{1}{3}\}}
Q31(m)\displaystyle Q_{31}(m) =1m3(m213)𝕀{m213}\displaystyle=\frac{1}{m_{3}}\left(m_{2}-\frac{1}{3}\right)\mathbb{I}_{\{m_{2}\geq\frac{1}{3}\}} Q32(m)\displaystyle Q_{32}(m) =1m2(13m2)𝕀{m213}\displaystyle=\frac{1}{m_{2}}\left(\frac{1}{3}-m_{2}\right)\mathbb{I}_{\{m_{2}\leq\frac{1}{3}\}}
Q12(m)\displaystyle Q_{12}(m) =Q21(m)=0\displaystyle=Q_{21}(m)=0 Qii(m)\displaystyle Q_{ii}(m) =jiQij(m),\displaystyle=-\sum_{j\neq i}Q_{ij}(m),

where 𝕀A\mathbb{I}_{A} is 11 if AA is true and 0 else. Since all transition rates on BB are Lipschitz continuous functions, there is an extension of Qij()Q_{ij}(\cdot) on 𝒫(𝒮)\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) for all i,j𝒮i,j\in\mathcal{S}, which is again Lipschitz continuous. Thus, a nonlinear Markov chain with generator QQ exists. The ordinary differential equation characterizing the marginals on BB reads

tΦ1t(m0)\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0}) ={Φ1t(m0)(1Φ1t(m0)(13Φ2t(m0)))Φ2t(m0)13Φ3t(m0)(1Φ3t(m0)(Φ2t(m0)13))Φ2t(m0)13\displaystyle=\begin{cases}\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})\cdot\left(-\frac{1}{\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})}\left(\frac{1}{3}-\Phi_{2}^{t}(m_{0})\right)\right)&\Phi_{2}^{t}(m_{0})\leq\frac{1}{3}\\ \Phi_{3}^{t}(m_{0})\cdot\left(\frac{1}{\Phi_{3}^{t}(m_{0})}\left(\Phi_{2}^{t}(m_{0})-\frac{1}{3}\right)\right)&\Phi_{2}^{t}(m_{0})\geq\frac{1}{3}\end{cases}
=Φ2t(m0)13\displaystyle=\Phi_{2}^{t}(m_{0})-\frac{1}{3}
tΦ2t(m0)\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi_{2}^{t}(m_{0}) ={Φ2t(m0)(1Φ2t(m0)(Φ1t(m0)13))Φ1t(m0)13Φ3t(m0)(1Φ3t(m0)(13Φ1t(m0)))Φ1t(m0)13\displaystyle=\begin{cases}\Phi_{2}^{t}(m_{0})\cdot\left(-\frac{1}{\Phi_{2}^{t}(m_{0})}\left(\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})-\frac{1}{3}\right)\right)&\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})\geq\frac{1}{3}\\ \Phi_{3}^{t}(m_{0})\cdot\left(\frac{1}{\Phi_{3}^{t}(m_{0})}\left(\frac{1}{3}-\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})\right)\right)&\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})\leq\frac{1}{3}\end{cases}
=13Φ1t(m0)\displaystyle=\frac{1}{3}-\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})
tΦ3t(m0)\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi_{3}^{t}(m_{0}) =Φ1t(m0)Φ2t(m0).\displaystyle=\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})-\Phi_{2}^{t}(m_{0}).

Thus, for any neighbourhood UBU\subseteq B of (13,13,13)T\left(\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3}\right)^{T} the first two components of the marginal behave like the classical harmonic oscillator. Therefore, there are initial distributions such that the marginals are periodic. An example is the initial distribution m0=(0.2,0.4,0.4)m_{0}=(0.2,0.4,0.4) for which the marginals are plotted in Figure 1.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: The marginal distributions of the nonlinear continuous time Markov chain with initial distribution m0=(0.2,0.4,0.4)m_{0}=(0.2,0.4,0.4).

4.2 An Example of a Nonlinear Markov Chain with Irreducible Generator that is not Strongly Ergodic

Let

Q(m)=((293m1216m1+223)293m1216m1+223m12+m1+1(m12+m1+1)).Q(m)=\begin{pmatrix}-\left(\frac{29}{3}m_{1}^{2}-16m_{1}+\frac{22}{3}\right)&\frac{29}{3}m_{1}^{2}-16m_{1}+\frac{22}{3}\\ m_{1}^{2}+m_{1}+1&-\left(m_{1}^{2}+m_{1}+1\right)\end{pmatrix}.

This matrix is irreducible for all m𝒫({1,2})m\in\mathcal{P}(\{1,2\}) since m12+m1+11m_{1}^{2}+m_{1}+1\geq 1 and 293m1216m1+2236282\frac{29}{3}m_{1}^{2}-16m_{1}+\frac{22}{3}\geq\frac{62}{82} for all m10m_{1}\geq 0.

The ordinary differential equation describing the marginals for the initial condition m0𝒫({1,2})m_{0}\in\mathcal{P}(\{1,2\}) is given by

tΦ1t(m0)\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0}) =323(Φ1t(m0))3+16(Φ1t(m0))2223Φ1t(m0)+1=:f(Φ1t(m0))\displaystyle=-\frac{32}{3}\left(\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})\right)^{3}+16\left(\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})\right)^{2}-\frac{22}{3}\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})+1=:f\left(\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})\right)
tΦ2t(m0)\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi_{2}^{t}(m_{0}) =323(Φ1t(m0))316(Φ1t(m0))2+223Φ1t(m0)1=f(Φ1t(m0)).\displaystyle=\frac{32}{3}\left(\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})\right)^{3}-16\left(\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})\right)^{2}+\frac{22}{3}\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})-1=-f\left(\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})\right).

We obtain that there are three stationary points m1=(0.25,0.75)m^{1}=(0.25,0.75), m2=(0.5,0.5)m^{2}=(0.5,0.5) and m3=(0.75,0.25)m^{3}=(0.75,0.25) and the following convergence behaviour:

  • Since the function f()f(\cdot) is strictly positive on [0,0.25)[0,0.25), the trajectories will for all initial conditions (m0)1[0,0.25)(m_{0})_{1}\in[0,0.25) converge towards m1=0.25m_{1}=0.25.

  • Since the function f()f(\cdot) is strictly negative on (0.25,0.5)(0.25,0.5), the trajectories will for all initial conditions (m0)1(0.25,0.5)(m_{0})_{1}\in(0.25,0.5) converge towards m1=0.25m_{1}=0.25.

  • Since the function f()f(\cdot) is strictly positive on (0.5,0.75)(0.5,0.75), the trajectories will for all initial conditions (m0)1(0.5,0.75)(m_{0})_{1}\in(0.5,0.75) converge towards m1=0.75m_{1}=0.75.

  • Since the function f()f(\cdot) is strictly negative on (0.75,1](0.75,1], the trajectories will for all initial conditions (m0)1(0.75,1](m_{0})_{1}\in(0.75,1] converge towards m1=0.75m_{1}=0.75.

This behaviour is visualized in Figure 2, where several trajectories for different initial conditions are plotted.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: The trajectories of the nonlinear Markov chain for several initial conditions.

5 Sufficient Criteria for Ergodicity for Small State Spaces

Although the limit behaviour is more complex for nonlinear Markov chains, we still obtain sufficient criteria for ergodicity in the case of a small number of states. Here, we present these criteria, discuss applicability as well as the problems that occur for larger state spaces.

Theorem 5.1.

Let S=2S=2 and assume that f:[0,1]f:[0,1]\rightarrow\mathbb{R} defined via

f(m1):=m1(Q11(m1,1m1))+(1m1)Q21(m1,1m1)f(m_{1}):=m_{1}\cdot(Q_{11}(m_{1},1-m_{1}))+(1-m_{1})\cdot Q_{21}(m_{1},1-m_{1})

is continuous. Furthermore, assume that (m¯,1m¯)(\bar{m},1-\bar{m}) is the unique stationary point given QQ. Then, the nonlinear Markov chain is strongly ergodic.

Proof.

An equilibrium point is characterized by the property that tΦt(m)=0\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}(m)=0. By flow invariance of 𝒫(𝒮)\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) for the ordinary differential equation tΦt(m0)=Φt(m0)Q(Φt(m0))\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}(m_{0})=\Phi^{t}(m_{0})Q(\Phi^{t}(m_{0})) (see the proof of Theorem 2.1), which implies that tΦ1t(m)+tΦ2t(m)=0\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}_{1}(m)+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}_{2}(m)=0, this property is equivalent to the fact that tΦ1t(m)=0\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}_{1}(m)=0.

Since tΦ1t(m)=f(m1)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}_{1}(m)=f(m_{1}) and since we have a unique equilibrium point, we obtain that f(m¯)=0f(\bar{m})=0 and f(m1)0f(m_{1})\neq 0 for all m1m¯m_{1}\neq\bar{m}. Since f()f(\cdot) is continuous, we obtain that f()f(\cdot) is non-vanishing on [0,m¯)[0,\bar{m}) and (m¯,1](\bar{m},1] and has uniform sign on each of these sets. Since Q()Q(\cdot) is a conservative generator we moreover obtain that f(0)0f(0)\geq 0 and f(1)0f(1)\leq 0. Thus, we obtain that f(m1)>0f(m_{1})>0 for all m1[0,m¯)m_{1}\in[0,\bar{m}) and f(m1)<0f(m_{1})<0 for all m1(m¯,1]m_{1}\in(\bar{m},1]. This in turn yields that [0,1][0,1] is flow invariant for m˙1=f(m1)\dot{m}_{1}=f(m_{1}).

Fix m0𝒫(𝒮)m_{0}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}). Then the systems Φt(m0)=Q(Φt(m0))TΦt(m0)\Phi^{t}(m_{0})=Q(\Phi^{t}(m_{0}))^{T}\Phi^{t}(m_{0}) and Φ~t(m0)1=f(Φ~t(m0))\tilde{\Phi}^{t}(m_{0})_{1}=f(\tilde{\Phi}^{t}(m_{0})) are equivalent in the sense that Φ1t(m0)=Φ~t(m0)\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0})=\tilde{\Phi}^{t}(m_{0}) for all t0t\geq 0, m0𝒫({1,2})m_{0}\in\mathcal{P}(\{1,2\}): Indeed, let Φt(m0)=(Φ1t(m0),Φ2t(m0))\Phi^{t}(m_{0})=(\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}),\Phi^{t}_{2}(m_{0})) be a solution of the differential equation tΦt(m0)=Q(Φt(m0))TΦt(m0)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}(m_{0})=Q(\Phi^{t}(m_{0}))^{T}\Phi^{t}(m_{0}) with initial condition Φ0(m0)=m0\Phi^{0}(m_{0})=m_{0}. By flow invariance of 𝒫(𝒮)\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) for tΦt(m0)=Q(Φt(m0))TΦt(m0)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}(m_{0})=Q(\Phi^{t}(m_{0}))^{T}\Phi^{t}(m_{0}) (see Theorem 2.1), we have Φ2t(m0)=1Φ1t(m0)\Phi^{t}_{2}(m_{0})=1-\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}) for all t0t\geq 0. Thus, tΦt(m0)=Q(Φt(m0))TΦt(m0)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}(m_{0})=Q(\Phi^{t}(m_{0}))^{T}\Phi^{t}(m_{0}) is equivalent to

{tΦ1t(m0)=Φ1t(m0)(Q11(Φ1t(m0),1Φ1t(m0)))+(1Φ1t(m0))Q21(Φ1t(m0),1Φ1t(m0))tΦ1t(m0)=Φ1t(m0)(Q12(Φ1t(m0),1Φ1t(m0)))+(1Φ1t(m0))Q22(Φ1t(m0),1Φ1t(m0)).\displaystyle\begin{cases}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0})&=\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0})\cdot(Q_{11}(\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}),1-\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0})))\\ &\quad+(1-\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}))\cdot Q_{21}(\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}),1-\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}))\\ -\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0})&=\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0})\cdot(-Q_{12}(\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}),1-\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0})))\\ &\quad+(1-\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}))\cdot Q_{22}(\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}),1-\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0})).\end{cases} (1)

Therefore, Φ1t(m0)\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}) is indeed a solution of Φ1t(m0)=f(Φ1t(m0))\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0})=f(\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0})). For the converse implication we first note that because Q(m)Q(m) is conservative for all m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) the last equation of (1) is the first equation multiplied by (1)(-1) . If Φ~t(m0)\tilde{\Phi}^{t}(m_{0}) satisfies tΦ~t(m0)=f(Φ~t(m0))\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\tilde{\Phi}^{t}(m_{0})=f(\tilde{\Phi}^{t}(m_{0})), Φ~0(m0)=(m0)1[0,1]\tilde{\Phi}^{0}(m_{0})=(m_{0})_{1}\in[0,1], then, by flow invariance, Φ~t(m0))[0,1]\tilde{\Phi}^{t}(m_{0}))\in[0,1] for all t0t\geq 0. Thus, the function Φt(m0)=(Φ~t(m0),1Φ~t(m0))\Phi^{t}(m_{0})=(\tilde{\Phi}^{t}(m_{0}),1-\tilde{\Phi}^{t}(m_{0})) satisfies tΦt(m0)=Q(Φt(m0))TΦt(m0)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}(m_{0})=Q(\Phi^{t}(m_{0}))^{T}\Phi^{t}(m_{0}).

The desired convergence statement directly follows from f(m1)>0f(m_{1})>0 for all m1[0,m¯)m_{1}\in[0,\bar{m}) and f(m1)<0f(m_{1})<0 for all m1(m¯,1]m_{1}\in(\bar{m},1]. ∎

We also obtain a sufficient criterion for the case of three states. The proof technique is similar to the two state case. Indeed, we first show that our system is equivalent to a two-dimensional system, for which we can then use standard tools for two-dimensional dynamical systems exploiting that the dynamical system has a particular shape since Q()Q(\cdot) is a conservative generator.

As mentioned, we obtain for systems with three states that given m0𝒫(𝒮)m_{0}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) the function Φt(m0)=(Φ1t(m0),Φ2t(m0),Φ3t(m0))\Phi^{t}(m_{0})=(\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}),\Phi^{t}_{2}(m_{0}),\Phi^{t}_{3}(m_{0})) is a solution of tΦt(m0)=Q(Φt(m0))TΦt(m0)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}(m_{0})=Q(\Phi^{t}(m_{0}))^{T}\Phi^{t}(m_{0}), Φ0(m0)=m0\Phi^{0}(m_{0})=m_{0} if and only of (Φ1t(m0),Φ2t(m0))(\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}),\Phi^{t}_{2}(m_{0})) is a solution of

(tΦ1t(m0)tΦ2t(m0))=f(Φ1t(m0)Φ2t(m0)),(Φ10(m0))Φ20(m0))=((m0)1(m0)2),\begin{pmatrix}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0})\\ \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}_{2}(m_{0})\end{pmatrix}=f\begin{pmatrix}\Phi_{1}^{t}(m_{0})\\ \Phi_{2}^{t}(m_{0})\end{pmatrix},\quad\begin{pmatrix}\Phi^{0}_{1}(m_{0}))\\ \Phi^{0}_{2}(m_{0})\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}(m_{0})_{1}\\ (m_{0})_{2}\end{pmatrix},

where

f(m1m2)=(Q31(m^)+(Q11(m^)Q31(m^))m1+(Q21(m^)Q31(m^))m2Q32(m^)+(Q12(m^)Q32(m^))m1+(Q22(m^)Q32(m^))m2)f\begin{pmatrix}m_{1}\\ m_{2}\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}Q_{31}(\hat{m})+(Q_{11}(\hat{m})-Q_{31}(\hat{m}))m_{1}+(Q_{21}(\hat{m})-Q_{31}(\hat{m}))m_{2}\\ Q_{32}(\hat{m})+(Q_{12}(\hat{m})-Q_{32}(\hat{m}))m_{1}+(Q_{22}(\hat{m})-Q_{32}(\hat{m}))m_{2}\end{pmatrix} (2)

and m^=(m1,m2,1m1m2)\hat{m}=(m_{1},m_{2},1-m_{1}-m_{2}). Indeed, the proof is analogous to the proof for the two state case, the central adjustment is to prove the flow invariance of {(m1,m2)[0,):m1+m21}\{(m_{1},m_{2})\in[0,\infty):m_{1}+m_{2}\leq 1\} for (Φ1t(m0),Φ2t(m0))T=f(Φ1t(m0),Φ2t(m0))(\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}),\Phi^{t}_{2}(m_{0}))^{T}=f(\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}),\Phi^{t}_{2}(m_{0})) instead of the flow invariance of [0,1][0,1] for Φ1t(m0)=f(Φ1t(m0))\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0})=f(\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0})). This statement is proven in the appendix (Lemma A.1).

To show the desired convergence statement, we now rely on the Poincaré-Bendixson Theorem [18, Chapter 7], which characterizes the ω\omega-limit sets ω+(m0)\omega_{+}(m_{0}) of a trajectory with initial condition Φ0(m0)=m0\Phi^{0}(m_{0})=m_{0}:

Theorem 5.2.

Let O{(m1,m2)[0,)2:m1+m21}O\supseteq\{(m_{1},m_{2})\in[0,\infty)^{2}:m_{1}+m_{2}\leq 1\} be a simply connected and bounded region such that there is a continuously differentiable function f:O2f:O\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{2} satisfying (2) on 𝒫(𝒮)\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}). Let m¯\bar{m} be the unique stationary point given Q()Q(\cdot). Furthermore, assume that

  • (a)

    f1m1(m)+f2m2(m)\frac{\partial f_{1}}{\partial m_{1}}(m)+\frac{\partial f_{2}}{\partial m_{2}}(m) is non-vanishing for all mOm\in O and has uniform sign on OO,

  • (b)

    it holds that

    f1m1(m¯)f2m2(m¯)f1m2(m¯)f2m1(m¯)>0\frac{\partial f_{1}}{\partial m_{1}}(\bar{m})\cdot\frac{\partial f_{2}}{\partial m_{2}}(\bar{m})-\frac{\partial f_{1}}{\partial m_{2}}(\bar{m})\cdot\frac{\partial f_{2}}{\partial m_{1}}(\bar{m})>0

    or it holds that

    (f1m1(m¯)+f2m2(m¯))24(f1m1(m¯)f2m2(m¯)f1m2(m¯)f2m1(m¯))<0.\left(\frac{\partial f_{1}}{\partial m_{1}}(\bar{m})+\frac{\partial f_{2}}{\partial m_{2}}(\bar{m})\right)^{2}-4\left(\frac{\partial f_{1}}{\partial m_{1}}(\bar{m})\cdot\frac{\partial f_{2}}{\partial m_{2}}(\bar{m})-\frac{\partial f_{1}}{\partial m_{2}}(\bar{m})\cdot\frac{\partial f_{2}}{\partial m_{1}}(\bar{m})\right)<0.

Then, the nonlinear Markov chain is strongly ergodic.

Proof.

Since the set F:={(m1,m2)T2:m1,m20m1+m21}F:=\{(m_{1},m_{2})^{T}\in\mathbb{R}^{2}:m_{1},m_{2}\geq 0\wedge m_{1}+m_{2}\leq 1\} is flow invariant for (tΦ1t(m0),tΦ2t(m0))T=f(Φ1t(m0),Φ2t(m0))(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}),\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}_{2}(m_{0}))^{T}=f(\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}),\Phi^{t}_{2}(m_{0})), any trajectory will stay in this set. Since the set FF is compact, we obtain by [18, Lemma 6.6] that ω+(m0)\omega_{+}(m_{0}) lies FF. Since there is, by assumption, only one stationary point we can apply the Poincaré-Bendixson Theorem [18, Theorem 7.16]. It yields that one of the following three cases holds:

  • (i)

    ω+(m0)={m¯}\omega_{+}(m_{0})=\{\bar{m}\}

  • (ii)

    ω+(m0)\omega_{+}(m_{0}) is a regular periodic orbit

  • (iii)

    ω+(m0)\omega_{+}(m_{0}) consists of (finitely many) fixed points x1,,xkx_{1},\ldots,x_{k} and non-closed orbits γ(z)\gamma(z) such that ω±(z){x1,,xk}\omega_{\pm}(z)\in\{x_{1},\ldots,x_{k}\}.

By condition (a) and Bedixson’s criterion [8, Theorem 3.5] the case (ii) is not possible. Since, by condition (b), the point m¯\bar{m} is not a saddle point, there is no homoclinic path joining m¯\bar{m} to itself. Therefore, since m¯\bar{m} is the only stationary point, also case (iii) is not possible. Thus, ω+(m0)={m¯}\omega_{+}(m_{0})=\{\bar{m}\}. Since the considered trajectory lies in the compact set FF, we moreover obtain by [18, Lemma 6.7] that

0=limtd(Φt(m0),ω+(m0))=limtd(Φt(m0),m¯).0=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}d\left(\Phi^{t}(m_{0}),\omega_{+}(m_{0})\right)=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}d\left(\Phi^{t}(m_{0}),\bar{m}\right).

Remark 5.3.

The equivalence of the considered systems and S1S-1 systems on some subset of S1\mathbb{R}^{S-1} as well as the construction performed in Section 4.1 hint the general problem for a larger number of states (S4S\geq 4). It might happen that the dynamics of the nonlinear Markov chain describe a classical “chaotic” nonlinear system like the Lorentz system. In other words, the difficulties that arise in the classical theory of dynamical systems might also arise here, for which reason criteria for a larger number of states are more complex.

Example.

Theorem 5.2 now yields strong ergodicity of the nonlinear Markov chain introduced in the end of Section 3. In this setting the function ff is given by

f(m1m2)=(λem12(b+ϵ+λ)m1λm2λ+(bλ)m1em22(ϵ+λ)m2)f\begin{pmatrix}m_{1}\\ m_{2}\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\lambda-em_{1}^{2}-(b+\epsilon+\lambda)m_{1}-\lambda m_{2}\\ \lambda+(b-\lambda)m_{1}-em_{2}^{2}-(\epsilon+\lambda)m_{2}\end{pmatrix}

and we moreover have f1m1(m)+f2m2(m)<0\frac{\partial f_{1}}{\partial m_{1}}(m)+\frac{\partial f_{2}}{\partial m_{2}}(m)<0 for all mNϵ([0,1]2)m\in N_{\epsilon}([0,1]^{2}) as well as

f1m1(m)f2m2(m)f1m2(m)f2m1(m)>0\frac{\partial f_{1}}{\partial m_{1}}(m)\frac{\partial f_{2}}{\partial m_{2}}(m)-\frac{\partial f_{1}}{\partial m_{2}}(m)\frac{\partial f_{2}}{\partial m_{1}}(m)>0

for all m[0,1]2m\in[0,1]^{2} and, thus, in particular for the unique invariant distribution. Therefore, by Theorem 5.2 we obtain strong ergodicity.

Appendix A Appendix

Proof of Theorem 2.1.

We first note that

f(m):=(i𝒮miQij(m))j𝒮f(m):=\left(\sum_{i\in\mathcal{S}}m_{i}Q_{ij}(m)\right)_{j\in\mathcal{S}}

is Lipschitz continuous on 𝒫(𝒮)\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}): Indeed, let LL be a Lipschitz constant for all functions Qij()Q_{ij}(\cdot) (i,j𝒮i,j\in\mathcal{S}) simultaneously. Moreover, since 𝒫(𝒮)\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) is compact there is a finite constant

M:=supm𝒫(𝒮),i,j𝒮Qij(m).M:=\sup_{m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}),i,j\in\mathcal{S}}Q_{ij}(m).

Thus, we have

|f(m1)f(m2)|1\displaystyle|f(m^{1})-f(m^{2})|_{1} (M+L)S|m1m2|1.\displaystyle\leq(M+L)S\cdot\left|m^{1}-m^{2}\right|_{1}.

By McShane’s extension theorem [11] there is a Lipschitz continuous extension f~:SS\tilde{f}:\mathbb{R}^{S}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{S} of ff. Let us fix an arbitrary m0𝒫(𝒮)m_{0}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}). By the classical existence and uniqueness theorem for ordinary differential equations, we obtain that there is a unique solution of Φ(m0):[0,)S\Phi^{\cdot}(m_{0}):[0,\infty)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{S} of tΦt(m0)=f~(Φt(m0)),Φ0(m0)=m0\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}(m_{0})=\tilde{f}(\Phi^{t}(m_{0})),\Phi^{0}(m_{0})=m_{0}.

As a next step we show that the vectors f(m)=f~(m)f(m)=\tilde{f}(m) lie for all m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) in the Bouligand tangent cone

T𝒫(𝒮)(m)\displaystyle T_{\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})}(m) ={yS:lim infh0d(m+hy,𝒫(𝒮))h=0}\displaystyle=\left\{y\in\mathbb{R}^{S}:\liminf_{h\downarrow 0}\frac{d(m+hy,\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}))}{h}=0\right\}
={yS:yi0i𝒮 s.t. mi=0i𝒮yi=0},\displaystyle=\left\{y\in\mathbb{R}^{S}:y_{i}\geq 0\forall i\in\mathcal{S}\text{ s.t. }m_{i}=0\wedge\sum_{i\in\mathcal{S}}y_{i}=0\right\},

where the second line follows from [2, Proposition 5.1.7]: Indeed, since for all interior points of 𝒫(𝒮)\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) the condition is trivially satisfied, it suffices to consider the boundary points m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\partial\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}). These points satisfy that there is at least one j𝒫(𝒮)j\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) such that mj=0m_{j}=0. Since the only non-positive column entry of QjQ_{\cdot j} (which is QjjQ_{jj}) gets weight mjm_{j}, the vector f(m)=(i𝒮miQija(m))j𝒮f(m)=(\sum_{i\in\mathcal{S}}m_{i}Q_{ija}(m))_{j\in\mathcal{S}} will have non-negative entries at each j𝒮j\in\mathcal{S} such that mj=0m_{j}=0. Since QQ is conservative, we moreover obtain that

j𝒮i𝒮miQija(m)=i𝒮j𝒮Qija(m)=0mi=0.\sum_{j\in\mathcal{S}}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{S}}m_{i}Q_{ija}(m)=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{S}}\underbrace{\sum_{j\in\mathcal{S}}Q_{ija}(m)}_{=0}m_{i}=0.

Thus, f(m)=f~(m)T𝒫(𝒮)(m)f(m)=\tilde{f}(m)\in T_{\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})}(m) for all m𝒫(𝒮)m\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}). Therefore, we obtain, by the classical flow invariance statement for ordinary differential equations ([19, Theorem 10.XVI]), that the solution satisfies m(t)𝒫(𝒮)m(t)\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}) for all t0t\geq 0. Thus, Φ(m0):[0,)S\Phi^{\cdot}(m_{0}):[0,\infty)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{S} is also the unique solution of tΦt(m0)=f(Φt(m0)),Φ0(m0)=m0\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi^{t}(m_{0})=f(\Phi^{t}(m_{0})),\Phi^{0}(m_{0})=m_{0}. The continuity of Φt()\Phi^{t}(\cdot) follows from a classical general dependence theorem [19, Theorem 12.VII]. ∎

Lemma A.1.

The set N={(m1,m2)[0,):m1+m21}N=\{(m_{1},m_{2})\in[0,\infty):m_{1}+m_{2}\leq 1\} is flow invariant for (Φ1t(m0),Φ2t(m0))T=f(Φ1t(m0),Φ2t(m0))(\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}),\Phi^{t}_{2}(m_{0}))^{T}=f(\Phi^{t}_{1}(m_{0}),\Phi^{t}_{2}(m_{0})).

Proof.

The statement follows from [6, Lemma 1]. This lemma states that for an open set OSO\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{S} and a family of continuously differentiable functions gi:Og_{i}:O\rightarrow\mathbb{R} (i{1,,k}i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}) the set

M={xO:gi(x)0 for all i{1,,k}}M=\{x\in O:g_{i}(x)\leq 0\text{ for all }i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}\}

is flow invariant for x˙=f(x)\dot{x}=f(x) whenever for any xMx\in\partial M there is an i{1,,k}i\in\{1,\ldots,k\} such that gi(x)=0g_{i}(x)=0 and

f(x),gi(x)<0.\langle f(x),\nabla g_{i}(x)\rangle<0.

Indeed, in our case we have

M={xS:m10m20m1+m21}M=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{S}:-m_{1}\leq 0\wedge-m_{2}\leq 0\wedge m_{1}+m_{2}\leq 1\}

and the boundary points of this set either satisfy mi=0m_{i}=0 for at least one i{1,2}i\in\{1,2\} or m1+m2=1m_{1}+m_{2}=1. Since Q()Q(\cdot) is conservative and irreducible, we obtain f((m1,m2)T),(mi)<0\left\langle f((m_{1},m_{2})^{T}),\nabla(-m_{i})\right\rangle<0 in the first case and f((m1,m2)T),(m1+m21)<0\left\langle f((m_{1},m_{2})^{T}),\nabla(m_{1}+m_{2}-1)\right\rangle<0 in the second case. Therefore, the claim follows. ∎

References

  • Asmussen [2003] S. Asmussen. Applied Probability and Queues, volume 51 of Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2nd edition, 2003. ISBN 0-387-00211-1.
  • Aubin and Cellina [1984] J.-P. Aubin and A. Cellina. Differential Inclusions: Set-Valued Maps and Viability Theory, volume 264 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1984. 10.1007/978-3-642-69512-4.
  • Butkovsky [2014] O. A. Butkovsky. On Ergodic Properties of Nonlinear Markov Chains and Stochastic McKean-Vlasov Equations. Theory Probab. Its Appl., 58(4):661–674, 2014. 10.1137/S0040585X97986825.
  • Carmona and Delarue [2015] R. Carmona and F. Delarue. Forward-backward stochastic differential equations and controlled McKean-Vlasov dynamics. An. Probab., 43(5):2647–2700, 2015. 10.1214/14-AOP946.
  • Deimling [1985] K. Deimling. Nonlinear Functional Analysis. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985. ISBN 3-540-13928-1.
  • Fernandes and Zanolin [1987] M. L. Fernandes and F. Zanolin. Remarks on Strongly Flow-Invariant Sets. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 128(1):176–188, 1987. 10.1016/0022-247X(87)90223-X.
  • Iosifescu [1980] M. Iosifescu. Finite Markov Processes and Their Applications. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto, 1980. ISBN 0-471-27677-4.
  • Jordan and Smith [2005] D. W. Jordan and P. Smith. Nonlinear Ordinary Differential Equations: An Introduction to Dynamical Systems, volume 2 of Oxford Applied and Engineering Mathematics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 3rd edition, 2005. ISBN 0-19-856562-3.
  • Kolokoltsov [2010] V. N. Kolokoltsov. Nonlinear Markov Processes and Kinetic Equations, volume 182 of Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010. ISBN 978-0-521-11184-3.
  • McKean [1966] H. P. McKean, Jr. A Class of Markov Processes Associated with Nonlinear Parabolic Equations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 56(6):1907–1911, 1966. 10.1073/pnas.56.6.1907.
  • McShane [1934] E. J. McShane. Extension of range of functions. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 40(12):837–842, 1934.
  • Neumann [2019] B. A. Neumann. Stationary Equilibria of Mean Field Games with Finite State and Action Space : Existence, Computation, Stability, and a Myopic Adjustment Process. PhD thesis, Universität Hamburg, 2019. URL http://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2020/10313/.
  • Neumann [2020] B. A. Neumann. Stationary Equilibria of Mean Field Games with Finite State and Action Space. Dyn. Games Appl., 2020. 10.1007/s13235-019-00345-9.
  • Pham and Wei [2017] H. Pham and X. Wei. Dynamic Programming for Optimal Control of Stochastic McKean-Vlasov Dynamics. SIAM J. Control Optim., 55(2):1069–1101, 2017. 10.1137/16M1071390.
  • Resnick [1992] S. I. Resnick. Adventures in Stochastic Processes. Birkhäuser, Boston, 1992. ISBN 0-8176-3591-2.
  • Saburov [2016] M. Saburov. Ergodicity of nonlinear Markov operators on the finite dimensional space. Nonlinear Anal. Theory Methods Appl., 143:105–119, 2016. 10.1016/j.na.2016.05.006.
  • Sznitman [1991] A.-S. Sznitman. Topics in propagation of chaos. In P.-L. Hennequin, editor, Ecole d’Eté de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XIX — 1989, volume 1464 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 165–251, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991. Springer. 10.1007/BFb0085169.
  • Teschl [2012] G. Teschl. Ordinary Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems, volume 140 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 2012. ISBN 978-0-8218-8328-0.
  • Walter [1998] W. Walter. Ordinary Differential Equations, volume 182 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998. ISBN 0-387-98459-3.