Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Consider a Galton-Watson branching process, with offspring distribution $\mathbf{p}=(p_0, p_1, \dots, p_n, \dots)$. Let $O$ be the root of the branching process.

Write $\eta=P(\text{process survives for ever})$ and $\mathcal{H}=\{\mathbf{p}: \eta>0\}$.

Also write $\beta=P(O \text{ is the root of an infinite binary tree contained in the branching process})$ and $\mathcal{B}=\{\mathbf{p}: \beta>0\}$.

Then it's fairly well known that in some sense the phase transition from $\mathcal H^C$ to $\mathcal H$ is typically "continuous" while the phase transition from $\mathcal B^C$ to $\mathcal B$ is typically "discontinuous".

e.g. suppose the offspring distribution is Poisson with mean $\lambda$ and consider $\eta$ as a function of $\lambda$. Then $\eta(\lambda)=0$ for $\lambda\leq 1$ and $\eta(\lambda)>0$ for $\lambda>1$, and $\eta(.)$ is continuous everywhere, including at 1.

On the other hand, consider $\beta$ as a function of $\lambda$. Then there is a critical point $\lambda_c\approx 3.3509$ with the following property: $\beta(\lambda)=0$ for $\lambda<\lambda_c$, and $\beta(\lambda)>0$ for $\lambda\geq \lambda_c$. In particular, $\beta(.)$ is discontinuous at $\lambda_c$. (In fact, at $\lambda_c$, $\beta$ jumps from 0 to approximately 0.535).

My question: how has this been written as a general statement? (rather than just for particular parametrised families as above). My guess is that one would want to write it something like the following:

Let $M_0$ be the set of offspring distributions with the topology induced by the metric $d_0(\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{q})=\sum|p_n-q_n|$.

Similarly $M_1$ and $M_2$ induced by $d_1(\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{q})=\sum n|p_n-q_n|$ and $d_2(\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{q})=\sum n^2|p_n-q_n|$.

Write $\mathbf{p}^*$ for the degenerate distribution with $p^*_n=0$ for $n=0$ and $n\geq 2$ and $p^*_1=1$.

Then:

(1) $\mathcal{H}\setminus\{\mathbf{p}^*\}$ is open as a subset of $M_0$.

(2) $\mathcal{B}$ is closed as a subset of $M_2$. (Probably also $M_1$?)

Of course (1) is basically trivial, since $\mathcal{H}$ is just the set of distributions with mean greater than 1, along with the single point $\mathbf{p}^*$.

(Note that it's NOT the case that $\mathcal{B}$ is closed as a subset of $M_0$. For example, consider a sequence of distributions indexed by $k$ with $p_0=1-4/k$ and $p_k=4/k$, all other $p_n=0$. Then $\beta(k)>0$ for all $k$, but $\beta(k)\to 0$ as $k\to\infty$, and the sequence of distributions converges in $M_0$ to a limit in which just $p_0=1$, for which of course $\beta=0$.)

I don't think it's hard to write down a proof of (2) above, but I don't want to reinvent the wheel. (I don't need to use the result directly, but I would definitely like to refer to it to illustrate a point). So: anyone know where such things have been nicely developed before?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

OK, in my opinion this is a very interesting question and, since it got no answer for three weeks, I feel free to post some comments on it (but not a full answer, I am afraid).

As everybody knows, the property that $\eta > 0$ is equivalent to the fact that the mean of the offspring distribution $p$ is $>1$. This is conveniently expressed if one relies on the generating function $f$ of $p$, defined by $f(s)=\sum p_ns^n$. Then (excluding the case where $p$ is a Dirac mass at $1$), $\eta > 0$ iff $f'(1) > 1$ iff the equation $f(s)=s$ has a solution $s_1 < 1$ and when this is so, $\eta=1-s_1$.

Likewise, the property that $\beta > 0$ is equivalent to the fact that the equation $g(s)=s$ has a solution $s_2 < 1$, where $g(s)=f(s)+(1-s)f'(s)$ (hint: condition on the first generation) and when this is so, $\beta=1-s_2$.

Now, it happens that if $s_1 < 1$ exists, the graph of $f$ on the interval $[0,1]$ (in other words, the curve of equation $t=f(s)$ in the $(t,s)$-square $[0,1]\times[0,1]$) must intersect the line $t=s$ with an order of contact $1$, because $f$ is strictly convex and $f(1)=1$. Hence every small modification of $f$ preserves this intersection and is such that $\eta > 0$ as well.

On the other hand, $g(1)=1$ but $g$ is not in general convex, hence it may well happen that the graph of $g$ intersects the line $t=s$ with an order of contact $2$ (in other words, it is tangent to the line $t=s$ at $s_2$). Then, infinitely small modifications of $f$ may move the graph of $g$ away from the line $t=s$, in which case the only solution of $g(s)=s$ is the obvious one $s=1$, hence $\beta$ jumps to $0$.

In other words, "There exists $s < 1$ such that $f(s)=s$" is an open property (excluding the function $f$ such that $f(s)=s$ for every $s$) but "There exists $s < 1$ such that $f(s)+(1-s)f'(s)=s$" is not.

Finally, note that the geometric distributions provide phase transitions that are located at easily computable points. Namely, assume that $p_n=(1-a)a^n$ for every $n\ge 0$, with $0 < a < 1$. Then, $\eta>0$ iff $a > a_1$ with $a_1=1/2$, in particular $\eta(a_1)=0$, but $\beta > 0$ iff $a\ge a_2$ with $a_2=4/5$ and $\beta(a_2)=1/4$ (I think).

To reiterate: these are just minor remarks on a stimulating question, not an answer to the OP's query.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.