A vertex self-avoiding random (VSAW) walk is just a path in the graph which doesn't reuse any vertices. You can construct them by doing a simple random walk conditioned on having no self intersections. An edge self-avoiding random walk (ESAW) is a path which doesn't reuse any edges. You can construct them by doing a simple random walk conditioned on having no self intersections.
The only property of SAWs that matters for the introduction is recurrence-transience properties on $\mathbb{Z}^d$. Recurrence is obviously the wrong word, since the walk is self-avoiding, but transience seems easy to define: A SAW is transienttransient if the probability of escaping to infinity is non-zero. [EDIT: To make this rigorous, you need to find the right measure on the space of paths, which is now basically what my question is asking]. So the correct idea to replace recurrence is ``probability of escape is 0'' i.e. ''walker gets trapped.'' Here's what I think is true (also what my advisor thinks is true): A VSAW on $\mathbb{Z}^d$ is transient with probability 1 for $d>4$ and gets trapped with probability 1 for $d\leq 2$.
According to Slade's work, for $d>4$ VSAWs behave like simple random walks, i.e. weakly converge to Brownian motion weakly converge to Brownian motion (see Theorem 8.1 of this expository article). This is because the probability of 2 paths in a simple random walk intersecting is bounded away from 0.
Question 3: Is there a reference for the walker getting trapped on $\mathbb{Z}^2$? Or can someone explain why this is true?
Question 3: Is there a reference for the walker getting trapped on $\mathbb{Z}^2$? Or can someone explain why this is true?
If you knew that the probability of getting distance $r$ from the origin in $\mathbb{Z}^2$ in a VSAW was less than or equal to the probability in a simple random walk then that would do it. But that's not immediately clear to me. In fact, thinking of random walks via electrical networks gives me the opposite intuition. Every time you take a step But that's not immediately clear to me. In fact, thinking of random walks via electrical networks gives me the opposite intuition. Every time you take a step in the VSAW you make certain edges illegal to traverse, i.e. you remove edges from your graph. This reduces the overall resistance. To prove recurrence we want the resistance to infinity to be infinite, so reducing the overall resistance is bad.
EDIT: Actually, as pointed out in the VSAW you make certain edges illegal to traversecomments, i.e. you removethe proof above works to show the walker gets trapped in $\mathbb{Z}^2$ because removing edges from your graph. This reducesincreases the overall resistance. To prove recurrence we want from what the resistance to infinity to be infinitesimple random walk faces, so reducingand it's well-known that the overallsimple random walk in $\mathbb{Z}^2$ has infinite resistance is bad.