2
$\begingroup$

Let $\Omega$ be a finite, connected subset of $\mathbb{Z}^n$, $W_t$ a standard random walk on $\mathbb{Z}^n$ started at $x$, and $T_\Omega$ the first time at which $W_t$ leaves $\Omega$; consider $$ P^D_\Omega(x,y;t) := \mathbb{P}[W_t=y \text{ and } T_\Omega>t], $$ the discrete or graph heat kernel on $\Omega$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions.

By analogy with some known results on infinite graphs and continuous regions with boundaries one would expect a bound of the form $$ P_\Omega^D(x,y;t) \le C_\Omega \frac{\phi_\Omega(x,t) \phi_\Omega(y,t) e^{-\lambda_\Omega t}}{t^{n/2}} e^{- c |x-y|^2/t}, $$ with $\phi:\mathbb{Z}^n \times \mathbb{N} \to [0,1]$ vanishing outside $\Omega$ (also with some bounds near the boundary of $\Omega$).

Is this known?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

I assume the question pertains to continuous time random walk; the counterexamples are even simpler in discrete time. There is no reason to expect the power law factor $t^{-n/2}$ in this setting. For the simplest example, consider the case where $\Omega$ consists of two adjacent points $x,y$ in $\mathbb{Z}$. Then $$ P_\Omega^D(x,y;t)=\sum_{k \ge 0} 2^{-2k-1} P({\rm Poisson }(t)=2k+1)= \sum_{k \ge 0}\frac{(t/2)^{2k+1}}{(2k+1)! \, e^t}=\frac{\sinh(t/2)}{e^t}$$ which is asymptotically $\exp(-t/2)\cdot (1/2-o(1))$.

A good discussion of this topic when $\Omega$ is an interval and the walk is discrete can be found in page 243 of [1]. This is easily converted to continuous time, see e.g. Exit time estimate for a simple continuous-time random walk

[1] Spitzer, Frank. Principles of random walk. GTM Vol. 34. Second edition, Springer.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Is that not compatible with the bound I wrote, with a suboptimal exponent? I will clarify in a couple of days when I am back to my keyboard. $\endgroup$ Jul 2 '20 at 11:17
  • $\begingroup$ This is not compatible with the bound you wrote because $\lambda_{\Omega}$ equals $1/2$ in this case. $\endgroup$ Jul 3 '20 at 2:01
  • $\begingroup$ Ah yes; looking more closely the bound I wrote is in poor correspondence with the second paper I cited for a closely related reason. I will edit the question to something more reasonable. Thank you! $\endgroup$ Jul 6 '20 at 7:35
  • $\begingroup$ Once your question is answered, it is best practice to acknowledge that and then ask another question if needed. Editing a question after it is answered will not motivate people to think about your questions. $\endgroup$ Jul 6 '20 at 12:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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