English

Doob--Martin boundary of R\'emy's tree growth chain

Probability 2020-03-05 v4 Combinatorics

Abstract

R\'emy's algorithm is a Markov chain that iteratively generates a sequence of random trees in such a way that the nthn^{\mathrm{th}} tree is uniformly distributed over the set of rooted, planar, binary trees with 2n+12n+1 vertices. We obtain a concrete characterization of the Doob--Martin boundary of this transient Markov chain and thereby delineate all the ways in which, loosely speaking, this process can be conditioned to "go to infinity" at large times. A (deterministic) sequence of finite rooted, planar, binary trees converges to a point in the boundary if for each mm the random rooted, planar, binary tree spanned by m+1m+1 leaves chosen uniformly at random from the nthn^{\mathrm{th}} tree in the sequence converges in distribution as nn tends to infinity -- a notion of convergence that is analogous to one that appears in the recently developed theory of graph limits. We show that a point in the Doob--Martin boundary may be identified with the following ensemble of objects: a complete separable R\mathbb{R}-tree that is rooted and binary in a suitable sense, a diffuse probability measure on the R\mathbb{R}-tree that allows us to make sense of sampling points from it, and a kernel on the R\mathbb{R}-tree that describes the probability that the first of a given pair of points is below and to the left of their most recent common ancestor while the second is below and to the right. The Doob--Martin boundary corresponds bijectively to the set of extreme points of the closed convex set of normalized nonnegative harmonic functions, in other words, the minimal and full Doob--Martin boundaries coincide. These results are in the spirit of the identification of graphons as limit objects in the theory of graph limits.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.1411.2526,
  title  = {Doob--Martin boundary of R\'emy's tree growth chain},
  author = {Steven N. Evans and Rudolf Grübel and Anton Wakolbinger},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.2526},
  year   = {2020}
}

Comments

Compared to version 3, which was published in Ann. Probab. 45 (2017), 225-277, this version has the additional Section 9, which corrects Remark 5.20 and the proof of Lemma 5.3, and amends Definition 5.8