, , ,

1 Introduction

After a first breakthrough of Kalikow [3] , giving a transience criterion for non-reversible multidimensional Random Walks in Random Environment, Sznitman and Zerner proved, several years later, a law of large numbers in [7] , followed by a central limit theorem proved by Sznitman in [6] . A generalization to the case of mixing environments was proved afterwards by Comets and Zeitouni in [1] (we refer to [8] for an overview of the subject). Despite these progresses, many important questions, concerning recurrence or explicit criteria for a ballistic behavior, remain largely open.

Among random walks in random environment, random walks in an iid Dirichlet environment take a special place, since their annealed law coincides with the law of some transition reinforced random walk having an affine reinforcement (see [2] ). These reinforced walks are defined as follows.

At time 0, we attribute, in a translation invariant way, a weight to each oriented edge of

Z^{d}

, and each time the walk crosses an edge, the weight of this edge is increased by one. Finally, the walk is a nearest neighbour walk, which chooses, at each time, an outgoing edge with a probability which is proportionnal to its weight.

In this paper, we state a law of large numbers for such random walks, under a simple and explicit condition on the weights. Moreover, we give explicit bounds for the asymptotic velocity of these walks and also an asymptotic expansion of this velocity at low disorder. Low disorder corresponds, in the random environment model, to the case where the law of the transition probabilities is concentrated around its mean value, and, in its reinforcement interpretation, to the case where the initial weights of the transitions are large, so that these weights are not significantly affected during the life of the walk (at least, if the walk is transient).

Let us precise that these walks do not enter the class of walks considered in [3] , [4] and in several other works, asking the law of the environment to satisfy a uniform ellipticity condition.

This ellipticity hypothesis is usually used in two ways :

_ in the definition of Kalikow's auxiliary Markov chain which involves the expection of the Green function of the walk killed when exiting a given set. The uniform ellipticity is then a comfortable assumption for checking the integrability of this Green function.

_ in the estimates of the drift of Kalikow's auxiliary Markov chain, the ellipticity condition often plays a key role. We overcome this difficulty by using an integration by part formula.

In section 2, we give the definition of random walks in Dirichlet environment, remind their connection with transition reinforced random walks and we present our main results. In section 3, we present an integration by part formula that will be the key analytic tool in the proof of our results. Indeed, in section 4, it is shown how one can take advantage of the special form of the law of the environment, in order to estimate, using the formula of Section 3, the drift of the killed Kalikow's auxiliary walk.

In section 5, we study the integrability of the Green function of the walk which ensures the existence of the original (non killed) Kalikow's auxiliary walk and finish the proof of our first result by applying the law of large numbers of Sznitman and Zerner [7] . In section 6, we follow the scheme of [4] to get bounds for the asymptotic velocity of the walk, and deduce an expansion of the asymptotic velocity at low disorder.

2 Definitions and statement of the results

We denote by

T_{2 d} : = {(x_{1}, . . ., x_{2 d}) \in] 0, 1]^{2 d}, s . t ., \sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} x_{i} = 1}

, and by

(e_{i})_{1 \leq i \leq 2 d}

the family of unitary vectors of

Z^{d}

, defined as follows:

(e_{i})_{1 \leq i \leq d}

is the canonical basis of

R^{d}

, and for all

j \in {d + 1, . . ., 2 d}

e_{j} = - e_{j - d}

For all

\vec{α} : = (α_{1}, . . ., α_{2 d}) \in] 0, + \infty [^{2 d}

, we denote by

λ^{\vec{α}}

the Dirichlet probability measure on

T_{2 d}

with parameters

(α_{1}, . . ., α_{2 d})

i.e. the measure on

T_{2 d}

\frac{Γ (α_{1} + . . . + α_{2 d})}{Γ (α_{1}) . . . Γ (α_{2 d})} x_{1}^{α_{1} - 1} . . . x_{2 d}^{α_{2 d} - 1} d x_{1} . . . d x_{2 d - 1} .

For a unit vector

e

Z^{d}

, we will sometimes write, for reading conveniences,

α_{e}

for the weight

α_{i}

where

i

is such that

e_{i} = e

Let us now introduce random walks in an iid Dirichlet environment on

Z^{d}

We define an environment as an element

ω = (ω (x))_{x \in Z^{d}}

where at any vertex

x

ω (x) : = (ω (x, x + e_{1}), . . ., ω (x, x + e_{2 d}))

belongs to

T_{2 d}

. We set

μ : = \otimes_{x \in Z^{d}} λ^{\vec{α}}

, so that

μ

is a probability measure on the environments such that

(ω (x))_{x \in Z^{d}}

are independent random variables of law

λ^{\vec{α}}

We denote by

P^{ω}

the law of the Markov chain in the environment

ω

starting at

0

defined by:

\forall x \in Z^{d}, \forall k \in N, \forall i = 1, . . ., 2 d, P^{ω} (X_{k + 1} = x + e_{i} | X_{k} = x) = ω (x, x + e_{i}) .

The law of the random walk in random environment (or the so-called annealed measure) is the probability measure

P^{μ} = \int P^{ω} d μ (ω)

In [2] , we show that random walks in iid environment have the law of some reinforced random walk. The following proposition states that the case of a Dirichlet environment corresponds to a quite natural law of reinforcement:

Proposition 1. The measure

P^{μ}

satisfies that

P^{μ}

-almost everywhere,

P^{μ} (X_{n + 1} = x + e_{i} | σ (X_{k}, k \leq n)) = \frac{α_{i} + N_{i} (n, X_{n})}{\sum_{k = 1}^{r} α_{k} + N_{k} (n, X_{n})}

where

\vec{N} (n, x) = (N_{i} (n, x))_{1 \leq i \leq 2 d}

and

N_{i} (n, x) = \sum_{l = 0}^{n - 1} 1_{{X_{l + 1} - X_{l} = e_{i}, X_{l} = x}}

We refer the reader to [2] for the proof.

2.1 Bounds of the asymptotic velocity

We can now state our first result:

Theorem 1. Let

\vec{α} : = (α_{1}, . . ., α_{2 d}) \in] 0, + \infty [^{2 d}

, and

μ = \otimes_{x \in Z^{d}} λ^{\vec{α}}

a probability measure on the environment. Let us assume that there exists

i \in {1, . . ., 2 d}

such that

α_{e_{i}} > 1 + α_{- e_{i}}

The process

X_{n}

is transient under

P^{μ}

, and

\exists v \in R^{d} \ {0}, such that P^{μ} (\frac{X_{n}}{n} \to_{n \to \infty} v) = 1 .

Moreover, for all

i \in {1, . . ., d}

\frac{1}{(\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} α_{k}) - 1} (min (0, α_{e_{i}} - 1) - α_{- e_{i}}) \leq v . e_{i} \leq \frac{1}{(\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} α_{k}) - 1} (α_{e_{i}} - min (0, α_{- e_{i}} - 1))

Remark 1: The assumption on

α_{i}

ensures that the set

^{d} \prod_{i = 1} [min (0, α_{e_{i}} - 1) - α_{- e_{i}}, α_{e_{i}} - min (0, α_{- e_{i}} - 1)]

does not contain 0. It is a key ingredient in the check of Kalikow's transience condition.

Remark 2: When the

α_{i}

's are large,

v

becomes close to the vector

\frac{1}{\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} α_{k}} \sum_{i = 1}^{d} (α_{e_{i}} - α_{- e_{i}}) e_{i}

This is not surprising if one thinks at the corresponding reinforced walk: the initial weights of the transitions are large enough so that they are not significantly affected during the life of the walk, and the law of the walk becomes close to the law of the Markov chain with probability transition

\frac{α_{i}}{\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} α_{k}}

in the direction

e_{i}

Remark 3: In dimension 1, the condition of theorem 1 is actually optimal. Indeed from [5] , we know that the asymptotic velocity is not null if and only if either

E^{μ} [\frac{ω (0, e_{1})}{ω (0, - e_{1})}] > 1

E^{μ} [\frac{ω (0, - e_{1})}{ω (0, e_{1})}] > 1

, which corresponds exactly to

α_{e_{1}} > 1 + α_{- e_{1}}

α_{- e_{1}} > 1 + α_{e_{1}}

2.2 Expansion of the velocity in the limit of large parameters

We turn now to the second result of the paper, which gives the asymptotic velocity of the walk in the limit of large parameters

α_{k}

. Let us remind that, in the limit of large parameters

α_{k}

, the environment is concentrated around its mean value.

Let us fix some notations. We consider some fixed transition probabilities

(m_{i}) \in T_{2 d},

and a parameter

γ > 0

(aimed to tend to

\infty

). We consider the weights

α_{k} = γ m_{k},

so that the expectation of the transition probability,

E_{μ} (ω (x, x + e_{i})),

is independent of

γ

and equal to

m_{i}

The mean environment

(m_{i})

defines the transition probabilities of an homogeneous walk on

Z^{d}

, which is ballistic with asymptotic velocity

d_{m} = \sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} m_{k} e_{k},

when the mean drift

d_{m}

is not null. We denote by

G^{m}

its Green function.

The following result gives an estimate in

O (\frac{1}{γ^{2}})

of the asymptotic velocity (in section 6 we give explicit bounds for this estimate).

Theorem 2. Assume

d_{m} \neq 0

For

γ

large enough, Theorem 1 applies, i.e. there exists

v \neq 0

such that

{lim}_{n \to \infty} \frac{X_{n}}{n} = v, P^{μ} a . s .

Moreover, when

γ

is large, we have the following expansion for

v

v = d_{m} - \frac{d_{m}}{γ} (G^{m} (0, 0) - 1) + O (\frac{1}{γ^{2}}) .

Remark 1: Surprisingly, the second order of the expansion is colinear to the mean drift

d_{m}

. We see that

(G^{m} (0, 0) - 1) > 0

, which means that there is a slowdown effect, since the second order term is directed in the opposite direction to the mean drift.

Remark 2: In [4] , the second author gave an expansion of the asymptotic velocity in the case of a uniformly elliptic environment. In this work, several of the estimates relied strongly on the ellipticity condition, so that the proofs of [4] have here to be modified. Nevertheless, if we apply the formula of [4] to this case, we get the same expansion (many simplifications occur due to the particular expression of the covariance matrix). It is not surprising that the speed-up effect obtained in some cases of [4] is not observed in the case of a Dirichlet environment. The example of [4] , section 2, was based, indeed, on some correlation between the transition probabilities in orthogonal directions. Here, there is a kind of independence of the transition probabilities in each direction, in the following sense: under

μ = \otimes_{x \in Z^{d}} λ^{\vec{α}}

, the law of

ω (z, z + e_{i})

is independent of the law of

(\frac{ω (z, z + e_{k})}{1 - ω (z, z + e_{i})})_{k \neq i}

Remark 3: The Green function

G^{m} (0, 0)

has the following explicit Fourier expression

G^{m} (0, 0) = \frac{1}{(2 π)^{d}} \int_{[0, 2 π]^{d}} \frac{1}{1 - 2 \sum_{i = 1}^{d} \sqrt{m_{e_{i}} m_{- e_{i}}} cos (θ_{i})} d θ_{1} \dots d θ_{d} .

(we refer to Step 2 of the proof of Proposition 3).

3 An integration by part formula

In this section, we present an integration by part formula on

T_{2 d}

that will appear to be the key analytic tool in the estimation of the drift of Kalikow's auxiliary walk.

Lemma 1. For all

\vec{α} \in] 0, + \infty [^{2 d}

, and all differentiable function

f

R^{2 d}

\int_{T_{2 d}} f d λ^{\vec{α}} = \frac{α_{1} + . . . + α_{d}}{α_{1}} \int_{T_{2 d}} x_{1} . f d λ^{\vec{α}} + \frac{1}{α_{1}} \int_{T_{2 d}} x_{1} . ((\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} x_{k} \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{k}}) - \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{1}}) d λ^{\vec{α}} .

Proof: We use the well known identity between the Dirichlet law

λ^{\vec{α}}

and the law of the vector

(\frac{Z_{1}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} Z_{i}}, . . ., \frac{Z_{2 d}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} Z_{i}})

where the random variables

Z_{i}

are independent variables following the gamma distribution

Γ (α_{i}, 1)

of density

\frac{1}{Γ (α_{i})} z^{α_{i} - 1} e^{- z}

R_{+}

This identity implies

\int_{T_{2 d}} f d λ^{\vec{α}} =

\frac{1}{Γ (α_{1}) . . . Γ (α_{2 d})} \int_{R_{+}^{2 d}} f (\frac{z_{1}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i}}, . . ., \frac{z_{2 d}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i}}) e^{- \sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i}} z_{1}^{α_{1} - 1} . . . z_{2 d}^{α_{2 d} - 1} d z_{1} . . . d z_{2 d} .

Integrating by part with respect to

z_{1}

, we get

\int_{T_{2 d}} f d λ^{\vec{α}} = \frac{1}{Γ (α_{1} + 1) . . . Γ (α_{2 d})} \int_{R_{+}^{2 d}} (\tilde{f} - \frac{\partial \tilde{f}}{\partial z_{1}}) e^{- \sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i}} z_{1}^{α_{1}} . . . z_{2 d}^{α_{2 d} - 1} d z_{1} . . . d z_{2 d}

where

\tilde{f} (z_{1}, . . ., z_{2 d}) : = f (\frac{z_{1}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i}}, . . ., \frac{z_{2 d}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i}})

Now, we decompose this last integral into the

\tilde{f}

-part and the

\frac{\partial \tilde{f}}{\partial z_{1}}

-part.

Using, in the reverse sense, the “Gamma” interpretation of the Dirichlet law

λ^{(α_{1} + 1, α_{2}, . . ., α_{2 d})}

, the

\tilde{f}

-part becomes

\frac{Γ (α_{1} + . . . + α_{2 d} + 1)}{Γ (α_{1} + 1) . . . Γ (α_{2 d})} \int_{T_{2 d}} f . x_{1}^{α_{1}} . . . x_{2 d}^{α_{2 d} - 1} d x_{1} . . . d x_{2 d - 1} = \frac{α_{1} + . . . + α_{2 d}}{α_{1}} \int_{T_{2 d}} x_{1} . f d λ^{\vec{α}} .

Now, the

\frac{\partial \tilde{f}}{\partial z_{1}}

-part writes

- \frac{1}{α_{1} Γ (α_{1}) . . . Γ (α_{2 d})} \int_{R_{+}^{d}} (z_{1} . \frac{\partial \tilde{f}}{\partial z_{1}}) e^{- \sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i}} z_{1}^{α_{1} - 1} . . . z_{2 d}^{α_{2 d} - 1} d z_{1} . . . d z_{2 d}

and

\begin{matrix} z_{1} . \frac{\partial \tilde{f}}{\partial z_{1}} & = (\frac{z_{1}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i}} - \frac{z_{1}^{2}}{(\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i})^{2}}) {\tilde{f}}_{1} - \frac{z_{1} z_{2}}{(\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i})^{2}} {\tilde{f}}_{2} - . . . - \frac{z_{1} z_{2 d}}{(\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i})^{2}} {\tilde{f}}_{d} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = (\frac{z_{1}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i}}) ({\tilde{f}}_{1} - \sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} (\frac{z_{k}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i}}) {\tilde{f}}_{k}) \end{matrix}

where

{\tilde{f}}_{k} (z_{1}, . ., z_{2 d}) = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{k}} (\frac{z_{1}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i}}, . . ., \frac{z_{2 d}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} z_{i}})

. The “Gamma” interpretation of the Dirichlet law

λ^{(α_{1}, . . ., α_{2 d})}

(used for the third time) allows to conclude. □

4 Kalikow's auxiliary walk

We remind here the generalization of Kalikow's auxiliary walk (see [3] ) which was already presented in [4] .

Let

U

be a connected subset of

Z^{d}

, and

δ \in] 0, 1]

. We denote by

\partial U

the boundary set of

U

, i.e.

\partial U : = {z \in Z^{d} \ U, \exists x \in U, | z - x | = 1}

For all

z \in U

and

z^{'} \in U \cup \partial U

, and for all environment

ω

, we introduce the Green function of the random walk under the environment

ω

killed at rate

δ

and at the boundary of

U

G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z, z^{'}) = E_{z}^{ω} (\sum_{k = 0}^{T_{U}} δ^{k} 1_{X_{k} = z^{'}})

where

T_{U} = i n f {k, X_{k} \in Z^{d} \ U}

In the sequel, we will drop the subscript

δ

when

δ = 1

, and we will write

G_{U}^{ω} (z, z^{'})

instead of

G_{U, 1}^{ω} (z, z^{'})

We introduce now the generalized Kalikow's transition probabilities (originally, Kalikow's transition probabilities were introduced in the case

δ = 1

{\hat{ω}}_{U, δ, z_{0}} (z, z + e_{i}) = \frac{E_{μ} [G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z) ω (z, z + e_{i})]}{E_{μ} [G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z)]} .

In order to give bounds for these transition probabilities, we will be lead to apply the integration by part formula of the previous section to the functions

G_{U, δ}^{ω} (x, y)

, viewed as functions of the environment

ω

For this purpose, we need the following lemma which gives the expression of the derivatives of these functions:

Lemma 2. For all connected subset

U

Z^{d}

, for all

x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}, x_{4} \in U

, and for all

δ \in] 0, 1 [

\frac{\partial G_{U, δ}^{ω} (x_{1}, x_{4})}{\partial (ω (x_{2}, x_{3}))} = δ G_{U, δ}^{ω} (x_{1}, x_{2}) G_{U, δ}^{ω} (x_{3}, x_{4})

Proof: Let us define the transition matrix

Ω^{U} : = (ω^{U} (x, y))_{(x, y) \in (U \cup \partial U)^{2}}

, by

ω^{U} (x, y) = ω (x, y)

x \in U

, and

ω^{U} (x, y) = 0

x \in \partial U

. We have

G_{U, δ}^{ω} (x_{1}, x_{4}) = \sum_{n \geq 0} δ^{n} (Ω^{U})_{(x_{1}, x_{4})}^{n}

and

\frac{\partial (Ω^{U})_{(x_{1}, x_{4})}^{n}}{\partial (ω (x_{2}, x_{3}))} = \sum_{k_{1} + k_{2} = n - 1} (Ω^{U})_{(x_{1}, x_{2})}^{k_{1}} (Ω^{U})_{(x_{3}, x_{4})}^{k_{2}}

so that, taking the derivatives term by term in the sum defining

G_{U, δ}^{ω} (x_{1}, x_{4})

, we obtain the result. □ We turn now to the estimation of the transition probabilities:

Proposition 2. For all connected subset

U

Z^{d}

, for all

z_{0}, z \in U

, for all

δ \in] 0, 1 [

and all

i = 1, . . ., 2 d

∙

(\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} α_{k}) > 1

, then

min (0, \frac{α_{i} - 1}{(\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} α_{k}) - 1}) \leq {\hat{ω}}_{U, δ, z_{0}} (z, z + e_{i}) \leq \frac{α_{i}}{(\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} α_{k}) - 1}

∙

(\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} α_{k}) < 1

, then

0 \leq {\hat{ω}}_{U, δ, z_{0}} (z, z + e_{i}) \leq \frac{1 - α_{i}}{1 - (\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} α_{k})}

Proof: For the clarity of notations we give the proof for

i = 1

Lemma 2 yields

\frac{\partial G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z)}{\partial (ω (z, z + e_{i}))} = δ G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z) G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z + e_{i}, z) .

We now apply Lemma 1 with

f = G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z)

, viewed as a function of the only variables

x_{i} : = ω (z, z + e_{i})

for

i = 1, . . ., 2 d

, and we get

E_{μ} [G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z)] = \frac{α_{1} + . . . + α_{2 d}}{α_{1}} E_{μ} [G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z) ω (z, z + e_{1})]

+ \frac{1}{α_{1}} E_{μ} [ω (z, z + e_{1}) . G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z) (δ \sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} ω (z, z + e_{k}) G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z + e_{k}, z) - δ G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z + e_{1}, z))] (1)

We recall that

δ \sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} ω (z, z + e_{k}) G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z + e_{k}, z) = G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z, z) - 1

so that the second term in the right side of (1) writes

\frac{1}{α_{1}} E_{μ} [ω (z, z + e_{1}) . G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z) (G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z, z) - 1 - δ G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z + e_{1}, z))]

so that we get

\begin{matrix} E_{μ} [G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z)] = & \frac{α_{1} + . . . + α_{2 d}}{α_{1}} E_{μ} [G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z) ω (z, z + e_{1})] \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \frac{1}{α_{1}} E_{μ} [ω (z, z + e_{1}) . G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z) (G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z, z) - 1 - δ G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z + e_{1}, z))] \end{matrix}

and for the ratio

{\hat{ω}}_{U, δ, z_{0}} (z, z + e_{1}) = \frac{E_{μ} [ω (z, z + e_{1}) G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z)]}{E_{μ} [G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z)]}

{\hat{ω}}_{U, δ, z_{0}} (z, z + e_{1}) = \frac{α_{1}}{(\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} α_{k}) - 1}

+ \frac{1}{(\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} α_{k}) - 1} \frac{E_{μ} [ω (z, z + e_{1}) . G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z) (G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z, z) - δ G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z + e_{1}, z))]}{E_{μ} [G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z_{0}, z)]} (2)

But,

\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} ω (z, z + e_{k}) (G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z, z) - δ G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z + e_{k}, z)) = 1

and therefore, for all

k = 1, . . ., 2 d

0 \leq G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z, z) - δ G_{U, δ}^{ω} (z + e_{k}, z) \leq \frac{1}{ω (z, z + e_{1})} .

These inequalities allow to bound the ratio in the second term of the right side of (2), between 0 and 1, and this finishes the proof. □

5 Proof of Theorem 1

We gather now all the ingredients of the proof of Theorem 1. We want to apply Sznitman and Zerner's law of large numbers [7] . From a careful reading of the proof of this law of large numbers, we can see that the only conditions that need to be fullfilled, are the integrability of the Green function

G_{U}^{ω} (z_{0}, z_{0})

for all bounded

U

, and Kalikow's condition.

The integrability of the Green function is proved in the following lemma:

Lemma 3. If there exists

i \in {1, . . ., 2 d}

, such that

α_{i} > 1

, then for all connected subset

U

Z^{d}

and all

z_{0} \in U

E_{μ} [G_{U}^{ω} (z_{0}, z_{0})]

is finite.

Proof: For the clarity of notations, we suppose that

α_{1} > 1

Define now by

N

the least integer such that

z_{0} + N e_{1}

belongs to

\partial U

We have the following lower bound for the probability

P (ω, z_{0}, U)

to reach

\partial U

from

z_{0}

without returning to

z_{0}

P (ω, z_{0}, U) \geq^{N - 1} \prod_{k = 0} ω (z_{0} + k e_{1}, z_{0} + (k + 1) e_{1}) .

The number of returns to

z_{0}

before hitting

\partial U

, being a geometric variable whose parameter is precisely

P (ω, z_{0}, U)

, its expectation

G_{U}^{ω} (z_{0}, z_{0})

is equal to

\frac{1}{P (ω, z_{0}, U)}

We are now lead to examine the integrability of

E_{μ} [{(\prod_{k = 0}^{N - 1} ω (z_{0} + k e_{1}, z_{0} + (k + 1) e_{1}))}^{- 1}]

which is equal to

(\int_{T_{2 d}} \frac{1}{x_{1}} d λ^{\vec{α}})^{N}

which is finite since

α_{1} > 1

. □ We now have to check Kalikow's condition.

We notice first that, under the assumption of Theorem 1, Lemma 3 applies and Kalikow's auxiliary walk is well defined. Then, the monotone convergence theorem allows to make

δ

converge to 1 in the inequalities of Proposition 2.

We then deduce that the drift of Kalikow's walk belongs to

{\frac{1}{(\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} α_{k}) - 1}}^{d} \prod_{i = 1} [min (0, α_{e_{i}} - 1) - α_{- e_{i}}, α_{e_{i}} - min (0, α_{- e_{i}} - 1)]

which does not contain 0, under the assumption of Theorem 1. This proves Kalikow's transience condition.

In order to estimate the asymptotic velocity of the process, we apply directly Proposition 3.2 of [4] which makes the link between

v

and the drift of Kalikow's walk.

Remark: in Lemma 3, we only got a sufficient condition for the integrability of the Green function to hold. A better result about this question would not have ameliorated the statement of Theorem 1 as far as our check of Kalikow's condition requires a stronger assumption.

6 Proof of Theorem 2

Theorem 2 of section 2 is actually a consequence of a more precise result, where the

“ O ”

in the expansion is replaced by an explicit upper bound.

Let us fix some notations: we set

γ = \sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} α_{i},

and

m_{i} = m_{e_{i}} = \frac{α_{i}}{γ} = E^{λ^{(α)}} (ω (e_{i})) .

When

γ

is large, the environment

(ω (x, e_{i}))

tends to concentrate around its mean

(m_{i})

, what can be seen from the expression of the correlations

C o v_{μ} (ω (x, x + e_{i}), ω (x, x + e_{j})) = {\begin{matrix} - \frac{m_{i} m_{j}}{γ + 1}, i f i \neq j \\ \frac{m_{i} (1 - \sum_{k \neq i} m_{k})}{γ + 1}, i f i = j, \end{matrix}

The mean environment

(m_{i})

defines the transition probabilities of an homogeneous walk on

Z^{d}

, and we define

k_{m} = 2 \sum_{i = 1}^{d} \sqrt{m_{e_{i}} m_{- e_{i}}},

so that

1 - k_{m} = \sum_{i = 1}^{d} (\sqrt{m_{e_{i}}} - \sqrt{m_{- e_{i}}})^{2},

measures the non-symmetry of the walk. When

k_{m} < 1

, this walk is ballistic with asymptotic velocity

d_{m} = \sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} m_{i} e_{i},

and we denote by

G^{m} (\cdot, \cdot)

its Green function. Let us define

η_{m} = \frac{{max}_{i} \sqrt{\frac{m_{e_{i}}}{m_{- e_{i}}}}}{1 - k_{m}} .

Proposition 3. Assume we are in the condition of application of Theorem 1, and that

\frac{2 d}{γ} η_{m} \leq 1,

then we have the following estimate

| v - d_{m} (1 - \frac{1}{γ - 1} (G^{m} (0, 0) - 1)) | \leq 16 {(\frac{d}{γ})}^{2} \frac{η_{m}^{2}}{1 - \frac{2 d}{γ} η_{m}} .

Proof: Considering the domain

U = Z^{d}

, a killing parameter

δ < 1

and

z_{0} = 0

, we get from formula (2)

{\hat{ω}}_{δ} (z, z + e_{i}) = m_{i} + \frac{m_{i}}{γ - 1} - \frac{1}{γ - 1} \frac{E_{μ} [G_{δ}^{ω} (0, z) ω (z, z + e_{i}) (G_{δ}^{ω} (z, z) - δ G_{δ}^{ω} (z + e_{i}, z))]}{E_{μ} [G_{δ} (0, z)]} .

In the sequel, we will sometimes forget the superscript

ω

G_{δ}^{ω}

, when there will be no ambiguity.

Let us introduce a new probability on the environments

\tilde{μ} (d ω)

given by

\tilde{μ} (d ω) = \frac{G_{δ}^{ω} (0, z)}{E_{μ} (G_{δ}^{ω} (0, z))} μ (d ω) .

We see that

\frac{E_{μ} [G_{δ} (0, z) ω (z, z + e_{i}) (G_{δ} (z, z) - δ G_{δ} (z + e_{i}, z))]}{E_{μ} [G_{δ} (0, z)]} = E_{\tilde{μ}} [(G_{δ} (z, z) - δ G_{δ} (z + e_{i}, z)) ω (z, z + e_{i})] .

We proceed as in [4] , and apply Kalikow's formula (cf. the generalized version in [4] , Proposition 3.1) to the measure

\tilde{μ}

It means that we have

E_{\tilde{μ}} [G_{δ}^{ω} (z, z) ω (z, z + e_{i})] = G_{δ}^{{\tilde{ω}}^{z}} (z, z) {\tilde{ω}}^{z} (z, z + e_{i}),

where

{\tilde{ω}}^{z}

is the auxiliary transition probability given by

{\tilde{ω}}^{z} (y, y + e_{j}) = \frac{E_{\tilde{μ}} [G_{δ}^{ω} (z, y) ω (y, y + e_{j})]}{E_{\tilde{μ}} [G_{δ}^{ω} (z, y)]} .

Similarly,

E_{\tilde{μ}} [G_{δ}^{ω} (z + e_{i}, z) ω (z, z + e_{i})] = G_{δ}^{{\tilde{ω}}^{z + e_{i}}} (z + e_{i}, z) {\tilde{ω}}^{z + e_{i}} (z, z + e_{i}),

where

{\tilde{ω}}^{z + e_{i}}

is the auxiliary transition probability given by

{\tilde{ω}}^{z + e_{i}} (y, y + e_{j}) = \frac{E_{\tilde{μ}} [G_{δ}^{ω} (z + e_{i}, y) ω (y, y + e_{j})]}{E_{\tilde{μ}} [G_{δ}^{ω} (z + e_{i}, y)]} .

Step 1: We want to estimate the transition probabilities

{\tilde{ω}}^{z}

and

{\tilde{ω}}^{z + e_{i}}

Lemma 2 yields

(\frac{\partial}{\partial ω (y, y + e_{k})} - \frac{\partial}{\partial ω (y, y + e_{j})}) G_{δ}^{ω} (\cdot, z) = δ G_{δ}^{ω} (\cdot, y) (G_{δ}^{ω} (y + e_{k}, z) - G_{δ}^{ω} (y + e_{j}, z)),

moreover

\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} ω (y, y + e_{k}) (G_{δ}^{ω} (y, z) - δ G_{δ}^{ω} (y + e_{k}, z)) = 1_{y = z} .

Using the integration by part formula given in Lemma 1, we get

\begin{matrix} m_{e_{j}} E_{μ} [G_{δ} (0, z) G_{δ} (z, y)] = & E_{μ} [G_{δ} (0, z) G_{δ} (z, y) ω (y, y + e_{j})] \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \frac{1}{γ} E_{μ} [G_{δ} (0, y) (G_{δ} (y, z) - δ G_{δ} (y + e_{j}, z) - 1_{y = z}) G_{δ} (z, y) ω (y, y + e_{j})] \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \frac{1}{γ} E_{μ} [G_{δ} (0, z) G_{δ} (z, y) (G_{δ} (y, y) - δ G_{δ} (y + e_{j}, y) - 1) ω (y, y + e_{j})] \end{matrix}

But we have

0 \leq ω (y, y + e_{j}) (G_{δ} (y, y) - δ G_{δ} (y + e_{j}, y)) \leq 1, (3)

and if

y \neq z

| G_{δ} (0, y) ω (y, y + e_{j}) (G_{δ} (y, z) - δ G_{δ} (y + e_{j}, z)) | \leq (2 d - 1) G_{δ} (0, z) . (4)

Indeed, for all

k = 1, \dots, 2 d

, we have

G_{δ}^{ω} (y + e_{k}, z) \geq E_{y + e_{k}}^{ω} [δ^{T_{y}}] G_{δ}^{ω} (y, z),

where

T_{y}

is the hitting time of

y

(equal to infinity if the random walk never hits

y

Since

\frac{1}{1 - δ \sum_{k} ω (y, y + e_{k}) E_{y + e_{k}}^{ω} [δ^{T_{y}}]} = G_{δ}^{ω} (y, y),

we get

ω (y, y + e_{k}) (G_{δ}^{ω} (y, z) - δ G_{δ}^{ω} (y + e_{k}, z)) \leq \frac{G_{δ}^{ω} (y, z)}{G_{δ}^{ω} (y, y)} .

But, we also have

\sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} ω (y, y + e_{k}) (G_{δ}^{ω} (y, z) - δ G_{δ}^{ω} (y + e_{k}, z)) = 0, i f y \neq z,

so that we have

| ω (y, y + e_{j}) (G_{δ}^{ω} (y, z) - δ G_{δ}^{ω} (y + e_{j}, z)) | \leq (2 d - 1) \frac{G_{δ}^{ω} (y, z)}{G_{δ}^{ω} (y, y)},

which immediately implies the estimate (4).

The inequalities (3) and (4) imply that

| m_{e_{j}} E_{μ} [G_{δ} (0, z) G_{δ} (z, y)] - E_{μ} [G_{δ} (0, z) G_{δ} (z, y) ω (y, y + e_{j})] | \leq \frac{2 d}{γ} E_{μ} [G_{δ} (0, z) G_{δ} (z, y)] .

This gives the following estimate for

{\tilde{ω}}^{z}

| m_{e_{j}} - {\tilde{ω}}^{z} (y, y + e_{j}) | \leq \frac{2 d}{γ} .

The same procedure gives the same estimate for

{\tilde{ω}}^{z + e_{i}}

Hence, we see that

E_{\tilde{μ}} [G_{δ}^{ω} (z, z) ω (z, z + e_{i})] = G_{δ}^{m + Δ m} (z, z) (m_{i} + Δ m (z, z + e_{i})),

where

Δ m (z, z + e_{i})

is a correction to the homogeneous transition probability

(m_{i})

uniformly bounded by

| Δ m | \leq \frac{2 d}{γ} .

The same reasoning holds for

E_{\tilde{μ}} [G_{δ}^{ω} (z + e_{i}, z) ω (z, z + e_{i})] = G_{δ}^{m + Δ m} (z + e_{i}, z) (m_{i} + Δ m (z, z + e_{i})),

even if the correction term

Δ m

is not the same.

Step 2: We compare now the Green function

G_{δ}^{m + Δ m}

with

G_{δ}^{m}

This is done in [4] , but we reproduce the main lines of the proof, since we want to obtain explicit bounds. We first introduce the symmetrizing function

φ^{m} (z) =^{d} \prod_{i = 1} {\sqrt{\frac{m_{e_{i}}}{m_{- e_{i}}}}}^{z_{i}} .

The Green function

G_{δ}^{m}

is transformed into

G_{δ}^{m} = M_{φ}^{- 1} G_{δ k_{m}}^{s} M_{φ}, (5)

where

M_{φ}

is the operator of multiplication by

φ

, and

G_{δ k_{m}}^{s}

is the Green function of the symmetric random walk with transition probability

s_{e_{i}} = s_{- e_{i}} = \frac{\sqrt{m_{e_{i}} m_{- e_{i}}}}{2 \sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} \sqrt{m_{e_{k}} m_{- e_{k}}}}, i = 1, \dots, d,

with killing rates

δ k_{m}

where

k_{m} = 2 \sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} \sqrt{m_{e_{k}} m_{- e_{k}}} .

We refer to Step 2 of the proof of Lemma 4.3 in [4] for precisions about this fact.

Hence, we see that

\sum_{y} G_{δ k}^{s} (0, y) \leq \frac{1}{1 - δ k_{m}},

which means that

∥ G_{δ k}^{s} ∥_{\infty} \leq \frac{1}{1 - δ k_{m}} .

We also have

G_{δ}^{m + Δ m} - G_{δ}^{m} = - G_{δ}^{m} (I - (I - δ Δ P_{m} G_{δ}^{m})^{- 1}),

where

Δ P_{m}

is the matrix

(Δ P_{m})_{x, x + e_{i}} = Δ m (x, x + e_{i})

(and null anywhere else).

Thus, we get

G_{δ}^{m + Δ m} - G_{δ}^{m} = δ M_{φ}^{- 1} G_{δ k_{m}}^{s} M_{φ} Δ P_{m} M_{φ}^{- 1} G_{δ k_{m}}^{s} {(I - δ M_{φ} Δ P_{m} M_{φ}^{- 1} G_{δ k_{m}}^{s})}^{- 1} M_{φ},

but

∥ M_{φ} Δ P_{m} M_{φ}^{- 1} ∥_{\infty} \leq ({max}_{i} φ (e_{i})) \frac{2 d}{γ}

so that we get

(G_{δ}^{m + Δ m} - G_{δ}^{m}) (x, y) \leq φ (y - x) \frac{2 d}{γ} \frac{1}{1 - k_{m}} η_{m} \frac{1}{1 - \frac{2 d}{γ} η_{m}},

and

G_{δ}^{m + Δ m} (x, y) \leq φ (y - x) \frac{1}{1 - k_{m}} \frac{1}{1 - \frac{2 d}{γ} η_{m}} .

This implies that, for all

i \in {1, . . ., 2 d}

| {\hat{ω}}_{δ} (z, z + e_{i}) - m_{i} + \frac{m_{i}}{γ - 1} (G_{δ}^{m} (0, 0) - G_{δ}^{m} (e_{i}, 0) - 1) |

\begin{matrix} \leq \frac{1}{γ - 1} (2 \frac{2 d}{γ} η_{m}^{2} \frac{1}{1 - \frac{2 d}{γ} η_{m}} + 2 \frac{2 d}{γ} η_{m} \frac{1}{1 - \frac{2 d}{γ} η_{m}}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq 8 \frac{d}{γ^{2}} \frac{η_{m}^{2}}{1 - \frac{2 d}{γ} η_{m}} (6) \end{matrix}

(we used here

η_{m} \geq 1

The sum

\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} (m_{i} - \frac{m_{i}}{γ - 1} (G_{δ}^{m} (0, 0) - G_{δ}^{m} (e_{i}, 0) - 1)) . e_{i}

tends to

d_{m} (1 - \frac{1}{γ - 1} (G^{m} (0, 0) - 1))

when

δ

tends to 1. Indeed, the sum

\sum_{i = 1}^{2 d} m_{i} G^{m} (e_{i}, 0) . e_{i}

cancels, due to the fact that for each

i \in {1, . . ., d}

m_{e_{i}} G^{m} (e_{i}, 0)

and

m_{- e_{i}} G^{m} (- e_{i}, 0)

are both equal to the common value

\sqrt{m_{e_{i}} m_{- e_{i}}} G_{k}^{s} (e_{i}, 0)

(cf formula (5)).

The triangular inequality combined with the

2 d

inequalities (6) gives that, for all

z

{limsup}_{δ \to 1} ∥ d_{{\hat{ω}}_{δ}} (z) - d_{m} (1 - \frac{1}{γ - 1} (G^{m} (0, 0) - 1)) ∥ \leq 16 {(\frac{d}{γ})}^{2} \frac{η_{m}^{2}}{1 - \frac{2 d}{γ} η_{m}},

where

d_{{\hat{ω}}_{δ}} (z) = \sum_{k = 1}^{2 d} \hat{ω} (z, z + e_{k}) e_{k}

is the local drift of the transition probability

{\hat{ω}}_{δ}

. Proposition 3.2 of [4] allows to conclude. □ References

Comets, F., Zeitouni, O., A law of large numbers for random walks in random mixing environments. Ann. Probab. 32 (2004), no. 1B, 880–914.
Enriquez, N., Sabot, C., Edge oriented reinforced random walks and RWRE. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 335 (2002), no. 11, 941–946.
Kalikow, S., Generalized random walk in a random environment. Ann. Probab. 9 (1981), no. 5, 753–768.
Sabot, C., Ballistic random walks in random environment at low disorder. Ann. Probab. 32 (2004), no. 4, 2996–3023.
Solomon, F., Random walks in a random environment. Ann. Probability 3 (1975), 1–31.
Sznitman, A-S., Slowdown estimates and central limit theorem for random walks in random environment. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 2 (2000), no. 2, 93–143.
Sznitman, A-S., Zerner, M., A law of large numbers for random walks in random environment. Ann. Probab. 27 (1999), no. 4, 1851–1869.
Zeitouni, O., Random walks in random environment. Lectures on probability theory and statistics, 189–312, Lecture Notes in Math., 1837, Springer, Berlin, 2004.

Laboratoire de Probabilites de Paris 6, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05 E-mail address : enriquez@ccr.jussieu.fr Unite de Mathematiques Pures et Appliquees, 46, Allee d'Italie F-69364 Lyon Cedex 07 E-mail address : christophe.sabot@umpa.ens-lyon.fr

Nathanaël ENRIQUEZ

Christophe Sabot