Adapters for paper contour conventions #
The library contour uses duration 2(ζ - 1), while the paper uses duration
2ζ and sets the contour to zero after its tree has been explored. This
module proves the time-change and law-transfer bounds between these conventions,
measurability for random finite trees, and the divisor estimates from Remark 5.10.
The paper convention is that of I. Kortchemski, Invariance principles for Galton–Watson trees
conditioned on the number of leaves (arXiv:1110.2163), with the contour C_{2ζ s}; see also
J.-F. Le Gall, Random trees and applications (2005), §1. These adapters serve item C38 of
CLASSICAL_THEORY_INPUTS.md.
The time change s ↦ min 1 (s ζ/(ζ-1)) turning the library's time scale 2(ζ-1) into the
paper's 2ζ (for the singleton tree the factor is 0, harmless since the contour is 0).
Equations
- t.paperTimeChange = { toFun := fun (s : ↑unitInterval) => Set.projIcc 0 1 BGW.PlaneTree.paperTimeChange._proof_2 (↑s * (↑t.size / ↑(t.size - 1))), continuous_toFun := ⋯ }
Instances For
The contour in the paper's time convention, s ↦ C_{2ζ s}.
Equations
Instances For
The time change moves points by at most 1/ζ.
The paper contour vanishes on the last 1/ζ of the time interval.
Deterministic uniform bound: if the divided library contour has oscillation ≤ ε at
scale 1/ζ, the two conventions are ε-close after division by b.
Deterministic form with the modulus of continuity of an arbitrary compact set K of
limit-candidate contours: on K, scaled contours with 1/ζ ≤ δ are ε-close in the two
conventions.
Symmetric form: the same bound when the paper contour lies in the compact set; used by the transfer from the paper convention to the library convention.
Law-level transfer, library convention → paper convention: if the tree sizes tend to
infinity in probability and the divided library contours converge in law to ν, so do the
divided paper contours. (The converse, with the roles exchanged, holds by the same proof.)
Law-level transfer, paper convention → library convention: the form consumed by
tendsto_rooted_laws_of_contour when the contour input is stated as in the paper.
The size-divergence hypothesis follows from the divisor-to-size tails of
tendsto_rooted_laws_of_contour once the divisor tends to infinity.
measurability hypotheses hF, hG #
PlaneTree is countable and carries no global MeasurableSpace; random trees are measurable
for the explicit ⊤ σ-algebra, equivalently when every fibre t ⁻¹' {τ} is measurable.
Measurability for ⊤ on PlaneTree is measurability of the fibres of singletons.
Any function of a ⊤-measurable random tree is measurable (so hF, hG hold for every
tree observable).
Hypothesis hG of tendsto_rooted_laws_of_contour.
Hypothesis hG in the paper's time convention.
Hypothesis hF of tendsto_rooted_laws_of_contour.
the deterministic divisor of Remark 5.10 #
N n is the (deterministic) number of leaves, B n the stable normalizer, μ₀ > 0 the offspring
mean parameter of the paper, θ > 0 the stability index; b n = N n / (μ₀^(1-1/θ) B n).
The divisor tends to infinity when B n = o(N n).
The ratio hypothesis of tendsto_rooted_laws_of_contour for the divisor of Remark 5.10:
if B n → ∞ and the number of vertices is at least c N n with probability tending to one for
each c < 1/μ₀ (law of large numbers for the vertex/leaf ratio), then
P(r < b_n/ζ_n) → 0 for every r > 0, because b_n/ζ ≈ μ₀^{1/θ}/B_n.