We have just finished discussing chapters 11 and 12 of Markov Chains and Mixing Times, the end of the ‘core material’. I thought that, rather than addressing some of the more interesting but technical spectral methods that have just arisen, it would be a good subject for a quick post to collate some of the information about Cesaro mixing, which is spread throughout this first section.

**Idea**

A main result in the introductory theory of Markov chains is that for an irreducible aperiodic chain X, the distribution of , the (unique) equilibrium distribution. The mixing time gives the rate at which this first mode of convergence takes place. We have freedom over the initial state, so we typically consider the ‘worst case scenario’, ie the slowest convergence. The most appropriate metric is given by the total variation distance, which is defined in previous posts. The most important point to note is that the mixing time should be thought of as the correct *timescale* for convergence, rather than some threshold. In particular, the time at which the chain is within 1/4 of the equilibrium distribution in the TV metric has the same order magnitude (in n, some parameter controlling the number of states) as the time at which it is within 1/20 of the equilibrium distribution.

But this isn’t the only result about convergence in distribution of functionals of Markov chains. Perhaps more intuitive is the ergodic theorem which asserts that the proportion of time spent in a particular state also converges to the equilibrium probability as time advances. We might write:

Note that if the state space is finite, then we can also assume that this occurs uniformly in x. We can also think of the LHS of this convergence as a measure on varying in time

and the mixing time for this sequence of measures is defined as for the conventional mixing time, and is called the *Cesaro mixing time*, at least in the Levin / Peres / Wilmer text.

**Advantages**

There are some obvious advantages to considering Cesaro mixing. Principally, a main drawback of conventional mixing is that we are unable to consider periodic chains. This property was the main content of the previous post, but to summarise, if a chain switches between various classes in a partition of the state space in a deterministic periodic way, then the distribution does not necessarily converge to equilibrium. The previous post discusses several ways of resolving this problem in specific cases. Note that this problem does not affect Cesaro mixing as the ergodic theorem continues to hold in the periodic case. Indeed the form of the distribution (which we might call an occupation measure in some contexts) confirms the intuition about viewing global mixing as a sort of sum over mixing modulo k in time.

Other advantages include the fact that the dependence on the initial state is weaker. For instance, consider the occupation measures for a chain started at x which moves first to y, versus a chain which starts at y then proceeds as the original. It requires very little thought to see that for O(1) values of t, this difference in occupation measures between these chains becomes small.

Another bonus is that we can use so-called *stationary times* to control Cesaro mixing. A stationary time is a stopping time such that . It is clear that if we wait until , then run the chain for a further , the chain will have spent of its duration in the equilibrium distribution, and so using Markov’s inequality and bounding the total variation distance between occupation measure and by 1 up until the stationary time, we can get good bounds for the Cesaro mixing time in terms of .

Why does this fail to work for normal mixing? The key to the above argument was that by taking an average over time up to some , the dependence on the actual value of was suppressed. Consider the deterministic walk on the cycle , which advances by 1 modulo n on each go. Now sample independently a random variable Z distributed uniformly on . By definition, the random hitting time is a stationary time, but in fact the chain’s distribution does not converge. The condition we actually require for normal mixing is that be a *strong stationary time*, meaning that , and the value of is independent of . With this definition we can proceed with a similar result for normal mixing. An example of a strong stationary time would be for shuffling a pack of cards by repeatedly inserting the top card into a random place in the rest of the pile. Then consider the moment at which the original bottom card first reaches the top of the pile. It does not take too much to reassure oneself that after the next move, we have a strong stationary time, since every card has been randomised at least once, and the position of the other cards is independent of how long it took the original bottom card to rise to the top.

**Disadvantages**

So why do we not consider Cesaro mixing rather than the conventional variety? Well, mainly because of how we actually use mixing times. The Metropolis algorithm gives a way to generate chains with a particular equilibrium distribution, including ones for which it is hard to sample directly. Mixing time theory then gives a quantitative answer to the question of how long it is necessary to run such a chain for before it gives a good estimate to the equilibrium distribution. In many cases, such a random walk on a large unknown network, the main aim when applying such Monte Carlo procedures is to minimise the difficulty of calculation. For Cesaro mixing, you have to store all the information about path states, while for conventional mixing you only care about your current location.

The other phenomenon that is lacking in Cesaro mixing is *cutoff*. This is where the total variation distance

converges to 0 suddenly. More formally, there is some timescale f(n) such that

so in the n-limit, the graph of d looks like a step-function. Several of the shuffling chains exhibit this property, leading to the statements like “7 shuffles are required to mix a standard pack of cards”. Cesaro mixing smooths out this effect on an f(n) timescale.

**A Further Example
**

Perhaps the best example where Cesaro mixing happens faster than normal mixing is in the case of a lazy biased random walk on . (Ex. 4.10 in MTMC) Here, we stay put with probability 1/2, otherwise move clockwise with probability p>1/4 and counter-clockwise with probability 1/2 – p < 1/4. This chain is not reversible, as we can determine the direction (or arrow) of time by examining a path. Roughly speaking, the chain will drift clockwise at rate 2p – 1/2 > 0. In particular, at some time Kn, where K is large, we would expect to have completed ~ circuits of the vertices, and so the occupation measure will be close to the uniform equilibrium distribution if we choose K large enough.

On the other hand, the distribution of X at time Kn is still fairly concentrated. If we assume we are instead performing the random walk on , the distribution after Kn i.i.d. increments is

That is, the standard deviation is . So, even once we return to considering the random walk on the cyclic group, if we view it as a circle, we expect most of the probability mass to be concentrated near . By an identical heuristic argument, we see that the mixing time is achieved when the variance has order n, that is when time has order .

###### Related articles

- Mixing Times 4 – Avoiding Periodicity (eventuallyalmosteverywhere.wordpress.com)
- Mixing Times 2 – Metropolis Chains (eventuallyalmosteverywhere.wordpress.com)
- A randomized algorithm that fails with near certainty (win-vector.com)

Pingback: Mixing Times 6 – Aldous-Broder Algorithm and Cover Times | Eventually Almost Everywhere

Pingback: Mixing Times 6 – Aldous-Broder Algorithm and Cover Times | Eventually Almost Everywhere

Pingback: The Top-to-Random Shuffle III | Eventually Almost Everywhere

Pingback: Mixing of the Noisy Voter Model | Eventually Almost Everywhere

Pingback: Random transpositions | Eventually Almost Everywhere