This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

The convergence and uniqueness of a discrete-time nonlinear Markov chain

Ruowei Li and Florentin Münch Ruowei Li: School of Mathematical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China; Shanghai Center for Mathematical Sciences, Jiangwan Campus, Fudan University, No. 2005 Songhu Road, Shanghai 200438, China; Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, Leipzig 04103, Germany. rwli19@fudan.edu.cn Florentin Münch: Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, Leipzig 04103, Germany cfmuench@gmail.com
Abstract.

In this paper, we prove the convergence and uniqueness of a general discrete-time nonlinear Markov chain with specific conditions. The results have important applications in discrete differential geometry. First, on a general finite weighted graph, we prove the discrete-time Ollivier Ricci curvature flow dn+1(1ακdn)dnd_{n+1}\coloneqq(1-\alpha\kappa_{d_{n}})d_{n} converges to a constant curvature metric. Then the author in [34, Theorem 5.1] proved a Laplacian separation principle on a locally finite graph with non-negative Ollivier curvature. Here we prove the Laplacian separation flow converges to the constant Laplacian solution and generalize the result to nonlinear pp-Laplace operators. Moreover, our results can also be applied to study the long-time behavior in the nonlinear Dirichlet forms theory and nonlinear Perron–Frobenius theory. At last, we define the Ollivier Ricci curvature of nonlinear Markov chain which is consistent with the classical Ollivier Ricci curvature, sectional curvature [5], coarse Ricci curvature on hypergraphs [17] and the modified Ollivier Ricci curvature for pp-Laplace. And we prove the convergence results for the nonlinear Markov chain with nonnegative Ollivier Ricci curvature.

1. Introduction

A nonlinear Markov chain, introduced by McKean [28] to tackle mechanical transport problems, is a discrete space dynamical system generated by a measure-valued operator with the specific feature of preserving positivity. Compared with the linear Markov chain, its transition probability is dependent not only on the state but also on the distribution of the process.

It is quite fundamental to understand the long-time behavior of Markov chains. A classical result is that an irreducible lazy linear Markov chain converges to its unique stationary distribution in the total variation distance [23, 44]. For the nonlinear case, Kolokoltsov [21] and BA Neumann [36] study the long-term behavior of nonlinear Markov chains defined on probability simplex whose transition probabilities are a family of stochastic matrices. Long-term results exist for specific continuous-time Markov chains associated with pressure and resistance games [22] and ergodicity criteria for discrete-time Markov processes [4, 42]. This paper establishes convergence and uniqueness results for a general discrete-time nonlinear Markov chain P:ΩΩP:\Omega\to\Omega under some of the following specific conditions:

  • Conditions on domain

    • (A) ΩN\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{N} is closed.

    • (B) Ω+r(1,,1)=Ω\Omega+r\cdot(1,\ldots,1)=\Omega for all rr\in\mathbb{R}.

  • Basic properties

    • Monotonicity

      • *

        (1) Monotonicity: PfPgPf\geq Pg if fgf\geq g.

      • *

        (2) Strict monotonicity: Pf(x)>Pg(x)Pf(x)>Pg(x) if fgf\geq g and f(x)>g(x)f(x)>g(x) for some xx.

      • *

        (3) Uniform strict monotonicity: PfPg+ϵ0(fg)Pf\geq Pg+\epsilon_{0}(f-g), if fgf\geq g for some fixed positive ϵ0\epsilon_{0}.

    • Additivity

      • *

        (4) Constant additivity: P(f+C)=Pf+CP(f+C)=Pf+C, where CC is a constant.

    • Non-expansion

      • *

        (5) Non-expansion: PfPgfg\left\|Pf-Pg\right\|_{\infty}\leq\left\|f-g\right\|_{\infty} for all f,gΩf,g\in\Omega.

  • Connectedness

    • (6) Connectedness: there exists n0+n_{0}\in\mathbb{N}_{+} such that for every point x,x, and f,gΩf,g\in\Omega with fgf\geq g and f(x)>g(x)f(x)>g(x), we have Pn0f>Pn0gP^{n_{0}}f>P^{n_{0}}g, (i.e., strict inequality everywhere).

    • (7) Uniform connectedness: there exists n0+n_{0}\in\mathbb{N}_{+}, positive ϵ0\epsilon_{0} such that for every point x,x, positive δ\delta and f,gNf,g\in\mathbb{R}^{N} with fg+δ1xf\geq g+\delta\cdot 1_{x}, we have Pn0fPn0g+ϵ0δP^{n_{0}}f\geq P^{n_{0}}g+\epsilon_{0}\delta.

  • Accumulation points

    • (8) Accumulation point at infinity: fnPnfPnf(x0)f_{n}\coloneqq P^{n}f-P^{n}f(x_{0}) has a finite accumulation point gg, i.e. for every n+n\in\mathbb{N}_{+} and positive ϵ\epsilon, there exists N>nN>n such that fNg<ϵ\left\|f_{N}-g\right\|_{\infty}<\epsilon.

    • (9) Finite accumulation point: PnfP^{n}f has a finite accumulation point gg.

Definition 1.

A discrete-time nonlinear Markov chain P:ΩΩP:\Omega\to\Omega is a map satisfying monotonicity (1) and non-expansion (5) where Ω\Omega satisfies (A) and (B).

In the theorems, we always reiterate the assumptions (1) and (5), even though the conditions are implicitly given by the definition.

Remark 1.

(a) For a linear Markov chain, strict monotonicity (2) implies that PP is lazy, which means it will remain in the same state with positive probabilities.

(b) Uniform strict monotonicity (3) is stronger than monotonicity (1) and strict monotonicity (2), which means that (3) implies (1) and (2).

(c) Since fg+fgf\leq g+\left\|f-g\right\|_{\infty} for every ff and gg, monotonicity (1) and constant additivity (4) imply the non-expansion condition (5), which is more natural for nonlinear operators.

(d) A linear Markov chain is called irreducible if for every x,yx,y there exists some nn such that its kernel Pn(x,y)>0P^{n}(x,y)>0, i.e. every state can be reached from every other state. Saying a discrete Markov chain defined on a graph is irreducible is the same as saying the graph is connected, which is crucial to the uniqueness of the stationary distribution. And (6) is a nonlinear version of the connectedness condition. Moreover, note that Pn0P^{n_{0}} also satisfies the strict monotonicity (2).

(e) The assumption of a finite accumulation point for fnf_{n} (8) is weaker than (9), which allows for cases that PnfP^{n}f goes to infinity at all vertices. Moreover, the assumption (8) is necessary. In subsection 2.2, we provide a counterexample demonstrating that Pnf(y)Pnf(x)P^{n}f(y)-P^{n}f(x) does not converge, even within the interval [,]\left[-\infty,\infty\right], without the finite assumption (8).

(f) Consider a Markov chain QQ with absorbing states and maximal eigenvalue 0<λ<10<\lambda<1, i.e., Qf=λfQf=\lambda f. Defining PflogQ(expf)Pf\coloneqq\text{log}Q\left(\text{exp}f\right), we have P(f+c)=logQ(exp(f+c))=c+PfP(f+c)=\text{log}Q\left(\text{exp}\left(f+c\right)\right)=c+Pf for all constant cc. Then Plogf=logλ+logfP\text{log}f=\text{log}\lambda+\text{log}f, that is, nonlinear Markov chain PP exhibits linear growth by the constant logλ\text{log}\lambda.

We now present our main theorems. We remark that in the theorems, we can also replace N\mathbb{R}^{N} by Ω\Omega satisfying (A) and (B). We mainly apply Theorem 2 to applications.

Theorem 1.

If a discrete-time nonlinear Markov chain P:NNP:\mathbb{R}^{N}\to\mathbb{R}^{N} satisfies

(1) monotonicity,

(2) strict monotonicity,

(5) non-expansion,

(9) PnfP^{n}f has a finite accumulation point gg,

then Pg=gPg=g and PnfgP^{n}f\to g as nn\to\infty.

Then we give the second convergence result.

Theorem 2.

If a discrete-time nonlinear Markov chain P:NNP:\mathbb{R}^{N}\to\mathbb{R}^{N} satisfies

(1) monotonicity,

(2) strict monotonicity,

(4) constant additivity,

(8) accumulation point at infinity, i.e., fnPnfPnf(x0)f_{n}\coloneqq P^{n}f-P^{n}f(x_{0}) has a finite accumulation point gg, then fngf_{n}\to g as nn\to\infty. Moreover, if PP also satisfies

(6) connectedness,

then the convergence limit is unique, i.e., for another sequence fn~\tilde{f_{n}} with finite accumulation point g~\tilde{g}, we have limnf~n=g~=g=limnfn\underset{n\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\tilde{f}_{n}=\tilde{g}=g=\underset{n\to\infty}{\text{lim}}f_{n}.

Next, we give another convergence result.

Theorem 3.

If a discrete-time nonlinear Markov chain P:NNP:\mathbb{R}^{N}\to\mathbb{R}^{N} satisfies

(5) non-expansion,

(7) uniform connectedness,

(8) accumulation point at infinity, i.e., fnPnfPnf(x0)f_{n}\coloneqq P^{n}f-P^{n}f(x_{0}) has a finite accumulation point gg, then fngf_{n}\to g as nn\to\infty and the limit is unique.

Remark 2.

Theorem 1 proves the convergence of nonlinear Markov chains under the assumption of finite accumulation points (9). But Theorem 2 and Theorem 3 include the case of accumulation points at infinity (8), that is, PnfP^{n}f goes to infinity at all vertices. While Theorem 2 needs a stronger constant additivity condition (4), Theorem 3 needs a stronger uniform connectedness condition (7).

The convergence results have important applications in discrete differential geometry which has become a hot research subject in the last decade. Since Ricci curvature is a fundamental concept in Riemannian Geometry [18], various different discrete analogs on graphs [10, 20, 26, 30, 39, 40, 43, 25, 11] have attracted notable interest. Among them, the idea of discrete Ollivier Ricci curvature κ(x,y)=1W(μx,μy)d(x,y)\kappa(x,y)=1-\frac{W(\mu_{x},\mu_{y})}{d(x,y)} is based on the Wasserstein distance WW between probability measures μx,μy\mu_{x},\mu_{y} which are defined on the one-step neighborhood of vertices x,yx,y [39, 40]. Lin, Lu, and Yau [25] modified this notion to a limit version that is better suited for graphs:

(1.1) κLLY(x,y)=limα0κα(x,y)1α\kappa_{LLY}(x,y)=\underset{\alpha\to 0}{\text{lim}}\frac{\kappa^{\alpha}(x,y)}{1-\alpha}

and κα(x,y)=1W(μxα,μyα)d(x,y)\kappa^{\alpha}(x,y)=1-\frac{W(\mu_{x}^{\alpha},\mu_{y}^{\alpha})}{d(x,y)}, where 0αmax 𝑥deg(x)0\leq\alpha\leq\underset{x}{\text{max }}deg(x), the probability distribution μxα\mu_{x}^{\alpha} assigns amount 1αyxw(x,y)m(x)1-\alpha\sum_{y\sim x}\frac{w(x,y)}{m(x)} at vertex xx and amount αw(x,z)m(x)\alpha\frac{w(x,z)}{m(x)} to all its neighbors zz.

Ricci flow as a powerful method can also be applied to discrete geometry and has drawn significant interest recently. Ollivier [39] suggested defining the continuous time Ricci flow by deforming weights. Ni et al. in [38] define a discrete-time Ricci flow. Bai et al. in [1] adopt Lin-Lu-Yau’s Ollivier Ricci curvature [25] to define a continuous-time Ricci flow and obtain several convergence results on path and star graphs. The authors in [13, 12] introduce a discrete uniformization theorem for polyhedral surfaces and obtain a metric with given curvature using a discrete Yamabe flow. The authors in [38] claim good community detection on networks using discrete Ricci flow. The authors in [7] establish a new algorithm to find circle packings by discrete Ricci flow.

The difficulties of studying the long-time behavior of the Ricci flow are the nonlinearity and accumulation points are not unique. In this paper, we consider the discrete Ricci flow in [38] and study its long-time behavior in the following process. Consider a general finite weighted graph G=(V,E,w,m,d)G=(V,E,w,m,d) with deg(x)1deg(x)\leq 1 for all xVx\in V. For an initial metric d0d_{0}, fix some CC as the deletion threshold such that C>maxxyzd0(x,y)d0(y,z)C>\underset{x\sim y\sim z}{\max}\frac{d_{0}(x,y)}{d_{0}(y,z)}. Define a discrete time Ollivier Ricci curvature flow by deforming the metric as

(1.2) dn+1(x,y)dn(x,y)ακdn(x,y)dn(x,y), if xy,d_{n+1}(x,y)\coloneqq d_{n}(x,y)-\alpha\kappa_{d_{n}}(x,y)d_{n}(x,y),\text{ if }x\sim y,

where κdn\kappa_{d_{n}} is the Ollivier Ricci curvature corresponding to dnd_{n}. After each Ricci flow step, we do a potential edge deletion step. If xyzx\sim y\sim z and dn+1(x,y)>Cdn+1(y,z)d_{n+1}(x,y)>Cd_{n+1}(y,z), then update the graph by deleting edges xyx\sim y from EE, starting with the longest edge. Let

dn+1(x,y)=inf{i[=1]kdn(xi1,xi):x=x0x1xk=y}, if xy.d_{n+1}(x,y)=\underset{}{\text{inf}}\left\{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{k}{\sum}d_{n}(x_{i-1},x_{i}):x=x_{0}\sim x_{1}\cdots\sim x_{k}=y\right\},\text{ if }x\nsim y.

Since the graph GG is finite and the graph of a single edge can not be deleted, denote the new graph as G~\tilde{G} after the last edge deletion. Then on each connected component of G~\tilde{G}, the distance ratios are bounded in nn, and hence, logdn\text{log}d_{n} has an accumulation point at infinity. Considering the Ricci flow (1.2) as a nonlinear Markov chain on each connected component of G~\tilde{G}, by Theorem 2 we can prove that (1.2) converges to a constant curvature metric.

Theorem 4.

For an initial metric d0d_{0} of a finite weighted graph G=(V,w,m,d)G=(V,w,m,d) with deg(x)1deg(x)\leq 1 for all xVx\in V, by the discrete Ollivier Ricci curvature flow process defined above, then dn(e)max dn(e)\frac{d_{n}(e)}{\text{max }d_{n}(e^{\prime})} converges to a metric with constant curvature on every connected component of the final graph G~\tilde{G}, where the max is taken over all ee^{\prime} in the same connected component as ee on G~\tilde{G}.

Remark 3.

In [37], Ni, Lin, Gao and Gu presented a framework to endow a graph with a novel metric through the notion of discrete Ricci flow with an application to network alignment. From the experimental results, they found that the graph Ricci curvature converges through the discrete Ricci flow and mentioned a theoretic proof of the observation was still open. Theorem 4 solved this open problem.

For another application, the author in [15, 34] consider a locally finite graph G=(V,E,w,m,d)G=(V,E,w,m,d) with a non-negative Ollivier curvature, where V=XKYV=X\cup K\cup Y, KK is finite and E(X,Y)=E(X,Y)=\emptyset, that is, there are no edges between XX and YY. They want to find a function with a constant gradient on XYX\cup Y, minimal on XX and maximal on YY, and the Laplacian of ff should be constant on KK. By non-negative Ollivier curvature, it will follow that the cut set KK separates the Laplacian Δf\Delta f, i.e., ΔfXconst.ΔfY\Delta f\mid_{X}\geq\text{const.}\geq\Delta f\mid_{Y}, which is a Laplacian separation principle [34, Theorem 5.1]. The result is crucial for proving an isoperimetric concentration inequality for Markov chains with non-negative Ollivier curvature [34], a discrete Cheeger-Gromoll splitting theorem [15], and a discrete positive mass theorem [16]. Here we prove a natural parabolic flow converging to the solution ff. Now we give the details about the Laplacian separation flow. First define an extremal 1-Lipschitz extension operator S:KVS:\mathbb{R}^{K}\to\mathbb{R}^{V},

Sf(x){f(x):minyK(f(y)+d(x,y)):maxyK(f(y)d(x,y)):xK,xY,xX.Sf(x)\coloneqq\begin{cases}\begin{array}[]{c}f(x):\\ \underset{y\in K}{\text{min}}\left(f(y)+d(x,y)\right):\\ \underset{y\in K}{\text{max}}\left(f(y)-d(x,y)\right):\end{array}&\begin{array}[]{c}x\in K,\\ x\in Y,\\ x\in X.\end{array}\end{cases}

Let Lip(1,K){fK:f(y)f(x)d(x,y),for all x,yK}Lip(1,K)\coloneqq{\left\{f\in\mathbb{R}^{K}:f(y)-f(x)\leq d(x,y),\text{for all }x,y\in K\right\}}, where dd is the graph distance on GG. Then S(Lip(1,K))S(Lip(1,K))Lip(1,V)\subseteq Lip(1,V). In [15], it is proven via elliptic methods that there exists some gg with ΔSg=const\Delta Sg=\text{const}. Here we give the parabolic flow (id+ϵΔ)S(id+\epsilon\Delta)S, and show that this converges to the constant Laplacian solution, assuming non-negative Ollivier Ricci curvature.

Theorem 5.

For a locally finite graph GG with non-negative Ollivier curvature, let x0Vx_{0}\in V and P((id+ϵΔ)S)KP\coloneqq\left((id+\epsilon\Delta)S\right)\mid_{K}, where ϵ\epsilon is small enough such that diag(id+ϵΔ)\text{diag}(id+\epsilon\Delta) is positive. Then for all fLip(1,K)f\in Lip(1,K), there exists gLip(1,K)g\in Lip(1,K) such that PnfPnf(x0)P^{n}f-P^{n}f(x_{0}) converges to gg and ΔSgconst\Delta Sg\equiv\text{const} on KK.

Then we want to generalize the result to other nonlinear operators, such as the pp-Laplace operator, which can be defined as the subdifferential of the energy functional

p(f)=12x,yVw(x,y)m(x)xyfp.\mathscr{E}_{p}(f)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{x,y\in V}{\sum}\frac{w(x,y)}{m(x)}\mid\nabla_{xy}f\mid^{p}.

More explicitly, the pp-Laplace operator Δp:VV\Delta_{p}:\mathbb{R}^{V}\to\mathbb{R}^{V} is given by

Δpf(x)1m(x)𝑦w(x,y)|f(y)f(x)|p2(f(y)f(x)),if p>1,\Delta_{p}f(x)\coloneqq\frac{1}{m(x)}\underset{y}{\sum}w(x,y)\lvert f(y)-f(x)\rvert^{p-2}\left(f(y)-f(x)\right),\text{if }p>1,

and

Δ1f(x){1m(x)𝑦w(x,y)fxy:fxy=fyx,fxysign(xyf)}\Delta_{1}f(x)\coloneqq\left\{\frac{1}{m(x)}\underset{y}{\sum}w(x,y)f_{xy}:f_{xy}=-f_{yx},f_{xy}\in\textrm{sign}(\nabla_{xy}f)\right\}\text{, }

where sign(t)={1,[1,1]1,,t>0,t=0,t<0.\text{sign}\left(t\right)=\begin{cases}\begin{array}[]{c}1,\\ {}[-1,1]\\ -1,\end{array},&\begin{array}[]{c}t>0,\\ t=0,\\ t<0.\end{array}\end{cases} And p=2p=2 is the general discrete Laplace operator Δ\Delta.

There are two main difficulties. One is that Δpf\Delta_{p}f may jump a lot when xyf\nabla_{xy}f is near zero, for example, the derivative of Δ1f\Delta_{1}f near xyf=0\nabla_{xy}f=0 is large, which causes the operator id+ϵΔpid+\epsilon\Delta_{p} to fail to maintain the strict monotonicity condition (2). Our idea is to consider its resolvent Jϵ=(idϵΔp)1J_{\epsilon}=\left(id-\epsilon\Delta_{p}\right)^{-1} instead of the flow id+ϵΔpid+\epsilon\Delta_{p}. The resolvent operator JϵJ_{\epsilon} is single-valued and monotone, and we can check that JϵJ_{\epsilon} satisfies the strict monotonicity condition in Lemma 3.

Another difficulty is that we need a new curvature condition to guarantee the Lipschitz decay property, which implies compactness, as well as the existence of accumulation points. Define a new curvature on a graph G=(V,w,m,d0)G=(V,w,m,d_{0}) with combinatorial distance d0d_{0}

(1.3) k^p(x,y)supπpx,yB1(x)×B1(y)πp(x,y)(1d0(x,y)d0(x,y)),\hat{k}_{p}(x,y)\coloneqq\underset{\pi_{p}}{\text{sup}}\underset{x^{\prime},y^{\prime}\in B_{1}(x)\times B_{1}(y)}{\sum}\pi_{p}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})\left(1-\frac{d_{0}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})}{d_{0}(x,y)}\right),

where πp\pi_{p} satisfies transport plan conditions and we require πp(x,y)=0\pi_{p}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=0 if x=yx^{\prime}=y^{\prime} (forbid 3-cycles) for p>2p>2, and πp(x,y)=0\pi_{p}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=0 if xxx^{\prime}\neq x and yyy^{\prime}\neq y and d0(x,y)=2d_{0}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=2 (forbid 5-cycles) for 1p<21\leq p<2, see detailed definition (4.1) in subsection 4.2.

Then we can prove there exists a stationary point gg such that gΔpShg\in\Delta_{p}Sh and gconstg\equiv\text{const} on KK.

Theorem 6.

For a locally finite graph G=(V,w,m,d0)G=(V,w,m,d_{0}) with a non-negative modified curvature k^\hat{k}, let x0Vx_{0}\in V and P((id+ϵΔ)S)KP\coloneqq\left((id+\epsilon\Delta)S\right)\mid_{K}, where ϵ\epsilon is small enough such that diag(id+ϵΔ)\text{diag}(id+\epsilon\Delta) is positive. Then for all fLip(1,K)f\in Lip(1,K), there exists f~Lip(1,K)\tilde{f}\in Lip(1,K) such that PnfPnf(x0)P^{n}f-P^{n}f(x_{0}) converges to f~\tilde{f}. Moreover, there exist h,gVh,g\in\mathbb{R}^{V} such that gΔpShg\in\Delta_{p}Sh and gXgKconstgYg\mid_{X}\geq g\mid_{K}\equiv\text{const}\geq g\mid_{Y}.

Moreover, our nonlinear Markov chain settings overlap with the nonlinear Dirichlet forms theory and nonlinear Perron–Frobenius theory, and our theorems can be applied well to them. The theory of Dirichlet forms is conceived as an abstract version of the variational theory of harmonic functions. For many application fields, such as Riemannian geometry [18], it is necessary to generalize Dirichlet forms to a nonlinear version. Since the conditions of our theorems fit well in the nonlinear Dirichlet form theory, with additional accumulation points at infinity assumptions we can obtain the convergence by Theorem 2, see Theorem 8. The classical Perron–Frobenius theory concerns the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of nonnegative coefficients matrices and irreducible matrices. In order to apply the theory to a more general setting, there are a lot of studies on the nonlinear Perron–Frobenius theory. After some replacement of maps, our convergence results can also be applied to the nonlinear Perron–Frobenius theory, see Theorem 9.

In Section 5, we introduce a definition of Ollivier Ricci curvature of nonlinear Markov chains according to the Lipschitz decay property, that is, for a nonlinear Markov chain PP with (1) monotonicity, (2) strict monotonicity and (4) constant additivity properties, let d:V2[0,+)d:V^{2}\to[0,+\infty) be the distance function. Then for r0r\geq 0, define

Ricr(P,d)1supLip(f)rLip(Pf)r,Ric_{r}(P,d)\coloneqq 1-\underset{Lip(f)\leq r}{\text{sup}}\frac{Lip(Pf)}{r},

i.e., if Lip(f)=rLip(f)=r, then Lip(Pf)(1Ricr)Lip(f)Lip(Pf)\leq(1-Ric_{r})Lip(f). Since the nonnegative Ollivier Ricci curvature ensures the existence of accumulation point at infinity (8), then as a corollary of Theorem 2, we can get the convergence results for the nonlinear Markov chain with a nonnegative Ollivier Ricci curvature. And we can also define the Laplacian separation flow of a nonlinear Markov chain with Ric1(P,d)0Ric_{1}(P,d)\geq 0. Then we show that the definition is consistent with the classical Ollivier Ricci curvature (3.1), sectional curvature [5], coarse Ricci curvature on hypergraphs [17] and the modified Ollivier Ricci curvature k^p\hat{k}_{p} for pp-Laplace (1.3).

2. Convergence and uniqueness of nonlinear Markov chains

2.1. Proofs of main theorems.

In this section, we give proof ideas and specific proofs of our main theorems. First we summarize the proof ideas for Theorem 1. Let Lf=PffLf=Pf-f and prove λ(Pnf)LPnf\lambda(P^{n}f)\coloneqq\left\|LP^{n}f\right\|_{\infty} is decreasing in nn. Since gg is the accumulation point, then λ(Pkg)=λ(g)\lambda(P^{k}g)=\lambda(g) for any kk. As η+(Pg)η(g){x:Lg(x)=λ(g)}\eta_{+}(Pg)\subseteq\eta(g)\coloneqq\left\{x:Lg(x)=\lambda(g)\right\}, there exists some xx such that Pkg(x)=g(x)+kλ(g)P^{k}g(x)=g(x)+k\lambda(g). Taking a subsequence {ki}\left\{k_{i}\right\} such that PkigP^{k_{i}}g is also a finite accumulation point, implying λ(g)=0\lambda(g)=0. Then gg is a fixed point and PnfP^{n}f converges. The proof details are as follows.

Proof of Theorem 1.

Define λ(Pnf)Pn+1fPnf\lambda(P^{n}f)\coloneqq\parallel P^{n+1}f-P^{n}f\parallel_{\infty}, which is decreasing in n.n. Since gg is a finite accumulation point, then

λ(g)=limnλ(Pnf)\lambda(g)=\underset{n\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\lambda(P^{n}f)

and

λ(Pkg)=limnλ(Pn+kf).\lambda(P^{k}g)=\underset{n\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\lambda(P^{n+k}f).

Hence λ(g)=λ(Pkg)\lambda(g)=\lambda(P^{k}g) for any kk. Then define η(f){x:Lf(x)=λ(f)}\eta(f)\coloneqq\left\{x:Lf(x)=\lambda(f)\right\}. W.l.o.g., suppose

λ(Pkg)=λ+(Pkg)max𝑥LPkg(x)\lambda(P^{k}g)=\lambda_{+}(P^{k}g)\coloneqq\underset{x}{\text{max}}LP^{k}g(x)

and

xη+(Pkg){x:LPkg(x)=λ+(Pkg)},x\in\eta_{+}(P^{k}g)\coloneqq\left\{x:LP^{k}g(x)=\lambda_{+}(P^{k}g)\right\},

then we claim that xη+(Pk1g)x\in\eta_{+}(P^{k-1}g). If not, we have

LPk1g(x)<λ+(Pk1g)LP^{k-1}g(x)<\lambda_{+}(P^{k-1}g)

and

Pkg(x)<Pk1g(x)+λ+(Pk1g).P^{k}g(x)<P^{k-1}g(x)+\lambda_{+}(P^{k-1}g).

By strict monotonicity (2) and non-expansion condition (5), we know

Pk+1g(x)<P(Pk1g+λ+(Pk1g))(x)Pkg(x)+λ+(Pk1g).P^{k+1}g(x)<P\left(P^{k-1}g+\lambda_{+}(P^{k-1}g)\right)(x)\leq P^{k}g(x)+\lambda_{+}(P^{k-1}g).

That implies

LPkg(x)<λ+(Pk1g)λ(Pk1g)=λ(Pkg)=λ+(Pkg),LP^{k}g(x)<\lambda_{+}(P^{k-1}g)\leq\lambda(P^{k-1}g)=\lambda(P^{k}g)=\lambda_{+}(P^{k}g),

which induces a contradiction. Hence, we have xη+(Pkg)x\in\eta_{+}(P^{k}g) for all kk. Thus,

(2.1) Pkg(x)=g(x)+kλ(g).P^{k}g(x)=g(x)+k\lambda(g).

Since gg is a finite accumulation point, by taking a subsequence {ki}\left\{k_{i}\right\} such that PkigP^{k_{i}}g is still a finite accumulation point, then λ(g)=0\lambda(g)=0 by (2.1). Hence Pkg=gP^{k}g=g and PnfgP^{n}f\to g as n+n\to+\infty. ∎

For Theorem 2, without the assumption of finite accumulation points, the argument of λ(Pnf)\lambda(P^{n}f) is not enough. The proof idea is as follows. We define λ+(Pnf)max𝑥LPnf(x)\lambda_{+}(P^{n}f)\coloneqq\underset{x}{\text{max}}LP^{n}f(x) and prove it is decreasing in nn. Since gg is the accumulation point, then λ+(Pkg)=λ+(g)\lambda_{+}(P^{k}g)=\lambda_{+}(g) for any kk. By the conclusion

η+(Pg)η+(g){x:Lg(x)=λ+(g)},\eta_{+}(Pg)\subseteq\eta_{+}(g)\coloneqq\left\{x:Lg(x)=\lambda_{+}(g)\right\},

there exists some xx such that LPkg(x)LP^{k}g(x) attains the maximum, i.e. Pkg(x)=g(x)+kλ+(g)P^{k}g(x)=g(x)+k\lambda_{+}(g). And there also exists some yy attaining its minimum, i.e. Pkg(y)=g(y)+kλ(g)P^{k}g(y)=g(y)+k\lambda_{-}(g). Taking a subsequence {ki}\left\{k_{i}\right\} such that PkigP^{k_{i}}g is also a finite accumulation point, implying λ+(g)=λ(g)\lambda_{+}(g)=\lambda_{-}(g), that is, Lg=constLg=const. Hence Pkg=g+kλ+P^{k}g=g+k\lambda_{+}, and gg is the limit of fnf_{n}. For the uniqueness, we prove that the linear growth rate λ+\lambda_{+} of different sequences fnf_{n} is the same by the non-expansion property. Then by the connectedness (6) we know that all accumulation points are the same. The proof details are as follows.

Proof of Theorem 2.

Define LfPffLf\coloneqq Pf-f and λ+(f)max𝑥Lf(x)\lambda_{+}(f)\coloneqq\underset{x}{\text{max}}Lf(x), then

Pff+λ+(f).Pf\leq f+\lambda_{+}(f).

By monotonicity (1) and constant additivity (4), we have

P2fP(f+λ+(f))=Pf+λ+(f).P^{2}f\leq P(f+\lambda_{+}(f))=Pf+\lambda_{+}(f).

Hence λ+(Pf)λ+(f)\lambda_{+}(Pf)\leq\lambda_{+}(f), that is, λ+(Pnf)\lambda_{+}(P^{n}f) is decreasing in nn. Since gg is a finite accumulation point for fnf_{n},

λ+(g)=limnλ+(Pnf).\lambda_{+}(g)=\underset{n\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\lambda_{+}(P^{n}f).

For any kk, since PkgP^{k}g is an accumulation point for PkfnP^{k}f_{n}, and LPkfn=LPn+kfLP^{k}f_{n}=LP^{n+k}f by constant additivity (4), we have

λ+(Pkg)=limnλ+(Pn+kf).\lambda_{+}(P^{k}g)=\underset{n\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\lambda_{+}(P^{n+k}f).

Then λ+(g)=λ+(Pkg).\lambda_{+}(g)=\lambda_{+}(P^{k}g).

Defining the maximum points set as η+(f){x:Lf(x)=λ+(f)}\eta_{+}(f)\coloneqq\left\{x:Lf(x)=\lambda_{+}(f)\right\}, we claim that η+(Pf)η+(f)\eta_{+}(Pf)\subseteq\eta_{+}(f) if λ+(f)=λ+(Pkf).\lambda_{+}(f)=\lambda_{+}(P^{k}f).

If Lf(x)<λ+(f)Lf(x)<\lambda_{+}(f), i.e. Pf(x)<f(x)+λ+(f)Pf(x)<f(x)+\lambda_{+}(f), since Pff+λ+(f)Pf\leq f+\lambda_{+}(f), then by strict monotonicity (2) and constant additivity (4),

P2f(x)<P(f+λ+(f))(x)=Pf(x)+λ+(f).P^{2}f(x)<P(f+\lambda_{+}(f))(x)=Pf(x)+\lambda_{+}(f).

That is, we have LPf(x)<λ+(f)=λ+(Pf)LPf(x)<\lambda_{+}(f)=\lambda_{+}(Pf). Hence, η+(Pf)η+(f)\eta_{+}(Pf)\subseteq\eta_{+}(f).

Then there exists some xx such that xη+(Pkf)x\in\eta_{+}(P^{k}f) for any kk, that is,

Pkg(x)=g(x)+kλ+(g)P^{k}g(x)=g(x)+k\lambda_{+}(g)

By the same argument, for λ(f)min𝑥Lf(x)\lambda_{-}(f)\coloneqq\underset{x}{\text{min}}Lf(x), there is yy such that

Pkg(y)=g(y)+kλ(g).P^{k}g(y)=g(y)+k\lambda_{-}(g).

Since gg is a finite accumulation point, then there is a subsequence {nk}\left\{n_{k}\right\} such that fnkgf_{n_{k}}\to g. Taking a subsequence {ki}\left\{k_{i}\right\} with {nk+ki}\left\{n_{k}+k_{i}\right\} and {nk}\left\{n_{k}\right\} coincide, then Pkig(x)Pkig(y)P^{k_{i}}g(x)-P^{k_{i}}g(y) must be finite, which implies λ+(g)=λ(g)\lambda_{+}(g)=\lambda_{-}(g) and Lg=Pggλ+Lg=Pg-g\equiv\lambda_{+}. Then we get Png=g+nλ+P^{n}g=g+n\lambda_{+} and PngPng(x0)=gg(x0)P^{n}g-P^{n}g(x_{0})=g-g(x_{0}). Since gg (resp. PkgP^{k}g) is an accumulation point for fnf_{n} (resp. PkfnP^{k}f_{n}), for any ε\varepsilon, there exists some nn such that

PnfPnf(x0)g<ε\|P^{n}f-P^{n}f(x_{0})-g\|_{\infty}<\varepsilon

and

Pn+kfPnf(x0)Pkg<ε.\|P^{n+k}f-P^{n}f(x_{0})-P^{k}g\|_{\infty}<\varepsilon.

Replacing PkgP^{k}g by g+kλ+g+k\lambda_{+}, we have

Pn+kfPnf(x0)gkλ+<ε.\|P^{n+k}f-P^{n}f(x_{0})-g-k\lambda_{+}\|_{\infty}<\varepsilon.

Since g(x0)=0,g(x_{0})=0, we know Pn+kf(x0)Pnf(x0)kλ+<ε.\mid P^{n+k}f(x_{0})-P^{n}f(x_{0})-k\lambda_{+}\mid<\varepsilon. Then

fn+kg\displaystyle\|f_{n+k}-g\|_{\infty}
\displaystyle\leq Pn+kfPnf(x0)gkλ++Pn+kf(x0)Pnf(x0)kλ+\displaystyle\|P^{n+k}f-P^{n}f(x_{0})-g-k\lambda_{+}\|_{\infty}+\mid P^{n+k}f(x_{0})-P^{n}f(x_{0})-k\lambda_{+}\mid
<\displaystyle< 2ε,\displaystyle 2\varepsilon,

which means fnf_{n} converges to gg as nn\to\infty.

Then we want to prove the uniqueness with the connectedness assumption (6). By the above argument, for any finite accumulation point gg, we know Pgg=const.Pg-g=\text{const}. We claim that the constants of any accumulation points are the same. If not, then there exist c1c2c_{1}\neq c_{2} such that Png1=g1+nc1P^{n}g^{1}=g^{1}+nc_{1} and Png2=g2+nc2P^{n}g^{2}=g^{2}+nc_{2}. Hence Png1Png2\parallel P^{n}g^{1}-P^{n}g^{2}\parallel_{\infty}\to\infty, which contradicts to the non-expansion property (5), i.e. Pg1Pg2g1g2\parallel Pg^{1}-Pg^{2}\parallel_{\infty}\leq\parallel g^{1}-g^{2}\parallel_{\infty}. Then we proved the claim.

Next if g1g^{1} and g2g^{2} are two different accumulation points, by adding a constant, w.l.o.g., assume g1g2g^{1}\geq g^{2} with g1(y)=g2(y)g^{1}(y)=g^{2}(y) and g1(x)>g2(x)g^{1}(x)>g^{2}(x). By the connectedness condition (6), we get Png1(y)>Png2(y)P^{n}g^{1}(y)>P^{n}g^{2}(y), that is, g1(y)+nc>g2(y)+ncg^{1}(y)+nc>g^{2}(y)+nc which contradicts to g1(y)=g2(y)g^{1}(y)=g^{2}(y). Hence all accumulation points are the same, which shows the uniqueness of limits. ∎

For Theorem 3, we remind that there is a naive but fatal idea of considering P~fPfPf(x0)\tilde{P}f\coloneqq Pf-Pf(x_{0}), which has a finite accumulation point, but may lack the required monotonicity (1) and non-expansion (5) properties.

Our proof idea is as follows. Lemma 1 states that a sequence {xn}{\left\{x_{n}\right\}} converges if it has exactly one accumulation point and satisfies d(xn,xn+1)Cd(x_{n},x_{n+1})\leq C for all nn. Then we prove Theorem 3 by proving the uniqueness of accumulation points. Let P~=Pn0\tilde{P}=P^{n_{0}}, satisfying non-expansion (5) and uniform connectedness (7) with n0=1n_{0}=1. Suppose there is a subsequence {nk=mkn0+i}\left\{n_{k}=m_{k}n_{0}+i\right\} with 0in010\leq i\leq n_{0}-1 such that fnkgf_{n_{k}}\to g and Pnkf(x0)=P~mkPif(x0)a[,+]P^{n_{k}}f(x_{0})=\tilde{P}^{m_{k}}P^{i}f(x_{0})\to a\in[-\infty,+\infty] as k+k\to+\infty. Divide it into two cases.

In the case of a<+\mid a\mid<+\infty, since P~mPif\tilde{P}^{m}P^{i}f has a finite accumulation point g~\tilde{g}, then P~g~=g~\tilde{P}\tilde{g}=\tilde{g} by Theorem 1. And accumulation points are the same after adding a constant by the uniform connectedness of P~\tilde{P}, which implies the uniqueness of accumulation points g~g~(x0)\tilde{g}-\tilde{g}(x_{0}) for fn=PnfPnf(x0)f_{n}=P^{n}f-P^{n}f(x_{0}).

In the case of a=+\mid a\mid=+\infty, for example, a=+a=+\infty, define Qflimr+P~(f+r)rQf\coloneqq\underset{r\to+\infty}{\text{lim}}\tilde{P}(f+r)-r satisfying non-expansion (5), uniform connectedness (7) with n0=1n_{0}=1 and constant additivity (4). Then QkgQ^{k}g is of constant linear growth of kk, i.e., Qkg=g+kcQ^{k}g=g+kc. Then the constant cc of different accumulation points are the same by the non-expansion property. And the uniqueness of accumulation points follows from the uniform connectedness of QQ.

First, we give a convergence lemma by the uniqueness of accumulation points.

Lemma 1.

Let (X,d)(X,d) be a locally compact metric space, if a sequence {xn}\left\{x_{n}\right\} with exactly one accumulation point satisfying d(xk,xk+1)Cd(x_{k},x_{k+1})\leq C for some fixed constant CC and all k+k\in\mathbb{N}_{+}, then {xn}\left\{x_{n}\right\} converges.

Proof.

Let x0x_{0} be the accumulation point. Prove by contradiction. For some positive ϵ\epsilon, suppose that there is a subsequence {xnk}\left\{x_{n_{k}}\right\} such that d(xnk,x0)ϵd(x_{n_{k}},x_{0})\geq\epsilon. For nk,n_{k}, let mknkm_{k}\geq n_{k} be the smallest number such that d(xmk+1,x0)<ϵd(x_{m_{k}+1},x_{0})<\epsilon, then d(xmk,x0)[ϵ,ϵ+C]d(x_{m_{k}},x_{0})\in[\epsilon,\epsilon+C]. Hence {xmk}\left\{x_{m_{k}}\right\} has an accumulation point different from x0x_{0} as the local compactness, which contradicts to the uniqueness of accumulation points. ∎

Remark 4.

We give a specific example to illustrate that the non-expansion

d(xk,xk+1)Cd(x_{k},x_{k+1})\leq C

is necessary. For X=X=\mathbb{R}, let x2k=kx_{2k}=k, x2k+1=0x_{2k+1}=0, which has exactly one accumulation point but does not satisfy d(xk,xk+1)Cd(x_{k},x_{k+1})\leq C for all kk, and {xn}\left\{x_{n}\right\} does not converge.

Next, we prove Theorem 3 by the uniqueness of accumulation points via the uniform connectedness (7). Recall that if PP is uniformly connected, then there exists n0+n_{0}\in\mathbb{N}_{+}, positive ϵ0\epsilon_{0} such that for some point x,x, positive δ\delta and f,gNf,g\in\mathbb{R}^{N} with fg+δ1xf\geq g+\delta\cdot 1_{x}, we have Pn0fPn0g+ϵ0δP^{n_{0}}f\geq P^{n_{0}}g+\epsilon_{0}\delta.

Proof of Theorem 3.

Let P~=Pn0\tilde{P}=P^{n_{0}}, then P~\tilde{P} is uniformly connected with n0=1n_{0}=1, implying strict monotonicity (2). As gg is an accumulation point, then there is 0in010\leq i\leq n_{0}-1 and a subsequence {nk=mkn0+i}\left\{n_{k}=m_{k}n_{0}+i\right\} such that fnkgf_{n_{k}}\to g and Pnkf(x0)a[,+]P^{n_{k}}f(x_{0})\to a\in[-\infty,+\infty] as k+k\to+\infty. Divide it into two cases: a<+\mid a\mid<+\infty and a=+\mid a\mid=+\infty.

Case 1. If a<+\mid a\mid<+\infty, w.l.o.g, suppose a>0a>0.

Then Pnkf=P~mkPifP~mkFg+ag~P^{n_{k}}f=\tilde{P}^{m_{k}}P^{i}f\eqqcolon\tilde{P}^{m_{k}}F\to g+a\eqqcolon\tilde{g} as k+k\to+\infty. By Theorem 1, we have P~mFg~\tilde{P}^{m}F\to\tilde{g} as m+m\to+\infty and P~kg~=g~\tilde{P}^{k}\tilde{g}=\tilde{g} for all kk. Then for different accumulation points of fnf_{n}, by the non-expansion property (5), their corresponding aa must be the same case.

If there are two accumulation points g~1g~2\tilde{g}_{1}\neq\tilde{g}_{2}, suppose αmax𝑥(g~1(x)g~2(x))>0\alpha\coloneqq\underset{x}{\text{max}}\left(\tilde{g}_{1}(x)-\tilde{g}_{2}(x)\right)>0. Then g~1g~2+α\tilde{g}_{1}\leq\tilde{g}_{2}+\alpha. If there exists xx such that g~1(x)<g~2(x)+α\tilde{g}_{1}(x)<\tilde{g}_{2}(x)+\alpha, then by the uniform connectedness and non-expansion property of P~\tilde{P},

g~1=P~g~1<P~(g~2+α)P~g~2+α=g~2+α,\tilde{g}_{1}=\tilde{P}\tilde{g}_{1}<\tilde{P}\left(\tilde{g}_{2}+\alpha\right)\leq\tilde{P}\tilde{g}_{2}+\alpha=\tilde{g}_{2}+\alpha,

which implies g~1<g~2+α\tilde{g}_{1}<\tilde{g}_{2}+\alpha and contradicts to the definition of α\alpha. Hence g~1=g~2+α\tilde{g}_{1}=\tilde{g}_{2}+\alpha, which means g~1g~1(x0)=g~2g~2(x0)\tilde{g}_{1}-\tilde{g}_{1}(x_{0})=\tilde{g}_{2}-\tilde{g}_{2}(x_{0}). Then the two accumulation points gi=g~ig~i(x0)g_{i}=\tilde{g}_{i}-\tilde{g}_{i}(x_{0}) for i=1,2i=1,2 of fnf_{n} are the same. By Lemma 1, we get the convergence of fnf_{n}.

Case 2. If a=+\mid a\mid=+\infty, w.l.o.g., suppose a=+a=+\infty.

Since P~(f+r)r\tilde{P}(f+r)-r is decreasing for positive rr by the non-expansion condition (5), we define

Qflimr+(P~(f+r)r).Qf\coloneqq\underset{r\to+\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\tilde{P}(f+r)-r\right).

As Qgg=limk+(P~mk+1FP~mkF)Qg-g=\underset{k\to+\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\tilde{P}^{m_{k}+1}F-\tilde{P}^{m_{k}}F\right) is finite by the non-expansion property (5) of P~\tilde{P}, then for any ff, we know QfQf is also finite by the non-expansion property. Then QQ satisfies the non-expansion property (5) and constant additivity Q(f+c)=Qf+cQ(f+c)=Qf+c.

Now we show the connectedness of QQ. For some point xx, positive δ\delta and f,hNf,h\in\mathbb{R}^{N} with fh+δ1xf\geq h+\delta\cdot 1_{x}, since P~\tilde{P} is uniformly connected with n0=1n_{0}=1, we have

P~(f+r)r>P~(h+r)r+ϵ0δQh+ϵ0δ.\tilde{P}\left(f+r\right)-r>\tilde{P}\left(h+r\right)-r+\epsilon_{0}\delta\geq Qh+\epsilon_{0}\delta.

Take r+r\to+\infty, then Qf>Qh+ϵ0δQf>Qh+\epsilon_{0}\delta and QQ is uniformly connected with n0=1n_{0}=1 and ϵ0\epsilon_{0}.

Let λ+P~(f)max(P~ff)\lambda_{+}^{\tilde{P}}(f)\coloneqq\text{max}\left(\tilde{P}f-f\right) and F=PifF=P^{i}f, then λ+P~(P~mF)>0\lambda_{+}^{\tilde{P}}(\tilde{P}^{m}F)>0 for all mm since P~mkF(x0)+\tilde{P}^{m_{k}}F(x_{0})\to+\infty. By the monotonicity and non-expansion property,

P~m+2FP~(P~mF+λ+P~(P~mF))P~m+1F+λ+P~(P~mF),\tilde{P}^{m+2}F\leq\tilde{P}\left(\tilde{P}^{m}F+\lambda_{+}^{\tilde{P}}(\tilde{P}^{m}F)\right)\leq\tilde{P}^{m+1}F+\lambda_{+}^{\tilde{P}}(\tilde{P}^{m}F),

which means λ+P~(P~mF)\lambda_{+}^{\tilde{P}}(\tilde{P}^{m}F) is decreasing in mm. Since gg is a finite accumulation point, for all l+l\in\mathbb{N}_{+}, we have

Qgg=limk+(P~mk+1FP~mkF)Qg-g=\underset{k\to+\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\tilde{P}^{m_{k}+1}F-\tilde{P}^{m_{k}}F\right)

and

Ql+1gQlg=limk+(P~mk+l+1FP~mk+lF).Q^{l+1}g-Q^{l}g=\underset{k\to+\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\tilde{P}^{m_{k}+l+1}F-\tilde{P}^{m_{k}+l}F\right).

Then by the monotonicity of λ+P~(P~mF)\lambda_{+}^{\tilde{P}}(\tilde{P}^{m}F), we have

λ+Q(g)=max(Qgg)=limm+λ+P~(P~mF)=λ+Q(Qlg).\lambda_{+}^{Q}(g)=\text{max}\left(Qg-g\right)=\underset{m\to+\infty}{\text{lim}}\lambda_{+}^{\tilde{P}}(\tilde{P}^{m}F)=\lambda_{+}^{Q}(Q^{l}g).

Since Qgg+λ+Q(g)Qg\leq g+\lambda_{+}^{Q}(g), if there is xx such that Qg(x)<g(x)+λ+Q(g)Qg(x)<g(x)+\lambda_{+}^{Q}(g), then

Q2g<Qg+λ+Q(g)=Qg+λ+Q(Qg)Q^{2}g<Qg+\lambda_{+}^{Q}(g)=Qg+\lambda_{+}^{Q}(Qg)

by the uniform connectedness and constant additivity of QQ, which contradicts to the definition of λ+Q\lambda_{+}^{Q}. Hence Qg=g+λ+Q(g)Qg=g+\lambda_{+}^{Q}(g) and Qlg=g+lλ+Q(g)Q^{l}g=g+l\lambda_{+}^{Q}(g).

Let f(1),f(2)Nf^{(1)},f^{(2)}\in\mathbb{R}^{N} and assume gig_{i} is an accumulation point of fn(i)=Pnf(i)Pnf(i)(x0)f_{n}^{(i)}=P^{n}f^{(i)}-P^{n}f^{(i)}(x_{0}) for i=1,2i=1,2. Then by the non-expansion property

g1+lλ+Q(g1)g2lλ+Q(g2)=Qlg1Qlg2g1g2,\left\|g_{1}+l\lambda_{+}^{Q}(g_{1})-g_{2}-l\lambda_{+}^{Q}(g_{2})\right\|_{\infty}=\left\|Q^{l}g_{1}-Q^{l}g_{2}\right\|_{\infty}\leq\left\|g_{1}-g_{2}\right\|_{\infty},

we know λ+Q(g1)=λ+Q(g2)\lambda_{+}^{Q}(g_{1})=\lambda_{+}^{Q}(g_{2}). If g1g2g_{1}\neq g_{2}, suppose αmax𝑥(g1(x)g2(x))>0\alpha\coloneqq\underset{x}{\text{max}}\left(g_{1}(x)-g_{2}(x)\right)>0. Then g1g2+αg_{1}\leq g_{2}+\alpha and 0=g1(x0)<g2(x0)+α=α0=g_{1}(x_{0})<g_{2}(x_{0})+\alpha=\alpha. By the uniform connectedness of QQ,

g1+λ+Q(g1)=Qg1<Qg2+α=g2+λ+Q(g2)+α,g_{1}+\lambda_{+}^{Q}(g_{1})=Qg_{1}<Qg_{2}+\alpha=g_{2}+\lambda_{+}^{Q}(g_{2})+\alpha,

which implies g1<g2+αg_{1}<g_{2}+\alpha and contradicts to the definition of α\alpha. Then the two accumulation points are the same.

By Lemma 1 and letting f(1)=f(2)=ff^{(1)}=f^{(2)}=f, we get the convergence of fnf_{n}. Moreover, the case f(1)f(2)f^{(1)}\neq f^{(2)} shows the uniqueness of the limit. ∎

2.2. An example of non-convergence.

Note that the condition of accumulation points at infinity (8) is necessary for the convergence. Next, we give a concrete example, which shows that without the condition of accumulation points (8), then Pnf(y)Pnf(x)P^{n}f(y)-P^{n}f(x) does not converge even in [,]\left[-\infty,\infty\right]. First we prove an extension lemma.

Lemma 2.

Suppose that a closed subspace ΩN\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{N} satisfies a+cΩa+c\in\Omega for any aΩa\in\Omega and cc\in\mathbb{R}. If P:ΩΩP:\Omega\to\Omega satisfies uniform strict monotonicity (3) and constant additivity (4), then PP can be extended to N\mathbb{R}^{N} with conditions (3) and (4).

Proof.

For any fNf\in\mathbb{R}^{N}, define the extension of PP as

P¯finf{Pgϵ(gf):gΩ,gf},\bar{P}f\coloneqq\text{inf}\left\{Pg-\epsilon(g-f):g\in\Omega,g\geq f\right\},

where ϵ\epsilon is defined in uniform strict monotonicity (3). Then P¯\bar{P} satisfies constant additivity (4). If f1f2,f_{1}\geq f_{2}, we know

P¯f1\displaystyle\bar{P}f_{1} =inf{Pgϵ(gf1):gΩ,gf1}\displaystyle=\inf\left\{Pg-\epsilon(g-f_{1}):g\in\Omega,g\geq f_{1}\right\}
inf{Pgϵ(gf1):gΩ,gf2}\displaystyle\geq\inf\left\{Pg-\epsilon(g-f_{1}):g\in\Omega,g\geq f_{2}\right\}
=P¯f2+ϵ(f1f2).\displaystyle=\bar{P}f_{2}+\epsilon(f_{1}-f_{2}).

Then P¯\bar{P} satisfies uniform strict monotonicity (3). Particularly, P¯f>\bar{P}f>-\infty for all ff. ∎

Now we give a counterexample. Let

Ωe{(n,n,ε0,ε0)+c4,n is even,c=(c,c,c,c)4,ε01},\Omega_{e}\coloneqq\left\{\left(n,-n,-\varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{0}\right)+\vec{c}\in\mathbb{R}^{4},n\text{ is even},\vec{c}=(c,c,c,c)\in\mathbb{R}^{4},\varepsilon_{0}\ll 1\right\},
Ωo{(n,n,ε0,ε0)+c4,n is odd,c=(c,c,c,c)4,ε01},\Omega_{o}\coloneqq\left\{\left(n,-n,\varepsilon_{0},-\varepsilon_{0}\right)+\vec{c}\in\mathbb{R}^{4},n\text{ is odd},\vec{c}=(c,c,c,c)\in\mathbb{R}^{4},\varepsilon_{0}\ll 1\right\},

and define P:ΩΩeΩoΩP:\Omega\coloneqq\Omega_{e}\cup\Omega_{o}\to\Omega as

P((n,n,ε0,ε0)+c)=(n+1,n1,ε0,ε0)+c,if n is even,P((n,n,ε0,ε0)+c)=(n+1,n1,ε0,ε0)+c,if n is odd.\begin{array}[]{cc}P\left(\left(n,-n,-\varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{0}\right)+\vec{c}\right)=(n+1,-n-1,\varepsilon_{0},-\varepsilon_{0})+\vec{c},&\text{if }n\text{ is even},\\ P\left(\left(n,-n,\varepsilon_{0},-\varepsilon_{0}\right)+\vec{c}\right)=(n+1,-n-1,-\varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{0})+\vec{c},&\text{if }n\text{ is odd}.\end{array}

Then we want to show that PP satisfies uniform strict monotonicity (3). Suppose

f=(n,n,±ε0,ε0)+c1,f=(n,-n,\pm\varepsilon_{0},\mp\varepsilon_{0})+\vec{c_{1}},
g=(m,m,±ε0,ε0)+(c1nm),g=(m,-m,\pm\varepsilon_{0},\mp\varepsilon_{0})+\overrightarrow{\left(c_{1}-\mid n-m\mid\right)},

then fgf\geq g. And

PfPgfg2\displaystyle Pf-Pg-\frac{f-g}{2} 12[(nm,mn,2ε0,2ε0)+nm]\displaystyle\geq\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(n-m,m-n,-2\varepsilon_{0},-2\varepsilon_{0}\right)+\overrightarrow{\mid n-m\mid}\right]
(0,0,0,0),\displaystyle\geq\left(0,0,0,0\right),

which means that PP satisfies uniform strict monotonicity (3) with ϵ=12\epsilon=\frac{1}{2}. By Lemma 2, one can extend it to N\mathbb{R}^{N} with uniform strict monotonicity (3) and constant additivity (4). But Pnf(x3)Pnf(x4)P^{n}f(x_{3})-P^{n}f(x_{4}) always jumps between two values ±2ε0\pm 2\varepsilon_{0} and does not converge.

[Uncaptioned image]

Figure 1. This figure shows an example of non-convergence.

3. Basic facts of graphs

The main applications of our theorems are parabolic equations on graphs. Now we give a overview of weighted graphs.

3.1. Weighted graphs

A weighted graph G=(V,w,m,d)G=(V,w,m,d) consists of a countable set VV, a symmetric function w:V×V[0,+)w:V\times V\to[0,+\infty) called edge weight with w=0w=0 on the diagonal, and a function m:V(0,+)m:V\to\left(0,+\infty\right) called vertex measure or volume. The edge weight ww induces a symmetric edge relation E={(x,y):w(x,y)>0}E=\left\{\left(x,y\right):w(x,y)>0\right\}. We write xyx\sim y if w(x,y)>0w(x,y)>0. In the following, we only consider locally finite graphs, i.e., for every xVx\in V there are only finitely many yVy\in V with w(x,y)>0w(x,y)>0. The degree at xx defined as deg(x)=yxw(x,y)m(x)deg(x)=\underset{y\sim x}{\mathop{\sum}}\frac{w(x,y)}{m(x)}. We say a metric d:V2[0,+)d:V^{2}\rightarrow[0,+\infty) is a path metric on a graph GG if

d(x,y)=inf{i[=1]nd(xi1,xi):x=x0xn=y}.d(x,y)=\inf\left\{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{n}{\sum}d(x_{i-1},x_{i}):x=x_{0}\sim\ldots\sim x_{n}=y\right\}.

By assigning each edge of length one, we get the combinatorial distance d0d_{0}. For a function ff defined on vertex set V,V, denoted as fV,f\in\mathbb{R}^{V}, define the difference operator for any xyx\sim y as

xyf=f(y)f(x).\nabla_{xy}f=f(y)-f(x).

The Laplace operator is defined as

Δf(x)1m(x)𝑦w(x,y)xyf.\Delta f(x)\coloneqq\frac{1}{m(x)}\underset{y}{\sum}w(x,y)\nabla_{xy}f.

For fVf\in\mathbb{R}^{V}, we write fsupxVf(x)\left\|f\right\|_{\infty}\coloneqq\sup_{x\in V}\mid f(x)\mid and f2x,yw(x,y)m(x)f(x)2\left\|f\right\|_{2}\coloneqq\underset{x,y}{\sum}\frac{w(x,y)}{m(x)}f(x)^{2}.

3.2. Discrete Ricci curvature and curvature flow

Let G=(V,w,m,d)G=(V,w,m,d) be a locally finite graph with path metric dd. A probability distribution over the vertex set VV is a mapping μ:V[0,1]\mu:V\to[0,1] satisfying xVμ(x)=1\sum_{x\in V}\mu(x)=1. Suppose that two probability distributions μ1\mu_{1} and μ2\mu_{2} have a finite support. A coupling between μ1\mu_{1} and μ2\mu_{2} is a mapping π:V×V[0,1]\pi:V\times V\to[0,1] with finite support such that

yVπ(x,y)=μ1(x) and xVπ(x,y)=μ2(y).\underset{y\in V}{\sum}\pi(x,y)=\mu_{1}(x)\text{ and }\underset{x\in V}{\sum}\pi(x,y)=\mu_{2}(y).

The Wasserstein distance between two probability distributions μ1\mu_{1} and μ2\mu_{2} is defined as

W(μ1,μ2)=inf𝜋x,yVπ(x,y)d(x,y),W(\mu_{1},\mu_{2})=\underset{\pi}{\inf}\underset{x,y\in V}{\sum}\pi(x,y)d(x,y),

where the infimum is taken over all coupling π\pi between μ1\mu_{1} and μ2\mu_{2}.

For every x,yVx,y\in V, the Ollivier Ricci curvature κ(x,y)\kappa(x,y) is defined to be

(3.1) κ(x,y)=1W(μx,μy)d(x,y).\kappa(x,y)=1-\frac{W(\mu_{x},\mu_{y})}{d(x,y)}.

where

μx(z)={w(x,z)m(x)0:zx,:otherwise.\mu_{x}(z)=\begin{cases}\begin{array}[]{c}\frac{w(x,z)}{m(x)}\\ 0\end{array}&\begin{array}[]{c}:z\sim x,\\ :\text{otherwise}.\end{array}\end{cases}

In this paper, we consider the discrete Ollivier Ricci flow and study its long-time behavior in the following process. Consider a general finite weighted graph G=(V,w,m,d)G=(V,w,m,d). For an initial metric d0d_{0}, fix some CC as the deletion threshold such that C>maxxyzd0(x,y)d0(y,z)C>\underset{x\sim y\sim z}{\max}\frac{d_{0}(x,y)}{d_{0}(y,z)}. Define a discrete time Ollivier Ricci curvature flow by deforming the metric as

dn+1(x,y)dn(x,y)ακdn(x,y)dn(x,y), if xy,d_{n+1}(x,y)\coloneqq d_{n}(x,y)-\alpha\kappa_{d_{n}}(x,y)d_{n}(x,y),\text{ if }x\sim y,

where κdn\kappa_{d_{n}} is the Ollivier Ricci curvature corresponding to dnd_{n}. After each Ricci flow step, we do a potential edge deletion step. If xyzx\sim y\sim z and dn+1(x,y)>Cdn+1(y,z)d_{n+1}(x,y)>Cd_{n+1}(y,z), then update the graph by deleting edges xyx\sim y from EE, starting with the longest edge. Let

dn+1(x,y)=inf{i[=1]kdn(xi1,xi):x=x0x1xk=y}, if xy.d_{n+1}(x,y)=\underset{}{\text{inf}}\left\{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{k}{\sum}d_{n}(x_{i-1},x_{i}):x=x_{0}\sim x_{1}\cdots\sim x_{k}=y\right\},\text{ if }x\nsim y.

Since the graph GG is finite and graphs of a single edge can not be deleted, denote the new graph as G~\tilde{G} after the last edge deletion. Then on each connected component of G~\tilde{G}, the distance ratios are bounded in nn, and hence, logdn\text{log}d_{n} has an accumulation point at infinity. Considering Ricci flow (1.2) as a nonlinear Markov chain on each connected component of G~\tilde{G}, by Theorem 2 we can prove that (1.2) converges to a constant curvature metric.

3.3. Nonlinear Laplace and resolvent operators

On a locally finite weighted graph G=(V,w,m,d)G=(V,w,m,d), for every p1p\geq 1, define the energy functional of fVf\in\mathbb{R}^{V}as

p(f)=12x,yVw(x,y)m(x)xyfp,\mathscr{E}_{p}(f)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{x,y\in V}{\sum}\frac{w(x,y)}{m(x)}\mid\nabla_{xy}f\mid^{p},

see reference [6, 27]. The pp-Laplace operator Δp\Delta_{p} is the subdifferential of energy functional p\mathscr{E}_{p}, defined as Δp:VV\Delta_{p}:\mathbb{R}^{V}\to\mathbb{R}^{V}

Δpf(x)1m(x)𝑦w(x,y)|f(y)f(x)|p2(f(y)f(x)),if p>1,\Delta_{p}f(x)\coloneqq\frac{1}{m(x)}\underset{y}{\sum}w(x,y)\lvert f(y)-f(x)\rvert^{p-2}\left(f(y)-f(x)\right),\text{if }p>1,

and

Δ1f(x){1m(x)𝑦w(x,y)fxy:fxy=fyx,fxysign(xyf)}\Delta_{1}f(x)\coloneqq\left\{\frac{1}{m(x)}\underset{y}{\sum}w(x,y)f_{xy}:f_{xy}=-f_{yx},f_{xy}\in\textrm{sign}(\nabla_{xy}f)\right\}\text{, }

where sign(t)={1,[1,1]1,,t>0,t=0,t<0.sign\left(t\right)=\begin{cases}\begin{array}[]{c}1,\\ {}[-1,1]\\ -1,\end{array},&\begin{array}[]{c}t>0,\\ t=0,\\ t<0.\end{array}\end{cases} And p=2p=2 is the general discrete Laplace operator Δ\Delta.

The resolvent operator of Δp\Delta_{p} is defined as Jϵ=(idϵΔp)1J_{\epsilon}=\left(id-\epsilon\Delta_{p}\right)^{-1} for ϵ>0\epsilon>0. Since Δp-\Delta_{p} is a monotone operator, i.e., for every f,gVf,g\in\mathbb{R}^{V}, we have

Δpf+Δpg,fg0,\left\langle-\Delta_{p}f+\Delta_{p}g,f-g\right\rangle\geq 0,

then the resolvent JϵJ_{\epsilon} is single-valued, monotone, and non-expansion, i.e.,

JϵfJϵgfg.\parallel J_{\epsilon}f-J_{\epsilon}g\parallel_{\infty}\leq\parallel f-g\parallel_{\infty}.

See details [31, Corollary 2.10] [41, Proposition 12.19]. Moreover, since Δp\Delta_{p} is the subdifferential of convex function p\mathscr{E}_{p}, it follows that

Jϵf=argmingV{p(g)+12ϵgf22}.J_{\epsilon}f=\underset{g\in\mathbb{R}^{V}}{\text{argmin}}\left\{\mathscr{E}_{p}(g)+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}\left\|g-f\right\|_{2}^{2}\right\}.

3.4. Extremal Lipschitz extension

To study the Laplacian separation flow from the introduction, we give the definition of extremal Lipschitz extension on a specific graph structure. Consider a locally finite graph G=(V,w,m,d)G=(V,w,m,d) with non-negative Ollivier curvature, where V=XKYV=X\sqcup K\sqcup Yand KK is finite and E(X,Y)=E(X,Y)=\emptyset. Set Lip(1,K):={fK:xyfd(x,y) for all x,yK}Lip(1,K):=\left\{f\in\mathbb{R}^{K}:\nabla_{xy}f\leq d(x,y)\text{ for all }x,y\in K\right\} and define an extremal Lipschitz extension operator S:KVS:\mathbb{R}^{K}\to\mathbb{R}^{V} as

Sf(x){f(x):minyK(f(y)+d(x,y)):maxyK(f(y)d(x,y)):xK,xY,xX,Sf(x)\coloneqq\begin{cases}\begin{array}[]{c}f(x):\\ \underset{y\in K}{\text{min}}\left(f(y)+d(x,y)\right):\\ \underset{y\in K}{\text{max}}\left(f(y)-d(x,y)\right):\end{array}&\begin{array}[]{c}x\in K,\\ x\in Y,\\ x\in X,\end{array}\end{cases}

where dd is the graph distance on GG. Then S(Lip(1,K))Lip(1,V)S(Lip(1,K))\subseteq Lip(1,V).

4. Applications

In this section, we prove that our convergence and uniqueness results have important applications in the Ollivier Ricci curvature flow, the Laplacian separation flow, the nonlinear Dirichlet form and nonlinear Perron–Frobenius theory.

4.1. The convergence of Ollivier Ricci curvature flow.

Recall the convergence process of the discrete Ollivier Ricci flow. On a general finite weighted graph G=(V,w,m,d)G=(V,w,m,d) with deg(x)1deg(x)\leq 1 for all xVx\in V. For an initial metric d0d_{0}, fix some CC as the deletion threshold such that C>maxxyzd0(x,y)d0(y,z)C>\underset{x\sim y\sim z}{\max}\frac{d_{0}(x,y)}{d_{0}(y,z)}. For 0<α<10<\alpha<1, define a discrete time Ollivier Ricci curvature flow by deforming the metric as

dn+1(x,y)dn(x,y)ακdn(x,y)dn(x,y), if xy,d_{n+1}(x,y)\coloneqq d_{n}(x,y)-\alpha\kappa_{d_{n}}(x,y)d_{n}(x,y),\text{ if }x\sim y,

where κdn\kappa_{d_{n}} is the Ollivier Ricci curvature corresponding to dnd_{n}. After each Ricci flow step, we do a potential edge deletion step. If xyzx\sim y\sim z and dn+1(x,y)>Cdn+1(y,z)d_{n+1}(x,y)>Cd_{n+1}(y,z), then update the graph by deleting edges xyx\sim y from EE, starting with the longest edge. Let

dn+1(x,y)=inf{i[=1]kdn(xi1,xi):x=x0x1xk=y}, if xy.d_{n+1}(x,y)=\underset{}{\text{inf}}\left\{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{k}{\sum}d_{n}(x_{i-1},x_{i}):x=x_{0}\sim x_{1}\cdots\sim x_{k}=y\right\},\text{ if }x\nsim y.

Since the graph GG is finite and graphs of a single edge can not be deleted, denote the new graph as G~\tilde{G} after the last edge deletion. Then on each connected component of G~\tilde{G}, the distance ratios are bounded in nn, and hence, logdn\text{log}d_{n} has an accumulation point at infinity. Considering the Ricci flow as a nonlinear Markov chain on each connected component of G~\tilde{G}, by Theorem 2 we can prove that (1.2) converges to a constant curvature metric.

Theorem 4. For an initial metric d0d_{0} of a finite weighted graph G=(V,w,m,d)G=(V,w,m,d) with deg(x)1deg(x)\leq 1 for all xVx\in V, by the discrete Ollivier Ricci curvature flow process defined above, then dn(e)max dn(e)\frac{d_{n}(e)}{\text{max }d_{n}(e^{\prime})} converges to a metric with constant curvature on every connected component of the final graph G~\tilde{G}, where the max is taken over all ee^{\prime} in the same connected component as ee on G~\tilde{G}.

Proof.

For f+Ef\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{E}, define SfV×VSf\in\mathbb{R}^{V\times V} as

Sf(x,y)=inf{i[=1]kf(xi1,xi):x=x0x1xk=y}.Sf(x,y)=\underset{}{\text{inf}}\left\{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{k}{\sum}f(x_{i-1},x_{i}):x=x_{0}\sim x_{1}\cdots\sim x_{k}=y\right\}.

Note that SfSf is a distance on VV. By (1.2), for fEf\in\mathbb{R}^{E}, define

P~f(x,y)αWSf(p(x,),p(y,))+(1α)f(x,y),\tilde{P}f(x,y)\coloneqq\alpha W_{Sf}(p(x,\cdot),p(y,\cdot))+(1-\alpha)f(x,y),

where WSfW_{Sf} is the Wasserstein distance corresponding to the distance SfSf and pp is the Markov kernel. Then P~\tilde{P} corresponds to one step of the Ollivier Ricci flow, that is,

dn+1E=P~(dnE).d_{n+1}\mid_{E}=\tilde{P}(d_{n}\mid_{E}).

Clearly, P~\tilde{P} satisfies monotonicity (1) and strict monotonicity (2). Since

P~(rd)=rP~d,r>0,\tilde{P}(rd)=r\tilde{P}d,\>\forall r>0,

define Pflog P~(exp(f))Pf\coloneqq\text{log $\tilde{P}$(exp$(f)$)} with f=logdf=\text{log}\,d. Then for every constant CC\in\mathbb{R},

P(f+C)=log(P~(expfexpC))=log(expCP~(expf))=C+Pf,P(f+C)=\text{log}(\tilde{P}\left(\text{exp}f\cdot\text{exp}C\right))=\text{log}(\text{exp}C\tilde{\,P}(\text{exp}f))=C+Pf,

which implies that PP satisfies constant additivity (4). Since PP also satisfies monotonicity (1) and strict monotonicity (2), and as dndn(e0)\frac{d_{n}}{d_{n}(e_{0})} has a finite positive accumulation point dd on the connected component G~\tilde{G} containing e0e_{0}, we obtain that g=logdg=\text{log}\,d is a finite accumulation point of PnfPnf(e0)P^{n}f-P^{n}f(e_{0}). Then by Theorem 2, we know that PnfPnf(e0)P^{n}f-P^{n}f(e_{0}) converges to gg. Moreover, we know Pg=g+cPg=g+c and P~d=c~d\tilde{P}d=\tilde{c}d. That is, its curvature is a constant. ∎

4.2. The gradient estimate for resolvents of nonlinear Laplace.

It is shown in [35] that a lower Ollivier curvature bound is equivalent to a gradient estimate for the continuous time heat equation. In [24, 32, 33, 9, 45, 14], the gradient estimates have been proved under Bakry-Emery curvature bounds. In [5], the authors proved that non-negative sectional curvature implies a logarithmic gradient estimate. Gradient estimates of the discrete random walk id+εΔid+\varepsilon\Delta have been proved in [3, 25, 15]. In [17, Theorem 5.2.], the authors show a gradient estimate for the coarse Ricci curvature defined on hypergraphs.

Here we modify the definition of Ollivier Ricci curvature and prove the Lipschitz decay for nonlinear parabolic equations. On a locally finite weighted graph G=(V,w,m,d0)G=(V,w,m,d_{0}) with the combinatorial distance d0d_{0}, define

Δϕf(x)𝑦w(x,y)m(x)ϕ(f(y)f(x)),\Delta_{\phi}f(x)\coloneqq\underset{}{\underset{y}{\sum}\frac{w(x,y)}{m(x)}\phi(f(y)-f(x)),}

where ϕ:\phi:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}, is odd, increasing, and either convex or concave on +\mathbb{R}_{+}. Recall the transport plan set

Π{π:B1(x)×B1(y)[0,):xB1(x)π(x,y)=w(y,y)m(y) for all yS1(y),yB1(y)π(x,y)=w(x,x)m(x) for all xS1(x).}.\Pi\coloneqq\left\{\pi:B_{1}(x)\times B_{1}(y)\to[0,\infty):\begin{array}[]{c}\underset{x^{\prime}\in B_{1}(x)}{\sum}\pi(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=\frac{w(y,y^{\prime})}{m(y)}\text{ for all }y^{\prime}\in S_{1}(y),\\ \underset{y^{\prime}\in B_{1}(y)}{\sum}\pi(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=\frac{w(x,x^{\prime})}{m(x)}\text{ for all }x^{\prime}\in S_{1}(x).\end{array}\right\}.

Then modify the curvature as

(4.1) k^ϕ(x,y)supπϕΠϕx,yB1(x)×B1(y)πϕ(x,y)(1d0(x,y)d0(x,y)),\hat{k}_{\phi}(x,y)\coloneqq\underset{\pi_{\phi}\in\Pi_{\phi}}{\text{sup}}\underset{x^{\prime},y^{\prime}\in B_{1}(x)\times B_{1}(y)}{\sum}\pi_{\phi}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})\left(1-\frac{d_{0}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})}{d_{0}(x,y)}\right),

where

Πϕ{πϕΠ:πϕ(x,y)=0 if x=y for convex ϕ,πϕ(x,y)=0 if xx,yy and d0(x,y)=2 for concave ϕ.}.\Pi_{\phi}\coloneqq\left\{\pi_{\phi}\in\Pi:\begin{array}[]{c}\pi_{\phi}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=0\text{ if }x^{\prime}=y^{\prime}\text{ for convex $\phi$},\\ \pi_{\phi}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=0\text{ if }x^{\prime}\neq x,y^{\prime}\neq y\text{ and }d_{0}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=2\text{ for concave $\phi$.}\end{array}\right\}.

Then we give the gradient estimate for resolvents of nonlinear Laplace.

Theorem 7.

On a locally finite weighted graph G=(V,w,m,d0)G=(V,w,m,d_{0}) with combinatorial distance d0d_{0}, if the modified curvature has a lower bound infx,yk^(x,y)K\underset{x,y}{\text{inf}}\,\hat{k}(x,y)\geq K, then the resolvent Jϵf=(idϵΔϕ)1fJ_{\epsilon}f=\left(id-\epsilon\Delta_{\phi}\right)^{-1}f satisfies the Lipschitz decay

Lip(Jϵf)Lip(f)(1+ϵ(Lip(f))1ϕ(Lip(f))K)1,Lip(J_{\epsilon}f)\leq Lip(f)\left(1+\epsilon\left(Lip(f)\right)^{-1}\phi(Lip(f))K\right)^{-1},

where ϵ\epsilon is small enough such that 1+ϵ(Lip(f))1ϕ(Lip(f))K1+\epsilon\left(Lip(f)\right)^{-1}\phi(Lip(f))K is positive.

Proof.

For any xyx\sim y, suppose Lip(f)=CLip(f)=C, f(y)=Cf(y)=C and f(x)=0f(x)=0, then for any πϕ(x,y)\pi_{\phi}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime}) satisfying the conditions in (4.1),

Δϕf(x)Δϕf(y)=x,yπϕ(x,y)[ϕ(f(x)f(x))ϕ(f(y)f(y))].\Delta_{\phi}f(x)-\Delta_{\phi}f(y)=\underset{x^{\prime},y^{\prime}}{\sum}\pi_{\phi}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})\left[\phi(f(x^{\prime})-f(x))-\phi(f(y^{\prime})-f(y))\right].

If d0(x,y)=1d_{0}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=1, then

f(x)f(x)f(y)C(f(y)C)=f(y)f(y).f(x^{\prime})-f(x)\geq f(y^{\prime})-C-(f(y)-C)=f(y^{\prime})-f(y).

Since ϕ\phi is increasing, we know

ϕ(f(x)f(x))ϕ(f(y)f(y))0=d0(x,y)d0(x,y).\phi(f(x^{\prime})-f(x))-\phi(f(y^{\prime})-f(y))\geq 0=d_{0}(x,y)-d_{0}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime}).

If d0(x,y)=2d_{0}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=2, and xxx^{\prime}\neq x and yyy^{\prime}\neq y, then f(x)f(x)Cf(x^{\prime})-f(x)\geq-C and f(y)f(y)Cf(y^{\prime})-f(y)\leq C, and f(y)f(x)Cf(y^{\prime})-f(x^{\prime})\leq C. For convex ϕ\phi, such as pp-Laplace (p2p\geq 2), we have

ϕ(f(x)f(x))ϕ(f(y)f(y))ϕ(C).\phi(f(x^{\prime})-f(x))-\phi(f(y^{\prime})-f(y))\geq-\phi(C).

If d0(x,y)=2d_{0}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=2 and either x=xx^{\prime}=x or y=yy^{\prime}=y, then

ϕ(f(x)f(x))ϕ(f(y)f(y))ϕ(C).\phi(f(x^{\prime})-f(x))-\phi(f(y^{\prime})-f(y))\geq-\phi(C).

If d0(x,y)=0d_{0}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=0, then 0f(x)=f(y)C0\leq f(x^{\prime})=f(y^{\prime})\leq C. And for concave ϕ\phi, such as pp-Laplace (1<p<21<p<2), we have

ϕ(f(x)f(x))ϕ(f(y)f(y))=ϕ(f(x))ϕ(f(x)C)ϕ(C).\phi(f(x^{\prime})-f(x))-\phi(f(y^{\prime})-f(y))=\phi(f(x^{\prime}))-\phi(f(x^{\prime})-C)\geq\phi(C).

Hence,

Δϕf(x)Δϕf(y)\displaystyle\Delta_{\phi}f(x)-\Delta_{\phi}f(y)
=\displaystyle= x,yπϕ(x,y)[ϕ(f(x)f(x))ϕ(f(y)f(y))]\displaystyle\underset{x^{\prime},y^{\prime}}{\sum}\pi_{\phi}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})\left[\phi(f(x^{\prime})-f(x))-\phi(f(y^{\prime})-f(y))\right]
=\displaystyle= (d(x,y)=1+d(x,y)=2+d(x,y)=0)πϕ(x,y)[ϕ(f(x)f(x))ϕ(f(y)f(y))]\displaystyle\left(\underset{d(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=1}{\sum}+\underset{d(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=2}{\sum}+\underset{d(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})=0}{\sum}\right)\pi_{\phi}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})\left[\phi(f(x^{\prime})-f(x))-\phi(f(y^{\prime})-f(y))\right]
\displaystyle\geq ϕ(C)x,yπϕ(x,y)[d0(x,y)d0(x,y)].\displaystyle\phi(C)\underset{x^{\prime},y^{\prime}}{\sum}\pi_{\phi}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})\left[d_{0}(x,y)-d_{0}(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})\right].

That is,

Δϕf(x)Δϕf(y)ϕ(C)k^(x,y)d0(x,y)ϕ(C)K.\Delta_{\phi}f(x)-\Delta_{\phi}f(y)\geq\phi(C)\hat{k}(x,y)d_{0}(x,y)\geq\phi(C)K.

And

(idϵΔϕ)f(y)(idϵΔϕ)f(x)C+ϵϕ(C)K.(id-\epsilon\Delta_{\phi})f(y)-(id-\epsilon\Delta_{\phi})f(x)\geq C+\epsilon\phi(C)K.

For gVg\in\mathbb{R}^{V}, let Lip(f)=fsupxyxyfLip(f)=\mid\nabla f\mid_{\infty}\coloneqq\underset{x\sim y}{\text{sup}}\mid\nabla_{xy}f\mid, then by the definition of JϵJ_{\epsilon},

supgcJϵg\displaystyle\underset{\mid\nabla g\mid_{\infty}\leq c}{\text{sup}}\mid\nabla J_{\epsilon}g\mid_{\infty} =supgc(idϵΔϕ)1g\displaystyle=\underset{\mid\nabla g\mid_{\infty}\leq c}{\text{sup}}\mid\nabla\left(id-\epsilon\Delta_{\phi}\right)^{-1}g\mid_{\infty}
=sup(idϵΔϕ)hch\displaystyle=\underset{\mid\nabla\left(id-\epsilon\Delta_{\phi}\right)h\mid_{\infty}\leq c}{\text{sup}}\mid\nabla h\mid_{\infty}
=(infhc1(idϵΔϕ)h)1.\displaystyle=\left(\underset{\mid\nabla h\mid_{\infty}\geq c^{-1}}{\text{inf}}\mid\nabla(id-\epsilon\Delta_{\phi})h\mid_{\infty}\right)^{-1}.

Thus, we know Lip(Jϵf)C2(C+ϵϕ(C)K)1=C(1+ϵC1ϕ(C)K)1.Lip(J_{\epsilon}f)\leq C^{2}\left(C+\epsilon\phi(C)K\right)^{-1}=C\left(1+\epsilon C^{-1}\phi(C)K\right)^{-1}.

Remark 5.

Since Δ1\Delta_{1} is a set-valued function, we can not get the Lipschitz decay property by Theorem 7 directly. Since the energy functional p(f)\mathscr{E}_{p}(f) is uniformly continuous with respect to pp, which means that for any δ>0\delta>0, there exists pp only depending on δ\delta such that for all f0Vf_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{V},

supf:ff01p(f)1(f)δ.\underset{f:\left\|f-f_{0}\right\|{}_{\infty}\leq 1}{sup}\mid\mathscr{E}_{p}(f)-\mathscr{E}_{1}(f)\mid\leq\delta.

Then for fixed ff and ϵ\epsilon, the resolvent Jϵpf=argmingV{p(g)+12ϵgf22}J_{\epsilon}^{p}f=\underset{g\in\mathbb{R}^{V}}{\text{argmin}}\left\{\mathscr{E}_{p}(g)+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}\left\|g-f\right\|_{2}^{2}\right\} is also continuous with respect to pp. Hence by the Lipschitz decay property of JϵpJ_{\epsilon}^{p} for p>1p>1, we can get the Lipschitz decay for Jϵ1J_{\epsilon}^{1}.

4.3. The convergence of Laplacian separation flow.

Recall that the extremal 1-Lipschitz extension operator SS is defined as S:KVS:\mathbb{R}^{K}\to\mathbb{R}^{V},

Sf(x){f(x):minyK(f(y)+d(x,y)):maxyK(f(y)d(x,y)):xK,xY,xX,Sf(x)\coloneqq\begin{cases}\begin{array}[]{c}f(x):\\ \underset{y\in K}{\text{min}}\left(f(y)+d(x,y)\right):\\ \underset{y\in K}{\text{max}}\left(f(y)-d(x,y)\right):\end{array}&\begin{array}[]{c}x\in K,\\ x\in Y,\\ x\in X,\end{array}\end{cases}

where dd is the graph distance on GG. Then S(Lip(1,K))Lip(1,V)S(Lip(1,K))\subseteq Lip(1,V). In [15], it is proven via elliptic methods that there exists some gg with ΔSg=const\Delta Sg=\text{const}. Here we give the parabolic flow (id+ϵΔ)S(id+\epsilon\Delta)S, and show that this converges to the constant Laplacian solution, assuming non-negative Ollivier Ricci curvature.

Theorem 5. For a locally finite graph GG with non-negative Ollivier curvature, let x0Vx_{0}\in V and P((id+ϵΔ)S)KP\coloneqq\left((id+\epsilon\Delta)S\right)\mid_{K}, where ϵ\epsilon is small enough such that diag(id+ϵΔ)\text{diag}(id+\epsilon\Delta) is positive. Then for all fLip(1,K)f\in Lip(1,K), there exists gLip(1,K)g\in Lip(1,K) such that PnfPnf(x0)P^{n}f-P^{n}f(x_{0}) converges to gg and ΔSgconst\Delta Sg\equiv\text{const} on KK.

Proof.

We can check that PP satisfies monotonicity (1), strict monotonicity (2), and constant additivity (4). Since the non-negative Ollivier Ricci curvature implies Lipschitz decay property of PP, i.e., the range of PP is Lip(1,K)Lip(1,K), then there is a finite accumulation point gg of fn=PnfPnf(x0)f_{n}=P^{n}f-P^{n}f(x_{0}). By Theorem 2, we can get the convergence and gg is a stationary point, that is, ΔSgconst\Delta Sg\equiv\text{const} on KK. ∎

Next, we want to generalize the result to non-linear cases. For p1p\geq 1, the resolvent operator of pp-Laplace operator Δp\Delta_{p} is defined as Jϵ=(idϵΔp)1J_{\epsilon}=\left(id-\epsilon\Delta_{p}\right)^{-1}for ϵ>0\epsilon>0. Then JϵJ_{\epsilon} is monotone [41, Proposition 12.19]. And the following lemma states that the resolvent JϵJ_{\epsilon} satisfying the strict monotonicity property (2).

Lemma 3.

If fg+δV1xf\geq g+\delta\mid V\mid 1_{x}, where 1x(x)=11_{x}(x)=1 and 1x(y)=01_{x}(y)=0 for yxy\neq x, then Jϵf(x)Jϵg(x)+δ.J_{\epsilon}f(x)\geq J_{\epsilon}g(x)+\delta.

Proof.

Since JϵJ_{\epsilon} is monotone, which means JϵfJϵg,fg0.\left\langle J_{\epsilon}f-J_{\epsilon}g,f-g\right\rangle\geq 0. Take f=g+δ(V1x1)f=g+\delta\left(\mid V\mid 1_{x}-1\right), then fg,1=0\left\langle f-g,1\right\rangle=0. By the monotone property,

JϵfJϵg,δ(V1x1)0,\left\langle J_{\epsilon}f-J_{\epsilon}g,\delta\left(\mid V\mid 1_{x}-1\right)\right\rangle\geq 0,

which implies V(JϵfJϵg)(x)JϵfJϵg,1=0.\mid V\mid\left(J_{\epsilon}f-J_{\epsilon}g\right)(x)\geq\left\langle J_{\epsilon}f-J_{\epsilon}g,1\right\rangle=0. And set f~=δ+f=g+δV1x\tilde{f}=\delta+f=g+\delta\mid V\mid 1_{x} which satisfies f~g+δV1x\tilde{f}\geq g+\delta\mid V\mid 1_{x}, then

Jϵf~(x)=δ+Jϵf(x)δ+Jϵg(x).J_{\epsilon}\tilde{f}(x)=\delta+J_{\epsilon}f(x)\geq\delta+J_{\epsilon}g(x).

This finishes the proof. ∎

Recall that a new curvature k^ϕ(x,y)\hat{k}_{\phi}(x,y) is defined in (4.1), whose transport plans forbid 3-cycles for convex ϕ\phi on +\mathbb{R}_{+} and forbid 5-cycles for concave ϕ\phi on +\mathbb{R}_{+}.

Then we can prove there exists a stationary point gg such that gΔpShg\in\Delta_{p}Sh and gconstg\equiv\text{const} on KK.

Theorem 6. For a locally finite graph G=(V,w,m,d0)G=(V,w,m,d_{0}) with a non-negative modified curvature k^ϕ\hat{k}_{\phi}, let x0Vx_{0}\in V and P((id+ϵΔ)S)KP\coloneqq\left((id+\epsilon\Delta)S\right)\mid_{K}, where ϵ\epsilon is small enough such that diag(id+ϵΔ)\text{diag}(id+\epsilon\Delta) is positive. Then for all fLip(1,K)f\in Lip(1,K), there exists f~Lip(1,K)\tilde{f}\in Lip(1,K) such that PnfPnf(x0)P^{n}f-P^{n}f(x_{0}) converges to f~\tilde{f}. Moreover, there exist h,gVh,g\in\mathbb{R}^{V} such that gΔpShg\in\Delta_{p}Sh and gXgKconstgYg\mid_{X}\geq g\mid_{K}\equiv\text{const}\geq g\mid_{Y}.

Proof.

By Lemma 3 we know JϵJ_{\epsilon} satisfies strict monotonicity property. It is also constant additive by the definition of resolvent JϵJ_{\epsilon}, then PP also satisfies the same property. For the non-negative curvature k^ϕ\hat{k}_{\phi} defined as (4.1), by the gradient estimate of Theorem 7, the range of PP still is Lip(1,K)Lip(1,K). Then there is an accumulation point at infinity. Hence by Theorem 2, there exists f~Lip(1,K)\tilde{f}\in Lip(1,K) such that Pf~=f~+constP\tilde{f}=\tilde{f}+\text{const}, which implies that

(4.2) SJϵSf~=Sf~+const.SJ_{\epsilon}S\tilde{f}=S\tilde{f}+\text{const}.

Define hϵJϵSf~h_{\epsilon}\coloneqq J_{\epsilon}S\tilde{f} and substitute it into the above formula (4.2), then we can get Δphϵ=const\Delta_{p}h_{\epsilon}=\text{const}. Note that hϵShϵh_{\epsilon}\neq Sh_{\epsilon}, but we claim that hϵShϵcϵ\left\|h_{\epsilon}-Sh_{\epsilon}\right\|_{\infty}\leq c\epsilon for some constant cc. Since

hϵSf~=JϵSf~Sf~ϵΔpSf~ϵ max𝑥deg(x),\left\|h_{\epsilon}-S\tilde{f}\right\|_{\infty}=\left\|J_{\epsilon}S\tilde{f}-S\tilde{f}\right\|_{\infty}\leq\epsilon\left\|\Delta_{p}S\tilde{f}\right\|_{\infty}\leq\epsilon\underset{x}{\text{ max}}deg(x),

and it also holds on KK, that is,

ShϵSSf~=ShϵSf~ϵ.\left\|Sh_{\epsilon}-SS\tilde{f}\right\|_{\infty}=\left\|Sh_{\epsilon}-S\tilde{f}\right\|_{\infty}\leq\epsilon.

So by the triangle inequality, we get hϵShϵcϵ.\left\|h_{\epsilon}-Sh_{\epsilon}\right\|_{\infty}\leq c\epsilon. Then we get hϵhh_{\epsilon}\to h for some subsequence as ϵ0\epsilon\to 0 by the compactness, and h=Shh=Sh. Take a subsequence {gϵ}\left\{g_{\epsilon}\right\} such that gϵΔphϵg_{\epsilon}\in\Delta_{p}h_{\epsilon} and gϵXgϵKconstgϵYg_{\epsilon}\mid_{X}\geq g_{\epsilon}\mid_{K}\equiv\text{const}\geq g_{\epsilon}\mid_{Y} and gϵg.g_{\epsilon}\to g. By the continuity, we know gΔpShg\in\Delta_{p}Sh and gXgKconstgYg\mid_{X}\geq g\mid_{K}\equiv\text{const}\geq g\mid_{Y}. ∎

4.4. The nonlinear Dirichlet form.

In the theory of nonlinear Dirichlet form, one has a correspondence between such forms, semigroups, resolvents, and operators satisfying suitable conditions. Since the assumptions of our theorems fit well in the nonlinear Dirichlet form theory, we can apply our theorems to study the long time behavior of associated continuous semigroups. First, we recall the definition of the nonlinear Dirichlet form [8].

Definition 2.

Let :\mathscr{E}: N[0,]\mathbb{R}^{N}\to[0,\infty] be a convex and lower semicontinuous functional with dense effective domain. Then, the subgradient -\partial\mathscr{E} generates a strongly continuous contraction semigroup TT, that is, u(t)=Ttu0u(t)=T_{t}u_{0} satisfies

{0dudt(t)+(u(t)),u(0)=u0\begin{cases}\begin{array}[]{c}0\in\frac{du}{dt}(t)+\partial\mathscr{E}(u(t)),\\ u(0)=u_{0}\end{array}\end{cases}

pointwise for almost every t0t\geq 0. We call \mathscr{E} a Dirichlet form if the associated strongly continuous contraction semigroup TT is sub-Markovian, which means TT is order preserving and LL^{\infty} contractive, that is, for every u,vNu,v\in\mathbb{R}^{N} and every t0t\geq 0,

uvTtuTtvu\leq v\Rightarrow T_{t}u\leq T_{t}v

and

TtuTtvuv.\left\|T_{t}u-T_{t}v\right\|_{\infty}\leq\left\|u-v\right\|_{\infty}.

For another definition of the nonlinear Dirichlet form in [19], it satisfies the following lemma.

Lemma 4.

[19, Lemma 1.1] For a nonlinear Dirichlet form \mathscr{E}, if fNf\in\mathbb{R}^{N} and a,λa,\lambda\in\mathbb{R}, then

(4.3) (λf)=λ2(f),(f+a)=(f).\begin{array}[]{c}\mathscr{E}(\lambda f)=\lambda^{2}\mathscr{E}(f),\\ \mathscr{E}(f+a)=\mathscr{E}(f).\end{array}

Then we can apply Theorem 2 to obtain the following convergence result with the accumulation point assumption.

Theorem 8.

For a nonlinear Dirichlet form \mathscr{E} with property (4.3), if the semigroup TtnfT_{t}^{n}f has an accumulation point at infinity (8) and its associated generator is bounded, then TtnfT_{t}^{n}f converges.

Proof.

Define the Markov chain as PTtP\coloneqq T_{t}. By the definition of a Dirichlet form, we know PP satisfying monotonicity (1) and non-expansion (5). And the property (4.3) induces the constant additivity (4) of PP. Since the associated generator is bounded, then PP satisfies strict monotonicity (2). Then by the assumption of accumulation points at infinity, we can get the convergence result by Theorem 2. ∎

Remark 6.

(a) In the nonlinear Dirichlet form setting of [19], if we assume the associated semigroup satisfying sub-Markovian property, then we can also apply Theorem 2 to obtain convergence results with the accumulation point at infinity assumption (8).

(b) As we mentioned before, we can study the long-time behavior of the resolvents of pp-Laplace and hypergraph Laplace [17].

(c) Note that our nonlinear Markov chain setting is more general. Since in the nonlinear Dirichlet form setting, the associated generator is required for a kind of reversibility, while our Markov chain does not require it. Moreover, our underlying space is more general than the nonlinear Dirichlet form setting, which requires L2L^{2} space.

4.5. The nonlinear Perron–Frobenius theory.

The classical Perron–Frobenius theorem shows that a nonnegative matrix has a nonnegative eigenvector associated with its spectral radius, and if the matrix is irreducible then this nonnegative eigenvector can be chosen strictly positive. And there are many nonlinear generalizations.

For example, in [29], the author lets KK be a proper cone in N\mathbb{R}^{N}, that is, αKK\alpha K\subset K for all α+\alpha\in\mathbb{R}_{+}, it is closed and convex, KK=NK-K=\mathbb{R}^{N}, and KK={0}K\cap-K=\left\{0\right\}. Then KK induces a partial ordering xyx\leq y on KK defined by xyKx-y\in K. Consider maps satisfying:

(M1) Λ:KK,KK.\Lambda:K\to K,K{{}^{\circ}}\to K{{}^{\circ}}.

(M2) Λ(αx)=αΛ(x)\Lambda(\alpha x)=\alpha\Lambda(x) for all α0\alpha\geq 0 and xKx\in K .

(M3) xyx\leq y implies Λ(x)Λ(y)\Lambda(x)\leq\Lambda(y) for all x,yKx,y\in K.

(M4) Λ\Lambda is locally Lipschitz continuous near 0.

Sufficient conditions for the existence and uniqueness of eigenvectors in the interior of a cone KK are developed even when eigenvectors at the boundary of the cone exist [29, Theorem 25, Theorem 28].

Theorem 9.

Let KK be the positive function set >0N\mathbb{R}_{>0}^{N} and

Pf12log(exp(f)Λ(exp(f))),Pf\coloneqq\frac{1}{2}\text{log}\left(\text{exp}(f)\cdot\Lambda\left(\text{exp}(f)\right)\right),

where Λ\Lambda is defined as above. If PnfP^{n}f has an accumulation point at infinity (8), then PnfP^{n}f converges.

Proof.

Since Λ\Lambda satisfies (M2) and (M3), then P~flog(Λ(exp(f)))\tilde{P}f\coloneqq\text{log}\left(\Lambda\left(\text{exp}(f)\right)\right) satisfies constant additivity (4) and monotonicity (1). And

Pf=f+P~f2=12log(exp(f)Λ(exp(f)))Pf=\frac{f+\tilde{P}f}{2}=\frac{1}{2}\text{log}\left(\text{exp}(f)\cdot\Lambda\left(\text{exp}(f)\right)\right)

satisfies constant additivity (4) and strict monotonicity (2). Then we can apply Theorem 2 to get the convergence result with the accumulation points assumption. ∎

Then we introduce another nonlinear generalization that might be applied to a specific case which is relevant to the Ollivier Ricci flow. In [2], the author considers maps f𝒦(v)=minA𝒦Avf_{\mathcal{K}}(v)=\text{min}_{A\in\mathcal{K}}Av, where 𝒦\mathcal{K} is a finite set of nonnegative matrices and “min” means component-wise minimum. In particular, he shows the existence of nonnegative generalized eigenvectors of f𝒦f_{\mathcal{K}}, gives necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a strictly positive eigenvector of f𝒦f_{\mathcal{K}}, which is applicable to our Ollivier Ricci flow (1.2) and it treats the non-connected case. However, it does not give the long-term behavior.

5. The Ollivier Ricci curvature of nonlinear Markov chains

In this section, we introduce a definition of Ollivier Ricci curvature of nonlinear Markov chains according to the Lipschitz decay property. Then we can get the convergence results for the nonlinear Markov chain with a nonnegative Ollivier Ricci curvature. And we can also define the Laplacian separation flow of a nonlinear Markov chain with Ric1(P,d)0Ric_{1}(P,d)\geq 0. Then several examples show that the definition is consistent with the classical Ollivier Ricci curvature (3.1), sectional curvature [5], coarse Ricci curvature on hypergraphs [17] and the modified Ollivier Ricci curvature k^p\hat{k}_{p} for pp-Laplace (1.3).

Definition 3.

Let P:VVP:\mathbb{R}^{V}\to\mathbb{R}^{V} be a nonlinear Markov chain with (1) monotonicity, (2) strict monotonicity and (4) constant additivity, and let d:V2[0,+)d:V^{2}\to[0,+\infty) be the distance function. For r0r\geq 0, define

Ricr(P,d)1supLip(f)rLip(Pf)r,Ric_{r}(P,d)\coloneqq 1-\underset{Lip(f)\leq r}{\text{sup}}\frac{Lip(Pf)}{r},

i.e., if Lip(f)=rLip(f)=r, then Lip(Pf)(1Ricr)Lip(f)Lip(Pf)\leq(1-Ric_{r})Lip(f).

By Theorem 2, we can get the following corollary.

Corollary 1.

Let r0r\geq 0. Assume (P,d)(P,d) is a nonlinear Markov chain with Ricr0Ric_{r}\geq 0. Let x0Vx_{0}\in V. Then for all ff satisfying Lip(f)rLip(f)\leq r, there exists gVg\in\mathbb{R}^{V} such that PnfPnf(x0)gP^{n}f-P^{n}f(x_{0})\to g and PnfPn1fconstP^{n}f-P^{n-1}f\to\text{const} as n+n\to+\infty. Particularly, Pg=g+const.Pg=g+\text{const.}

Proof.

By the definition of Ricr0Ric_{r}\geq 0, we can get the accumulation point at infinity (8) as Lip(Pnf)rLip(P^{n}f)\leq r for all nn, and by compactness. Then apply Theorem 2, we can get the results. ∎

Then we want to define the Laplacian separation flow on a nonlinear Markov chain (P,d)(P,d) with Ric1(P,d)0Ric_{1}(P,d)\geq 0. Assume V=XKYV=X\sqcup K\sqcup Y such that d(x,y)=infzKd(x,z)+d(z,y)d(x,y)=\underset{z\in K}{\text{inf}}d(x,z)+d(z,y) for all xXx\in X and yYy\in Y. Intuitively that means that KK separates XX from YY. Recall the extremal 1-Lipschitz extension operator defined as S:KVS:\mathbb{R}^{K}\to\mathbb{R}^{V},

Sf(x){f(x):minyK(f(y)+d(x,y)):maxyK(f(y)d(x,y)):xK,xY,xX.Sf(x)\coloneqq\begin{cases}\begin{array}[]{c}f(x):\\ \underset{y\in K}{\text{min}}\left(f(y)+d(x,y)\right):\\ \underset{y\in K}{\text{max}}\left(f(y)-d(x,y)\right):\end{array}&\begin{array}[]{c}x\in K,\\ x\in Y,\\ x\in X.\end{array}\end{cases}

Then S(Lip(1,K))Lip(1,V)S(Lip(1,K))\subseteq Lip(1,V). And we can get the following lemma.

Lemma 5.

Assume (P,d)(P,d) is a nonlinear Markov chain with Ric1(P,d)0Ric_{1}(P,d)\geq 0. Define P~:KK\tilde{P}:\mathbb{R}^{K}\to\mathbb{R}^{K} as P~f=(PSf)K\tilde{P}f=\left(PSf\right)\mid_{K}. Then Ric1(P~,dK×K)0Ric_{1}(\tilde{P},d\mid_{K\times K})\geq 0.

Proof.

Since S(Lip(1,K))Lip(1,V)S(Lip(1,K))\subseteq Lip(1,V), i.e., SfLip(1,V)Sf\in Lip(1,V), and by the definition of Ric1(P,d)0Ric_{1}(P,d)\geq 0, we can get Ric1(P~,dK×K)0Ric_{1}(\tilde{P},d\mid_{K\times K})\geq 0. ∎

Combining Corollary 1, we can get the Laplacian separation result on the nonlinear Markov chain.

Corollary 2.

Let (P,d)(P,d) is a nonlinear Markov chain with V=XKYV=X\sqcup K\sqcup Y. Assume Ric1(P,d)0Ric_{1}(P,d)\geq 0. Then there exists fVf\in\mathbb{R}^{V} and CC\in\mathbb{R} such that f=SfS(fK)f=Sf\coloneqq S(f\mid_{K}) and

Δf{=C,on K,C,on Y,C,on X,\Delta f\begin{cases}\begin{array}[]{c}=C,\>\text{on }K,\\ \leq C,\>\text{on }Y,\\ \geq C,\>\text{on }X,\end{array}\end{cases}

where ΔPid\Delta\coloneqq P-id.

Proof.

By Corollary 1, there exists gLip(1,K)g\in Lip(1,K) such that on KK,

PSg=g+const.PSg=g+\text{const}.

Let f=Sgf=Sg. Clearly, f=S(fK)f=S(f\mid_{K}), and on KK,

Pf=f+const,Pf=f+\text{const},

i.e., Δf=C\Delta f=C. Moreover,

SPf=SPSg=Sg+const=f+const.SPf=SPSg=Sg+\text{const}=f+\text{const}.

Then on XX, we have SPfPfSPf\leq Pf as SS is the minimum Lipschitz extension on XX. Hence, Pff+CPf\geq f+C, i.e., ΔfC\Delta f\geq C on XX. Similarly, ΔfC\Delta f\leq C on YY, finishing the proof. ∎

Next, the following examples show that our Ollivier Ricci curvature definition is consistent with other settings.

Example 1.

(a) Let PP be a linear Markov chain, then RicrRic_{r} is the classical Ollivier Ricci curvature κ\kappa, see definition (3.1).

(b) Let P~\tilde{P} be a linear Markov chain and define P()=logP~exp()P(\cdot)=\text{log}\tilde{P}\text{exp}(\cdot), then Ricr(P,d)0Ric_{r}(P,d)\geq 0 for all r0r\geq 0 if the sectional curvature κsec0\kappa_{sec}\geq 0, see [5].

(c) Let PP be the resolvent of hypergraph Laplace, then Ricr0Ric_{r}\geq 0 for all r0r\geq 0 if the coarse Ricci curvature of hypergraphs κ0\kappa\geq 0, see [17].

(d) Let PP be the resolvent of pp-Laplace, then Ricr0Ric_{r}\geq 0 for all r0r\geq 0 if the modified Ollivier Ricci curvature of pp-Laplace k^p0\hat{k}_{p}\geq 0, see definition (1.3) in introduction.

Remark 7.

For the above examples (a)-(d) with Ric1(P,d)0Ric_{1}(P,d)\geq 0, by Corollary 2 the Laplacian separation flow can be defined respectively.

𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬:\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{Acknowledgements}\mathbf{}\text{:}}} The authors would like to thank Jürgen Jost, Bobo Hua and Tao Wang for helpful discussions and suggestions.

References

  • [1] Shuliang Bai, Yong Lin, Linyuan Lu, Zhiyu Wang, and Shing-Tung Yau. Ollivier ricci-flow on weighted graphs. arXiv: 2010.01802, 2020.
  • [2] Ievgen Bondarenko. Dynamics of piecewise linear maps and sets of nonnegative matrices. Linear Algebra Appl., 431(5-7):495–510, 2009.
  • [3] D. P. Bourne, D. Cushing, S. Liu, F. Münch, and N. Peyerimhoff. Ollivier-Ricci idleness functions of graphs. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 32(2):1408–1424, 2018.
  • [4] O. A. Butkovsky. On ergodic properties of nonlinear Markov chains and stochastic McKean-Vlasov equations. Theory Probab. Appl., 58(4):661–674, 2014.
  • [5] Pietro Caputo, Florentin Munch, and Justin Salez. Entropy and curvature: beyond the peres-tetali conjecture. arXiv: 2401.17148, 2024.
  • [6] K. C. Chang. Spectrum of the 1-Laplacian and Cheeger’s constant on graphs. J. Graph Theory, 81(2):167–207, 2016.
  • [7] Bennett Chow and Feng Luo. Combinatorial Ricci flows on surfaces. J. Differential Geom., 63(1):97–129, 2003.
  • [8] Burkhard Claus. Nonlinear Dirichlet Forms. Dissertation, Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, 2021.
  • [9] Dominik Dier, Moritz Kassmann, and Rico Zacher. Discrete versions of the li-yau gradient estimate. Annali Scuola Normale Superiore-Classe di Scienze, pages 691–744, 2021.
  • [10] Matthias Erbar and Jan Maas. Ricci curvature of finite Markov chains via convexity of the entropy. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 206(3):997–1038, 2012.
  • [11] Forman. Bochner’s method for cell complexes and combinatorial ricci curvature. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 29:323–374, 2003.
  • [12] Xianfeng Gu, Ren Guo, Feng Luo, Jian Sun, and Tianqi Wu. A discrete uniformization theorem for polyhedral surfaces II. J. Differential Geom., 109(3):431–466, 2018.
  • [13] Xianfeng David Gu, Feng Luo, Jian Sun, and Tianqi Wu. A discrete uniformization theorem for polyhedral surfaces. J. Differential Geom., 109(2):223–256, 2018.
  • [14] Paul Horn, Yong Lin, Shuang Liu, and Shing-Tung Yau. Volume doubling, poincaré inequality and gaussian heat kernel estimate for non-negatively curved graphs. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal), 2019(757):89–130, 2019.
  • [15] Bobo Hua and Florentin Münch. Every salami has two ends. arXiv: 2105.11887, 2021.
  • [16] Bobo Hua, Florentin Münch, and Haohang Zhang. Some variants of discrete positive mass theorems on graphs. arXiv: 2307.08334, 2023.
  • [17] MasaHiro Ikeda, Yu Kitabeppu, Yuuki Takai, and Takato Uehara. Coarse ricci curvature of hypergraphs and its generalization. arXiv: 2102.00698, 2021.
  • [18] Jürgen Jost. Riemannian geometry and geometric analysis. Universitext. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.
  • [19] Jürgen Jost. Nonlinear Dirichlet forms. In New directions in Dirichlet forms, volume 8 of AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math., pages 1–47. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1998.
  • [20] Jürgen Jost and Shiping Liu. Ollivier’s Ricci curvature, local clustering and curvature-dimension inequalities on graphs. Discrete Comput. Geom., 51(2):300–322, 2014.
  • [21] Vassili N Kolokoltsov. Nonlinear Markov processes and kinetic equations, volume 182. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
  • [22] Vassili N. Kolokoltsov and Oleg A. Malafeyev. Many agent games in socio-economic systems: corruption, inspection, coalition building, network growth, security. Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering. Springer, Cham, 2019.
  • [23] David A. Levin and Yuval Peres. Markov chains and mixing times. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, second edition, 2017. With contributions by Elizabeth L. Wilmer, With a chapter on “Coupling from the past” by James G. Propp and David B. Wilson.
  • [24] Yong Lin and Shuang Liu. Equivalent properties of CD inequalities on graphs. Acta Math. Sinica (Chinese Ser.), 61(3):431–440, 2018.
  • [25] Yong Lin, Linyuan Lu, and Shing-Tung Yau. Ricci curvature of graphs. Tohoku Math. J. (2), 63(4):605–627, 2011.
  • [26] Yong Lin and Shing-Tung Yau. Ricci curvature and eigenvalue estimate on locally finite graphs. Math. Res. Lett., 17(2):343–356, 2010.
  • [27] Peter Lindqvist. Notes on the pp-Laplace equation, volume 102 of Report. University of Jyväskylä Department of Mathematics and Statistics. University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, 2006.
  • [28] H. P. McKean, Jr. A class of Markov processes associated with nonlinear parabolic equations. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 56:1907–1911, 1966.
  • [29] Volker Metz. Nonlinear Perron-Frobenius theory in finite dimensions. Nonlinear Anal., 62(2):225–244, 2005.
  • [30] Alexander Mielke. Geodesic convexity of the relative entropy in reversible Markov chains. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 48(1-2):1–31, 2013.
  • [31] Isao Miyadera. Nonlinear semigroups, volume 109. American Mathematical Soc., 1992.
  • [32] Florentin Munch. Li-Yau inequality on finite graphs via non-linear curvature dimension conditions. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 120:130–164, 2018.
  • [33] Florentin Münch. Li-yau inequality under cd(0,n)cd(0,n) on graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.10242, 2019.
  • [34] Florentin Münch. Ollivier curvature, isoperimetry, concentration, and log-sobolev inequalitiy. arXiv: 2309.06493, 2023.
  • [35] Florentin Münch and Radosław K. Wojciechowski. Ollivier Ricci curvature for general graph Laplacians: heat equation, Laplacian comparison, non-explosion and diameter bounds. Adv. Math., 356:106759, 45, 2019.
  • [36] Berenice Anne Neumann. Nonlinear Markov chains with finite state space: invariant distributions and long-term behaviour. J. Appl. Probab., 60(1):30–44, 2023.
  • [37] Chien-Chun Ni, Yu-Yao Lin, Jie Gao, and Xianfeng Gu. Network alignment by discrete Ollivier-Ricci flow. In Graph drawing and network visualization, volume 11282 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., pages 447–462. Springer, Cham, 2018.
  • [38] Chien-Chun Ni, Yu-Yao Lin, Feng Luo, and Jie Gao. Community detection on networks with ricci flow. Scientific reports, 9(1):9984, 2019.
  • [39] Yann Ollivier. Ricci curvature of metric spaces. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, 345(11):643–646, 2007.
  • [40] Yann Ollivier. Ricci curvature of Markov chains on metric spaces. J. Funct. Anal., 256(3):810–864, 2009.
  • [41] R Tyrrell Rockafellar and Roger J-B Wets. Variational analysis, volume 317. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009.
  • [42] Mansoor Saburov. Ergodicity of nonlinear Markov operators on the finite dimensional space. Nonlinear Anal., 143:105–119, 2016.
  • [43] Michael Schmuckenschläger. Curvature of nonlocal Markov generators. In Convex geometric analysis (Berkeley, CA, 1996), volume 34 of Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., pages 189–197. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1999.
  • [44] Richard Serfozo. Basics of applied stochastic processes. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009.
  • [45] Frederic Weber and Rico Zacher. Li–yau inequalities for general non-local diffusion equations via reduction to the heat kernel. Mathematische Annalen, 385(1):393–419, 2023.